Posted on 03/10/2005 10:36:16 PM PST by NormsRevenge
LONDON (AP) - A group of public health experts sharply criticized Britain and America on Friday for failing to count the number of Iraqis who have died as a result of the war in Iraq.
The group said the United States and Britain rely on the Iraqi Ministry of Health tally and that number was "likely seriously to underestimate" deaths.
It urged officials of the two countries to immediately commission "a comprehensive, independent inquiry into Iraqi war-related casualties."
The Iraqi Health Ministry has estimated that 3,853 civilians were killed and 15,517 injured between April and October 2004.
Britain's Foreign Office said it agreed with the writers about "the importance of Iraqi lives" but believed the security threats in Iraq make a more thorough survey unfeasible. The British government says it believes the Iraqi Health Ministry figures are the most accurate available.
The public health experts, writing in a statement being published by the British Medical Journal, said the number was unreliable because it did not include deaths in the first year after the U.S.-led invasion and did not take into account nonviolent deaths caused indirectly by the war or those not reported to the health care system.
The Lancet medical journal estimated in October that 98,000 more civilians had been killed in Iraq since the outbreak of hostilities in March 2003 than would otherwise have been expected to die.
"The inadequacy of the current U.S./U.K. policy was highlighted" by the Lancet study, which scientists conducted by surveying a sampling of Iraqi households and comparing death rates before the war to those in the months following the invasion.
The public health experts, writing in a statement being published by the British Medical Journal, said the number was unreliable because it did not include deaths in the first year after the U.S.-led invasion and did not take into account nonviolent deaths caused indirectly by the war or those not reported to the health care system.
The Lancet medical journal estimated in October that 98,000 more civilians had been killed in Iraq since the outbreak of hostilities in March 2003 than would otherwise have been expected to die.
Idiots on Parade...
There they go, citing the Lancet study again. I thought that we had lanced that particular boil?
bump for later reading
I hear ya.. pretty tiresome to see this kind of crap twaddled about.
..did not take into account "nonviolent deaths caused indirectly by the war" or "those not reported to the health care system".
Death is part of life,, these folks are nothing but bean counters impersonating 'public health'experts, imo.
Too bad they weren't as concerned when the mass graves were being filled to the brim.
Why don't they go and count how many innocent lives the terrorist scum they have such an affection for have slaughtered? Or better yet, how many people Saddam would have tortured/raped/killed in the period had he still been in control of Iraq?
And how many have died under the tender care of the
NHS?
Hmmmm.....
I understand perfectly why, from an "Information Operations"/PSYOPS standpoint, we have been reluctant to release any Iraqi casualty figures. The theme we've been trying to get across is that this is not a war against the Iraqi people, and that theme is compromised if we give casualty reports, even on the bad guys (who will inevitably be lumped in with the innocents by our press pals). Sometimes I'm sure it is tempting to crow about the bad guy body count, especially when so much attention is focused on the number of American dead, but why give our enemies grist for their propaganda mill?
I do not understand how the incidental deaths in Iraq are a subject for "public health experts" to rule upon.
These people are stupid. Even more stupid are those who give them credibility on this matter when it has nothing to do with their expertise.
"Sometimes I'm sure it is tempting to crow about the bad guy body count, especially when so much attention is focused on the number of American dead, but why give our enemies grist for their propaganda mill?"
Amen. I served during Vietnam (PIRAZ) and the body count was published daily. It was like keeping score and was a detriment. On Board the Wainwright (CG 28), we watched Clint Eastwood flicks (The Good, Bad.. series) and kept body counts.
I am glad we dropped that and learned from it.
I'm thoroughly uninterested in pandering to the prejudices of the left. Blair apparently shares this view. "Sod off" is the only decent reply to these fools.
Regards, Ivan
The Iraqis were much better off under the sanctions, 'oil for food' and Saddam's security forces. They had plenty of food, medicine and freedom. Back then, no innocent people suffered, and Iraq was a happy, idyllic community of tolerance. Religious and ethnic diversity was celebrated. Women were equal partners with men. The air and water was cleaner, happy little birds were singing, and Saddam gave out free ice cream all day long.
And we screwed it up! Next thing you know, the evil transnational cabal of Zionist Freemasons will snap their fingers, the Chimp will get his marching orders and make us ruin the invincible, glorious workers paradise of North Korea.
< / l i b e r a l >
(Okay, so I tried to get into the liberal mindset on this one. Thinking like a liberal is surprisingly easy. You just turn off your brain, and let your paranoid delusions frolic!)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.