AP: 100,000 Iraqis Dead in War

I haven't seen a diary on this yet. The AP picked up the story but not a word on any of the SCLM cable channels.

The Lancet has published a study concluding that 100,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the invasion, mostly women and children.

The survey indicated violence accounted for most of the extra deaths seen since the invasion, and air strikes from coalition forces caused most of the violent deaths, the researchers wrote in the British-based journal.

"Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children," they said.

Life is getting better for ordinary Iraqis?

Scientists estimate 100,000 Iraqi deaths

The most common causes of death before the invasion of Iraq were heart attacks, strokes and other chronic diseases. However, after the invasion, violence was recorded as the primary cause of death and was mainly attributed to coalition forces -- with about 95 percent of those deaths caused by bombs or fire from helicopter gunships

When will the Bush Administration be held accountable for this bloody, disgraceful debacle? Bush claims we brought freedom to the Iraqi people. Yeah, freedom in the form of an airstrike and an express ride to Paradise.

•  Recommend the hell out of this

  Big, big news - even 10,000-30,000 (the lower range of estimates) is horrific . . .

  by Anxious2004 on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 10:30:37 AM PDT

  •  Look at the pictures from Madison today

    and imagine all of those innocent people dead. A picture is worth 1,000 words, right? What are 100,000 innocent lives worth?

    by wanderindiana on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 05:58:12 PM PDT

  •  <b>More</b> than 100,000

    I first heard of this from a friend who's a colleague of the epidemiologists who conducted the interviews on the ground.

    They estimated the number of "excess" Iraqi deaths to be "100,000 to 200,000."

    Let's stop using the word "insurgents" today, and take back our language from the White House at the same time as we take back the country.

    by not lois on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 06:09:19 PM PDT

  •  How many is 100,00Think about the rally in Madison

    How many is 100,000?

    I want you all to see this and think about it for a moment.

    by Iddybud on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 05:23:56 AM PDT

  •  Read the article (registration required)

    The full article is now posted here.

    by Katman on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 07:06:42 AM PDT

•  Please recommend this

  Oh my God. This estimate is so much higher than anything previously reported. Even if it's just one estimation, it's important to get this into the public discussion of the devastating effects of this war. Lancet is one of the premier medical journals.

  by eoglesby on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 10:30:39 AM PDT

  •  The Lancet...

    is very well-respected. Columbia University and Johns Hopkins, along with university in Baghdad, did the study.

    by pacific city on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 10:34:37 AM PDT

  •  Its worse

    They got the 100,000 number after factoring out Fallujah - because they figured a hotspot like Fallujah would skew their numbers.  100,000 is the conservative number in this study!

    by Coco Nut on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 12:28:54 PM PDT

    •  The numbers look really bad

      I posted elewhere in a diary that scrolled out of existence:

      'How many did Saddam kill?
      I seem to recall newspaper artictes stating as much as 300,000.  Saddam was in power for about 25 years.

      So, that's about 12,00/year.  Tragig - horrible numbers.

      But 100,000 in just about 18 months - how long will this slaughter go on?

      by ask on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 08:42:15 PM PDT

•  Re-post?

  This slipped off the front page. Can it be re-posted? This can't be allowed to fade.

  by eoglesby on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 10:33:35 AM PDT

•  Genocide

  It's a form of genocide. Devastating. During the the early days of the war our local paper ran a picture of a weeping man who had lost his parents, brothers, wife, and children to one American bomb. Unthinkable.

  by 4thgendem on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 10:37:13 AM PDT

  •  Milosevic is in front of a tribunal that Bush

    helped put together. He killed 2,000 in Kosovo and 90,000 in Bosnia.

    Why are we in Iraq?

    by upstate NY on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 11:21:24 AM PDT

    •  9/11

      3000 Americans died, remember?

      Of course, Iraq had nothing to do with that, but we had to bomb SOMEONE!

      by Radical Middle on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 11:51:57 AM PDT

      •  WMD?

        No? Then how about to gain control of Iraq's oil reserves - the second largest in the world?

        No? Then how about to establish a permanent military presence in Iraq to protect our dependency upon Mid-East oil?

        by voreason on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 12:01:12 PM PDT

        •  And Big Bucks for Halliburton

          If I lost my family so that Halliburton could make an absurd amount of money I would be putting together homemade bombs too. What's left to lose? Being kicked out of office is not sufficient for punishment for GWB and his greedy band.

          by 4thgendem on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 12:50:02 PM PDT

      •  9/11

        dead weren't all Americans.  And the official  total was something slightly less than 3000, meaning 3000 is the max while this 100,000 is a fairly conservative minimum.  

        by a gilas girl on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 03:42:14 PM PDT

    •  Bush "helped put together .."??

      Seems to me bush is very anti Hague, anti International law institutions. I can't say for sure but I believe Milosevic tribunal began in Clinton presidency.

      by Miss Devore on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 11:52:05 AM PDT

      •  The Hague is not the International Criminal Court.

        Milosevic fell over a year later after the Kosovo War ended in summer of 1999.

        The Hague Court is a court that Bush not only supports, but he helped select its executors. The Hague Court is a limited Court with jurisdiction solely over the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s. It is a wholly different entity than the ICC.

        In other words, instead of sending Miolsevic to the ICC, they decided tos et up a court solely to try people who committed crimes in that war.

        by upstate NY on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 01:05:20 PM PDT

        •  thank you

          for making a few inroads on my ignorance

          by Miss Devore on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 02:55:09 PM PDT

          •  I wouldn't call it ignorance at all.

            This is an attempt to deliberately fudge the issue by this administration. Milosevic should have been tried at the ICC, but Bush wanted him tried in a court he could sanction. I have no sympathy for Milosevic, but the fact is this court is something of a kangaroo court. It has been erected by people who would never subject themselves to it, and it is cynical in the extreme.

            by upstate NY on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 04:16:07 PM PDT

            •  I didn't know the distinction=ignorance

              but- I may have been confused by a story I read on rawstory that indicated the bush admin was putting particular pressure on the Milosevic tribunal to finish the proceedings. which would not make the facts mutually exclusive, I realize..

              by Miss Devore on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 05:29:29 PM PDT

    •  No, really, why are we in Iraq?

      Back in middle school I remember a banner: "Your actions talk louder than your words."

      Forget what they say, look at what they do. Why are we in Iraq, based on the way they handled the war?

      As I have asked before, can anyone give me a non-Halliburton reason for invanding Iraq that dove-tails with their actions?

      Geo-strategic reasons would be conceivable but are ruined by poor execution. I can see where strong military positions in Afghanistan and Iraq, with sympathetic governments, straddling Iran and allowing us to project force easily anywhere in the Middle East, Caucasus area and Central Asia would be a great move on the global chessboard as we face the next 20 years. Afghanistan, done right, could have been a brilliant move. As it is, we've exchanged a pawn there and lost a castle, if not a queen, in Iraq.

      Oil is not a compelling reason in the simple version (Iraqi oil infrastructure decrepit) and unproved in the complex varieties. Most of which require that we actually secure Iraq.

      WMD's were a smoke-screen yes, but for what? Can it really really just be venal and banal? Was it really all just for Halliburton and the good old boys? Notice how 55 dollar a barrel oil is simply great for Bush's cronies and a bunch of other people endorsing Bush, such as the Russians and Iranians, not to mention the Saudi's.

      Or is it, as we heard today, that Bush thought that a nice little war was just the thing to boost his popularity? Even in that case, he had a nice little successful war in Afghanistan. If he had 'stayed the course' there, he would be expecting a landslide right now. Did he really he think he needed another war to boost his (sky-high at the time) popularity?

      I want to understand. Why did we execute so badly? Was it actually on purpose? This degree of incompetence is truly mind-boggling. Anybody on the the other side listening? Why did we fuck up so much? I really want to know.

      by Athenian on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 03:12:11 PM PDT

      •  well, here's the answer.

        The Bush administration is full of "neoconservatives," ideologues who have been calling for war in Iraq for the past decade. The most prominent neoconservatives are Cheney, Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton, and Cheney's chief of staff Lewis Libby. Their think-tank (supported by Rupert Murdoch's money, as is the neoconservative rag The Weekly Standard), the Project For A New American Century, demanded war with Iraq during Clinton's administration. They got their chance when Bush came to power.

        This is only one part of their agenda. Their ideology holds that the United States should become a global empire, and achieve "benevolent world hegemony." Paul Wolfowitz expressed the neoconservative mindset quite well when, in 1992, he called for an American "dominant military presence on every continent." The neoconservatives think this way because they believe in "national greatness," that it is America's destiny to do this, thereby fighting "evil" all over the world. To them, it doesn't matter if Saddam Hussein had WMD or not. It doesn't even matter, to them, if a government is friendly to us or not. In his manifesto, titled An End To Evil, Richard Perle says that we should overthrow the relatively pro-American government of Egypt, for example, because "we can do better." In exchange, neoconservatives claim that they will install benevolent democracies and free societies. Of course, their definition of a free society is one that slavishly follows their dictates.

        Neoconservatives believe that the first step towards fighting "evil" is to control the Middle East. They wanted to invade Iraq to get a foothold from which to launch invasions of other countries they don't like, such as Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and Saudi Arabia (in this last part, they differ from the big-oil-men, of course). That done, they would want to threaten China and Russia, encroach on them, hem them in, and destabilize them as much as possible. Neoconservatives favour hostility towards China and Russia. In fact, Paul Wolfowitz once proposed that the US should provoke Russia into a war over Lithuania. The goal of all this is to prevent the rise of any possible counterbalance, in any part of the world, to American military dominance, thereby starting a "New American Century."

        Of course, the neoconservatives didn't foresee that we'd be facing an insurgency in Iraq. They fancied that it would be a "cakewalk" and that the Iraqis would be greeting us with open arms, so they thought they could win their war with a small number of troops. They didn't foresee any of what happened in the aftermath of the war because they don't reason about things like that, they just divide the world into "good" and "evil" and call for more wars until "evil" is eradicated.

        Halliburton's contracts were a factor in this war, but the real motivation of most of the people who pushed it, in the government and in the media, was and is ideology.

        by mister devils advocate on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 06:45:48 PM PDT

        •  Megalo-cons!

          Not to long ago a certain group wanted to dominate the world based on a false ideology that they were somehow superior human beings and they used national greatness to rally support. It sounds like you are saying that the neoconservatives are essentially the same sort of imperialists.

          Usually when someone uses that term it is merely inflamatory but I think that you raise the point legitimately.

          by BolingbrookMan on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 07:27:49 PM PDT

          •  well...

            ...I think that the particular group you're referring to based its ideology on a false premise of racial superiority. This is different from the neoconservatives, who see themselves as being the saviours of all those suffering people who just can't wait to be "liberated" from their "evil" governments by the neoconservatives' "moral leadership." When neoconservatives burn a village, they really do believe that they've just saved it from "evil." But neoconservatism can be compared to fascism because of the way it exalts power, particularly military power, and because of its emphasis on loyalty and portrayal of dissent as "treason."

            by mister devils advocate on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 07:41:13 PM PDT

            •  Neomaniacs

              New name, new methods, same old megalomania!

              Peace be with us.

              by BolingbrookMan on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 08:46:03 PM PDT

            •  No difference

              between the Nazis and the neocons in terms of the basics... the pathology in both cases is grandiosity, rooted in narcissism.  As such, both crowds had/have a great tendency toward miscalculation... they are impervious to outside (non-internal) data that better functioning people would use, without any special notice, for feedback while making their way through this world.

              Willfulness, willfulness, willfulness... and they are equally dangerous as the Nazis.  You have to remember that it took a couple of decades for the movement that became national socialism in Germany to "ripen" and mature.  Beware the same thing happening here.

              Don't give up your guns, liberals and progressives!

              by rangemaster on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 10:03:44 PM PDT

        •  So it really is incompetence.

          Thanks for the great reply.
          Yes, the neo-cons were always ideological but did they drive the show?
          If your end-game is to threaten the big boys (Russia, China, Iran...) don't you want to do it better?
          As I've said before, a successful Afghanistan would have been an incredible feather in their cap.
          But their record in Iraq seems venal and banal. The only people who have made out well from this seem to be their cronies. From the actual point of view of those who want a ANAC, things haven't gone so well.
          My basic question is still unanswered: why did we fuck up so badly? I can sympathise with the PNAC but if this is not the most importarnt thing we've done since the wall fell I'm a rodent (I'm not, my dog would have eaten me).

          by Athenian on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 08:11:04 PM PDT

          •  You're thinking to logically..

            Imagine this... a wicked ideology that supplants true religion. It is believed wholly and to those who follow it, no other ideal is superior. Victory is the only option and your either a believer/warrior or any enemy. (Any of this seem familiar? Recent history might make it seem doubly so.)

            by BolingbrookMan on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 09:13:41 PM PDT

            •  I know

              but I like thinking logically. The notion that the US is an out-of-control rogue state guided by misplaced faith is terrifying.

              As for victory, winning the peace in both countries we invaded would have done more to make the world a better place. Sometimes I think Bush is auditioning for a role as the anti-Christ or that he an OBL coordinate their actions. It just makes no bloody sense.

              by Athenian on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 05:56:33 AM PDT

          •  they BELIEVE this crap

            Symour Hersh, speaking in Berkely, said that the most terrifying thing about Wolfowitz, Feith, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al - is that they WEREN'T LYING when they spewed all that "we'll be greeted as liberators"  " the war will be over in 6 months"  "Iraq had nuclear weapons" -

            His explanation was that Achmed Chalabi is very clever, and these fools simply swallowed his whole line of bullshit whole, and acted accordingly, parroting this nonsense back to the American people as verified fact.

            And because they are so arrogant that they think whatever they believe MUST be the truth, they dismissed all military and diplomatic efforts to tell them different.

            (although I have to think oil has a lot to do with it. )

            but mostly -

            IT'S THE INCOMPETENCE!

            by mldostert on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 11:19:16 PM PDT

            •  I don't know which is worse:

              Incompetent believers or conniving conspirators.

              by Athenian on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 05:59:53 AM PDT

          •  the neocons didn't always run the show...

            ...they seized control of the show when Bush came to power. In the administration of Pappy Bush, they were popularly known by administration officials as "the crazies." Thanks to Cheney, however, they managed to get inordinate amounts of influence under Bush the Lesser. For example, Doug Feith set up the Office of Special Plans, whose purpose was to deliberately manufacture false intelligence about Iraq and feed it to the White House, in order to avoid having to get it checked by the CIA.

            The thing is that neoconservatives have a circular definition of "freedom." Freedom to them is defined as total acceptance of American values and interests. So to them, a "free Iraq" would basically be just like America with a little bit of local flavour. Of course, in reality, if genuinely free elections were held in Iraq, the candidates would compete with each other in saying who would denounce our occupation more. But to the neocons, that is by definition "evil" and not "free" because it is opposed to us running their country.

            Also, the neoconservatives' idea of a New American Century requires preventing any country from ever getting enough power to counterbalance the American military in any way, in any region. To neocons, no countries are allowed to have their own "internal affairs" anymore - any possible threat has to be liquidated by war, because the neocons never choose peace when war is an option. So they really want to see these countries as divided and weak as possible. To them, chaos in the Middle East is a good thing (as Josh Marshall of talkingpointsmemo reported a long time ago). They similarly want to destroy Russia, destabilizing her to the point where she falls apart into dozens of tiny little states, all of which will be encouraged and subsidized by the neocons.

            I personally do not sympathize with the PNAC in the least. I think that it is a vile and, dare I say, unAmerican ideology that dictates that America should be a global empire; I think nothing is more anti-democratic than exporting "democracy" at gunpoint. It's not possible to have a global empire and maintain a democracy at home, anyway; because of the enormous costs of empire, it becomes necessary to keep a tight lid on dissent at home.

            by mister devils advocate on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 08:03:25 AM PDT

            •  Point.

              What I should have said is that I can sympathize with geo-strategic thinking. Getting Afghanistan right (flooding the country with allied troops and UN and NGO aide workers, really paying attention to the place for a few years, etc.) would have had multiple benefits: It would have undercut the perception that we are at war with Islam and it would have provided us with a friendly country next to Central Asia, Iran and Pakistan (all likely to be trouble-spots over the next few decades. In short it would have been a great way to leverage our hard power and our soft power, improve our standing in the world, brought us closer to our European and other allies and undercut our enemies. That we screwed up there is one of the great unsung criminally missed opportunities of Bush the lesser, as you so aptly call him.

              If the neo-cons really think that chaos in the Middle East (on which the world and U.S. economies depend) and in Russia (with its thousands of unsecured nuclear weapons) are good things for the U.S., they are truly the `crazies.' It almost makes you wish for Kissinger and realpolik to come back. The U.S. as the current top nation should favor stability and gradual change and rising powers such as China should be the ones wishing to change the status quo. It is bizarre that China is behaving more responsibly than America.

              I guess what I am really trying to say is that this administration should be condemned just as much by rational hawks as by doves.

              by Athenian on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:24:56 AM PDT

              •  Personally...

                ...I don't believe in "humanitarian war," and I don't believe that our government can effectively plan ahead for a country on the other side of the world, in a region that has a completely different history from ours and that has already suffered greatly from the effects of half-assed intervention by various global empires at different points in history. Every intervention was meant as a correction to some previous intervention, and then in turn backfired and resulted in what the CIA calls "blowback." Most of those "evil" dictators that the neoconservatives hate so much - Castro, Hussein, Osama, the mullahs - are in some way or another unexpected products of this blowback.

                by mister devils advocate on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 11:19:54 AM PDT

                •  Not humanitarian

                  But since we went in there anyway, with almost universal support around the world, we had an opportunity to unload in onto the UN and NATO and bring something new to that long-suffering country.

                  You are right that most bungled interventions result in blowback but it can work. Two examples from one country: The US helped Greece defeat the communists after WWII and Americans were extremely popular in Greece (and the government was very loyal to the west) until the US interfered and supported the Junta (1967-1974). Greeks have never forgiven the US for that (and Cyprus, an even more convoluted tale.)

                  by Athenian on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 11:37:44 AM PDT

                  •  this is what I mean.

                    I would say that a key reason why that country is "long-suffering" is precisely because a bunch of superpowers, Britain, the USSR, and ourselves, decided that their way of doing things was superior and thus should be installed there because it would doubtless alleviate the "suffering" there (and also expand their imperial designs). Unfortunately, it so happened that their plans were remarkably short-sighted and widely despised in that region, leading to their failure. The "loyalty" of countries is of concern to global empires, but democracies don't need vassals; they inspire respect in the world on account of the fact that they mind their own affairs.

                    <i>until the US interfered and supported the Junta (1967-1974).</i>

                    Exactly my point. The USSR was greeted as a liberator in Eastern Europe when it pushed Hitler's army out of it; however, when it started manipulating the internal affairs of those countries, it became reviled.

                    by mister devils advocate on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 12:42:37 PM PDT

                    •  Can two wrongs make a right?

                      One of Afghanistan's problems is that it is a weak, fractious country surrounded by more powerful nations that constantly interfere with it. Helped by the UN and secured by a true multi-national coalition, they could have stood up for themselves.

                      Perhaps 'loyalty' was the wrong word. Respect is earned from doing the right thing, not from ignoring problems. We aspire to be the leader of the free world. Helping - not imposing - democracy along expands that world. The 'global test' is appropriate. ; )

                      by Athenian on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 01:02:09 PM PDT

                      •  actually...

                        ...we aspire to be a free, prosperous, and peaceful society first and foremost. Being free is not compatible with being a global empire, and military intervention in foreign countries isn't compatible with democratic premises (namely, that people should get to have a say in the policies that will affect them). As you can probably figure out, I don't believe that any number of wrongs make a right; if other countries do bad things, doing the exact same thing is bound to cause more problems than it solves - and it probably won't solve any, given the fact that trying to plan another country's future from another region and another frame of reference is just about always characterized by short-sightedness and a lack of understanding.

                        I'm not proposing that we "ignore" all problems; I just don't like this idea that seems to have penetrated our society as of late that holds that only military intervention can solve them.

                        by mister devils advocate on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 02:05:24 PM PDT

                        •  I'm not sure whether

                          we are getting to the nub of a real disagreement that should be discussed more widely (perhaps by a joint diary with our conversation in this thread) or whether we basically agree that non-legitimate, one-sided interventions don't work, but that there are times when, with the help and agreement of others, it has to be done and can turn out well?

                          Look, I'm no fan of the idea of America as a global empire. But I think we do have to be engaged and I do think we will have to use force. But when we do we have to be respected for doing so and to do it well. "Violence is the last refuge of the scoundrel" (Asimov, Foundation Trilogy). We should be smart enough not to ever have to use our soldiers and when we do have to, to use them to maximum effect, without destroying their mystique.

                          Btw, I fully agree with just don't like this idea that seems to have penetrated our society as of late that holds that only military intervention can solve them. "When your only tool is a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail."

                          Cheers.

                          by Athenian on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 05:42:16 PM PDT

                          •  well, my position is pretty simple:

                            We only "have" to use force in self-defence, in response to an act of war committed against us. If there is no looming threat to us, we don't have to and shouldn't. A "global test" is a necessary condition but not a sufficient one: suppose that Bush had somehow managed to bribe Chirac and Schroeder into going along with this Iraq folly. Would the 100,000 civilian casualties be justified then? No, of course not; neither would the war.

                            As far as being "engaged" goes, I support the idea of Howard Zinn, who proposed that we should, instead of supporting violent political movements or engineering coups or starting wars, support credible, peaceful, preferably apolitical humanitarian groups abroad, who just help people who need it and make no distinction about whom they help. That would make us respected much more than dropping cluster bombs on densely populated civilian areas, and it would restore our image of the country that is a "friend of liberty," as John Quincy Adams said, instead of a global hegemon that spreads "democracy" with cruise missiles. Especially since the people we see fit to bestow "democracy" upon probably have a totally different idea of what "freedom" is or should be than our government does.

                            by mister devils advocate on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 06:09:29 PM PDT

                            •  It's not either or

                              An invasion of Iraq that the French and Germans could sign off on would have been rather different from what we got. Arguably you don't get anywhere near 100,000 extra dead.

                              And of course we should support credible, peaceful, preferably apolitical humanitarian groups abroad but that does not mean that you don't help the UN get 'physical' in Darfur, for instance.

                              'Freedom' the world over means to 'decide for yourself.' Under that fundamental definition people have to have the right to choose not to be like us. Our 'soft power' bet is that, long-term, they will choose to be more like us, if they have the power to do so. I do not regret 'imposing' democracy on Germany and Japan.

                              by Athenian on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 06:54:06 PM PDT

                              •  "arguably"?

                                The war would still be wrong even if we "only" inflicted 50,000 casualties. It would be wrong even if we inflicted 10,000. This is because a supposedly "democratic" country does not have the moral authority to kill any number of citizens of a sovereign nation if that nation does not pose a threat. France and Germany's positions were important in the period leading up to the war because they helped underscore just how wrong the war was, but if they had signed on, that would not have made the war right. We had broad international support when we went into Yugoslavia, but unfortunately, that intervention was still a bad mistake, resulting in the poisoning of parts of Serbia with depleted uranium (which is just about as anti-humanitarian a thing as possible), the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo, connections to Islamic terrorism in the region, and so forth. Just like in Iraq, we bombed lots of things into the ground and then found ourselves unable to restore order.

                                As for Germany and Japan, both of them already had democratic traditions to some degree before their respective fascist regimes came along; we were not operating in an environment as hostile and alien to us as Iraq. And we attacked them only in response to an attack and a declaration of war, which are the only things that can legitimize wars.

                                by mister devils advocate on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 05:54:04 AM PDT

                                •  Not necessarily.

                                  Though I mostly agree with you, there is the argument that we were already killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis with the sanctions. We had already broken it and therefore already owned it.

                                  In Kosovo you have to look at the alternative as well. Not doing anything there would have had terrible consequences. Should we have done more to prevent the genocide in Rwanda? Should we be doing more in Darfur? Should Indonesia have been allowed to continue to trash East Timor? There are several instances of legitimate interventions and even wars that were not in response to an attack.

                                  Additionally, once you have made the fateful decision to intervene, you have the highest responsibility to do your best. The international effort in Kosovo may not be perfect but it is certainly far, far better than our effort in Iraq.

                                  by Athenian on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 08:41:38 AM PDT

                                  •  that's a tempting argument...

                                    ...but I think that it is exactly what leads to us being embroiled in a perpetual cycle of failed interventions and blowback. We commit an intervention, then it fails, then someone makes the argument that now we have the responsibility to fix it, then we intervene again, this time to fix the problems resulting from the first time, creating more problems, and so on, because the things we're trying to fix are either outside our understanding or beyond the reach of American government planning, because we shouldn't be intervening in the first place.

                                    As far as Kosovo goes, I think the "alternative" has been greatly exaggerated; as the Globe and Mail reported, that tale about the "mass graves" is looking pretty flimsy these days. As for the statement that "the international effort in Kosovo may not be perfect but it is certainly far, far better than our effort in Iraq," it may be true but it isn't saying much. Just recently, in certain regions of Kosovo, Albanians went on a pogrom of Serbs, expelling them from the regions; the NATO forces there were simply unable to do anything, because no one had envisioned this happening and no one was prepared, so the Western media just reported very sporadically on it and tried to blame it on the Serbs. It was simply impossible to predict this, or to even react when it happened. Every illegitimate intervention results in such consequences.

                                    by mister devils advocate on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 02:54:47 PM PDT

                                    •  Thank you.

                                      for a very good discussion but perhaps we should let it lapse here as we seem to be alone in the room. I'd like to continue it at some point in the near future. What do you say? Cheers.

                                      by Athenian on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 03:41:32 PM PDT

                                      •  Yeah, glad to talk to you.

                                        Like I said, I prefer your policy to neoconservatism any day, for what that's worth. We really gotta kick those guys out of office so the country can get back to debating the finer points of gun control legislation or something.

                                        by mister devils advocate on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 06:04:23 PM PDT

        •  Wait a sec...

          I thought "National Greatness" was different from "Neo-Conservatism". National Greatness conservatives are like John McCain, right?

          by Jumbo on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 11:33:39 PM PDT

      •  Here's my list as to WHY INVADE IRAQ

        Fourteen reasons I could think of off the top of my head as to why these bozos thought invading Iraq was a good idea

        Feel free to add to the list...

        by DavidW in SF on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 01:48:21 AM PDT

        •  Excellent

          but I still want to know why we screwed up SO badly. The suggestion that they really believed their own propaganda to the extent that they did not need to secure the weapons depots and the streets is mind-blowing and probably true. Is that really it? An Iraqi could be forgiven for thinking that the point was to wreck his country and keep it weak for years to come.

          by Athenian on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 05:47:21 AM PDT

          •  well...

            ...the hypothetical Iraqi would be right. The neoconservatives want to destroy any potential military power that any other countries in the world might conceivably have, because their ideology explicitly expresses intolerance for any "challenge" to American military dominance. That's why Paul Wolfowitz called for a dominant American military presence on every continent. The neoconservatives want a bunch of utterly weak and impotent states that follow their "moral leadership."

            by mister devils advocate on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 08:06:47 AM PDT

            •  Moral leadership?!

              I still don't see how breaking the Army, failing to secure Iraq properly and increasing the ranks of the enemy advances their putrid wet-dreams, unless they are as incompetent as their ideologies are twisted.

              The American military looks a lot less capable of dominating anything right now compared to two years ago. Sure we can blow things up but that is not the same as dominating, is it?

              by Athenian on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:28:49 AM PDT

              •  heh.

                That's why they advocate a "light" military - so they could invade anyone they feel like at a moment's notice. That's why they didn't want to put a lot of troops in Iraq.

                Of course, the ultimate reality is that "light" military or not, we just don't have the resources to wage all the wars they want. Here we get back to the fact that their ideology ignores reality, and to their belief that the troops will be greeted with rose petals, as a rationalization for this proposal. Ultimately, though, they don't want to spend a lot of resources on reconstruction because they don't want to reconstruct anything - after all, a reconstructed Iraq could someday conceivably maybe pose sort of a threat possibly, and you know we can't have that!

                by mister devils advocate on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:59:39 AM PDT

                •  And the forthcoming Islamic Republic of Iraq

                  allied to a nuclear Iran and a nuclear Pakistan, following the inevitable fall of Musharaff, will NEVER be able to threaten the U.S. What kind of drugs are these people on?

                  Hey, maybe that's it. With the demise of the Soviet Union we were left without a proper enemy. If you get islamic republics from Pakistan to Iraq, that makes a pretty formidable enemy. And we know that there is nothing like a scary enemy to keep dissent bottled up.

                  Kidding, I think.

                  by Athenian on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 11:28:00 AM PDT

•  How many in mass graves?

  I have often heard John McCain say that he was supporting the Iraq war because of the mass grave that were unearthed.  If we have killed 100,000 Iraqis how can he justify his support.   We are killing Iraqis to stop Saddam from killing Iraqis.  When we look back on this war 50 years from now will there be an explaination for how this became so crazy?

  by ssg012 on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 10:40:54 AM PDT

  •  Hey! We had to destroy the place...

    in order to save it!  Where's your American spirit?  What's 100,000 lives in the big scheme of things?

    Death is only bad if it's caused by despots or Communists.  If we cause mass death, it's just a regrettable by-product of our idealism.

    Somewhere along the way, you have failed to become imbued with the American way of looking at international progress.

    Where would we be today if all of our geopolitical talent, like Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, had taken such a hypersensitive view of civilian deaths?  Why, without all those civilian casualties, Vietnam might have become a Communist state for decades and threatened the stability and security of the entire Far East!

    Where is your sense of priority?

    Plus don't forget, if it wasn't for U.S., the English today would be speaking German...or if not that, Russian...

    by PKinTexas on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 10:58:43 AM PDT

  •  asdf

    they're not christians, so what the hell do bush and the neo-cons care about them?  Aren't all muslims terrorist anyway??

    (please note this is dripping with sarcasm)

    by bjeanh1 on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 12:07:46 PM PDT

•  Martin Sheen

  ...played RFK in a 70's TV Movie about the cuban missile crisis (Thirteen Days in October?) that I remeber seeing as a teenager. The only line I can remember from it was when he asked "What we will we answer when the world asks 'WHY??'"

  by timerigger on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 10:49:42 AM PDT

  •  "The Missles of October"

    You may be thinking of "The Missles of October." As I recall, it was shot on videotape rather than film, giving it more of a "live" feeling. William Devane played JFK.

    I'm not 100% on this, because I don't remember Martin Sheen in this one specifically - he's played RFK more than once, IIRC.

    by snookybeh on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 11:42:23 AM PDT

    •  Sheen

      Sheen did play RFK and it was a great moive.  In the movie (and in life), RFK was opposed to the Joint Chief's proposal to bomb Cuba and injected some emotional content into the dry discussion of bloody American options.  His brother of course chose the blockade option.

      by Decal on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 12:03:25 PM PDT

  •  "Why"

    That sounds just like Kerry's 'Global Test' that bush continues to misrepresent and make fun of.

    by myjlf on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 01:02:16 PM PDT

•  This is disgusting

  BBC and other Brit media were reporting that the "100,000 mass graves from Saddam" was a gross exageration, and it was actually only about 5000-10000, which is still horrific, but these numbers attributed to the invasion make the mass graves look like nothing

  absolutely disgusting

  by coldfusion on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 10:58:59 AM PDT

  •  Culture of life

    The Guardian has a more detailed article.

    I was struck by one fact buried at the end:

    "Infant mortality rose from 29 deaths per 1,000 live births before the war to 57 deaths per 1,000 afterward."

    The hypocrisy of proclaiming "a culture of life" to protect the lives of unborn fetuses in the United States while killing them in Iraq is disgusting.

    by Katman on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 12:42:51 PM PDT

•  Mojo?

  Please forgive me for asking but tips would be appreciated. I haven't been able to post much lately and don't want to lose my TU status.

  by pacific city on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 11:06:47 AM PDT

  •  Nice post. did you see the documentary

    "Hearts and Minds" about Vietnam?

    William Westmoreland says in it ""Orientals" don't put the same high price on life as does the Westerner."

    I hang my head at this news about Iraq.

    by grushka on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 11:37:11 AM PDT

    •  Ugh, no I didn't know he said that.

      Maybe I need a new signature quote.

      I hope that this news doesn't reveal an ugly side of Americans--that the lives of 100,000 Iraqis are not important compared with our own selfish need for oil and empire.

      by pacific city on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 12:03:58 PM PDT

•  Just saw it....

  on MSNBC, with none of the usual "balanced" caveats.....This story is so incredibly disturbing....

  by warhistorian on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 11:21:06 AM PDT

•  This is the real story.

  How will we ever make amends?

  by b2witte on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 11:23:21 AM PDT

  •  We won't

    But, if Bush gets re-elected, don't be surprised if some other country files war crime charges against the Bush administration.

    by voreason on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 12:05:11 PM PDT

    •  we should

      i think our own congress should accuse the adinistration of war crimes -- impeach impeach impeach!!

      by bjeanh1 on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 12:12:16 PM PDT

      •  John Kerry

        is going to take over responsibility for this illegal war on January 20.  If we're so alarmed by this tragedy and the means by which it was launched, do we not have a responsibility to help him withdraw from it?

        by Mogolori on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 02:02:43 PM PDT

        •  Yes

          That will be our responsibility, starting on Nov. 3.

          by janinsanfran on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 07:49:45 PM PDT

  •  And where will we start.

    If there is anything positive that has come out of this "war on terror", it is the fact that more and more Americans are waking up to what is being done in their name. I regret the fact had we won the quick victory we expected, nobody would have cared how many innocents we killed in the process.
    A good and reliable website is: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/ . Please visit it and recommend it to as many people as you can. It will help you understand the fundamental question of why do so many people hate us so much.
    

    by Kenyan on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 03:58:53 AM PDT

•  i'm stunned

  this is an unimaginable tragedy.

  by scottesposito on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 11:24:30 AM PDT

•  So, let me get this straight

  One of Bush's reasons for the war was that Saddam was killing his own people. Saddam killed about a 100k Shiites during their uprising in 1991.

  And so we invade -- and WE kill 100,000 Iraqis for rising up against us. Add this to the torture and rape rooms at Abu Ghraib.

  Good job, Bush. We're WAY better than Saddam, aren't we?

  by existenz on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 11:29:44 AM PDT

•  Worse than Saddam

  Not politically correct in the current mainstream dialog: but it is just such bullshit that these 100,000 people, and the hundreds in Abu Grhaib, would not be less bad off with Saddam, evil dictator though he was. How bad are the Bushies, when they are worse than Saddam?
   

  by Em on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 11:31:49 AM PDT

  •  Agreed

    You're right it is not PC to say so but Saddam killed almost 2 million in 25 years of power which is an average of 80K/year or about the same numbers that we have killed in Iraq.  No doubt Saddam is an evil man but how much better are we when we have an almost equal disregard for human life.

    by seer23 on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 12:06:30 PM PDT

    •  We are responsible for a like number of

      Vietnamese dead in nine years...

      by wozzle on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 12:36:39 PM PDT

  •  Not PC but true

    The fact that Bush has been worse for Iraq than Saddam is not shocking to me, however the number of innocents Bush has killed is shocking. The highest estimates I saw previously were 20,000 dead, a number horrific in itself.

    And to listen to the assholes in this country saying "9-11 changed everything". Murder is murder, whether here in NY, or there in Iraq. The real reason many Americans don't think the deaths in Iraq are as newsworthy as the deaths in America is due to racism and xenophobia.

    What a sad state of affairs.

    by assyrian64 on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 01:56:11 PM PDT

    •  xenophobia

      The sadest state of affairs are the folks who are happy with what's going on. They will walk into the polls on Tuesday and vote for Bush with a "hard on". Q: How can nearly half the voters in the US be so in love with this guy? A: Xenophobia [They think - if your not just like me then you must be bad "your either with us or your with the terrorists" and George is a regular guy just like me].

      by BolingbrookMan on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 07:50:49 PM PDT

•  Congratulations George!

  You have killed way more innocent women and children than Osama has.

  by SuperiorPokercom on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 11:35:13 AM PDT

•  You missed one important part of the article..

  Lancet says that the majority of deaths are women and children.

  by CynicalBrit on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 11:36:01 AM PDT

  •  sorry i take that back

    you didn't miss it.

    by CynicalBrit on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 11:36:46 AM PDT

  •  Well, at least Saddam is still alive...

    When the soldiers return, and some decide to speak, we will hear tales of horror that will make our hair turn white. I have acquaintances in Iraq, military men, who shook their heads with anger about what is going on there.

    Rumsfeld, knowing the force was too small, allowed for maximum Force Protection Rules when encountering potential threats. In short - that meant shoot first, shoot again, shoot until nothing moves, then ask questions.
    Rumsfeld wanted to do everything possible to keep casualties low.

    If you have ever seen what an AC-130 Gunship will do to a large area, in just a few seconds, you know what has been going on, night after night after night, all over Iraq. (The AC-130 is capable of covering every square inch of a football field with impact ordnance (they can use exploding bullets) in a few second. They usually fly missions at night, and rely on heat-sensitive cameras to find targets - no one is able to distinguish between women, children, old people, civilians and fighters, when using that technology.

    by SteinL on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 11:41:47 AM PDT

    •  soldiers' stories

      a posted an article a few weeks ago about a soldier who committed suicide a few months after returning from Iraq.  He was haunted by the fact that he was ordered to shoot at close range two unarmed iraqi prisoners.

      by bjeanh1 on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 12:15:38 PM PDT

•  It's About Time

  I always ask people how many casualties have their been in this war. Most people just shrug, the more knowledgeable say 1000, but the Iraqis should count. Even most of Sadam's soldiers were conscripted and didn't deserve to die. Bombing crowded cities with gunships, firing indiscriminately into crowds when attacked--all serve to keep our casualties low at the expense on innocent Iraqis.

  by DJ Adequate on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 11:37:36 AM PDT

•  Rate the Yahoo article

  there's only a few votes right now

  http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041028/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_toll_civilians_0410281 82509

  by librarianna on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 11:40:25 AM PDT

•  Ratios

  so 100,000 dead out of 25,000,000 citizens. By this number, we've killed 1 of every 250 people living in Iraq before the invasion. Stunning.

  by RNinNC on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 11:40:55 AM PDT

  •  Do the math

    In the US the equivalent would be 1.1 million people. When -not if - that mushroom clood goes up over an American city courtesy of Bush-Chaney, it will be payback. The Arabs are a Semitic people. They believe in 'an eye for an eye'.

    Sorry to be a downer but that is how they are going to see it.

    It may already be too late.

    by Athenian on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 03:26:53 PM PDT

    •  As Malcolm X said...

      "The chickens always come home to roost."

      by Alan Young on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 06:47:50 PM PDT

      •  Yup,

        even the wild ones.
        Truly though, what would you do in Iraq? If it was up to you?

        by Athenian on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 06:56:41 PM PDT

•  This is deeply unsettling. . .

  but it is good to see Thomas Wakley's old rag is keeping faithful to its social justice roots.

  by Monstertron on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 11:42:50 AM PDT

•  GREAT POST

  Cut/paste this to every media outlet you know.

  by muddy paws on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 11:44:18 AM PDT

  •  Not a "great" post - but a critical one

    Sorry, I can't define any post as "great" when it refers to the senseless murder of 100,000 people.

    It is critical information, and I agree that this has to get out to every media outlet - local and national - right now.

    I've sent it to all the Minni media outlets.  

    by bcb on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 11:55:04 AM PDT

•  Anyone want to bet...

  that if you posted something about this on freeperland, they'd probably start joking about it and talking about how the Iraqis "had it coming."

  by snookybeh on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 11:44:53 AM PDT

•  iraq body count

  These guys are guilty of war crimes. And the American public deserves part of the blame, as well. If we bothered to educate ourselves, and spent less time on sports and other things which don't bother our "beautiful minds", this wouldn't have happened.

  by bigbay on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 11:49:18 AM PDT

  •  Sports is the narcotic of the American electorate

    I accept this is a minority opinion.

    But it's one reason the neocon coup meisters have gotten as far as they have:

    The media (esp cable) now frame politics (and a lot of the news) like sports events -- the Big Example being how they report the campaigns for president as a horse race--or sports competition.

    They do this in order to get watched.

    Sports is just another form of corporate power. Don't believe me? Check out the cost of taking your kids to the ballgame.

    by muddy paws on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 05:55:09 AM PDT

•  Sad

  Too bad those that still support Bush really don't care about such a tragedy. They claim to be the pro-life party yet don't mind killing tens of thousands of brown skinned people. We are in the home stretch right now in this election. If you haven't already done so, volunteer at your local democratic headquarters. It is not just our country that is at stake, it is our entire world. GOTV! GOTV!

  by nater1979 on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 11:53:48 AM PDT

•  read the AP article

   "researchers of The Lancet report concede that the data they based their projections on were of "limited precision," because the quality of the information depends on the accuracy of the household interviews used for the study."

  also mentioned "hotspots" may have been oversampled.

  every now & then I view NGO casualty estimates, and they are not quite so high.

  I believe our purposeful refusal to try to estimate Iraqi casualties has lead to likely lower estimates, but 100K still seems awfully high.

  by Miss Devore on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 11:59:37 AM PDT

  •  If you read further into the article...

    Falluja is one of the "hotspots" but even without hotspots, the data point to staggering numbers of dead.

    Even with Falluja factored out, the survey "indicates that the death toll associated with the invasion and occupation of Iraq is more likely than not about 100,000 people, and may be much higher," the report said.

    by pacific city on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 12:10:19 PM PDT

•  The study doesn't include Fallujah.

  Put that in and they think it could be 200,000.  1 in 125 of the population.

  Scaling up for the US, it's the equivalent of killing EVERYONE in San Francisco and Las Vegas.

  by magnus on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 12:07:06 PM PDT

•  If you count Falluja: 200,000

  From The New Scientist:

  "That estimate excludes Falluja, a hotspot for violence. If the data from this town is included, the study points to about 200,000 excess deaths since the outbreak of war."

  I'm not sure what "excess deaths" means.

  by maven98 on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 12:08:51 PM PDT

  •  In excess of

    those that would have been expected absent the war. Statistical term.

    by nu on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 12:27:59 PM PDT

•  Truth be told...

  I will vote against Bush on Nov. 2, since as M.Moore says, it's a choice not between Pepsi and Coke but rather it's a choice between Pepsi and arsenic.

  But neither do I consider John Kerry an anti-war candidate.  He says he will 'win the war in Iraq'.  But an illegal war of occupation is not a winnable war.

  For the last many months we the progressive movement in the United States have abandoned the strategy of mass international anti-war demonstrations.  Our organizations almost exclusively work on GOTV and thier websites look like Democratic Party affiliates with little if any mention of anti-war actions.

  Now we are facing an almost certain escalation of the war regardless of what happens Nov. 2.

  We need to respond, we need to be seen again, we need to return to the streets.
  

  by DoDi on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 12:12:05 PM PDT

  •  Win first ...

    then we can push Kerry to get the hell out of Iraq.

    by bcb on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 12:15:55 PM PDT

  •  Have you had a chance to see Going Upriver?

    Kerry will do the right thing.

    by 4thgendem on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 12:57:43 PM PDT

    •  I'm old enough to have actually heard Kerry speak

      at anti-war rallies and I remember the Winter Soldier hearings.  My husband was a Vietnam vet.

      So I do know Kerry's history of activism in the anti-war movement, and I truly admired him in those years.

      But he has not been anti-Iraq war in his statements.  Rather he complains of Bush's mismanagement of the war and says that he can do better.

      One of the lessons learned by the anti-war movement back then was that we could not abdicate our independent activism to electoral politics. LBJ was a case in point.

      I do agree in the need to dump Bush... hell yes! But I am disturbed that we have abandoned mass anti-war demonstrations to work exclusively on GOTV.

      Hopefully our organizations like moveon.org will not go into 'wait mode' believing that Kerry will end the war on his own after he is elected president.

      by DoDi on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 01:09:11 PM PDT

      •  Yes

        I agree completely. I think that the newly organized left is going to have a lot to say after the election. I have been assuming that Kerry says such things to appeal center. We all remember how to march.

        by 4thgendem on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 01:15:42 PM PDT

      •  Also, don't forget,

        as someone said in another post somewhere, trying to win against an incumbent war president is like cutting through a cement block. If Kerry ran against Bush as an anti war candidate, he'd already be out of the race.

        We all know that Bush should be out on the streets as we speak, the race should be over, but it's still as far as the SCLM a 50-50 race. That IS because of the war, and that the people feel safe as long as 'hop-a-long shrub' is in office.

        I don't think Kerry would have been able to take the presidency with any other platform than the one he took.

        by pixella on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 02:02:27 PM PDT

        •  In some ways,

          this:

          I don't think Kerry would have been able to take the presidency with any other platform than the one he took.

          is the real tragedy.  I'm afraid I have to agree with your assessment of the political terrain, but just think about what that says about us (US).  How completely fu**-up a political system to we have when a position that a plurality of the populace hold and are willing to take to the streets in support of can not even be spoken as part of the mainstream presidential election?

          by a gilas girl on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 03:57:33 PM PDT

          •  Exactly

            I feel the same way about Kerry having to "dumb down" as well. I don't know about you, but I don't mind in the least bit if the President of the Untited States is a pretty intelligent guy. In fact, I'll go so far as to say I'd kind of prefer it that way.

            by pixella on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 09:36:10 PM PDT

•  This immoral war

  will be a blight on America and England for generations as was Vietnam. Many of us here saw it coming before the invasion and did almost everything we could to prevent it, but the forces of unreason were too great. How can any American or English person not feel the most profound shame?

  by LEP on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 12:19:26 PM PDT

  •  UB40

    Sums it up nicely:
    There are murders that we must account for
    Bloody deeds have been done in my name
    Criminal acts we must pay for
    And our children will shoulder the blame

    I`m a british subject, not proud of it
    While I carry the burden of shame

    While I agree that I'll be paying for it, and my children will shoulder the burden- I'm plenty proud to be an American and from what I've experienced of the UK, their citizens have every right to be proud.  We will do everything we can and eventually we will win- because there are more of us and we are stronger (see my sig- right can win when it is mighty.)  The British and American sytems are perhaps the best in the world at allowing the potential for the great mass of decent people to overthrow tyranny.  I think that is what is happening now.  If you stood against this war and shouted out against the lies to the misleaders, you should be proud..  for years from now people will look on with jealousy when we say we were here, at this time and gave everything we had to this fight for the souls of our nations. (apologies to Wm.S.)

    by Myrkury on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 01:09:24 PM PDT

    •  I can only feel proud to be an American

      if the foul deed of installing Bush in 2000 is rejected by America and rejected by a significant margin. If that will not be the case next Tuesday, what else can I feel but shame.

      by LEP on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 01:55:15 PM PDT

•  Lancet estimate is actually 200,000

  
        From the New Scientist's report on the
  Lancet article:

         "The figure of 100,000 is based on 'conservative assumptions', notes Les Roberts at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, US, who led the study.

  "That estimate excludes Falluja, a hotspot for violence. If the data from this town is included, the study points to about 200,000 excess deaths since the outbreak of war."

  http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996596

  by SergeiRostov on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 12:23:31 PM PDT

  •  So you might want to change

    
          the title to

            Lancet: 200,000 dead in Iraq war

              or something like that.

                                     SR

    by SergeiRostov on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 12:26:31 PM PDT

    •  A DISGRACE!

      This is absolutely shameful. I've heard them on the right including my father in-law, and it's always the same, too bad for those people <sarcasm>. 3000 innocent Americans killed, but the Iraqis, too bad, the had it coming.

      Once again, it shows Americans love violence, just not in our backyard.

      by ticklescat on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 12:36:49 PM PDT

      •  I think it shows

        tht America (not necessarily all Americans however) loves vengence rather than violence.  (Though there's plenty of other evidence that they also love violence.)

        by a gilas girl on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 04:00:46 PM PDT

•  Novak the Traitor

  ... meet Novak the Heretic
  Mathematical disproof and effective rebuttal of M. Novak's heretical exposition of just war theory: 100k>3k

  I wonder if those two will have to share a bunk in the next life.  Who do you think gets to be top?

  by Myrkury on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 12:28:45 PM PDT

•  The is on the Front page of YAHOO!!

  Rate the story up, and get the word out!

  by coldfusion on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 12:33:43 PM PDT

  •  Yahoo weapon headline

    Please put the link up...it's important.  I don't know how..sorry

    by Frayedknot on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 04:47:24 PM PDT

•  I am shocked and awed.

  to dispel any previous confusion arising from the sig before this,
  i'd like to reaffirm that this account is indeed dedicated to justice.

  by Tacoma Narrows on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 12:35:22 PM PDT

•  If you extrapolated that ratio...

  ...of dead and applied it to the U.S. population, you'd have roughly 1.2 million dead.

  That's not a liberation.

  That's a holocaust.

  by Devin on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 12:43:31 PM PDT

•  Suspected that the "published" numbers

  weren't real.

  It seems that for some reason, American military intervention against civilian populations results in a kill ratio of at least 50 civilians for every one American.  Therefore, I thought the commonly published figures of 11 to 15 thousand civilians didn't make sense.  

  I also remember a news story from about December 2003 when the provisional authority banned Iraqis from keeping statistics of their war dead.

  by BCF on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 01:10:00 PM PDT

•  We will never wash this blood

  from our hands.

  God Damn George Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice,Powell, and anyone else who supported this evil war.

  by perro amarillo on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 01:52:28 PM PDT

  •  And now I have to say

    God bless everyone, without exception. No, not even Ken Starr.

    Peace, all.

    by perro amarillo on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 01:54:50 PM PDT

•  I am heartbroken

  Not only for the lost Iraqis (and I cannot help but put myself in their place), but also for my own country, once so proud and great, that could do such a thing.

  God, how I hate Bush.
  

  by Emerson on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 02:40:16 PM PDT

•  There may be a way out of this hell...

  but it will require of us that we adopt 100,000 orphaned Iraqi babies, and raise them true to their religion and culture - something I suspect we are not quite ready to do.

  We will be paying for this madness for decades to come.

  Thanks, George.

  by Spindizzy on Thu Oct 28, 2004 at 03:18:07 PM PDT

  •  Thanks Mahatma

    (or at least Ben Kingsley) for that little piece of wisdom.  One stops killing by not killing and not killing necessitates accepting mutual responsibility between all humans- not such "hard work" at all unless you are a very small and afraid soul.