Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

War on Iraq

Is the United States Killing 10,000 Iraqis Every Month? Or Is It More?

By Michael Schwartz, After Downing Street. Posted July 6, 2007.


300 Iraqis killed by Americans each day sounds like an impossible figure, but a close look at the reported numbers of violent deaths and rate of armed patrols makes it all too likely.
Advertisement

A state-of-the-art research study published in October 12, 2006 issue of The Lancet (the most prestigious British medical journal) concluded that -- as of a year ago -- 600,000 Iraqis had died violently due to the war in Iraq. That is, the Iraqi death rate for the first 39 months of the war was just about 15,000 per month.

That wasn't the worst of it, because the death rate was increasing precipitously, and during the first half of 2006 the monthly rate was approximately 30,000 per month, a rate that no doubt has increased further during the ferocious fighting associated with the current American surge.

The U.S. and British governments quickly dismissed these results as "methodologically flawed," even though the researchers used standard procedures for measuring mortality in war and disaster zones. (They visited a random set of homes and asked the residents if anyone in their household had died in the last few years, recording the details, and inspecting death certificates in the vast majority of cases.) The two belligerent governments offered no concrete reasons for rejecting the study's findings, and they ignored the fact that they had sponsored identical studies (conducted by some of the same researchers) in other disaster areas, including Darfur and Kosovo. The reasons for this rejection were, however, clear enough: the results were simply too devastating for the culpable governments to acknowledge. (Secretly the British government later admitted that it was "a tried and tested way to measuring mortality in conflict zones"; but it has never publicly admitted its validity).

Reputable researchers have accepted the Lancet study's results as valid with virtually no dissent. Juan Cole, the most visible American Middle East scholar, summarized it in a particularly vivid comment: "the US misadventure in Iraq is responsible [in a little over three years] for setting off the killing of twice as many civilians as Saddam managed to polish off in 25 years."

Despite the scholarly consensus, the governments' denials have been quite effective from a public education point of view, and the few news items that mention the Lancet study bracket it with official rebuttals. One BBC report, for example, mentioned the figure in an article headlined "Huge Rise in Iraqi Death Tolls," and quoted at length from President Bush's public rebuttal, in which he said that the methodology was "pretty well discredited," adding that "six-hundred thousand or whatever they guessed at is just ... it's not credible." As a consequence of this sort of coverage, most Americans probably believe that Bush's December 2005 figure of 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths (less than 10% of the actual total) is the best estimate of Iraqi deaths up to that time.

Counting how many Iraqis the occupation has killed

These shocking statistics are made all the more horrific when we realize that among the 600,000 or so victims of Iraqi war violence, the largest portion have been killed by the American military, not by carbombings or death squads, or violent criminals -- or even all these groups combined.

The Lancet interviewers asked their Iraqi respondents how their loved ones died and who was responsible. The families were very good at the cause of death, telling the reporters that over half (56%) were due to gunshots, with an eighth due each to car bombs (13%), air strikes (13%) and other ordinance (14%). Only 4% were due to unknown causes.

The families were not as good at identifying who was responsible. Although they knew, for example, that air strike victims were killed by the occupation, and that carbomb victims were killed by insurgents, the gunshot and ordinance fatalities often occurred in firefights or in circumstances with no witnesses. Many times, therefore, they could not tell for sure who was responsible. Only were certain, and the interviewers did not record the responsible party if "households had any uncertainly" as to who fired the death shot.

The results are nevertheless staggering for those of us who read the American press: for the deaths that the victims families knew for sure who the perpetrator was, U.S. forces (or their "Coalition of the Willing" allies) were responsible for 56%. That is, we can be very confident that the Coalition had killed at least 180,000 Iraqis by the middle of 2006. Moreover, we have every reason to believe that the U.S. is responsible for its pro rata share (or more) of the unattributed deaths. That means that the U.S. and its allies may well have killed upwards of 330,000 Iraqis by the middle of 2006.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq, occupation, civilian deaths

Michael Schwartz is a professor of sociology and faculty director of the Undergraduate College of Global Studies at Stony Brook University.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Or even 100,000 Iraqi Deaths/month...
Posted by: CatDad on Jul 6, 2007 12:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....Americans are too narcissistic to care other than our own troop deaths...and sometimes even those barely get reported.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» kbest:Screaming, Hurting, NeoCon Dippy Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
Iraqis killing Iraqis is a beautiful thing.
Posted by: White middleclass male on Jul 6, 2007 1:05 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every dead Iraqi gives an American that much more of a chance of coming home.

Awhile back an IED had detonated an an Iraqi Army convey killing an IA major. The mostly Shitte IA decided to shoot up a small Sunni town in retaliation. My battery commander directed me to take my platoon to the town to find out what had happen. As I was standing in a Sunni's house with a dead man sprawled out on the floor, who had been shot once through the heart, an old man came up to me and said “hehad toobabbi”. I looked at him like “what the fuck. Do I look like I speak arabic?” He then spoke slower “He had 2 babies”. At the time the camel cowboys started chanting “There is no god but Allah…”

We also came across an old man who had his head split open when an IA soldier butt stroked him with an AK47. This man had given us tips in the past with led to us uncovering IEDs and caches. That is the only reason we took him back to the FOB* for medical treatment. When we were trying to explain to his son of about 17 he began to bawl. He said (through the translator) “No, please they’ll kill him. They hate us.” He thought we were talking about an Iraqi medical facility. When we explained we where taking him to the US Army facility on Taji he quickly regained his composer.

These people are animals. As long as the people I care about including myself get home, Iraq can drown in its own blood for all I care.

* Foward Operating Base; camp

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Arabic Posted by: suprmark
» Cretinism Abounds: White Middleclass Killer Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» WE DON'T WANT YOU BACK HOME Posted by: HistArch
RE: Call my a racist...
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jul 6, 2007 6:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No, you're not a racist. You're just stupid. Find another way to get attention. Learn how to spell 'me'. Get lost. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pick a number!
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Jul 6, 2007 7:26 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When one reads the daily accounts of Iraqi's killing Iraqi's how on earth can the author even try state that US troops are killing that much.. If that number were even remotly correct then Iraqi on Iraqi killing would have to be 100 times that..and if that were the case, there are no Iraqi's left!.. Sounds a bit much like Vietnam body counts to me..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Conservasaurus: Apologists Neocon Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» Another look at Lancet Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Another look at Lancet Posted by: SatanicJamboree
» RE: Another look at dinosaurius Posted by: blitzmesser
» RE: Pick a number! Posted by: wolfdaughter
» RE: Pick a number! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Pick a number! Posted by: blitzmesser
RE: Call my a racist...
Posted by: fatuheeva on Jul 6, 2007 11:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would like to thank the cavemen on this forum for admitting that they are violent, racist, power-mad individuals. Now will you all post pictures of yourselves so the rest of can more easily avoid you in the real world?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: Call my a racist...
Posted by: babs on Jul 6, 2007 1:59 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok, you're a racist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: Call my a racist...
Posted by: SatanicJamboree on Jul 6, 2007 2:52 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok, you're a racist--and wrong, and stupid...just shut the F*ck up, ok?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Call my a racist... Posted by: opeluboy
Like the "Gooks", now the "Ragheads", the Nazi criminals must be prosecuted
Posted by: Perfectclue on Jul 6, 2007 4:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Followiing illegal orders, like illegal wars of aggression, and failing to understand why they are there, the 70 percent of the mercenary soldiers for Corporate fascism and Amerikan Empire, who thought Iraq attacked us on 9/11 could only resort the these same racist substitutions for their failure to be informed, let alone follow the Geneva conventions, Nuremberg Principles, and international laws.

Prosecute the leaders first for these war crimes, then go after the idiot soldiers who follow the Fuehrers of Amerikan fascist foreign polcies. The clown who was happy that the Iraqis are in the midst of a cvil war, communal war, just has no clue, that this disaster was created by our policies as well, and should be counted as part of the numbers and responsiblities of these crimes. Whenever you have Vichy, puppet CIA regimes, collaborating with the occupier, you will see this kind of civil war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Find 12 men to convict me Posted by: White middleclass male
» RE: Find 12 men to convict me Posted by: taxidave
» RE: Find 12 men to convict me Posted by: White middleclass male
» RE: Find 12 men to convict me Posted by: militaryhater
» Cops don't get paid well enough Posted by: White middleclass male
» RE: Find 12 men to convict me Posted by: leafsong1
» Find 12 men to cry with you Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: Find 12 men to convict me Posted by: opeluboy
» RE: Find 12 men to convict me Posted by: SatanicJamboree
» RE: Find 12 men to convict me Posted by: talkville
» Spelling and other Corrections Posted by: Conservasaurus
» How 'bout that WMM... Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: How 'bout that WMM... Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Conservasaurus: Bush Thug Apologist Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: Conservasaurus: Bush Thug Apologist Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Nasty, Hateful, Bigoted, Non human Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Troll Reality Check Posted by: BigElectricCat
» RE: Troll Reality Check Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Nasty, Hateful, Bigoted, Non human Posted by: SatanicJamboree
» SatanicJamboree's Limited Vocabulary Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: SatanicJamboree's Limited Vocabulary Posted by: SatanicJamboree
» RE: SatanicJamboree's Limited Vocabulary Posted by: SatanicJamboree
» Pick a country..any country Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Pick a country..any country Posted by: SatanicJamboree
» RE: Spelling and other Corrections Posted by: SatanicJamboree
» RE: Spelling and other Corrections Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Spelling and other Corrections Posted by: SatanicJamboree
» RE: Spelling and other Corrections Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Spelling and other Corrections Posted by: SatanicJamboree
» RE: Spelling and other Corrections Posted by: Conservasaurus
Why should I care about people outside of my tribe?
Posted by: ateo on Jul 6, 2007 4:22 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Give me some good reasons.

Man is a biologically tribal creature. My tribe is the United States and right now it's the most powerful one around. If any other tribe were in our position they'd be doing to us what we are doing to them. So please tell me, why should I give a crap about anyone outside of my tribe?

There aren't enough resources to go around so be a human being - get what you can get and to hell with everyone else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Can i kick you outta my tribe? Posted by: EasterBunny
» QUESTIONS! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: QUESTIONS! Posted by: Curio
» QUESTIONS - but no answers Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: No answers to my questions, either Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: QUESTIONS! Posted by: SatanicJamboree
» RE: QUESTIONS! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: QUESTIONS! Posted by: SatanicJamboree
» RE: QUESTIONS! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: QUESTIONS! Posted by: SatanicJamboree
» Idealism is deadly Posted by: ateo
» Forget it folks Posted by: Joshua Holland
» That was pretty funny Posted by: ateo
» Good post Posted by: ateo
» RE: Good post Posted by: adh
» Because it amuses me Posted by: ateo
Mass Murder for Money
Posted by: igoeja on Jul 6, 2007 4:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sure many of us, not the conservative scum that sometimes write in these forums, realized that the war would become, and which later became plainly obvious, a war for profit and for oil.

War's tend to redistribute income, such that profiteers make huge sums of money, and this war is no different, except that more of the populous realizes that this war is mass murder for profit. Most American's believe they vote on values, but they are deluded, conservatives anyway, if they think they are voting for much more than corporate welfare and plutocracy, a new military-industrial-complex, although the principals now include hedge funds and security firms.

PS, This is one of the initial responses to the article, and several initial posts are grotesquely inhuman (racist, self-interested, etc.) The comments only seem aimed to inflame.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Except that it is much.... Posted by: justaguy
The problem is...
Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal on Jul 6, 2007 4:44 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...people are numb to the holocaust nature of this administration and just do not care anymore to the extent that they feel they can do anything about it, especially through their government.

I do not even think they feel anything about our kids dying...

They only solution is accountability through war crime trials and/or impeachment, and NO one has the rocks to do anything about it, so its not going to happen.

If this gang of neoconazis is not eligible for at least impeachment then no one is or ever will be again...the death penalty is the most worthy form of accountablility...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's the Digg link for this story.
Posted by: Beagle17 on Jul 6, 2007 4:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Digg this story

With an initial push from AlterNet regulars, this story could get popular on Digg. Rob over at OpEdNews says every Digg leads to about 40 extra views for a story there.

The AfterDowningStreet folks could use the support. That's doubtlessly why the frequently publish on AlterNet, OpEdNews and other sites. I recently filed a first Digg for a story by David Swanson of A.D.S. and it got nearly 1000 Diggs. I think linking to the Digg from the source at OpEdNews really helped.

It's called pitching in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I Understand and have Absolutely No Doubt
Posted by: janten on Jul 6, 2007 5:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can understand completely how our soldiers must feel when on these patrols in Iraq. I understand their shifting rules of engagement in the dynamics of the situations they find themselves in. I understand their individual and group priorities for self protection at any and all costs to "others" who may or may not pose any threat, because it is difficult if not impossible to determine if there is a real threat. I understand their inclination to error on the side of their own immediate personal and group interests rather than on the side of any "other" interests. I'm not at all surprised at nor doubtful about the high casualty rate among Iraqi civilians - "neutrals." I'm also not at all surprised by the torture and abuse that has happened and that continues to happen to any of "them" in connection to the war in Iraq and the war on terror.

I also have absolutely no doubt that we - our soldiers - should not be in Iraq and that we should have never gone to war in Iraq.

In practical reality, none of the above type of behaviors and attitudes are avoidable in such a war situation. That's been clearly demonstrated many times in the past and there was never any realistic reason to believe it would be worth risking the same kind of behaviors again in Iraq for the dubious and false claims by Bush and company. There were other options for dealing with Saddam but they were never really considered and never really given a chance by our (mis)administration.

Cheney and Bush need to be impeached. Our troops need to be brought home and be given full support in their recovery (physical, emotional and mental) from this tragedy. We, as a country, need to make a humble and sincere apology to the Iraqis, to all the people of the Middle East, to all Muslims, and to the whole world for our disgusting behavior, and we need to begin making amends to Iraq in whatever ways we can - without causing any further problems for them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sounds just like the Nazi's to me
Posted by: unity1 on Jul 6, 2007 5:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
sounds just like the nazi's to me - they invade another peoples country then call their resistance an insurgence and they become terrorists becaue they fight for their own freedom from an illegal invasion by another nation wanting only its resources and its stragetic location - yet pretending liberation - all Iraqis become potential 'enemy' combatants - ??? duh !! its all so very sick and very unconsious - a product of an incredible death focused narrasstic culture/civilisation

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wrong question.
Posted by: HughScott on Jul 6, 2007 5:54 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Instead of how many civilians our troops are killing in Iraq, the question should be, “Why?”

The author, Michael Schwartz, answered that question in the last paragraph of his Op-Ed piece with a definition of terror: “Violent or destructive acts ... committed by groups in order to intimidate a population.”

Four years ago, a majority of Iraqis, including many Sunnis, viewed U.S. troops are liberators even though they had invaded sacred Arab land under false pretenses. Now, our soldiers and Marines are seen as brutal occupiers who use intimidation to contol a hostile population.

This morning on MSNBC, Col. Jack Jacobs, NBC military consultant, Vietnam combat veteran and Medal of Honor recipient, repeated his explanation of why GIs became the bad guys in Iraq.

Simply put, Rumsfeld didn’t send in enough troops after the initial invasion to establish law and order, which, Jacobs said, should have been our primary mission following the fall of Baghdad. Thus, assuming the colonel’s analysis is correct, America is responsible for the chaos in Iraq. In every sense of the word, we are the terrorists. not the insurgents and Al Qaeda fighters

Col. Jacobs also said today that for the surge to succeed (i.e. establish law and order), an additional 200,000 troops would be needed. Since Congress would never fund an escalation that large, he predicted that President Bush, under pressure from the Pentagon, would begin withdrawing our forces in early 2008.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wrong answer. Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
To put those numbers into perspective
Posted by: Cruella on Jul 6, 2007 6:54 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NONE OF THIS IS A SURPRISE
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jul 6, 2007 7:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush, Blair & Co. were told exactly what to expect. The 'high civilian casualties' Rummy was going to avoid became just another lie. Baghdad had 4.5 million people. What troubles me is that they moved ahead with their plan and no one put up a serious fight. There were those who politely disagreed. Some had the guts to vote against Bush. But for the most part, they were quite a sales team. Special thanks to General Colin Powell. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The number is misleading
Posted by: EncinoM on Jul 6, 2007 7:21 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THe 10,000+ figure is not how many Iraqis are being killed by US troop, but the number meeting a violent end. Thousands of these deaths are the result of insurgent actions. Iran also has blood on her hands as it becomes clear she is fighting a shadow war with the US.

Good title for shock and awe, but false and otherly misleading.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Didn't read the article, huh? Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Spread the Killing Aound Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
Ever since
Posted by: willymack on Jul 6, 2007 7:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jan 20, 2001, we've had an ILLEGAL gang of crooks, thieves, thugs, and liars for "leaders". Ever since we let the aforementioned get away with the 2000 "election" theft, we've had nothing but an attack on our Constitution, our Treasury, our once-free press and radio, our ecology, our education system, and our peace of mind. Since WHEN have we been so gutless and morally dead as to allow a gang of degenerates to push us (and a helpless Iraq) around? Is this "The land of the free and the home of the brave" or something altogether more depressing and sinister?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE:Ever since....Jan 20, 2001 Posted by: wmGreybeard
And How Many Iraqi’s Are Being Killed by Israel/Zionists?
Posted by: freethink7 on Jul 6, 2007 9:09 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do we have any definitive/concrete figures to quantify how many of these deaths are a result of Israel? Please don’t be fooled into thinking it’s just U.S. and U.K involvement in this war. The Iraq War is Israel’s war. Israel seeks complete dominance and hegemony over Iraq’s resources and assets. (they are in the process of geopolitically reconfiguring Iraq + entire M.E. to control world’s oil supply). One innocent person dying per day is totally unacceptable, not to mention 300 dying per day. How much more of this insanity and unethical-vile-evil-mass-murder-genocide-ethnic cleansing against innocent people are we going to tolerate?

USIsraelWar

IsraelZionistIraq

ChrisBollynIraq

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Dear Concrete/Literal Thinker: Posted by: freethink7
Americans are extreemly racist
Posted by: Ghoulman on Jul 6, 2007 10:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... especially their media. Lou Dobbs isn't alone. The rest of the world is far ahead in social acceptance but the USA has a long racist tradition that is happily wielded still in it's politics, media, and culture. As a Canadian, it stands out when we see and hear it. Americans are openly racist.

Watching US boys go off to kill Muslims in a War against Islamo-fascism (that's how Dick Cheney and chorus put it, hey they made that word up too!) struck utter horror into the hearts of the rest of the world. Everyone heard this racist, bigoted rhetoric and saw that Americans accepted the Invasion of Iraq simply because it's ok to murder brown people. The rhetoric from neocon echo chamber was all about how Muslims were an extremist religion and so on. This from Americans who regularly blow up abortion clinics, to save lives... see, irony isn't popular with Americans, but blowing up people "who deserve it" is.

The world went from complete support and love for the USA after 9/11 to this. It was all pissed away less than two years later when Iraq was invaded. The world saw that the USA didn't give a shit about anyone but it's oil interests. The world protested against Cheney and Blair's war.

The world that had the largest anti-war protest marches in history. Marches world-wide.

And then, once the occupation revved up, the US Generals insisted they don't do body counts (but, but, it's in the Geneva Conventions!) and to top it off the White House laughed at the bodies and blood reported by the greatest, most respected medical journal on the planet, The Lancet. The White House insisted these scientists couldn't do math... yuh huh. I believe that fat shit who used to do the press scrum before Tony Snow said that the Lancet's numbers were "ludicrous". Similar words were used any time someone pointed out to Washington that they were murdering people illegally in the hundreds of thousands.

Turn on your TV right now... does America give a toss?

No. Of course not. They put black men in jail for life for stealing a pizza slice. Truth.

And Americans wonder why the entire planet hates them. Buy a clue America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» in addition Posted by: rah
» RE: al-jazeera Posted by: Ghoulman
this is GENOCIDE
Posted by: madaha on Jul 6, 2007 10:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It doesn't matter if US solidier are killing all the people, or if they are killing each other in a civil war, the effect is the same: the extermination of the people of a large country. WE STARTED THEIR CIVIL WAR, so we are responsible. And as a previous commentor noted, civil war was expected by everybody if Saddam was removed. The republicans who planned this may say "oops! who woulda thunk it?", but I don't buy that for a second. Everyone knew this was the logical outcome. This is clearing the way for the US to move in on their oil, what a coincidence that it's working out this way! In a few more years, there won't be any locals to get in our way.
The Bushies NEED TO BE PUT ON TRIAL IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF THE HAGUE. Why are they getting away with this?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Acceptable levels of reprehensibility
Posted by: Illiteratilumen on Jul 6, 2007 12:01 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The number of civilian casualties in Iraq has no effect on my position on the issue of American foreign policy, specifically in the Middle East. Its not that civilian casualties don't bother me - they do. Its just that I don't know any of these people, I don't know their culture, their customs and I don't really identify with them the same way I do with people I know that are serving or have served in Iraq. Interventionalist foreign policy has all sorts of bad effects with civilian casualties being one of them. Seeing the people I know put in harm's way and my tax dollars wasted on these types of adventures just hits home harder with me than people I don't know getting killed. If correcting the policy results in those strange and faraway civilians getting to live their lives, thats great too.

To phrase it somewhat differently; would the actions of the U.S. be any less reprehensible if we were able to somehow limit the civilian casualties to, lets say, 300 per month? Would our foreign policy be somehow validated with a smaller number of casualties?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» objective Posted by: rah
» RE: objective Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» ??? Posted by: Illiteratilumen
Updating the Lancet study
Posted by: fenianhombre on Jul 6, 2007 2:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is an excellent argument on a point that people must come to see. Iraqis are suffering horribly from this invasion and occupation.

The organization Just Foreign Policy has a new Web counter that updates the Lancet study by extrapolating from their findings (using ongoing data from Iraq Body Count). They find that nearly a million Iraqis have been killed.