Someone is Saddam's Girlfriend

Richard Lightman richard at nezumi.plus.com
Tue Feb 11 01:34:56 PST 2003


* Ian Molton <spyro at f2s.com> [2003-02-11 08:26]:
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 22:23:11 +0000 (UTC)
> etmilleretmiller at yahoo.com (Eric Miller) wrote:
> 
> > 
> > It can mean both, but in Tushar's posted reference
> > (assuming this is the UN report that Bjorn is
> > misquoting in his sig), the report clearly means the
> > first kind...not people killed.
> 
> I havent read the report, but, since it is YOU who has a problem with
> Bjorns interprettation, why dont you demonstrate how the report has been
> misread?
> 
> and to what degree is a casualty? I /severely/ doubt they really count a
> grazed elbow.
> 
> I'd imagine its serious things like losing limbs, being blinded, those
> that get ill from polluted supplies in the aftermath, etc.
> 
The UN report is concerned with humanitarian aid after a potential
conflict, and so it is not directly concerned with dead people for
whom humanitarian aid would be a bit late.

Eric Miller was unhappy about the previous link being to a communist
site. Here is an alternative:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2636835.stm

The original is a UN contingency plan that the UN has said is
authentic.

The figure of 500000 is an estimate of the number of people who
could suffer serious injuries during the first phase of an attack on
Iraq.

I have not seen any reliable figure for civilian deaths. In the
last war, it is estimated that between 100000 and 200000 Iraqi
civilians died as a direct result of the war. The lack of surviving
infrastructure in Iraq makes an accurate figure hard to find.

Civilian deaths are expected to be higher this time around, because
this is a predominately urban culture that cannot be independent in
the same way as farmers in Afghanistan. Also, peoples' cash reserves
were spent surviving the last war, so they have very few resources to
survive another one. Much depends on how long the war lasts. It is
unlikely that either side will allow relief workers sufficient access
while the war continues, so in that case  at least 100000 of those
500000 would die - either from being bombed, or lack of medical
treatment - depending on how you want to see it.

It is expected that the electricity distribution will be prevented.
This will prevent water distribution, and probably contribute to an
outbreak of diseases in epidemic if not pandemic proportions.

Bjorn's 500000 killed could turn out to be true - or even an
underestimate. Perhaps pointing out to him politely that the
casualties figure he read referred to living and not dead would have
encouraged him to modify his sig accordingly - without all this
shouting.

The refugee camps caused by the aftermath of a war are a good place
to terrorist organisations to get recruits. At this time, the US
government has not presented a convincing argument to show that
this war is necessary. President Bush's statements that he will
go to war with or without UN approval seems very selfish when you
consider that the relief effort in Iraq would be funded through
the UN, and most of the refugees will be going to Iraq's neighbours
such as Iran and Turkey.

Wouldn't it be good it this relief effort could start now, before
we drop any bombs on anyone?

Richard
-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-chat' in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-chat mailing list