General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsReport Shows US Invasion, Occupation of Iraq Left 1 Million Dead
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/30164-report-shows-us-invasion-occupation-of-iraq-left-1-million-deadA recently published report has revealed that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq was responsible for the deaths of approximately 1 million Iraqis, which is 5 percent of the total population of the country. The report also tallies hundreds of thousands of casualties in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Authors of the report, titled "Body Count: Casualty Figures After 10 Years of the 'War on Terror,'" have told Truthout that other casualty reports, like the often-quoted Iraq Body Count (IBC), which has a high-end estimate at the time of this writing of 154,563, are far too low in their estimates, and that the real numbers reach "genocidal dimensions."
The report states that, in addition to the deaths in Iraq, an estimated 220,000 people have been killed in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan as a result of US foreign policy. These findings come on the heels of a UN report that finds that civilian deaths in Afghanistan in 2014 were at their highest levels since the UN began producing reports on the topic in 2009.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)I feel sick.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)PufPuf23
(8,785 posts)Autumn
(45,106 posts)Yet we were ignored and our democrats went right along with it.
marym625
(17,997 posts)No doubt in my mind. Money was exchanged or offered. Absolutely believe it to my soul
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)War money flows on both sides of the aisle. More to Republicans than Democrats, but enough of it goes to Democrats to allow the MIC to call the shots.
Some relevant things in this article. I like their term the Military Industrial Think Tank Complex (I think it's theirs, I hadn't heard it before). The focus of the article is on the weapons industry, but IMO could just as well have been on the extraction industries (oil, gas, and mining interests), and though there is some dispute about it, AIPAC was also apparently lobbying for the war behind the scenes.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Military-industrial_complex#Weapons_Procurement_1998-2003
Weapons Procurement 1998-2003
In 1999, according to Foreign Policy in Focus, "the military-industrial complex did not fade away with the end of the cold war. It has simply reorganized itself."
"As a result of a rash of military-industry mergers encouraged and subsidized by the Clinton administration," it continues, "the Big Three weapons makers--Lockheed Martin Corporation, Boeing Corporation, and Raytheon Corporation--now receive among themselves over $30 billion per year in Pentagon contracts. This represents more than one out of every four dollars that the Defense Department doles out for everything from rifles to rockets." [8]
When this article was posted in 1999, the Clinton Administration five-year budget plan for the Pentagon called for a 50% increase in weapons procurement, which would be an increase from $44 billion per year to over $63 billion per year by 2003. Additionally, the arms industry launched "a concerted lobbying campaign aimed at increasing military spending and arms exports. These initiatives are driven by profit and pork barrel politics, not by an objective assessment of how best to defend the United States in the post-cold war period."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Military-industrial_complex#The_Military-Industrial-Think_Tank_Complex
The Military-Industrial-Think Tank Complex
According to the January/February 2003 Multinational Monitor:
Each major element of the George Walker Bush administration's national security strategy -- from the doctrines of preemptive strikes and "regime change" in Iraq, to its aggressive nuclear posture and commitment to deploying a Star Wars-style missile defense system -- was developed and refined before the Bush administration took office, at corporate-backed conservative think tanks like the Center for Security Policy, the National Institute for Public Policy and the Project for a New American Century.
Unilateralist ideologues formerly affiliated with these think tanks, along with the 32 major administration appointees who are former executives with, consultants for, or significant shareholders of top Defense contractors, are driving U.S. foreign and military policy.
The arms lobby is exerting more influence over policymaking than at any time since President Dwight D. Eisenhower first warned of the dangers of the military-industrial complex over 40 years ago.
It is not just industry-backed think tanks that have infiltrated the administration. Former executives, consultants or shareholders of top U.S. defense companies pervade the Bush national security team.
Exploiting the fears following 9/11, and impervious to budgetary constraints imposed on virtually every other form of federal spending, the ideologue-industry nexus is driving the United States to war in Iraq and a permanently aggressive war-fighting posture that will simultaneously starve other government programs and make the world a much more dangerous place.
The overarching concern of the ideologues and the arms industry is to increase military spending. On this score, they have been tremendously successful. In its two years in office, the Bush administration has sought more than $150 billion in new military spending, the vast majority of which has been approved by Congress with few questions asked. Spending on national defense is nearing $400 billion for fiscal year (FY) 2003, up from $329 billion when Bush took office.
marym625
(17,997 posts)I also think it is part of a plan to keep control of the masses. I know people think that is too out there but considering what is going on, I honestly believe it.
Exactly why I posted this yesterday
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026500854
Great articles. Thanks for the information
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)busterbrown
(8,515 posts)Lets make sure Jeb Bush gets elected....
Autumn
(45,106 posts)busterbrown
(8,515 posts)Correct?
Autumn
(45,106 posts)Nader represented nothing else. he has no vote or say on the IWR. Bone up on the truth of the 2000 election and don't be bringing that weak Nader shit. That's all you got? You got nothing. You have a nice day cause I won't play that silly game.
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)Not even worth responding to... Nader Shit Put egotistical in front of your shit and you got the mess were in today..
Autumn
(45,106 posts)busterbrown
(8,515 posts)of a political junkie and all were getting lately is nothing but insanity..
The Right Wing our country isnt even a good joke anymore.
dirtydickcheney
(242 posts)busterbrown
(8,515 posts)Great choices to prevent the Lunatics from controlling all of the big three..
Just Brilliant...
Hillary might not be my favorite but dems. like you are asking for some serious shit to happen if one of their clowns get in..
dirtydickcheney
(242 posts)Bernie has a history of helping workers - Hillary has a history of helping Big Money.
That's all.
Vote accordingly.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I wonder whether she will come out against the constant testing in the schools. That testing is evil.
My mother was a great mother. She studied child development way back in the 1930s. When I was a little girl and beginning my baby-sitting career (my second of a number of "careers" , she told me, "There's positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement, and positive reinforcement works best."
I have never forgotten that advice when I deal with children. This constant testing is the worst form of negative reinforcement I can think of. Children are constantly being told that they have to measure up on absurd tests that do not and cannot test what is really important: how they apply what they have learned, the facts and methods they have learned, in real life.
I am hoping that Hillary will propose legislation that will drastically change the testing culture in our schools. At the very least, if they are going to require testing of public school children, they should also require it of home-schooled and private-schooled and charter-schooled children. There is no point in only requiring it of public school children. And I understand that it is only required in public schools. If tests are to be required or if the giving of tests is to be rewarded, then the tests should be national and required of all school-aged children. The tests are meaningless if only given in public schools. They do not reflect the academic progress or standards in our education in general. They only reflect the standards and progress in public schools. That is pointless.
So I am waiting to see whether Hillary will prove to be a champion of children and propose and end to the frequent testing. That will be a test for her.
I also want to see whether she supports teachers' unions. That will tell us just how far to the right she will go.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)isn't your favorite to run for the WH?
That is a sad state affairs. If it was true.
But it isn't. There are some GREAT Democrats who would make great presidents, but those in power do not want anyone in power who will do things like Prosecute Wall St criminals, or War Criminals, or who will not go along with their forever wars.
Or who might restore Glass Steagal, or end the takeover of the Public School funds for Private use.
The rich don't give money away. The WANT something for their money.
If all you can think of is a couple of people then you haven't been paying enough attention to the best members of the Dem Party and there are quite a few. But like I said, it takes, I am told lately, two and a half billion dollars just to run. And what will that money buy?
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)against us. Of Course there are better candidates.. But for any of them to make a run at this stage w/o
two and half billion needed.. It aint gonna happen...
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)How about backing someone that didn't vote for this atrocity? Or minimally, stop trying to act like this doesn't matter
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)never forget the sense of utter betrayal people felt the night of that vote. I listened to Sen Byrd's incredible speech, 'I weep for my country' in which he was, airc, one of the few, maybe the only one, who mentioned the Iraqi people and what such a war would do them. Then he voted 'nay'.
That gave me hope, but not for long.
I don't know how anyone could have voted for ANYTHING those liars wanted. You didn't have to be a political genius to know they were lying.
There are also still 4 million Iraqi refugees in both Syria, now again being forced out by the violence there, and in Jordan.
It is a crime of massive proportions and history will record it that way.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)and I expect other Senators you have voted for multiple times since.
yardwork
(61,650 posts)We went to war with Iraq when George H W Bush was president and when George W Bush was president. I hope that Jebby doesn't get a chance. Because there is a lot of money to be made and the Bushes don't count the bodies. Too much bother for their beautiful minds.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)behind this new number include deaths attributable to lack of medical care.
But using that metric, the Clinton administration's embargo also led to deaths, so even something like enforcing an embargo can be characterized as warfare. It's fine to use such characterizations in some ways, but when it comes to accounting for naked facts, the data which they claim supports this number simply isn't there, IMO.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)You were saying?
Telcontar
(660 posts)ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Geneva Conventions protocols, forbid depriving civilians of food, medicine and supplies necessary for fresh water and sewage treatment. The sanctions amounted to attacks against civilians, in an attempt to force them to depose their own government, and hundreds of thousands died, as a result.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Which is how we're supposed to look at the deaths, torture, homelessness, we caused in Iraq because some Democratic politicians thought it politically expedient to support the killing.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)people were pretty upset about 9/11 and ready to let them lead us into war. Yes we had demonstrations at the time - but there were no doubt just as many angry people calling in to demand war.
I can honestly say that I was against this war and the following ones from the beginning but I was one of the few in my community who was.
One of my favorite bumper stickers: "There they go. I had better follow them because I am their leader."
marym625
(17,997 posts)I blame the government and the media more than I blame the population. So many just read the talking points. Heard the bs the media threw at us night and day. I had so many discussions with intelligent people that had no clue what the reality was, it was mind boggling.
My whole family knew what was really happening. My mom was even on the news in Chicago at a protest she helped put together.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)have convinced those who bought into it.
For myself I will tell you that my understanding that it was wrong started with the Vietnam war where I was very against it unless someone could tell me why. They never could. That feeling carried over to the time of 9/11 and made me distrust W's liars. I often wonder if it had been a Democratic president if I would have been smart enough to be critical. I also have always thought since it was a group not a nation that this was a law enforcement issue not a military one.
When panic sets in very few ask for documentation before running.
However, we did know they were lying. So many of us knew. The documentation was out there. Which is why I have no doubt that those in office knew. And they knew very well.
I am sure you would have questioned a democratic president. It's your knowledge that war is wrong that caused you doubt. That wouldn't have changed
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I wish it was not necessary to point that out.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)bush administration wanted to blame. I actually have always wondered why we blamed any nation for what a group of terrorists were doing. It was a police issue. That may be one of the problems that we are going to face regarding ISIS. It is not state supported. At least so far.
hue
(4,949 posts)Depaysement
(1,835 posts)That's a lot of dead people.
These people have a lot of blood on their hands: Bush, Cheney, Feith, Wolfkowitz, Kristol, Kagan, Woolsey, Perle and so on.
And they pay no price for their blood-letting. And to what end exactly?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Resolution including two names that come to my mind and who have, I believe acknowledged their error: John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. I'm certain that many, even most of the Democrats in Congress at the time voted for that war.
If I recall correctly, Feingold did not support the war. There were others who did not support it. We should honor them on DU.
58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. Those voting for the resolution are:
Sens. Lincoln (D-AR), Feinstein (D-CA), Dodd (D-CT), Lieberman (D-CT), Biden (D-DE), Carper (D-DE), Nelson (D-FL), Cleland (D-GA), Miller (D-GA), Bayh (D-IN), Harkin (D-IA), Breaux (D-LA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Kerry (D-MA), Carnahan (D-MO), Baucus (D-MT), Nelson (D-NE), Reid (D-NV), Torricelli (D-NJ), Clinton (D-NY), Schumer (D-NY), Edwards (D-NC), Dorgan (D-ND), Hollings (D-SC), Daschle (D-SD), Johnson (D-SD), Cantwell (D-WA), Rockefeller (D-WV), and Kohl (D-WI).
42% of Democratic senators (21 of 50) voted against the resolution. Those voting against the resolution are:
Sens. Boxer (D-CA), Graham (D-FL), Akaka (D-HI), Inouye (D-HI), Durbin (D-IL), Mikulski (D-MD), Sarbanes (D-MD), Kennedy (D-MA), Stabenow (D-MI), Levin (D-MI), Dayton (D-MN), Wellstone (D-MN), Corzine (D-NJ), Bingaman (D-NM), Conrad (D-ND), Wyden (D-OR), Reed (D-RI), Leahy (D-VT), Murray (D-WA), Byrd (D-WV), and Feingold (D-WI).
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)judgment and did their homework while others did not.
I remember that Edwards apologized for his mistake in the 2008 election cycle. I understand that Hillary has apologized also. Does anyone have a date on her apology.
I think that a vote for the War Resolution demonstrated poor judgment and group-thinking as opposed to responsible, independent analysis, research and thought.
Those who voted for the resolution did not ask the right questions before their vote. We all make mistakes like that, but this mistake cost a lot of lives and set up the situation that has led to a lot of problems in the Middle East -- like refugees from Iraq flooding Syria, like our weapons that ISIS is now using to terrorize those with beliefs other than theirs, and a part of our economic problems.
I do not want the poor judgment that led to votes for the Iraq War to be forgotten. We should never forget that horrible Bush war and the mistakes and crimes of those who fed us lies to get us into it.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)and then later pouted, "I have nothing to be sorry for."
And you know what, she will never apologize for that vote.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Let me guess the next goal post... "That wasn't an apology!"
closeupready
(29,503 posts)This represents a change. In 2008, her advisors feared that if she called her Iraq vote a mistake, Republicans would savage her for flip-flopping, as they had done to John Kerry four years earlier. So even after John Edwards apologized for his Iraq vote, she refused to. In their book, Her Way, Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. quote Clintons chief strategist, Mark Penn, as insisting that, Its important for all Democrats to keep the word mistake firmly on the Republicans.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Then YOU missed the kick.
If you wanted a better target, you should have selected a better target.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)That's all I said.
Response to Agschmid (Reply #40)
Agschmid This message was self-deleted by its author.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Absolutely no way they didn't know the truth. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)voted against the IWR.
The poster asked about Fiengold, I answered?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)without getting smacked by Godwin's law?
Javaman
(62,530 posts)sorry, couldn't resist
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)But thanks for posting it. We need the reminder.
War is horror. Americans don't realize that, but it is -- horror.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)There are more veterans with brain damage than ever before. The fact that the US did not have proper equipment, including shocks on the humvees, caused so very many to suffer permanent brain damage. The ride on the rough terrain caused what is akin to shaken baby syndrome.
The military knew this pretty much immediately and did nothing for years
JEB
(4,748 posts)Some decided it was the lesser of two evils. Boy were they wrong. This bloody stain will not wash out of our national conscience.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)And US Americans, simply do not care. They think it is all just part of the normal course of world events, and that we bear no responsibility. Even liberals think this way, as many of the posts about Clinton and Kissinger clearly show. The Invasion of Iraq was cooked up through a campaign of lies and conspiracies, yet most do not see it for the violation of international law and crime against humanity that it is. The double standard by which we function is glaring, yet invisible to most. Such is the illogical nature of fending off the cognitive discomfort produced by holding radically conflicting beliefs.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)For some, the ends justify the means.
Botany
(70,516 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 14, 2015, 12:04 PM - Edit history (1)
And nobody is going to be held accountable for all the deaths, bloodshed, injuries,
and the creation of ISIS.
************
One of the most credible, effective proponents of war in 2002 was Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the former Vietnam prisoner of war who lost to President George W. Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries.
McCain argued that continuing a policy of deterrence against Iraq would condemn Saddam's neighbors to perpetual instability. And once Iraq's nuclear ambitions are realized, no serious person could expect the Iraqi threat to diminish.
He also confidently predicted: I am very certain that this military engagement will not be very difficult.
McCains longtime ally, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), then a member of the House, declared that attacking Iraq was long overdue and that when the smoke clears, the Iraqi people will taste freedom for the first time in decades.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/13/iran-nuclear-talks_n_7044180.html
samsingh
(17,599 posts)logosoco
(3,208 posts)It seems to me that the people most at fault for this don't have a conscience.
I would not want to spend my time as a human knowing I got rich off of death.
IHateTheGOP
(1,059 posts)Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld should be in prison awaiting execution for war crimes, treason, torture, violations of international law, and violations of the U. S. Constitution. Oh, and by the way, if we need anyone to "pull the switch" I volunteer.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Should be prosecuted. Minimally, they should be thrown out of office and none should ever be allowed to serve again
niyad
(113,336 posts)The report notes, however, that its numbers are a conservative estimate, and that the total number of people killed in the three countries "could also be in excess of 2 million, whereas a figure below 1 million is extremely unlikely."
. . . . .
This is why IBC became the go-to source for casualty counts: Its lowball figures fit the mainstream narrative of the war's impacts, and the organization accordingly garnered an extraordinary amount of media coverage. This long-time reliance on IBC makes the recent report's figures all the more important.
The figure from the recent "Body Count" report, stunningly high as it is, still only counts deaths in Iraq up until the end of 2011. Some of the worst violence that has engulfed the country has happened since that time.
The report also does not account for deaths among the approximately 3 million Iraqi refugees who have been subjected to conflict zones, disease and health problems.
. . . .
G_j
(40,367 posts)And move along... there is no such thing as American war crimes, or crimes against peace.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Like after Iran-Contra.
Works "Right" every time.
marym625
(17,997 posts)How have we allowed this? How have we not prosecuted anyone?
Unforgivable!
spanone
(135,844 posts)FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)...and then, suddenly, all mention of the 1 million just vanished.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Canoe52
(2,948 posts)Essentially that's a collateral damage of 1 million just to take out one guy, Saddam.
Or 1 million to give Iraq "freedom" depending on the reason du jour.
But in reality it is 1 million deaths to try to take over Iraq's oil, and the war criminals were so inept, their only accomplishment was to kill off the 1 million.
Sick f@cking bastards all of them.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)moondust
(19,993 posts)http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq
One or both of these sites have been following incidents and counting deaths on a daily basis since 2007, though I can't vouch for their methodology or accuracy.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,174 posts)...er...they were all terrorists right?
liberal N proud
(60,336 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)By Spencer Ackerman - 22 August 2014
...(General) Dempsey, an Iraq veteran, has long been sceptical of US military involvement in the Syrian conflict, citing among other reasons the threat to US pilots from dictator Bashar al-Assads air defences. He has frustrated those who advocated American involvement in the two neighbouring wars, such as hawkish Republican senator John McCain, who in June called on Obama to fire Dempsey, saying he has done nothing but invent ways for us not to be engaged.
Echoing the White Houses stated position, Dempsey said the US needed a coalition in the region that takes on the task of defeating Isis over time, something the administration this week has put effort into broadening and strengthening. But the groups ultimate defeat, the general said, would only come when it is rejected by the over 20 million disenfranchised Sunnis that happen to reside between Damascus and Baghdad.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/21/isis-us-military-iraq-strikes-threat-apocalyptic/print
This is no longer just about Iraq. Since Damascus is in Syria, all the way to the Mediterranean and the doorstep to Europe. Many centuries of warfare between the empires, of which the caliphate is planned to be one. And Baghdad is set near the sea on the other end of that stretch of land on the eastern side.
Those 20 million don't all support the Daesh, but that is a huge number and it's not like these people are unable to figure out how to fight to survive. Obama warned Maliki that excluding them them from his government (in revenge for Saddam's oppression of the Shia, I guess) would cause Iraq to break into pieces. So he couldn't fully support Maliki because he didn't govern with inclusion, which would be the only way to have peace.
The result of those fleeing Iraq and impacting other nations created a diasphoria for the new century. The Iraq War was a TEOTWAWKI event and shattered lives and allegiances. The Middle East will be transformed into different nations, because the original fuel for the Daesh is the need of those refugees for a homeland.
Imagine for a moment, an army of 20 million armed and angry and possibly homeless in the USA on the move. Just picture the bloody carnage in the neighboring states in a desperate fight for living space.
The Kurds were accused of being extrene in the past. They managed through the overthrow of Saddam to possess an autonomous region in northern Iraq. The legacy of Bush will hang over us for a generation or more and change the entire world as we know it, too. JMHO.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)so lets not bring up the past or anything