"300 Iraqis are killed by Americans each day sounds like an impossible figure, but a close look at the reported numbers of violent deaths and rate of armed patrols makes it all too likely."
Is the United States Killing 10,000 Iraqis Every Month? Or Is It More?
Check out this article by Michael Schwartz, After Downing Street
A state-of-the-art research study published in October 12, 2006 issue of The Lancet (the most prestigious British medical journal) concluded that -- as of a year ago -- 600,000 Iraqis had died violently due to the war in Iraq. That is, the Iraqi death rate for the first 39 months of the war was just about 15,000 per month.
The U.S. and British governments quickly dismissed these results as "methodologically flawed," even though the researchers used standard procedures for measuring mortality in war and disaster zones. (They visited a random set of homes and asked the residents if anyone in their household had died in the last few years, recording the details, and inspecting death certificates in the vast majority of cases.) The two belligerent governments offered no concrete reasons for rejecting the study's findings, and they ignored the fact that they had sponsored identical studies (conducted by some of the same researchers) in other disaster areas, including Darfur and Kosovo. The reasons for this rejection were, however, clear enough: the results were simply too devastating for the culpable governments to acknowledge. (Secretly the British government later admitted that it was "a tried and tested way to measuring mortality in conflict zones"; but it has never publicly admitted its validity). More HERE
Posts
10 comments:
There are 23 factions fighting each other in Iraq. Surely you don't believe that it was the Coalition that bombed the mosque at Samarra. It only requires a moment of thought to recognize that the Shia majority, long oppressed by Saddam's Sunni minority are fighting a generation's revenge.
Cobb, The government of Saddam kept these factions from killing each other.
George Bush lied to the American people and made the foolish decision to go to war.
George Bush backed by Congress) to overthrough a sovereign government and leader.
Now the invader (us) ask the invaded (a dis-jointed group of Iraqi politicans who can make no sense of what America is doing in their country) to act civil? We are the country, through our "shock and awe" strategy that created this mess.
Yes Cobb, 23 factions are fighting.
They have been fighting for eons.
Saddams Iron fist, kept them apart, and we created the ingredients for a civil war. I ask you Cobb, Is Iraq better off since Bush decided to invade?
Are the millions of refugees that left Iraq since America's war on Iraq better off?
Our government war planners and CIA informed the Bush administration that the Shia majority, long oppressed by Saddam's Sunni minority would seek revenge - kind of common sense - right?
Our general's on the ground are in denial that there is a civil war, or refuse to inform the Emperor he has no clothes.
Maybe your seeing Bush dressed, but for 80% of Americans, and a majority of civilized nation's around the world Bush has no clothes on. He a congress created this mess, let's see how they get us out of it. Meanwhile, because of Bush policies, 10,000 Iraqis get killed in Iraq every month.
I'll say it again: they've been fighting one another for nearly 1,000 years. Only our arrogance made us think that WE could control him.
Iraq=Arab Yugoslavia
Saddam=Arab Tito
What happened to Yugoslavia after Tito?
Yeah, that's what's happening now.
We need to leave. Not tomorrow. Not 2 montsh from now.
TODAY.
Yes, there will be an unfettered Civil War.
So be it.
Yes, it will be on our hands.
So be it.
No more American lives for their carnage, and if they bring in the Saudis and the Iranians and Syrians, I could care less. If they're bogged down in Iraq, then maybe it'll take their minds off of trying to kill us.
Besides, our troops are needed in PAKISTAN - the most dangerous place on Earth.
Remember, unlike the fantasy that Cheney is tryin to us to get us into IRAN...Pakistan ACTUALLY HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
If Musharif falls, we (THE ENTIRE WESTERN WORLD) are in trouble.
No more American lives for their carnage, and if they bring in the Saudis and the Iranians and Syrians, I could care less. If they're bogged down in Iraq, then maybe it'll take their minds off of trying to kill us.
If Musharif falls, we (THE ENTIRE WESTERN WORLD) are in trouble.
Rikyrah, Your are so on point. You have said it all!
[quote]The government of Saddam kept these factions from killing each other.[/quote]
Lord help him!!!
Next he is going to tell us that "American Slavery" keep the level of "Black on Black street crime" down. Do you have any objective consideration of the MEANS by which Saddam's government kept them from killing each other? AAPP - would you support such measures here in America if it meant that crime within the inner city could be put in check?
Can someone answer this question for me. For about 4 years I have been pointing to books like this one: http://leftbooks.com/store/media/genocide.jpg in which the United Nation's SANCTIONS on Iraq were blamed for creating the conditions that allowed over 750,000 children to die and over 1.2 million people overall.
For some reason certain people like to believe that all started during the "Bush Invasion" because for some reason they seemingly want to avoid blaming the "Before Bush" administration. It goes against their interests after all.
Maybe I am watching a different news source than you all are. Each day I see MUSLIMS KILLING MUSLIMS in Iraq, Pakistan and elsewhere. For some reason it is the UNITED STATES who must be blamed for allowing them to kill each other.
I believe that some of you are SUPREMACISTS. You seek to hold the United States accountable for its actions but can't find a way to blame Muslims for killing Muslims.
I have to conclude that some of you see them as SAVAGES. Thus when a "savage does as a savage is expected to do" there is no outrage.
Thus:
1) When America is claimed to have used "White Phosphorus" there is international outrage. When the Muslims use Chlorine bombs.....chemicals that have been banned on the battlefield since WW I these same critics are silent. They are just doing as expected after all.
2) When the US forces are accused of simulated flushing the Qu'ran down the toilet there is international condemnation of religious disrespect. When the Muslims are shown "destroying the Qu'ran".......and the Muslim who was carrying it as his body is blown to bits as he was carrying the book when departing from his prayers in the Mosque.....the usual suspects are quiet.
We all know what you all expect from the United States. Could you articulate for me WHAT YOU EXPECT FROM THE MUSLIMS?
We learn from AAPP that Muslims need an OPPRESSIVE FORCE to keep them down and not killing each other. I have little doubt that he is on the streets of America PROTESTING the brutal police men who operate within the Black community with these same assumptions about keeping down Blacks in order to keep down the violence.
Simply Amazing!!!!
"Besides, our troops are needed in PAKISTAN - the most dangerous place on Earth."
I hope you were being facetious there Rikyrah.
It would not be a good idea for the U.S. to march into Pakistan... a major military power in the region.
But if Musharraf is taken out either through coup or assasination, the U.S. would have some serious problems.
But as much as the radical Islamists worry me there, I doubt if they could take over at this point. For one, I don't think that the average Pakistani would stand for being ruled by a radical fundamentalist government. Although Pakistanis are devout Muslims and are largely anti-West...Anti-American, they do enjoy their independence. Pakistan is no Iran. This is why you see the rioting in the streets in Pakistan now... Musharaf attempted to get rid of a prominent Judge there...and the people got fed up with his attempts to control everything.
Secondly, The Pakistani Army....which has ruled Pakistan on and off since the country gained its independence from that other imperial power Great Britain, (I hope) would not allow radical Islamists to take control of the country or to gain control of its nuclear weapons. The Army there has usually always been more moderate, and sees its ultimate role as being sort of a trustee, the last line of defense guaranteeing the survival of the State.... especially from internal political threats. As long as the Pakistani Army is in tact, I think (& hope) we will be o.k.
CF,
You are comparing American slavery with Iraq under Saddam Hussein??????
Your comparison is irrational to say the least.
[quote]You are comparing American slavery with Iraq under Saddam Hussein?????? [/quote]
Angry - let us dissect my statement to see if this is the case.
First YOU Said -
[quote]The government of Saddam kept these factions from killing each other.[/quote]
Then I said
[quote]Next he is going to tell us that "American Slavery" keep the level of "Black on Black street crime" down.[/quote]
An objective viewer would not interpret that a COMPARISON between "Iraq and Slavery" has been made.
The CLEAR objective was to show that you were putting forth an "Ends justify the means" statement that did not make sense. Angry - have you watched the various documentaries about life in Iraq under Saddam that are out? I have the one's that I have viewed recorded and would be happy to share them with you if you would like.
Clearly the only people who think that Saddam's iron fist was a good thing in suppressing violence were the people who wore the glove of the iron fist. Where as today random violence and death in Iraq occurs because you are of a different sect...in the past under Saddam there was SYSTEMATIC violence and death coming from the hands of the Baath Party.
The only "benefit" that one could pervert out of a comparison in timeframes is that in the past you knew who was likely to kill or torture you where as today it is more random. You are dead none the less.
Let's not get sidetracked.
This is an important piece of Information.
The report claims that 10,000 Iraqi people die each month due to the conditions that the US Invasion has set forth.
I have been reporting that the period between the first Gulf War and the current War had 750,000 children and over 1.2 million people total having died due to the impact of the UN SANCTIONS. (PS: The left leaning organization ran by Ramsey Clarke has reported this information through the 1990s)
Why is it that ONLY NOW that this portion of the news (meaning the deaths during the war) is getting traction. What of this OTHER information BEFORE we were at a state of WAR?
Are there sanctions over Iraq today that limit their access to food, health care and the sale of oil? NO!!!!
Are there active attempts by the USA to keep hospitals closed? NO!!!
What is causing the current conditions in Iraq????
The Insurgents hate the presence of the United States forces more than they love their people living with food and health care. The presence of US forces does not justify them blowing up hospitals, mosques or killing other Muslims.
Some of you have been fighting the fight against George W. Bush while the insurgents are allowed to kill masses of innocents without fear of international condemnation. You are left to logically argue that all that they do is JUSTIFIED because the United States should not be there.
This assumes that these people have the best interests of the masses in Iraq in mind and if the US pulled out that they would operate in the best interests of the masses. Few examples can be provided to justify this claim.
The bulk of the Muslim people killed are killed by OTHER MUSLIMS in Iraq.
Post a Comment