Skip to main content

View Diary: #1 Most Underreported News Story (As Voted By Kossacks) - Updated (259 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  They would think you were lying. (30+ / 0-)

      And Republicans would be too happy to tell them that you were.  Regrettably, many people would be thankful for the Republicans for doing so.

      "and the people bowed and prayed to the neon gods they'd made" The Sound of Silence

      by electricgrendel on Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 10:05:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of course (9+ / 0-)

        this is what we can expect from the "Hate America" crowd.

        Their very words.

        "Much law, but little justice": Proverb

        by Dave925 on Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 11:24:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  "fight them over there so we don't have to... (12+ / 0-)

        fight them over here" battle cry is one choice propaganda tactic that has numbed the American psyche to the profound immorality of the invasion of Iraq.   Confronting the numbers of people whose deaths the Iraq invasion brought about will have to penetrate the callouses on the soul of the body politic.

        •  I like the "We removed a brutal dictator" meme (5+ / 0-)

          Yes responsible for killing thousands of his own people.

          Better we kill hundreds of thousands in the process of removing him.

          It could be argued that Lincoln killed millions of Americans in an effort to quell a rebellion. Difference of course being, Saddam -- and especially his sons from what I've read -- took a perverse pleasure in it.

          Who's to say, with intense diplomacy and regional pressure, we couldn't have convinced him to hold legitimate elections and stand by the results. It recently happened in Pakistan, no?

          Or am I wrong in that logic?

          I am a liberal - I question authority, ALL authority.

          by Pescadero Bill on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 10:35:03 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Who's to say... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Odysseus, bushondrugs, divineorder

            ...we couldn't have just done nothing? Why on earth should we have taken it upon ourselves to make Iraq have legitimate elections?  

            I must assume that you are too young remember the "good old days" of the 50s and 60s, when "bringing democracy" to the rest of the world was standard (and bloody) American foreigh policy. The reason the Bush and Clinton administrations settled for containment is that they actually learned the lessons of the past.

            As for your question, no, I don't think we could have ever convinced Saddam Hussein to hold legitimate elections and stand by the results. Not that this was ever our goal anyway.

            •  And I can only assume you're of the (0+ / 0-)

              libertarian mindset.

              The stand-back-and-do-nothing isolationist creed.

              And, no I'm not too young to remember the "good old days". And I know all about the double speak of "bringing democracy to the world" and its true agenda of overthrowing legitimate (and not) governments to "spread" the exploitation of their resources for our corporations.

              Trying to stop genocide and despots and in essence really working for peace is a worthy goal. But let's leave the guns and CIA spooks at home.

              That's all I'm sayin'

              I am a liberal - I question authority, ALL authority.

              by Pescadero Bill on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 07:58:31 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  logic good; add factoids: (4+ / 0-)

            US used Saddam when he was "their sonuvabitch," got rid of him when he was no longer useful.

            US simply cannot both square itself with the facts and with behavior that respects the values US says it stands for.

          •  Saddam offered to leave for $1 Billion (6+ / 0-)

            His request for $1 billion to go into exile was scoffed at...so we could spend a trillion $$ or more to massacre a million Iraqis while pretending we were liberators.
            George Bush wins the "Hitler Prize" for the most people killed since WWII.
            It will be displayed prominently in the Hall of Horrors in his library.

          •  I don't think we did anything to help Pakistan, (0+ / 0-)

            that was entirely the Pakistanis' doing, and they really put their lives on the line, and in huge numbers. Bush supported Musharraf, which, then again, now that I think about it, may have helped the movement against him.

        •  You mean... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Franco Prussia 1871

          Kill them over there so they could never come over here...regardless of intent.

      •  Exactly (10+ / 0-)

        Americans will not accept the 1,000,000 figure because it would be impossible to reconcile with their belief that we have a benevolent foreign policy.  Colonialism is something other countries do, something empires do.  Wholesale slaughter is the stuff of Nazis and Godless communists, not of the good God-fearing American troops in Iraq.

        It would be an easier task to convince Americans that baseball was invented in Russia, football in Japan, and Apple Pie in China.

        "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

        by Subterranean on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 08:25:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not lying. Just wrong. (0+ / 0-)

        Certainly there is not much that is compelling about this study. It was conducted by a polling company. The data are based entirely on unconfirmed and unconfirmable verbal reports.

        There are no reliable data on exactly how many Iraqis died in this war, much less who killed them, and there never will be.

        •  I saw (3+ / 0-)

          the authors of this study speak they said that is a conservative talking point. This is THE Method for counting deaths in civilian war zone. They cited that it was used in both Bosnia and Rwanda.

          A dream catcher works . . . If your dream is to be gay.

          by thethinveil on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 03:07:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So? (0+ / 0-)

            So the authors said it was a conservative talking point. Big deal. That line is used to silence dissent on the left, because nobody on the left wants to be caught dead using a conservative talking point. Good heavens, no! What a stupid criticism. My opinion of the study just dropped into the negative zone, if that's how the authors are responding to criticisms of their methods. I cannot begin to tell you how little I care whose talking point it is supposed to be.

            So it is THE method used for counting deaths in a civilian war zone. So what. That doesn't make it a good method. That's probably why almost no one believes any of the statistics they see on civilian deaths in war zones. Once upon a time, blood-letting with leaches was THE treatment for most medical ills. A few people had the brains to question the wisdom of draining blood out of someone who was seriously ill, but most people just quietly let themselves or their loved ones get bled, sometimes to death, because it was THE method, after all.

            Sheesh.

            •  it ain't no big deal (0+ / 0-)

              to me if you always use conservative talking points.

              i've come to expect it from you. you sound like the resident troll.

              no big deal at all.

              nobody on the left wants to be caught dead using a conservative talking point.

              maybe people on the left just don't think like conservatives. it isn't that i wouldn't be caught dead defending their viewpoint, its that it would not occur to me.

              but it seems to occur to you alot.

              hmmmm

              what's in it for you, pretending less people have died? it you were to say that about the holocaust, you'ld be screamed out of your wits and accused of antisemitism.

              anyway, it ain't no big deal to me.

            •  my god. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bicycle Hussein paladin

              Comparing it to blood letting as a method is just ridiculous. I am sure that evangelicals tell themselves the same thing about evolution: just because it is deemed the best method by the Science community doesn't mean it is convincing. That is what you are saying, isn't?

              Until something better comes along I think I will go with what metrical social science tells us.

              A dream catcher works . . . If your dream is to be gay.

              by thethinveil on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:45:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That is not what metrical social science tells us (0+ / 0-)

                Metrical social science does not tell us that an estimate derived from a weak model is the correct  value just because it is the least weak model available. This is science we are talking about here, not politics, and in science we don't accept the lesser of evils as being the good.

                Oh, and yes, I do agree with the evangelicals on the theory of evolution: just because it is deemed the best theory by the Science community doesn't mean it is convincing. It is the evidence that makes it convincing. And only the evidence. I think you must have the Science community confused with Good Housekeeping.

                •  logical falacies. (0+ / 0-)

                  Agreement in the scientific community comes about due to evidence. I was not arguing that there should be no evidence or that there would be no strength of evidence. It is simple logic. modus ponens applied: that if agreement is built on evidence then a model that has the agreed support has the best evidence. Do you think we here are unaware of simple logical mistakes?

                   Taking a sample (like the one used in this survey) is generally more often than not the only way of going about scientific research. Not to say that this isn't without it's limitations.

                  That is why of course we need to see multiple studies before a theory can widely be accepted. I would like to see more surveys done to get the most accurate number . I wouldn't say well lets find all the bodies or interview everyone in Iraq  - it would just be absurd. I mean, really, what model would you propose that would be better at providing an accurate number?

                  There has been no better method of study available or thought of  yet. And I am all for methodological innovation yet I still don't call for our best tools and methods to be thrown out and discarded without anything adequate to replace it (Its not how scientific revolutions work.)

                  A dream catcher works . . . If your dream is to be gay.

                  by thethinveil on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 10:34:49 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  OK (0+ / 0-)

                    Agreement in the scientific community comes about due to evidence.

                    And the evidence-based agreement in the scientific community is that this is not a good way to estimate civilian deaths. The fact that they have also admitted that it is the "best" method they have been able to come up with so far does not make the estimates it produces good estimates. It just makes them less bad than estimates produced by other models.

                    BTW, who said that the scientific community had agreed that the method they were using was the best method? The scientific community? Or the authors?

                    what model would you propose that would be better at providing an accurate number?

                    Under no circumstances would I propose a better model for fear that the scientific community might agree with me that it was the best model proposed so far. At that point, it seems that I could look forward to the following sequence of events:

                    1. Some idiots who normally conduct public opinion polls instead of scientific research would try to use my model to conduct a study, probably butchering it in the process.
                    1. When faced with legitimate criticism of the weaknesses of the model, said idiots, being unable to offer an intelligent defense of a model they don't even understand, would mouth some mindless meme, like "This is a conservative talking point."
                    1. A bunch of bloggers who think science is the alternative to religion would seize upon the estimate produced by said idiots as serving their political goals.
                    1. When faced with legitimate criticism of the weaknesses of the model, said bloggers, being unable to offer an intelligent defense of a model they don't even understand, would mouth some mindless meme, like "The authors said that this a conservative talking point" and "The scientific community said that this is the best model."

                    The whole idea is enough to make my skin crawl.

                    •  Unable to handle substance huh? (0+ / 0-)

                      And the evidence-based agreement in the scientific community is that this is not a good way to estimate civilian deaths

                      What is your source for this? And which scientific community? Apparently not UN demographers and all others who study disease across populations.

                      And their agreement would concern practice not evidence which is what I think you are trying to say with this.

                      When faced with legitimate criticism . . ., said bloggers, being unable to offer an intelligent defense of a model they don't even understand,

                      I guess I could refer you to your comment below where you challenged someone else saying that the people of Iraqi know how the war is affecting them. I would guess they could give reliable answers in that effect was deaths of their neighbors.

                      being unable to offer an intelligent defense of a model they don't even understand,

                      I do understand that they went into areas that no reporters go into and have never gone into in order to conduct the interviews themselves with the Iraqi  citizens who have experienced it themselves. Basically what all reporters do? And taking that to derive multipliers that figure in demographic changes over regions. THAT is how it has been described to me by the authors at their talk (which turn out not to be the authors - It was actually
                      Chris Hedges and Laila Al-Arian  authors of "Collateral Damage: America’s War Against Iraqi Civilians" that quoted the figures.  Chris Hedges is Nobel Prize winner who writes for the NYTs and the Nation. Laila AL-Arian was trained by the Columbia School of Journalism.

                      Here is some more understanding of the study by Just Foreign Policy

                       

                      Since researchers at Johns Hopkins estimated that 601,000 violent Iraqi deaths were attributable to the U.S.-led invasion as of July 2006, it necessarily does not include Iraqis who have been killed since then. We would like to update this number both to provide a more relevant day-to-day estimate of the Iraqi dead and to emphasize that the human tragedy mounts each day this brutal war continues.

                      This daily estimate is a rough estimate. It is not scientific; for that, another study must be conducted. However, absent such a study, we think this constitutes a best estimate of violent Iraqi deaths that is certainly more reliable than widely cited numbers that, often for political reasons, ignore the findings of scientifically sound demographic studies.

                      snip/

                      In a country such as Iraq, where sufficient reporting mechanisms do not exist, there is a scientifically accepted way to measure demographics including death rate: a cluster survey. Cluster surveys provide reliable demographic information the wake of natural disasters, wars and famines. Cluster surveys give us the data about deaths in Darfur, accepted for example by the U.S. government as one basis for its charge of genocide. They are used by U.N. agencies charged with disaster and famine relief.

                      snip/

                      In September 2007, a new scientific poll of Iraqis confirmed that the number dead is likely to be over a million. The prestigious British polling firm, Opinion Research Business, estimated that 1.2 million Iraqis had been killed violently since the U.S. invasion.

                      Side Note: Do you understand memes? I don't. I don't understand what genetics have to do with the dissemination of ideas. To me it just sounds like a rip of Jacques Derrida's concept of dissemination without the reliance of nonexistent research to back it up.

                      A bunch of bloggers who think science is the alternative to religion

                      I never stated that science is an alternative to religion - they are each distinct discourses offering something different for different needs. You look to the discourse that provide the answers you want.

                      would seize upon the estimate produced by said idiots as serving their political goals.

                      Are you saying evidence, studies and research work shouldn't be used in political discussions? Or should we all rely on cheap rhetoric and rephrasing      of the same empirical content to suit our arguments like you do?

                      heres an explaination from just foreign policy on the other studies "unpolitical" nature:

                      The occupying forces have made it clear that they "do not do body counts." The Iraqi government releases regular estimates of deaths in the country, but these are unreliable. In early 2006, the Iraqi Minister of Health publicly estimated between 40,000 and 50,000 violent Iraqi deaths since the invasion. In October 2006, the same week a study was published in the Lancet estimating 600,000 deaths, the Minister tripled his estimate, saying there had been 150,000 deaths. Can this be anything but political?

                      A dream catcher works . . . If your dream is to be gay.

                      by thethinveil on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 03:00:02 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  mindlessness. (0+ / 0-)

                      I also fail to understand how pointing out that you are spurting a conservative talking point is mindless; it has to do with the political tactics of you and your political enemy. And due to the fact that we are all here to accomplish certain, often progressive, political goals, it seems highly pertinent and mindful of me to point it out to you.

                      Political tactics often are mindless - like saying the same thing over and over again to the point when to the point when even your political opponents begin to spread them -mindless tools that they are.

                      And after the above comment on substance.

                      -Boosh! You are out of points and you seem to dig yourself deeper with each post relying more on invective than sourced points or sound arguments. YA OUT! NOW STAY DOWN! I AM DONE WITH YOU!

                      After this comment on your mindless repetition of points without added value - We are done! Bye.

                      A dream catcher works . . . If your dream is to be gay.

                      by thethinveil on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 03:31:38 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

        •  not 'certainly' /nt (0+ / 0-)

          you can allege it is not compelling to you.

          and there never will be

          you can look into the future, how quaint.

    •  While I would love to see it mentioned (57+ / 0-)

      The people who care are already on the 'get the fuck out of there side'. The people not there already will not care because it is happening to them, the arabs, the enemy. In fact they will include anyone who points out the fact that 1 million deaths have occurred, almost all of them civilian, as one of them, the enemy.

      Other populations deaths carry no weight in America, nor any militaristic society for that matter. That is how a militaristic society perpetuates itself as ours has. The only way to end it is to point out the costs to us, because, even if most people care about 'them' too, no statistic will ever trump 'our' needs or 'our' costs overall.

      McCain was correct, most Americans do not give a damn about how long we stay someplace, we could occupy Iraq indefinitely if the cost in both our blood and our treasure were not perceived to be too high.

      Shameful, but I am afraid it is the truth.

        •  Thanks for the rec, it is cool you disagree (6+ / 0-)

          But I am glad maybe you will look into it/think about it.

          Thanks LithiumCola

          What I aim for: no personal insults, no snark

          by StanMO on Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 11:16:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Mostly what makes me wary (11+ / 0-)

            is saying that McCain is right about the American people.  I get the more general point, and as disturbing as I find the picture, it's hard to say you're wrong.

            •  I find it disturbing myself (11+ / 0-)

              but the reason people did not listen to McCain on this is because they know the nature of the actual enemy, those willing to deploy terrorist tactics, is unprecedented and the cost in blood would always be too high to remain there.

              I have some hope though, people stopped listening to the unamerican stuff and the usual Republithug tactics of guilt by association. In fact Obama's numbers tended to go up the more they laid that crap on. there might be an opening to begin to shift attitudes, but not about Iraq, paople would not want to deal with the guilt again.

            •  REPETITION: Vietnam deaths equally underestimated (22+ / 0-)

              The righties have put their strongest efforts to denial.

              Denial and doublethink.

              Vietnam produced extraordianry death counts:

              -- Current official count is 2,600,000.

              -- McNamara had it at 3,400,000 when he was 85-years old.

              Ask your average American and you'll get an underestimation. Gross underestimation.

              Vietnam = Iraq.

              Murder 1,000,000 people or 2,600,000 people or 3,400,000 people.

              The doublethink reality is just what people can be lied into believing.

              Americans live in the doublethink reality.

              Droogie is as Droogie does....

              by vets74 on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:10:30 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  LC... it's the popular culture that is fed to us (3+ / 0-)

              The majority of Americans do not make the decisions that run this country. This "failure" of this magnitude cannot be dumped onto the average Joe's shoulders.

              It's the elite, the corporations (since they are a core component of the structure of this nation), the academics... it's the leadership of this country that bears the responsibility.

              <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

              by bronte17 on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 07:10:10 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Actually... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mind unseen, rylly, divineorder

                This is a democracy. The founding fathers "dumped" this on the average Joe's shoulders, and the average Joe went chasing after bright and shiny things instead of holding up their end of this democracy.

                The average Joe conjured up the convenient idea of leaders as a means of ducking out from under the responsibility the founding fathers dumped on them. To the average Joe, a leader is the "someone else" who is "supposed to be" responsible instead of the average Joe.

                But in a democracy no one is "supposed to be" any more responsible than anyone else. A failure of this magnitude is beyond the power of the "leaders."  In a democracy, a failure of this magnitude requires, first and foremost, an widescale abdication of responsibility by the average Joe.

                •  The United States has aged... from the newness of (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LithiumCola

                  its inception. But, hope springs eternal and we have moved toward a better nation. Yet, we have NEVER been a true democracy.

                  This is a republic predicated on the ideals of democracy.  BUT, it is first and foremost a republic. Individually, we do NOT get to cast a vote for every individual law or legislative body of law that goes onto the books.

                  Power is vested in representative government. And if you want to label our founding fathers, Jefferson and Adams and Franklin, et al. with being "average Joes" who conjured up this idea... by all means, help yourself... but it isn't true.

                  <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

                  by bronte17 on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 09:17:53 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Oh please. (0+ / 0-)

                    Not with the false dichotomy of republic vs. democracy again. It's like saying that apple pie isn't really apple pie, because it's first and foremost pie. We are a democratic republic. Deal with it.

                    •  You surely know that democracy has no one (0+ / 0-)

                      specific meaning... its use and definition will vary across cultures and peoples.  You cannot pin it down with specificity.

                      Where in the hell did you ever get the idea that "in a democracy no one 'is supposed to be' any more responsible than anyone else?"

                      There are complexities and vertical integrations within any manner of organization... whether it is in governance or a business or a local scout troop. Someone leads (and that "someone" could well be a group of equals). BUT someone shoulders the responsibility.  And yes, you are only as strong as your weakest unit and all units should have a voice. But, all voices do not have the requisite knowledge and ability to lead. Leading means making decisions. Good decisions.

                      <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

                      by bronte17 on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 05:49:48 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  No more time to spend on this (0+ / 0-)

                        Where in the hell did you ever get the idea that "in a democracy no one 'is supposed to be' any more responsible than anyone else?"

                        Well, that one is easy: "...of the people, by the people, for the people." Do you see anything in there that suggests some people are supposed to be more responsible than others? I hope not, because if you do, you are hallucinating.

                        There are complexities and vertical integrations within any manner of organization...

                        I try to have as little to do with organizations as possible. Way too many leaders and followers in organizations.

              •  The academics? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bicycle Hussein paladin

                Since when do "academics" have any power in this country?  

                And who is it exactly who puts the corporate elite in power?  Isn't it a majority of Americans?  Bush/Cheney represent corporate power in its most raw form, and they got about half the vote for two terms.  Even Obama was barely able to defeat the corporate wing of the democratic party in the primaries, and subsequently forced to put HRC in his cabinet (I'm presuming that she demanded SOS in return for not disrupting the convention and ruining Obama's chances in the general).  

                One could argue that Americans are victims of corporate propaganda, and that is true, but as citizens of a democracy, are we not all ultimately responsible for seeking out the truth?

                "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

                by Subterranean on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 08:37:02 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Academics have a lot of power. (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bronte17, bustacap, rylly, divineorder

                  They educate the children of the powerful, they sit on the advisory boards and cabinets, the shape the nature of conventional wisdom.

                  Now, under an extreme right wing party like the Republican party of late, the ideas generated in the academy to justify American exceptionalism (to name an example) are not crazy enough, so the party forms its own think tanks, an "alternate academy" with its own standards of review and evidence, its own awards for excellence by those standards, and so on; the members of those think tanks come to occupy the cabinets and the advisory boards.

                  But the think tanks are parodies of the academy, and that should be an indication of the function the academy serves in more normal times.

                  •  Academics are shut out, actually... (0+ / 0-)

                    the people who sit on advisory boards may be academics, but on contentious issues, especially relating to foreign policy, the people who get on the advisory boards are usually not representative of the consensus among real live professional academics.

                •  Academics are the truth seekers and bearers of (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bustacap, mind unseen, rylly

                  wisdom. What they say and find and examine may not be what some people want to hear, or see.  But, they have a responsibility to bring forth their discoveries and knowledge and not be silenced.

                  I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.

                                                --Abraham Lincoln

                  There are teachers who bear false truths. They teach bigotry. And not to make anyone an example, but look at the Air Force Academy out there in Colorado. Or Liberty University.

                  Our media are also teachers. Murdoch and his media empire have brought disgrace to "facts" and integrity. He sows fear and hate and discord. He has abdicated responsibility.

                  It's no small thing that Obama has brought responsibility to the forefront of our discourse.

                  <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

                  by bronte17 on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 09:27:21 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  It's easy to say "you're wrong" (2+ / 0-)

              It is much harder to say "I am wrong".

              Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. Thomas Jefferson 6/11/1807

              by Patriot4peace on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 07:37:36 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  I do agree, but... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ibonewits, mind unseen, rylly

          ...partly for different reasons.

          First of all, there is no such thing as "the American people." Some percentage of our population of 300+ million people undoubtedly feel this way. How many, it is impossible to say.

          Second, our own costs seem far less ambiguous than theirs. I personally don't believe the figures in this diary any more than any other figures I've seen.

          To me, the single biggest problem with making intelligent decisions as a citizen regarding our intervention in other countries lies in the fact that there is absolutely no way we can know what is really happening in another country, or how their population (and there is no such thing as "the Iraqi people," either) really feels about it. Add self-serving political spin into the mix, and no one trusts any information they are given. Many people make decisions based on our own costs simply because they have more confidence in that information than they will ever have in information about what is happening in a country on the other side of the planet.

      •  People are not so heartless (9+ / 0-)

        as to be able to abide the killing of other "people". The "enemy" needs to be dehumanized, demonized. If the Iraqi's were to be seen as fathers, mothers, my daughters friend - the child next door, then there would be outrage.

        There would be outrage if we actually saw the bodies of American soldiers coming home in flag draped caskets.

        But we don't. We are not allowed to see this by a government who knows...who knows that we are good people. Not simply because we are Americans but because we are alive. We all have, at some level, a degree of compassion for others. Often its for others just like us. So long as it is simply the enemy being killed...they are not just like us.

        If network anchors,msm, were to interview real people,moms/dads, about thier loss, about thier life, about what's happening on the streets in Iraq, maybe then there would be some outrage.

        But if its only the jihadists in a foreign country being killed...big deal!

        •  Call innocent civilians .....INSURGENTS (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Klick2con10ue

          and the game is over, we have an "enemy".
          Insurgents are Freedom Fighters, just as we would be if  invaded, and we fought back.
          Every day George Bush invented  this enemy and that enemy when we had no enemies, just innocents in another country sitting on oil usually.
          At the start of the invasion, there were 1100 known "terrorists"...a police action could have rendered them inactive.  Now how many have we recruited to fight against US?

      •  We are no more civilized than our ancestors were (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Klick2con10ue

        Unfortunately, we see that pattern of violence going back to our most distance ancestors.  We just have become much more "efficient" now, our technology enables us to kill in much larger numbers.  I'm not too sure, at this point, that our species will ever be truly civilized.

    •  I actually spent some time calculating that numbe (7+ / 0-)

      The CIA keeps statistics of terrorism-related deaths going back to the 50s. With a little extrapolation, I came up with a ballpark figure of roughly 100,000 deaths due to terrorism (as the CIA defined it) in the last 100 years across the entire world.

      The number surprised me... not because it's so large, but because it's so SMALL. By comparison:

      * It's substantially less than the number of deaths every year due to tobacco in just the US alone, and roughly equivalent to the number of deaths annually due to alcohol

      * It's substantially less than the annual number of murders worldwide

      * It's roughly equivalent to two years worth of automobile accidents in just the US alone

      * It's roughly equivalent to the number of civilian deaths caused by each atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima near the end of WW2 (a bit more than nagasaki @ 80kdeaths, a bit less than hiroshima @ 140kdeaths)

      Terrorism is a horrible thing to have to endure, but considering how much cash is thrown at it when there are so many other, far more lethal things claiming many multiples of lives annually it seems to me the fixation on terrorism is far more about the politically useful exploitation of fear by the powers that be than any actual threat response.

      --
      Plot your political compass scores at KosCompass

      by Hatamoto on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 09:09:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  A million "foreigners" worth less than Americans? (2+ / 0-)

      Regretfully, one fraction of America believes that "brown" people (of any type--it doesn't matter to them) have far less worth than non-brown Americans.

      So why would they care about a million lives if none of those lives were respected in the first place?

      I hope the President Obama can restore America's practice of honoring of the sanctity of human life, regardless of ethnicity, starting with Guantanamo.  Our Nation must stop treating non-Americans as if their lives are expendable.

      Impeachment is a duty, not an option that can be taken off the table.

      by bushondrugs on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 02:46:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site