. A few days ago Andy Whittles and I were e-debating a scarifying BBConline report on an Iraqi health warning by British medical charity Medact. We decided we hadn’t got enough to go on, though I later discovered that one of Medact’s leading funders was the European Commission (ahem). A sparkling Mark Steyn’s not so shy in denouncing them, the protesters-to-be, and by association with the uncritical article noted above, the BBC:
‘In yesterday’s Independent , Dr David Lowry noted that Medact, a respected NGO of British medical chappies, has decided that, since the start of the Iraq war in March, between 7,800 and 9,600 civilians have died. This is presumably the same Medact that a year ago predicted that in the Iraq war and the three months following 260,000 would die, with a further 200,000 succumbing to disease and famine, and another 20,000 getting killed in the ensuing civil war.
Given that they’ve now revised their figures downwards by 98 per cent, it would be nice to think the protesters might reduce their budget for gallons of Dulux Mesopotamian Burgundy Gloss by a commensurate amount. The rest of us should pelt Medact with rotten tomatoes symbolising all the blood that wasn’t spilt.’
Medact doesn’t like the US very much but it does have one friend. It’s website includes the following states: “We would also like to thank our funders, including the European Commission (DG Development)”.
“Socialised” medicine killed 15000 in France, where was Med-Act?
I guess they were all on their EUSSR sponsored holidays…
I believe the correct word would be “could” and not “would” that they should have used.
The death toll of civilians was considerably less than estimated before the war. Why? Because Saddam’s army melted away and both Baghdad and Basra were captured with minimal damage to the civilian population.
It doesn’t change the fact that several thousand civilians died and civilians continue to die every day in iraq.
Well if ‘could’ is correct, not ‘would’, then the prediction is trivial. I could sprout wings and fly tomorrow. You could start talking sense, Neither of these seems likely. All civilian deaths in war are regrettable, but just saying ‘several thousand civilians died’ doesn’t invalidate the case for war. If it did, you’d be writing your commment in German. How few Iraqi civilians would have been enough for you? If your answer is ‘none,’ you then please explain why you don’t think the 10,000 per annum or so killed by Saddam were of any value as human beings.
A letter in today’s Mirror
“I WISH the American President would visit Britain. President Gore, that is, not the Texan imposter whose brother allegedly fiddled Florida’s electoral roll to get him in.
Dr Bob Banks, Hope, Derbys” (Mailbox 18/11/03)
This fool also has a similar letter printed in today’s Times.
The docs connected with Medact claim to want to help Iraqis (I wonder if they are actually in Iraq as Aid organisations have mainly done a runner)
The good doctor Banks, who obviously has a better grasp of the US constitution than the US Supreme Court, feels that it is his duty to help make the poor US citizens aware that, despite what they may think, Gore is really their rightful president.
If there were really 10.000 iraqis per year killed by Saddam’s regime, then it would be fair to say that this war might leave iraqis better off than they were under Saddam.
Of course we still need to add the 12.000-45.000 soldiers killed during the war, but since they were in the military (most likely forced to join), do their lives count? After all, they were still brothers and fathers of iraqis, weren’t they?
Lets hope that will be the case, that country does not need another civil war or another ruthless dictator. So far, the situation looks grave.
Oldie, it’s pointless arguing how many people died at the hands of Saddam Hussein’s regime. A lot is the only sensible answer. Look at it this way though- why did millions of people flee Iraq under Saddam? Why aren’t they leaving now that the Americans are in charge? Why were the predicted floods of refugees not forthcoming, and still not forthcoming? Couldn’t it be because the Iraqis were and still are less frightened of the Americans and the ‘havoc’ they might cause with their tanks and laser guided bombs than of the murderous, yes, big style MURDEROUS thugs that were running the Baathist regime?
One other point (then a couple) I’d like to make- They are always telling us that the figures for civilian deaths are underestimated because only half the hospitals in Iraq have been investigated. Ok, but the only areas which saw large scale military operations are the areas on the routes between Basra and Baghdad, and slightly to the North- and that wouldn’t even represent half the hospitals in Iraq, if we really mean all of Iraq. If they’ve really asked half Iraq’s hospitals then that’s probably overkill (if you’ll excuse the phrase). I bet that outside this spinal area you won’t find a lot of casualties because no one bombed them or fought over them to a serious degree. As for the military casualties, I think they are most likely to be exaggerated because in such a short campaign the space for fighting was very limited, however lurid it looked on TV, however frightened the embeds. Plus, it is in every Iraqi’s interest that there are seen to be plenty of victims of the war because where there are victims of the US military there are US feelings of guilt there is US aid. Of course, we all realise these things, but some people (and I’m betting Medact and co) find it strangely easy to ignore them.
Death is tragic, but the US action was in every sense about life, not about death, and the figures will reflect that.
To be honest, it looks like Medact are getting their figures from iraqbodycount.org, which if I recall, is hardly either an unbiased or accurate source