100,000 Iraqis Dead. 1200 U.S. GIs Dead, 25,000 Wounded.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

...and I saw this book while browsing the shelves at my local Barnes and Noble yesterday.



Go to Buzzflash and read this editorial:

http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/04/11/edi04085.html

Bush's Guernica: The Executioner's Song

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

About two weeks ago, a study was released indicating that more than 100,000 Iraqis have been killed in Bush's War, according to the prestigious British medical journal "The Lancet" -- and the American media barely blinked.

If you don't know by now how many "liberated" Iraqis have been killed in the name of Bush's holy Christian Crusade against the "Infidels," that's because the mainstream media isn't going to let the bloody reality of the Iraq War interfere with their "narrative" that it is all about fighting terrorism.

Funny though, even Bush didn't claim we were invading Iraq to fight terrorists WITHIN Iraq. He ginned up the scare tactic that we were invading Iraq to protect the U.S. from Weapons of Mass Destruction (that didn't exist, of course). But terrorists themselves within Iraq, other than the evildoer Saddam, were not among the shifting reasons given Americans for the sacrifice of so many American lives. In fact, under Saddam, Iraq was a tyrannical, but secular society.

So the mainstream media follows "the battle against the Fallujah insurgents" with the same breathless pseudo reporting that marked its coverage of the first stages of the Iraq war, and the now disproven Bush lies about WMD's. No, you don't hear much about how many American GIs have been killed (now approaching 1200, but the figure is probably higher for reasons that BuzzFlash won't get into now) or wounded (estimated to be as high as 25,000), because that wouldn't serve the propaganda goals of the Bush cartel. And you certainly don't hear about the Iraqi Civilian death count, because that would demoralize Americans who are skittish to begin with about Bush's Guernica. In fact, the Pentagon won't release ANY figures about Iraqi casualties.

[Bluebear]

1. Remember, those 100,000 Iraqis were all terrorists

and remember 9/11 and and and moral values.

:shrug:

P.S. What a nauseating book!

[FM Arouet666]

2. Just the republican way of saying

Success. The first years of the Vietnam conflict did not cause this much death and destruction. I wonder where we will be after 10 years of this madness.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DieboldMustDie]

7. You neglected to mention that through most of the 1980s Hussein...

had the support of the Reagan and Bush administrations.

[FM Arouet666]

8. Interesting

Between 79' and 03', covering the period when the U.S. was suppling Saddam with weapons to kill the 700,000 Iranians you mention and a large number of Kurds which you did not. If Saddam was such a bad guy that necessitated this folly then we are morally negligent in not toppling him earlier, and even more negligent in supplying him with weapons.

Moreover, if it was such a moral imperative to defeat the tyrant why was this not the reason to attack Iraq from the outset. As I recall it was about WMD, which were never found.

Don't try to play the republican moral high ground, American policy was never about the tyrant, the deaths of innocents, it is about placing the U.S. into the middle east to control the political environment to ensure that we have cheap oil, and along the way earn a pretty penny for U.S. corporations.

[Dangerman]

9. Does killing 100,000 Iraqis...

In the span of 20 months is a way to free Iraqis from their "tyrant"?

I don't know is Iraq is better off, when now its' been tormented by an invading foreign army killing innocent men, women, and children under the guise of "democracy" and "freedom".

Get real kiwi6!

[Dangerman]

11. Oh, as for Afganistan...

The country is now "free" ruled by feuding warlords and heroin growers. Oh, and the Taliban is making a comeback.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[thebigidea]

18. you should set that to sappy strings or something

What a load of unmitigated horseshit. I'd love to see you take a short vacation in the newly minted paradise of Afghanistan... I'm told that Tora Bora is lovely this time of year.

The opium is to DIE for!

[Dangerman]

20. Reality check!

Afghanistan, post-Taliban is now the largest producer of Opium in east Asia, the women are still being raped by street thugs, veil or no veil, and Hamid Karzai has no power beyond the city limits of Kabul! It still a living hell out there. And the Tabilan is making a BIG comeback!

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FM Arouet666]

15. Not exactly

The UN is weak because nations like the U.S. do not support them. Lets be realists, the U.S. does not engage in conflicts which do not offer some greater benefit, be it political or monetary. Humanitarian benefit is never enough of a reason to engage in armed conflict. Your example of Sudan should speak volumes. Why is the U.S. not taking an active role in Sudan. Sudan's leaders are engaged in genocide, millions are in peril. The answer, the U.S. does not go to war for such trivial concerns. The Sudan has no oil, no political benefit, and those innocents you mention will pay the price with their lives. Iraq is no different, we did not go to war for humanitarian concern.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FM Arouet666]

19. What other governments are you referring too?

Chili, El Salvador, Panama, Vietnam etc. We have a history of meddling in the affairs of other nations with devastating effect.

As for the Balkans, I agreed with Clinton, there was a genocide occurring and as a "moral" country we should have acted. The GOP was against this action every step of the way.

As for Kuwait, we did stay, we stayed in Saudi Arabia. This was supposedly one of the reasons that Osama Bin Laden was disgusted with the U.S. In reality, did we defend Kuwait on humanitarian lines, or did we do so to gain favor in the middle east, again for the benefit of oil. Had Kuwait been a poor African country devoid of natural resources, would we have been involved?

This is not self-hatred, and I do not generally hate my own government. I am concerned when they take actions that are not fully reasoned. Sorry, to blindly follow with the notion that our leaders know best is to invite Holocaust.

[Dangerman]

24. Is OK to hate your own government...

Especially the current Neo-Nazi, Neocon administration.

[thebigidea]

21. so what's America's excuse for just sitting back and watching?

If the UN is weak, what does that make Bush?

I thought God spoke through him or something. Why doesn't he do something?

[Dangerman]

22. Those mass grave Saddam filled...

They were Iraqis "encouraged" by George H. W. Bush to try to overthrow Saddam with "U.S. support" back after the first Gulf War, then they have been DOUBLE-CROSSED by Bush and he did NOT sent one ounce of support to the Iraqis, and then they got slaughtered.

And by the way, George W. Bush is about to do atrocities and war crimes which are a hell of a lot worse than Saddam.

If you want me to show compassion to the Iraqi people, then think about this: how do you explain that the Iraqis are "better off without Saddam" when they and their families and friends got their heads blown off by our troops and our weapons, not to mention their country has been invaded and occupied by a foreign army?

How can you explain THAT?

[Forkboy]

13. "As good Democrats.."

uh huh :eyes:

[DemonFighterLives]

23. How can you be so smug?

With all of the death and destruction the B*sh Regime has wrought.
It makes Saddam look like an amateur. Yeah we'll shock and awe them right into peace and love. 500 lb bunker busters and cluster bombs have a way of making one tow the line.

[NickB79]

25. Did you even read the original article?

"So, by these figures, fifty thousand (50,000) Iraqis are
alive (and free) because of American policy."

Maybe you missed the part about our invasion KILLING 100,000 Iraqis, as reported by the Lancet. That means, if we wouldn't have invaded, there would be 50,000 MORE Iraqis alive today, not 50,000 less.

Even so, this entire argument is absurd because of numerous logical fallacies. First, your number of 600,00-1,000,000 Iraqis dead under Saddam's rule is highly misleading. Most of those that died under Saddam's rule were soldiers fighting in the Iran-Iraq war; Iraq lost 300,000+ soldiers in battle. Iraq also lost 100,000+ soldiers in the 1991 Gulf War. In 1992, Saddam did kill tens of thousands of Kurds and Shiites across Iraq, but only after the US promised them air support if they rose up to overthrow Saddam. The US pulled a Bay-of-Pigs on them, refused air support after the Kurds and Shiites started revolting, and they were slaughtered by Iraqi forces. Hundreds of thousands more died from starvation and disease as we imposed sanctions against them in the 1990's.

[Qanisqineq]

3. this is Bush's "culture of life"

those troops that died and are killing are part of his "armies of compassion". Whatever the hell all that means.

:puke:

[RPM]

4. It's hard work...

... killing so many people and iraqis

[Ilsa]

5. Now 1203 dead per icasualties.org

http://icasualties.org/oif/
at midnight, cst, 11/17/04

[joanne]

10. I better stay out of book stores

Think I would run out SCREAMING if I saw that trash.

[Technowitch]

17. Fucking sad.

that's all I can say.