250,000 dead Iraqi CIVILIANS - had enough??

[welshTerrier2]

each day, my hatred grows for those who will not stand with those of us who opposed the war before it began and are fighting for an OUT NOW position ... party politics doesn't mean much to dead Iraqis and their families ... they need help TODAY ... not in year ... not in 2008 ... not in 2009 ...

that's a quarter of a million dead people ... it's unimaginable ... and still we fund bush's war ... a real opposition would have shut the government down long ago and stopped the bastards ...

source: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11674.htm

U.S. invasion responsible deaths of over 250,000 civilians in Iraq

The invasion of Iraq in March 2003 by U.S.-led coalition forces has been responsible for the death of at least 150,000 civilians (not including certain of Iraq), reveals a compilitation of scientific studies and corroborated eyewitness testimonies.

The majority of these deaths, which are in addition those normally expected from natural causes, illness and accidents, have been among women and children, documents a well-researched study, that had been released by The Lancet Medical Journal. The report in the British journal is based on the work of teams from the Johns Hopkins University and Columbia University in the U.S., and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. <skip>

The most common cause of death is as a direct result of a worsening 'culture of violence', mostly caused by indiscriminate U.S. co-ordinated air strikes, and related military interventions, reveals the study of almost 1000 households scattered across Iraq. And the risk of violent death just after the invasion was 58 times greater than before the war. The on-going American Occupation has also created worsened civil strife as well as mass environmental destructions and related public health problems that is associated with American bomb-related released radioactive and other life-threatening pollutions. The American Occupation has also prevailed over the neglect to the repairing of vital public services-related infrastructure, which include U.S.-led destructions of water systems. <skip>

The figure of 100,000 had been based on somewhat "conservative assumptions", notes Les Roberts at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, U.S., who led the study. That estimate excludes Falluja, a hotspot for violence. If the data from this town is included, the compiled studies point to about 250,000 excess deaths since the outbreak of the U.S.-led war. <skip>

[babylonsister]

1. That number is probably more realistic than I have ever seen thus

far. Thanks for sharing that hideous but necessary information.
If the average Joe realized the amount of blood shed (for what?), would it make a difference?:(

[ixion]

2. don't you just love that this is done in our name, with our tax dollars

holy crap. :grr: :puke: :argh:

[vixengrl]

3. "illness and accidents, have been among women and children,"

And so it goes. I think, far from traditional "combatant" body counts (since we're dealing largely with a home-grown insurgency, if not an all-out civil war) it's the all-over toll we should be looking at. And maybe consider it in relation to the toll after all those years of sanctions, food for oil, Iran/Iraq, Persian Gulf War I, and the Kurdish massacre. What we're seeing here is Biblical--in a bad way. Sow the ground with salt. Leave not a brick standing against a brick. We've used DU munitions. These people have suffered shock and awe, and unbelievable emotional turmoil. We're expecting them to develop a free and democratic society now, and be allies with us. A model of a changed Middle East.

I don't think this is a good start. On the whole, I see the sins of the fathers visited on the sons and grandsons, and great-grandsons. Unto the seventh generation. The problem with dealing with a dedicated insurgecy is twofold, recognition that useful infrastructure is destroyed and also that strategic gains are likewise pissed away. If we had sense, we wouldn't have been there in the first place, if we had decency,we'd have heeded military cousel and bowed out around "Mission Accomplished" (or was it the other way around--decency not to start, if started, sense not to go to far--no matter, lack of sense and decency all around).

Cheney and Powell were right about Baghdad--unfortunately they were right around Spring, 1991--looking back on a short, victorious war. And both, IIRC, concurred--they wanted no part of an occupation. The losses would have been too great.

[lapfog_1]

4. Saddam's lookin pretty good right now

not only did he keep the various groups from each others throats, he also was a dependable deterrent to Iran and THEIR designs on the region (before the Gulf War, it was thought that Iraq had the 3rd or 4th most effective army in the world).

Oh for the stable days of a madman Iraqi dictator. One that didn't have WMDs, and wasn't a threat to the US or even the Saudis... but at least could be counted on to oppose Iranian expansion goals and even fundamentalist religious types like OBL.

[zulchzulu]

5. Freedom is on the march....to the funerals...

Ah heck, they are brown people...so why should we care? What's on TV is more important...

[welshTerrier2]

6. once around for the day crowd ... n/t

[gratuitous]

7. Sorta makes Bush's yapping about the sanctity of life seem hollow

Well a bottle or two of Jack Daniels, and all will once again be right in Chimpy's world.