THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

What is your fascination with casualties?
ARe you mourning them or celebrating them?

Its hard to tell from your posts.

mysteryman wrote:

What is your fascination with casualties?
ARe you mourning them or celebrating them?

Its hard to tell from your posts.

I don't like people to be killed anywhere.

Indeed, I'm fascinated how this can go on and on, while on the other side


(source today's Chicago Tribune as well)

...
There is nothing in there about any partial handover, Ican. There is also nothing in there about how if they mess up or don't perform to our (US) satisfaction, then we reserve the right to interfere with their sovereignty. (Or words to that effect)

...
Former British Ambassador to the Central Asian Republic of Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, writes today that he suspects the ongoing sectarian violence in Iraq has been intentionally provoked and continued by US and UK special forces in occupation of the country.
...
"The real news, which is not reported in the CNN "mainstream", is that the Salvador Option has been invoked in Iraq. This is the campaign of terror by death squads armed and trained by the US, which attack Sunnis and Shias alike. The goal is the incitement of a real civil war and the break-up of Iraq, the original war aim of Bush's administration. The ministry of the interior in Baghdad, which is run by the CIA, directs the principal death squads. Their members are not exclusively Shia, as the myth goes. The most brutal are the Sunni-led Special Police Commandos, headed by former senior officers in Saddam's Ba'ath Party. This unit was formed and trained by CIA "counter-insurgency" experts, including veterans of the CIA's terror operations in central America in the 1980s, notably El Salvador. "
...

Ican, you say that we are in Iraq to help the people. That is nonsense. We went in to grab the oil and build Bush's political capital. That all failed, and now we have hold of a tar baby and can't get out without losing a lot of face.

Bush has had a series of excuses for us staying there, such as fighting the terrorists there instead of at home. Of course, we are fighting Iraqi insurgents, and very few foreign fighters. Based on the NIE, we are producing terrorists fanning out throughout the world at a good rate. And we have directly or indirectly killed 650,000 Iraqis. Some help!

Ican, you say that we are in Iraq to help the people. That is nonsense. We went in to grab the oil and build Bush's political capital. That all failed, and now we have hold of a tar baby and can't get out without losing a lot of face.

Bush has had a series of excuses for us staying there, such as fighting the terrorists there instead of at home. Of course, we are fighting Iraqi insurgents, and very few foreign fighters. Based on the NIE, we are producing terrorists fanning out throughout the world at a good rate. And we have directly or indirectly killed 650,000 Iraqis. Some help!

...
How much of the Iraqi oil is flowing into US oil company coffers?
Why arent we seeing any of that oil?

At least, now Bush has admitted that the surge in violence in Iraq may be equivalent to America's traumatic experience in the Vietnam War.

Baghdad Burning

... I'll meet you 'round the bend my friend, where hearts can heal and souls can mend...

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

The Lancet Study...

This has been the longest time I have been away from blogging. There were several reasons for my disappearance the major one being the fact that every time I felt the urge to write about Iraq, about the situation, I'd be filled with a certain hopelessness that can't be put into words and that I suspect other Iraqis feel also.

It's very difficult at this point to connect to the internet and try to read the articles written by so-called specialists and analysts and politicians. They write about and discuss Iraq as I might write about the Ivory Coast or Cambodia- with a detachment and lack of sentiment that- I suppose- is meant to be impartial. Hearing American politicians is even worse. They fall between idiots like Bush- constantly and totally in denial, and opportunists who want to use the war and ensuing chaos to promote themselves.

The latest horror is the study published in the Lancet Journal concluding that over 600,000 Iraqis have been killed since the war. Reading about it left me with mixed feelings. On the one hand, it sounded like a reasonable figure. It wasn't at all surprising. On the other hand, I so wanted it to be wrong. But... who to believe? Who to believe....? American politicians... or highly reputable scientists using a reliable scientific survey technique?

The responses were typical- war supporters said the number was nonsense because, of course, who would want to admit that an action they so heartily supported led to the deaths of 600,000 people (even if they were just crazy Iraqis…)? Admitting a number like that would be the equivalent of admitting they had endorsed, say, a tsunami, or an earthquake with a magnitude of 9 on the Richter scale, or the occupation of a developing country by a ruthless superpower… oh wait- that one actually happened. Is the number really that preposterous? Thousands of Iraqis are dying every month- that is undeniable. And yes, they are dying as a direct result of the war and occupation (very few of them are actually dying of bliss, as war-supporters and Puppets would have you believe).

For American politicians and military personnel, playing dumb and talking about numbers of bodies in morgues and official statistics, etc, seems to be the latest tactic. But as any Iraqi knows, not every death is being reported. As for getting reliable numbers from the Ministry of Health or any other official Iraqi institution, that's about as probable as getting a coherent, grammatically correct sentence from George Bush- especially after the ministry was banned from giving out correct mortality numbers. So far, the only Iraqis I know pretending this number is outrageous are either out-of-touch Iraqis abroad who supported the war, or Iraqis inside of the country who are directly benefiting from the occupation ($) and likely living in the Green Zone.

The chaos and lack of proper facilities is resulting in people being buried without a trip to the morgue or the hospital. During American military attacks on cities like Samarra and Fallujah, victims were buried in their gardens or in mass graves in football fields. Or has that been forgotten already?

We literally do not know a single Iraqi family that has not seen the violent death of a first or second-degree relative these last three years. Abductions, militias, sectarian violence, revenge killings, assassinations, car-bombs, suicide bombers, American military strikes, Iraqi military raids, death squads, extremists, armed robberies, executions, detentions, secret prisons, torture, mysterious weapons - with so many different ways to die, is the number so far fetched?

There are Iraqi women who have not shed their black mourning robes since 2003 because each time the end of the proper mourning period comes around, some other relative dies and the countdown begins once again.

Let's pretend the 600,000+ number is all wrong and that the minimum is the correct number: nearly 400,000. Is that better? Prior to the war, the Bush administration kept claiming that Saddam killed 300,000 Iraqis over 24 years. After this latest report published in The Lancet, 300,000 is looking quite modest and tame. Congratulations Bush et al.

Everyone knows the 'official numbers' about Iraqi deaths as a direct result of the war and occupation are far less than reality (yes- even you war hawks know this, in your minuscule heart of hearts). This latest report is probably closer to the truth than anything that's been published yet. And what about American military deaths? When will someone do a study on the actual number of those? If the Bush administration is lying so vehemently about the number of dead Iraqis, one can only imagine the extent of lying about dead Americans…

Walter Hinteler wrote:

At least, now Bush has admitted that the surge in violence in Iraq may be equivalent to America's traumatic experience in the Vietnam War.

There's one big difference between the Iraq and Vietnam wars.

The North Vietnamese guerilla force was not repeatedly declaring its intention to conquer the world and subjugate or kill non-believers.

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/
Part II, Chapter IX
The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought. There are therefore two great problems which the Party is concerned to solve. One is how to discover, against his will, what another human being is thinking, and the other is how to kill several hundred million people in a few seconds without giving warning beforehand.

Part III, Chapter II
It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. That is the fact that you have got to relearn ... It needs an act of self-destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before you can become sane.

Part III, Chapter III
The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power.

ican711nm wrote:

...

There's one big difference between the Iraq and Vietnam wars.

The North Vietnamese guerilla force was not repeatedly declaring its intention to conquer the world and subjugate or kill non-believers.

Neither is the Iraqi Guerrilla force. You are confusing Insurgents with Terrorists, who are not neccessarily on the same side.

Cycloptichorn

Residents killed as Nato strike rips through village

KATHY GANNON, Kabul October 19 2006

Airstrikes by Nato helicopters hunting Taliban fighters ripped through three dried-mud homes in Afghanistan as villagers slept yesterday.
Angry residents condemned the attack in Ashogho, which set back Nato hopes of winning local support for its tough campaign against insurgents.

"I am not Taliban! We are not Taliban!" villager Gulab Shah shouted by the rubble of the ruined houses.

"If the foreign soldiers were so smart that they knew there were Taliban here, why didn't they see the women and children who were sleeping?

Why do they want to kill us? How can they help us rebuild if they want to kill us? Maybe they should leave."

Residents claimed the attacks had killed 13 people and injured 15 more.

The 2am raid, in Kandahar province, took place half a mile from the scene of September's Operation Medusa, one of the most ferocious battles between Western forces and insurgents since the Taliban regime was ousted in 2001.

Nato's International Security Assistance Force said in a statement the operation, in the Zhari district, was believed to have caused "several" civilian casualties. It said the operation was meant to detain people involved in roadside bomb attacks in Panjwayi district, which borders Zhari.

Nato said it regretted any civilian casualties and it made "every effort" to minimise the risk of collateral damage.

Provincial Governor Asadullah Khan said it seemed clear from the villagers that there had not been Taliban in their village when the bombing occurred. "It is hard to know when the Taliban are moving around from one place to another," he said. "But it seems they weren't here."

Elsewhere, a rocket hit a house during a clash between suspected Taliban insurgents and security forces in Helmand province.

A resident said 13 villagers, including women and children, died.

Earlier, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader who headed the repressive Islamist regime ousted by US-led forces five years ago, was hiding in the Pakistani city of Quetta.

The Afghan leader has blamed Pakistan for a surge in Taliban violence in Afghanistan, and demanded its President, Pervez Musharraf, crack down on militant sanctuaries.

"We know he is in Quetta," Karzai said of Omar, whose regime was toppled after the September 11 attacks on America.

Pakistan's government has bluntly rejected Karzai's allegations.-AP

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The Shiite militia run by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr seized total control of the southern Iraqi city of Amarah on Friday in one of the boldest acts of defiance yet by one of the country's powerful, unofficial armies, witnesses and police said.

Hearing American politicians is even worse. They fall between idiots like Bush- constantly and totally in denial, and opportunists who want to use the war and ensuing chaos to promote themselves.

Speaking of George Soros .......

GEORGE SOROS OWNS A CONTROLLING SHARE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!

Excerpts from THE SHADOW PARTY, HOW GEORGE SOROS, HILLARY CLINTON, AND SIXTIES RADICALS SEIZED CONTROL OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, by David Horowitz and Richard Poe"