Boffins, the Media and Scaremongering.

At least 85,000 people lost their lives from 2004 to 2008 during Iraq's violent, sectarian uprising, according to the first official report by the Iraqi government on the death toll since the war began.

The report, released by the Iraqi Human Rights Ministry late Tuesday as part of a larger study on the country's human rights situation, said 85,694 people were killed from 2004-08, and 147,195 were wounded during the same period.

The Iraqi death toll has been a hotly disputed subject and critics on both sides of the political spectrum have accused the other side of manipulating the death numbers to sway public opinion.

As Iraq became increasingly violent following the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, it also became increasingly difficult to independently track such figures on a wide scale.

The report was based on death certificates issued by the health ministry and constitutes the first official finding by a government ministry on the death toll since the war began in 2003.

Statistics for 2003 have been extremely difficult to obtain as there was no functioning Iraqi government during that time and the interim Iraqi government was not seated until mid-2004.

The report described the years that followed the U.S.-led invasion, which toppled Saddam Hussein's regime, as extremely violent years.

"Through the terrorist attacks like explosions, assassinations, kidnappings and forced displacements, the outlawed groups have created these terrible figures which represent a big challenge for the rule of law and for the Iraqi people," it said.

The report also breaks down some specific numbers, saying 1,279 children and 2,334 women were killed. It also puts the death toll of the university professors at 263, judges at 21, lawyers 95 and journalists at 269 — some of the professions which were specifically targeted as the country descended into chaos.

The toll also included 15,000 unidentified bodies who were not claimed by their families and are buried in special cemeteries. - Associated Press

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/14/world/main5383616.shtml.

Oh, the death count is undeniable Allan - unequivocally. Still, you know not how many of those deaths can be put down to 'ooh Al Qaeda' or some faction of a similar ilk. These deaths may not have happened was the bloody autocrat to have had his totalitarian rule fully in place. It is no excuse, in any case.

This is worth a look:

Brass Monkey wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:Hardly glib. What do you expect, me to rent my clothes and wail at the injustice of it all? It's reality, it's not something I can change. But whilst you might think I'm commenting without my heart, if you can't accept the reality of what was happening and what was likely to happen, then you're commenting without your brain. Iraq was a deeply troubled region and was going to be anyway. To take the outcome of what we did in isolation and not work forward to a future without this action is simply not a reasonable way of thinking about it.

"Now don't be like that."

What I do like though, is the fact your conjecture is put forward as almost an inevitability, what I don't get is how you've drawn your conclusion. Well I do, you've drawn it on the past actions of the man, before he was hamstrung by the first war. There are deeply troubled regions throughout the world, it was by no sense of moral fibre or conscience that took our campaign there. There is no planned future there apart from to stick some tinpot leader in that we can marionette.

lol Touche.

I think it's pretty reasonable to draw the inference on future actions from his past history. Saddam was directly causing huge casualties by his actions in power throughout the years following the first war. As has been pointed out, the no fly zones were in place precisely to prevent him massacring the Kurds and the Shias in north and south. The terrible death toll from sanctions was down to him, not the west, because food and medical supplies were totally unrestricted - Saddam refused to buy them, preferring to keep his people at bay by starving them and allowing them to die.

But my central point was that those who say that Saddam should instead have been toppled from without seem to imagine that everything would have been sweetness and light, which is simply not the case and never could be. The intervention by Iran was the action of a regional rival intent on destabilising its principal enemy. That would certainly have happened following any fall of Saddam. You'd have had civil war, without the slightest question. So although the shortcomings of the British and Americans in the post-invasion phase are pretty obvious (and that wasn't hindsight either because it was mentioned as a deep concern at the time), it simply isn't the case that the following years can be considered in isolation without realising that a civil war was always going to be the outcome. When dictators fall it usually is.

Equally, there's a degree of partial sightedness on the whole question of intervening without UN sanction. Britain went into Sierra Leone without any authority but its own, stopped a civil war, restored democracy, and we're regarded as heroes there - and so is Blair.

I'll have to try and look at that later on Allan, my work block most media. It's pretty woeful.

Brass Monkey wrote:Oh, the death count is undeniable Allan - unequivocally. Still, you know not how many of those deaths can be put down to 'ooh Al Qaeda' or some faction of a similar ilk. These deaths may not have happened was the bloody autocrat to have had his totalitarian rule fully in place. It is no excuse, in any case.

Er....I really hope you're not saying that the correct response to such a situation is to say to a dictator: "Do carry on old chap".

Shoeshine wrote:
lol Touche.

I think it's pretty reasonable to draw the inference on future actions from his past history. Saddam was directly causing huge casualties by his actions in power throughout the years following the first war. As has been pointed out, the no fly zones were in place precisely to prevent him massacring the Kurds and the Shias in north and south. The terrible death toll from sanctions was down to him, not the west, because food and medical supplies were totally unrestricted - Saddam refused to buy them, preferring to keep his people at bay by starving them and allowing them to die.

But my central point was that those who say that Saddam should instead have been toppled from without seem to imagine that everything would have been sweetness and light, which is simply not the case and never could be. The intervention by Iran was the action of a regional rival intent on destabilising its principal enemy. That would certainly have happened following any fall of Saddam. You'd have had civil war, without the slightest question. So although the shortcomings of the British and Americans in the post-invasion phase are pretty obvious (and that wasn't hindsight either because it was mentioned as a deep concern at the time), it simply isn't the case that the following years can be considered in isolation without realising that a civil war was always going to be the outcome. When dictators fall it usually is.

Equally, there's a degree of partial sightedness on the whole question of intervening without UN sanction. Britain went into Sierra Leone without any authority but its own, stopped a civil war, restored democracy, and we're regarded as heroes there - and so is Blair.

Yes, you have made some good points there and to be honest I've no particular confutation - it wasn't ever my point that Saddam wasn't a qunt - just that the stated casualties shouldn't just be seen as 'part of the war'. Neither of us know facts about how the campaign actually went - but we surely can agree that the civilian death count has been immeasurably high.

Brass Monkey wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:
lol Touche.

I think it's pretty reasonable to draw the inference on future actions from his past history. Saddam was directly causing huge casualties by his actions in power throughout the years following the first war. As has been pointed out, the no fly zones were in place precisely to prevent him massacring the Kurds and the Shias in north and south. The terrible death toll from sanctions was down to him, not the west, because food and medical supplies were totally unrestricted - Saddam refused to buy them, preferring to keep his people at bay by starving them and allowing them to die.

But my central point was that those who say that Saddam should instead have been toppled from without seem to imagine that everything would have been sweetness and light, which is simply not the case and never could be. The intervention by Iran was the action of a regional rival intent on destabilising its principal enemy. That would certainly have happened following any fall of Saddam. You'd have had civil war, without the slightest question. So although the shortcomings of the British and Americans in the post-invasion phase are pretty obvious (and that wasn't hindsight either because it was mentioned as a deep concern at the time), it simply isn't the case that the following years can be considered in isolation without realising that a civil war was always going to be the outcome. When dictators fall it usually is.

Equally, there's a degree of partial sightedness on the whole question of intervening without UN sanction. Britain went into Sierra Leone without any authority but its own, stopped a civil war, restored democracy, and we're regarded as heroes there - and so is Blair.

Yes, you have made some good points there and to be honest I've no particular confutation - it wasn't ever my point that Saddam wasn't a qunt - just that the stated casualties shouldn't just be seen as 'part of the war'. Neither of us know facts about how the campaign actually went - but we surely can agree that the civilian death count has been immeasurably high.

Certainly. And I would suspect virtually everyone would agree that the post-invasion planning was utterly woeful. But I'm unsure - and I battle with myself on the issue - as to whether it is reasonable to say that invading was actually the wrong thing to do. I find it hard to accept that an alternative of leaving an evil genocidal dictator, with a penchant for gassing his enemies, in place was a better solution.

On October 17, 2004, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Tawhid wal-Jihad organization issued an online statement pledging allegiance to al-Qaeda and its commander, Sheikh Osama bin Laden. Al-Qaeda reprinted and acknowledged the statement, responding favorably to the new development in their online magazine Mu'askar al-Battar. The newly-affiliated group is known as Tanzim Qai'dat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (al-Qaeda in Iraq), and has already claimed responsibility for numerous attacks, including the December 13 bombing at an entrance to Baghdad's Green Zone.

Zarqawi's Pledge of Allegiance to Al-Qaeda

Shoeshine wrote:
Certainly. And I would suspect virtually everyone would agree that the post-invasion planning was utterly woeful. But I'm unsure - and I battle with myself on the issue - as to whether it is reasonable to say that invading was actually the wrong thing to do. I find it hard to accept that an alternative of leaving an evil genocidal dictator, with a penchant for gassing his enemies, in place was a better solution.

You're most likely right, the world is probably a better place for his ousting - but I'm not sure that their country is and we shouldn't particularly be thrust forth as the knights in shining white armour. Furthermore, we managed half of his 23 year death toll (discluding the wars) in 5 years. Many of them were civilians - this should not be forgotten or swept under the carpet by virtue of an 'it's war' statement.

Allan D wrote:

On October 17, 2004, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Tawhid wal-Jihad organization issued an online statement pledging allegiance to al-Qaeda and its commander, Sheikh Osama bin Laden. Al-Qaeda reprinted and acknowledged the statement, responding favorably to the new development in their online magazine Mu'askar al-Battar. The newly-affiliated group is known as Tanzim Qai'dat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (al-Qaeda in Iraq), and has already claimed responsibility for numerous attacks, including the December 13 bombing at an entrance to Baghdad's Green Zone.

Zarqawi's Pledge of Allegiance to Al-Qaeda

Al Qaeda has claimed responsilbility for many attacks that they had nothing to do with - they aren't going to deny it if they want to be taken seriously as a terrorist organisation. The more the better in fact.

Brass Monkey wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:
Certainly. And I would suspect virtually everyone would agree that the post-invasion planning was utterly woeful. But I'm unsure - and I battle with myself on the issue - as to whether it is reasonable to say that invading was actually the wrong thing to do. I find it hard to accept that an alternative of leaving an evil genocidal dictator, with a penchant for gassing his enemies, in place was a better solution.

You're most likely right, the world is probably a better place for his ousting - but I'm not sure that their country is and we shouldn't particularly be thrust forth as the knights in shining white armour. Furthermore, we managed half of his 23 year death toll (discluding the wars) in 5 years. Many of them were civilians - this should not be forgotten or swept under the carpet by virtue of an 'it's war' statement.

Hmm, I would doubt that many people beyond certain neo-cons would have the nerve to portray us as shining knights. The reality is they ballsed it up. But that doesn't necessarily make it the wrong call - just one that could (and should) have been executed better.

Brass Monkey wrote:

Allan D wrote:

On October 17, 2004, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Tawhid wal-Jihad organization issued an online statement pledging allegiance to al-Qaeda and its commander, Sheikh Osama bin Laden. Al-Qaeda reprinted and acknowledged the statement, responding favorably to the new development in their online magazine Mu'askar al-Battar. The newly-affiliated group is known as Tanzim Qai'dat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (al-Qaeda in Iraq), and has already claimed responsibility for numerous attacks, including the December 13 bombing at an entrance to Baghdad's Green Zone.

Zarqawi's Pledge of Allegiance to Al-Qaeda

Al Qaeda has claimed responsilbility for many attacks that they had nothing to do with - they aren't going to deny it if they want to be taken seriously as a terrorist organisation. The more the better in fact.

Al Qa'eda isn't like the IRA, with a formal structure. It's a shorthand for a loose agglomeration of political ideologies, and associated terrorist cells. That's why it's so damn hard to fight.

Shoeshine wrote:
Al Qa'eda isn't like the IRA, with a formal structure. It's a shorthand for a loose agglomeration of political ideologies, and associated terrorist cells. That's why it's so damn hard to fight.

Yeah, and many a random faction now just claim that they're Al Qaeda - it doesn't mean that the media aren't 'scaremongering'. They don't share the same ideologies as you just mentioned, hence they are acting on their own views and their own revenge. Therefore they aren't 'Al Qaeda', they're distinct factions who just all happen to loathe the way the West has gone around dropping their cock in everyone's soup.

We have bred more of these than we've shut down.

Brass Monkey wrote:Al Qaeda has claimed responsilbility for many attacks that they had nothing to do with - they aren't going to deny it if they want to be taken seriously as a terrorist organisation. The more the better in fact.

At least, unlike Bucksh, you accept that Al-Qaeda exists and is not a "myth" created by Western propaganda. You also seem to accept, by inference, that terrorism is the problem in Iraq post-Saddam and it is that which is primarily responsible for Iraqi civilian deaths post-2003 and not Western military oppression.

Brass Monkey wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:
Al Qa'eda isn't like the IRA, with a formal structure. It's a shorthand for a loose agglomeration of political ideologies, and associated terrorist cells. That's why it's so damn hard to fight.

Yeah, and many a random faction now just claim that they're Al Qaeda - it doesn't mean that the media aren't 'scaremongering'. They don't share the same ideologies as you just mentioned, hence they are acting on their own views and their own revenge. Therefore they aren't 'Al Qaeda', they're distinct factions who just all happen to loathe the way the West has gone around dropping their cock in everyone's soup.

We have bred more of these than we've shut down.

Wouldn't disagree with a word of that.

However, we do need to remember that in a great many of these cases, they don't want us to change our behaviour, they want us annihilated - despising every single thing about us. These kind of people can't be mollified by what we do - they were out to kill as many of us as possible long ago.

I think it's important to note that we usually don't get a choice between war and peace. You do not get peace simply by choosing to avoid war.

Whether we like it or not, our decisions to avoid conflict have just as much impact on events as our decisions to engage in conflict.

Had Saddam not been removed by force it is logical to conclude that he would still be in power today. He would have continued to slaughter his own people, that certainly isn't in doubt. Would he have been able to reconstitute his weapons program? I'd say yes. By now it would have been 18 years since the West fought a war against him. He was happy to endure the odd Operation Desert Fox, providing the West never went the whole hog. He was confident he could game the system.

We also have to question what involvement Saddam would have had with terrorist organisations had he been in place over the past six years. While he never had a direct connection with Al Qaeda, he had a history of providing training to Arab terrorist organisations.

Indeed, the same Pentagon report that concluded there was "no smoking gun" linking Saddam to Al Qaeda also found that “Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with Al Qaeda [such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri], or that generally shared Al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives,”

His support included small things like the granting of passparts, to big things like providing intensive training.

These findings were based on the harmony doucments ie. official government papers seized after the invasion.

One of the most damning documents to emerge was a 1993 letter from Saddam to the head of Iraqi intelligence in which he called for Iraq “to hunt the Americans that are in Arab lands, especially in Somalia, by using Arab elements or Asian (Muslims) or friends.”

In response, the intelligence chief informed Hussein that Iraq already had ties with a large number of international terrorist groups, including “the Islamist Arab elements that were fighting in Afghanistan and [currently] have no place to base and are physically present in Somalia, Sudan, and Egypt.”

This man had a prior history and was absolutely dicking the West around. Leaving him in power would have been a massive gamble.

Good post Hass.

Allan D wrote:
At least, unlike Bucksh, you accept that Al-Qaeda exists and is not a "myth" created by Western propaganda. You also seem to accept, by inference, that terrorism is the problem in Iraq post-Saddam and it is that which is primarily responsible for Iraqi civilian deaths post-2003 and not Western military oppression.

I don't deny the death toll and I don't deny that there was a terrorist hand in many deaths. However, I have no figures either way, but do know that the initial bombings accounted for a 'decent' proportion of the figures up until this point as has been documented outside of US news sites. It seems that most people are just happy to blame everyone but ourselves for this death count, I'm not into that - blame starts at home.

Buckeroo and I are like this 'Al Qaeda' faction, totally separate entities with different ideals who happen to disagree with my country's hand in this whole debacle. Yet we're getting lumped together somewhat - funny that. Almost like a microcosm of the last 8 years.

Brass Monkey wrote:they're distinct factions who just all happen to loathe the way the West has gone around dropping their cock in everyone's soup.

Yep, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Eastern Europe - all total deserts since the US and Britain stuck their oar in.

Yeah, agreed, good post Hass.

Brass Monkey wrote:Yet we're getting lumped together somewhat - funny that. Almost like a microcosm of the last 8 years.

Do you really think that? The difference seems pretty obvious to me.

Although I guess I could say that anyone who suggests that things might not be so clear cut as to say invasion wasn't necessarily a bad idea does tend to be accused of being a warmongering genocidal maniac.