Violence in Iraq hits 4 year low

And I would like to compare it to a 'contained' Saddam, please.

We'd all like to do that, but Saddam did not allow human rights organizations into the country, so... We lack numbers.

All we can go by are the mass graves, dungeons, rape rooms and first hand accounts of the few survivors of his psychopathy.

I think we should also take into consideration the court sentances of gang rape, state-sanctioned honor killings and state-sanctioned FGM (at least).

There is a limited amount of information, however:

2001: Amnesty International report: "Victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings and electric shocks... some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage."...

The Iraqi regime has repeatedly refused visits by human rights monitors.

From 1992 until 2002, Saddam prevented the U.N. Special Rapporteur from visiting Iraq.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,239897,00.html

"Saddam committed demonic acts for years – while much of the international community turned a blind eye," May said. "History will record that Saddam was among the most brutal and evil tyrants of the Middle East. This is something we must not forget as Iraq attempts to establish a new society, one that guarantees freedom and fundamental human rights."

The images are brutal and disturbing, May said, and not intended for all audiences, but "for those who want to understand the evils of the Saddam regime, and especially for anyone inclined to excuse or minimize the crimes committed, these videos demonstrate that Saddam was a ruthless mass murderer and a threat to all humanity."

[from beginning of article]

Responding to accusations Saddam Hussein is being "demonized" as his trial resumes, a U.S. group has released videotapes documenting torture and murder ordered by the former Iraqi dictator.

The videos, are graphic and should not be viewed by children, warns the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
Videos presumably available from link in article.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48486

According to Human Rights Watch, "senior Arab diplomats told the London-based Arabic daily newspaper al-Hayat in October [1991] that Iraqi leaders were privately acknowledging that 250,000 people were killed during the uprisings, with most of the casualties in the south." Refugees International reports that

"Oppressive government policies have led to the internal displacement of 900,000 Iraqis, primarily Kurds who have fled to the north to escape Saddam Hussein's Arabization campaigns (which involve forcing Kurds to renounce their Kurdish identity or lose their property) and Marsh Arabs, who fled the government's campaign to dry up the southern marshes for agricultural use. More than 200,000 Iraqis continue to live as refugees in Iran."

In 2002, the U.S. Committee for Refugees estimated that nearly 100,000 Kurds, Assyrians, and Turkomans had previously been expelled, by the regime, from the "central-government-controlled Kirkuk and surrounding districts in the oil-rich region bordering the Kurdish controlled north."

"Over the past five years, 400,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died of malnutrition and disease, preventively, but died because of the nature of the regime under which they are living." (Prime Minister Tony Blair, March 27, 2003) Under the oil-for-food program, the international community sought to make available to the Iraqi people adequate supplies of food and medicine, but the regime blocked sufficient access for international workers to ensure proper distribution of these supplies. Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, coalition forces have discovered military warehouses filled with food supplies meant for the Iraqi people that had been diverted by Iraqi military forces.

The Iraqi regime has repeatedly refused visits by human rights monitors. From 1992 until 2002, Saddam prevented the UN Special Rapporteur from visiting Iraq. The UN Special Rapporteur's September 2001, report criticized the regime for "the sheer number of executions," the number of "extrajudicial executions on political grounds," and "the absence of a due process of the law."

Saddam Hussein's regime has carried out frequent summary executions, including:

4,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in 1984;
3,000 prisoners at the Mahjar prison from 1993-1998;
2,500 prisoners were executed between 1997-1999 in a "prison cleansing campaign;"
122 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/March 2000;
23 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in October 2001; and
At least 130 Iraqi women were beheaded between June 2000 and April 2001.
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/19675.htm


Prepared by the U.S. Department of State
Released September 13, 1999 (updated 2/23/00)

Impact of Sanctions

Sanctions are not intended to harm the people of Iraq. That is why the sanctions regime has always specifically exempted food and medicine. The Iraqi regime has always been free to import as much of these goods as possible. It refuses to do so, even though it claims it wants to relieve the suffering of the people of Iraq.

• Iraq is actually exporting food, even though it says its people are malnourished. Coalition ships enforcing the UN sanctions against Iraq recently diverted the ship M/V MINIMARE containing 2,000 metric tons of rice and other material being exported from Iraq for hard currency instead of being used to support the Iraqi people.

• Baby milk sold to Iraq through the oil-for-food program has been found in markets throughout the Gulf, demonstrating that the Iraqi regime is depriving its people of much-needed goods in order to make an illicit profit.

Kuwaiti authorities recently seized a shipment coming out of Iraq carrying, among other items, baby powder, baby bottles, and other nursing materials for resale overseas (see photo 1).

Saddam Hussein's priorities are clear. If given control of Iraq's resources, Saddam Hussein would use them to rearm and threaten the region, not to improve the lot of the Iraqi people.

There is ample proof that lifting sanctions would offer the Iraqi people no relief from neglect at the hands of their government

• Sanctions prevent Saddam from spending money on rearmament, but do not stop him from spending money on food and medicine for Iraqis.

• Saddam's priorities are clear: palaces for himself, prisons for his people, and weapons to destroy Iraq's citizens and its neighbors. He has built 48 palaces for himself since the Gulf War. He would not use Iraq's resources to improve the lives of Iraqis. Saddam Hussein would use them to rearm and threaten the region...

• In April 1999, Iraqi officials inaugurated Saddamiat al Tharthar. Located 85 miles west of Baghdad, this sprawling lakeside vacation resort contains stadiums, an amusement park, hospitals, parks, and 625 homes to be used by government officials. This project cost hundreds of millions of dollars. There is no clearer example of the government's lack of concern for the needs of its people than Saddamiat al Tharthar (see photo 2).

• In July, Baghdad increased taxes on vehicle ownership and marriage dowries, after earlier increases in taxes, fees, and fuel and electricity prices. This is in part what pays for Saddam's palaces. Saddam also uses food rations, medical care, and other state resources to buy the loyalty of his inner circle and security forces.
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm


That's about as contained as he gets. He had to go.
 
So i'm seeing two actual figures in the last page: 300,000 deaths caused by Saddam over 24 years (unsourced of course) and 400,000 excess deaths since 2003. Are there any idiots out there who still think the four year low is some kind of humanitarian victory?

Merkin: we've had this conversation before, please don't bore me with pedantry if you were not present for it. The figures speak for themselves and the tale they tell is not a happy one.
 
We'd all like to do that, but Saddam did not allow human rights organizations into the country, so... We lack numbers.

All we can go by are the mass graves, dungeons, rape rooms and first hand accounts of the few survivors of his psychopathy.

I think we should also take into consideration the court sentances of gang rape, state-sanctioned honor killings and state-sanctioned FGM (at least).

There is a limited amount of information, however

Then you can't measure success!
Obviously there were state-sanctioned atrocities. I'm hoping that soon we'll have a lower rate of criminal atrocities than we had state-sanctioned atrocities. But we need to be able to get those numbers to compare.

And then to count an actual success, we need to see if the average lives of citizens has gotten better. What's the value in having a similar level of atrocities (torture, rape, executions, violence), or even a little lower, if the citizens are doing much worse than before.

I'm not defending Saddam (duh), but we're going to have to be able to determine if there's been an improvement in people's lives. And I'm going to ask for some numbers, to have the improvement quantified.
 
I'm not defending Saddam (duh), but we're going to have to be able to determine if there's been an improvement in people's lives. And I'm going to ask for some numbers, to have the improvement quantified.

Actually, you are. I provided you many numbers from 1999-2003 in my post above.

400,000 children dead because of his selling food and medicine (oil for food).

300,000 over 24 years

Shall we add the Iraq-Iran War??

We can EASILY hit 2,000,000 deaths over his 24 years by including the children and Iran War.

So i'm seeing two actual figures in the last page: 300,000 deaths caused by Saddam over 24 years (unsourced of course) and 400,000 excess deaths since 2003.
Actually, the 300,000 is a very low estimate and only includes genocide and murder. It does not include neglect or war. And shouldn't you be using the 600,000 figure from Lancet (or, better yet, its high range of 800,000!)? What's this weak 400,000... I mean, if you are going to use something that low, you might as well use the actual figure of about 100,000.

ps. While the 300,000 is referenced (if unsourced), the 400,000 is not even referenced. Of course, you would not want to point that out, right?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6864204&postcount=99

Are there any idiots out there who still think the four year low is some kind of humanitarian victory?
Are there any idiots out there that think ending genocide is not a humanitarian victory?
 
Okay, 400,000 dead kids over five years. That's a good metric. (though clearly one we would like to see proper numbers for)

I don't know what the 'under five' death rate was, but at least we have a starting point.
And then we can ask if the current 'under five' death rate is less.

I know it's a tough question to answer (maybe out of CFC's reach), but I think it's a good one.
 
I know it's a tough question to answer (maybe out of CFC's reach), but I think it's a good one.

I don't think it is a good question. It ignores too many factors and the data is too incomplete to be of any worth. It boils down to an over-simplification of assessment, at best. To start: those 400000 were not the only children to die, just the excess that resulted directly from neglect (malnutrition while food, milk and medicine is exported and missappropriated).

Anyway, I don't think 400,000 kids have died in the most recent 5 years (not even according to Lancet!). So your question is answered.
 
"The Iraqi Health Ministry Survey" is unreferenced :confused:. Unlinked perhaps, but methinks anyone who can use the internet enough to get on CFC can find it and you recognised it by name. Slightly odd objection old bean.

Are there any idiots out there that think ending genocide is not a humanitarian victory?
Human Rights Watch for starters.

btw, what genocide was going on in 2003?

Incidentally, how come that 400,000 figure hasn't been inflated by a 'Saddam Hack' now that it's not being used to criticise the sanctions?
 
No it's not. I'm asking for the death rate. What proportion of the population became migrant after the invasion? Who knows what that's done to the birth rate.


The problem with stating "we don't have the data" is that it's impossible to claim any success or even any justification. There were hospitals in Iraq with pediatric wards, the information is out there. Heck, the Lancet study was able to generate a 'pre-invasion' death rate that people didn't seem to object to (merely the post-invasion death rate).

But until someone can say "hey, the average 5 year old is better off in 2008 than the were in 2002", then anyone supporting the efforts to date is mostly a shill.
 
btw, what genocide was going on in 2003?
Who said it ever ended? We don't have any evidence that it ended because Saddam refused to allow human rights groups into the country.
Incidentally, how come that 400,000 figure hasn't been inflated by a 'Saddam Hack' now that it's not being used to criticise the sanctions?
That number (the number of excess deaths, if that is what you mean) is more than twice the average estimate by other studies. I don't give it much credit. Since you will defend Lancet till the end of the earth, I don't see the point in debating the 2nd highest figure in existance with you.

If you mean the number of dead children, I never debated it. I only debated the CAUSE. That's the hack part.
 
Has this been considered: aren't the 151,000 deaths cited by the Iraqi Health Ministry "violence-related"? Like how the Lancet numbers were "excess deaths?" I don't recall, but if the Lancet used the pre-war mortality figures as its baseline, that would have already factored in the deaths from the sanctions. Do the "violence-related" deaths in the Iraqi Health Ministry report -- or their own "excess deaths" calculations -- include malnourishment and other related causes of death?

I'm no epidemiologist, but I figure that's pretty important, right?

Cleo
 
I don't recall, but if the Lancet used the pre-war mortality figures as its baseline, that would have already factored in the deaths from the sanctions.

There were no deaths from sanctions. The deaths occured from Saddam's selling of the food aid and national resources - for military and political purposes.
 
Ecofarm,

Okay. But my point still stands, right? I.e., if the post-invasion "excess deaths" counts used the Saddam years as their baseline, it's nonsensical to compare the post-invasion "excess deaths" counts with the aggregate deaths during Saddam's reign.

Cleo
 
I suppose so, but you are chasing a red herring here. Child mortality rates do not tell the whole story and the data is simply not sufficient.

Regardless, there have not been 400,000 excess child deaths in the past 5 years. So... why do you wonder about the answer to your question?

400,000 excess child deaths under saddam from 1998-2003, nowhere near that from 2003-2008. Not even close - even if we take the Lancet study as accurate (600,000 excess deaths since 2003) because 2/3 of the Lancet study would have to be kids to begin to compare. And Lancet is full of crap anyway... If we want to use the Ministry of Health figure of 400,000 they would have to ALL be children.

You can look at civilian dead, total dead (including Iran War) or children dead, and there is no way you can compare occupation to Saddam.
 
Who said it ever ended? We don't have any evidence that it ended because Saddam refused to allow human rights groups into the country.
...yet you are remarkably keen to accept estimates from this period that involve large numbers of dead Iraqi's. This seems somewhat inconsistent...
That number (the number of excess deaths, if that is what you mean) is more than twice the average estimate by other studies. I don't give it much credit. Since you will defend Lancet till the end of the earth, I don't see the point in debating the 2nd highest figure in existance with you.
You seem to be getting confused. The 400,00 excess deaths is the Iraqi Health Ministry study. not the Lancet.
 
Im sure it shouldn't be that difficult to get proper infomation about infant mortality rates, total number of deaths, life expectancy, literacy and so on before and after the war. The lack of human rights organizations doesn't really wash when you have data of a similar charcter about similiarily repressive regimes at the moment.
 
Im sure it shouldn't be that difficult to get proper infomation about infant mortality rates, total number of deaths, life expectancy, literacy and so on before and after the war. The lack of human rights organizations doesn't really wash when you have data of a similar charcter about similiarily repressive regimes at the moment.

1) We do not have those figures. At least, not verified by any organization. IF we are going to use Saddam's numbers, why don't we start with 99% election victories?

2) Similiarly repressive regimes?? /facepalm. Noone else uses chemical weapons against entire towns. Noone post-USSR has killed, directly, anywhere near the number of their own citizens that Saddam did. He stands alone.
 
Ecofarm,

I'm not sure what this child mortality rate thing is, so I'm going to let it go. In any event, I don't think it's relevant to my point, which you claim to agree with ("I suppose so"), which is that if the "excess deaths" studies conducted after the invasion used the Saddam-era mortality rates as their baseline, then you can't just line up numbers from the Saddam-era and the "excess deaths" numbers from the post-Saddam era and compare them.

I think my narrow point is expressed fairly clearly. Does anyone else understand what I'm saying?

Cleo
 
I may have found the Genocide Ecofarm 3was talking about:
wiki said:
Denis Halliday was appointed United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad, Iraq as of 1 September 1997, at the Assistant Secretary-General level. In October 1998 he resigned after a 34 year career with the UN in order to have the freedom to criticise the sanctions regime, saying "I don't want to administer a programme that satisfies the definition of genocide
 
I may have found the Genocide Ecofarm 3was talking about:

I've already provided evidence that the deaths were the direct result of Saddam, not sanctions. That some UN guy was unable to see through Saddam's BS (or choose not to for political reasons) does not impress me.

2000 metric tons of rice leaving the country, Iraqi oil-for-food milk and medicine for sale across the mideast, documented payoffs amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars to political cronies and 48 palaces since Gulf I does.

Lest you forget, I will repeat it:

Sanctions are not intended to harm the people of Iraq. That is why the sanctions regime has always specifically exempted food and medicine. The Iraqi regime has always been free to import as much of these goods as possible. It refuses to do so, even though it claims it wants to relieve the suffering of the people of Iraq.

• Iraq is actually exporting food, even though it says its people are malnourished. Coalition ships enforcing the UN sanctions against Iraq recently diverted the ship M/V MINIMARE containing 2,000 metric tons of rice and other material being exported from Iraq for hard currency instead of being used to support the Iraqi people.

• Baby milk sold to Iraq through the oil-for-food program has been found in markets throughout the Gulf, demonstrating that the Iraqi regime is depriving its people of much-needed goods in order to make an illicit profit.

Kuwaiti authorities recently seized a shipment coming out of Iraq carrying, among other items, baby powder, baby bottles, and other nursing materials for resale overseas (see photo 1).

Saddam Hussein's priorities are clear. If given control of Iraq's resources, Saddam Hussein would use them to rearm and threaten the region, not to improve the lot of the Iraqi people.

There is ample proof that lifting sanctions would offer the Iraqi people no relief from neglect at the hands of their government

• Sanctions prevent Saddam from spending money on rearmament, but do not stop him from spending money on food and medicine for Iraqis.

• Saddam's priorities are clear: palaces for himself, prisons for his people, and weapons to destroy Iraq's citizens and its neighbors. He has built 48 palaces for himself since the Gulf War. He would not use Iraq's resources to improve the lives of Iraqis. Saddam Hussein would use them to rearm and threaten the region...

• In April 1999, Iraqi officials inaugurated Saddamiat al Tharthar. Located 85 miles west of Baghdad, this sprawling lakeside vacation resort contains stadiums, an amusement park, hospitals, parks, and 625 homes to be used by government officials. This project cost hundreds of millions of dollars. There is no clearer example of the government's lack of concern for the needs of its people than Saddamiat al Tharthar (see photo 2).

• In July, Baghdad increased taxes on vehicle ownership and marriage dowries, after earlier increases in taxes, fees, and fuel and electricity prices. This is in part what pays for Saddam's palaces. Saddam also uses food rations, medical care, and other state resources to buy the loyalty of his inner circle and security forces.
 
If you know Saddam + Sanctions = dead children. Why kill more children? Because it's the evil dictator's fault? Please.
 
Back
Top Bottom