U.S. Helicopters filmed firing into crowd of civilians

[hot_pastrami]

I once knew a man who ate encyclopedias. One day, after pinching a stubborn loaf, he stepped out of the bathroom stall and pointed at the turd bobbing in the bowl. "That's an encyclopedia, there," he said proudly. "Funny," I replied, "it looks like a bunch of shit to me."

[jaguar]

No 3rd party would work in Iraq either now, it's Iran verses the Sunnis and the kurds will do what they want, there really isn't much else to it. Anyone else getting into the fray is just going to get stung. My guess is the place will get carved up along those lines and that'll be the end of it, another failed state with the stamp of the US on it.

On the upside, the last major fuckup, Somalia, seems to be doing better these days.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by hot_pastrami

I think it's a safe bet that Bush is responsible for far more innocent civilian deaths in Iraq than Saddam ever was.

You're kidding right?

Tell me you're kidding.

Do you know how many innocent people Saddam had gassed and killed? Kurds?? Over how many decades? The kuwait invasion? People in prison, tortured and killed??

I'm no fan of Bush, but geez!! That's a hell of a statement....

Originally Posted by jaguar

No 3rd party would work in Iraq either now, it's Iran verses the Sunnis and the kurds will do what they want, there really isn't much else to it. Anyone else getting into the fray is just going to get stung. My guess is the place will get carved up along those lines and that'll be the end of it, another failed state with the stamp of the US on it.

On the upside, the last major fuckup, Somalia, seems to be doing better these days.

I think that when the US finally leaves Iraq (if it EVER does), it will go with the same immortal words of farewell that Rhett Butler said to Scarlett O'Hara in Gone with the Wind : "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." The US went into Iraq with no real intelligent motive. Wag the dog, indeed. The current administration wanted to make it appear that we were responding to 9/11 in an appropriate fashion and Iraq's Saddam Hussein was a convenient straw man to create and then knock down (and, yes, I understand Saddam was hardly an angel, but neither are any number of other various country's leaders and we do nothing about THEM). What happens to the country ultimately is of no interest to the Bush people, other than what fat defense contracts they can throw the way of their buddies at Halliburton and other corporate entities which have ties with the Bush administration.

Of course, Somalia is doing better. The US is no longer there.

[hot_pastrami]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

I'm no fan of Bush, but geez!! That's a hell of a statement....

You're right... you caught me uttterly failing to articulate my thoughts, accompanied by being under-informed. So, I did some reading, and here's what I came up with:

Saddam was in power for about 8,000 days and change, and estimates indicate he and his security cheifs are responsible for 60,000-100,000 civilian deaths, plus about 600 in the invasion of Kuwait. With the higher estimates, that makes it an average of about 12.6 killed per day (though not all of them Iraqi citizens). Ouch.

Bush, on the other hand, has been killing Iraqi civilians since March 19, 2003, which is about 546 days by my count. I see a wide range in estimates on this value, but one site which keeps a tally of verifyable deaths puts the tally at 14,751 today, which is lower than most other estimates (such as 40,000), but it's more credible. That makes it about 27 per day, NOT counting the 3,000-3,400 civilian deaths in Afghanistan. That's more than double Saddam's rate. Yikes.

In all fairness, I'm sure one could find sample during Saddam's regime where he and his chiefs killed more on a daily basis, but the average daily death toll over time is clearly worse for Bush, and he's not done yet. Hopefully he'll stop soon, and make me completely wrong.

True, Saddam was responsible for more total deaths, but over a much longer period of time (and some of it with the help of the US, but I digress). The day-to-day death toll under Bush is more grim, and continuing.

In my research, I found a description of an event similar to the one this thread is based on... how many other such events have occurred which we haven't heard about?

At least 33 of the victims are reported to have died when US helicopter gunships strafed a residential neighbourhood in the city of Hilla on Tuesday. Aid agencies say they are increasingly worried about the mounting number of civilian victims of the war. The doctors at Saddam Hussein Hospital said many homes and schools, which were near military targets in the city, had been hit. They said they had treated more than 1000 injuries.

Here's one final thing to reflect on when considering our military's concern (or lack thereof) for civilan deaths in Iraq:

"Change the channel"
- Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt's advice to Iraqis who see TV images of innocent civilians killed by coalition troops. [NYT 12th April 2004]

[Undertoad]

h_p, you have completely left out the effects that Saddam had on his country's prosperity... which was to approximately cut it to a tenth of what it had been, while building palaces and control for himself. This led to hundreds of thousands of deaths too.

I can't help but feel that we are going very far astray when we digress into discussions of brutality under Saddam versus brutality under Bush. Here's a listing of various conflicts, civil wars and acts of genocide in tthe 20th and 21st centuries: http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/massacre.html

Take a look at the very extensive list cited there and then tell me what percentage of these conflicts did the US take any interest what-so-ever in? We are not in Iraq because of some altruistic concern over Saddam's lack of humanity. Arguments like the one in this thread beg the real issues.

[Happy Monkey]

Inserting poverty-related deaths isn't going to help Bush in the statistics, up to now. As with war-related deaths, we can hope that changes in the future, though.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

h_p, you have completely left out the effects that Saddam had on his country's prosperity... which was to approximately cut it to a tenth of what it had been, while building palaces and control for himself. This led to hundreds of thousands of deaths too.

UT forgets to mention deaths due to missing basic services. Services that were always available under Saddam and are no longer available. For example, I don't remember which is the so many recent reports I have read (UT's study or a BBC report or one of the others). But bottom line remains. All reports not from the George Jr administration say things have gotten worse. Iraqis once had a sewage system. Much of that same system no longer functions.

The number of Iraqi civilian deaths (not including those who died in the war) was recently estimated at something around 10,000+ civilians. Furthermore, the number of civilian deaths per day has been slowly increasing. Security is so non-existant that the George Jr administration has rechanneled much of the $18billion from reconstruction into training security forces. Might as well. Most Iraqi reconstruction is all but halted due to massive insecurity.

Lack of security in Iraq is so widespread now that it is not even newsworthy. But I recall Dexter Filkins comments after coming from an interview with a Sunni cleric very opposed to Americans. He expects Sahr City (a Shi'ite stronghold) to soon join other cities as all but abandoned by American forces. Cities no longer in occupation force control according to The Economist include Samarra, Fallujah, Latifya, Kufa, Najaf, and Majar al-Kabir. For example, insurgents so fully dominate the southern city of Majar al-Kabir that weapons trade is conducted openly in large open air markets. Latifya is the town just south of Baghdad were so many contractors, a group of American soldiers, and even the son of a lady member of the Provisional government were killed in routine ambushes. These are no-go cites - completely out of occupation forces control. Far more are basically in and out of rebel control. Even tribal leaders have taken over some cities.

One would think that by avoiding these no-go cities, then America death rates were lower. 55 dead Americans this month - highest since April.

In the meantime, UN Secretary General Kofi Anan repeated what everyone really knew. The US invasion of Iraq - a Pearl Harbor type of attack - was illegal. So the George Jr administration says the UN Secretary General is lying? At what point do we acknowledge this president is says same as Nixon said about VietNam just before his landslide relection victory. History repeats when the people fail to learn it.

The Economist also says this about Iraqi education:

The Economist on 11 September 2004
Some Iraqi students are struggling to hoist the banner of democracy. But their curriculums are out of date, they have little access to the outside world, they increasingly resent America, and more of them are prey to religious groups on campus which tell girls to cover their heads and which break up romances.

Where are the facts that support the George Jr claims of Iraq is getting better? Nixon would constantly claim the same thing. The famous expression was "Light at the end of the Tunnel".

[Griff]

Originally Posted by jaguar

The only thing you can do now is get rid of bush and his cronies that lied to the world to carry out their personal ideologies and sacrificed the lives of over 1000 US troops for the benefit of Israel and their own fat pockets. Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, Cherny and Feith. Not only have they wrecked havoc on international relations but by extension their actions have spat on the democratic systems of Britain and Australia as well by feeding them blatantly false intelligenge to lie to their populations as well.

Unfortunately, the Democrats supported a guy who cannot make a proper argument against the Iraq War. He was asked the relevant questions on the Imus in the Morning Program yesterday and he blew it. He needs to come out and say his VOTE FOR THE WAR was a huge mistake. He can't pretend to have been mislead, everyone who paid attention KNEW we were being mislead. Bush's huge weakness is his inability to recognize and admit his errors, Kerry needs to show that he is bigger than the f cking pipsqueak.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I just want everyone to think about what it says about a man, if he is freely offered the last word... and not only takes it, but shouts it at the top of his lungs.

I don't like subtle insinuation. If you have a fact, then post it bluntly and honestly. Don't play silly polictially correctness games with me. I consider that equivalent to a scam salesman selling a $100 Monster surge protector in Circuit City.

It does not matter who has the last word or if a conversation is political correctly. I have no time for games of elegance or implied kindness. Those who post honestly earn respect.

These are facts. The facts straight up are that George Jr lies. He lied about WMDs. He then lied - blaming the intelligence - when virtually every allie in the region said no such WMDs can be found. So many believed George Jr rather than facts from Advanced Physic Labs. George Jr tonight in the network news has more lies about "Iraq is getting better" when his own secret National Security assessment months previously said that all three options for Iraq are bad. He has the facts months ago and he still lies.

from NY Times of 16 September 2004
A classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared for President Bush in late July spells out a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq, government officials said Wednesday.

The estimate outlines three possibilities for Iraq through the end of 2005, with the worst case being developments that could lead to civil war, the officials said. The most favorable outcome described is an Iraq whose stability would remain tenuous in political, economic and security terms.

"There's a significant amount of pessimism," said one government official who has read the document, which runs about 50 pages.

from the BBC World Service
The report - a compilation of assessments by intelligence agencies - puts forward three possible scenarios in Iraq by the end of 2005.

They range from what the report calls tenuous stability to political fragmentation and civil war. It was prepared for President Bush before a recent escalation of violence.

The BBC's Nick Childs at the Pentagon says the report is at odds with the more upbeat public statements which continue to emerge from the Bush administration.

Many analysts in Washington are now raising doubts about whether it is realistic to plan for an election in Iraq in January, our correspondent says.

How is it that virutally every responsible observer says Iraq is bad and getting worse. Yet the President says things are getting better? He is lying now just as he lied about WMDs. Just as he intentionally connected 11 September with Saddam. A previous president did the same thing - and we foolishly believed him. His name: Richard Nixon.

Posted are facts. Iraq is going as predicted a year ago because of this administration's 'ideologue based' policies. Furthermore, the president, knowing full well things are bad and will probably get even worse, instead, hypes lies about how Iraq is getting better. George Jr lies just as he did about the Oslo Accords, just as he did about the need for an anti-missile system, and now as he is advocating the elimination of inspections and verification for biological and nuclear weapons throughout the world (yes read that again).

UT: stick to the facts. Is George Jr lying about Iraq? Yes or no? If not, then please provide something that says George Jr could reverse the inevitable. We broke it. As Colin Powell warned, now we own it. The least this president could do is admit just one mistake he had made. He could not even do that on National TV. Maybe he might just admit to one mistake - if he had a brillant moment of honesty. So is he lying about Iraq?

[tw]

Originally Posted by jaguar

No 3rd party would work in Iraq either now, it's Iran verses the Sunnis and the kurds will do what they want, there really isn't much else to it. Anyone else getting into the fray is just going to get stung. My guess is the place will get carved up along those lines and that'll be the end of it, another failed state with the stamp of the US on it.

If the Kurds go independent, then Turkey may just invade. Turkey that much does not want any independent Kurdish region. The politics in this region are that complex.

[hot_pastrami]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

h_p, you have completely left out the effects that Saddam had on his country's prosperity... which was to approximately cut it to a tenth of what it had been, while building palaces and control for himself. This led to hundreds of thousands of deaths too.

True. But the Iraqi war has resulted in many unquantifiable deaths as well, so there is no way to incorporate them intelligently into our findings.

Saddam Hussein is one nasty SOB, whose selfish ambitions are paid for by the lives of the people of his country, and the blood of those who opposed him. Citizens of his country lost more freedoms under his reign than any other leader in their modern history. He was responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people, and sent hundreds of soldiers needlessly to their deaths. He stupidly invaded a sovereign nation, at the strenuous objection of the majority of the planet, motivated by his own agenda and on a foundation of lies. When the world responded negatively, he plowed in despite their warnings, and resulted in a net loss of life and comfort for Iraqis. Because of all this, the majority of countries worldwide agreed that the world would be a better place were he not in power.

Now, read the above paragraph again, but substitute "George W. Bush" where it says "Saddam Hussein." Like magic, it's all still accurate!

I'm not saying that Bush is worse than Saddam, that would be silly. I'm not even saying that he's just as bad. But he is unapologetically guilty of many of the same crimes against humanity, and the only difference is geography and perspective.

Imagine if 14,751 innocent Americans citizens were lost as "collateral damage" in a two year period, all because of the lies of America's leadership. Just about every intelligent American would hate the guts of those responsible, and rightly so. Consider that only about 3,000 Americans were killed in the WTC attacks. In Iraq, over four times that many innocents have died so far, and it's not over yet.

So... are Iraqi lives are worth less than American lives, because they live on a different piece of dirt, and have a different culture? If not, then why be upset about 3,000 dead Americans and not about 14,000+ dead Iraqis? All men are created equal, right? And I'll bet the percentage of children is much higher in the Iraqi death toll than it was in the WTC, given the circumstances.

I considered myself middle-of-the-road politically before Bush and his war... in fact, I tended towards Republican candidates much of the time. But of course, Bush is the first presidential candidate from whom I feared the consequences of a second term. If he was this destructive in his first term, what will he do when re-election is not a concern, and he feels his actions have been endorsed by the American people? I hope to never witness the answer to that question.

Incidentally, Happy Monkey's link is very apt... Anyone who hasn't yet read it really should.

US intervention has been anything but humanitarian. Check out this site if you believe otherwise: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/names.htm. "Where gender was recorded, 2,192 of those killed were male and 630 were female. At least 618 of the dead whose ages are known were less than 18 years old, and 64 were babies no more than two years old."

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

UT: stick to the facts. Is George Jr lying about Iraq? Yes or no?

If you are truly interested in facts, and not just conjecture, the only correct answer is I don't know. But you have spent post after post claiming lie, lie, lie when you could not possibly know. Emotional? Yes in spades.

It's interesting that you first ask about lies and then demand an admission of mistakes. If the President lied wouldn't you demand an admission of lies? IF the President admits mistakes, do the lies change form? Or do you get to make it up as you go along?