report predicts massive child death toll in Iraq

"While it is impossible to predict both the nature of any war and the
number of expected deaths and injuries, casualties among children will be in
the thousands, probably in the tens of thousands and possibly in the hundreds
of thousands," Canadian team leader and medical doctor Eric Hoskins said. Dr.
Hoskins has been to Iraq more than 25 times.
The report's findings are based on data collected in three Iraqi cities -
Baghdad, Karbala and Basra

www.newswire.ca...

Gee, how about all the children that have suffered while Hussein thumbed his nose at the West since the first Gulf war? How about all that would continue to suffer? How about those who've suffered and died by his chemical weapons within his own borders?

What a load of garbage to even present such crap. Not you for posting it, Bout Time, but the reporter for even bothering.

Yeah, it's our fault...not the madman's fault running the asylum.

HUMANITARIAN CRISIS IN IRAQ "WILL BE DEVASTATING"

"Australian aid agencies know from previous experience that the true cost of war with Iraq will be a devastating humanitarian crisis. Aid agencies supporting humanitarian projects in Iraq and the region report that about 15 million Iraqis, out of an estimated population of 24 million, depend on food rations provided under an agreement between the UN and the Iraqi Government. Even with this aid, malnutrition is widespread, especially among women and children. Chronic malnutrition among children under five is 23 per cent. The health care system is no longer covering basic needs. Poor water quality is the primary reason for sickness and death among children, who make up almost half the population. Iraq's water and sanitation system is on the verge of collapse because it is dependent on electrical supplies crippled during the 1991 air strikes. Now, 11 years after the Gulf War, it is estimated that a third of the national power supply is still down, two-thirds of house-connected water is untreated. In cities, trucks that used to empty cesspits and septic tanks can no longer be used due to a lack of tyres, batteries and other spare parts, so sewage flows back into homes. Any military action that damages power supplies and other infrastructure will inevitably further damage this already fragile system, and increase the likelihood of preventable diseases such as cholera and hepatitis sweeping through the population. Attacks that affect roads, ports or railways will lead to the collapse of the distribution system for food aid. The UN Food and Agriculture Organisations representative in Iraq warns that a sudden loss of food distribution will force many over the brink of starvation. "

www.smh.com.au...

that with such suffering...Saddam is re-elected!!! Wow, he must be a really popular and well-loved guy!!! (Or, the people just hate being beaten to a bloody pulp and left in the desert for dead, for voting no...) I'm not sure...

Well, when you set fire to food that is given to you, instead of eating it...hunger can sometimes be a strange side-effect...go figure...

Yeah Yeah BT, do you enjoy posting the same stuff over and over ?

Originally posted by mad scientist
Yeah Yeah BT, do you enjoy posting the same stuff over and over ?

No, but I have to. I'm suprised that pro-war advocates like yourself have shifted from the 'Liberty to Iraqis' battle cry to 'Stop the hand off of WMD's', without ever doing the collateral damage assessment. I can't fathom how people gloss over massive civilian death in weighing out the different options available. What in God's good name is wrong with a constricting containment on Saddam that brings about his overthrow by the Iraqi people? 'Lay waste & rebuild' is the least desirable option to anyone 'plagued' by morality or anyone who has lost 'parental sleep' worrying about their babies.

No, but I have to. I'm suprised that pro-war advocates like yourself have shifted from the 'Liberty to Iraqis' battle cry to 'Stop the hand off of WMD's', without ever doing the collateral damage assessment. I can't fathom how people gloss over massive civilian death in weighing out the different options available. What in God's good name is wrong with a constricting containment on Saddam that brings about his overthrow by the Iraqi people? 'Lay waste & rebuild' is the least desirable option to anyone 'plagued' by morality or anyone who has lost 'parental sleep' worrying about their babies.

Come on BT there are still going to massive civillian death if the Iraqis try to remove Saddam.Do you think he just going to sit there and let them move in.?
You are talking about a man that killed all oppistion when he took over control of Iraq.Has leveled and gased cities.
Hmmm,let me think,U.S. guided weapons,or Saddam and chemical warfare.I suspect Saddam will be far worse.

Well there's no doubt that Saddam will put the children, in harms way. What I've heard is the United States will be using EMP's to disengage anything electronic. Thus taking out Iraqs means of communication ect..........
We have weapons that can be selective and the United States will not intentionally target civilians.

Hey BT did you ever realize that the USA does not target civilians let alone women and children! We are not sadisitc maniancs like Saddam's regime. He has illegal weapons plus a whole ton of WMDs.

Morality, morality, morality.
The US guided bomb defense: to take Iraq is to take Bagdhad. To take Bagdhad is to fight in an urban theater. To bomb an urban theater is to kill civilians.
There is no sectioned off government building park; they're in neighborhoods.
Would I rather have Iraqi killing Iraqi in an independence war insted of US bombing a third world country and slaughtering civilians? Hell yeah!
Let that be the course of action so that we're safer. If not, the deaths will be a catalyst for secular Muslims & radical Fundamentalists to join in opposition force against us.

Jedi: No one has to preach to me the high standards & respect for life that US military men & women subscribe to; I was one.
What you should do is watch news television, preferably the BBC or PBS, and look at the coverage from Bagdhad. Of course we won't be targeting civilian targets, but a whole lot will get hit. Red the reports I linked to and read the reports on other threads about battle plans: things like Shock & Awe, targeting their water supply, disrupting their infrastructure. Now do the death math.

Where does it say we going out to "Slaughter civillians".
It is not the U.S. intention to target civillians.Unlike Saddam.
I still think that there will be a lot less killing with are military than there will be with a civil war in Iraq.Which of coures would lead to US intervention anyways.

No where does it state that, of course not.
I don't think there'll be as much killing in a civil war, no way.
The whole 'his people' thing is a stretch to begin with: they were Kurds. Again I'll state that I think he's a bastard that needs to go, but we are better servered, as well as the region & the world, if Iraqis and/or other Arabs take him out.
From a geopolitical standpoint, we would be wise to back secular Muslim factions against the Bin Laden type fundamentalists. The secular are near Westernized and primed for democracy....we'll never turn fundamentalists.

There are three often quoted reasons to attack Iraq.

1) To "liberate" the people of Iraq from the Evil Sadam and set up a pro-US regime.

2) To protect the US and her allies from future Arab/Moslem terror attacks.

3) To remove a destabilizing power from the middle east, so protecting continuity of oil supplies.


The US's model for warfare is well known now up to the point it meets a defending force in an urban setting, and that is;
A massive bombing campaign removing military and civil infrastructure followed by rapid moving ground forces.

Using bombing to remove civil and military targets near civilian populations WILL RESULT IN MANY CIVILIAN DEATHS. This is not debatable. These deaths are foreseeable so the "we don't mean to kill these people" argument is false. If you know dropping bombs amongst civilians kills civilians, and you continue to drop bombs you are wilfully killing civilians.

So back to the three reasons for attacking Iraq.
Will the bombing campaign be for the good of the people of Iraq? Will the US killing thousands of Arab civilians make the US less likely to be targeted by Arab terrorists? Will continuity of oil supply be protected?

Heres a qoute BT. " In a war people die."

Hey BT there has been no war where a civilian was not killed, and it was by accident. And what are we supposed toi do waht for Saddam to attack someone? I think not. Anyway by the rate the war preperation is going byt ime we get to Iraq Saddam will be dead.

Saddam's gonna but children in ahrms way wither buy putting them in spots where they can die or just murder them and make it seem that we did it.


[Edited on 2-11-2003 by JediMaster]

Amazing, the anti-war propaganda machine vomits out more crap.

Well, as long as its only hated Americans that are in danger, too bad. Let them defend themselves and watch out! The freaks come out of the woodwork.

People better pull their heads out of their rears before its too late.

Figure, Hussein has starved his people rather than live up to the agreements after the first round in '91', and these jerks are going to make it sound as if loss of innocent lives is our fault. Only a liberty hating moron would bother writing this stuff.

Wait wait wait wait WAIT!!!!

Bout-Time, you really think there'll be less killing in a CIVIL WAR!!!!! HAHAHAAHAH

Ok let's look at some other nations that have been involved in a civil war recently.

Vietnam - uncountable millions dead, at least 2 million killed on the communist side, and that was only while fighting the US, which was only involved in 1/5th of the war.

Sudan - about 2 million dead, war still raging on.

Afghanistan - about 4 million dead, finally the guns have stopped after 23 years, because of America, which has killed less than 30,000 taliban, if even 10,000.

Now let's look at the past...

The United States War Between the States (BUM BUM BUM BUUUUUM!!!) *bangs on drums* a whopping 600,000 deaths in a time when you shot eachother at the rate of 3 rounds per-minute, at best...and in a war that only lasted 4 years.

Civil Wars...where do they get you? The same place where you started from if you're lucky, the unlucky end up in a mass grave.

Sincerely,
no signature

Originally posted by B-T
I don't think there'll be as much killing in a civil war, no way.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Amazing, the anti-war propaganda machine vomits out more crap.

Well, as long as its only hated Americans that are in danger, too bad. Let them defend themselves and watch out! The freaks come out of the woodwork.

People better pull their heads out of their rears before its too late.

Figure, Hussein has starved his people rather than live up to the agreements after the first round in '91', and these jerks are going to make it sound as if loss of innocent lives is our fault. Only a liberty hating moron would bother writing this stuff.

Again, the pro-war propaganda machine vomits out fear-to-arms rhetoric in lieu of reasoned argument.

DUH #1: The only way that Iraq is going to kill large numbers of Americans is if we deliver them to their doorstep!

DUH#2: To say attacking Iraq, creating a humanitarian crisis and usurping their resources is "Defending Ourselves" is the most Orwellian-Jim Jones Kool Aid sipping-demented-intellectually dishonest-fecal nugget I EVER HEARD!!!!!!

DUH#3: "Starved his people" - the sanctions have done a couple of things: they, by nature of restriction, funneled all food stuffs through a central government controlled entry point....instead of geographic dispersion that would ACTUALLY get to the people, they gave Saddam de facto control. Stupid move.
Next, under the 'Oil for Food' agreement which allowed Iraq to sell what they got for what they need....Nations have defaulted or have yet to pay 60% of what Iraq is owed. Again, Stupid move.

DUH#4: "And what are we supposed toi do waht for Saddam to attack someone?" In 12 years of containment, who has Iraq attacked? What have they done to anyone in the region?
Now let's get this straight:
With increased monitoring, increased restrictions, increased inspection, increased bombing sorties all over the country by US/UK fighter jets, increased U2 fly overs, increased vigellience by every country in the region, and increased Allied ground forces around every entry point into Iraq.....you've concluded that we are in MORE DANGER from an Iraqi attack!?!?!

DUH#5:
At the conclusion of the Gulf War in 1991, Bush's father openly encouraged the people
of Iraq to rise up against Saddam Hussein in revolt. Both the Kurds in the north
and the Shiites in the south responded, and in March of 1991, it was clear that they
had a better than even chance of succeeding. It was at this juncture that the prior
Bush administration lost its nerve and sold these rebels down the river. Fearing a
post-Saddam Iraq ruled by the majority Shiites would align itself with Iran, Bush allowed the rebels to be slaughtered without the slightest US aide that would have turned the tide.
I give this as a backdrop and not to say the 'Sins of the Father' damnation. But, given the horde of inspection teams that are being proposed by more level headed UN security council nations, the weapons destruction that's already started and the increased containment, yes, Saddam won't have the numbers of anything to turn back a revolt, the rebels WILL HAVE backing this time, and we'll be meddeling in a country's internal affairs on the side of righteousness for a change, thus garnering us lost social capital and effecting what we wanted in the first place.
Contrast that to massive bombing followed by a humanitarian nightmare.....yeah, less dead in a civil war.

Adults don't factor in MACHISIMO into world affairs and matters of life & death, that your president is that infantile doesn't mean you have to be.