<!-- Begin meta tags generated by ORblogs --> </meta name="keywords" content="progressive, liberal, politics, government, edit, language, grammar, accuracy, honesty, clarity, world, news, media" /> </> <!-- End meta tags generated by ORblogs -->> Editor at Large: Iraqi death toll "more than 600,000"

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Iraqi death toll "more than 600,000"


A team of American and Iraqi public health researchers estimates that more than 600,000 civilians have died in violence across Iraq since Bush invaded in 2003.

Six. Hundred. Thousand.

The researchers acknowledge that the number is an estimate. The actual count is somewhere between 426,369 and 793,663 deaths.

So the Bush administration is responsible for more Iraqi deaths than Saddam Hussein ever was (the highest estimates are "over 100,000").

The Bush administration is also responsible for more American deaths (2,753) than 9/11 was (2,752).

Who is the real threat to American and world security? Who is the real terrorist?

How long are we going to let this lunatic run the show?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/middleeast/11casualties.html

22 Comments:

Anonymous Jeff said...

Please have some respect for our country, do not refer to the President as Terrorist, you cannot be that ignorant! The US military is not targeting civilans, the militants are!

9:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeff, please don't be so naïve. Everybody knows that war incites civil unrest. Read your history books. Don't you think the president knew that? Well, he probably didn't know it, like you, but he was surely briefed by his cabinet about it. Just like I'm briefing you. Isn't the word brief funny in that it also means underwear. Hey Jeff, what were you eating under there? Pay attention. EWD

2:32 PM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

But in this case the civil unrest is not being caused by the civilians. The unrest is being caused by militants who want nothing more than to see democracy fail in Iraq. The civilians want democracy and peace.

2:48 PM  
Blogger Editor at Large said...

Jeff: Whether or not the US "military" (same root as "militant") is targeting Iraqi civilians, they are killing them - mostly unintentionally, perhaps, but also intentionally, as you may have read. And it's our presence in Iraq that created Iraqi militants, so we must take some responsibility for their deeds. We can argue until we're blue in the face about whether Bush is technically a terrorist, but he is at least complicit in the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent people. So what would you call him?

EWD: Under where? Jeez, we always fall for that one!

3:40 PM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

I say we send in 100,000 more troops to finish off the militants. The War in Iraq will not be over until the militants stop the killing. Blame Bush if that makes you feel better. Your solution, I assume, is to pull out of Iraq, so all those peoples deaths would be in vain?

4:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh, yeah, that's right, militants are not or were never civilians.

If I were a civilian and a foreign country invaded my hometown demanding that I accept their ideologies, I'd become a militant. Damn right I would.

This democracy you're so willing to invade other countries for, oh wait, strike that, this democracy that you are so willing to recruit your society's lower classes' teenagers to invade other countries for is based on capitalism and consumption. Not everybody wants that kind of democracy, Jeff. Not even me.

Militants don't hate freedom and peace; they are fighting for thiers. And their vision of peace is not your vision of peace. That's something you'll have to live with. Education and free information is the way to go. Not swinging a big stick.

Why would anybody hate freedom? Ask yourself that, Jeff. Why would anybody think that true democracy, peace and freedom are oppressive, Jeff? Where's the logic in that rationale? I think that saying terrorists and miltants hate freedom is about the stupidest reason to fight a war. And that we are buying it is even more stupifying. Infact, that wasn't even the reason for invading Iraq, was it. What was? I think I've forgotten. Can you remind me?

What? 200 people in the state of Kansas don't like my flag! Let's invade the whole state and "finish off" the militants.

We can't continue to seize power for resource acquisition. My heart still aches for native America, my heart aches for Iraq. Bush manipulated our countries grief and flew it into Iraq.

Do you need directions to your local recruiting office, Jeff?

Are you polarized by the media's spell to assume that pulling out, cutting and running, is the only alternative? There are others.

EWD

5:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well let's hear your words of Wisdom on IRAQ. You are the President, how would you handle Saddam, just after the 9/11 attacks? Dude if you are a US citizen, sounds like you should move to another country, with such anti american words...

5:24 PM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

Check out the timeline of IRAQ for your answers to why our government approved declaring War on IRAQ:
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/iraqtimeline1.html

Too many times our government has reacted only after directly attacked. If we were attacked by weapons supported by IRAQ, that would have been who's fault? Hmmm..let me guess. If we don't resolve the growing problems in IRAN and N. Korea the U.S could be attacked by terrorists supplied by these countries as well. When the U.N. Imposes sanctions on both these countries, there could very well be another War for the world to fight and more people will die. But that will be Bush's fault too I guess...

5:59 PM  
Blogger activist kaza said...

Jeff, you obviously weren't around during the "creation" of Iraq (that was back in the 1920s, by our British colonial friends). And I rather suspect you're not old enough to remember Vietnam either.

The problem is: the government that represents 50%+1 of the American people (now done to less than 33% in the latest polls) didn't do its homework. Just like you, they ignored history.

Send in another 100k troops. It won't end the insurgency. Hell, we could drop a nuke on them (or Iran) and won't end terrorism tomorrow either.

You see, the problem is that this whole "war on terrorism" is a sham. It is a bogus invention of a fear-mongering government (ours) that is too chicken-shit to sit down and even talk, face-to-face with countries like Syria, North Korea or Iran.

How will we know when we've won the war on terror, Jeff? When the attacks stop, right? Well, guess what...it ain't gonna happen in our lifetime...it's a war that cannot be "won".

However, there is a "peace" to be won. It starts by winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people - who want us out of there. Then, we can folo the advice (and some history) of some very smart people and let the country divide (into a loose federation of autonomous states: Kurd, Shia, Sunni).

That's right - historically, Iraq didn't exist before 1922. Did you know that, Jeff? We are trying to impose a solution on them that most Iraqis don't want but just watch...the Baker-Hamilton commission will come out with this recommendation right after the elections and we'll slowly begin to get the hell out of there.

Will you accuse the President of "cutting and running" then? I hope not, because it's the only sane solution...too bad it didn't happen three years ago.

9:26 PM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

The Iraqi people want peace, if we leave there will be even more killings, civil war and a new haven for terrorists to hide out. Just read the messages from the Iraqi people at: http://www.opgratitude.com/from_iraq.php

You cannot believe everything the media feeds you! The Sunni's and Kurds want to live together in peace, they have been fighting each other too long.

Terrorism has been imagined by our government? Not even going to reply to that one, unbelievable...

We have sat down to talk with North Korea and IRAN in the past, they ignore all agreements and do what they want anyway. It's time for 6 party talks at the U.N. and for all 6 countries to apply pressure, otherwise N. Korea can just break a deal with the U.S. Let's see how the U.N. Handles it, so far, so good...

6:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I sense much anger in Jeff and Anonymous.

Me un-american. I'm as American as it gets. Kicking people out of your house, that is cleansing your home of those with differing opinions, is the best you've got? Such feeble-minded ways. I would never cast you out of my garden. I like having different points of view and would rather work towards peace diplomatically. Because in the end, I think we all want the same thing: a safe place to raise a family.

news: 9/11 could have been prevented. The admin knew about it and held the doors wide open. Saddam had nothing to do with it, don't kid yourselves.

Jeff said, "Terrorism has been imagined by our government? Not even going to reply to that one, unbelievable..."

You're kidding, right? Do you need specific examples? Native Americans for starters. Africans.
Not just in the past, but right now. Subjugation of Women. Do you not read the news? Why aren't hate crimes considered terrorism? Corporations' ecological crimes? Smells like terrorism to me.

EWD

9:32 AM  
Blogger Editor at Large said...

Jeff and Anonymous:

1. Iraq and Iran are not acronyms. Why do you keep spelling them as if they were? If you're going to continue spelling them as acronyms, at least be consistent and spell AMERICA and NORTH KOREA as acronyms, too.

2. Saddam Hussein had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Zero. Bush himself has finally admitted that. And Iraq never possessed WMDs. Saddam Hussein was a terrible person, but he was never a real threat to us. So why, again, are we there? If Iraqis really want democracy and peace, let's get out of their way and let them figure out how to make it happen. As EWD pointed out, our presence there is what turned civilians into militants. Yes, leaving will be an admission of failure and that invading Iraq was a mistake, but eventually we have to admit the truth. Why not now, before more people are killed? How will staying and losing even more lives "honor" those who have died?

3. Kaza's point wasn't that terrorism isn't real, it's that the "war on terrorism" is not really a war at all because it can't be won. Not without killing every single existing or potential terrorist - which is ultimately everyone on the planet. Yourselves included.

10:31 AM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

Me, I am not angry :) I just don't get how our nation can be so split on the war in IRAQ. I think the internet and the media throws so much BAD and false information at everyone it's hard to get the real facts. The media loves bad news, that's how they get their ratings.

Still not hearing anything from the Bush critics in this thread on how this "War on Terror" should be fought, all I am hearing is twisting of the facts to fit your political agenda. According to this thread, the U.S. and all other countries in the U.N. should let other countries build up weapons against U.N. resolutions and defy all methods of verification of such buildup. Also, this thread thinks that fight on terrorism cannot be won. What is the plan? Sitting at home watching TV, surfing the web, hoping we are never attacked?

Yes, Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11, but he did defy U.N. Resolutions and refused weapon inspections over a 10 year period to verify the existance of WMD's and compliance of such resolutions.

6:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeff, there is no war on terror. It's a sham. You've been duped. Iraq is a war for resource acquisition. And I'm not sure how other countries will ward off the US as it continues to terrorize. Furthermore, countries should be allowed to stockpile weapons to defend themselves against the US govt's marauding, pirating, and warring ways just as the US continues to stockpile weapons to defend its right to spread freedom. Afterall, there is only one country that has used a nuclear device on another country.

But, but, but 9/11, is what you say. That wasn't terrorism, that was retaliation. Retaliation for what? To answer that, I could suggest some reading material.

As for your not hearing solutions, you're just not listening and being honest. You've got selective hearing. Which is what my wife tells me I have.

Three months after Bush dubbed North Korea part of the axis of evil, the US threw them 95 million dollars for their nuclear program.

But, but, but Clinton set that up, you say. Don't you think Bush could have stopped it? Why didn't he?

I've never even thought about being attacked unitl Bush siezed power. To begin the healing, we need a true leader.

EWD

8:40 AM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

What reading material would you recommend, the Kuran? I am very glad that the UN sees Korea as a threat, since you do not.

11:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Korea is a threat? Oh, you mean North Korea. Or is that all caps, NORTH KOREA? I never said anything about their threat potential.

Do you not read? The U.S. threw 95 million dollars at North Korea for their nuclear program. They are a threat and the U.S. is seeing to it, by giving them money to develop a nuclear program, by polarizing them as part of the axis of evil, and by trade sanctions.

Of course now, the conservative media is reporting that no radiation is being detected in the air. So I guess that means they are not really a threat afterall. Well, not yet.

I haven't read the Koran, but I'm not opposed to it. Want to start a book club? Let's read it together and talk about it.

Seriously though, for starters you could read Michael Parenti, "Superpatriotism."

http://www.michaelparenti.org/

Have a nice day.

EWD

12:33 PM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

You seem to think that countries that defy UN resolutions against WMD's such as Iraq should be left alone hense the reason for deducing that such countries as IRAQ, IRAN and North Korea are not a threat. The UN disagrees with your assesment.

1:16 PM  
Blogger Editor at Large said...

Jeff: Here's some more reading matter for you, in response to your allegation that "Bush critics" aren't talking about how we should deal with terrorists and the bloodbath that used to be Iraq: http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/redeployment.pdf

EWD: May we join your reading group?

1:16 PM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

Editor: Now we are getting some where, I read constructive recommendations on how to fight the Global "War on Terror" (which does exist). Good recommendations! I am positive our military leaders, who are experts in military operations will make the best decisions on when to start the pull out of Iraq.

1:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeff, I actually do think that countries that defy UN resolutions are a threat. I'm glad to hear that you support the UN. Most cons. don't. I wish more of us would respect the UN, and stand behind the nuclear proliferation treaty, the Kyoto accord, the convention against torture, etc. So long as the U.S. is violating them all, other countries should be able to protect themselves, don't you think, Jeff? Lead by example.

Thanks for the reading rec., Editor@Large, I've bookmarked it for later. As for a reading group and the Koran, I'm sure there's one online already, don't you think?

EWD

1:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the U.S is violating any resolutions I am quite sure the U.N. will act accordingly.

2:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yeah, ok... the US ignored the UN security council... Is there anything happening with that?

Act accordingly to what? or to who's purpose? I should ask.

EWD

3:47 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home