A million people killed. Damn. How do you live with it?

[Bonobo]

A million killed in the most recent war in Iraq.

500,000 kids under 5 died as a result of Clinton's embargoes in Iraq.

Probably another 100,000 in Bush Sr.'s war there...

I knew the numbers already, but it is the kind of thing that leaves your mind for a while but when it comes back, it overwhelms you and eats away at you...

How do you live with it, as Americans (I am one too although I will never again live there). How does it not grow to be such a monstrous blot on your minds that you can no longer handle the hypocrisy of pointing the fingers at nations, like Japan, whose sins were done over 70 years ago, probably before your parents were even born? Or Israel who takes the lives of far, far fewer despite facing a threat that is far, far greater?

It is staggering, monstrous, a genocide... I wish it were not treated as "just another thing".

I guess I am just venting here, but I don't ever want to get to the point where it doesn't stagger me. I don't want to forget or let my children forget.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. Just hold your nose and forget the dead, the tortured, the maimed. It was "smart" politics.

Those who sought the war, voted for it, were just "Patriots under a lot of stress" and had to think about the next election.

[merrily]

15. God forbid the smart thing to do would have been to avoid all that carnage and spending.

In 2008, Hillary lost to someone who had at least spoken out against the war in Iraq (though it was not as big a risk for him at the time).

That loss sent a message to ambitious Democrats in the House and Senate, past, present and future. If Hillary gets the nomination next year, that message gets erased by a newer, louder, clearer message, as follows:

Whether Democrat or Republican, you can ravage the bodies of Americans and the US Treasury and one or more other nations for no good reason. It will likley enhance your short term image, with no adverse consequences your re-election or to your longer-term Presidential aspirations. Even if, by the time you run, one terrorist group after another has arisen as a direct or indirect result of that your error.

[Martin Eden]

103. Yep.

Every Dem who voted for the IWR in October 2002 forever lost my vote in a Democratic primary.

[Spider Jerusalem]

2. "One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic." - J. Stalin

[merrily]

17. One death is a tragedy. A million creates jobs.

[GliderGuider]

129. Bang on! nt

[merrily]

130. Thanks. I try.

[Art_from_Ark]

3. But Bush and Cheney presented convincing evidence!

And there was Powell's vial filled with powdered milk at the UN, dammit!

[merrily]

16. That even Susan Sarandon didn't buy, nor any Dem I know personally.

One horse puckie meme after another. It's beyond lame and beyond obvious.

[Art_from_Ark]

20. Even my Japanese boss didn't buy that heaping pile of happy horse manure

But the Japanese PM at the time apparently did, because I saw him on the TV going on and on in Parliament about "taryou hakai heiki" (weapons of mass destruction) while the left side of the aisle was groaning in disbelief.

[merrily]

25. We know the Japanese PM did because Japan is totally independent of us and politicians never fudge.

[Art_from_Ark]

65. Yeah, that was pretty funny, all right

The Japanese Foreign Minister in those days was pretty candid about her opinion of Bush:

"When I met him, my impression was that he is what Americans call an 'asshole'"

Her bullshit meter was perfectly calibrated.

[merrily]

68. As was her plain speak meter.

That's a priceless story, thank you.

[hughee99]

82. A bunch of Dems in congress bought it. Nt

[merrily]

94. Thing is, I am as sure as I humanly can be that they did not.

I believe they were afraid of looking weak or something.

[hughee99]

96. I agree, and in my opinion, that makes it

Even worse

[merrily]

97. exactly. "unless I let loose the horrific dogs of war, my image might suffer."

But there could been more to it than that. DLC and PPI were in favor of the invasion, too. Will Marshall even signed the PNAC letter. So the picture may have been bigger and we don't know why.. Just read a theory this morning about restricting the flow of oil so profits of the oil companies would increase, selling off or privatizing bits of Iraq.

Oil companies are forever saying oil prices are about supply and demand and nothing else. Meanwhile, they love restricting the supply.

I don't know if any of that is so. I just know you seldom go wrong in US politics if you "Follow the money."

[sabrina 1]

110. Some may have bought it, which means they weren't fit for that office, others though imo, supported

it. And then others thought it was the politically smart thing to do if they had political aspirations, then found out they read the political winds incorrectly in 2004 when they ran for the WH. Most of them apologized for that disastrous complicity with some of the most prolific and dangerous liars ever to gain power in this country.

[hughee99]

117. Who is less fit for office, the person who

Takes the president at their word, or the person that knows the president is lying but votes to sent troops to was because it's politically expedient for THEM? I'd argue that the people who knew better are much more dangerous.

[LittleBlue]

4. Thank you for this thread

It's important to keep their memory alive in the western world. Seems the media would rather forget this inconvenient moment in history.

[Yallow]

5. Does Our Species

Really deserve to exist?

I mean really.

If we're not killing for oil, we're killing for gold,
or Jesus, or Mohammed or a little more power.

At some point are we gonna evolve?

[Bonobo]

7. The thing is that other "civilized" nations are not doing it with impunity.

England, France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Portugal, Venezuela, Canada, Korea, Japan, Poland, you name it.

Pretty much it's just the U.S.

And we still DARE to wear that insufferably smug mantle of bright and shiny leader of the moral world.

[JI7]

8. didn't england and poland join the war in iraq ?

[Bonobo]

10. Yes, true. But they wouldn't have done it without us pulling them in. nt

[still_one]

55. That is an excuse? Sounds like the "I was only following orders" excuse

Europe was colonizing other countries for their resources for centuries

They have a lot of history, and a lot of blood on their hands. They don't get a pass

[whathehell]

76. Thank you..No, the Euros don't get a pass. n/t

[sabrina 1]

111. No it is not an excuse at all. Tony Blair is as much of a war criminal as our own criminals.

If the Europeans had said 'no', Bush/Cheney could not have committed this horrific crime. So I blame them equally as much as those who allowed it to happen here.

[still_one]

119. That is fine, though bush/cheney WOULD have invaded Iraq regardless. They said so. However, my

post was directed at the original OP which seemed to only point a finger at the U.S., and give Europe a free pass. The history of Europe has NOT been one of tolerance

[sabrina 1]

120. The history of Europe is one of brutal Imperial Colonialism. And now we are taking over where they

were forced to leave off, which is why they are more than willing to jump back on board using our military in an attempt to restore their former dominance over the non white world they once brutally oppressed.

[still_one]

131. We are on the same page

[bvf]

11. Got that right.

I want to vomit whenever I hear the phrase "American exceptionalism."

[Surya Gayatri]

14. This may be the hardest thing to reconcile...

'And we still DARE to wear that insufferably smug mantle of bright and shiny leader of the moral world.'

[whathehell]

77. I don't know who "we" is, but I have

neither preached that "leader of the moral world" bit or

believed it for years.

[bvf]

12. In a lot of ways,

we're still monkeys flinging poop.

As to your second question, all this old man can do is shake his head and think, "Give it time..."

[merrily]

18. We have. We've gone from fisticuffs and throwing stones to nuclear weapons and killer drones.

[Yallow]

6. How Many Children Would You Kill

For a barrel of oil?

[merrily]

23. Remind me: how many barrels of oil did we get from invading Iraq?

[Warren DeMontague]

27. The argument made here is that it wasn't so much about 'getting' the oil, as it had to do with

keeping it off the market.

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/the-iraqi-war-wasnt-waged-for-oil-greg-palast

Make of that, what you will.

[merrily]

33. Thanks. A lot of it did get destroyed. Word was the Arabs did it.

So much for the small profit cheney thought was possible from the invasion of Iraq.

In and out real quick, Iraqis hanging flowers around the necks of our troops (Dick must have thought we'd be invading Honolulu airport), a possiblity of a modest profit and leaving behind a populace with democracy and great relief and gratitude to us for ridding them of Saddam. And not a single news anchor fell off the chair laughing.

Who would not have voted to shove blood and treasure at that idyllic and totally believable war plan?



Cheney went way below his pay grade as VP. He should have been selling door to door.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. In regards to what you're talking about and the context of the upcoming primary season

it's a question I'd like to see addressed, too.

[merrily]

36. If you mean Hillary, it was addressed--just some months ago, coincidentally.

"I made a mistake. I made a mistake." After years of saying everything but that.

So she gets a mulligan. Too bad we don't get an mulligan on US and other coalition troops who got killed or injured and their loved ones, Iraq, Al Qaeeda Iraq, ISIL, the US Treasury.


I wonder if any moms of fallen troops heard her say her vote was a mistake and if so, what they did that moment? How many of that subset of the women's vote do you suppose she should or will get?

Now, she wants me to nominate her for Commander in Chief, the one person who decides when to go to Congress to ask for a war vote.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. Damn, I missed that.

Did not realize she had finally said the "m" word.

[merrily]

39. Yep. Finally, yet enough ahead of the primary roll out that it might not leap to mind now.

But, of course, despite my post, I don't believe in mulligans for war votes.

[KingCharlemagne]

121. And 'mistake' can mean many things. Please note that she has never apologized

to the people of this country or of the world, nor shown any remorse. In fairness, though, neither have John Kerry nor any of the other Democratic scalawags and demogogues who placed lust for power over allegiance to humanity. Remember that Gebhardt and Daschle made their Rose Garden konkordat with Bushie boy to take Iraq "off the table" before the 2002 mid-terms. Brilliant move, that!

Maybe all HRC meant by 'mistake' is that she miscalculated and it cost her the 2008 nomination.

[merrily]

123. Once you vote for a needless war that explodes a region and gives rise to new terrorist groups, etc.

what can you really say or do, 12 years later and counting, to fix that? I know of nothing. In fact, I'm not even sure "I made a mistake" helped.

Again, if you are the spouse or parent or sibling of someone who died or became severely disabled as a result of that war, doesn't her saying, "I made a mistake" make it even worse?

[KingCharlemagne]

124. HRC knew better at the time but she chose to place her ambition over humanity. That's

an unforgivable sin in my book. Does that make me a 'purist'?

[merrily]

128. They all knew better.

After it became clear what a mess it was, Biden was on one of the talking head shows going on about how bad Bush was. The host said, but Democrats authorized it.

Biden said, "na, na, na. We negotiated all kinds of safeguards and he ignored them."

So, I posted that on the board where I posted back in the day. A retired Republican lawyer replied, "Read the AUMF." So I did. The Republican poster was correct. Bush had not violated it. There was some verbiage Democrats could point to, but it did not impede Bush. Based on that and Biden's comment, I conclude they had negotiated for semi-plausible deniability.

Colin Powell, too. He clearly knew as well and covered his ass, so he could point it out later.

At the time, Powell polled high with Americans for credibility. So, he was the pick. UN would be televised. That was not to convince nations to send their youth to war. That was to convince American viewers there was some basis for the war.

When asked about the war later, Powell did the same thing Bush tried to get away with, namely, blaming Tenet. Powell said he (Powell) had made sure Tenet sat right behind him at the UN, right in camera range. And of course, as Powell spoke the program dutifully aired video of Powell talking, with Tenet sitting behind.

Now, imagine Powell believing 100% that war with Iraq was absolutely necessary because the threat was real. Why would Powell make sure Tenet sat behind him, in camera range? Sounded to me as though Powell knew the shaky rational might hit the fan some day. If so, he would have video evidence that Tenet was behind it, literally and figuratively. (WTF? As if Powell couldn't just say, Tenet assured us, with no video?)
And, of course, the host never mentioned the story sounded fishy.

I can still see Powell at the UN, waving pipes around as he spoke. I remember a reporter interviewing two ambassadors to the UN afterward, as they were walking. France and another country. The reporter asked if they would be joining the coalition. They said no. The reporter said "Weren't you impressed with the presentation?"

The two ambassadors eyed each other. One suppressed a smile. The French ambassador said in a drawn out and exaggerated manner, "Oh, yeaaaahhhhh." Then they both looked at each and laughed. They had kept walking the whole time. So, the interview ended when the reporter stopped trying to keep with them.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. We almost never hear about it, do we.

Last edited Thu Apr 16, 2015, 05:42 AM - Edit history (1)

I mean, that's deliberate and it dates back to the 1st gulf war, when we carpet bombed that highway full of troops, killing how many tens of thousands in a day or so?

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/08/the-war-photo-no-one-would-publish/375762/

Leaving aside rationales for and debates about the reasons for the war(s), sanctions, the rest... I am a believer that, as William Burroughs put it, the lunch should be naked. Namely, everyone should know exactly what is on the end of his or her fork.

We do, I think, have a right (added: and a responsibility) to know as a people what is done in our name. We let that get away after Vietnam, deliberately. I think it is important as a check against moral certitude and black and white thinking.

[BeanMusical]

19. ...

[merrily]

24. Which war did Barbara Bush start, again?

[BeanMusical]

29. I never implied that she started any war.

My post was about the people who don't want to hear about the realities of war and the media that keep us from seeing the consequences of war.

[merrily]

35. Like all those in Congress who did that when theyvoted to start the Iraq War without a clue how to

end it?

[merrily]

69. Delayed reaction:

Government and media have made wars invisible to most people, from not providing twice nightly (at least) news coverage, not making it a frequent topic on talk shows, etc. Ending the draft also took away a lot of active opposition to war. As far as those of us who are not serving and have no loved one currently serving, the war almost does not exist.

I noted that after the Iraqi invasion. After a certain point, it was almost like a TV blackout.

When the Today show came on the Friday of the first Memorial Day after the invasion, I heard a helicopter whirring. I thought to myself, at last: news of the war.

As it turned out, that was Matt Lauer in an NBC helicopter, getting an aerial view of traffic around NYC, so he could report to those beginning their automotive escapes from the greater metropolitan area. My jaw dropped.

Not an iota or news about the war, though I think the show that day may have included a feel good conversation or two between a member of the Armed Forces overseas in a loved one back home.

Can't fault La la la Babs too much.

[Warren DeMontague]

26. Right, precisely.

[LuvNewcastle]

32. So many Americans don't give it a second thought.

I've found out how to shut up a conservative, or even some 'liberals.' Ask them if they know that a million Iraqis died during the war. It ought to make all of us sick to think about it, but I think most of us don't really give a shit. America is fucking scary.

[yeoman6987]

78. I asked a few right wing coworkers and their answer.....

That's all? I thought it would have been higher.

[bvar22]

132. When I ask,

I usually get a response of ,
"So what. They are all Muslim Raghead terrorists. We need to kill MORE to keep America safe."

"We gotta fight them THERE so we don't have to fight them here."

(Now WHERE have I heard THAT before?)

[struggle4progress]

13. If you want to stop this sort of thing, you'll need to stop being staggered,

because a rather steel-eyed realism and a real dedication to analysis is required to understand the conditions accurately

Moral outrage alone is insufficient, although a certain moral outrage may help motivate the needed analysis

The Vietnam war caused at least a million and a half civilian casualties and perhaps more than twice that many



Public opinion in the US turned against the war by 1968 but US involvement continued for seven years more. Once the machinery is in motion, enormous institutional inertia and powerful economic forces keep everything moving in the same direction. Much more than mere individual outrage is needed

[Bonobo]

22. I have one good way to begin to stop it.

Make a baseline demand that those who perpetuate war will never receive my vote.

Not much, but if everyone did that, wars would indeed disappear eventually.

How's that for clear vision.

[struggle4progress]

37. Maybe you should read up on the 1912 Basel Congress: the members of the Second International

swore up and down they'd go back home and organize the working classes against the war that was coming -- and instead, as their countries moved towards war, they almost all decided patriotism trumped their anti-war sentiments, so the Second International collapsed and war engulfed Europe

Nobody much remembers it -- but Germany erupted spontaneously in revolution at the end of WWI. The centrist SPD then sided with rightwingers to restore ordinary government rule, and the SPD split. The KPD then emerged as a political party, and the KPD made a point of never forgiving the SPD for siding against the German revolutionaries: this was understandable, I suppose, but it ultimately meant that there was no possibility later for a united front against the NSDAP, when it clawed its way to power

About thirty years later, in Nazi-ruled Germany, Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote a very informative essay ("After Ten Years&quot detailing the inadequacies of various psychological approaches his contemporaries adopted in order to deal with life under Nazi rule

We cannot solve our problems by shooting magic silver bullets: no such magic bullets exist

Politics is all about organization; and successful politics involves forming expedient alliances that may necessarily shift with shifting conditions

Abstract principles can provide useful stars by which we set our general course; but the sea is subject to gales and waves that cannot be ignored

[Bonobo]

41. I can see you have worked hard to rationalize you position and I respect that.

I'll stick with my principals on this issue however.

[struggle4progress]

50. In his essay, Bonhoeffer quite rightly points out that one has an obligation

to be effective, and he discusses a number of ways people choose to salve their own psychology instead: exhausting oneself by attempting to persuade others by pure reason; taking heroic one-man-stands of conscience; resigning oneself to doing his/her "patriotic duty" &c&c

[sabrina 1]

109. Yes, we do have that obligation. What are you doing to meet it, assuming you are as horrified as

most Dems have been from the time the first Iraqi was murdered by Bush's criminal administration.

I see how I can be effective, by not supporting anyone who participated in allowing the Criminal Bush Gang to get it started.

So I'm asking you, 'will you join me and others in not supporting anyone to gain the power to do something like this again, who played any role in allowing this atrocity to happen'?

I ask people to join me on a regular basis because there is strength in numbers. I want the criminals prosecuted even if it has to be post mortem, and I do not want leaders who supported this genocide.

So, I have done my part for today, thanks for giving me the opportunity, how about it, are you willing to join those of us who are meeting that obligation?

[betsuni]

47. I love your comments. Thank you.

[merrily]

62. Wars against other nations don't start from the bottom up.

Maybe the French Revolution did, or not. History gets romanticized. The American revolution certainly did not start because of poor people or ok off farmers. In any case a revolution is different from a war against another country.


The hoi polloi has to be propagandized or otherwise ginned into that.

But we are not talking 1912 and we remember how the Iraq War started. Not from the bottom up, by any stretch.

[merrily]

28. Yes, clearly, government does not respond quickly to public opinion, if at all,

unless public opinion happens to coincide with what government came to for other reasons or present a clear and present danger to the personal ambitions of enough members of government. And that last seldom occurs, if ever, anymore because of the LOTE voting dilemma ot the "two" party system

And that is far from a small part of the frustration.

[struggle4progress]

44. There is no one such thing as "government" here, so it is unlikely to figure prominently

in useful analysis

What is needed at each moment is a detailed examination of who wants war and why: the reasons of some may be simply be greed for war profits; others might see war as an opportunity for their own advancement in various ways; some might be motivated by slogans they learned in their childhood; and still others may have principled and perhaps even sound reasons for thinking war necessary

There's no simple way to obtain insight into the actual situation at any time other than the hard work of gathering detailed facts and studying them; and there's no way to fight back at any moment other than the hard work of attempting to organize opposition with a willingness to regroup and try something more sophisticated after every loss

[Bonobo]

45. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Millions protested the war. Didn't matter because the wrong people were in power.

So.... make sure it doesn't happen again.

Next aphorism: The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

[struggle4progress]

52. There was nothing wrong with protesting the war, but it proved ineffective

The next question should have been, What are we doing wrong and what should we try next? And when the next attempts failed, the question should have been asked again, and a new answer given on the basis of what we had learned so far. And when THAT failed, we should have bounced back, dusted ourselves off, and re-evaluated our analysis again

We can say, I think, with almost one-hundred-percent certainty, that we'll face the same issues in the not-so-distant future, that we'll try the same things we've tried before, and that once again they won't work. Of course, the question should then be, What are we doing wrong and what should we try next? We won't become effective until we begin learning in a scientific manner from our mistakes

[bvar22]

98. Ineffective in that it didn't stop the war,

...but the massive protests DID let the World know that the USA is not all Warmongers,
and that we had lost representation in our government.

I am GLAD I protested every chance I had.
I don't feel I was ineffective at all.

[KingCharlemagne]

125. As the war dragged on and our defeat started looming ever larger, my protest tactics

evolved from attending large demos in downtown Los Angeles (in 2002-03) to vigiling twice and thrice-weekly in my local neighborhoods of Westwood, Venice, Palms and Mar Vista at the time (2003-08). I personally saw sentiment turn sharply against the war as it dragged on. Went from being physically and verbally assaulted at its inception to being treated like a hero by 2008.

Hell yes, the protests were effective (although I question whether the mass demos on Saturdays in downtown LA and Hollywood had much effect aside from the proverbial 'preaching to the converted'). Local vigils were and are highly effective. At one point there were over 100 such local vigils occurring weekly in Southern California, from Malibu and Santa Monica all the way to Riverside County. There was actually a 'Vigil Congress' that I attended twice, a sort of vigil coordinating committee. It was very cool.

[merrily]

46. As to war, the two such things as goverment here are Congress and the President.

What is needed at each moment is a detailed examination of who wants war and why: the reasons of some may be simply be greed for war profits; others might see war as an opportunity for their own advancement in various ways; some might be motivated by slogans they learned in their childhood; and still others may have principled and perhaps even sound reasons for thinking war necessary

If that is indeed what is needed--and I am not so sure it is not already known--some government agency, some think tank, some political party or whatever, should be doing that "at each moment." Not people with one or two day jobs, plus a host of other responsibilities.

Going back to lack of responsiveness by government to public opinion, I have no idea to make that happen. If you do, please tell us.

[struggle4progress]

48. Congress consists of 535 distinct persons, whose views are not entirely homogeneous

[merrily]

60. I know, but no idea how that relates to your suggestions for how to get

someone other than DUers on that moment to moment study you think is necessary.

[sabrina 1]

112. If there is no way to fight back, then how on earth are people supposed to keep that obligation to

'be effective' in opposing those who do such terrible deeds? Didn't you just post that we have that obligation?

Do you think there was any way anyone, especially any Democrat, could possibly have a 'principled stand' on a war that was against THE WRONG COUNTRY and surely they are not so stupid they didn't know what the average person did at least on the left and based on obvious LIES by some of the most deceptive, rotten human beings we've seen in power in this country in most of our lifetimes?

I disagree, there IS a way to not only fight back, but to ensure it doesn't happen again. That would be to never support anyone for a powerful position who in any way participated in allowing it to happen. People of conscience do, as you said already, have that obligation.

[bvar22]

133. +++ I'm with you.

Support for unnecessary WARS (or "interventions&quot should be an immediate disqualifier
for holding office.

Did you realize that NO Congressman or Senator who voted AGAINST the AUMF was appointed to a position in Obama's cabinet or other position of power or authority?
Warmongers ONLY allowed next to the president.

[sabrina 1]

142. No I didn't really notice that, though I did notice that were an awful lot of Republicans in

powerful positions, particular in the two most important parts of the government as far as the Globalists are concerned, Economics and Defense.

So we take a lesson from them and refuse to support anyone who did not support US.

The people must start developing strategy to get what they want.

These criminals pay for strategy putting the people at a disadvantage.

Now imo, it's time for the people to hire their own Think Tanks if necessary, to infiltrate THEIR 'places' the way they have infiltrated ours.

There are more of us than there are of them. And that is what worries them, that if the people were ever to unite against them, they would be gone.

Which is a major reason they hated OWS with its non political/partisan strategy. Can't have t hat, they need to 'divide' in order to stay in power.

[RandiFan1290]

21. They count their money!!

[B Calm]

30. Evil Sith Lord Dick Cheney will go to hell.

[Bonobo]

31. Oh god how I long for the days when I could tell myself it was just "him" and "them".

Then...I woke the fuck up.

[merrily]

42. I hear that! What in hell was I thinkin'?

Last edited Thu Apr 16, 2015, 06:46 AM - Edit history (1)

Address to the Nation on the Invasion of Iraq (January 16, 1991)



George H. W. Bush


Just 2 hours ago, allied air forces began an attack on military targets in Iraq and Kuwait. These attacks continue as I speak. Ground forces are not engaged.

This conflict started August 2d when the dictator of Iraq invaded a small and helpless neighbor. Kuwait—a member of the Arab League and a member of the United Nations—was crushed; its people, brutalized. Five months ago, Saddam Hussein started this cruel war against Kuwait. Tonight, the battle has been joined.

much more at:

http://www.millercenter.org/president/speeches/speech-3428

transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

much more at:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

more at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026211673



Senate vote on 2002 AUMF at:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s237



House vote on 2002 AUMF at:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hjres114

10:16 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.

On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. More than 35 countries are giving crucial support -- from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense.

more at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html

[jberryhill]

58. Yes, if we rid the world of evil people, we'll have peace

That type of thinking goes places.

[msanthrope]

63. If we round them up into one place, it will be easier to know who they are. nt

[sabrina 1]

106. How about we just prosecute our own lying war criminals and keep our noses out of other people's

business. You know, lead the way by example. Let the world see that War Criminals WILL pay for their crimes.

One million human beings. It's hard to even fathom that number of human lives and the impact on those who loved them.

Iraqis ARE human beings, just like we are. Just wanted to say that. I know many in this country do not view them as human.

'Treat the Iraqis like dogs' - US General Miller to his troops.

'We don't do body counts - Unless they are our bodies'.

It is shameful that this genocide took place and nothing has been done about it, yet.

But what gives me hope that something will, one day, be done about it is watching the war crime trials in South America where some of Henry Kissingers old buddies after over 50 years, are being held accoutable.

Our criminals will be gone in 50 years most of them, but they can be tried post mortem and condemned by history. Old Dick Cheney worries about his legacy. He should, history has a way of sorting things out.

[Martin Eden]

104. I wrote this poem for Bush/Cheney when they left office:

What I'd like to say to their face, if I could:


I'd tell you to go fuck yourself
But that is much too kind
Because if you could perform that feat
You'd take pleasure in your behind

I'd like to say eat shit and die
But you deserve much more
Should should suffer all the grief and pain
Of your misbegotten war

Though I can never make you think
Or feel, or understand
I'll take solace when you hear your name
Cursed throughout the land

From inside a lonely prison cell
Dark and bare and cold
Where every day you pay for your crimes
Until you're sick, heartbroken, and old

Then when you finally leave the earth
You fucked over oh so well
If there is a God and afterlife
You're going straight to hell

[Mike Nelson]

40. Sad, but...

...no reason to vote Republican.

[merrily]

43. You know this is a PRIMARY and no one is talking about reasons to vote Republican, right?

How many times has that been posted here now, when it had zero relevance to anything anyone had posted?

No one's supposed to notice?

And a merry "Supreme Court" and a very happy and prosperous "say hello to President Cruz" to you, too.

[FiveGoodMen]

99. Whose straw man are you trying to beat up, there?

[nomorenomore08]

113. Strawman. But it's also no reason not to vote at all. n/t

[liberal N proud]

51. You paint and hunt sometimes shooting your hunting partner

[Cali_Democrat]

53. Forgive me for saying this, but

I agree with you 100%, but this is hard to read coming from someone (you) who supports Israeli apartheid policies against Palestinians in the ME.

Do you renounce Israeli apartheid and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians?

[merrily]

54. I know you don't mean this, but that seems like an attempt to hijack this thread or get it locked

after a few more posts as IP and therefore off topic for GD.

[Cali_Democrat]

56. I definitely don't think this thread should be locked. Not at all....but I'll say this...

When I fist joined DU, I really liked the OP's posts.

But then when it came to Israeli apartheid policies, I was disturbed. It was especially evident during the war against Gaza in 2014.

I just want clarification.

[merrily]

57. IP or pms seems like the place for you to get that clarification.

This thread is not about you and the OP or about IP. A lot of people have been having a completely different, on topic, discussion than the off topic you are seeking to start.

It's now starting to seem like an intentional hijack, at the least. And, you know if the OP gets locked out of this GD thread for any reason, that, too, locks the thread.

[still_one]

61. You are right, it is unusual. I don't think most folks, when they read a thread go

looking for the background of the OP so they can point out what they consider the OPs inconsistencies.

I would venture that most people are not consistent, that is, one size fits all, or everything is either black or white. That just isn't the way of human nature.

[Bonobo]

64. I don't support Israel's apartheid policies.

That was easy.

[Cali_Democrat]

93. During the invasion of Gaza last year, you created an OP justifying it

I'm not going to link to it, but you essentially argued it was necessary for Israel to invade Gaza because of the rocket attacks.

I'm glad you've changed your position and you seem to now oppose Israel's occupation of Palestinian land.

Otherwise, you would come across as a hypocrite.

[Bonobo]

100. That has nothing to do with apartheid issues.

Building walls, etc. and other issues of that sort I am in opposition too.

It is complex.

[Cali_Democrat]

107. If you're opposed to apartheid, then.....

you should support granting citizenship to all Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza. They should have the right to vote in Israeli elections since Israel will not allow them to have their own country.

They should have political rights. The same rights that were denied to black South Africans under that apartheid regime. If they are not given political rights or their own country, a state of apartheid exists.

It's amazing how similar Israel is to apartheid South African govt.

Also, you should support the tearing down of all walls in the West Bank and Gaza. No checkpoints, etc.

Everyone should be meshed together.

[Bonobo]

108. I would be happy to discuss this with you

in another thread or by PM if you like.

[JaneyVee]

59. wut?

[Javaman]

66. we have forgotten about the millions killed in North Viet Nam...

during that war.

we are a nation of short attention spans.

we have forgotten about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

we have forgotten about Dresden and Hamburg.

we have forgotten about the firebombing of Toyko.

we have forgotten about the Somme.

Shall I go on?

[bvar22]

135. We are also responsible for the rise of Pol Pot in Cambodia,

...so you can add those millions of Cambodians to our death tally,
and only gawd knows how many Laotians we killed carpet bombing their country in a failed attempt to stop the The Ho Chi Minh Supply Trail.

I haven't seen a tally for the number of cancer deaths due to spraying Monsanto's Agent Orange over 1/2 the country. (BTW: Monsanto said Agent Orange was safe too).

That is a lot of death. Not quite up in the Hitler or Stalin range, but significant World Class Mass Murders.

[Orsino]

67. Our leaders have to do terrifying arithmetic to avoid being portrayed as weak.

We have to take on quite a bit of the blame ourselves, however, because we are the reason "weak" is so successful as a spurious political attack.

[merrily]

70. No thanks. Democratic peons like me didn't berate anyone for being "doves," only for being

hawks and/or chickenhawks. We've called and written and marched and called and demonstrated until we were blue in the face, no pun intended. I never voted to start a war or declared war, either.

Republicans were the ones who made a meme of Democrats being "weak" on defense."

Democrats could have launched a propaganda defensive and offensive of their own. They have tons of money to do that, plus strategists, etc. "We" don't. Plus, it's their day job, not ours. And the facts were with them. World War I, Democratic President. World War II, Democratic President. Korean War. Democratic President. Getting us involved in Vietnam and escalating, Truman through LBJ. And so on. More Democrats in Congress had actually been to war than Republicans. So, why sit down and shut up when accused of being weak?

Instead, New Democrats decided that their path to success lay in appointing Republican Secretaries of War Defense and sounding tough.

As for me, I am non violent, which, IMO, requires the greatest strength. Most fighting I've done in my life has been on this board and I am not always proud of that.


Caught me on the wrong day. Some days, I am very willing to blame "us." Today's not that day for that, though. (Tomorrow's not looking too good, either.)

[Orsino]

73. It is us, too, if to a lesser extent.

Our candidates feel they have to posture like hawks even when wooing Democrats.

Those of us at the progressive end of the spectrum, especially those who lobby energetically for peaceful solutions, aren't the problem.

[merrily]

74. "Our candidates feel they have to posture like hawks even when wooing Democrats."

They do? What makes you say that? One of the major reasons Bubba thought Obama was beating Hillary in 2008 was her war vote versus his 2002 anti war speech.

And what did we do that made them feel that way? It was Third Way type Democratic think tanks that favored the Iraq War, not us.

[nomorenomore08]

114. The Third Way controls too much of the party, and has for a long time. There's your answer. n/t

[merrily]

116. Maybe, but that was a top down thing. It wasn't that hawkish Democratic voters pressured

Democratic dove politicians to hawk it up or lose their votes. It was DLC and its offshoots supporting Bush re: invading Iraq. And that sure backfired on Hillary in 2008. I hope it does again next year.

Anyway, if the base is now hawkish it was top down. So, again, I politely decline to blame us.

[Rex]

71. Sorry, but some are far more concerned with how to make the rich get even richer.

They don't have time for this stuff! Deaths mean nothing to them, just some far away place...I promise you they don't care one iota.

[ScreamingMeemie]

72. You label it "collateral damage" and act like it didn't happen.

Because... freedom, baby!

[raouldukelives]

75. With the knowledge I did what little I could to stop it.

That I didn't personally profit from nor assist those who did. That all I can control. My time, my money, my labor wasn't represented in the calls for war or in the act itself.

[spanone]

79. cheney wears it like a badge of honor

[seabeyond]

80. white men ruling from oh, the beginning of time. mass murders, slavery, ....

how do we live with it.

you know. lots, live with it.

[NM_Birder]

83. is that

^A^L^L ^W^H^I^T^E ^M^E^N, ^O^R ^J^U^S^T ^R^E^P^U^B^L^I^C^A^N ^W^H^I^T^E ^M^E^N ^?

[seabeyond]

84. you can figure out history, yourself. nt

[NM_Birder]

86. clever. and a little racist.

[seabeyond]

88. ??? you are accusing me of being racist? then explain HOW i am being racist.

instead of a accusation thrown against a wall.

[bravenak]

127. He is the pot in this pot/kettle thing.

I remember him calling me racist too. He's very concerned about reverse racism.

[NM_Birder]

87. Pol Pot was white ? huh, that what you figured ?

[seabeyond]

89. in a nation that was not white, he was a man.... right? this is not rocket science shit.

[Bonx]

90. Agreed that the narrative you are pursuing is not any kind of science.

[seabeyond]

91. no. that would simply be history, lol. nt

[nomorenomore08]

115. White men in power. Or simply men in power, more broadly. n/t

[YoungDemCA]

136. Thank you. This OP is very curious, *especially* considering the source

I smell a sly attempt to divide DU. Can't have a woman President, supportive of women's issues and civil rights for minorities, and a feminist as well as a Democrat, no less. That would be akin to a "War on Men."

As far as war and mass murder go-where was the OP when war, colonialism, imperialism, slavery, human trafficking, rape, murder, genocide, and similar such things were all done-and to a significant extent, continue to be done-in the name of hetero-normative, white male supremacy? Complaining about a "war" on men, that's where.

[seabeyond]

137. excellent. yes. and thank you, back at you for dotting the i's and crossing the t's. nt

[bvar22]

143. History Lesson:

White Men have NOT ruled since the beginning of time.
In fact, it was fairly late in our Human History before "White Men" ruled anything.
There were at least a dozen or so Non-White Empires that "Ruled the World" long before White Men emerged.
Some of these Empires were ruled by women,
who proved to be no less warlike and cruel as their male counterparts.
Check you History Books.

No Charge.

[Octafish]

81. Money trumps peace.

Too bad about all that collateral damage.

Oh well. On to Tehran. I mean, Kiev! Then, Moscow!

Time is money.

[JEB]

85. Lady Macbeth:

Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!—One; two: why, then
'tis time to do't.—Hell is murky.—Fie, my lord, fie, a soldier, and
afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our
pow'r to accompt?—Yet who would have thought the old man to
have had so much blood in him?
Macbeth Act 5, scene 1

[seabeyond]

95. who are "they"?

[Octafish]

118. Post says right there, babs bush and her clan.

"They" are the people Cheney and his chums work for. The BFEE. They lied America into war and still walk free.

Know your BFEE: Bush has Killed a Million Innocent People for Their Oil.

The Iraqi people had nothing to do with September 11.



Yet, they committed the "sin" of living on top of the Bush Crime Family’s precious oil.

And like all who get close to the drunken cheerleader, they must pay the price.

Poll: Civilian toll in Iraq may top 1M

A British survey offers the highest estimate to date. At least 4 die in a Sadr City car bombing.

By Tina Susman
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

September 14, 2007

BAGHDAD — -- A car bomb blew up in the capital's Shiite Muslim neighborhood of Sadr City on Thursday, killing at least four people, as a new survey suggested that the civilian death toll from the war could be more than 1 million.

The figure from ORB, a British polling agency that has conducted several surveys in Iraq, followed statements this week from the U.S. military defending itself against accusations it was trying to play down Iraqi deaths to make its strategy appear successful.

The military has said civilian deaths from sectarian violence have fallen more than 55% since President Bush sent an additional 28,500 troops to Iraq this year, but it does not provide specific numbers.

According to the ORB poll, a survey of 1,461 adults suggested that the total number slain during more than four years of war was more than 1.2 million.

ORB said it drew its conclusion from responses to the question about those living under one roof: "How many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003?"

Based on Iraq's estimated number of households -- 4,050,597 -- it said the 1.2 million figure was reasonable.

CONTINUED...

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg...

A million innocent people. Those are NAZI numbers.



Yet that doesn't stop Wall Street from cheerleading for the crazy monkey.

The Turning Point

War In Iraq

September 14, 2007: 08:05 PM EST
Investor's Business Daily delivered by Newstex

Years from now, people will look back on last week as truly historic. It began with Gen. David Petraeus' fact-filled account of our success on the ground, and it ended with President Bush making the case, stronger than ever, for finishing the job.

Petraeus' detailed report seems particularly damning to those who oppose our mission in Iraq. Clearly, a major change has occurred there. Petraeus' words make it clear al-Qaida is on the run. Yes, he confirmed, we're winning -- and he backed up his conclusion with facts. Among them:

"Security incidents" since the surge began in mid-June have fallen in eight of the past 12 weeks. Attacks in the past two weeks were the lowest since April 2006.

Civilian deaths, excluding natural causes, have plunged 45% in Iraq since December, and by a whopping 70% in Baghdad.

"Ethnosectarian" deaths -- basically, deaths resulting from Sunni-Shiite-Kurdish religious and ethnic strife -- have plummeted 55% in the same period.

Attacks in once-deadly Anbar Province are off 85% -- from 1,350 in October 2006, during the peak of violence there, to just over 200 in August. This is due to the U.S. "hearts and minds" campaign to win Sunnis over to the war against al-Qaida.

U.S. troops have captured the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, killed or captured almost 100 other terrorist leaders, and killed or captured 2,500 fighters over the past eight months.

CONTINUED...

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/IB...

What a load of hooie.



The Military-Industrial Complex runs on petroleum.

It has since the dawn of mechanized armies.

OIL - Modern WAR GOD Threatens the World

Black gold, precious underground liquid, is food for the modern war machine. Deprived of it, a nation’s military campaign is threatened with failure. Will oil become an instrument to enforce peace or to cause war?

WITHIN the last few decades, oil has changed from an almost unknown and unnecessary commodity to one of the world’s most vitally needed materials. Oil, unlike nitroglycerin, has always been an innocent, viscous fluid used for lubrication and fuel. But harmless petroleum, like Dr. Jekyll, has undergone a startling transformation. Oil may yet be the means whereby the flaming torch of war is carried across the world.

Behind this strange tale of oil lies history’s most spectacular conflict and the interlacing network of European diplomacy. The Ethiopian campaign of Italy, the advancement of science, agreements among world powers— these factors seem in a fair way to change petroleum from a respectable citizen of the economic world to a brigand and an outlaw or an enforcer of peace.

In Ethiopia is now being waged a battle between modern military tactics and ancient cunning—a struggle between scientific mechanism of war on one hand and terrific natural obstacles combined with native guerrilla warfare on the other. Italy’s 300,000 fighting men in East Africa are attempting to close in on the wild domain of Ethiopia’s King of Kings and his barefooted tribesmen. But without oil and its by-products the men of Mussolini would fail.

Italy’s soldiers embarked from their homeland in troopships that burned oil. Italy’s warships, which safeguard her position in the Mediterranean, fuel with oil. Her motorized artillery, her trucks, her tanks—all these depend completely on oil and gasoline. Nor can Il Duce’s planes make bombing sorties over the Ethiopian wilderness without these essential petroleum products. Mussolini’s whole scheme of war is built around oil—and Italy, the poorest of major powers in natural resources, has no oil of her own.

Italy’s strength—her superior machinery of war—is also her weakness. It makes her utterly dependent on oil—oil which she must buy from other nations. And her supply of oil is now imperilled by the threat of sanctions which may be imposed by other powers.

CONTINUED…

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/04/28/oil-modern-wa...

That was in the 1930s.

Air Force and Navy flyers still need a full tank to deliver a full bomb load.

And war is still the most profitable racket there is.

Unfortunately, the good men and women of the United States military didn't sign up so Exxon could pocket $100 million a day.

These brave men and wdomen signed up to defend, protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States -- a very different thing, from the perspective of We the People. And "We the People" as in "Democracy" is who "They" consider their real enemy.

[seabeyond]

141. No. i do not think he was referring to babs and the repugs.

[Scootaloo]

101. I can't live with it, but I know why others can

A majority of Americans simply do not perceive people in the middle east as having any right to live.

[woo me with science]

102. K&R. NO more corporatists and warmongers.

The bloody, predatory, profit-mongering corruption in our name must end.

NOTHING is more important than making sure that corporatists in both parties don't get away with narrowing our choices to Corporate Puppet A (R) and Corporate Puppet B ("D&quot

[Zorra]

105. Please understand. There is a THIRD WAY of looking at what is important

in this world. Business, the well being and bottom line for corporations, is far more important than human life.

And this THIRD WAY of looking at reality totally sucks for children everywhere.

Big time.

[KingCharlemagne]

122. Iraq is a drop in the bucket. 50 years ago, we killed 2-3

million southeast Asians in a little place called Vietnam (Cambodia, Laos). One architect of that slaughter (Kissinger) has been photographed embracing an enabler of the Iraq slaughter (HRC). So what's past is prologue.

[Mira]

126. IF I think on it much

I will surely go mad.

[hifiguy]

134. Shit, HRC's best friend

whom she called, in print. a "defender of human rights," (do not EVER forget that quote, folks) war criminal Henry Kissinger, personally racked up responsibility for several times that many deaths. Vietnam, Chile, East Timor, the hit list goes on and on.

[dumbcat]

138. Approximately 160,000 people die every day

and I can't stop any of them.

[YoungDemCA]

139. How, you ask?

I don't know, maybe the same way that we have to deal with white male supremacy and its relatives: racism, sexism, war, colonialism, imperialism, genocide, hetero-normativity...shit, not to mention the the entire ideology of "Men's Rights Activism" that thankfully no one here subscribes to -right, OP? Right?

[EX500rider]

140. "A million people killed. Damn. How do you live with it?"

I neither approved of, nor helped so I live with it OK.

Also about 150,000 people die everyday worldwide, only about 100,000 from natural causes, so about 50,000 people die everyday in tragic circumstances-war, murder, accidents ect... That's a million people every 20 days....