Are people who deny Bush has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis as loony as Holocaust deniers?

[NNN0LHI]

[Philosoraptor]

1. Every bit as loony

[Vidar]

8. Obviously not identical, bul yes, a good comparison.

[BOSSHOG]

2. Good comparison

In 50 years there will be a royal commission of the grand poobah republican conservative klan (many of them in diapers today) issuing a grand edict that the Iraq War did not happen.

[cali]

3. Actually, it's a lousy comparison and for

that reason, I neglected to vote. People who deny the Holocaust either do so aout of rank bigotry and hate, or for political purposes or both.
People who deny that hundreds of thousands have died in Iraq, may do so for political reasons, and a few may do so out of hate, but it's not the same thing.

In addition, if you ask this question, you should also ask if people who deny the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children in Iraq due to the harsh sanctions imposed by the international community are also loony. The sanctions were initiated by bush I, but continued enthusiatically by the Clinton admin in the 90s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions

[H2O Man]

4. Interesting.

While I do not think it is a "lousy comparison," you do raise some interesting points. Perhaps there is a better comparison to be made between those who did/do not "believe" what was/is happening while large numbers of people suffered and died.

The deaths of the children that you mention -- and American's ability to block it out of their minds -- will long serve as reason for many people to hate us.

[cali]

6. Yeah, it's something that Americans have completely

forgotten, but others elsewhere in the world will long remember. Albright's words still jar me.

The think is, if we're going to accuse bushco of genocide, we should be honest enough with ourselves to make the same charge against Clinton. We never do.

[H2O Man]

7. On a slightly different

topic, the attack on "habeas corpus" began under Clinton, as well. Issues are not black and white.

[NNN0LHI]

9. Yes, it is all Clintons fault

Now where have I heard that at before?

Don

[cali]

10. Sorry, it's just a fact that 500,000 children died in Iraq

during the nineties due to the sanctions, and that the Clinton administration supported those sanctions despite the horrendous effects on the Iraqi population.

Or do you deny any of that?

[acmejack]

12. Some have never joined in on the Clinton idolization.

They remember that, along with the stories of the Korean children eating bread made from tree bark flour (it did nothing to avert their ultimate starvation, 3.5 Million they say), the Media Consolidation, NAFTA, etc. Mr. Clinton was no friend to many Americans, however, he wore the proper label, so his actions were somehow sanitized. If Bush had done the same things, the calls for his head would be ringing from the rafters...

[NNN0LHI]

17. I have not, nor have I ever seen anyone deny what happened under Clinton at DU

If you wouldn't mind perhaps you can point me to a thread where some DUers have denied that it occurred? I would be very interested in seeing that thread.

Thanks in advance.

Don

[cali]

29. Excuse me?

I didn't make any claim that DUers denied what happened in Iraq in the Clinton years. To your snide remark of "yeah, it's all Clinton's fault", I replied that it was simply a fact, and asked if you denied that fact. The question was directed at YOU personally, and spurred by your defensive posture.

Thanks for the strawman, but I'll pass.

[NNN0LHI]

32. "In addition, if you ask this question, you should also ask if people who deny the deaths"

Your words here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2970536&mesg_id=2970559

>>>In addition, if you ask this question, you should also ask if people who deny the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children in Iraq due to the harsh sanctions imposed by the international community are also loony. The sanctions were initiated by bush I, but continued enthusiatically by the Clinton admin in the 90s.<<<

See, no straw man. You suggested that the there are people here who should be asked about their denial of what happened but you can't produce any evidence there are any.

Nice dancing. I have seen better though.

Don

[cali]

35. No dice.

Sorry, I clearly wasn't referring to DUers there. I was referring to the people your poll was about, those in the general public who deny the deaths of Iraqis due to the war initiated by bushco.

Why is it so important to you to twist my words and erect strawmen?

[NNN0LHI]

37. DUers? General public? Whats the difference?

I thought the words were synonymous with each other. This is a public board isn't it?

You really like using the word strawman a lot for some reason? Too much.

Don

[cali]

41. Look, you're twisting yourself into a pretzel

here. First you get on your high horse and demand to know where are all the threads with DUers denying the deaths of children in Iraq in the Clinton years, when I said nothing about DUers denying it. Then you say that the poll above also includes DUers. So are you saying that any significant number of DUers are denying the number of deaths that have occured in Iraq under bushco?

Your logic is seriously flawed here.

And yeah, I see a strawman, I'm gonna knock it down.

[Bjorn Against]

16. I think it is a good comparision, but you do have a point with Clinton

The sanctions on Iraq were horrendous, and hundreds of thousands of children were killed. Clinton, along with everyone who supported him both Republicans and Democrats should be condemned for their actions.

I don't understand how it is not the same thing to compare people denying the deaths of Iraqis to people denying deaths in Iraq. As you acknowledge many people who do deny the death of Iraqis do so for political reasons or for hatred of the Iraqi people. There is really not much difference. As far as I am concerned those who deny large numbers of innocent civilians in Iraq are the new Holocaust deniers.

[cali]

20. No, I don't believe so.

There's a TON of confusion about the number of deaths. People can be forgiven for not knowing. The numbers are disputed- not merely by bushco, but by reputable sources without axes to grind. Not only that but the media has hardly focused on the deaths of Iraqis. Sure, if you're a news hound and frequent the internet, you probably have some knowledge about it, but if you're not, it's totally understandable that people don't acknowledge the number of deaths in Iraq.

Here's how it's a completely different equation: Virtually all Holocaust deniers are coming from a place of hate or deep cynicism. that's simply not true of most people who say about Iraq, "Oh no, it couldn't be that many." The Holocaust is the most documented mass genocide in History. Sadly, in Iraq, in the midst of chaos, such documentation is lacking. And perhaps I should add, as the Nazis kept meticulous records of the killing machine, that's not a sad thing. The U.S. is undoubtedly responsible for the tragic deaths in Iraq, though not not through direct agency for the most part, but we are not building extermination factories.

Edited to add an exerpt from and link to Wiki's article about deaths in Iraq since the beginning of georgie's horrible adventure:

655,000 total excess deaths up to July 2006—from the second Lancet survey of mortality (October 2006). Total deaths (civilian and non-civilian) include all excess deaths due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poor healthcare, etc. <1>

A minimum of 50,429 to 55,926 civilian deaths up to 13 December, 2006—as compiled from English-language media reports by the Iraq Body Count project (IBC). Reported civilian deaths due to insurgent/military action and increased criminal violence. <2>

100,000 to 150,000—estimate by Iraq's Health Minister in November 2006, based on extrapolating the recent 2006 rate of 100 deaths per day recorded in hospitals and morgues backward to March 2003. War-related deaths (civilian and non-civilian), and deaths from criminal gangs. <3>

"At least 50,000 Iraqis have died violently"—as of June 2006. "Many more Iraqis are believed to have been killed but not counted because of serious lapses in recording deaths. ... The Times attempted to reach a comprehensive figure by obtaining statistics from the Baghdad morgue and the Health Ministry and checking those numbers against a sampling of local health departments for possible undercounts." <4>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003

[Bjorn Against]

27. You make some good points, although documentation of the holocaust is not perfect either.

Just because there are inconsistancies in the reporting does not mean a person can deny such a major event ever happened, all they can do is argue over numbers and in the end arguing over numbers gets us nowhere. No matter what way you look at it the numbers are way too high.

In any chaotic situations such as war there are going to be many different numbers given, and many different conflicting accounts of what happened.

There are many inconsistancies in the documentation of the Holocaust as well, yet despite those inconsistancies it would be extremely ignorant to say the holocaust never happened just because there are inconsistancies in the reports.

Yet this is what holocaust deniers try to do, if you look at their arguments they do point out some things that do not quite add up, but that does not make their case that the Holocaust did not happen reputable by any stretch of the imagination.

We know millions were killed in the holocaust, but there can be some debate over the exact number that were killed as no one has been able to account for every person. In fact no one has even come close, and any historian will tell you that the six million figure you hear is only an estimate. The real number could be less, or it could be far higher. To deny the events even happened however you would have to be extremely ignorant of all the facts.

So while you may have a point that a reasonable person could deny that hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed in Iraq, for a person to deny that at least tens of thousands were killed would show just as much ignorance as the ignorance displayed by those who deny the holocaust.

[cali]

31. Well, aside from the fact that

any comparison between this miserable misbegotten war and the Holocaust, is completely ahistorical- historians aren't making that argument- you have a point, in that no historical record of atrocities, is to use your word, perfect.

This is a terrible war. It's a tragedy. Iraq has been ripped apart by the U.S. attack and subsequent occupation, but the comparison between the Holocaust and this war is a specious one. Compare the Holocaust to Cambodia, where under the Khmar Rouge and Pol Pot, 2 million out of a population of 8 million, perished. Compare Iraq to Vietnam.

[Swamp Rat]

5. and etcetera

[Caution]

11. I voted no. Onl;y because the media has not widely reported this

I think those who would deny the death toll in Iraq are mainly ignorant while those who deny the Holocaust are doing so to willingly attempt to modify history due to bigotry.

[IndyOp]

28. The German government lied to its citizens using the media...

Does this mean that the German citizens were not morally responsible for recognizing the lies, finding the truth, and stopping the horror?

Or is it okay to abdicate moral responsibility in such cases?

Sorry to be harsh - it is a critically important question. Governments lie - it is simply what they do. What is our moral responsibility in light of this fact?

[treestar]

42. In those days it was much easier for the government to

control the flow of information. Any government.

I think the Germans as a people were responsible in some way but not like we would be today. It can't be hidden from us the way it could be then.

[cali]

44. I wish people would think for a moment before they made

statements like yours. It's clear you feel a great sense of responsibility and compassion towards the people of Iraq. I join you in that, but here's the difference, or at least a huge difference. The people of Germany saw their neighbors dragged from their homes and beaten. They saw the synogogue down the street burned to the ground. They rampaged on Krystalnacht. Americans are thousands of miles from Iraq and clearly many of them are unable to understand and empathize with Iraqis, but it is hard to do that from thousands of miles away. That's just human nature. I hope you can see the difference. Americans are nowhere near as culpable as Germans were. If and when, Americans turn on Muslims in a similar way, then we'll be comparable.

From Wiki:

Reichskristallnacht, Novemberpogrome, Pogromnacht, Crystal Night and the Night of Broken Glass) was a pogrom<1> against Jews throughout Germany and parts of Austria on November 9–10, 1938.

Jewish homes and stores were ransacked in a thousand German cities, towns and villages,<2> as ordinary citizens and stormtroopers destroyed buildings with sledgehammers, leaving the streets covered in smashed windows — the origin of the name "Night of Broken Glass." Jews were beaten to death; 30,000 Jewish men were taken to concentration camps; and 1,668 synagogues ransacked or set on fire.

The Times of London commented : "No foreign propagandist bent upon blackening Germany before the world could outdo the tale of burnings and beatings, of blackguardly assaults on defenceless and innocent people which disgraced that country yesterday."<3>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krystalnacht

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

13. I voted "no", very different thing ...

There's no systematic rounding-up and killing of civilians by Bush or the U.S. military. Yeah, stuff happens. But it's not like the Nazi's rounding up Jews, or the Turks rounding up Albanians, or the Sudanese government-sponsored militia rounding up non-Muslims in Darfur.

Masses of civilians died during the two "attack" phases, Desert Storm, and the more recent resumption of hostilities after 9/11. Since the fall of the Baath regime, I'd bet the U.S. has killed far fewer civilians than the inter-sect Muslim-on-Muslim violence, much of which is done or sponsored by non-Iraqi Muslims.

Probably the big Iraqi death toll is from Saddam's army getting hammered in both of the active phases of the war, under GHWB and GWB.

I agree that there was no reason for any of the deaths. There was no reason to go to war against Saddam. Not in 1990, not in 2001-2002. Saddam took Kuwait, so what?

[NNN0LHI]

15. So it is OK to deny they were even killed because they weren't rounded up?

Is that what you are saying? I am not sure what you mean?

Is it like if a bomb falls on their heads and turns them into a pink mist its not as bad?

Its just like "stuff happens" when that occurs?

That is an interesting take.

Don

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

19. I don't deny the number killed ...

but I doubt the number is civilian deaths. Mostly military or militia.

IF you are going into a war, one of the goals is to disable the enemy's military and leadership. It's not a perfect precision operation, so civilians will be killed.

It's a lousy thing, but that's what I meant by "stuff happens".

If a bomb falls on a civilian's head, turning it into a pink mist, is that the same as putting families in cattle cars, sending half to gas chambers, forcing the other half to take the bodies to a mass crematorium while slowly starving, all that repeated seven million times? I'm thinking it's not the same thing. Iraq is not genocide, not the same as "the" holocaust, it's just a stupid unjustified war.

[IndyOp]

23. 85% killed have been civilian; 15% were Iraqi military/insurgent

Quote from Howard Zinn's recent speech aired on "DemocracyNow!"

Americans who cling to the idea that war kills mostly military are living in a delusion.

According to Zinn:
In World War I there were 10 military (of both sides) killed for each civilian.
In World War II the ratio was 50% military to 50% civilian.
In Vietnam the ratio was 30% military to 70% civilian.
Since Vietnam, the ratio has consistently been 15-20% military to 80-85% civilian.

Civilians deaths are "collateral damage" from strikes at military targets. Bull. One person's testimony - a book by Italian surgeon Gino Strada "Green Parrots: A War Surgeon's Diary" -

"Green Parrots: A War Surgeon's Diary" is a remarkable book with frank reality coming from a true humanitiarian. Dr. Gino Strada has been been helping the victims of war, 90% civilian, for seventeen years. His experience has brought him to Afghanistan, Iraq, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Pakistan, Sudan, Cambodia and other countries affected by war. Dr. Strada cuts through the clutter revealing what truely matters. Government A fights government B with a devastating price being paid by C, Civilians. More than talk or protest, these civilians need actual help immediately. Dr. Strada and his organization Emergency has been offering that help for over ten years but it is still just a drop in the bucket. This book should be required reading!!

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

47. Well, I wouldn't want to question Zinn ...

... he's a source I try to read and re-read.

But if he's got a breakdown of Iraqi civilian casualty counts that were caused by U.S. and allied forces, I'd be interested in seeing it. To generalize from "all wars since Vietnam" may itself be biased, including internal and external struggles in Cambodia, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, and others with huge civilian losses.

The count will get complicated. For example, if somebody pops up with an AK47 or RPG and points it in the direction of a U.S. servicewoman and she kills him, is that a civilian death? He probably wouldn't be in a military uniform, but likely part of a militia.

So, I'd still vote the same way in the poll: Denying the posted number is not the same as denying the existence of the holocaust. Yes, there are civilians killed by U.S. forces. No, that number is not yet as well documented as the holocaust.

[Usrename]

51. As an occupying country we are responsible.

We are legally and morally responsible for all the violent civilian deaths that occur in Iraq under our occupation. It does not matter who is pulling the trigger.

[peacetalksforall]

14. Something else. Looney means not having/using logic and denying out of bigotry. Bush

lovers believe George and his figure is 30,000 (?). Out of devotion they will not question, research, or consider that he's feeding them propaganda. In other words, they may be capable of applying logic, but can't be bothered - they also began with the ideology that there will always be war and it's OK to kill for war, so it's easy to trust liars.

And ... 'from fetus to fighting soldier' is fine with them. Sacrifice is OK. Now that may be quite loony.

loony? looney?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Not "loony". Accomplices.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[cali]

21. That's just ridiculous.

Ignorance in this case may be deplorable, but it's also understandable, given the lack of information in the press about Iraqi casualties and the confusion over the numbers. If you're talking only about those that know and actively deny, which I would argue is bound to be a rather small number, than that's a different story.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. "Good Germans"?

After WWII most Germans, even the soldiers, denied knowledge of the holocaust.

The information about the casualties is available. The bloodshed is all over the media and the internet.

But, you make a good point in the sense that most Americans pay scant attention to what goes on outside their own small worlds. Hell, I don't even blame them. It's a helluva lot easier to watch "reality" shows and go shopping than pay attention to what's going on in the world.

We are all guilty of ignoring the suffering in the world. Whether it's the carnage in Iraq, the genocide in Darfur, the mass starvation in Africa, or the plight of women in most of the 3rd world.

In a way, Stalin (no piker at mass murder), was right: "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic." We have managed to reduce human suffering to statistics. 600,000 dead in Iraq. 200,000 in Darfur. 30,000 a month in Congo. Not people, faceless numbers.

[formercia]

54. My interpretation too

The "Good germans" had no fear of the Reich. Even when their ration coupons became worthless paper, they continued to blame it on the Allies.

It's always the enemy.

[Recursion]

22. I said no

The deaths in the holocaust, all dozens of millions of them, were surprisingly (disturbingly) well-documented. The deaths in Post-Saddam Iraq were not. Any time there is a lack of proper documentation it's not "loony" to doubt an interpretation of the data we do have. Also remember that most of the 650,000 were killed by other Iraqis, which may be why people say * didn't kill them.

[IndyOp]

25. Real Shock & Awe: 1,405,000 Iraqis dead, 15 years US sanctions & occupation

Real Shock & Awe: 1,405,000 Iraqis dead, 15 years sanctions & occupation

On Sat Mar 25th 2006 - I posted this as "1,000,000 Iraqis Dead". I updated it in October 2006.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."

What will it take to wake up the US? The whole truth, from a historical perspective, that places 'blame' appropriately on the shoulders of many leaders, many groups. You may categorize me as a "blame America firster" because I am critical of the US role in the Persian Gulf War, United Nations Economic Sanctions, and the Iraq War. If so, then so be it. The US played key roles in all of these events and the consequence is shocking:

In 15 Years (1991-2006), the US has caused/contributed to 1,405,000 Iraqi deaths

Persian Gulf War: 150,000
Gulf War Aftermath: Many thousands
UN Sanctions: Primary cause of 600,000 deaths
Iraq War: 655,000

Important: Whether or not you believe that US foreign policy caused all of these deaths - the death toll is a valid, conservative estimate of Iraqi deaths in the past 15 years in excess of what would have been expected if there had been peace. PLEASE TELL PEOPLE THIS NUMBER -- maybe it is big enough to shock the American public awake and cause them to realize the true devastation in Iraq: 1,405,000

The Persian Gulf War did not have to happen: Hussein did not invade Kuwait until after he had received an assurance from April Gillespie that the "US had no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts." Even if he had invaded, alternatives to war were available.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/provide_comfort.htm

The Gulf War Aftermath Encouraged by American radio broadcasts to rise up against their ‘dictator’, the Kurds of northern Iraq rebelled against a nominally defeated and certainly weakened Saddam Hussein in March of 1991. Fear of being drawn into an Iraqi civil war and possible diplomatic repercussions precluded President Bush from committing US forces to support the Kurds. Within days Iraqi forces recovered and launched a ruthless counteroffensive including napalm and chemical attacks from helicopters. They quickly reclaimed lost territory and crushed the rebellion. By the first week of April, 800 to 1,000 people, mostly the very young and the very old, were dying each day. link Al Franken has said that many 100,000's of Kurds and Shia were slaughtered, but I do not have a printed source.

UN (US/UK Sanctions) The United Nations Security Council has maintained comprehensive economic sanctions on Iraq from August 1990 until March 2003. Sanctions in Iraq hurt large numbers of innocent civilians not only by limiting the availability of food and medicines, but also by disrupting the whole economy, and reducing the national capacity of water treatment, electrical systems and other infrastructure critical for health and life. The oil-for-food program provided an average of $200 per year for each of 23,000,000 Iraqis - well below the international poverty level. In the UN Security Council, countries urged the US and UK to allow the sanctions to be lifted, but the US/UK would not allow this.

http://www.j-n-v.org/AW_briefings/JNV_briefing075.htm

http://woolseyforpeace.org/?q=node/65

Iraq War & Occupation A Johns Hopkins University study published in the British medical journal The Lancet in October, 2004. // 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. // Eman Ahmad Khamas.... said: "This occupation has destroyed Iraq. Americans don't know that tens of thousands of Iraqis are in prisons. Americans don't know how many have been killed. Lancet reported 100,000 in 2004, not counting Falluja. Now it is something like double this number."

More...


Post-Script: In Germany, discussion among Germans about how they, the ordinary German people, had been involved in the Holocaust did not begin until the 1960's and 1970's. I remember, as a kid, seeing a 60-Minutes segment on a young woman who dug up the 'dirt' on her town -- she found out who had been in the SS, who had worked in concentration camps and so forth. The people of her town harrassed her and called her "The Nasty Girl." I guess am that, too. I want to confront Democrats, Republicans -- all Americans -- about the consequences of US Foreign Policy since World War II. Democrats do not get special blame, nor do they get off the hook. IMHO, if we really want to see a change in this nation, the change will not come with 'electing Democrats' it will come with a real change in consciousness in millions of Americans. We are not facing the truth of even our recent past. It is urgent that we do so.

[Tom Joad]

46. Let's not forget Clinton's contribution to the carnage.

[IndyOp]

26. Why is your post just about Bush - when there have been 3 Presidents who

contributed to 15 years of Genocide in Iraq...

:shrug:

Are people who deny Bush I has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis as loony as Holocaust deniers?
Are people who deny Clinton has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis as loony as Holocaust deniers?
Are people who deny Bush II has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis as loony as Holocaust deniers?

Real Shock & Awe: 1.4 million Iraqis dead over 15 years...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2970536&mesg_id=2970969

[NNN0LHI]

36. Because I don't know of anyone here who denies what Bush1 or Clinton did

Hope that answers your question.

Don

[IndyOp]

39. Okay - good answer. I think there are lots of people around here

who deny what Clinton did and who don't know about the full extent of what Bush 1 did.

1.4 million Iraqis dead in 15-16 years -- that is not a reality that has sunk in yet, IMO.

[dave_p]

30. Not quite, but getting there

I think it's not a strictly accurate comparison: my initial reaction to the headlines about the second Lancet survey was one of some disbelief until I read the thing and compared the 2006 results to the 2004 study (conducted under less restrictive secutity conditions).

The problem is that most critics have never even read the damn things, taking their cue instead from the right-wing spin machine: the first survey was alleged to include Falluja (it was deliberately left out), the second overweighted city centers (no evidence whatsoever).

Now that the Green Zone regime's itself admitted that previous reports covered only a fraction of the dead (150,000 through resistance and jihadi action alone, little short of the Lancet estimate), there's no basis for rejecting the Lancet data.

So it's not quite the same as denying that most of Europe's Jews diappeared through foul play, but the excuses are running out fast.

[gulliver]

33. Just a darn minute. Bush himself has denied he killed ...

... hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. When it comes to the report of 655,000 dead Iraqis, Bush said "The methodology is pretty well discredited." So that settles it. Bush is either as loony as a Holocaust denier, or he has a methodology better than the one published in the Lancet, or he is a liar, or he thinks in the Cheney pattern. If the president gives away a governent secret, it is OK, because the secret immediately becomes declassified. If the president says something untrue, it immediately becomes true.

As with Cheney's assertion that Iraq had met with 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta in Praque was "pretty well confirmed", the Bushie truth isn't boolean. It's asymptotal. If there is a one in a million chance something the Bushies believe is true, then it's "pretty well confirmed." If there is a one in a million chance something they want to believe is false, then it is "pretty well discredited."

[Ani Yun Wiya]

34. They may even be loonier...

given that information is more readily available and much more quickly disseminated.

[Jim Sagle]

38. What a stupid and offensive way to demean genocide.

[treestar]

40. Is there anyone who denies that?

Most right wingers are glad to admit that many Muslims have been killed, and cheer on the killing of more.

[HuffleClaw]

43. not QUITE that loony but similar mentality

instead of stemming from antisemitism i'd say they are of the 'but we're the GOOD guys!' school and cannot comprehend the 'good guys' could do such a thing.

[Tom Joad]

45. Denying the nakba is also looney. Japan's crimes against Nanking. Turkey's crimes against Armenia

It is a terrible thing not to acknowledge a people's history and tragedy.
It is odd that the US makes such a political point of what some Iranian leaders (not all) are doing, and then has fine relations with Turkey, that still denies its complicity in genocide against Armenians, Japan, that has yet to fully acknowledge its crimes against China, and so on.

Not to mention the US crimes of genocide against the people of Vietnam.

[peacetalksforall]

48. WoW! We went from what seemed like a simple poll - we learning

plenty! DU is great. There's plenty to research and arm ourselves with. DU people - hurrah!

a P.S. We can't avoid talking about President Clinton's contribution to destruction in Iraq. Regrettably.

[DocSavage]

49. How about blaming Saddam

He knew why there were sanctions, he knew what he had to do to do end the sanctions, but he did nothing. Could a little of the responsibility of deaths of HIS countrymen reside with him?

[dailykoff]

55. What did he not do? Where did inspectors not go?

What more could he have done? :shrug:

Saddam met every ridiculous condition we imposed and still got his country swiped from him by Haliburton-Exxon-Mobile.

[DocSavage]

57. he could

have given the UN and the coalition forces what ever they wanted. But then, the UN may not have wanted the sactions to end seeing that there were so many folks making money of the oil for food program. For you not to assess any blame on him is just plain silly. He also could have quit firing on aircraft, accept the no fly zone. Clinton and Albright would have ended sanctions in a minute if he had played ball.

[dailykoff]

58. And he did.

He repeatedly agreed to our ever-changing conditions, right up to the invasion, and as I recall the few aircraft that he shot at were flying outside the air corridors we demanded--and got--all over Iraq.

[DocSavage]

59. Then why did't Clinton

push the UN to remove the sanctions. Saddam was and still is the bad guy in this story. It is his fault that his population was punished, but then again he was elected with what, 99% of the vote or somthing? No wonder there was not outrage from the people dying during the embargo for thier leader.

[Zhade]

50. Yes - and one of them here keeps advocating for attacking Iran.

Said poster also keeps repeating the lie that Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

[Usrename]

52. Hard to believe you can find so many suckers here ...

that would respond to a Holocaust poll after what hapeened earlier this month.

[ellisonz]

53. Not loony...

just so ignorant I almost want to feel sad for their cloistered souls.

[dailykoff]

56. There have been many holocausts in the last century.

Unfortunately, the US has had a hand in a number of them.

[SalmonChantedEvening]

60. HatterMad, the lot of them

May their folly be their downfall :mad: :grr: