PDA

View Full Version : Over One Million Iraqi Deaths Caused by US Occupation




Reason
02-26-2010, 12:42 AM
Over One Million Iraqi Deaths Caused by US Occupation (http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/1-over-one-million-iraqi-deaths-caused-by-us-occupation/)

Top 25 Censored Stories for 2009

Over one million Iraqis have met violent deaths as a result of the 2003 invasion, according to a study conducted by the prestigious British polling group, Opinion Research Business (ORB). These numbers suggest that the invasion and occupation of Iraq rivals the mass killings of the last century—the human toll exceeds the 800,000 to 900,000 believed killed in the Rwandan genocide in 1994, and is approaching the number (1.7 million) who died in Cambodia’s infamous “Killing Fields” during the Khmer Rouge era of the 1970s.

ORB’s research covered fifteen of Iraq’s eighteen provinces. Those not covered include two of Iraq’s more volatile regions—Kerbala and Anbar—and the northern province of Arbil, where local authorities refused them a permit to work. In face-to-face interviews with 2,414 adults, the poll found that more than one in five respondents had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict, as opposed to natural cause.

Authors Joshua Holland and Michael Schwartz point out that the dominant narrative on Iraq—that most of the violence against Iraqis is being perpetrated by Iraqis themselves and is not our responsibility—is ill conceived. Interviewers from the Lancet report of October 2006 (Censored 2006, #2) asked Iraqi respondents how their loved ones died. Of deaths for which families were certain of the perpetrator, 56 percent were attributable to US forces or their allies. Schwartz suggests that if a low pro rata share of half the unattributed deaths were caused by US forces, a total of approximately 80 percent of Iraqi deaths are directly US perpetrated.

Even with the lower confirmed figures, by the end of 2006, an average of 5,000 Iraqis had been killed every month by US forces since the beginning of the occupation. However, the rate of fatalities in 2006 was twice as high as the overall average, meaning that the American average in 2006 was well over 10,000 per month, or over 300 Iraqis every day. With the surge that began in 2007, the current figure is likely even higher.

Schwartz points out that the logic to this carnage lies in a statistic released by the US military and reported by the Brookings Institute: for the first four years of the occupation the American military sent over 1,000 patrols each day into hostile neighborhoods, looking to capture or kill “insurgents” and “terrorists.” (Since February 2007, the number has increased to nearly 5,000 patrols a day, if we include the Iraqi troops participating in the American surge.) Each patrol invades an average of thirty Iraqi homes a day, with the mission to interrogate, arrest, or kill suspects. In this context, any fighting age man is not just a suspect, but a potentially lethal adversary. Our soldiers are told not to take any chances (see Story #9).

According to US military statistics, again reported by the Brookings Institute, these patrols currently result in just under 3,000 firefights every month, or just under an average of one hundred per day (not counting the additional twenty-five or so involving our Iraqi allies). Thousands of patrols result in thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths and unconscionably brutal detentions.

Iraqis’ attempts to escape the violence have resulted in a refugee crisis of mammoth proportion. According to the United Nations Refugee Agency and the International Organization for Migration, in 2007 almost 5 million Iraqis had been displaced by violence in their country, the vast majority of which had fled since 2003. Over 2.4 million vacated their homes for safer areas within Iraq, up to 1.5 million were living in Syria, and over 1 million refugees were inhabiting Jordan, Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, and Gulf States. Iraq’s refugees, increasing by an average of almost 100,000 every month, have no legal work options in most host states and provinces and are increasingly desperate.1

Yet more Iraqis continue to flee their homes than the numbers returning, despite official claims to the contrary. Thousands fleeing say security is as bad as ever, and that to return would be to accept death. Most of those who return are subsequently displaced again.

Maki al-Nazzal and Dahr Jamail quote an Iraqi engineer now working at a restaurant in Damascus, “Return to Iraq? There is no Iraq to return to, my friend. Iraq only exists in our dreams and memories.”

Another interviewee told the authors, “The US military say Fallujah is safe now while over 800 men are detained there under the worst conditions. . . . At least 750 out of the 800 detainees are not resistance fighters, but people who refused to collaborate with occupation forces and their tails.” (Iraqis who collaborate with occupation forces are commonly referred to as “tails of the Americans.”)

Another refugee from Baghdad said, “I took my family back home in January. The first night we arrived, Americans raided our house and kept us all in one room while their snipers used our rooftop to shoot at people. I decided to come back here [Damascus] the next morning after a horrifying night that we will never forget.”

Citation

1. “The Iraqi Displacement Crisis,” Refugees International, March 3, 2008.

UPDATE BY MICHAEL SCHWARTZ

The mortality statistics cited in “Is the United States Killing 10,000 Iraqis Every Month?” were based on another article suitable for Project Censored recognition, a scientific investigation of deaths caused by the war in Iraq. The original article, published in Lancet in 2006, received some dismissive coverage when it was released, and then disappeared from view as the mainstream media returned to reporting biased estimates that placed Iraqi casualties at about one-tenth the Lancet estimates. The corporate media blackout of the original study extended to my article as well, and has continued unabated, though the Lancet article has withstood several waves of criticism, while being confirmed and updated by other studies (Censored 2006, #2).

By early 2008, the best estimate, based on extrapolations and replications of the Lancet study, was that 1.2 million Iraqis had died as a consequence of the war. This figure has not, to my knowledge, been reported in any mass media outlet in the United States.

The blackout of the casualty figures was matched by a similar blackout of other main evidence in my article: that the Bush administration military strategy in Iraq assures vast property destruction and lethality on a daily basis. Rules of engagement that require the approximately one thousand US patrols each day to respond to any hostile act with overwhelming firepower—small arms, artillery, and air power—guarantee that large numbers of civilians will suffer and die. But the mainstream media refuses to cover this mayhem, even after the Winter Soldier meetings in March 2008 featured over one hundred Iraq veterans who testified to their own participation in what they call “atrocity producing situations.” (see Story #9)

The effectiveness of the media blackout is vividly illustrated by an Associated Press poll conducted in February 2007, which asked a representative sample of US residents how many Iraqis had died as a result of the war. The average respondent thought the number was under 10,000, about 2 percent of the actual total at that time. This remarkable mass ignorance, like so many other elements of the Iraq War story, received no coverage in the mass media, not even by the Associated Press, which commissioned the study.

The Iraq Veterans Against the War has made the brutality of the occupation their special activist province. The slaughter of the Iraqi people is the foundation of their demand for immediate and full withdrawal of US troops, and the subject of their historic Winter Soldier meetings in Baltimore. Though there was no mainstream US media coverage of this event, the live streaming on Pacifica Radio and on the IVAW website reached a huge audience—including a vast number of active duty soldiers—with vivid descriptions of atrocities committed by the US war machine. A growing number of independent news sites now feature regular coverage of this aspect of the war, including Democracy Now!, Tom Dispatch, Dahr Jamail’s MidEast Dispatches, Informed Comment, Antiwar.com, and ZNet.

UPDATE BY MAKI AL-NAZZAL AND DAHR JAMAIL

The promotion of US general David Petraeus to head CENTCOM, and General Raymond Odierno to replace Petraeus as commanding general of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, provoked a lot of anger amongst Iraqis in both Syria and Jordan. The two generals who convinced US and international society of improvement in Iraq do not seem to have succeeded in convincing Iraqi refugees of their success.

“Just like the Bush Administration decorated Paul Bremer (former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority), they are rewarding others who participated in the destruction to Iraq,” stated Muhammad Shamil, an Iraqi journalist who fled Iraq to Syria in 2006. “What they call violence was concentrated in some parts of Iraq, but now spread to be all over the country, thanks to US war heroes. People are getting killed, evicted or detained by the thousands, from Basra (South) to Mosul (North).”

Other Iraqi refugees seem to have changed attitudes regarding their hopes to return. Compared to when this story was published in March 2008, the refugee crisis continues to deepen. This is exacerbated by the fact that most Iraqis have no intention of returning home. Instead, they are looking for permanent residence in other countries.

“I decided to stop dreaming of going back home and find myself a new home anywhere in the world if I could,” said thirty-two-year-old Maha Numan in Syria, “I have been a refugee for three years now living on the dream of return, but I decided to stop dreaming. I have lost faith in all leaders of the world after the surges of Basra, Sadr City and now Mosul. This seems to be endless and one has to work harder on finding a safe haven for one’s family.”

Iraqis in Syria know a lot more of the news about their country than most journalists. At an Internet café in Damascus, each of them calls his hometown and reports the happenings of the day to other Iraqi refugees. News of ongoing violence across much of Iraq convinces them to remain abroad.

“There were four various explosions in Fallujah today,” said Salam Adel, who worked as a translator for US forces in Fallujah in 2005. “And they say it is safe to go back! Damn them, go back for what? For roadside bombs or car bombs?”

It has been important, politically, for the Bush administration to claim that the situation in Iraq is improving. This claim has been assisted by a complicit corporate media. However, the 1.5 million Iraqis in Syria, and over 750,000 in Jordan, will tell you differently. Otherwise, they would not remain outside of Iraq.

Sources:
After Downing Street, July 6, 2007
Title: “Is the United States Killing 10,000 Iraqis Every Month? Or Is It More?”
Author: Michael Schwartz

AlterNet, September 17, 2007
Title: “Iraq death toll rivals Rwanda genocide, Cambodian killing fields”
Author: Joshua Holland

Reuters (via AlterNet), January 7, 2008
Title: “Iraq conflict has killed a million, says survey”
Author: Luke Baker

Inter Press Service, March 3, 2008
Title: “Iraq: Not our country to Return to”
Authors: Maki al-Nazzal and Dahr Jamail

Student Researchers: Danielle Stanton, Tim LeDonne, and Kat Pat Crespán
Faculty Evaluator: Heidi LaMoreaux, PhD

To obtain updated information on the refugee crisis, see IRIN | Error (http://www.irinnews.org/IRIN-ME.aspx), http://www.iraqredcrescent (http://www.iraqredcrescent) .org/, Ways to Give | Refugees International (http://www.refugeesinternational.org/section/waystohelp), http://www.unhcr.org/iraq.html (http://www.unhcr.org/iraq.html), and Dahr Jamail’s Mideast Dispatches — (http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/).

To obtain updated information on the number of deaths in Iraq see Iraq Deaths | Just Foreign Policy (http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html)

squarepusher
02-26-2010, 01:40 AM
Sad, imagine how changed our soldiers must be from this.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/25/marine-pleads-not-guilty-in-infant-sonaposs-death/

BillyDkid
02-26-2010, 08:32 AM
Oh, they're just towel heads and sand monkeys. You make it sound like they're human beings just like us!!!:rolleyes:

catdd
02-26-2010, 08:51 AM
bump

BamaFanNKy
02-26-2010, 08:54 AM
How about the fact between the two wars we are about to hit a Trillion dollars invested. If human lives don't matter... how about cash?

Pericles
02-26-2010, 08:56 AM
Wow! We've killed almost 5% of the population of Iraq by those figures. In another 10 years there won't be anybody left to plant IEDs!

sevin
02-26-2010, 09:00 AM
When I was a child I was raised to believe that we were the good guys.

Now I know that we were the bad guys all along. :(

Pericles
02-26-2010, 09:09 AM
What is really amazing is that while all of this killing has been going on, the population of Iraq has increased by 40% to 50% in the last 10 years, depending on which estimate you believe.

As there is no really good population counts there (estimates for July 2009 vary by over 3 million from a high of 31 mil to less than 28 mil), it would be really easy to kill people who never existed in the first place.

Original_Intent
02-26-2010, 09:20 AM
Let's see, I wonder how many of those million had an able-bodied relative that headed down to the terrorist recruitment office after their loved one got killed?

I wonder what the combatant/non-combatant ratio was on those killed?

OK we have killed 300+ Iraqi's for every person killed on 9/11 - oh wait Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11, nevermind.

charrob
02-26-2010, 09:35 AM
it's like a holocaust against the Muslims. -yet you don't hear a peep from most americans... -what has our country become?

Pericles
02-26-2010, 10:40 AM
it's like a holocaust against the Muslims. -yet you don't hear a peep from most americans... -what has our country become?

You don't hear a peep from most Americans because over 80% of that is Muslims killing other Muslims. This guy is counting AQ car bombings as the US killing Muslims, which in many Muslim minds is true - everything that happens in Iraq is the responsibility of the US, it is ingrained into the culture. Is there any violence that happens in Iraq for which a Muslim is responsible?

These kind of BS articles play into that, and along with the everybody who wears a US uniform is a psycho killer meme, popular with some on this board, really is a good way to piss off people who would be natural allies of the freedom movement.

catdd
02-26-2010, 10:54 AM
It was our intervention that stirred them up, so we are responsible.

mello
02-26-2010, 11:20 AM
I remember reading a story awhile back that mentioned the one million civilian deaths. It also
mentioned that between 2.5 to 5 million were also widowed or orphaned. What kind of blowback can
we expect from that? Even if only 1% decide to join Al Qaeda that's 25 to 50 thousand we're going
to have to look out for.

Liberty Star
02-26-2010, 11:29 AM
If the accusation is valid that this was a revenge attack motivated by racism becase Iraqi civilians are of same race as mideasterners who attacked us, are neocons like McCain, Lieberman, Palin, Biden, Hillary and all those who supported this bloodshed racists?

Todd
02-26-2010, 11:49 AM
These kind of BS articles play into that, and along with the everybody who wears a US uniform is a psycho killer meme, popular with some on this board, really is a good way to piss off people who would be natural allies of the freedom movement.

+1

charrob
02-26-2010, 11:53 AM
You don't hear a peep from most Americans because over 80% of that is Muslims killing other Muslims. This guy is counting AQ car bombings as the US killing Muslims, which in many Muslim minds is true - everything that happens in Iraq is the responsibility of the US, it is ingrained into the culture. Is there any violence that happens in Iraq for which a Muslim is responsible?

These kind of BS articles play into that, and along with the everybody who wears a US uniform is a psycho killer meme, popular with some on this board, really is a good way to piss off people who would be natural allies of the freedom movement.

NEWSFLASH: IF WE WEREN'T THERE, THIS CIVIL WAR WOULDN'T BE GOING ON. :mad:

Liberty Star
02-26-2010, 12:43 PM
You don't hear a peep from most Americans because over 80% of that is Muslims killing other Muslims.

Was sectarian violence that followed us taking sides with one sect and funding Shites of SCIRI ( Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq) to oust nationalist secular Bathists part of necons plan or a totally surprise outcome after overthrowing their gov?


Under int law, occupation regime is responsible for protecting civilians on occupied territory. There should have been a green zone built for all people of Iraqi race and not just for foreigners before over throwing Saddam's regime. Saddam was a "butcher" yet under his watch less Iraqi civilians were killed than ours. We are ultimately responsible for results of pre-emptively invading a sovereign country that did not attack us and for using bogus claims and lies to spread over motives of revenge and racism. The blood of innocent killed in Iraq following Iraqi freedom operation is on the hands of neocons and all those who supported that economically dumb revenge attack.

MelissaWV
02-26-2010, 12:52 PM
Okay... no.

The US being there made violence worse, but those of you claiming it's ALL US-inspired violence are making me :confused: and :eek: and :rolleyes:

Yeah. The Middle East was peaceful, and all these tribes were getting along under their glorious leader, Saddam Hussein. Saddam, a kindly, portly family man of modest means who loved shooting and having a big mustache, led a peaceful life in his beautiful land of Iraq. He got along beautifully with his neighbors, and his subjects praised him with dances and tributes, wishing they could all be that cool.

Really?

No car bombs before this? No violence? Nothing? Man these people got really good at killing with no prior propensity for it, and no prior experience!

The US needs to get out of there, and should never have been there, but don't start white-washing history already. It's just as bad when this side does it as when the other one does.

polomertz
02-26-2010, 12:57 PM
Reminded me of this video:
YouTube - german skull soldiers 1x01 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsNLbK8_rBY&feature=related)

jclay2
02-26-2010, 01:14 PM
certainly Iraq was a hell hole before we got there, but we made it a lot worse. I wouldn't doubt if a couple hundred thousand deaths are attributable to the US. The million number is probably way over blown if you look at it this way.

Pericles
02-26-2010, 01:17 PM
................

No car bombs before this? No violence? Nothing? Man these people got really good at killing with no prior propensity for it, and no prior experience!

The US needs to get out of there, and should never have been there, but don't start white-washing history already. It's just as bad when this side does it as when the other one does.

This.

Until the magic time machine is perfected, and the invasion can be undone, there are basically two options going forward.

(A) Leave now and let the factions get it on until somebody subdues the others
(B) Slide out while trying to keep the wheels on while we go, so there is a sk=lim cahnce of some kind of "peace" for the majority of the population

If you really care about the well being of the people of Iraq, which would you choose?

charrob
02-26-2010, 01:17 PM
Under international law, the occupation regime is responsible for protecting civilians on occupied territory.

There should have been a green zone built for all people of Iraqi race and not just for foreigners before over throwing Saddam's regime. Saddam was a "butcher" yet under his watch less Iraqi civilians were killed than ours.

We are ultimately responsible for results of pre-emptively invading a sovereign country that did not attack us and for using bogus claims and lies to spread over motives of revenge and racism.

The blood of millions of innocent killed in Iraq is on the hands of neocons and all those who supported that economically dumb revenge attack.

exactly. -similarly when Bush's father was president, our military convinced the Shiites to revolt against the Sunnis, stating that we would back them up militarily for this revolt. Instead, the Shiites revolted and our military stood there and watched them get slaughtered.

WE are responsible when invading a country. And I don't really care who would have died and who wouldn't have if we weren't there. The fact is: over a million people have lost their lives BECAUSE OF US. :mad: That's all that matters.

NerveShocker
02-26-2010, 01:35 PM
I don't doubt those numbers at all. The article said deaths caused by us occupation not by us soldiers. Most of those car bombs were a direct result of us invading denying that is dishonest. The insurgents care about collateral damage about as much as we do.. some say less but i'd disagree after seeing what our drone robots are doing in Pakistan.

MelissaWV
02-26-2010, 01:40 PM
Want to play "Guess the Year"?

In Iraq a mortar attack on a Baghdad apartment building killed 4 people and injured 38. Persian agents were blamed.

Turkish warplanes struck Kurdish rebel bases in northern Iraq.

Iraq threatened to retaliate against Turkey over airstrikes that left some 40 civilians dead.

A Saudi jetliner was hijacked with over 100 people and landed in Baghdad. 2 hijackers were arrested.

In Iraq a bomb killed 6 people in Irbil.

* * *

Again, "US Occupation" isn't the only thing going on here. Hell, the US was zipping by and bombing people repeatedly even before the "occupation" portion of the offensive.

QueenB4Liberty
02-26-2010, 01:54 PM
These kind of BS articles play into that, and along with the everybody who wears a US uniform is a psycho killer meme, popular with some on this board, really is a good way to piss off people who would be natural allies of the freedom movement.

You can't truly be in the freedom movement and agree with the war on terror. And if you support our troops, you support the war. It might suck to admit it to yourself, but in order to say you are consistent that's the way it is. The more people who realize this the better.

MelissaWV
02-26-2010, 01:55 PM
You can't truly be in the freedom movement and agree with the war on terror. And if you support our troops, you support the war. It might suck to admit it to yourself, but in order to say you are consistent that's the way it is. The more people who realize this the better.

So... you're on Ron Paul Forums, but you don't support Ron Paul?

...or Adam Kokesh?

...or Gunny?

:confused:

Keller1967
02-26-2010, 01:55 PM
You don't hear a peep from most Americans because over 80% of that is Muslims killing other Muslims. This guy is counting AQ car bombings as the US killing Muslims, which in many Muslim minds is true - everything that happens in Iraq is the responsibility of the US, it is ingrained into the culture. Is there any violence that happens in Iraq for which a Muslim is responsible?

These kind of BS articles play into that, and along with the everybody who wears a US uniform is a psycho killer meme, popular with some on this board, really is a good way to piss off people who would be natural allies of the freedom movement.

The US still holds a great deal of responsibility for all of the violence that is going on over there, the US basically started the "civil war" and it was the US that completely destabilized the region. It's not fucking ingrained into their culture, they had a stable society and then the most powerful military in the world showed up and fucked it all up. Now they are left with a puppet government for the US and insurgents who are still willing to fight the occupation, of course they are going to blame the US, if China did this to us we would blame China.

Furthermore when it comes to our armed forces, they are part of the most powerful military in the world, they are part of a killing machine, they are paid by taxpayers do this. They should be able to handle some healthy criticism in regards to what they are doing.

Never mind all the people the US military machine has killed, lets not say anything because they might get upset and vote for the other party. :rolleyes:

Fucking bullshit.

NerveShocker
02-26-2010, 01:58 PM
Want to play "Guess the Year"?

In Iraq a mortar attack on a Baghdad apartment building killed 4 people and injured 38. Persian agents were blamed.

Turkish warplanes struck Kurdish rebel bases in northern Iraq.

Iraq threatened to retaliate against Turkey over airstrikes that left some 40 civilians dead.

A Saudi jetliner was hijacked with over 100 people and landed in Baghdad. 2 hijackers were arrested.

In Iraq a bomb killed 6 people in Irbil.

* * *

Again, "US Occupation" isn't the only thing going on here. Hell, the US was zipping by and bombing people repeatedly even before the "occupation" portion of the offensive.

Oh I know people died and were killed even before we invaded that's obvious but thanks for pointing it out. I was talking about the vast majority that have died as a result of the war we started in their country for no reason, at least that we are willing to admit.


You can't truly be in the freedom movement and agree with the war on terror. And if you support our troops, you support the war. It might suck to admit it to yourself, but in order to say you are consistent that's the way it is. The more people who realize this the better.

When did people confuse supporting the troops with supporting endless wars with killing, destroying, and making money seeming to be the only goals? I support the troops because I want to bring them home.

Todd
02-26-2010, 02:09 PM
You can't truly be in the freedom movement and agree with the war on terror. And if you support our troops, you support the war. It might suck to admit it to yourself, but in order to say you are consistent that's the way it is. The more people who realize this the better.

Agree with the GWOT? That's not what's being said at all.

Either you are reading what is not there or you believe blanket across the board that any and all U.S. military = UnFreedom.

RM918
02-26-2010, 02:10 PM
You can't truly be in the freedom movement and agree with the war on terror. And if you support our troops, you support the war. It might suck to admit it to yourself, but in order to say you are consistent that's the way it is. The more people who realize this the better.

Falls right in line with the propaganda tactics of the government, to support the troops you must be for the war and to be against the war you must be against the troops. These poor bastards have been fooled into thinking what they're doing is pure good, and a genuine desire to want to protect their country has been twisted by our corrupted government into the exact opposite.

RideTheDirt
02-26-2010, 02:25 PM
Okay... no.

The US being there made violence worse, but those of you claiming it's ALL US-inspired violence are making me :confused: and :eek: and :rolleyes:

Yeah. The Middle East was peaceful, and all these tribes were getting along under their glorious leader, Saddam Hussein. Saddam, a kindly, portly family man of modest means who loved shooting and having a big mustache, led a peaceful life in his beautiful land of Iraq. He got along beautifully with his neighbors, and his subjects praised him with dances and tributes, wishing they could all be that cool.

Really?

No car bombs before this? No violence? Nothing? Man these people got really good at killing with no prior propensity for it, and no prior experience!

The US needs to get out of there, and should never have been there, but don't start white-washing history already. It's just as bad when this side does it as when the other one does.
I believe that is what it says in The Revolution : a manifesto.
anybody got the page #

edit: I believe it says suicide bombings...still looking

MelissaWV
02-26-2010, 02:30 PM
I believe that is what it says in The Revolution : a manifesto.
anybody got the page #

I believe it says suicide bombings...still looking

There were car bombs *prior to the occupation*. There was US action prior to the occupation, too, which resulted in deaths (and of course there was the previous Gulf War). This article, though, operates within the limitations of the US Occupation itself.

The entire issue is complicated. The Middle East has been the location of fighting for ages. It's located in a crappy spot, generally short on basic resources, heavy on resources which can be exploited/traded, and beset by tribalism since (literally) the dawn of civilization itself.

Us being there was never going to stop that. Us not being there isn't going to stop it, either. So... let's gtfo? Please?

QueenB4Liberty
02-26-2010, 02:38 PM
Oh I know people died and were killed even before we invaded that's obvious but thanks for pointing it out. I was talking about the vast majority that have died as a result of the war we started in their country for no reason, at least that we are willing to admit.



When did people confuse supporting the troops with supporting endless wars with killing, destroying, and making money seeming to be the only goals? I support the troops because I want to bring them home.

Is it possible to support someone and be against what they are doing? They aren't protecting us. We all know this, and if we never actually say it, people will never understand. I'm not saying everyone, people didn't have a choice in signing up for Vietnam. And the people that never see combat aren't doing anything wrong either. But just wearing a United States uniform doesn't make it okay to take an innocents life.

MelissaWV
02-26-2010, 02:39 PM
Is it possible to support someone and be against what they are doing? They aren't protecting us. We all know this, and if we never actually say it, people will never understand. I'm not saying everyone, people didn't have a choice in signing up for Vietnam. And the people that never see combat aren't doing anything wrong either. But just wearing a United States uniform doesn't make it okay to take an innocents life.

Did you answer as to whether or not you support Dr. Paul?

... or Adam Kokesh?

... or Gunny?

Oh, I see, you've qualified it here. It's okay to support the troops, but only if they were drafted, or never see combat.

QueenB4Liberty
02-26-2010, 02:46 PM
Did you answer as to whether or not you support Dr. Paul?

... or Adam Kokesh?

... or Gunny?

Oh, I see, you've qualified it here. It's okay to support the troops, but only if they were drafted, or never see combat.

*glances around* These are the Ron Paul forums. I didn't realize supporting every single thing he supports was a rule now. :confused:

charrob
02-26-2010, 02:56 PM
Is it possible to support someone and be against what they are doing? They aren't protecting us. We all know this, and if we never actually say it, people will never understand. I'm not saying everyone, people didn't have a choice in signing up for Vietnam. And the people that never see combat aren't doing anything wrong either. But just wearing a United States uniform doesn't make it okay to take an innocents life.


I agree with the fact that many of us know these occupations are not protecting us and, in fact, creating more 'terrorists' because of blowback.

As for the military, even though they weren't drafted, because they signed up they are required to fight these wars-- even if they don't agree with them.

I support our troops only because this isn't their decision. My anger is entirely against the U.S. Government for commanding these troops to be there, and the American people who aren't objecting to what their government is doing.

Todd
02-26-2010, 03:02 PM
I support our troops only because this isn't their decision. My anger is entirely against the U.S. Government for commanding these troops to be there, and the American people who aren't objecting to what their government is doing.

Hey...but that's not the tone or premise of the b.s. article. :)

charrob
02-26-2010, 03:03 PM
So... you're on Ron Paul Forums, but you don't support Ron Paul?

...or Adam Kokesh?

...or Gunny?

:confused:

why do you think she doesn't support Ron Paul? Ron Paul votes against funding the military because he's against the wars.

QueenB4Liberty
02-26-2010, 03:05 PM
I agree with the fact that many of us know these occupations are not protecting us and, in fact, creating more 'terrorists' because of blowback.

As for the military, even though they weren't drafted, because they signed up they are required to fight these wars-- even if they don't agree with them.

I support our troops only because this isn't their decision. My anger is entirely against the U.S. Government for commanding these troops to be there, and the American people who aren't objecting to what their government is doing.

I just wouldn't ever sign up. I think it's a given that if you're willing to join the military, you're willing to possibly kill innocent people. Nothing is worth that to me. I mean, what's the difference between and IRS agent and a military soldier, except one gets paid by the US government to kill, the other gets paid by the US government to steal. Is it soldiers go kill OTHER people in OTHER countries and IRS agents steal from Americans? That doesn't sound right to me.

catdd
02-26-2010, 03:17 PM
Whatever went on in Iraq before we invaded was none of our business but what has happened since we have been there "making things better" is.
What was the use of the invasion if so many died for nothing if things are no better or became worse?
We unwittingly unleashed a full-blown civil war which was responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths... maybe a million.

I can't believe people sound as though they support the invasion.

catdd
02-26-2010, 03:20 PM
Did you answer as to whether or not you support Dr. Paul?

... or Adam Kokesh?

... or Gunny?

Oh, I see, you've qualified it here. It's okay to support the troops, but only if they were drafted, or never see combat.


You are not trying to say Ron Paul supported the Iraq invasion are you? And as far as the other two, just ask them how they feel about it today.

NerveShocker
02-26-2010, 03:26 PM
I just wouldn't ever sign up. I think it's a given that if you're willing to join the military, you're willing to possibly kill innocent people. Nothing is worth that to me. I mean, what's the difference between and IRS agent and a military soldier, except one gets paid by the US government to kill, the other gets paid by the US government to steal. Is it soldiers go kill OTHER people in OTHER countries and IRS agents steal from Americans? That doesn't sound right to me.

What many here believe and myself included is the military should be strong to protect from other governments but not to nation-build or be aggressors, only for defense or retaliation. (no pre-emptive strikes either)

So since the military is necessary but is being mis-used most here don't blame the individual soldier for signing up since they are just following orders but the leaders for abusing our military. This of course is because we allow them to by not uniting against these policies and wars for no reason.

Keller1967
02-26-2010, 03:39 PM
What many here believe and myself included is the military should be strong to protect from other governments but not to nation-build or be aggressors, only for defense or retaliation. (no pre-emptive strikes either)

So since the military is necessary but is being mis-used most here don't blame the individual soldier for signing up since they are just following orders but the leaders for abusing our military. This of course is because we allow them to by not uniting against these policies and wars for no reason.

The individuals still hold blame, the military is nothing but a sum of individuals. Murder should not be excused because someone told you to do it.

MelissaWV
02-26-2010, 03:42 PM
You can't truly be in the freedom movement and agree with the war on terror. And if you support our troops, you support the war. It might suck to admit it to yourself, but in order to say you are consistent that's the way it is. The more people who realize this the better.

The above seemed to be a response largely to...


...These kind of BS articles play into that, and along with the everybody who wears a US uniform is a psycho killer meme, popular with some on this board, really is a good way to piss off people who would be natural allies of the freedom movement.

Ron Paul, Adam Kokesh, and Gunny are all "troops," hence my question.


Is it possible to support someone and be against what they are doing? They aren't protecting us. We all know this, and if we never actually say it, people will never understand. I'm not saying everyone, people didn't have a choice in signing up for Vietnam. And the people that never see combat aren't doing anything wrong either. But just wearing a United States uniform doesn't make it okay to take an innocents life.

And this post made it seem like so long as Dr. Paul didn't see combat, he was okay.

I guess it could be seen as picking on one poster, and for that I apologize, but the "soldiers are evil" stuff has been going on for years on here... and yet Ron Paul was in the military, as are various members of this forum, and a few of the Liberty Candidates many of us support :) That's all.

catdd
02-26-2010, 03:42 PM
They are not following orders when they sign up and we can't keep blaming the government when these guys are enlisting knowing full well what time it is.
I am prior service and I believe in a strong national defense but the only soldiers that were fooled were the ones who signed up for some payback on Afghanistan then diverted into Iraq.

Keller1967
02-26-2010, 03:43 PM
They are not following orders when they sign up and we can't keep blaming the government when these guys are enlisting knowing full well what time it is.
I am prior service and I believe in a strong national defense but the only soldiers that were fooled were the ones who signed up for some payback on Afghanistan but were diverted into Iraq.

Afghanistan didn't do anything to us anymore than Iraq did.

Keller1967
02-26-2010, 03:45 PM
I guess it could be seen as picking on one poster, and for that I apologize, but the "soldiers are evil" stuff has been going on for years on here... and yet Ron Paul was in the military, as are various members of this forum, and a few of the Liberty Candidates many of us support :) That's all.

Yeah its been going on as long as men in military uniform have been murdering, raping, and pillaging, pretty much all of history. Taking a realistic view of what the US military is doing around the world has little to do with this movement.

catdd
02-26-2010, 03:45 PM
Afghanistan didn't do anything to us anymore than Iraq did.

They didn't know that at the time and probably neither did you. Most of the country was pissed and wanted some payback because Bin Laden was supposedly responsible and lived and trained there. Even Dr. Paul believed it I think.

charrob
02-26-2010, 03:48 PM
I just wouldn't ever sign up. I think it's a given that if you're willing to join the military, you're willing to possibly kill innocent people. Nothing is worth that to me.

Many in the military believe it's a noble cause to fight for their country. Others are there because the economy is a mess and they can't find jobs. And still others are there because they signed up before the wars began and are simply stuck. I'm sure there are a few bad apples (like in Abu Ghraib), but most who join the military, imho, are good people stuck in a very bad situation and put there by the U.S. Government. One things for sure, however, if the Chinese were to invade our shores tomorrow, i think we'd all be thankful for our military.

Keller1967
02-26-2010, 03:56 PM
They didn't know that at the time and probably neither did you. Most of the country was pissed and wanted some payback because Bin Laden was supposedly responsible and lived and trained there. Even Dr. Paul believed it I think.

Then by all means, lets excuse all forms of ill-placed revenge because "they wanted payback". :rolleyes:

You kill an unarmed innocent person, you are responsible, it doesn't matter if you were misled. We all accept this in forms of individual justice, we don't allow people to seek revenge based on a whim. But when people in uniforms do it whole sale to an entire country it is okay?

Stop trying to white wash evil.

catdd
02-26-2010, 04:01 PM
"Then by all means, lets excuse all forms of ill-placed revenge because "they wanted payback".

You kill an unarmed innocent person, you are responsible, it doesn't matter if you were misled. We all accept this in forms of individual justice, we don't allow people to seek revenge based on a whim. But when people in uniforms do it whole sale to an entire country it is okay?

Stop trying to white wash evil"


You need to get back on topic. The topic is one million killed in Iraq and whether it was justified.
I say it wasn't but there was some question about which people were fooled and which people are enlisting knowing full well where they are going and why.

Pericles
02-26-2010, 04:04 PM
I guess it could be seen as picking on one poster, and for that I apologize, but the "soldiers are evil" stuff has been going on for years on here... and yet Ron Paul was in the military, as are various members of this forum, and a few of the Liberty Candidates many of us support :) That's all.

Correct.

If I was as 'whacked out" as some posters seem to believe, and had no problem with taking innocent life, it might be tempting to start with those I find annoying on internet boards;)

Just sayin'

Keller1967
02-26-2010, 04:06 PM
You need to get back on topic. The topic is one million killed in Iraq and whether it was justified.
I say it wasn't but there was some question about which people were fooled and which people are enlisting knowing full well where they are going and why.

For every military man I have met that did it out of a sense of duty or honor I've met probably 9 others that did it because they were out of high school and needed a job. I'm sure high unemployment rates and failing public schools are both great military recruitment tools.

catdd
02-26-2010, 04:09 PM
For every military man I have met that did it out of a sense of duty or honor I've met probably 9 others that did it because they were out of high school and needed a job. I'm sure high unemployment rates and failing public schools are both great military recruitment tools.

So you are saying it's ok to take innocent lives because you "needed a job"?

Keller1967
02-26-2010, 04:11 PM
So you are saying it's ok to take innocent lives because you "needed a job"?

No I am saying that is what is happening. The US government is using the current state of the economy as a recruitment advantage, it would be hard not to when you compare the benefits they offer to what a high school graduate is looking at if he can't afford to go to college.

catdd
02-26-2010, 04:14 PM
This is true and I agree but they are signing up for active duty knowing full well they will mostly likely be required to kill.
It's a screwed up situation and the poorer people have always found themselves in that bind...I know I did.
During our own civil war the North was paying broke immigrants just getting off the boat to come fight us.

Keller1967
02-26-2010, 04:23 PM
This is true and I agree but they are signing up for active duty knowing full well they will mostly likely be required to kill.
It's a screwed up situation and the poorer people have always found themselves in that bind...I know I did.

I definitely agree and as is the case with most violent crime it is the victim who grows up to find other victims. I don't think they should be put to death or anything crazy like that, I don't think the vast majority should be punished at all. But we should acknowledge the actions for what they are and stop calling them heroes, I think if there are soldiers who are good people (and there are because I have met them) who have killed innocent people they will be the first to admit they did something wrong, I respect the great amount of courage that takes especially for the soldiers who risk going to prison because they refuse to go back to Iraq.

catdd
02-26-2010, 04:27 PM
I definitely agree and as is the case with most violent crime it is the victim who grows up to find other victims. I don't think they should be put to death or anything crazy like that, I don't think the vast majority should be punished at all. But we should acknowledge the actions for what they are and stop calling them heroes, I think if there are soldiers who are good people (and there are because I have met them) who have killed innocent people they will be the first to admit they did something wrong, I respect the great amount of courage that takes especially for the soldiers who risk going to prison because they refuse to go back to Iraq.

That's pretty much what I've been saying throughout this thread but got derailed on which guys were fooled and which weren't.
I had to say "to get some payback" only to make a point.

QueenB4Liberty
02-26-2010, 05:26 PM
I definitely agree and as is the case with most violent crime it is the victim who grows up to find other victims. I don't think they should be put to death or anything crazy like that, I don't think the vast majority should be punished at all. But we should acknowledge the actions for what they are and stop calling them heroes, I think if there are soldiers who are good people (and there are because I have met them) who have killed innocent people they will be the first to admit they did something wrong, I respect the great amount of courage that takes especially for the soldiers who risk going to prison because they refuse to go back to Iraq.

I agree with this.

NerveShocker
02-26-2010, 05:59 PM
The individuals still hold blame, the military is nothing but a sum of individuals. Murder should not be excused because someone told you to do it.

Of course murder should never be excused and any soldiers who commits murder should be charged. Self defense is another situation entirely so when our soldiers kill someone who is engaging them they should not be charged.

Now the facts are many do get away with crimes and the criteria of when the use of deadly force is permitted is always changing(from the top). When your fighting for your life neither side is thinking about how fair they can be to their adversary. This is why blaming a soldier for being placed into a situation achieves nothing. It's the individuals calling the shots and invading countries for no reasons or fake reasons who are to blame. War is chaos and those who start the wars are at fault not those following orders.

Unless you believe there should be no military at all even for defense of your country.

BlackTerrel
02-26-2010, 06:56 PM
ORB’s research covered fifteen of Iraq’s eighteen provinces. Those not covered include two of Iraq’s more volatile regions—Kerbala and Anbar—and the northern province of Arbil, where local authorities refused them a permit to work. In face-to-face interviews with 2,414 adults, the poll found that more than one in five respondents had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict, as opposed to natural cause.

Authors Joshua Holland and Michael Schwartz point out that the dominant narrative on Iraq—that most of the violence against Iraqis is being perpetrated by Iraqis themselves and is not our responsibility—is ill conceived. Interviewers from the Lancet report of October 2006 (Censored 2006, #2) asked Iraqi respondents how their loved ones died. Of deaths for which families were certain of the perpetrator, 56 percent were attributable to US forces or their allies. Schwartz suggests that if a low pro rata share of half the unattributed deaths were caused by US forces, a total of approximately 80 percent of Iraqi deaths are directly US perpetrated.

Seems a bit of an odd way to reach this number.

I oppose our efforts in Iraq and wish we would pull out but I can't stand these "The US is evil" "It's all our fault" BS.

Cinderella
02-27-2010, 07:14 AM
from what i rememeber, i read this about 2 almost 3 yrs ago....so i imagine the death toll should be wayyyyy over a million......

Pericles
02-27-2010, 09:53 AM
Quote:
ORB’s research covered fifteen of Iraq’s eighteen provinces. Those not covered include two of Iraq’s more volatile regions—Kerbala and Anbar—and the northern province of Arbil, where local authorities refused them a permit to work. In face-to-face interviews with 2,414 adults, the poll found that more than one in five respondents had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict, as opposed to natural cause.

Authors Joshua Holland and Michael Schwartz point out that the dominant narrative on Iraq—that most of the violence against Iraqis is being perpetrated by Iraqis themselves and is not our responsibility—is ill conceived. Interviewers from the Lancet report of October 2006 (Censored 2006, #2) asked Iraqi respondents how their loved ones died. Of deaths for which families were certain of the perpetrator, 56 percent were attributable to US forces or their allies. Schwartz suggests that if a low pro rata share of half the unattributed deaths were caused by US forces, a total of approximately 80 percent of Iraqi deaths are directly US perpetrated.

Seems a bit of an odd way to reach this number.

I oppose our efforts in Iraq and wish we would pull out but I can't stand these "The US is evil" "It's all our fault" BS.

Indeed - it would seem that guy read a great book "How to Lie With Statistics"

If somebody used that statistical method to report that Ron Paul had less than 100,000 supporters in the US, this forum would be all over it. The number can only be correct if the average size household in Iraq consists of less than 3 persons and half of the deaths of unknown cause can be attributed to the US, and cause of death can be from other than a violent act, and the 2414 people interviewed are a statistically valid population sample. According to the author's own figures, somewhere between 8% and 12% of the population has fled to other countries, but none of them are used for the survey sample .....

When the headline is what some wish to believe, it would seen that critical thinking is checked at the door, and this place is little different from Daily Kos.

Matthew Zak
02-27-2010, 10:17 AM
These are eye-opening numbers. I want to make a hard-hitting video about the consequences of war. I'm going to have a NIN song in the background. It's going to be gritty. I need more numbers like this.

Anyone with info can help.

How many Americans have died in the Iraq and Afghan wars?
How many Iraqis and Afghans have died in these wars?
How many casualties on both sides?
How many Americans have died in all the U.S. wars since 1913?
How many people died in all the wars since 1913?
How many casualties in all the wars since 1913?
How much have the Iraq and Afghan wars cost the U.S.?
How much have all the wars since 1913 cost the U.S.?
How much do the embassies and stationed troops around the world cost the U.S.?


I want to make a video bringing every political affiliation together to support ending unnecessary wars around the world.

catdd
02-27-2010, 10:30 AM
"How much do the embassies and stationed troops around the world cost the U.S.?"

700 bases in 140 countries cost 1 trill a year according to RP.

You may also ask how many American suicides both during and after their service.

Matthew Zak
02-27-2010, 10:54 AM
How about the fact between the two wars we are about to hit a Trillion dollars invested. If human lives don't matter... how about cash?


Let's see, I wonder how many of those million had an able-bodied relative that headed down to the terrorist recruitment office after their loved one got killed?

I wonder what the combatant/non-combatant ratio was on those killed?

OK we have killed 300+ Iraqi's for every person killed on 9/11 - oh wait Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11, nevermind.


"How much do the embassies and stationed troops around the world cost the U.S.?"

700 bases in 140 countries cost 1 trill a year according to RP.

You may also ask how many American suicides both during and after their service.

Wow. That's sickening.

I will ask about the suicides thing... I wonder if google knows. :o