Iraq: Killings, Terror & the Truth
Apr 1st, 2007 | 31 responses
Bodies of dead Iraqi civilians stored in a refrigerated truck.
It seems the world has gone off to sleep so far as killings, murder and mayhem in Iraq is concerned. Years are flying by and ordinary men, women and children continue to be slaughtered.
Why? Is there anyone left to attempt an honest answer?
America is allowing its valiant soldiers to be sacrificed at the altar of personal whims and expediency of the present US administration/business.
The UN and member states have even forgotten to mumble routine cliches about human rights, violence, forcible occupation of a country by foreign troops, crime against women and children…The list is too long.
And the United Nations’ members, and its bloated bureaucracy, refuse to wake up from its slumber.
Do you know (or does it matter to you at all) that the U.S. military death toll in March, the first full month of the security crackdown, was nearly twice that of the Iraqi army? The Associated Press count of U.S. military deaths for the month was 81. While the Iraqi military toll was 44.
There have been 3,504 coalition deaths — 3,246 Americans, two Australians, 134 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, six Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Fijian, one Hungarian, 32 Italians, one Kazakh, three Latvian, 19 Poles, two Romanians, five Salvadoran, four Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians — in the war in Iraq as of March 30, 2007, according to a CNN count.
At least 24,314 U.S. troops have been wounded in action, according to the Pentagon.
Now we come to the hapless civilians. At least 100,000 Iraqi civilians may have died because of the U.S. invasion. For details please click here…
The following statement typically reflects the dehumanized world: “Pentagon officials say they do not keep tallies of civilian casualties, and a spokesman said yesterday there is no way to validate estimates by others.”
Did I hear someone say that the hanged dictator’s rule was much better than the one imposed by a foreign power as far as ordinary Iraqis are concerned?
Go ask an Iraqi women or child…
Two quotations come to mind…
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” – George Orwell
————–
“Patriotism is supporting your country all of the time – AND YOUR GOVERNMENT, WHEN IT DESERVES IT” - Mark Twain
31 Responses to “Iraq: Killings, Terror & the Truth”
WHAT?! John McCain was on TV live from Baghdad this morning and said its safe to go downtown on a shopping spree! Or….maybe that was a campaign stunt. John McCain is running for president. Not many people know it but, he really is. Likes to use taxpayer money campaign stunts too.
My God that picture is sick Swaraaj. I know it represents only a fraction of the weekly dead innocent civilians. Your point is well taken. I am so ashamed of my government for allowing this to happen. Friggen republicans are so stupid and hardheaded, and of course, they say all is going well. How can people do this? How can the republicans continue to deny reality? Anything for their corporate masters and the military industrial complex….I guess.
This has got to be one of the most poorly written and blatant throwaway propaganda pieces I have seen in a while. Even if the 100,000 number is correct you sourced it from a 2004 story on a study that has been widely discredited. Hell if you want to use tripe you can find someone to vomit out numbers at least 5 times as large. At least they would then be timely if with as little regard for the truth. While there are indeed rights violations and even some committed by US and Coalition troops, they don’t match numbers with what occurred under Saddam, not even close, or did we use chemical weapons on Kurds? Nope Saddam. You ignore that the elected govt doesn’t want us to leave because they are not sure they can keep the country together, that the people while wishing we could go know it would be a start of even greater death and kaos.
You may have wanted to find a better article than the one you used for some of your facts because it gave more facts than you seemed to use. Like besides the 44 Iraqi solders over 160 Iraqi police also died, so much for trying to make it seem as if the Iraqis were not trying, not part of the fight.
All of these things pale beside the real problem. That quite possibly a million or more people could die out of the kaos of a US withdraw that otherwise wouldn’t. Even if everything anyone ever says about how we shouldn’t be there or any negative thing about how we went is true……So? Wouldn’t that just make our duty to prevent whatever bloodshed possible stronger? Or walk away to pyramids of skulls and a whole new “Killing Field”. History has shown, again and again, that leaving now will cause many more deaths.
Wow Eric you describe members of the prestigious US media as propaganda machine!!!
The casualty figures are not mine or for some shady source. I have only quoted from The Washington Post and the CNN.
Well if Eric thinks that The Washington Post and the CNN are not reliable that’s his outlook, and, as a non-American, a point worth serious consideration for me.
If the figures provided by The Washington Post are three years old (I quoted them intentionally), then try to imagine what the civilian casualty figures would be now!!!
Yeah Eric, whats a few thousand dead when you are making redneck History? Oh, and the study was never “discredited” and the number for last year alone was more than a hundred per day, for the ENTIRE year. Undisputed of course. You are an appologist for neocon murder. All this….just for a tax break. You make me sick.
Want to argue or talk facts? You used a story from 2004, hardly current, and the story referenced a study that someone else did not that they calculated those figures and they even noted that the numbers came from a very small sample and had quotes from people disagreeing with the thing!!! That is in no way saying that the POST is not (or for that matter is) reliable. What I did say is the way you used it was bad writing and more to the point bad propaganda, for with that little regard for the truth you could of used much bigger numbers.
The study was widely discredited and has never been supported by any other reputable study or total. Mind you for the arguments I made it makes no difference, but the sloppiness bothered me.
I apologize for nothing and you both ignore the point. MORE WILL DIE IF WE LEAVE
Eric – The BBC reported , just in the kast month, that the British government found the study methods “robust”. The Blair government failed to disclose this for spin purposes. The US press failed to cover this latest story from the UK. Many sources cover the short term success of the surge, this gets alot of coverage. So much for not covering the good news.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6495753.stm
Even if the studies estimates were inflated by 100%, you cannot ignore the carnage. The Shia led Iraqis government will scoff at the numbers, it makes them look like willing participants in “ethnic cleansing”.
Yes Eric please do have a look at this BBC story “Iraqi deaths survey ‘was robust’ “
It is another matter if you believe that like the CNN and The Washington Post, the BBC is also a ‘propaganda machine’!!! Cheers…
The myth that once the US leaves Iraq there would be a deluge, compares well with another myth that after General Pervez Musharraf there would be a dangerous chaos in Pakistan. These myths have been carefully nurtured/cultivated by strategists who would certainly compare well with Goebbels.
No one is indispensable in this world, especially tin pot dictators and their masters and mentors.
A person must be really naive to think that the US would change the character and style of functioning of the Iraqis, or nations in the Middle East, who have lived like this for centuries, until a strong man (howsoever barbaric) like Saddam Hussain would bring in a semblance of order.
I don’t think that Mr Bush or any American would be able to emulate Saddam Hussain.
If the US administration has not learnt a lesson in these agonising four or five years, I wonder when it would!!!
I can predict that the US would recall its troops within a year…otherwise it would not be a case of just a bloodied nose but the entire face…A great pity!!!
again as I said the numbers make no difference. I told you you could find numbers that were current and in that range. My complaint was about your post and that’s what I called bad propaganda not the study. The way you ignore my point hardly makes me feel like you being open and honest in your approach. Mind you I could debate that study on many different points, but as I said the numbers are not what make my point.
I repeat my post is based on figures provided in reports from CNN, the Washington Post and the BBC.
Sorry, but these casualty figures have not been cooked up by me!!! Maybe I am quite dim because I don’t understand what you are trying to say repeatedly.
Eric face it, you have no point. Whatever point you childishly attempt to make with, “statistics can mean anything”, argument, it is instantly destroyed by the fact that tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands have died because of Bush and his neocon republican’s stupid move into Iraq and then trying to continue it on the cheap so he don’t to raise taxes. the exact numbers become irrelevent after crime has been exposed as a crime. Only STOPPING it becomes relevent.
Eric’s trying to say he doesn’t believe that many were killed and, even if that many were killed, even more would be killed if the Americans leave.
I don’t think Eric has reviewed the rate of killings, which keeps climbing, to the point that 600 Iraqis have died in just the past week – despite the crackdown on Baghdad.
Eric doesn’t want to contemplate the possibility that the ‘surge” isn’t working. It’s his last best hope. If the surge doesn’t work, then he might have to consider that the war in Iraq left it worse off than it was under Saddam (something quite a few Iraqis are already saying).
Saying “it’ll be even worse if we leave!” is really very little different from saying “Gore or Kerry would have been even worse!” It’s a statement of faith, with no empirical analysis to back it up.
I guess you didn’t get my vietnam references which is funny because your comments closely resemble the comments made before the US left there. The low estimates are well over 1 million deaths that can be directly drawn from our leaving. Some estimates of the deaths in Cambodia were up to 3 million deaths out of only 7 million total. You can look at Algeria and France in the late 50′s early 60′s where 300,000 were killed and 1 million had to flee to live. What we are trying to do is like Britain in Malaysia, withstanding an insurgence to finally hand over power to the people without the additional body count that happens when you “bail”. I have very little knowledge of Pakistani politics which is why I don’t pretend I do, of course you acting like I have some connection to a position some take in those politics makes even less sense than my involvement in such. I don’t think we need to change anyone. People forget that there is a functioning democracy as a nabor to Iraq. Though you can’t say turkey is peaceful they are able to maintain there own sovereignty and right now that is unlikely to happen with Iraq.
I think that the US has learned it’s lesson that what the new Command and the new plan is about. It is a new plan a new way of dealing with the situation
I don’t wish to get off point about the 600,000 because it doesn’t mater. If 1 million more die because we leave will you feel better because 600,000 died ? I realize that you are trying not to see my point and I’m sure people can disagree but do you understand how mindless you seem when you are unwilling to aknowlage even that there is a point even if you disagree. It’s like who can stick their head farthest into the sand. Discussion is good, exchange of ideas and opinions is good even when you disagree. Saying anyone who has a different opinion is sick, evil, crazy, blind is bad.
Erik, all this death should have been considered before George Bush pulled the switch. The entire world was telling our stammering and word slurring president NOT to do this. However he lied. He presented false evidence to congress as reason to invade Iraq. Right after, please note, that Bin ladden escaped our troops in Afghanistan because Bush again, did not want to commit the troops asked for by the Military Leaders on the battle Field.
Incompetence and repeated incompetence. What does it take to convince you of the truth in front of your eyes?
Great point White, it should of been (note: I am just indicating that I think the cost in live should have been considered before invading Iraq. Not anything else). Now that has been said it really doesn’t effect the decisions that we must make today
Eric the only decision is leave….now. We cannot war with the entire middle east with just the Brits. The rest of the world is NOT with us. We cannot continue this any longer, much less for years and decades as the republicans suggest. We are in an impossible situation. A “quagmire”. We are not going to win this because we simply do not have the military to do it.
Swaraaj,
Re: Musharraf.
What do you think of Imran Khan? I’d be grateful if you could give us your thoughts.
You people are all talking past each other. Things are bad in Iraq – almost everyone agrees with that. Many innocent people are killed every day and frankly, NO ONE has accurate numbers. Furthermore, accurate numbers do nothing but give one side or another talking points to support their particular views and avoid the real issue which is: What do we do NOW?
And, Swaraaj, thank you for reminding me that Iraq sucks, lots of people are dying, and the Bush policy has been a failure because no one else is doing so. I was completely ignorant of those facts as I’m sure was everyone else on the planet. (/snark) I’m sure it must have felt very good to post essentially the same mantra that thousands on the left post every single day. What a relief it is to know you care. Naturally, just like those thousands of other posts, you offer no solutions, no alternative policies to follow and no cogent analysis of where to go from here.
Just like those thousands of other posts, you ignore or downplay the costs (calling them a “myth” of all things) of the US picking up its ball and going home. To suggest that somehow Iraqi’s will stop killing each other if the US were magically gone tomorrow is the real myth – a delusional myth one must adhere to in order to make withdrawal a morally palatable choice. But your myth is not supported by any facts – in actuality, it’s well established that when US forces leave or reduce forces in mixed ethnic areas that Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence goes up.
Frankly, it’s easy to sit in front of a computer and pine for the good old Saddam days when innocents died by mere thousands instead of tens-of-thousands, but those days are GONE. The situation today in Iraq is what it is and I grow increasingly weary of criticism that offers no solution. Criticism without solution is disingenuous, lazy, and serves no other purpose but political ends.
The reason US involvement in this war (and I say involvement, because the war will continue when/if the US departs) continues is because its critics have not been able to express any alternative but various forms of withdrawal – hence their need to reassure themselves that Iraq will transform itself into a peaceful utopia once the “root cause” – the USA – is gone.
Swaraaj,
Just ignore the noise, and keep on posting.
You provide good information on Pakistan.
Yeah…so….we are left with the Democrat PLAN. Set a date and get the hell out of Iraq.
Won’t be soon enough for me and DO NOT BRING hundreds of them HERE because they drew a federal paycheck. What do you want to do, start an insurgency here the first time somebody spits on a Muslim?
The cost? You right wingers are the only ones sweating the “cost”. Just do it.
We HAVE A SOLUTION, PLEASE ENCOURAGE YOUR STUPID REPUBLICAN SENATORS TO VOTE FOR IT!
Jesus talk about thick headed.
Entropy,
A very accurate post, that sadly, will sway very few people here.
Thoe who desire a pullout cannot and will not face the fact that Iraqi casualties will skyrocket. As John Burns, Baghdad bureau chief of the NY Times noted this past week:
Burns goes on to say something else that anti-war forces pointedly do not address: the significant chance of a regional war breaking out as a result of the precipitous pullout they call for.
Saudi Arabia has publicly stated that if the Shia (supported by Iran) start “ethic cleansing” of their co-religionists, they will support the Sunni, financially, and with weaponry. Saudi Arabia and Iran will likely engage in a regional war with Iraq as the battleground, and Iraqi civilians taking the brunt of the casualties. Should this conflict got from a proxy war to a direct conflict, the Persian Gulf will be completely shut down. Not a drop of oil will exit the Straits of Hormuz for the duration of a direct conflict.
This will cause us some pain here in the U.S., but we’ll get out of it with a recession and the job losses one gets with a downturn in the market. In developing nations, the resulting loss of oil could be catastrophic, especially if the war occurs or extends into winter.
Many will protest, but if a regional conflict occurs and drags on for too long, we might be forced back into military action, and we’ll get to start all over again, after tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands die needlessly.
Entrophy made good and valid comparisons to conflicts in Algeria and Vietnam, both nations where the insurgencies had been crushed, but where the French and Americans still lost the conflicts due to public pressure brought by left wing activists. The resulting massacres after the pullouts killed as many or more people than the wars themselves.
These facts were recently discussed here.
The war in Iraq is certainly winnable, and the strategy and tactics employed by Gen Petraeus are proven. Sadly, I don’t know that a misguided American left can see either the past damage they’ve caused, or the tens of thousands of more graves they’ll fill being “anti-war.”
Bob,
I agree with some of what you say in principle, but there are arguments that could make a pullout work. Violence would certainly increase significantly for a period of time, but perhaps in the long run it might prove better if a wider war could be contained. Ethnic cleansing is never pretty, but if it ultimately results in a lasting peace it might be worth the cost. I personally think it’s too dangerous a course, but it might be a valid argument and should be looked at.
The problem is the left isn’t interested in such debates. And to be fair, the right is myopic on it’s solution, which is fighting for the decade it will take to bring things under control. The right doesn’t want to admit that public support won’t last long enough for a counterinsurgency strategy to succeed. They’re banking that the surge will provide enough security to reduce our presence to sustainable levels from both a political and military readiness standpoint. No matter what happens in 2008, troop levels will go down because the Army is broken and cannot sustain even pre-surge deployment cycles.
One imperfect option is to end neutrality in the conflict and pick a faction as our paramilitary proxy. The trouble is, with the exception of the Kurds, pickings are slim for a reliable ally that could unite the country through a combination of force and popular support. I suspect at this point Iraqis would welcome a benevolent dictatorship if only for the security it would provide.
Again, options for the FUTURE should be the discussion, but everyone is too concerned with their body counts and politically expedient diatribes to actually generate and debate actual IDEAS.
Bob Owens- Whats the plan? HOW are you going to PREVENT more death by remaining in Iraq? We are already there and you CANNOT PREVENT the killing now. You have no plan. You are confused and disoriented much worse than during Vietnam.
How ever many deaths that have ocurred there now, or, WHEN we leave, (and we will most certainly leave), will STILL BE ON OUR HEADS, now or ten years down the road! However if we leave now, it will be over long before ten years down the road. We cannot undue the mess you got us into, but we can get out of it and regroup with the Democrat plan!
Burns is making speculation as if he can actually see the future. Sorry don’t buy it, “sadly”. IMO You don’t care about civilian deaths or you would have spoken your concerns long before it got to this, but “sadly”, you didn’t! I think…”stay the course’ was the once favorite sound bite. Lets not forget “we do not need more troops” that has somehow turn into a “surge”. IMO, like the silly enemies we have, you just don’t want to lose face.
Our military has FAILED to carry out George W Bush’s FAILED policy and you want to hang on until the last child is slaughtered in the vain hope that BUSH will become victorious, not America, or, the Iraqi people. That is my opinion. Is it visceral? Yes and you deserve it.
A quiz/puzzle/dilemma. Those who solve it should be awarded a prize by the TMV. Here it goes…
A well-meaning fellow in a very mixed neighbourhood decides to intervene in a family quarrel between a husband and a wife. Most of the neigbours advice this ‘good Samaritan’ to keep off, so does his family and children.
But this fellow, stricken by his conscience, first threatens the husband, then forcibly enters the house and starts living there, and finally kills the head of the family.
The shocked wife and children, some of them grown up, are totally bewildered at the development. With no coordinating and protective force around, the women and her children begin to assert themselves and soon there is a total chaos in the house, which gradually turns violent.
When the ‘good Samaritan’ tries to restore order, the friendly neighbours suggest to this fellow to get out in time so that the family sorts out its own problem. “No, now I can’t because they would kill each other,” is the fellow’s constant refrain.
The ‘good Samaritan’ is totally puzzled. “What the hell is going on, ” he begins to wonder. “I have rid these idiots of a tyrant, and now they are hell bent on killing each other. How can I leave them in this situation.”
The ‘good Samaritan’s’ wife and children begin to pressurise him and say enough is enough, ‘now darling dad please come back to your own home’.
Meanwhile the neighbours are so tired of the cussed and naive behaviour of this fellow that they refuse to intervene.
Some rumours are afloat that the fellow has also begin to mess around with the women in the family, and begin to behave violently with the young boys in the house. This gives a good opportunity to the bullies in the neighbourhood to intervene and aggravate the situation.
Finally, a day comes when the inhabitants of the house where he had forcibly planted himself, ask him to leave. “What the f*ck,” he tears his hair. “I have made such a sacrifice, leaving my own home and peace, spent such a lot of money on these idiots, and they want me to leave!!! If I leave these idiots will kill themselves. Oh, how can I do that!”
What should the ‘good Samaritan do’? Your time begins now!!!
Wow, that has to be the worst analogy ever.
The “plan” is at the second link in my previous post. Perhaps you should actually read it before criticizing it. I’d reinterate that the implementation of that plan in Malaya led to a British victory. The “plan” you say doesn’t exist is literally printed in black and white as Counterinsurgency Field Manual FM3-24. The man who wrote is now running the war, and he is running it quite differently than anyone has in the past. He’s working from a proven template.
I am rather digusted by the way your mind works.
You’ve made the mental calculation that no matter what we try to do, “X” amount of people will die. You say precisely that, and even provide a timeline:
You’ve made the calculation that the Iraqi people are savages, and no matter what the coalition tries to do, that Iraqi’s will butcher each other, and so it is better that we simply step aside and let an open-ended slaughter commence now. You state, in no uncertain terms, that your plan, the Democrat plan, is to run as fast as we can away and ignore the genocide you expect to occur in our wake.
You expect genocide, and push for the action that will trigger it.
You, sir, are a monster that I don’t have words to describe.
If General Petraeus can successfully wage the counterinsurgency he literally wrote the book on, the mass slaughter White Agent seems as inevitable needs not happen. That is reason enough to give the Petraeus plan a chance.
I think we would be wise to take as a starting point that most who post here would like to see the surge work. For myself, I pray that the US and Iraqi army can successfully re-establish enough order so that both Shia and Sunni can return to their homes or at the very least go about their daily business safely and not worry that today is the day their child gets blown up in the school playground or university forecourt.
The problem is that those supporting the surge are the same people who assured us invading Iraq would be a cake walk; are the same people who told the country our troops would be greeted as liberators; that there was no serious divide between Sunni and Shia, that stripping the Iraq army and civil service of all Baatist members was the right step and who again and again, despite reporting from the Pentagon suggesting the reality was otherwise, assured the country that things were getting better.
How anyone can be expected to believe them now is beyond me. I am certain Eric and Entropy are sincere in their concern for what will befall Iraq civilians once American troops pull out, and I have little doubt that their predictions will prove to be correct, but most recent surveys conducted in Iraq show that a majority of Iraqis want our troops to leave.
Yeah, let’s talk about polling.
If you scroll down to page 16 you’ll see despite the overwhelming unpopularity of US forces, just 35% of Iraqi’s want us to leave immediately while 66% want our forces to stay until some point in the future.
Truflo,
Let’s not revise history too much, okay? The invasion WAS a cakewalk – the occupation was not. We WERE greeted as liberators by the majority of the population but because of our nonexistent occupation plan, goodwill was gone within a couple of months. There WASN’T a serious divide between the Sunni and Shia – the Sunni-on-shia violence is a direct result of the USA’s inability to prevent AQI from starting a sectarian war.
Like it or not, we are stuck with GWB for another two years. His credibility is shot, but there’s not much of a choice, is there?
What’s ironic about the Democrat’s “plan” is that if it were enacted, and the surge is successful, we’d pull out at precisely the WRONG time. That’s one reason timetables are usually a bad idea.
[...] For my earlier post on Iraqi civilian casualties please click here… [...]