AP: Lots of People Died in Iraq Last Year
One of the big news stories today is the UN report that almost 35,000 civilians were killed in Iraq last year.
To that I say, what did you expect?
Iraqi civilians have been the direct targets of attacks by Iran, which has been waging war against the people of Iraq and US soldiers for years. Mad Mahmoud and the Mullahs have been sending in soldiers, money, and weapons non-stop not only to fuel the ongoing tussle between the Shiites and Sunni but also to kill American soldiers with indiscriminate IEDs and car-bombs. This isn’t a secret. Even the “man on the street” in Iraq takes this as common knowledge.
The article does not so much as mention Iran anywhere, which strikes me as an immense oversight. It does say something about Moqtada al-Sadr who has open and substantial support from Iran.
Don Surber also notes that in the Congo 38,000 people are dying every month despite there being a UN mission there since 1999. It seems the AP is not quite so eager to report on that story especially because it’s impossible to do so without noting the malicious nature of the UN’s presence there. Better to scold the US for not doing better against an enemy who makes civilians explicit targets in Iraq.
No related posts.
Category: Fighting the Islamists, General
This post brings up a very significant element of the morass which the USA's invasion of Iraq has created, namely foreign intervention. Most certainly Shiite Iran has been working hard to create a viable proxy in Iraq. Just as certainly Iraq's other neighbors have done the same. The Saudis, Turkey, Syria, Jordan all have an existential stake in how events transpire in Iraq.
Taking the AP to task for not mapping out all of the contributing factors leading to the 35k Iraqi death toll in '06 is probably a tad shrill. The piece was a short wire report covering data the UN just released, not a comprehensive analysis of which countries have an oar in the water in Iraq.
Pat – You seem to be pooh-poohing Iran's influence on purpose. Iran is not building a proxy in Iraq. It is, by the evidence we have, working both sides. It's not trying to stabilize Iraq, it's killing Iraqis on purpose. It is not negotiating in good faith with the demcoratic government of Iraq, it's sending soldiers and weapons to destroy it.
No other nation in the region is doing nearly that. Iran's position in Iraq is unique and worth the attention given that it's no secret at all.
So whats your point? That AP isn't covering Africa to your liking? The Iraqi Health Ministry released the data and the AP covered it. And I am sorry that you are just now figuring out that Iran loves war in Iraq. For the thoughtful among us this was a foregone conclusion before this war began and now we have ham handed them a gift they never could have gotten on their own.
So now I am guessing we will have to tactically strike Iran as well? Is that what you are advocating?
Actually, babooeyist, the UN released the information, which revises what the Iraqi Health Ministry released earlier.
There are two points here. First, the Iran is actually fighting a shooting war against us and another sovereign nation and very few people (including the AP) seem to recognize it, much less wish to do anything about it. Second, that the UN is not quite the effective moralist it is portrayed as being (not even the one it acts like).
What I am saying is that we need to be very clear about what we know Iran is doing so that we can deal with it. Some of you may well wish to run up the white flag or shrug your shoulders or whatever "realists" do when confronted with such situations. Others might want to look at ways to fight back.
If Iran continues on its current course, we might well want to put tactical strikes on the table, if not against hardened targets than against the staging areas near the Iraqi border the government is using to send their soldiers into Iraq. We might want to ramp up our propaganda efforts inside Iran to help the democratic movements there get greater purchase. We might mobilize world opinion against Mahmoud and the Mullahs by reminding certain activist groups here in America who used to care about the rights of women and gays just what it means to be a woman or gay in Iran today. We have a huge number of options open to us, assuming we're willing to look clearly at the problem.
Iraqi citizens have been the direct targe5ts of attacks by the US (and what remains of the so-called coalition) from the very start of this illegal imperial war for profit.
At the very least, Iraqi citizens have been targeted because the sociopathic Commander-in-Chief (the only one to ever have deserted his military post during wartime!) is so ignorant that he was completely unaware of the differences between the various factions of Iraqi civilians at the time he started his illegal invasion.
In addition, civilians are always the target of any war – and more so these days, with so-called "smart" weapons and so-called "pinpoint" bombings.
See, during WWII (and previous conflicts) the odds were about 50/50 that anyone killed by an armed force would be a combatant or a civilian.
Now, however, especially after Kosovo and Iraq, the odds that anyone killed by an armed foerce is a civilian has climbed upwards of 85%.
So, it is (again!!) disingenuous, and perhaps an outright lie (again!), for Bush to say that US forces are not targeting Iraqi civilians. Everyone, including the US, is killing civilians – and no one is stopping it.
After all, there's just so much profit to be stolen from the American taxpayer by shooting brown babies in the head.
Wait. What? You honestly believe that Iran has launched a government invasion of Iraq, and NOBODY HAS NOTICED IT?!? You think our military leadership is so incompetent to have overlooked foreign soldiers of a different race having overrun Iraq?
I mean, that's just crazy. You're completely wrong, and I'm absolutely confident in informing you.
Not sure if everyone has seen these videos of the US military in Iraq or not, but they are pretty amazing: Hopefully our 'surge' will not include too many of these types…
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/12/winning-…
Perhaps you are aware of the war which took place between Iraq and Iran. Millions of casualties, horrendous use of chemical weapons over an extended period of time. All of that resulted in a stalemate between the two countries. Now with all the "whoopass" Saddam put down on Iran and all he got was a stalemate, just what in particular do you think that we can do to them that would get them to submit to our will ?
More than that there is the world oil market which would probably be thrown into utter chaos should we undertake military action vs Iran. Like it or not the USA is absolutely dependent upon the free flow of petroleum from the region. The only actions we can sanely pursue are of the diplomatic sort.
Talk of "white flags" and "shoulder shrugging" by "realists" are just straw men in this discussion. The fact is, we (Americans, western culture in general) and they (Irani's, Iraqi's, Afghans, Syrians, Palestinians, the rest of the worlds populace) are in this thing (populating the earth) together. It is incumbent upon all of us to insist that our leaders pursue a rational course of action in mediating any disputes.
If Iran continues on its current course, we might well want to put tactical strikes on the table, if not against hardened targets than against the staging areas near the Iraqi border the government is using to send their soldiers into Iraq. .
That would truly be a case of selective targeting since an airstrike should also be called on Riyadh or Mecca as well -being that private citizens Saudi Arabia are funding Iraqi Sunni insurgents. Of course, that might make some in the Oval Office a little nervous.
Engage Iran -or Syria? Seriously. The United States has the most technologically advanced armed forces in the world and is completely mired down against moth eaten guerilla forces in Afaghanistan and Iraq and you're talking about potential expansion against nation that does have a highly trained and well equipped army?
Please.
babooeyist,
What you're seeing here is the disease of Republicanism in full and glorious bloom. Fortunately, this coordinated Republican propaganda is so comically ham-fisted and dull-witted, there's virtually no way it will ultimately have any effect whatever. Look at any virtually any of the knob-polishing reactionary blogs over the last week or so, and you'll detect the roll-out of the latest Republican p.r. offensive. It's main feature? Iran has been waging a war with the U.S. for years, here its duration left undefined, but typically identified as having commenced with the hostage crisis. Oh, it's just so clever!!! This way Bush and the neocons don't even have to stick their heads out of the presidential bunker to whip up support for starting a new war; because, see, we're already in one! Isn't that just adorable? And anybody who questions bankrupting the country and sending in thousands of new bodybags to Tehran to "support the troops" in the ongoing war with Iran is "running up the white flag," "cutting and running," advoating "appeasement," or whatever else the Republican Big Daddy is calling it today.
Gee, if we've been in this war with Iran for years, how come Bush has done nothing about it? Did he just forget? Too Busy? Nope. Why, it's the AP's fault! Thus, the deranged war cry of Republicanism: "It's the MSM!" Clearly, the media has exposed its liberal bias by writing a story on a U.N. report of 35,000 civilian casulaties in Iraq last year. Because ANY story on a U.N. report is inherently biased unless its main point is what a corrupt, dishonest, anti-American institution the U.N. is. See how it works?
Besides, it's really outrageous for Iraqis to expect that 35,000 civilians won't be killed every year, just because we destroyed their government and have occupied their country for years. "Mission Accomplished" certainly didn't mean that the U.S. could protect the civilian population from evil Iranian attacks. And whose fault is that? Is it typical Republcian incompetence and corruption? Of course not. It's because the liberal WANT us to lose!! See, that's the lesson in Personal Accountability the Republicans are always trying so hard to teach everybody around the globe. Dammit, those Iraqis should be grateful; sure 35,000 civilians may have been killed last year, but at least they have their freedom!!
Fortunately, the neocons are DONE. Down the toilet. Republicans up for reelection are already deserting the Imbecile-in-Chief like rats off a sinking ship. If he tries starting a new war, they'll spend every day on the floor of the House and Senate wrapping him on the snout with a rolled-up newspaper. All they want from Bush is for him to keep his mouth shut and keep out of sight until it's time for him to slink out of office into his well-earned obscurity.
Iran is a problem, but can you cite one example of an Iranian being captured in Iraq (besides the 5 in Kurdish territory)? Or can you cite one example of an Iranian blowing himself up in a suicide attack? Now, can you find cite an example of a Saudi being captured? Or how about a Saudi blowing himself up? By your logic, shouldn't we be attacking Saudi Arabia first, since they have inflicted arguably more harm to the Iraqi's?
"…almost 35,000 citizens were killed in Iraq last year."
"To that I say 'What did you expect?'"
Wow, how callous. Are you a human with feelings? That number represents human people. That number represents mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, and extended family members.
Citizens are not combatants. They are collateral damage. That means we (the USA) killed them. They were innocent children playing in the street or a wedding party celebrating a union of two people. Now, they are DEAD. DEAD because we, the USA, bombed them or shot them.
And you say "what did you expect?" You are as despicable as the Bush administration. Innocent people die because of US policies.
Are you so sure that Bush's Crusade is worth the lives of so many people? What exactly are we getting from it? What is he doing to make the world a better place?
What the hell makes you think we have the moral imperative to invade or attack yet another sovereign nation? Iraq is a debacle of epic proportions. Suggesting we move on to Iran it irresponsible and criminal.
Stop and get a picture of reality.
Ah, so the Americans are guilt-free, is that it? Those deaths were caused by Iranians, car accidents, bad colds, anything just so long as we don't admit that the American president brought death and destruction to Iraq. Folks, you can only fool yourselves for so long, then either your head implodes or you walk off a cliff.
Where's Osama?
Some responses:
1) Iraq wasn't an illegal war. Saddam Hussein violated a cease-fire. End of argument.
2) I'm not a Republican.
3) Yes, I say "what did you expect"? When I say that I am not surprised that so many have been killed by an Iranian government that has expressly sought to kill civilians, that is not to say that I do not care. I do and that is why I believe, like so many of you do not, that we should do everything in our power to break the back of the Mullah's government and end their predations in iraq.
4) There are many examples of Iranians being captured in Iran, along with Iranian equipment. You may recall (but probably do not) that Iran was interfering in Iraq so badly that the provisional government was making public statements about it.
5) The cowardice of the "pull out now" crowd is sickening and, quite honestly, so intellectually-deficient that I'm not giong to spend anyh more time addressing it.
Jimmie's pissed because he KNOWS he has blood on his hands.
Karma's going to get you in the end, Jimmie.
Nice job, legaleagle.
I really don't understand the chicken-hawk obsession with cowardice. Not wanting to take lives isn't cowardice. For instance, I choose not to walk up to a random person on the street and shot them in the head not because I'm a coward, but because I believe that doing so is wrong. I don't know if you realize this yet, but many "pull out now" people (except maybe some Johnny-come-latelies *cough* Hillary Clinton *cough*) actually believe that the Bush's war is either morally wrong (which depends on your set of morals and what immoral things you're willing to justify in order to do good), not worth the cost to our country, or downright foolish. I'll concede the matter of the war's legality since it's pretty worthless anyway (how many "legal" wars have we stayed out of completely?). Calling people cowards who believe this does not refute this claim, it simply reduces the debate over the merits of the war to name-calling.
Iraq violated a cease-fire???? Not end of argument. You're going to have to provide the background on that one. How do you violate a cease-fire if you're not already at war? Iraq was not at war with the USA or anyone else at the time we ILLEGALLY invaded.
The Bush administration said we had to get Hussein because he had WMD and could hit us or our allies within 45 minutes – not because he violated a cease-fire. Then the Bush administration said Hussein wouldn't let in the weapons inspectors. That is a bald-faced lie. Bush told the UN Weapons Inspectors to get out of the country because the US was about to bomb the place.
Then the Bush administration changed their story to say we had to spread democracy – at the end of a gun – when it was conclusively proven Saddam didn't have WMD.
The last I checked, Iran was not a participant in the war we started. The collateral damage started with US bombs and US occupation. I'm willing to believe that Iran and any other country or group is happy to fan the flames but they did not start this fire. George W. Bush and his neo-con nutbags did. The blood is on their hands and the hands of every US citizen who allowed them, and continue to allow them, to get away with it.
Sure, the Iranian government has probably sought to kill Sunni civilians. The Iranians are Shiites and would be as happy obliterating the Sunnis as obliterating the Christian US. Of course the Sunni militias have sought to kill Shiites in Iraq too. We have set off the powder keg of a religious civil war.
Neo-cons with little to no understanding of the people, customs, or society of the Middle East started a war for oil that they thought they could control. Like a chemistry experiment gone bad, the reaction has raced out of control.
To blame the Iraqis or Syria or Iran for the mess we created is cowardice. Have the spine to take the blame for the things the US has done.
daveb, let's go through your points one by one for as long as I can before laughing.
1) The 1991 Gulf War ended, not by treaty but by cease-fire. Since you since you evidently didn't hear the news, I'll explain. We and the other members of the Coalition agreed to cease hostilities against Iraq so long as Saddam Hussein continued to abide by several conditions. Some of those conditions included not taking any military action against Coalition members (especially those enforcing the No-Fly Zones set up to protect the Kurds and Marsh Arabs, the targets of his genocidal attacks for years, that he return Coalition POWs to their home nations, that he return Kuwaitis taken by his military during their invasion of Kuwait, and immediate and unrestricted access to all his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. He, in fact, kept to none of those conditions, ever. The conditions of a cease-fire allow any party to immediately resume hostilities if any condition is broken.
This, by the way, was pretty big news at the time. I seem to recall the whole war happening on CNN.
2) Since that war ended with a cease-fire and not a treaty, we were technically still in a state of war with Iraq, much like we are still in a state of war with North Korea.
3) WMDs were never the sole reason for toppling Saddam Hussein at any point. In fact, when the President spoke before the UN to outline the case for resuming hostilities with Iraq, the very first thing he mentioned was the genocide and actual torture Saddam Hussein had committed to that point. He then gave in detail how Hussein had violated the cease-fire agreement and challenged the UN to live up to the demands it had set itself. Those demands did in fact involve WMDs. The President then decided to get another UN Resolution to cement Hussein's violations. The unanimously-approved result – Resolution 1441 – stated as a matter of fact, that Saddam Hussein was in material breach of over a dozen UN resolutions and demanded without equivocation that he immediately account for every single part of the WMD programs that numerous nations were on public record as saying he had. He did not. We levied the "serious consequences" the resolution authorized us to take. End of issue.
4) To my knowledge, the Bush administration never said that Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in. He alleged, with copious evidence, that the inspectors were being denied unfettered access and that they were being deliberately stonewalled and intimidated.
5) You should check again. Try reading a newspaper. We have IED's in Iraq that are without a doubt from iran. We and the Iraqis have captured numerous Iranians in iraq.
6) We have hard evidence that Iran is killing Iraqis. There is no "probably" involved. We also have evidence that Iran is assisting both Sunni and Shia. Their beef isn't with the Sunni as much as it is with a democratic government that would surround them with democratic governments.
I'm rather dismayed that you would be so dogmatic and so completely wrong in your facts at the same time.