Iraq: The Human Toll

[GrGr]

Published on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 by The Nation
Iraq: The Human Toll "link
by David Cortright

Living conditions for the people of Iraq, already poor before the war, have deteriorated significantly since the US invasion. This is confirmed in a new report by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Iraqi Ministry of Planning and Development Cooperation. Based on a survey of 21,000 households conducted in 2004, the study shows that the Iraqi people are suffering widespread death and war-related injury, high rates of infant and child mortality, chronic malnutrition and illness among children, low rates of life expectancy and significant setbacks with regard to the role of women in society.

Malnutrition among small children in Iraq is widespread. Nearly one-quarter of Iraqi children now suffer chronic malnutrition, and 8 percent suffer acute malnutrition. Illness levels among Iraqi children are also high, which is partly the result of unsafe drinking water and poor sanitation. According to the report, "compared to other countries in the region and to the earlier data from Iraq...the supply of safe and stable water...has deteriorated." There has also been "a steep deterioration in the sanitary situation." Forty percent of urban households report sewage in the streets of their neighborhoods.

The UNDP study found that infant and child mortality rates remain high, although there is much uncertainty about the exact numbers. The evidence "indicates a progressive worsening of the situation for children." High infant mortality rates in Iraq contrast with declining infant mortality rates in neighboring countries. In most of the world, including the surrounding countries, mortality rates for children have steadily fallen over the decades. In Iraq, however, child mortality rates have climbed. This translates into thousands of "excess" infant deaths every year. These are the quiet, unseen victims of the continuing tragedy in Iraq.

The new report sheds light on the total number of Iraqi deaths directly attributable to the war. As of mid-2004, according to the survey, the war had caused approximately 24,000 Iraqi deaths. The death toll in Iraq has continued to climb, so these numbers are larger now than when the survey was conducted. At the time of the UNDP survey, the Iraqi Body Count website estimated total deaths at 14,000-16,000. In May of this year the Body Count website estimate stood at 21,000-24,000. This would suggest that the comparable figure for war-related deaths using the UNDP methodology is more than 30,000. Many of the victims in the current war are women and children. The number of children injured since the US invasion is higher than the number of military-age men. The report said that in the ongoing war, it is members of "the civilian population that are most affected."

There is striking evidence of the insecurity of daily life in Iraq. Gunshots and weapons fire are a common occurrence. When asked about the frequency of weapon shots in their neighborhood, 37 percent of respondents said "every day," and 23 percent said "several times a week. Public insecurity has especially serious consequences for women. The survey found that nearly half of Iraqi women "think that the security in their area has worsened compared to one year ago." This has prompted an increasing number of women to stay at home, thus reinforcing a trend over the last decade of declining levels of education and literacy among women. According to the report, "the security situation is a major obstacle to individual freedom in women's everyday life."

Years of war and sanctions have devastated Iraqi society and caused widespread malnutrition, illness and premature death. The resulting public health crisis has lowered life expectancy for the entire population. According to the UNDP report, "the probability of dying before the age of 40 for Iraqi children born between 2000 and 2005 is estimated at 18 percent...approximately three times the level in neighboring Jordan and Syria."

The humanitarian crisis in Iraq is further evidence of the abysmal failure of US policy. The destruction and turmoil sparked by the invasion have led not only to widespread violence and incipient civil war but to widespread civilian suffering, especially among the most vulnerable. A war justified partly on humanitarian grounds has increased humanitarian hardships. During the 1990s a worldwide humanitarian outcry rose in response to stories of Iraqi babies dying because of sanctions. It is time for a new public outcry, to demand a change in US policy and urgently needed humanitarian relief for the Iraqi people.

Isn't it remarkable how little we see of this suffering. President Bush talks about Al Qaida in Iraq - but he, in his pursuit of Al Qaida who were not in Iraq before his invasion, kills and injures more Iraqi children than Al Qaida. Obviously it is a price he is prepared to "pay" for his policies.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Published on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 by The Nation
Iraq: The Human Toll "link
by David Cortright

Living conditions for the people of Iraq, already poor before the war, have deteriorated significantly since the US invasion. This is confirmed in a new report by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Iraqi Ministry of Planning and Development Cooperation. Based on a survey of 21,000 households conducted in 2004, the study shows that the Iraqi people are suffering widespread death and war-related injury, high rates of infant and child mortality, chronic malnutrition and illness among children, low rates of life expectancy and significant setbacks with regard to the role of women in society.

Malnutrition among small children in Iraq is widespread. Nearly one-quarter of Iraqi children now suffer chronic malnutrition, and 8 percent suffer acute malnutrition. Illness levels among Iraqi children are also high, which is partly the result of unsafe drinking water and poor sanitation. According to the report, "compared to other countries in the region and to the earlier data from Iraq...the supply of safe and stable water...has deteriorated." There has also been "a steep deterioration in the sanitary situation." Forty percent of urban households report sewage in the streets of their neighborhoods.

The UNDP study found that infant and child mortality rates remain high, although there is much uncertainty about the exact numbers. The evidence "indicates a progressive worsening of the situation for children." High infant mortality rates in Iraq contrast with declining infant mortality rates in neighboring countries. In most of the world, including the surrounding countries, mortality rates for children have steadily fallen over the decades. In Iraq, however, child mortality rates have climbed. This translates into thousands of "excess" infant deaths every year. These are the quiet, unseen victims of the continuing tragedy in Iraq.

The new report sheds light on the total number of Iraqi deaths directly attributable to the war. As of mid-2004, according to the survey, the war had caused approximately 24,000 Iraqi deaths. The death toll in Iraq has continued to climb, so these numbers are larger now than when the survey was conducted. At the time of the UNDP survey, the Iraqi Body Count website estimated total deaths at 14,000-16,000. In May of this year the Body Count website estimate stood at 21,000-24,000. This would suggest that the comparable figure for war-related deaths using the UNDP methodology is more than 30,000. Many of the victims in the current war are women and children. The number of children injured since the US invasion is higher than the number of military-age men. The report said that in the ongoing war, it is members of "the civilian population that are most affected."

There is striking evidence of the insecurity of daily life in Iraq. Gunshots and weapons fire are a common occurrence. When asked about the frequency of weapon shots in their neighborhood, 37 percent of respondents said "every day," and 23 percent said "several times a week. Public insecurity has especially serious consequences for women. The survey found that nearly half of Iraqi women "think that the security in their area has worsened compared to one year ago." This has prompted an increasing number of women to stay at home, thus reinforcing a trend over the last decade of declining levels of education and literacy among women. According to the report, "the security situation is a major obstacle to individual freedom in women's everyday life."

Years of war and sanctions have devastated Iraqi society and caused widespread malnutrition, illness and premature death. The resulting public health crisis has lowered life expectancy for the entire population. According to the UNDP report, "the probability of dying before the age of 40 for Iraqi children born between 2000 and 2005 is estimated at 18 percent...approximately three times the level in neighboring Jordan and Syria."

The humanitarian crisis in Iraq is further evidence of the abysmal failure of US policy. The destruction and turmoil sparked by the invasion have led not only to widespread violence and incipient civil war but to widespread civilian suffering, especially among the most vulnerable. A war justified partly on humanitarian grounds has increased humanitarian hardships. During the 1990s a worldwide humanitarian outcry rose in response to stories of Iraqi babies dying because of sanctions. It is time for a new public outcry, to demand a change in US policy and urgently needed humanitarian relief for the Iraqi people.

Isn't it remarkable how little we see of this suffering. President Bush talks about Al Qaida in Iraq - but he, in his pursuit of Al Qaida who were not in Iraq before his invasion, kills and injures more Iraqi children than Al Qaida. Obviously it is a price he is prepared to "pay" for his policies.

1) to the very best of my knowledge, "He" hasn't killed anyone.

2) Nowhere in the article does it say that the US, or Bush, is killing children. Our presence there may have led to their deaths, at the hands of fanatic scum and insurgents; but neither our troops, or Bush, pulled the trigger on them (with rare exceptions).

3) A lot of people die in war and revolution - especially when they start killing themselves and eachother. The cost of this struggle, in blood, has been low compared to most modern conflicts of this duration. Much of that can be attributed to our VERY conscious armed forces who go out of their way to minimize civilian casualties. They also spend much of their time working on ways to feed, treat, and supply the Iraqi civilians. Our CA teams and PRT's are working overtime to rebuild their country, and our medical teams treat their illnesses and injuries 24/7/365.

4) That said, the loss of innocent lives is always a tragedy. Let's just hope that it does not last much longer. I pray every day that the men in power, everywhere, come to their senses soon and end this bloody mess. I do not, however, spend any of my time consumed by hate and trying to place blame. Complaining and pointing fingers never gets anyone anywhere. There will be time to do all that once we've fixed the problems we face. Some of you should take that to heart...

Just how far have we gotten in solving the problems after 3+ years of finger-pointing at Bush? The plan in Iraq is not the only plan that needs to be changed... The political folks back home should start redirecting their energy as well - toward a viable solution instead of hearings and other useless bullsh*t that keeps us mired in hate and blame...

 

[Jaskalas]

We fight to break those who are slaughtering the Iraqis, the foreign terrorists who were attracted by our presence. It is no easy task and we will likely fail. Although our failure is made ever more certain by those who are determined to suppress our part in the fight.

The human cost should have weighed on us before the war, on Bush, on Clinton, on Kerry, and the rest of our government who decided Iraq would be an easy fight without a real and monumental fight put up by the terrorists. I myself never imagined the horrors we were protecting ourselves from would be visited upon the Iraqis by their fellow Muslims. Terrorism has in the Iraq war, proven itself a superior and a counter force to our military. When we face it without determination to do all that is necessary our defeat shall be guaranteed.

As an argument against our presence, ?Iraq: The Human Toll? should have been a topic in 2002, or the first two months of 2003. After that, ?Iraq: The Human Toll? is an argument for us to stay, to protect the Iraqis and for us to slaughter all those who dare hold up arms or explosives. In this we are failing, and the human toll is mounting. Our withdraw will increase the human toll dramatically.

 

[Hacp]

1) to the very best of my knowledge, "He" hasn't killed anyone.
And Hitler never murdered 6 million Jews.

2) Nowhere in the article does it say that the US, or Bush, is killing children. Our presence there may have led to their deaths, at the hands of fanatic scum and insurgents; but neither our troops, or Bush, pulled the trigger on them (with rare exceptions).
The presence is enough. Children can be caught in the crossfire.

3) A lot of people die in war and revolution - especially when they start killing themselves and eachother. The cost of this struggle, in blood, has been low compared to most modern conflicts of this duration. Much of that can be attributed to our VERY conscious armed forces who go out of their way to minimize civilian casualties. They also spend much of their time working on ways to feed, treat, and supply the Iraqi civilians. Our CA teams and PRT's are working overtime to rebuild their country, and our medical teams treat their illnesses and injuries 24/7/365.
Not enough. Bringing half the troops needed to finish the job is just asking for failure. You either pull out, limited or full, or you bring in more troops.

4) That said, the loss of innocent lives is always a tragedy. Let's just hope that it does not last much longer. I pray every day that the men in power, everywhere, come to their senses soon and end this bloody mess. I do not, however, spend any of my time consumed by hate and trying to place blame. Complaining and pointing fingers never gets anyone anywhere. There will be time to do all that once we've fixed the problems we face. Some of you should take that to heart...
It is a tragedy. When will people learn that American lives are worth just as much as Iraqi lives?

Just how far have we gotten in solving the problems after 3+ years of finger-pointing at Bush? The plan in Iraq is not the only plan that needs to be changed... The political folks back home should start redirecting their energy as well - toward a viable solution instead of hearings and other useless bullsh*t that keeps us mired in hate and blame...
Call your local republicans. Tell them to do something. We need 2x more troops(never going to happen) or we need to pull out. Republicans filibustered the latter option. Tell them that we need to change course. Status Quo is not good enough.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
We fight to break those who are slaughtering the Iraqis, the foreign terrorists who were attracted by our presence. It is no easy task and we will likely fail. Although our failure is made ever more certain by those who are determined to suppress our part in the fight.

The human cost should have weighed on us before the war, on Bush, on Clinton, on Kerry, and the rest of our government who decided Iraq would be an easy fight without a real and monumental fight put up by the terrorists. I myself never imagined the horrors we were protecting ourselves from would be visited upon the Iraqis by their fellow Muslims. Terrorism has in the Iraq war, proven itself a superior and a counter force to our military. When we face it without determination to do all that is necessary our defeat shall be guaranteed.

As an argument against our presence, ?Iraq: The Human Toll? should have been a topic in 2002, or the first two months of 2003. After that, ?Iraq: The Human Toll? is an argument for us to stay, to protect the Iraqis and for us to slaughter all those who dare hold up arms or explosives. In this we are failing, and the human toll is mounting. Our withdraw will increase the human toll dramatically.

The problem is that there WAS a plan to minimize human deaths. It was to bring in 500,000 troops, retain the Iraqi Army, and bog down for 6-7 years. We brought less than half of the amount, and also disbanded the Iraqi Army. This is Bush's fault. He mismanaged the war. Not Hillary. Not Kerry. But Bush.

In fact, Hillary and Kerry both voted for the authorization, not to go to war, but to try to avoid conflict by forcing Saddam's hand and getting those inspectors back in. Again, Bush mismanaged the situation, didn't give the inspectors enough time to inspect, and went in recklessly.

 

[yankeesfan]

Originally posted by: Hacp
1) to the very best of my knowledge, "He" hasn't killed anyone.
And Hitler never murdered 6 million Jews.

:roll:

You don't see any difference, of course?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Hacp
The problem is that there WAS a plan to minimize human deaths. It was to bring in 500,000 troops, retain the Iraqi Army, and bog down for 6-7 years. We brought less than half of the amount, and also disbanded the Iraqi Army. This is Bush's fault. He mismanaged the war. Not Hillary. Not Kerry. But Bush.

Well it doesn?t surprise me, it WAS a Democrat who brought up a bill to reinstate the draft. Although, what would be the point of 500,000 troops on orders to act as police? Not to mention if the Democrats had their wish, a President Kerry would have withdrawn our troops in 2005 right?

So tell me, can we expect your Presidential candidate to place 500,000 troops in Iraq, as you suggest, and to bog us down for 6-7 years? That WAS your suggested solution right? Pardon if I laugh and mock the whole concept of seeing a single liberal support such a notion, for I doubt any others will.

You?re entirely alone there.

In fact, Hillary and Kerry both voted for the authorization, not to go to war, but to try to avoid conflict by forcing Saddam's hand and getting those inspectors back in. Again, Bush mismanaged the situation, didn't give the inspectors enough time to inspect, and went in recklessly.

I am reminded of this:

1) to the very best of my knowledge, "He" hasn't killed anyone.
And Hitler never murdered 6 million Jews.

Terrorists and fellow Iraqis kill the Iraqis, and you lay the blame at us. Where is their responsibility to not killing each other? We have a responsibility in creating the conditions, but that has been done. Now when you speak of human toll, the higher cost comes from our leaving them to the slaughter.

Democrats are more than willing to NOT ONLY command the withdraw of our forces, but to blame every last death on our inadequacies, even though you so very often are the practitioner of our inadequacies and the voice of suppressing of our forces. Telling us about the ?human toll?, coming from those who want to leave them to the slaughter seems highly stupid and hypocritical.

 

[ProfJohn]

For what its worth?

It is estimated that as many as 500,000 to a million people died due to the Iraq sanctions placed on the government fallowing its invasion of Kuwait.

Now these sanctions lasted from 1990 to 2003, or 13 years. So if we take the low figure of 500,000 and dived that by 13 we get 38461 dead people PER YEAR!

Now let?s compare that the figures in this article?
The highest figure I see in this article is 30,000 deaths, and that is for the ENTIRE four year war.

Now I am just a simple Republican, but 30,000 deaths over 4.5 years seems less than 38,461 deaths per year.

Perhaps someone can explain to me how I am wrong on this.




Hey? you know Clinton was President for 8 years of the sanction period, that means he is responsible for the deaths of 307,692 Iraqis based on the logic of some posters.
How come no one ever complained about the number of Iraqis dying during this time?

 

[magomago]

ProfJohn:
I did. VERY MANY TIMES especially on this forum and criticized how INEFFECTIVE sanctions as a political policy were - and its something that, if you enter ANY Iraqi circle, will find that people complain how sanctions crippled the country and killed a million Iraqi children

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
For what its worth?

It is estimated that as many as 500,000 to a million people died due to the Iraq sanctions placed on the government fallowing its invasion of Kuwait.

Now these sanctions lasted from 1990 to 2003, or 13 years. So if we take the low figure of 500,000 and dived that by 13 we get 38461 dead people PER YEAR!

Now let?s compare that the figures in this article?
The highest figure I see in this article is 30,000 deaths, and that is for the ENTIRE four year war.

Now I am just a simple Republican, but 30,000 deaths over 4.5 years seems less than 38,461 deaths per year.

Perhaps someone can explain to me how I am wrong on this.


Hey? you know Clinton was President for 8 years of the sanction period, that means he is responsible for the deaths of 307,692 Iraqis based on the logic of some posters.
How come no one ever complained about the number of Iraqis dying during this time?

Since you just stole the thunder of every anti-war member at P&N, this thread will likely die without you ever seeing them respond to your very valid point. The truth is something they're not interested in, unless it fits their agenda.

:Q FACT: The number of Iraqi deaths, per year, was higher under Saddam than it is now. :Q

DOH!

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Call your local republicans. Tell them to do something. We need 2x more troops(never going to happen) or we need to pull out. Republicans filibustered the latter option. Tell them that we need to change course. Status Quo is not good enough.

[/quote]

The Democrats don't want to pull out... they want to reduce the number of troops there, and maintain a all-but-permanent presence in order to train the Iraqi forces, protect US interests, secure resources, secure the border... etc. They don't want to leave, like everyone says they do.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
For what its worth?

It is estimated that as many as 500,000 to a million people died due to the Iraq sanctions placed on the government fallowing its invasion of Kuwait.

Now these sanctions lasted from 1990 to 2003, or 13 years. So if we take the low figure of 500,000 and dived that by 13 we get 38461 dead people PER YEAR!

Now let?s compare that the figures in this article?
The highest figure I see in this article is 30,000 deaths, and that is for the ENTIRE four year war.

Now I am just a simple Republican, but 30,000 deaths over 4.5 years seems less than 38,461 deaths per year.

Perhaps someone can explain to me how I am wrong on this.




Hey? you know Clinton was President for 8 years of the sanction period, that means he is responsible for the deaths of 307,692 Iraqis based on the logic of some posters.
How come no one ever complained about the number of Iraqis dying during this time?

Your exactly right PJ. Bush may be responsible for 30,000 civy deaths, but that pales in comparison to 500,000. But the Dems, of course, think the past is the past, and is irrelevant. Tell that to the 500,000 killed people's family.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: magomago
ProfJohn:
I did. VERY MANY TIMES especially on this forum and criticized how INEFFECTIVE sanctions as a political policy were - and its something that, if you enter ANY Iraqi circle, will find that people complain how sanctions crippled the country and killed a million Iraqi children

Then you would agree more Iraqi's are alive because of the war than they were previously. Good man.

 

[StageLeft]

1) to the very best of my knowledge, "He" hasn't killed anyone.

WTH? If a commander tells some troops to go bomb something and somebody dies, he's complicit. Every law in any nation endorses that belief.

Nowhere in the article does it say that the US, or Bush, is killing children.

The point is that they are dying and living in worse conditions as the result of a war that Bush did start.

The cost of this struggle, in blood, has been low compared to most modern conflicts of this duration.

I bet that's great consolation to somebody holding their 30 lb 6 year old boy.

I do not, however, spend any of my time consumed by hate and trying to place blame.

Maybe you should. Everything, be it good or bad, can be blamed on something, be it God, worms in my apple, or whatever. To take this nonchalant "Ah, it is what it is" approach is very passive.

Complaining and pointing fingers never gets anyone anywhere.

Wrong. Without pointing out incompetence, it cannot be removed. Have you ever heard of an employee being fired for a crappy job? Why do you think he was? Because he was being blamed for it and there were repercussions.

Just how far have we gotten in solving the problems after 3+ years of finger-pointing at Bush?

Nowhere. He is the most thick-headed idiot who's ever sat in office in this country.

FACT: The number of Iraqi deaths, per year, was higher under Saddam than it is now.

Actually, if you want to get pedantic about it, the recurring theme in today's lesson is that when the US gets involved in Iraq, many thousands of Iraqis will die.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

1) to the very best of my knowledge, "He" hasn't killed anyone.

WTH? If a commander tells some troops to go bomb something and somebody dies, he's complicit. Every law in any nation endorses that belief.

thankyou for proving my point. Bush has never knowlingly ordered the death of any unarmed children.

Nowhere in the article does it say that the US, or Bush, is killing children.

The point is that they are dying and living in worse conditions as the result of a war that Bush did start.

the numbers dont indicate that at all. More children died each year in the 13 years leading up to the war than in the entire war thus far.

The cost of this struggle, in blood, has been low compared to most modern conflicts of this duration.

I bet that's great consolation to somebody holding their 30 lb 6 year old boy.

It's probably not ANY consolation for a parent that must suffer through that. However, that doesnt make the point any less true.

I do not, however, spend any of my time consumed by hate and trying to place blame.

Maybe you should. Everything, be it good or bad, can be blamed on something, be it God, worms in my apple, or whatever. To take this nonchalant "Ah, it is what it is" approach is very passive.

I'll let folks like you, and our enemies, allow yourselves to be consumed by hate. Good luck with that! In the meantime, I'll be doing something positive.

Complaining and pointing fingers never gets anyone anywhere.

Wrong. Without pointing out incompetence, it cannot be removed. Have you ever heard of an employee being fired for a crappy job? Why do you think he was? Because he was being blamed for it and there were repercussions.

Just what have you accomplished after four years of fingerpointing and blame? Nothing! Your time could have been much better spent.

Just how far have we gotten in solving the problems after 3+ years of finger-pointing at Bush?

Nowhere. He is the most thick-headed idiot who's ever sat in office in this country.

Well I see you proved my point for me... again. But go on and keep bashing your head against that wall... maybe one or the other will crack eventually!

FACT: The number of Iraqi deaths, per year, was higher under Saddam than it is now.

Actually, if you want to get pedantic about it, the recurring theme in today's lesson is that when the US gets involved in Iraq, many thousands of Iraqis will die.

The same was true before we got involved... to an even greater extent! Once again, you've missed or ignored the point. Fact is, fewer children are dying now than before the invasion in 2003.

Good game!

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Published on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 by The Nation

Based on a survey of 21,000 households conducted in 2004....

Isn't it remarkable how little we see of this suffering.....

This is three yr old info, published over two years ago.

Something more current might help make your point better.

When this was published over two ago, maybe it did get a lot of attention. I can't remember personally.

As I understand only about 40% of the geographical terrority, containing about 50% of the population, is suffering the violence (For example, the Kurdish virtually has none or very very little). So, where you poll potentially makes a big difference. I see no reference to what areas this polling took place in.

But I would welcome any serious info beyond the current "X number of car bombs exploded today" type drivel we get.

Fern

 

[GrGr]

8 million Iraqis need urgent aid, report says


James Sturcke and agencies
Monday July 30, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

The Guardian

One third of the Iraqi population needs emergency aid because of the humanitarian crisis caused by war and ongoing violence, according to a new report.

Around 8 million Iraqis are in urgent need of water, sanitation, food and shelter, a joint report (pdf) released today by Oxfam and the NGO Coordination Committee in Iraq said.

The document said that although armed violence is the greatest threat facing Iraqis, the population is also experiencing another crisis of "an alarming scale and severity".

It was published as Gordon Brown met the US president, George Bush, determined to shift the focus in UK-US relations from Iraq to less divisive issues such as trade.

Mr Brown wants a quicker withdrawal of troops than the Bush administration. A report by the US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, due in September, is expected to provide cover for a more rapid pullout.

Researchers found that 15% of Iraqis cannot regularly afford to eat, 70% do not have adequate water supplies (up from 50% in 2003), 28% of children are malnourished (compared with 19% before the invasion), and 92% of children suffer learning problems.

The report also said more than 2 million people - mostly women and children - have been displaced within Iraq and have no reliable income, while another 2 million Iraqis have fled the country as refugees, mostly to neighbouring Syria and Jordan.

The "brain drain" that Iraq is experiencing is further stretching already inadequate public services as thousands of medical staff, teachers, water engineers and other professionals are forced to leave the country, the report warned. At the end of 2006, an estimated 40% had left.

"Basic services, ruined by years of war and sanctions, cannot meet the needs of the Iraqi people," Jeremy Hobbs, the director of Oxfam International, said. "Millions of Iraqis have been forced to flee the violence, either to another part of Iraq or abroad. Many of those are living in dire poverty."

Mr Hobbs urged the Iraqi government, the UN and the international community to do more to help Iraqis.

"The Iraqi government must commit to helping Iraq's poorest citizens, including the internally displaced, by extending food parcel distribution and cash payments to the vulnerable," he said.

"Western donors must work through Iraqi and international aid organisations and develop more flexible systems to ensure these organisations operate effectively and efficiently."

Oxfam called for a doubling of the monthly $100 (£50) cash allowances to households headed by widows, which would cost $2.4bn a year.

The UN, especially the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, has a vital role to play in the provision of humanitarian assistance, the report said.

Its role would come in coordinating the assessment and delivery of needs, advising the government, mobilising resources, and advocating for enhanced civilian protection.

Oxfam has not operated in Iraq since 2003 for security reasons.

Earlier this month, a report by the world's principal intergovernmental body on migration, the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), warned (pdf) that the scale of Iraqi displacement was "fast becoming a regional and ultimately international crisis".

Here is the US governments approach to the refugee situation:

From a long article in the NY Times

...snip...

But John Bolton, who was undersecretary of state for arms control and international security in the Bush administration, and later ambassador to the United Nations, offers one explanation for this lack of recognition: it is not a crisis, and it was not triggered by American action. The refugees, he said, have ?absolutely nothing to do with our overthrow of Saddam.

?Our obligation,? he told me this month at his office in the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, ?was to give them new institutions and provide security. We have fulfilled that obligation. I don?t think we have an obligation to compensate for the hardships of war.? Bolton likewise did not share the concerns of Bacon and others that the refugees would become impoverished and serve as a recruiting pool for militant organizations in the future. ?I don?t buy the argument that Islamic extremism comes from poverty,? he said. ?Bin Laden is rich.? Nor did he think American aid could alleviate potential anger: ?Helping the refugees flies in the face of received logic. You don?t want to encourage the refugees to stay. You want them to go home. The governments don?t want them to stay.?

Since 2003, the United States has accepted only 701 Iraqi refugees. In the first four months of 2007, it took in 69 Iraqi refugees, fewer than the number it accepted in the same period in 2006.

The United States is really just beginning to grapple with the question of Iraqi refugees, in part because the flight from Iraq is so entwined with the vexed question of blame. When I read John Bolton?s comments to Paula Dobriansky ? the undersecretary of state for democracy and global affairs ? and her colleague Ellen Sauerbrey, assistant secretary of state for population, refugees and migration, they mainly agreed with him. Sauerbrey maintained that ?refugees are created by repressive regimes and failed states. The sectarian violence has driven large numbers out. During the Saddam regime, large numbers of Iraqis were displaced, and the U.S. resettled 38,000 Iraqis. We would take 5,000 a year at given points in time. After 2003, there was great hope, and people were returning in large numbers. The sectarian violence after the mosque bombing in February 2006 is what turned things around. The problem is one caused by the repressive regime? of Saddam Hussein. She did add, ?We take the responsibility of being a compassionate nation seriously.?

... snip....

Very "compassionate" as we can see.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Since you just stole the thunder of every anti-war member at P&N, this thread will likely die without you ever seeing them respond to your very valid point. The truth is something they're not interested in, unless it fits their agenda.

:Q FACT: The number of Iraqi deaths, per year, was higher under Saddam than it is now. :Q

DOH!

Amazing on how right you were about this... thread died rather fast.
I think I'll post these figures in my sig just to make sure the truth gets out.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
:Q FACT: The number of Iraqi deaths, per year, was higher under Saddam than it is now. :Q

DOH!

Fact: WTFC?
Fact: Their "liberation" was not worth ONE more American life.
Fact: Our romp in Iraq has avenged ZERO of the deaths of 9/11

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Since you just stole the thunder of every anti-war member at P&N, this thread will likely die without you ever seeing them respond to your very valid point. The truth is something they're not interested in, unless it fits their agenda.

:Q FACT: The number of Iraqi deaths, per year, was higher under Saddam than it is now. :Q

DOH!

Amazing on how right you were about this... thread died rather fast.
I think I'll post these figures in my sig just to make sure the truth gets out.

PeeJay, try not to confuse people not giving a crap about your posts with you being right about something FFS. :roll: As pointed out too many times to count in here in P&N, you would not know the truth if it was hanging from your ass like a tail.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: palehorse74
:Q FACT: The number of Iraqi deaths, per year, was higher under Saddam than it is now. :Q

DOH!

Fact: WTFC?
Fact: Their "liberation" was not worth ONE more American life.
Fact: Our romp in Iraq has avenged ZERO of the deaths of 9/11

It was not about avenging anyones death. Not sure where you got that idea from.

 

[maluckey]

Fact: Their "liberation" was not worth ONE more American life.

Who's compassionate here? Speak for yourself. It was worth me and many others putting our lives on the line for the Iraqis. It doesn't matter to me if they're Canadian, American, Iraqi, Kurd, Shia, Sunni, Russian or persian. I'll fight for those who can't do it alone.

Some of us are not so ethnocentric as to assume that Americans are somehow superior to people of other nations.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: maluckey

Fact: Their "liberation" was not worth ONE more American life.

Who's compassionate here? Speak for yourself. It was worth me and many others putting our lives on the line for the Iraqis. It doesn't matter to me if they're Canadian, American, Iraqi, Kurd, Shia, Sunni, Russian or persian. I'll fight for those who can't do it alone.

Some of us are not so ethnocentric as to assume that Americans are somehow superior to people of other nations.

With your keyboard now? I am sure we'll all sleep better tonight.

Start/Continue to offer up your own life instead of callously ushering others off to die because you are NOT even close to be the majority on this issue. And no BS about how all those who have died and those fortunate to still be alive share your "My life is/was worth it for liberating Iraq" crap. Faith without deeds is dead. When 3000+ lives are to be lost for lies, better be your own or your words ring hollow. Nice diversion btw - didn't work. This isn't Canada we are talking about here nor did we invade Iraq because the poor Iraqi people wanted or asked for us to help them. Ironic how your rant ends with the word "nations".

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
For what its worth?

It is estimated that as many as 500,000 to a million people died due to the Iraq sanctions placed on the government fallowing its invasion of Kuwait.

Now these sanctions lasted from 1990 to 2003, or 13 years. So if we take the low figure of 500,000 and dived that by 13 we get 38461 dead people PER YEAR!

Now let?s compare that the figures in this article?
The highest figure I see in this article is 30,000 deaths, and that is for the ENTIRE four year war.

Now I am just a simple Republican, but 30,000 deaths over 4.5 years seems less than 38,461 deaths per year.

Perhaps someone can explain to me how I am wrong on this.


Hey? you know Clinton was President for 8 years of the sanction period, that means he is responsible for the deaths of 307,692 Iraqis based on the logic of some posters.
How come no one ever complained about the number of Iraqis dying during this time?

Since you just stole the thunder of every anti-war member at P&N, this thread will likely die without you ever seeing them respond to your very valid point. The truth is something they're not interested in, unless it fits their agenda.

:Q FACT: The number of Iraqi deaths, per year, was higher under Saddam than it is now. :Q

DOH!

Doh indeed. Sorry, that's not a FACT, it's deceptive partisan spin.

The "500K to 1 M dead due to sanctions" estimate is derived using the same sort of statistical analysis as the "300K to 800K dead due to BushCo's invasion" estimate. It would be hypocritical to accept the one estimate as "FACT" [sic] while loudly denouncing the other because it isn't what you want to hear. There's also the issue of the Hussein government choosing to allocate constrained resources in a way that allowed so many children to die. Then there's the fact that the sanctions were lawfully imposed by the UN based on a nominal consensus of all the countries of the world (albeit with considerable U.S. arm-twisting), while the BushCo invasion was an essentially unilateral attack in defiance of the U.N. and international law.

If you're nonetheless determined to exploit these deaths for partisan points, then it seems to me the real "score" is about 38K-76K innocent deaths per yer under sanctions vs. 75K-200K innocent deaths per year under BushCo. You lose. More tragically, so did the million or so innocent people who have died due to the malevolence of two birds of a feather, Hussein and Bush.


Edit: typos

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
For what its worth?

It is estimated that as many as 500,000 to a million people died due to the Iraq sanctions placed on the government fallowing its invasion of Kuwait.

Now these sanctions lasted from 1990 to 2003, or 13 years. So if we take the low figure of 500,000 and dived that by 13 we get 38461 dead people PER YEAR!

Now let?s compare that the figures in this article?
The highest figure I see in this article is 30,000 deaths, and that is for the ENTIRE four year war.

Now I am just a simple Republican, but 30,000 deaths over 4.5 years seems less than 38,461 deaths per year.

Perhaps someone can explain to me how I am wrong on this.


Hey? you know Clinton was President for 8 years of the sanction period, that means he is responsible for the deaths of 307,692 Iraqis based on the logic of some posters.
How come no one ever complained about the number of Iraqis dying during this time?

Because they were their own country under their own rule.

Now they are under U.S. led rule.

I know that's too hard for Bush supporters to understand.