GUEST,Albert - 30 May 06 - 03:27 PM

Point 1 Guest Albert - I was not and did not "rubbish" the Lancet Article - I only pointed out what it actually said as opposed to what a great deal of people such as yourself and George Galloway THINK it said. I leave it to others far more qualified in statistics and the conduct of surveys to comment on the validity and accuracy of the article - most condemn it as being wildly inaccurate and totally unrepresentative.

The article assessed the bulk of Iraqi civilian deaths was due to Air Strikes - 100,000 people, a "conservative" estimate. Guest Albert, do you know how many people died during the bombing of Hamburg? I believe it was somewhere in the region of 146,000. the bulk of those having died in 5 nights and days of intensive area bombing by RAF Bomber Command and the American 8th Air Force. Continuous day and night operations involving upwards of 1000 heavy bombers per raid. Now at no time have the US or UK ever had that many aircraft deployed for operations against Iraq. Now let's look at the aircraft and their payloads, the amount of ordinance they can carry, apart from the B-52 comparative bomb loads are minute, and the B-52's were generally used to launch cruise missiles, not carpet bomb as they did during the Vietnam War. So forgive me Albert if I have difficulty in believing that far, far fewer aircraft, carrying far, far fewer and far lighter bombs, flying far fewer missions could inflict anything like the casualties mentioned in the Article sent to The Lancet

Point 2 Guest Albert - While the US military may have publicly stated that it does not count the Iraqi dead - Iraq Body Count does and their figures (worst case), at the time the Lancet Article appeared, were nowhere near the "conservative" 100,000 stated, in fact at the time their worst case figures were about one-fifth of that number.

Point 3 Guest Albert - My so called "cheap squalid points" only indicate where you use inaccurate or completely false information upon which you base your point of view.

Point 4 Guest Albert - Certain sections of the Iraqi people have had a long history of being subject to a wide variety of weaponry to a far worse degree than at present. Subsequent to actions taken in March 2003 that situation will improve.

Point 5 Guest Albert - By all means Albert you may recall, "with shame that the US and the UK were big supporters and funders of Saddam." But you would be wrong in believing so. Go to any analysis of the Iran/Iraq War and you will find that US assistance was only ever offered when it looked like Saddam/Iraq were going to lose. Such an outcome was not considered to be in the bests interests of the region as a whole and for any nation dependent upon middle eastern oil -At that time Albert the USA was not, the "tiger" economies of the far east were. Even today Albert the US gets only about a fifth of their needs from the region.

GUEST,Ifor - 04 Jun 06 - 04:41 PM

Thanks Guest Ifor, after a period of six days, we find that the "weapons" supplied by the UK amounted to:
- Chieftain tank hulls - obsolete tank hulls - used to test the effectiveness of AT ammunition - hardly a weapon.
- Radios - surprised at Saddam going for those. Historically the UK has never had a good track record in supplying it's forces with decent comms kit - again hardly a weapon.
Marconi Artillery Meteorological Systems - something that tells you air speed, direction and temperature - not crucial for anything - again hardly a weapon.
- A fighter pilot training complex - what a fully equipped "fighter" airfield, or are we just talking about a flight simulator here - I think that you will find it's the latter - hardly a weapon. Surprised at this, Saddam seriously distrusted his Air Force and kept them on a very tight leash. Any simulator bought from the UK could only be for basic flight training, most likely on conversion training to jets - All Saddam's Air Force equipment came from Russia or France.
- Cymbeline mortar Location radar - purely defensive - hardly a weapon.

The Guardian Article which is the source of the above mentions reparations, I am unaware of there ever having been any stated intention on the part of anyone to seek reparations for anything. The "so-called" sell out of Iraq's natural resources, that the anti-brigade were rabbiting about from before day one has never materialised, so much for the arguement that this was all about oil.