The Bush Administration: War on Terror, War in Iraq
This four part series is a response to a war-hawk who happens to be moderator of an on-line forum to a small town newspaper, thus the occasional references to screen name “Bumblebee” and “you.”
Re: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION: WAR ON TERROR, WAR IN IRAQ
If you listen only to the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or neo-con chant you will never know the truth.
These ideologues are, now, in a political fight for survival and they know it. They know, they know, they know all those reasons they gave for invading Iraq were part of the Project for the New American Century recipe for global domination. This was good enough for them because they believe in this hybrid religious/political ideology called "Manifest Destiny." *Look it up. If you believe God is an American and that God is on "our side" there is nothing anyone can say, I suppose, that will phase you.
I, for one, believe in God (of the universe) not America. I dare not reduce the God I worship to be a "mere American." My fear is not of the Muslim religion. My faith is not in U.S. military might.
That said, Bumblebee, I am sad to inform you - all those consequences you say will befall the U.S. if we "lose the war in Iraq" - well, they have already begun. We have long-lost the wealth of sympathy the world issued us immediately following 9/11. We lost what little respect we had left in this world when Bush invaded Iraq like an exterminator raiding a church service to kill a rat. And just like in that little tale you presented.. our loss of respect did not begin when we invaded Iraq. It began when George W. Bush withdrew the U.S. from the Kyoto Treaty. It was as much how he did it as that he did it. You probably don't agree or may not know what I am talking about at all. Bush's "pre-emptive strike" turned an otherwise sympathetic world against the U.S. Even Karl Rove's wordcrafting to replace what used to be called "plain old aggression" could not save the USA's reputation.
Karl Rove is a bit of a genius when it comes to wordcrafting. But his undoing comes when his wordcrafting and Bush's actions ooze across U.S. borders. These guys have failed to understand, wordcrafting of U.S. English works only where people speak U.S. English and think U.S. thoughts. Beyond our borders, Karl's wordcrafting is as effective as a popcorn fart in a whirlwind. How's that for good ol' U.S. English. Get my point?
Even English speaking Arabs, Iraqi's, Syrians, Iranians, Egyptians, Italians, Germans, Russians, Venezuelans, Panamanians, Chinese, North Koreans, and earthlings in general... are not impressed one bit with Karl Rove's wordcrafting skills.
A Brazilian knows or could care less that Rove's neutral term "Climate Change" is an attempt to obscure the fact that the planet is facing the serious consequences of "Global Warming." Only in the USA is Rove effective. To the larger world, Bush's boisterous actions speak much louder than Karl Rove's willowy words.
So, when Bush goes about poking his big fiery stick into other people's houses other people get mad. They don't care that Karl calls this action, "shedding a little light on the situation."
This sort of thing tends to happen when one's house, sadly, burns down and its proprietor goes about town killing anyone he suspects owns a match... while the real culprit hides out, playing chess, in the city park. The world was with the U.S. as long we were chasing Osama. But then... the intoxicating effects of bombs bursting in air somehow caused this administration to go vigilante on the world... on anyone or nation that owned a match. The world protested... but America could not hear over this administration's blaring loud-speakers... repeating Evil/WMD/Iraq/al Qaeda/Terror/Saddam-Osama... they all be one in the same!!!
It might be convenient for Iraq war supporters to continually and repeatedly confuse folks into believing there was an Iraq/911 link, but it is also wrong to do so. This is not a mere political debate to be won or lost, thereby inflating or deflating one's ego. This issue is a serious matter of life and death to our young military men and women and to innocent Iraqi civilians.
For thousands of young uninformed soldiers to die over convenient lies is a most tragic and criminal thing, indeed.
Bumblebee, please stop propagating the myth that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 or terrorism outside his sovereign land. As vile as he was, he had nothing to do with 9/11. To confuse this matter is anything but supporting our troops. It is quite the opposite.
Now... It's time to check facts... and stack them as they are, not as onw wishes them to be.
Who set the borders and created Iraq? Any guesses? The League of Nations and Great Britain. Who basically, set in motion the modern history of Iraq ever since 1932? You got it! Great Britain.
Which president presided over U.S. sales of over $200 million worth of weapons to Saddam Hussein (including chemicals used to make the chemical weapons Hussein used against the Kurds)? Which president turned a blind eye to Hussein's cruel use of chemical weapons against the Kurds of Northern Iraq? Which president yawned at the time the actual events occurred, almost 20 years ago? Yes, it was Ronald Reagan.
Now get this bizarre turn of events.
To incite fear that would translate into support for his war on Iraq, some 20 years after Reagan sold Hussein the raw materials, George W. Bush and his neo-conservative Keystone Cops repeated WMD! WMD! WMD! ...An ear ringing million times over. Where was the concern for the "potential" danger of all these WMD when Reagan sold Hussein the ingredients? And, of course, Hussein had no nuclear capability. Disagree? Where is one ounce of "proof" Hussein had even a remote capability to have nuclear weapons.... go on show me.
Force-fed FEAR (FfF) rallied Americans into support for Bush's war in Iraq.
Perhaps, Free-Flowing FACTS (FFF) will rally enough support to get our young men and women out of Iraq?
I suggest our civilians here in the good ole USA, sitting in their air-conditioned computer rooms and debating on-line about how the U.S. invasion and continued occupation of Iraq, are quite full of their convictions and opinions. It is time to soul search our "convictions and opinions."
Let's look at Five Major Bush Administration Myths and then Replace them with at least Five Myth Busting Facts:
Bush claimed we must invade Iraq because:
Myth #1 Hussein had this horrific stash of WMD.
He did not have WMD and the inspectors on the ground told Bush he didn't. Just ask guys like Chief Weapons Inspector and Marine, Scott Ritter. Google his name. Better yet, Wikipedia Scott Ritter.
Myth #2 Hussein and Iraq was a threat to his region and the United States.
He was not. Hussein, we are told by the same one's who told us how mighty and dangerous he was, was found in a spider hole. I could believe how Bush et al gloated over this fact that, in essence, disparaged their claims. What was even harder to believe is that the media didn't pick up on this contradiction. Think about this... does a major threat to the world, who is a Head of State, retreat to a hole in the ground? Folks, it's sort of natural to be in denial that one has been taken for a fool but it is inexcusable to remain in denial.
Hussein was just powerful enough to serve as a kingpin to the region. He grew up there. He knew the nuances of the region and was just vile enough to use fear and violence to maintain some sense of coerced order... even though the U.S. and other remote nations, having little knowledge about the deeper cultures of this region had been stirring the embers of hate there for decades.
Myth #3 Hussein was somehow connected to al Qaeda and 9/11.
He was not. He was, in fact, a demonstrated enemy of al Qaeda. Former Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter, during a personal conversation told me, "Hussein was a bulwark against al Qaeda and terrorism in the region. Hussein and bin Laden were, in fact mortal enemies." Ritter explained further, Hussein is a secularist and bin Laden a radical fundamentalist... trying to mix the two is like trying to mix oil and water.
Myth #4 The overwhelming majority of the masses in Iraq were desperate and would welcome us with "Open Arms."
Where are those "Open Arms?" The only "Open Arms" in Iraq are those cached Iraqi arms (some, being arms we sold them). Rumsfeld's insufficient number of troops did not have the manpower to secure them after they took Baghdad. Now, all those so-called "Open Arms" are opening fire on our troops and the ammo has been converted into Improvised Explosive Devices (I.E.Ds).
Myth #5 Oil, "Hallelujah!" Iraqi Oil, will pay for Iraq's reconstruction.
Hmmm? Then, why are we sending 1/2 a trillion bucks over there? And we have hardly begun reconstructing anything that might not be blown to smithereens tomorrow?
But you know what, none of the above really matters in comparison to the costs in terms of innocent human life in Iraq.
Before reading further, it might be good to be reminded that the mind must be open and willing to truly consider the facts presented below. Mindset is a powerful thing, for good or evil. A mind trained to ignore painful facts is destined to relegate decisions to one's gut.
Instincts are quite useful in the absence of facts but, when present, facts must be considered and never discarded. Gut feelings are notorious for getting us into as least as much trouble as they get us out of. George W. Bush prides himself on going with his gut. Facts, seem to annoy him.
End Part 1 (of 4)
Re: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION: WAR ON TERROR, WAR IN IRAQ
George W. Bush prides himself on going with his gut. Facts, seem to annoy him.
Those who are enslaved to their sects are not merely devoid of all sound knowledge, but they will not even stop to learn!
Galen, Claudius (c.130-c.200) Greek physician, writer. On The Natural Faculties
--------
Yes, there is a great danger when leaders of a society or sect think with their collective gut. There is also a great danger when leaders begin to compare their performance among themselves. There is also a great danger when any government begins to compare itself with itself. Does the term, "Lock-step" ring a bell? North Korea is today's champion of self-comparison.
The first sign that "self-comparison" is becoming a significant problem is seen when those who point out the dangerous trend toward a political mindset of "self-comparison" are labeled as disloyal, unpatriotic or as outright traitors. North Korean political leaders nor citizens dare criticize their government's policy of self-comparison.
To point out the dangers of self-comparison IS NOT an unpatriotic thing to do. Quite the contrary. It is even quite the Christian thing to do. We Christians share the same Bible, do we not?
2 Corinthians 10:12?For we dare not class ourselves or compare ourselves with those who commend themselves. But they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.?2 Corinthians 10:11-13 (in Context) 2 Corinthians 10 (Whole Chapter)
Source: Online Bible Gateway
I hope HDR computers don't melt down for my having posted an *al-Jazeera website URL on this forum. I will take this risk to point out that it might be good to ask those in the Middle-east what "they" think about about the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Real live middle-eastern folks, in the poll below, at least pegged the World Cup to a Tee. Maybe it is because they are a bit closer to the action and have a far greater interest in soccer than those of us here in the USA.
Hmmm, maybe this could also be true in terms of their understanding of middle-east cultures and politics.
*For what it's worth... al Jazeera is considered, by most middle-easterners, to be a U.S. mouthpiece.
Source: aL Jazeera
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/890500CB-E84E-4E17-ACB5-768A7FBF3670.htm
Who will win the World Cup?
a. France
b. Germany
c. Italy
d. Portugal
a 40%
b 9%
c 42%
d 9%
Number of Pollers: 15478
Will the Iraqi prime minister's national reconciliation plan quell violence?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Unsure
a 22%
b 67%
c 12%
Number of Pollers: 13821
Will Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death reduce the political violence in Iraq?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Unsure
a 23%
b 70%
c 7%
------
MORE FACTS:
Folks, in only the First Six Months of U.S. Occupation 25,000 to 37,000 Iraqi Civilians are Dead. Remember all that cool Shock and Awe that gave so many U.S. citizens goosebumbs for about three weeks. Folks, Iraqi citizens got more than goosebumps.
Do these innocent lives count? NO! Stop!!! I mean do they really count as Human Beings with lives equal to those 2,986 that were lost on September 11, 2001?
The U.S. military says it is not in the business of keeping a tally of the Iraqi civilians it has killed in the past almost three years. It cannot? It will not?
Conservative estimates, based on the number of Iraqi civilian causalities during the first six months of U.S. occupation, far exceed 40,000. In proportion, these deaths would translate to about 570,000 U.S. civilians killed in the past three years by some foreign military force, claiming to save us from ourselves. Would we welcome this kind of help? Don't forget, you could watch TV or run you air conditioner only about 3 to 4 hours a day. Some days you will have running potable water. Trash will remain chest high in your alley. You might even sleep under the stars while sleeping in your bed. You take one last look at the stars, close your eyes and thank God you were not in bed when that smart-bomb penetrated your roof. I won't even go into the rape and killing of your wives and children.
Five hundred and seventy thousand (570,000) is a number even the most visceral supporter of Bush and his war could not stomach. Yet, in terms of percentage, this is what has happened already in Iraq.
Those who kill are less inclined to count the bodies than those who oppose the killing. Perhaps we should "compare" what one Iraq-based group, who has counted 37,000 dead bodies, has to say.
Keep this in mind, al Jazeera is viewed in the middle-east to be pro-US.
Another article from the UK follows the al Jazeera article. It claims "only" 25,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed and that "only" 37% of this number were killed by U.S. led occupation forces. Hmmm... that is "only" 9,250 dead Iraqi civilians, technically, killed under U.S. military supervision.
Whoo Hooo! See it ain't so bad! Why that's... that's... that's??? Folks, that's almost every man, woman and child in Harrisburg. And one must remember, this ultra-conservative number of 9250 Iraqi civilians killed by U.S. bombs, guns, and other explosives is 310% more than the 2986 U.S. civilians killed on 9/11. Numbers are simply cold hard facts.
You know what is a sickening fact? Iraq had nothing to with the events of 9/11. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
You know what is the worst fact of all? "Innocent Iraqi Civilians" had absolutely nothing to do with the events of 9/11. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
And remember this 9250 figure is based on an ultra-conservative estimate that only includes the first six months of the U.S. invasion. Things have undeniably gotten much worse since then.
Perhaps we should seek out the family survivors of these dead Iraqi civilians. Perhaps we should see how their feelings toward the U.S. military "compare" with the feelings of family survivors of 9/11 victims (victims, killed by 19 angry men from Saudi Arabia...not, Iraq).
What I mean is, what good is comparing feelings of Americans who had no family or loved ones directly affected by 9/11 with feeling of Americans who have no Iraqi family members or loved ones being directly affected by U.S. hell-fire missles, "smart-bombs," and other heavy artillery. I am guessing at least 99% of all Americans have no "direct family connection" in either case. So why do we insist on listening only to ourselves?
Perhaps we should seek out and ask Iraqis who have lost a family member to U.S. military might how they feel. We should, but we won't. We couldn't if we could. I meant that as stated. If journalist were allowed to report freely (and they are not) they still could not seek and obtain honest answers from grieving family members fearing "the Americans."
If your son or daughter or entire family had recently been blown up by Americans and those Americans have already shown they can smile at you, move on and in a few minutes blow your home to hell, would go about bad-mouthing Americans to an American reporter. Sure, you would be brave and fearless right? Have you ever been around a traumatized or shocked and awed person? Have you ever interviewed such a person?
Please don't tell me you would "tell it like it is" to that reporter who looks just like the guys who blew your home to pieces. In your macho dreams, maybe.
To a mother, father, son or daughter, no matter who, no matter where, dead is dead. Killing is killing. No matter the cause, life cannot be made better for dead civilians. Heartbroken survivors of loved-ones meeting an aggressor's violent death are forever grieved. Forever tainted. And do they shrug their shoulders, smile and say,"oh well, to the victor go the spoils." Of course not. We are making new enemies every day and these don't give a damn about politics... Republican or Democrat. They are mad. They have buried their babies and returned to homes... blown to hell.
We refuse to see dead Iraqi civilians as equal to dead U.S. civilians because as a civilization we have progressed only to the point that we "claim" to believe all people are created equal. But we don't believe that. We don't believe that for a minute. If we did, we could not stomach the senseless brutal deaths of babies, little girls and boys, sick and elderly people who survived Saddam Hussein and a life of disease and poverty. Most Americans don't give a rat's tail about these civilians. Don't try to convince me they do.
END Part 2 (of 4)
Re: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION: WAR ON TERROR, WAR IN IRAQ
Most Americans don't give a rat's tail about these civilians. Don't try to convince me they do.
I keep a photograph that was taken by a photographer in Iraq. It is of an old, but stately, looking Iraqi gentleman, carrying what appears a daughter or granddaughter in his arms. Could be neither, but it could have been yours or mine. His long blue dishdashah or thoub and his traditional head wrap of a thagiyah, gutrah, and ogal distinguish him in his culture as clearly as Big Smith or Liberty denim overalls, a long-sleeved flannel shirt and a straw hat, identify a Midwestern grandpa around these parts. Something is different though.
This old man's wrinkled face holds eyes that, to me, embody the full measure of pain felt by the families of all these 25 or 37 or whatever thousand dead Iraqi civilians. From his bloody arms, this little girl of about 10 years dangles like a dark-skinned, long black-haired rag doll as he stumbles his way through a heap of twisted rebar and concrete rubble. The desperation in his eyes and the little girl's shredded half leg still makes my stomach twist and my heart ache. I am a grown man who cries every time I look at this photograph. My daughter just reached that magic age of sixteen. I make myself look at this horrific photograph the same way I look at photographs of families who lost loved ones on 9/11/01. Is there really any consolation in the source of the horror?
I remind myself. The tragedy of 9/11 was an event, an unequivocal act of terror perpetrated by desperate men, not by men in Armani suits and ties, not men voting in air-conditioned chambers to condone sterile Shock and Awe air strikes, not men that are part of the most powerful political force on the planet, not men who have power to steer the most powerful military force on earth, and finally, not men who, yes, are supposed to be part of the most powerful diplomatic and peace-keeping force in the world.
Don't tell me the U.S. invasion of Iraq is a God sanctioned act. Don't tell me, men in red and blue ties don't mangle little girls' legs. Don't tell me a neatly starched and pressed white shirt grants immunity to warmongers.
War does not grant peace. World Wars I and II were the wars to end all wars. Did they? How long did the peace last? How many died? Millions and Millions worldwide.
After Iraq? Will there be peace? After Iran? After North Korea? Tell me. Which war will end all wars. Which war will bring everlasting peace? Answer me this and I might say, "Oh, so there is hope in war?" I might, but I won't. I won't because I know too much. I know Cain killed Abel. It takes only one uncivilized man to declare war.
I know thousands of wars have been waged throughout the history of humanity. None have brought peace.
I know men will always rationalize violence and war as long as their fathers have perpetrated violence and war... moreso, if their fathers died in the process.
My prayer and actions are for just one generation, free of the example of war. Just one.
--
Democracy’s most effective and efficient device to ease the collective guilt of war's atrosities is to memorialize and celebrate them.
Duane Short - Nov. 8, 2001
--
We make war that we may live in peace.
- Aristotle
--
Hmm? I wonder, Aristotle, what was the war count... in your day? Aristotle, sorry... but your war gave only a temporal illusion of peace. History bears me out on this.
--
A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it.
Oscar Wilde (Oscar Fingal O'Flahertie Wills) (1854-1900) Irish writer.
--
Peace is the only valid ideology, one can die for its cause but one cannot kill one's way toward it.
Duane Short
June 17, 2006
--
AL JAZEERA
Iraqi group claims over 37,000 civilian toll
by Ahmed Janabi
Saturday 31 July 2004 12:31 PM GMT
An Iraqi political group says more than 37,000 Iraqi civilians were killed between the start of the US-led invasion in March 2003 and October 2003.
The People's Kifah, or Struggle Against Hegemony, movement said in a statement that it carried out a detailed survey of Iraqi civilian fatalities during September and October 2003.
Its calculation was based on deaths among the Iraqi civilian population only, and did not count losses sustained by the Iraqi military and paramilitary forces.
The deputy general secretary and spokesperson of the movement told Aljazeera.net he could vouch for the accuracy of the figure.
"We are 100% sure that 37,000 civilian deaths is a correct estimate. Our study is the result of two months of hard work which involved hundreds of Iraqi activists and academics. Of course there may be deaths that were not reported to us, but the toll in any case could not be lower than our finding," said Muhammad al-Ubaidi.
The planning ministry is due to hold a census in January 2005.
"For the collation of our statistics we visited the most remote villages, spoke and coordinated with grave-diggers across Iraq, obtained information from hospitals, and spoke to thousands of witnesses who saw incidents in which Iraqi civilians were killed by US fire," he said.
Detailed Figures
Al-Ubaidi, a UK-based physiology professor, provided a detailed breakdown of the 37,000 civilian deaths for each governorate (excluding the Kurdish areas) relating to the period between March and October 2003:
Baghdad: 6103
Mosul: 2009
Basra: 6734
Nasiriya: 3581
Diwania: 1567
Wasit: 2494
Babil: 3552
Karbala and Najaf: 2263
Muthana: 659
Misan: 2741
Anbar: 2172
Kirkuk: 861
Salah al-Din: 1797.
The People's Kifah said the process of data gathering stopped after one of the group's workers was arrested by Kurdish militias and handed over to US forces in October 2003. The fate of the worker remains unclear.
Missing worker
"I am taking this opportunity of talking to Aljazeera.net to request that the US occupation authorities reveal the whereabouts of the worker, who was arrested and then went missing. We are afraid he is being tortured the way Abu Ghraib prisoners were tortured," al-Ubaidi said.
"His name is Ramzi Musa Ahmad. He is a 32-year-old Iraqi engineer who was on his way to the Iraqi Kurdish governorate al-Sulaimania last October to fax me the information to Britain, because telephone services had not been restored in Baghdad."
According to al-Ubaidi: "The minibus in which Ahmad was travelling was stopped at a Kurdish checkpoint. He was arrested and handed over to US army."
Banned Statement -------
As of now, there are no reliable estimates of total Iraqi civilian fatalities. The interim Iraqi government has not made available any statistics, while US occupation authorities in Iraq reportedly issued orders to the forensic medicine department not to talk to the media about the number of bodies it receives.
Liqa Makki, a political analyst, said it is widely known in Baghdad that Iraqi officials are prohibited from releasing any information about body count.
"I am seizing the opportunity of talking to Aljazeera.net to request that the US occupation authorities reveal the destiny of our worker, who was arrested and then disappeared"
Muhammad al-Ubaidi, Deputy General-Secretary, Al-Kifah Movement
"The director of forensic medicine department said publicly some months ago that his department was receiving 70 bodies a day. But he was reprimanded and a statement was published in the Iraqi press prohibiting the announcement of any kind of body count," Makki said.
The only serious independent attempt to collate war statistics is the Iraq Body Count Project, which involves both US and British academics. The project's website currently places Iraq's civilian toll at between 11,000 and 13,000.
The website has been criticised in some quarters for its tardiness in updating its figures. But Iraq Body Count Project says it is not a news portal and puts accuracy ahead of speed.
According to the Arab and western media, between 15,000 and 20,000 Iraqi civilians have perished since the launch of the invasion.
But some cast doubt on the figures, saying the number of Iraqi civilians who have died at the hands of the US army may never be known.
Census Due
Iraq's interim government is preparing the first post-Saddam census in Iraq. It hopes that an accurate census will unearth long-buried facts about Iraq's wars.
The Planning Ministry issued instructions to Iraqis not to leave their homes on 12 October when 150,000 workers will be engaged in conducting the census.
The interim government says the census will be the last step before the general election scheduled for January 2005.
According to the last official census - conducted in 1997 - Iraq had a population of 24 million.
By
Ahmed Janabi
END Part 3 (of 4)
Re: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION: WAR ON TERROR, WAR IN IRAQ
======
By Conservative British Estimates:
======
Source: BBC News
25,000 Civilians' Killed in Iraq
More than half of civilian deaths were caused by explosive devices.
Nearly 25,000 civilians have died violently in Iraq since the US-led invasion in March 2003, a report says.
The dossier, based on media reports, says US-led forces were responsible for more than a third of the deaths.
The survey was carried out by the UK-based Iraq Body Count and Oxford Research Group - which includes academics and peace activists.
The Iraqi government criticised their conclusions, saying Iraqis were most at risk from terrorists who target them.
The Dossier on Civilian Casualties in Iraq 2003-2005 says 37% of all non-combatant deaths were caused by the US-led coalition.
The ever-mounting Iraqi death toll is the forgotten cost of the decision to go to war in Iraq
John Sloboda, Report author Report's key points
Iraq's Catalogue of Death
Most of these occurred during the invasion phase, which it counts as ending on 1 May 2003.
But killings by anti-occupation and criminal elements also increased steadily over the entire two-year period.
Insurgents are said to have caused 9% of the deaths, while post-invasion criminal violence was responsible for another 36%.
Targets
The number of civilians who have died has almost doubled in the second year from the first, according to the report.
Almost a fifth of the 24,865 deaths were women or children and nearly half of all the civilian deaths were reported in the capital Baghdad.
"On average, 34 ordinary Iraqis have met violent deaths every day since the invasion of March 2003," said John Sloboda, one of the authors of the report.
"The ever-mounting Iraqi death toll is the forgotten cost of the decision to go to war in Iraq," he added.
Mr Sloboda also said: "It remains a matter of the gravest concern that, nearly two-and-a-half years on, neither the US nor the UK governments have begun to systematically measure the impact of their actions in terms of human lives destroyed."
"Our data has been extracted from a comprehensive analysis of over 10,000 press and media reports... Our accounting is not complete: only an in-depth, on-the-ground census could come close to achieving that [a complete accounting]"
The Iraqi government welcomed the attention the report gave to Iraqi victims, but said it was a mistake to claim that the "plague of terrorism" had killed fewer Iraqis than the multinational forces.
"The international forces try to avoid civilian casualties, whereas the terrorists target civilians and try to kill as many of them as they can," it said in a statement.
"The root cause of Iraq's suffering is terrorism, inherited from Saddam's fascist regime and from mistaken fundamentalist ideology.
"Everybody knows that international forces are necessary in Iraq, on a temporary basis and they will leave Iraq at a time chosen by Iraqis, not in response to terrorist pressure."
'Failure'
The IBC wants to see an independent commission set up in Iraq to give the best estimate of civilian deaths and full details of how each person died.
Human rights groups say the occupying powers in Iraq have failed in their duty to catalogue the deaths of civilians.
But the US and Britain say the chaos of war-torn Iraq has made it impossible to get accurate information.
More than 1,700 US soldiers and dozens of other coalition troops are known to have died.
The Iraqi government says 1,300 Iraqi police and military have been killed since security forces were set up in late 2003. But US think-tank the Brookings Institute puts the figure at almost twice this number.
More than half of all civilian deaths were said to have been caused by explosive devices, which disproportionately affected children.
At least 42,500 civilians were reported to have been injured.
The UK-based Iraq Body Count - run by academics and peace activists - is one of the most widely-quoted sources of information on the civilian death toll in Iraq.
The Oxford Research Group describes itself as an independent organisation "which seeks to develop effective methods whereby people can bring about positive change on issues of national and international security by non-violent means".
END
======
Parting Thoughts
There is this nut (me) that seriously considers the possibility that George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden are partners of sorts. I don't mean they sat down under a fig tree, as children, and decided they would grow up and rule the world. I don't mean they sat down under a copper dome, as adults, and conspired to further the cause of globalization. I do believe, individually, they fully understand their roles as Good Cop - Bad Cop... not in the police station downtown but for the entire planet. These families have a long history of business dealings, in both private and public sectors. Both families have wined and dined the same clients. They have been business partners. Both families have been champions of globalization. Both families trade in oil and defense contracts.
Osama bin Laden claims to be Bush's sworn enemy. Osama bin Laden is not stupid, yet he repeatedly appears in videos just before U.S. mid-term and presidential elections.
Now... if bin Laden wanted to assure his supposed enemy George W. Bush and his supporters would be defeated, the last thing he would do is incite fear among American voters. He knows the Bush friendly consequences of such an act. Yet, he appears predictably. Supposed terror threats also increase before elections. Fear favors incumbents, no matter the party.
There are three major possibilities at play here.
1) Osama bin Laden is stupid.
2) Osama is actually trying to get Bush and/or his ilk re-elected.
3) The administration is fabricating these alerts and/or they have been holding bin Laden videos for release at just the right moments... like before elections and/or whenever the polls show support for their policies and actions dropping like a ton of bricks.
-----
In the book House of Bush, House of Saud, author Craig Unger states that Saudi Arabian interests have given $1.4 billion to firms connected to the Bush family.
Nearly 90% of the 1.4 billion, about 1.18 billion, refers to Saudi Arabian government contracts awarded to defense contractor BDM in the early to mid 1990s. At that time BDM was owned by the Carlyle Group.
[The Carlyle Group is a Washington DC based business with whom George H. W. Bush and George Jr. are or have been directly affiliated. The present Bush administration is a virtual Who's Who of present and/or past Carlyle Group principals. Again, I suggest Google and/or Wikipedia to learn more about the Carlyle Group.]
-----
Here in the Midwest we have this saying, "if it walks like a duck, if talks like a.... well, you get the idea!"
I am Duane Short.
END Part 4 (of 4)
Re: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION: WAR ON TERROR, WAR IN IRAQ
If you listen only to the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or neo-con chant you will never know the truth.
These ideologues are, now, in a political fight for survival and they know it. They know, they know, they know all those reasons they gave for invading Iraq were part of the Project for the New American Century recipe for global domination. This was good enough for them because they believe in this hybrid religious/political ideology called "Manifest Destiny." *Look it up. If you believe God is an American and that God is on "our side" there is nothing anyone can say, I suppose, that will phase you.
I, for one, believe in God (of the universe) not America. I dare not reduce the God I worship to be a "mere American." My fear is not of the Muslim religion. My faith is not in U.S. military might.
That said, Bumblebee, I am sad to inform you - all those consequences you say will befall the U.S. if we "lose the war in Iraq" - well, they have already begun. We have long-lost the wealth of sympathy the world issued us immediately following 9/11. We lost what little respect we had left in this world when Bush invaded Iraq like an exterminator raiding a church service to kill a rat. And just like in that little tale you presented.. our loss of respect did not begin when we invaded Iraq. It began when George W. Bush withdrew the U.S. from the Kyoto Treaty. It was as much how he did it as that he did it. You probably don't agree or may not know what I am talking about at all. Bush's "pre-emptive strike" turned an otherwise sympathetic world against the U.S. Even Karl Rove's wordcrafting to replace what used to be called "plain old aggression" could not save the USA's reputation.
Karl Rove is a bit of a genius when it comes to wordcrafting. But his undoing comes when his wordcrafting and Bush's actions ooze across U.S. borders. These guys have failed to understand, wordcrafting of U.S. English works only where people speak U.S. English and think U.S. thoughts. Beyond our borders, Karl's wordcrafting is as effective as a popcorn fart in a whirlwind. How's that for good ol' U.S. English. Get my point?
Even English speaking Arabs, Iraqi's, Syrians, Iranians, Egyptians, Italians, Germans, Russians, Venezuelans, Panamanians, Chinese, North Koreans, and earthlings in general... are not impressed one bit with Karl Rove's wordcrafting skills.
A Brazilian knows or could care less that Rove's neutral term "Climate Change" is an attempt to obscure the fact that the planet is facing the serious consequences of "Global Warming." Only in the USA is Rove effective. To the larger world, Bush's boisterous actions speak much louder than Karl Rove's willowy words.
So, when Bush goes about poking his big fiery stick into other people's houses other people get mad. They don't care that Karl calls this action, "shedding a little light on the situation."
This sort of thing tends to happen when one's house, sadly, burns down and its proprietor goes about town killing anyone he suspects owns a match... while the real culprit hides out, playing chess, in the city park. The world was with the U.S. as long we were chasing Osama. But then... the intoxicating effects of bombs bursting in air somehow caused this administration to go vigilante on the world... on anyone or nation that owned a match. The world protested... but America could not hear over this administration's blaring loud-speakers... repeating Evil/WMD/Iraq/al Qaeda/Terror/Saddam-Osama... they all be one in the same!!!
It might be convenient for Iraq war supporters to continually and repeatedly confuse folks into believing there was an Iraq/911 link, but it is also wrong to do so. This is not a mere political debate to be won or lost, thereby inflating or deflating one's ego. This issue is a serious matter of life and death to our young military men and women and to innocent Iraqi civilians.
For thousands of young uninformed soldiers to die over convenient lies is a most tragic and criminal thing, indeed.
Bumblebee, please stop propagating the myth that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 or terrorism outside his sovereign land. As vile as he was, he had nothing to do with 9/11. To confuse this matter is anything but supporting our troops. It is quite the opposite.
Now... It's time to check facts... and stack them as they are, not as onw wishes them to be.
Who set the borders and created Iraq? Any guesses? The League of Nations and Great Britain. Who basically, set in motion the modern history of Iraq ever since 1932? You got it! Great Britain.
Which president presided over U.S. sales of over $200 million worth of weapons to Saddam Hussein (including chemicals used to make the chemical weapons Hussein used against the Kurds)? Which president turned a blind eye to Hussein's cruel use of chemical weapons against the Kurds of Northern Iraq? Which president yawned at the time the actual events occurred, almost 20 years ago? Yes, it was Ronald Reagan.
Now get this bizarre turn of events.
To incite fear that would translate into support for his war on Iraq, some 20 years after Reagan sold Hussein the raw materials, George W. Bush and his neo-conservative Keystone Cops repeated WMD! WMD! WMD! ...An ear ringing million times over. Where was the concern for the "potential" danger of all these WMD when Reagan sold Hussein the ingredients? And, of course, Hussein had no nuclear capability. Disagree? Where is one ounce of "proof" Hussein had even a remote capability to have nuclear weapons.... go on show me.
Force-fed FEAR (FfF) rallied Americans into support for Bush's war in Iraq.
Perhaps, Free-Flowing FACTS (FFF) will rally enough support to get our young men and women out of Iraq?
I suggest our civilians here in the good ole USA, sitting in their air-conditioned computer rooms and debating on-line about how the U.S. invasion and continued occupation of Iraq, are quite full of their convictions and opinions. It is time to soul search our "convictions and opinions."
Let's look at Five Major Bush Administration Myths and then Replace them with at least Five Myth Busting Facts:
Bush claimed we must invade Iraq because:
Myth #1 Hussein had this horrific stash of WMD.
He did not have WMD and the inspectors on the ground told Bush he didn't. Just ask guys like Chief Weapons Inspector and Marine, Scott Ritter. Google his name. Better yet, Wikipedia Scott Ritter.
Myth #2 Hussein and Iraq was a threat to his region and the United States.
He was not. Hussein, we are told by the same one's who told us how mighty and dangerous he was, was found in a spider hole. I could believe how Bush et al gloated over this fact that, in essence, disparaged their claims. What was even harder to believe is that the media didn't pick up on this contradiction. Think about this... does a major threat to the world, who is a Head of State, retreat to a hole in the ground? Folks, it's sort of natural to be in denial that one has been taken for a fool but it is inexcusable to remain in denial.
Hussein was just powerful enough to serve as a kingpin to the region. He grew up there. He knew the nuances of the region and was just vile enough to use fear and violence to maintain some sense of coerced order... even though the U.S. and other remote nations, having little knowledge about the deeper cultures of this region had been stirring the embers of hate there for decades.
Myth #3 Hussein was somehow connected to al Qaeda and 9/11.
He was not. He was, in fact, a demonstrated enemy of al Qaeda. Former Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter, during a personal conversation told me, "Hussein was a bulwark against al Qaeda and terrorism in the region. Hussein and bin Laden were, in fact mortal enemies." Ritter explained further, Hussein is a secularist and bin Laden a radical fundamentalist... trying to mix the two is like trying to mix oil and water.
Myth #4 The overwhelming majority of the masses in Iraq were desperate and would welcome us with "Open Arms."
Where are those "Open Arms?" The only "Open Arms" in Iraq are those cached Iraqi arms (some, being arms we sold them). Rumsfeld's insufficient number of troops did not have the manpower to secure them after they took Baghdad. Now, all those so-called "Open Arms" are opening fire on our troops and the ammo has been converted into Improvised Explosive Devices (I.E.Ds).
Myth #5 Oil, "Hallelujah!" Iraqi Oil, will pay for Iraq's reconstruction.
Hmmm? Then, why are we sending 1/2 a trillion bucks over there? And we have hardly begun reconstructing anything that might not be blown to smithereens tomorrow?
But you know what, none of the above really matters in comparison to the costs in terms of innocent human life in Iraq.
Before reading further, it might be good to be reminded that the mind must be open and willing to truly consider the facts presented below. Mindset is a powerful thing, for good or evil. A mind trained to ignore painful facts is destined to relegate decisions to one's gut.
Instincts are quite useful in the absence of facts but, when present, facts must be considered and never discarded. Gut feelings are notorious for getting us into as least as much trouble as they get us out of. George W. Bush prides himself on going with his gut. Facts, seem to annoy him.
End Part 1 (of 4)
Re: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION: WAR ON TERROR, WAR IN IRAQ
George W. Bush prides himself on going with his gut. Facts, seem to annoy him.
Those who are enslaved to their sects are not merely devoid of all sound knowledge, but they will not even stop to learn!
Galen, Claudius (c.130-c.200) Greek physician, writer. On The Natural Faculties
--------
Yes, there is a great danger when leaders of a society or sect think with their collective gut. There is also a great danger when leaders begin to compare their performance among themselves. There is also a great danger when any government begins to compare itself with itself. Does the term, "Lock-step" ring a bell? North Korea is today's champion of self-comparison.
The first sign that "self-comparison" is becoming a significant problem is seen when those who point out the dangerous trend toward a political mindset of "self-comparison" are labeled as disloyal, unpatriotic or as outright traitors. North Korean political leaders nor citizens dare criticize their government's policy of self-comparison.
To point out the dangers of self-comparison IS NOT an unpatriotic thing to do. Quite the contrary. It is even quite the Christian thing to do. We Christians share the same Bible, do we not?
2 Corinthians 10:12?For we dare not class ourselves or compare ourselves with those who commend themselves. But they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.?2 Corinthians 10:11-13 (in Context) 2 Corinthians 10 (Whole Chapter)
Source: Online Bible Gateway
I hope HDR computers don't melt down for my having posted an *al-Jazeera website URL on this forum. I will take this risk to point out that it might be good to ask those in the Middle-east what "they" think about about the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Real live middle-eastern folks, in the poll below, at least pegged the World Cup to a Tee. Maybe it is because they are a bit closer to the action and have a far greater interest in soccer than those of us here in the USA.
Hmmm, maybe this could also be true in terms of their understanding of middle-east cultures and politics.
*For what it's worth... al Jazeera is considered, by most middle-easterners, to be a U.S. mouthpiece.
Source: aL Jazeera
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/890500CB-E84E-4E17-ACB5-768A7FBF3670.htm
Who will win the World Cup?
a. France
b. Germany
c. Italy
d. Portugal
a 40%
b 9%
c 42%
d 9%
Number of Pollers: 15478
Will the Iraqi prime minister's national reconciliation plan quell violence?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Unsure
a 22%
b 67%
c 12%
Number of Pollers: 13821
Will Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death reduce the political violence in Iraq?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Unsure
a 23%
b 70%
c 7%
------
MORE FACTS:
Folks, in only the First Six Months of U.S. Occupation 25,000 to 37,000 Iraqi Civilians are Dead. Remember all that cool Shock and Awe that gave so many U.S. citizens goosebumbs for about three weeks. Folks, Iraqi citizens got more than goosebumps.
Do these innocent lives count? NO! Stop!!! I mean do they really count as Human Beings with lives equal to those 2,986 that were lost on September 11, 2001?
The U.S. military says it is not in the business of keeping a tally of the Iraqi civilians it has killed in the past almost three years. It cannot? It will not?
Conservative estimates, based on the number of Iraqi civilian causalities during the first six months of U.S. occupation, far exceed 40,000. In proportion, these deaths would translate to about 570,000 U.S. civilians killed in the past three years by some foreign military force, claiming to save us from ourselves. Would we welcome this kind of help? Don't forget, you could watch TV or run you air conditioner only about 3 to 4 hours a day. Some days you will have running potable water. Trash will remain chest high in your alley. You might even sleep under the stars while sleeping in your bed. You take one last look at the stars, close your eyes and thank God you were not in bed when that smart-bomb penetrated your roof. I won't even go into the rape and killing of your wives and children.
Five hundred and seventy thousand (570,000) is a number even the most visceral supporter of Bush and his war could not stomach. Yet, in terms of percentage, this is what has happened already in Iraq.
Those who kill are less inclined to count the bodies than those who oppose the killing. Perhaps we should "compare" what one Iraq-based group, who has counted 37,000 dead bodies, has to say.
Keep this in mind, al Jazeera is viewed in the middle-east to be pro-US.
Another article from the UK follows the al Jazeera article. It claims "only" 25,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed and that "only" 37% of this number were killed by U.S. led occupation forces. Hmmm... that is "only" 9,250 dead Iraqi civilians, technically, killed under U.S. military supervision.
Whoo Hooo! See it ain't so bad! Why that's... that's... that's??? Folks, that's almost every man, woman and child in Harrisburg. And one must remember, this ultra-conservative number of 9250 Iraqi civilians killed by U.S. bombs, guns, and other explosives is 310% more than the 2986 U.S. civilians killed on 9/11. Numbers are simply cold hard facts.
You know what is a sickening fact? Iraq had nothing to with the events of 9/11. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
You know what is the worst fact of all? "Innocent Iraqi Civilians" had absolutely nothing to do with the events of 9/11. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
And remember this 9250 figure is based on an ultra-conservative estimate that only includes the first six months of the U.S. invasion. Things have undeniably gotten much worse since then.
Perhaps we should seek out the family survivors of these dead Iraqi civilians. Perhaps we should see how their feelings toward the U.S. military "compare" with the feelings of family survivors of 9/11 victims (victims, killed by 19 angry men from Saudi Arabia...not, Iraq).
What I mean is, what good is comparing feelings of Americans who had no family or loved ones directly affected by 9/11 with feeling of Americans who have no Iraqi family members or loved ones being directly affected by U.S. hell-fire missles, "smart-bombs," and other heavy artillery. I am guessing at least 99% of all Americans have no "direct family connection" in either case. So why do we insist on listening only to ourselves?
Perhaps we should seek out and ask Iraqis who have lost a family member to U.S. military might how they feel. We should, but we won't. We couldn't if we could. I meant that as stated. If journalist were allowed to report freely (and they are not) they still could not seek and obtain honest answers from grieving family members fearing "the Americans."
If your son or daughter or entire family had recently been blown up by Americans and those Americans have already shown they can smile at you, move on and in a few minutes blow your home to hell, would go about bad-mouthing Americans to an American reporter. Sure, you would be brave and fearless right? Have you ever been around a traumatized or shocked and awed person? Have you ever interviewed such a person?
Please don't tell me you would "tell it like it is" to that reporter who looks just like the guys who blew your home to pieces. In your macho dreams, maybe.
To a mother, father, son or daughter, no matter who, no matter where, dead is dead. Killing is killing. No matter the cause, life cannot be made better for dead civilians. Heartbroken survivors of loved-ones meeting an aggressor's violent death are forever grieved. Forever tainted. And do they shrug their shoulders, smile and say,"oh well, to the victor go the spoils." Of course not. We are making new enemies every day and these don't give a damn about politics... Republican or Democrat. They are mad. They have buried their babies and returned to homes... blown to hell.
We refuse to see dead Iraqi civilians as equal to dead U.S. civilians because as a civilization we have progressed only to the point that we "claim" to believe all people are created equal. But we don't believe that. We don't believe that for a minute. If we did, we could not stomach the senseless brutal deaths of babies, little girls and boys, sick and elderly people who survived Saddam Hussein and a life of disease and poverty. Most Americans don't give a rat's tail about these civilians. Don't try to convince me they do.
END Part 2 (of 4)
Re: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION: WAR ON TERROR, WAR IN IRAQ
Most Americans don't give a rat's tail about these civilians. Don't try to convince me they do.
I keep a photograph that was taken by a photographer in Iraq. It is of an old, but stately, looking Iraqi gentleman, carrying what appears a daughter or granddaughter in his arms. Could be neither, but it could have been yours or mine. His long blue dishdashah or thoub and his traditional head wrap of a thagiyah, gutrah, and ogal distinguish him in his culture as clearly as Big Smith or Liberty denim overalls, a long-sleeved flannel shirt and a straw hat, identify a Midwestern grandpa around these parts. Something is different though.
This old man's wrinkled face holds eyes that, to me, embody the full measure of pain felt by the families of all these 25 or 37 or whatever thousand dead Iraqi civilians. From his bloody arms, this little girl of about 10 years dangles like a dark-skinned, long black-haired rag doll as he stumbles his way through a heap of twisted rebar and concrete rubble. The desperation in his eyes and the little girl's shredded half leg still makes my stomach twist and my heart ache. I am a grown man who cries every time I look at this photograph. My daughter just reached that magic age of sixteen. I make myself look at this horrific photograph the same way I look at photographs of families who lost loved ones on 9/11/01. Is there really any consolation in the source of the horror?
I remind myself. The tragedy of 9/11 was an event, an unequivocal act of terror perpetrated by desperate men, not by men in Armani suits and ties, not men voting in air-conditioned chambers to condone sterile Shock and Awe air strikes, not men that are part of the most powerful political force on the planet, not men who have power to steer the most powerful military force on earth, and finally, not men who, yes, are supposed to be part of the most powerful diplomatic and peace-keeping force in the world.
Don't tell me the U.S. invasion of Iraq is a God sanctioned act. Don't tell me, men in red and blue ties don't mangle little girls' legs. Don't tell me a neatly starched and pressed white shirt grants immunity to warmongers.
War does not grant peace. World Wars I and II were the wars to end all wars. Did they? How long did the peace last? How many died? Millions and Millions worldwide.
After Iraq? Will there be peace? After Iran? After North Korea? Tell me. Which war will end all wars. Which war will bring everlasting peace? Answer me this and I might say, "Oh, so there is hope in war?" I might, but I won't. I won't because I know too much. I know Cain killed Abel. It takes only one uncivilized man to declare war.
I know thousands of wars have been waged throughout the history of humanity. None have brought peace.
I know men will always rationalize violence and war as long as their fathers have perpetrated violence and war... moreso, if their fathers died in the process.
My prayer and actions are for just one generation, free of the example of war. Just one.
--
Democracy’s most effective and efficient device to ease the collective guilt of war's atrosities is to memorialize and celebrate them.
Duane Short - Nov. 8, 2001
--
We make war that we may live in peace.
- Aristotle
--
Hmm? I wonder, Aristotle, what was the war count... in your day? Aristotle, sorry... but your war gave only a temporal illusion of peace. History bears me out on this.
--
A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it.
Oscar Wilde (Oscar Fingal O'Flahertie Wills) (1854-1900) Irish writer.
--
Peace is the only valid ideology, one can die for its cause but one cannot kill one's way toward it.
Duane Short
June 17, 2006
--
AL JAZEERA
Iraqi group claims over 37,000 civilian toll
by Ahmed Janabi
Saturday 31 July 2004 12:31 PM GMT
An Iraqi political group says more than 37,000 Iraqi civilians were killed between the start of the US-led invasion in March 2003 and October 2003.
The People's Kifah, or Struggle Against Hegemony, movement said in a statement that it carried out a detailed survey of Iraqi civilian fatalities during September and October 2003.
Its calculation was based on deaths among the Iraqi civilian population only, and did not count losses sustained by the Iraqi military and paramilitary forces.
The deputy general secretary and spokesperson of the movement told Aljazeera.net he could vouch for the accuracy of the figure.
"We are 100% sure that 37,000 civilian deaths is a correct estimate. Our study is the result of two months of hard work which involved hundreds of Iraqi activists and academics. Of course there may be deaths that were not reported to us, but the toll in any case could not be lower than our finding," said Muhammad al-Ubaidi.
The planning ministry is due to hold a census in January 2005.
"For the collation of our statistics we visited the most remote villages, spoke and coordinated with grave-diggers across Iraq, obtained information from hospitals, and spoke to thousands of witnesses who saw incidents in which Iraqi civilians were killed by US fire," he said.
Detailed Figures
Al-Ubaidi, a UK-based physiology professor, provided a detailed breakdown of the 37,000 civilian deaths for each governorate (excluding the Kurdish areas) relating to the period between March and October 2003:
Baghdad: 6103
Mosul: 2009
Basra: 6734
Nasiriya: 3581
Diwania: 1567
Wasit: 2494
Babil: 3552
Karbala and Najaf: 2263
Muthana: 659
Misan: 2741
Anbar: 2172
Kirkuk: 861
Salah al-Din: 1797.
The People's Kifah said the process of data gathering stopped after one of the group's workers was arrested by Kurdish militias and handed over to US forces in October 2003. The fate of the worker remains unclear.
Missing worker
"I am taking this opportunity of talking to Aljazeera.net to request that the US occupation authorities reveal the whereabouts of the worker, who was arrested and then went missing. We are afraid he is being tortured the way Abu Ghraib prisoners were tortured," al-Ubaidi said.
"His name is Ramzi Musa Ahmad. He is a 32-year-old Iraqi engineer who was on his way to the Iraqi Kurdish governorate al-Sulaimania last October to fax me the information to Britain, because telephone services had not been restored in Baghdad."
According to al-Ubaidi: "The minibus in which Ahmad was travelling was stopped at a Kurdish checkpoint. He was arrested and handed over to US army."
Banned Statement -------
As of now, there are no reliable estimates of total Iraqi civilian fatalities. The interim Iraqi government has not made available any statistics, while US occupation authorities in Iraq reportedly issued orders to the forensic medicine department not to talk to the media about the number of bodies it receives.
Liqa Makki, a political analyst, said it is widely known in Baghdad that Iraqi officials are prohibited from releasing any information about body count.
"I am seizing the opportunity of talking to Aljazeera.net to request that the US occupation authorities reveal the destiny of our worker, who was arrested and then disappeared"
Muhammad al-Ubaidi, Deputy General-Secretary, Al-Kifah Movement
"The director of forensic medicine department said publicly some months ago that his department was receiving 70 bodies a day. But he was reprimanded and a statement was published in the Iraqi press prohibiting the announcement of any kind of body count," Makki said.
The only serious independent attempt to collate war statistics is the Iraq Body Count Project, which involves both US and British academics. The project's website currently places Iraq's civilian toll at between 11,000 and 13,000.
The website has been criticised in some quarters for its tardiness in updating its figures. But Iraq Body Count Project says it is not a news portal and puts accuracy ahead of speed.
According to the Arab and western media, between 15,000 and 20,000 Iraqi civilians have perished since the launch of the invasion.
But some cast doubt on the figures, saying the number of Iraqi civilians who have died at the hands of the US army may never be known.
Census Due
Iraq's interim government is preparing the first post-Saddam census in Iraq. It hopes that an accurate census will unearth long-buried facts about Iraq's wars.
The Planning Ministry issued instructions to Iraqis not to leave their homes on 12 October when 150,000 workers will be engaged in conducting the census.
The interim government says the census will be the last step before the general election scheduled for January 2005.
According to the last official census - conducted in 1997 - Iraq had a population of 24 million.
By
Ahmed Janabi
END Part 3 (of 4)
Re: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION: WAR ON TERROR, WAR IN IRAQ
======
By Conservative British Estimates:
======
Source: BBC News
25,000 Civilians' Killed in Iraq
More than half of civilian deaths were caused by explosive devices.
Nearly 25,000 civilians have died violently in Iraq since the US-led invasion in March 2003, a report says.
The dossier, based on media reports, says US-led forces were responsible for more than a third of the deaths.
The survey was carried out by the UK-based Iraq Body Count and Oxford Research Group - which includes academics and peace activists.
The Iraqi government criticised their conclusions, saying Iraqis were most at risk from terrorists who target them.
The Dossier on Civilian Casualties in Iraq 2003-2005 says 37% of all non-combatant deaths were caused by the US-led coalition.
The ever-mounting Iraqi death toll is the forgotten cost of the decision to go to war in Iraq
John Sloboda, Report author Report's key points
Iraq's Catalogue of Death
Most of these occurred during the invasion phase, which it counts as ending on 1 May 2003.
But killings by anti-occupation and criminal elements also increased steadily over the entire two-year period.
Insurgents are said to have caused 9% of the deaths, while post-invasion criminal violence was responsible for another 36%.
Targets
The number of civilians who have died has almost doubled in the second year from the first, according to the report.
Almost a fifth of the 24,865 deaths were women or children and nearly half of all the civilian deaths were reported in the capital Baghdad.
"On average, 34 ordinary Iraqis have met violent deaths every day since the invasion of March 2003," said John Sloboda, one of the authors of the report.
"The ever-mounting Iraqi death toll is the forgotten cost of the decision to go to war in Iraq," he added.
Mr Sloboda also said: "It remains a matter of the gravest concern that, nearly two-and-a-half years on, neither the US nor the UK governments have begun to systematically measure the impact of their actions in terms of human lives destroyed."
"Our data has been extracted from a comprehensive analysis of over 10,000 press and media reports... Our accounting is not complete: only an in-depth, on-the-ground census could come close to achieving that [a complete accounting]"
The Iraqi government welcomed the attention the report gave to Iraqi victims, but said it was a mistake to claim that the "plague of terrorism" had killed fewer Iraqis than the multinational forces.
"The international forces try to avoid civilian casualties, whereas the terrorists target civilians and try to kill as many of them as they can," it said in a statement.
"The root cause of Iraq's suffering is terrorism, inherited from Saddam's fascist regime and from mistaken fundamentalist ideology.
"Everybody knows that international forces are necessary in Iraq, on a temporary basis and they will leave Iraq at a time chosen by Iraqis, not in response to terrorist pressure."
'Failure'
The IBC wants to see an independent commission set up in Iraq to give the best estimate of civilian deaths and full details of how each person died.
Human rights groups say the occupying powers in Iraq have failed in their duty to catalogue the deaths of civilians.
But the US and Britain say the chaos of war-torn Iraq has made it impossible to get accurate information.
More than 1,700 US soldiers and dozens of other coalition troops are known to have died.
The Iraqi government says 1,300 Iraqi police and military have been killed since security forces were set up in late 2003. But US think-tank the Brookings Institute puts the figure at almost twice this number.
More than half of all civilian deaths were said to have been caused by explosive devices, which disproportionately affected children.
At least 42,500 civilians were reported to have been injured.
The UK-based Iraq Body Count - run by academics and peace activists - is one of the most widely-quoted sources of information on the civilian death toll in Iraq.
The Oxford Research Group describes itself as an independent organisation "which seeks to develop effective methods whereby people can bring about positive change on issues of national and international security by non-violent means".
END
======
Parting Thoughts
There is this nut (me) that seriously considers the possibility that George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden are partners of sorts. I don't mean they sat down under a fig tree, as children, and decided they would grow up and rule the world. I don't mean they sat down under a copper dome, as adults, and conspired to further the cause of globalization. I do believe, individually, they fully understand their roles as Good Cop - Bad Cop... not in the police station downtown but for the entire planet. These families have a long history of business dealings, in both private and public sectors. Both families have wined and dined the same clients. They have been business partners. Both families have been champions of globalization. Both families trade in oil and defense contracts.
Osama bin Laden claims to be Bush's sworn enemy. Osama bin Laden is not stupid, yet he repeatedly appears in videos just before U.S. mid-term and presidential elections.
Now... if bin Laden wanted to assure his supposed enemy George W. Bush and his supporters would be defeated, the last thing he would do is incite fear among American voters. He knows the Bush friendly consequences of such an act. Yet, he appears predictably. Supposed terror threats also increase before elections. Fear favors incumbents, no matter the party.
There are three major possibilities at play here.
1) Osama bin Laden is stupid.
2) Osama is actually trying to get Bush and/or his ilk re-elected.
3) The administration is fabricating these alerts and/or they have been holding bin Laden videos for release at just the right moments... like before elections and/or whenever the polls show support for their policies and actions dropping like a ton of bricks.
-----
In the book House of Bush, House of Saud, author Craig Unger states that Saudi Arabian interests have given $1.4 billion to firms connected to the Bush family.
Nearly 90% of the 1.4 billion, about 1.18 billion, refers to Saudi Arabian government contracts awarded to defense contractor BDM in the early to mid 1990s. At that time BDM was owned by the Carlyle Group.
[The Carlyle Group is a Washington DC based business with whom George H. W. Bush and George Jr. are or have been directly affiliated. The present Bush administration is a virtual Who's Who of present and/or past Carlyle Group principals. Again, I suggest Google and/or Wikipedia to learn more about the Carlyle Group.]
-----
Here in the Midwest we have this saying, "if it walks like a duck, if talks like a.... well, you get the idea!"
I am Duane Short.
END Part 4 (of 4)
posted by Duane Short | 7/12/2006 03:19:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home