Iraq's Shocking Human Toll....


dancing-loon
#1
Iraq's Shocking Human Toll: About 1 Million Killed, 4.5 Million Displaced, 1-2 Million Widows, 5 Million Orphans

Now that Bush is gone, perhaps the United States can honestly face the damage they have wrought and the responsibilities they must accept from it.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=12150
------------------------------------------
And the Bush gang expects to get away with it? I vote for the same treatment Saddam was given!!!
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#2
And the Bush gang expects to get away with it? I vote for the same treatment Saddam was given!!!

Dancing-loon

You got my vote on it. Don't expect support from Eagle Shack though.
The US propaganda machine did such a fine job of demonizing Iraqis that probably most Americans don't care about the human suffering their country has inflicted. And all this was to get rid of one man, eh! Totally amazing.
 
EagleSmack
#3
Good to see that you think about me Clifford!
 
Zzarchov
#4
Funny, Global Research had earlier been used to claim more dead than that.

I guess the real problem in Iraq is the frequent rising of zombies.
 
Avro
No Party Affiliation
#5
For eight years Bush and his ganag have been taking a crap right in front of Republicans and the fact they still eat it says something.

However the common consesous is Bush was the worst preident ever and is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqi's.

Take a page from Frost Nixon, when the president does it's not illegal.

Sad truth is many Republicans don't care about others dying.
 
EagleSmack
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by dancing-loonView Post

Iraq's Shocking Human Toll: About 1 Million Killed, 4.5 Million Displaced, 1-2 Million Widows, 5 Million Orphans



Fantasy number... made up

Quote:

Now that Bush is gone, perhaps the United States can honestly face the damage they have wrought and the responsibilities they must accept from it.

Well maybe Canada can take responsibility for the 1,000,000 Rwandans they killed.


Quote:

And the Bush gang expects to get away with it? I vote for the same treatment Saddam was given!!!

Get away with what? He's in Texas horseback riding...go visit him.
 
Avro
No Party Affiliation
#7
Okay, if that number is fake which may be could you tell us what the real numbers are?

Since you claim to be in the military perhaps you are privy to info us regular folks don't.

Please....enlighten us and source it....thanks.
 
dancing-loon
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

And the Bush gang expects to get away with it? I vote for the same treatment Saddam was given!!!

Dancing-loon

You got my vote on it. Don't expect support from Eagle Shack though.
The US propaganda machine did such a fine job of demonizing Iraqis that probably most Americans don't care about the human suffering their country has inflicted. And all this was to get rid of one man, eh! Totally amazing.

Yes, demonizing is the word!! How else can one explain the torture photos?
Thanks for your support on this issue, Cliffy. I don't care about Eagle and Zzarchov... they are gone from my radar!!!!
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by dancing-loonView Post

Iraq's Shocking Human Toll: About 1 Million Killed, 4.5 Million Displaced, 1-2 Million Widows, 5 Million Orphans

Now that Bush is gone, perhaps the United States can honestly face the damage they have wrought and the responsibilities they must accept from it.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=12150
------------------------------------------
And the Bush gang expects to get away with it? I vote for the same treatment Saddam was given!!!

I wonder if Bush is also going to carry the can for the milions killed by insurgents. The Sunnis and ****ties aren't exactly altar boys.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#10
Ooooooooops that word was meant to be "Shiites", I must have slipped an "i" in the wrong place.
 
Avro
No Party Affiliation
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I wonder if Bush is also going to carry the can for the milions killed by insurgents. The Sunnis and ****ties aren't exactly altar boys.

Who created the situation that alowed a near civil war?

Bush and his illegal unneccessary war that's who.

Not sure why cons are hell bent on giving Bush a pass on this disaster.

It's about trolling than anything else.
 
Zzarchov
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by dancing-loonView Post

Yes, demonizing is the word!! How else can one explain the torture photos?
Thanks for your support on this issue, Cliffy. I don't care about Eagle and Zzarchov... they are gone from my radar!!!!

Dangerous habit D-L, just to ignore people because they don't agree.

Global Research has been shown many times not to bother with the basic standards of fact checking.

How is it you can question that Germany in WWII could have behaved as it did because of the inhumanity involved, but you can unquestioningly believe that the USA is so evil?

Regardless if either or both or neither are correct, your level of skepticism is at odds with yourself. Right or Wrong, its a good self-learning experience to wonder why you aren't consistent with yourself.
 
Avro
No Party Affiliation
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post

Dangerous habit D-L, just to ignore people because they don't agree.

Tell Eagle that, he has been hiding from me for quite some time now, not sure why.

I don't think he is an intellectual coward but my feelings on that are starting to change.

Oh well.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#14
"Who created the situation that alowed a near civil war?"- SADDAM
 
Avro
No Party Affiliation
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

"Who created the situation that alowed a near civil war?"- SADDAM

So the situation after the invasion was Saddams fault?

Interesting, tell me, how is that possible when he no longer had control of the country.....which he did however brutal it was.
 
petros
#16
Saddam followed CIA orders to be brutal. He lived well for and died for it.
 
EagleSmack
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post

Tell Eagle that, he has been hiding from me for quite some time now, not sure why.

I don't think he is an intellectual coward but my feelings on that are starting to change.

Oh well.

Ok... If this is an olive branch I will take it. I ignore you above all and only you because from the moment you showed up here on CanCon you were just being an a**. Trying to bait me at every post so I said fine... no more reindeer games for Avro.

If EVERY argument with you is going to go into an exchange of insults and insults ONLY then I will continue to ignore you. You have to admit that when you and I went back and forth it was only to call each other names.
 
EagleSmack
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I wonder if Bush is also going to carry the can for the milions killed by insurgents. The Sunnis and ****ties aren't exactly altar boys.

Well that is why I sarcastically accused Canadians of killing 1,000,000 Rwandans. They didn't kill many, if any, and the toll was most likely 800,000. However if the US is going to get the blame for every single death in Iraq and the death toll exagerrated turn about is fair play is it not?
 
EagleSmack
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post

Okay, if that number is fake which may be could you tell us what the real numbers are?

Since you claim to be in the military perhaps you are privy to info us regular folks don't.

Please....enlighten us and source it....thanks.

I was in the military but that was years ago. I would never be able to be on the NET as much if I was still in the Marines. My job allows me to do this providing I get my work done.

If I was to get a count and source I doubt you would believe it.
 
Avro
No Party Affiliation
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

I was in the military but that was years ago. I would never be able to be on the NET as much if I was still in the Marines. My job allows me to do this providing I get my work done.

If I was to get a count and source I doubt you would believe it.

I just want the truth.

Can you provide it?
 
Avro
No Party Affiliation
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

If EVERY argument with you is going to go into an exchange of insults

Thats where all your posts end up, an exchange of insults, perhaps the problem lies with you.
 
EagleSmack
#22
Civilian Body Count in Iraq Maintains Upward Momentum - The Lede Blog - NYTimes.com

The problem is that the casualty counts are so varied. You have Loony pointing out a source that says 1,000,000. You have the Iraqi Ministry saying 100K to 150K. One count that I found interesting was from a group called "Iraq Body Count". If you see their webpage they are far from a pro-Bush- pro-Iraq War group. They are an anti-war group and they say about 100,000.
 
Avro
No Party Affiliation
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Civilian Body Count in Iraq Maintains Upward Momentum - The Lede Blog - NYTimes.com

The problem is that the casualty counts are so varied. You have Loony pointing out a source that says 1,000,000. You have the Iraqi Ministry saying 100K to 150K. One count that I found interesting was from a group called "Iraq Body Count". If you see their webpage they are far from a pro-Bush- pro-Iraq War group. They are an anti-war group and they say about 100,000.

Is that the lowest number you found?

Is there a source for a lower one?

I suspect the real number is somwhere in between both extremes and hardly something to be proud of.
 
EagleSmack
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post

Thats where all your posts end up, an exchange of insults, perhaps the problem lies with you.

Go check my posts. It isn't until someone starts flinging them my way that I start. Don't get me wrong, I dish them out with the best of them. I'm not denying that. I'm not going to lay down because someone who disagrees with me decides to take it into the gutter.

I get a lot of flack because

A. I'm an American and this is a Canadian Board
B. I am a centrist that leans more right than left.

I am not a Republican and never will be. I supported Bush but I think he screwed up MANY things and was glad to see him go. I was glad to see the GOP swept from Congress because they deserved it for doing nothing, but I wasn't too happy with who they were replaced by either. I am not a Liberal by any means. I voted for McCain but wasn't too unhappy with Obama being President. I am not the type that says...

"Not my President!"

...like liberals and Democrats do EVERYTIME they lose. Maybe liberals are different up there. Liberals down here are a whinny vicious lot. Many of them are just as wealthy as the stuffed shirt Republicans. They got their money so they feel entitled to squander ours. I live in the bastion of US Liberalism... Massachusetts. Do gooders from Wellsley and Newton that have money to burn and pit the middle class against the poor. That burns me.
 
dancing-loon
#25
Egyptian scholar Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi announced this week that twice as many Iraqis died during the Clinton years as during the Bush years.
In a statement published Al-Yawm Al-Sabi' on November 4th Al-Qaadhawi said he favored John McCain for president:
In a fatwa published on the eve of the U.S. elections, Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi expressed his preference for Sen. John McCain as president: "Personally, I would prefer for the Republican candidate, [John] McCain, to be elected. This is because I prefer the obvious enemy who does not hypocritically [conceal] his hostility toward you... to the enemy who wears a mask [of friendliness]."

Al-Qaradhawi added: "Whoever thinks that the Democrats are less hostile to [the Arabs] than the Republicans should know that the number of Iraqis killed during the siege [of Iraq] by the Democrat Bill Clinton is twice as high as the number of [Iraqis] killed by the Republican [George] Bush.

"The Democrats kill you slowly without you noticing it - and therein lies the danger. They are like a snake whose touch is not felt until its poison enters your body.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Then again back in 1996 Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said that Clinton's policy that may have resulted in 500,000 dead Iraqi children was worth it.
In a much forgotten exchange between Lesley Stahl and Madeleine Albright on "60 Minutes" back on May 12, 1996:
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
Unconscious767 posted this video at YouTube (the account was later suspended) and added this:
It's worth noting that on 60 Minutes, Albright made no attempt to deny the figure given by Stahl--a rough rendering of the preliminary estimate in a 1995 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report that 567,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died as a result of the sanctions.
Gateway Pundit: Egyptian Scholar: Twice as Many Iraqis Died During Clinton Years

------------------------------------------

The American presidents are merely pawns, instructed by the members of the Think Tank, PNAC.
Quote:

PNAC states its aim to "remind America" of "lessons" learned from American history, drawing the following "four consequences" for America in 1997:

  • we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
  • we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
  • we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; [and]
  • we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
While "Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today [1997]," the "Statement of Principles" concludes, "it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next."

Open letter to President Clinton on Iraq

On January 16, 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Robert Zoellick drafted an open letter to President Bill Clinton, posted on its website, urging President Clinton to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political, and military power. The signers argue that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies, and oil resources in the region, if he succeeded in maintaining what they asserted was a stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. They also state: "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." They argue that an Iraq war would be justified by Hussein's defiance of UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to U.S. interests.[19]

Rebuilding America's Defenses

Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century (2000), which lists as Project Chairmen Donald Kagan and Gary Schmitt and as Principal Author Thomas Donnelly, quotes from the PNAC's June 1997 "Statement of Principles" and proceeds "from the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces...
ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for the U.S. military:
  • defend the American homeland;
  • fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
  • perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
  • transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs”;
and that
To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary allocations. In particular, the United States must:
MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. deterrent upon a global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats, not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.

Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
In my humble opinion, to achieve and maintain all that each president, con or dem, has to follow suit.
Please read the whole article to get the full understanding.
Also, there is the RAND corporation, but I will leave that for now.
 
EagleSmack
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post

Is that the lowest number you found?

Is there a source for a lower one?

I suspect the real number is somwhere in between both extremes and hardly something to be proud of.

I didn't search for a low number. I imagine they are out there but you were looking for a real number or as close to real as I could get.

Iraq Body Count seems to me to be at least an anti-war source but their numbers are far to low for people WANTING a higher body count. I said 100,000 but they actually say 90-98K killed in violence.

Iraq Body Count
 
Zzarchov
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post

Who created the situation that alowed a near civil war?

This bothers me "Damn Near Civil War"

In case everyone has so conveniently forgot, there was a civil war going on when the US got there.

That is the proper term when the northern 3rd has its own armed militia engaged in armed struggle with the central government, and exists outside of said central governments control.

Thats a civil war. The Iraqi civil war had been raging for what, well over a decade, when the American invasion occurred. And the the northern factions literally did great them with open arms and fight alongside them. While this was entirely for their own ends,

lets not pretend the civil war occurred AFTER the invasion, it was already in full swing.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post

So the situation after the invasion was Saddams fault?

Interesting, tell me, how is that possible when he no longer had control of the country.....which he did however brutal it was.

Saddam did enough in 30 years, gassing the Kurds, invading Kuwait, not to mention killing an average of 30,000 on his own people every year to deserve everything he got. W.M.D.s weren't found but that doesn't prove he didn't have them as he did before, which proves along with the killings that the bastard was capable of anything including subjecting the rest of the world to germ warfare. Bush's tactics may have not be quite correct but basically he did the right thing, just had to do it alone because the U.N. has not balls.
 
Avro
No Party Affiliation
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Saddam did enough in 30 years, gassing the Kurds, invading Kuwait, not to mention killing an average of 30,000 on his own people every year to deserve everything he got. W.M.D.s weren't found but that doesn't prove he didn't have them as he did before, which proves along with the killings that the bastard was capable of anything including subjecting the rest of the world to germ warfare. Bush's tactics may have not be quite correct but basically he did the right thing, just had to do it alone because the U.N. has not balls.

Saddam gased the Kurds? There is evidence the Irainians did it, not saying it'd true but nobody has disproved it either but they did disprove the babay incubator thing conconted by the Bush regime.

WMD's weren't found because he didn't have any, even Bush admitted it.

Where did he subject the rest of the world to germ warefare? He didn't even use them in the Gulf war.

The UN didn't have the balls to invade for no reason? Good for them and good for Canada for not buying into the BS.

If it was a humanitarian effort where was Bush on Darfur?

If Iraqis wanted to be free from Saddam they should have done it themselves.

He was a threat to no one but his own people.
 
Avro
No Party Affiliation
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

I didn't search for a low number. I imagine they are out there but you were looking for a real number or as close to real as I could get.

Iraq Body Count seems to me to be at least an anti-war source but their numbers are far to low for people WANTING a higher body count. I said 100,000 but they actually say 90-98K killed in violence.

Iraq Body Count

Not much lower then your count.

Do you buy the lowest count?

Why?

Is bias involved?

I never said I believed the highest body counts but somewhere in between.

Is that something to be proud of....asking again.
 

Similar Threads

14
Iraq's oil money - where did it all go?
by dancing-loon | Mar 16th, 2008
1
5
Secret U.S. Plans For Iraq's Oil
by jjw1965 | Oct 11th, 2005
0
IRAQ'S BROKEN DREAMS
by jimmoyer | Oct 11th, 2005
no new posts