I'm surprised the US isn't hated more than it is, I am surprised your nation and it's people have been without a terrorist incident since 9/11, I am surprised that no decent person among you hasn't as yet assassinated your President, I am surprised that so many of you are blind to truth and do nothing about it.

So to answer to your question of "why do you hate america?" ... because it more than deserves it :mad:

anyone wishing to burn the stars and stripes has my approval, ..... and respect

peace

At least 600,000 civilians killed in Iraq, study finds


Sabrina Tavernise in Baghdad
October 12, 2006

MORE than 600,000 civilians have died in violence across Iraq since the 2003 US invasion, a study by American and Iraqi public health researchers has estimated.

The figure - the highest estimate for the civilian death toll in the war - breaks down to about 15,000 violent deaths a month, quadruple the number of deaths for July given by Iraqi government hospitals and the morgue in Baghdad and published last month in a United Nations report on Iraq.

The number of civilian deaths that month was the highest since the war began.

The study, which was released on Tuesday, is the second by researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The figure of 600,000 is an estimate, not a precise count, and the researchers acknowledged a margin of error that meant the toll could range from 426,369 to 793,663 deaths.

The study uses samples of casualties from Iraqi households to extrapolate an overall figure of 601,027 Iraqis dead from violence between March 2003 and July 2006.

The findings of the previous study, published in 2004, had been criticised as high, in part because of its relatively narrow sampling of about 1000 families, and because it carried a large margin of error.

The new study is more representative and the sampling is broader, the researchers said. They surveyed 1849 Iraqi families in 47 different neighbourhoods across Iraq, based on population size, not on the level of violence, they said.

In late September, the Iraqi Government barred the Baghdad central morgue and the Health Ministry from releasing figures to the media. Now, only the Government is allowed to release figures.

The US military has disputed Iraqi figures, saying they are far higher than the true number of deaths from the insurgency and sectarian violence, in part because they include natural deaths and deaths from ordinary crime. However, the military has not released its own figures for the death toll.

Iraq's mortality rate before the war was about 5.5 people per 1000 per year, the study found. The rate rose to 19.8 deaths per 1000 people in the year ending in June.

Gunshot wounds were the most common cause of death, at 56 per cent of all violent deaths, while car bombs accounted for about 13 per cent. The proportion of deaths caused by the US military declined from March 2003 to June 2006.

The vast majority of deaths documented were substantiated by death certificates. The researchers asked for certificates 87 per cent of the time; when they did, more than 90 per cent of households produced them.

Ronald Waldman, an epidemiologist at New York's Columbia University who worked for the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention for many years, called the survey method "tried and true". "This is the best estimate of mortality we have," Professor Waldman said.

His view was echoed by Sarah Leah Whitson, an official of Human Rights Watch in New York. "We have no reason to question the findings or the accuracy" of the survey, Ms Whitson said.

The New York Times, The Washington Post

Even I don't believe that. There is no way that level of casaulties could be that under-estimated by all other counts.

I'm surprised the US isn't hated more than it is, I am surprised your nation and it's people have been without a terrorist incident since 9/11, I am surprised that no decent person among you hasn't as yet assassinated your President, I am surprised that so many of you are blind to truth and do nothing about it.

So to answer to your question of "why do you hate america?" ... because it more than deserves it :mad:

anyone wishing to burn the stars and stripes has my approval, ..... and respect

peace

At least 600,000 civilians killed in Iraq, study finds


Sabrina Tavernise in Baghdad
October 12, 2006

MORE than 600,000 civilians have died in violence across Iraq since the 2003 US invasion, a study by American and Iraqi public health researchers has estimated.

The figure - the highest estimate for the civilian death toll in the war - breaks down to about 15,000 violent deaths a month, quadruple the number of deaths for July given by Iraqi government hospitals and the morgue in Baghdad and published last month in a United Nations report on Iraq.

The number of civilian deaths that month was the highest since the war began.

The study, which was released on Tuesday, is the second by researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The figure of 600,000 is an estimate, not a precise count, and the researchers acknowledged a margin of error that meant the toll could range from 426,369 to 793,663 deaths.

The study uses samples of casualties from Iraqi households to extrapolate an overall figure of 601,027 Iraqis dead from violence between March 2003 and July 2006.

The findings of the previous study, published in 2004, had been criticised as high, in part because of its relatively narrow sampling of about 1000 families, and because it carried a large margin of error.

The new study is more representative and the sampling is broader, the researchers said. They surveyed 1849 Iraqi families in 47 different neighbourhoods across Iraq, based on population size, not on the level of violence, they said.

In late September, the Iraqi Government barred the Baghdad central morgue and the Health Ministry from releasing figures to the media. Now, only the Government is allowed to release figures.

The US military has disputed Iraqi figures, saying they are far higher than the true number of deaths from the insurgency and sectarian violence, in part because they include natural deaths and deaths from ordinary crime. However, the military has not released its own figures for the death toll.

Iraq's mortality rate before the war was about 5.5 people per 1000 per year, the study found. The rate rose to 19.8 deaths per 1000 people in the year ending in June.

Gunshot wounds were the most common cause of death, at 56 per cent of all violent deaths, while car bombs accounted for about 13 per cent. The proportion of deaths caused by the US military declined from March 2003 to June 2006.

The vast majority of deaths documented were substantiated by death certificates. The researchers asked for certificates 87 per cent of the time; when they did, more than 90 per cent of households produced them.

Ronald Waldman, an epidemiologist at New York's Columbia University who worked for the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention for many years, called the survey method "tried and true". "This is the best estimate of mortality we have," Professor Waldman said.

His view was echoed by Sarah Leah Whitson, an official of Human Rights Watch in New York. "We have no reason to question the findings or the accuracy" of the survey, Ms Whitson said.

The New York Times, The Washington Post

600 is too many! its not the number its the fact we are there at all. mho

Even I don't believe that. There is no way that level of casaulties could be that under-estimated by all other counts.

So why is this study so bad then? Is it that they used death certificates? That they had Iraqi doctors do the survey? Is there a problem with cluster sampling?

What are the methods used by other sources that make number claims? Bodies at the morgue? Media reports? Why might those undercount the numbers?

The findings are tragic and appalling. There were some very high figures released after the first Gulf War which of course were dismissed by proponents of the action.

OTOH, you should remember that this war is a result of a policy by a particular group in power and is supported by less than half of the public. I'm not saying it defends our country entirely, but I think it is difficult to paint with a broad "Why America Deserves to be Hated" when "America" in this instance eludes definition.

OTOH, you should remember that this war is a result of a policy by a particular group in power and is supported by less than half of the public. I'm not saying it defends our country entirely, but I think it is difficult to paint with a broad "Why America Deserves to be Hated" when "America" in this instance eludes definition.

don't get me wrong, I lived there for 8 years, and it was my home and where the majority of my friends still live. but it made me sick, literally. the lies, the contempt, the fear mongering, the paranoia, the code orange's, the never ending politoco-news ... all biased, all to one end, a media that daren't question or isn't able to give balanced views for fear of being shut out ... in the end I even resented the actions of the government and that my taxes were in supoport of it, I couldn't beleive the "I got my own sheet to deal with let alone the government" attitude where it seemed nobody felt they could do anything about it. that's wrong ... governments are elected to act and serve the interests of it's people, they can only enact and undertake decisions by the will of the people, and they should be held acountable and questioned. clinton was impeached by the media for lying about a blowjob, Bush has ignited a whole region with lies and is still looking to slay demons in countries he hasn't even entered yet ... does it need 1 million deaths before americans en masse say something is wrong here, let's pull him and his cohorts up?

it's disgusting, Im disgusted, your goverment spends $3 billion a week losing face in Iraq and is earning you more enemies by the minute. voted in by less than half the people doesn't wash when your flag represents your whole nation. where is diplomacy, where is deomcracy, where is humanity?

peace

don't get me wrong, I lived there for 8 years, and it was my home and where the majority of my friends still live. but it made me sick, literally. the lies, the contempt, the fear mongering, the paranoia, the code orange's, the never ending politoco-news ... all biased, all to one end, a media that daren't question or isn't able to give balanced views for fear of being shut out ... in the end I even resented the actions of the government and that my taxes were in supoport of it, I couldn't beleive the "I got my own sheet to deal with let alone the government" attitude where it seemed nobody felt they could do anything about it. that's wrong ... governments are elected to act and serve the interests of it's people, they can only enact and undertake decisions by the will of the people, and they should be held acountable and questioned. clinton was impeached by the media for lying about a blowjob, Bush has ignited a whole region with lies and is still looking to slay demons in countries he hasn't even entered yet ... does it need 1 million deaths before americans en masse say something is wrong here, let's pull him and his cohorts up?

it's disgusting, Im disgusted, your goverment spends $3 billion a week losing face in Iraq and is earning you more enemies by the minute. voted in by less than half the people doesn't wash when your flag represents your whole nation. where is diplomacy, where is deomcracy, where is humanity?

peace

There is very little that can be said other than this is a vitriol filled diatribe and does not reflect who the American people or it's government are. I hope you are happy in your new residence and I also hope that nothing in your life ever gives you reason to return to this country.

it's disgusting, Im disgusted, your goverment spends $3 billion a week losing face in Iraq and is earning you more enemies by the minute. voted in by less than half the people doesn't wash when your flag represents your whole nation. where is diplomacy, where is deomcracy, where is humanity?

peace

As you have noticed, most Americans don't give a f*ck about anything else but themselves.

does it need 1 million deaths before americans en masse say something is wrong here, let's pull him and his cohorts up?


I would guess for the most part, Americans care very little about the Iraqi deaths. What's turning the tide of public opinion is simply that we are not winning and our casualty numbers keep on keeping on at a pretty steady rate.

It's the people in the middle who change the direction of public opinion and like you said most of them are simply caught up in their day to day affairs with little thought given elsewhere. What? The president says Saddam has WMDs and is a threat to us (and let's not forget to mention 9/11) and we need to invade? OK. The fact that these folks are switching opinions just goes to show how bad it's going. Unfortunately I doubt it has much to do with them actually thinking about the dead Iraqis or about what the best way to combat islamic fundamentalism might actually be.

There is very little that can be said other than this is a vitriol filled diatribe and does not reflect who the American people or it's government are. I hope you are happy in your new residence and I also hope that nothing in your life ever gives you reason to return to this country.


Your comment only underscores GBOA's point.

Your comment only underscores GBOA's point.

Thanks, that makes me very proud. At least, he has you to hold his hand in his time of emotional trauma.

i think you are only using this article as a front for projecting your pre-concluded thoughts on america.

Thanks, that makes me very proud. At least, he has you to hold his hand in his time of emotional trauma.


I thought GBOA held back--- think about it.

Why does his sensibility offend you so much?

if 600,000 US civilians were killed, the world would explode - look what happened when 3000 were killed.

which prision is OBL currently being detained in awaiting trail?

I thought GBOA held back--- think about it.

Why does his sensibility offend you so much?

You think about it.

if 600,000 US civilians were killed, the world would explode - look what happened when 3000 were killed.

It is the price they must pay for us imposing freedom upon them :)

Just wait until the civil war really gets rolling.

i think you are only using this article as a front for projecting your pre-concluded thoughts on america.

this article and its findings do nothing but help.

I still find it amusing that some Americans are baffled at why parts of the world don't like us, and no they aren't all jealous.

the fact that most Americans are oblivious that somewhere between a 100,000 and 600,000 Iraqi civilians who unforunately caught in the middle and wished us no ill will are now pushing daisies

Here is a link to the actual research article, for those inclined.

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf

so you are saying your life and view is worth more than that of 600,000 Iraqi's. like you are morally purer or more important. you know nothing of the truth, you are not allowed to know ... that is by design.

every citizen in this world shares the same wishes .. to live in peace, in harmony with their neighbours, to protect their families, to go about their life in order ... it's evident that the US forces backed by the US people have made things worse in Iraq, have made things so bad that people have lost their minds and have evil intent in their hearts, yet you seem to think you are imune to their plight or that the actions of your government are without question.

we are one world, one people ... every confilct is our conflict, every war is our war. none of us sitting on this side of the fence would act any differently in the shoes of Iraqi people we read of as statistics ... yet we make out "they" different, "we" wouldn't act like that, the "problem" is somebody else's. war doesn't work, love does. it is my fault and it is yours, yet we tune out, get absorbed in trivia and act selfishly whilst our race for the most is treated with indignity all around the world. Im starting to think that if there is a heaven none of us will be in it because it's plain to see that by our actions we didn't care for each other.

peace

Beating the deathrate under Saddam by almost a factor of four is pretty good. And then people say Bush cannot deliver. Add that to the highest trade deficit ever and it's clear the goverment is on a roll :thumbsup:

I'm surprised the US isn't hated more than it is, I am surprised your nation and it's people have been without a terrorist incident since 9/11, I am surprised that no decent person among you hasn't as yet assassinated your President, I am surprised that so many of you are blind to truth and do nothing about it.

So to answer to your question of "why do you hate america?" ... because it more than deserves it :mad:

anyone wishing to burn the stars and stripes has my approval, ..... and respect

peace

At least 600,000 civilians killed in Iraq, study finds


Sabrina Tavernise in Baghdad
October 12, 2006

MORE than 600,000 civilians have died in violence across Iraq since the 2003 US invasion, a study by American and Iraqi public health researchers has estimated.

The figure - the highest estimate for the civilian death toll in the war - breaks down to about 15,000 violent deaths a month, quadruple the number of deaths for July given by Iraqi government hospitals and the morgue in Baghdad and published last month in a United Nations report on Iraq.

The number of civilian deaths that month was the highest since the war began.

The study, which was released on Tuesday, is the second by researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The figure of 600,000 is an estimate, not a precise count, and the researchers acknowledged a margin of error that meant the toll could range from 426,369 to 793,663 deaths.

The study uses samples of casualties from Iraqi households to extrapolate an overall figure of 601,027 Iraqis dead from violence between March 2003 and July 2006.

The findings of the previous study, published in 2004, had been criticised as high, in part because of its relatively narrow sampling of about 1000 families, and because it carried a large margin of error.

The new study is more representative and the sampling is broader, the researchers said. They surveyed 1849 Iraqi families in 47 different neighbourhoods across Iraq, based on population size, not on the level of violence, they said.

In late September, the Iraqi Government barred the Baghdad central morgue and the Health Ministry from releasing figures to the media. Now, only the Government is allowed to release figures.

The US military has disputed Iraqi figures, saying they are far higher than the true number of deaths from the insurgency and sectarian violence, in part because they include natural deaths and deaths from ordinary crime. However, the military has not released its own figures for the death toll.

Iraq's mortality rate before the war was about 5.5 people per 1000 per year, the study found. The rate rose to 19.8 deaths per 1000 people in the year ending in June.

Gunshot wounds were the most common cause of death, at 56 per cent of all violent deaths, while car bombs accounted for about 13 per cent. The proportion of deaths caused by the US military declined from March 2003 to June 2006.

The vast majority of deaths documented were substantiated by death certificates. The researchers asked for certificates 87 per cent of the time; when they did, more than 90 per cent of households produced them.

Ronald Waldman, an epidemiologist at New York's Columbia University who worked for the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention for many years, called the survey method "tried and true". "This is the best estimate of mortality we have," Professor Waldman said.

His view was echoed by Sarah Leah Whitson, an official of Human Rights Watch in New York. "We have no reason to question the findings or the accuracy" of the survey, Ms Whitson said.

The New York Times, The Washington Post

It is the price they must pay for us imposing freedom upon them :)

Just wait until the civil war really gets rolling.

it's that 'level of violence they are willing to accept for freedom' as our President says

You think about it.

Do you really want us to guess your motives? We might come up with some pretty unfavorable stuff, you know. :wink:

if 600,000 US civilians were killed, the world would explode - look what happened when 3000 were killed.

which prision is OBL currently being detained in awaiting trail?

I was there when 3000 were killed. I never saw anything more horrific, more tragic, more saddening in my life. up until then.

since then is another matter, which is why I posted this thread. we seem to be going from bad to worse. we all have qeustions to ask of ourselves and what we allow to happen. who would bring a child into this world?

peace

so you are saying your life and view is worth more than that of 600,000 Iraqi's. like you are morally purer or more important. you know nothing of the truth, you are not allowed to know ... that is by design.

every citizen in this world shares the same wishes .. to live in peace, in harmony with their neighbours, to protect their families, to go about their life in order ... it's evident that the US forces backed by the US people have made things worse in Iraq, have made things so bad that people have lost their minds and have evil intent in their hearts, yet you seem to think you are imune to their plight or that the actions of your government are without question.

we are one world, one people ... every confilct is our conflict, every war is our war. none of us sitting on this side of the fence would act any differently in the shoes of Iraqi people we read of as statistics ... yet we make out "they" different, "we" wouldn't act like that, the "problem" is somebody else's. war doesn't work, love does. it is my fault and it is yours, yet we tune out, get absorbed in trivia and act selfishly whilst our race for the most is treated with indignity all around the world. Im starting to think that if there is a heaven none of us will be in it because it's plain to see that by our actions we didn't care for each other.

peace

How friggin noble. What about Darfur? How have the conscience ridden European nations helped that situation? Remember Bosina, a European theater of interest and the genocide that took place there? The European battle cry was, "America, DO something!"

Of course the deaths in Iraq, however many there have been are a horror. The ones that happened there prior to the American invasion were a horror as well. Most of the deaths that have turned you so anti American are not caused by American bullets and bombs but are Iraqi on Iraqi. In all this moral indignation and hateful vitriol pointed at my country and my countrymen, I can't find one solution or suggestion for one. Do you, from your lofty perch, envision an Iraq that would suddenly revert to the finest precepts of Islam if we withdrew tomorrow?

If you want to place blame for much of the ongoing violence and mayhem, why don't you place it where it belongs? Iran is up to their turbans in this. They arm, train and provide the kind of logistical support for these murderous bastards that they would if they had an army in the field, which is in effect, what they have. Syria is their willing though weaker partner and Pakistani hardline Islamists do the same on the front in Afghanistan. This so called insurgency and civil conflict is the result of the seeds planted and nurtured by AQ representatives in the country. It is also the result of the reluctance of the US to use the kind of ruthless exercise of power the region is used to to crush these individual leaders and groups when they were cornered earlier in the occupation.

My country was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, by a group of people who represent a radical idological mindset that is the direct responsibility of the Islamic governments in that region. It is a vilolent ideology and it is used by these regional governments to serve their political needs and provide a military arm they can use with a degree of deniability. It is this mindset and these groups with their government sponsors that are responsible for the deaths and the lack of progress in Iraq as well as the rest of the region, including Afghanistan. If they changed their mindset tomorrow, there would not be one more shot fired in this conflict. If we were to pull out of the region tomorrow, that would NOT be the case.

It is certain that we have made mistakes, both political and military. It is unthinkable that this would not be the case in a conflict of this size and nature. We will adjust and change tactics and concepts as we can to try to continue to reach the goals we went into this conflict with. We will do this until the American people decide that they don't wish to continue and find some way to remove ourselves from this situation or until we are successful. The world will be a much safer and better place if it is the latter.

You think about it.


Lets see.... Congress proposes a bill to secure the nation's ports--- the five year plan has a budget worth a week and a half's of what is spent in Iraq.

While it can be said that the US does more to harm the world than any other nation, the reverse is also true. We do more to help the world than any other nation. We have to learn to take the bad with the good and each do our own part by acting locally to change things from the bottom up. Why bring a child into this world? To see the job through.

I thought GBOA held back--- think about it.

Why does his sensibility offend you so much?

I never supported this war and I never supported this president. I am an American however so I must take some of the blame for this mess. In short, I am as angry as you are GBOA, but I feel impotent to do much about it. Those 600k people are abstractions to me whereas I'm sure if I knew anyone that died or if I lived in the middle east it would be easier to internalize. American News is biased and most people would rather watch American Idol than keep up with current events. I'm guessing most know that we are at war with Iraq, but that's probably about the whole of their knowledge. Americans don't really know how much damage Bush has done to our country re: international relations. Reading the new Woodward book now about how GHB got the Saud Ambassador to meet with GWB to school him in international issues before he ran for office. The common refrain GWB had for all his advisors was that he knew NOTHING about international relations--and we all have paid for that ignorance.

I needn't remember Bosnia ... I was born there, I still have family there, I lost family there. I'll answer your other ill conceived points by telling you straight what it seems nobody understands about Bosnia or wishes to beleive. It wasn't about religion or racial background or geography ... these were all what it was eventually made out to be but it all started becuase of dwindling economy and when people sought change, by seceding from a system that wasn't working the dogs of war, the hysteria, the old wounds were bought out to fuel the mayhem that would blur, confuse and provide reason to mistrust and throw anger against. this smokescreened a last gasp land grab. perhaps too steep in metaphor, perhaps too much is lost with subtitles but watch a film called Underground by Emir Kusturica ... that'll help you develop some sensibility of what absurdity war can become ... so easily.

I understand why the world stood and watched before getting invloved, frustratingly. former Yugoslavia was just one of many similar eastern block states who were all simmering and potential hotbeds and Nato, UN et al didn't want to set a precedent by going in to solve a problem they couldn't fix unless they bankrupted themselves .... like a car that is so broke it'll only need fixing again sooner rather than later. so, many people died needlessly, and not a lot has changed but like any revolution or regime change it is a shame the price is always so high. They still poor in Bosnia, now they poor and severely disollusioned about anyone helping them out of their hole.

Same goes in middle east ... they never had democracy, they had their futures decided for them from the outset by external interests who were motivated by profit and self interest. they had years of patsy Imperialist led governments set up by the western nations and realized they weren't getting anywhere. they then sought socialist style galvinists in the form of relgious zealots and theocracy thinking this unifying brotherhood would bring them hope for the future, for self rule and in unison and all that did was lead them even further backwards as the relgious loonies showed their true motives and make them seem even more alien to outsiders ... which western governments have used to play their cards against them with. read orwells animal farm. again it's not about religion but it's being made to be that ... and this has been in the making for quite some time. the persian and arabic people have right to be persuaded against western interests for they have been meddled with, subjugated against their own wishes and misled by those same interests for some 80+ years and since WW2 the US has treated the middle east like it's own sience experiment with the sole wish of gleaning as much oil, to fuel it's own greed and lust for commerce at all cost for as cheap a price as possible. I'll tell you .... the morning of 9/11 that cheap price hit the wallet back at home and since then I have been amazed at how the people of the US been played into believing some "axis of evil" is upon their ass and they must stand resolute becuase it's either "us or them. all the while the US government escaped the sentence for the death of it's own people, and has since been given free reign to continue more of the same.

The madness of today is only the lack of diplomacy and the motivation of greed by western interests of yesteryear. whilst the US and the western nations might have profited for many years by their actions we are seeing that eventually the price will always be paid in the long run. if we hadn't filled out pockets so heavily and shared a little more back then there would be no terrorism, divide between cultures and philosophies, and need for nation building. those nations were raped and torched long ago, and they are being raped and torched again, and much more openly now and the people of iraq have been made to feed on each other whilst others profit from it.

peace

Middle East Time Line
(revised, 12 Dec. 2001)

By Stephen R. Shalom

The list below presents some specific incidents of U.S. policy in the Middle East. The list minimizes the grievances against the United States in the region because it excludes more generalized long standing policies, such as U.S. backing for authoritarian regimes (arming Saudi Arabia, training the secret police in Iran under the Shah, providing arms and aid to Turkey as it ruthlessly attacked Kurdish villages, etc.). The list also excludes many actions of Israel in which the United States is indirectly implicated because of its military, diplomatic, and economic backing for Israel.


1947 - 48: U.S. backs Palestine partition plan. Israel established. U.S. declines to press Israel to allow expelled Palestinians to return.

1949: CIA backs military coup deposing elected government of Syria.1

1953: CIA helps overthrow the democratically elected Mossadeq government in Iran (which had nationalized the British oil company) leading to a quarter century of repressive and dictatorial rule by the Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi.

1956: U.S. cuts off promised funding for Aswan Dam in Egypt after Egypt receives Eastern bloc arms.

1956: Israel, Britain, and France invade Egypt. U.S. does not support invasion, but the involvement of its NATO allies severely diminishes Washington's reputation in the region.

1958: U.S. troops land in Lebanon to preserve "stability".

early 1960s: U.S. unsuccessfully attempts assassination of Iraqi leader, Abdul Karim Qassim.2

1963: U.S. supports coup by Iraqi Ba'ath party (soon to be headed by Saddam Hussein) and reportedly gives them names of communists to murder, which they do with vigor.3

1967: U.S. blocks any effort in the Security Council to enforce SC Resolution 242, calling for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the 1967 war.

1970: Civil war between Jordan and PLO. Israel and U.S. discuss intervening on side of Jordan if Syria backs PLO.

1972: U.S. blocks Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat's efforts to reach a peace agreement with Israel.

1973: Airlifted U.S. military aid enables Israel to turn the tide in war with Syria and Egypt.

1973 - 75: U.S. supports Kurdish rebels in Iraq. When Iran reaches an agreement with Iraq in 1975 and seals the border, Iraq slaughters Kurds and U.S. denies them refuge. Kissinger secretly explains that "covert action should not be confused with missionary work."4

1975: U.S. vetoes Security Council resolution condemning Israeli attacks on Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.5

1978 - 79: Iranians begin demonstrations against the Shah. U.S. tells Shah it supports him "without reservation" and urges him to act forcefully. Until the last minute, U.S. tries to organize military coup to save the Shah, but to no avail.6

1979 - 88: U.S. begins covert aid to Mujahideen in Afghanistan six months before Soviet invasion in Dec. 1979.7 Over the next decade U.S. provides training and more than $3 billion in arms and aid.

1980 - 88: Iran/Iraq war. When Iraq invades Iran, the U.S. opposes any Security Council action to condemn the invasion. U.S. soon removes Iraq from its list of nations supporting terrorism and allows U.S. arms to be transferred to Iraq. At the same time, U.S. lets Israel provide arms to Iran and in 1985 U.S. provides arms directly (though secretly) to Iran. U.S. provides intelligence information to Iraq. Iraq uses chemical weapons in 1984; U.S. restores diplomatic relations with Iraq. 1987 U.S. sends its navy into the Persian Gulf, taking Iraq's side; an overly aggressive U.S. ship shoots down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing 290.

1981 - 1986: U.S. holds military maneuvers off the coast of Libya in waters claimed by Libya with the clear purpose of provoking Qaddafi. In 1981, a Libyan plane fires a missile and U.S. shoots down two Libyan planes. In 1986, Libya fires missiles that land far from any target and U.S. attacks Libyan patrol boats, killing 72, and shore installations. When a bomb goes off in a Berlin nightclub, killing three, the U.S. charges that Qaddafi was behind it (possibly true) and conducts major bombing raids in Libya, killing dozens of civilians, including Qaddafi's adopted daughter.8

1982: U.S. gives "green light" to Israeli invasion of Lebanon,9 killing some 17 thousand civilians.10 U.S. chooses not to invoke its laws prohibiting Israeli use of U.S. weapons except in self?defense. U.S. vetoes several Security Council resolutions condemning the invasion.

1983: U.S. troops sent to Lebanon as part of a multinational peacekeeping force; intervene on one side of a civil war, including bombardment by USS New Jersey. Withdraw after suicide bombing of marine barracks.

1984: U.S. backed rebels in Afghanistan fire on civilian airliner.11

1987-92: U.S. arms used by Israel to repress first Palestinian Intifada. U.S. vetoes five Security Council resolution condemning Israeli repression.

1988: Saddam Hussein kills many thousands of his own Kurdish population and uses chemical weapons against them. The U.S. increases its economic ties to Iraq.

1988: U.S. vetoes 3 Security Council resolutions condemning continuing Israeli occupation of and repression in Lebanon.

1990 - 91: U.S. rejects any diplomatic settlement of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (for example, rebuffing any attempt to link the two regional occupations, of Kuwait and of Palestine). U.S. leads international coalition in war against Iraq. Civilian infrastructure targeted.12 To promote "stability" U.S. refuses to aid post?war uprisings by Shi'ites in the south and Kurds in the north, denying the rebels access to captured Iraqi weapons and refusing to prohibit Iraqi helicopter flights.13

1991: Devastating economic sanctions are imposed on Iraq. U.S. and Britain block all attempts to lift them. Hundreds of thousands die. Though Security Council had stated that sanctions were to be lifted once Saddam Hussein's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction were ended, Washington makes it known that the sanctions would remain as long as Saddam remains in power. Sanctions in fact strengthen Saddam's position. Asked about the horrendous human consequences of the sanctions, Madeleine Albright (U.S. ambassador to the UN and later Secretary of State) declares that "the price is worth it."14

1991-: U.S. forces permanently based in Saudi Arabia.

1993: U.S. launches missile attack on Iraq, claiming self?defense against an alleged assassination attempt on former president Bush two months earlier.15

1998: U.S. and U.K. bomb Iraq over the issue of weapons inspections, even though Security Council is just then meeting to discuss the matter.

1998: U.S. destroys factory producing half of Sudan's pharmaceutical supply, claiming retaliation for attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and that factory was involved in chemical warfare. Evidence for the chemical warfare charge widely disputed.16

2000 - : Israel uses U.S. arms in attempt to crush Palestinian uprising, killing hundreds of civilians.


Notes

1. Douglas Little, “Cold War and Covert Action: The United States and Syria, 1945?1958,” Middle East Journal, vol. 44, no. 1, Winter 1990, pp. 55-57.

2. Thomas Powers, The Man Who Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms and the CIA, New York: Knopf, 1979, p. 130.

3. Andrew Cockburn and Patrick Cockburn, Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, New York: Harperperennial. 1999, p. 74; Edith and E. F. Penrose, Iraq: International Relations and National Development, Boulder: Westview, 1978, p. 288; Hanna Batatu, The Old Social Classes and the Revolutionary Movements of Iraq, Princeton: Princeton UP, 1978, pp. 985?86.

4. U.S. House of Representatives, Select Committee on Intelligence, 19 Jan. 1976 (Pike Report) in Village Voice, 16 Feb. 1976. The Pike Report attributes the quote only to a “senior official”; William Safire (Safire's Washington, New York: Times Books, 1980, p. 333) identifies the official as Kissinger.

5. UN Doc. # S/11898, session # 1862. For a full list of U.S. vetoes in the Security Council on Middle East issues, along with full text of the draft resolutions, see the compilation by David Paul at http://www.salam.org/policy/veto.html.

6. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Power and Principle: Memoirs of the National Security Adviser, 1977-1981 (New York: Farrar Straus Giroux, 1983), pp. 364-64, 375, 378-79; Gary Sick, All Fall Down: America's Tragic Encounter with Iran (New York: Penguin, 1986), pp. 147-48, 167, 179.

7. Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76.

8. See the sources in Stephen R. Shalom, Imperial Alibis (Boston: South End Press, 1993, chapter 7.

9. Ze'ev Schiff, "Green Light, Lebanon," Foreign Policy, Spring 1983.

10. Robert Fisk, "The Awesome Cruelty of a Doomed Poeple," Independent, 12 Sept. 2001, p. 6. Fisk is one of the most knowledgeable Westerners reporting on Lebanon.

11. UPI, “Afghan Airliner Lands After Rebel Fire Hits It,” NYT, 26 Sept. 1984, p. A9.

12. See, for example, Barton Gellman, "Allied Air War Struck Broadly in Iraq; Officials Acknowledge Strategy Went Beyond Purely Military Targets," Washington Post, 23 June 1991, p. A1. See also Thomas J. Nagy, "The Secret Behind the Sanctions," Progressive, Sept. 2001.

13. Cockburn and Cockburn, Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, chap. 1.

14. Cockburn and Cockburn, Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, chap. 5. Albright quote is from CBS News, 60 Minutes, 12 May 1996.

15. On the dubious nature of the evidence, see Seymour Hersh, New Yorker, Nov. 1, 1993.

16. See Seymour Hersh, New Yorker, Oct. 12, 1998.

While it can be said that the US does more to harm the world than any other nation, the reverse is also true. We do more to help the world than any other nation. We have to learn to take the bad with the good and each do our own part by acting locally to change things from the bottom up. Why bring a child into this world? To see the job through.

Plenty of other countries give more foreign aid per capita than the US.... FYI.

One might even raise the point that other countries don't politicize their foreign aid to the degree that the US does.

Why bring a child into this world? Many parts of it are quite beautiful.

If you want to place blame for much of the ongoing violence and mayhem, why don't you place it where it belongs? Iran is up to their turbans in this. They arm, train and provide the kind of logistical support for these murderous bastards that they would if they had an army in the field, which is in effect, what they have. Syria is their willing though weaker partner and Pakistani hardline Islamists do the same on the front in Afghanistan.

chickens come home to roost. all these people who you wish to blame have every reason to fight against american interests as they have been lied to, betrayed, used, or discarded by the US and are now wary and mistrusting. direct results of american diplomacy gone bad and coming back to haunt them.



My country was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, by a group of people who represent a radical idological mindset that is the direct responsibility of the Islamic governments in that region. It is a vilolent ideology and it is used by these regional governments to serve their political needs and provide a military arm they can use with a degree of deniability.


no ... america was attacked not because of religion but becuase these people wanted to f*ck america. why? when you finally get that concept through that thick head of yours you'll realize how stupid and ignorant you really are and why it was only a matter of time the actions of your own government would come home to roost, and absurdly, how that would enable your own government to start a new wave of heavy handedness and lack of diplomacy that will again one day come home to bight your ass ... unless you change your tune now.

why is it you cannot understand the hatred of others against America? your only defence could be ignorance or stupidity.


peace

chickens come home to roost. all these people who you wish to blame have every reason to fight against american interests as they have been lied to, betrayed, used, or discarded by the US and are now wary and mistrusting. direct results of american diplomacy gone bad and coming back to haunt them.





no ... america was attacked not because of religion but becuase these people wanted to f*ck america. why? when you finally get that concept through that thick head of yours you'll realize how stupid and ignorant you really are and why it was only a matter of time the actions of your own government would come home to roost, and absurdly, how that would enable your own government to start a new wave of heavy handedness and lack of diplomacy that will again one day come home to bight your ass ... unless you change your tune now.

why is it you cannot understand the hatred of others against America? your only defence could be ignorance or stupidity.


peace

Ignorance and stupidity come in many guises. I would rather be me than you with your views. You have my pity, that's about all I can give you.

.... but I feel impotent to do much about it.

far from it, you know the truth and thats where it starts. if one person in every house, in every family, in each social group, in any workplace knows the truth and shares that with others so that they may also undertsand and come to realization then that is a nation changed.

don't get me wrong ... im bleak and blunt and angry, but I have hope, and i have many friends in the US. I, like everyone else in this world, really want to love america and americans, once you cats start showing respect and pride amongst yourselves and bringing your government into line even your worst enemies will be eating your crappy food, watching your crappy films and listening to your crappy music with gusto. it's only natural, no :)

peace

Ignorance and stupidity come in many guises. I would rather be me than you with your views. You have my pity, that's about all I can give you.

you don't have to give me anything ... as your old and almost pushing up daisies. but your views will cost the lives of the generations that succeed you and I don't wish to be witness to that ... again ... as I was on the morning of 9/11.

not a question of if but when. you'll be fortunate if you don't live to see it.

peace

peace

Gay Biker,

Why do I doubt you understand the true meaning of your signature, "peace?" Your own narrow-mindedness and hatred contribute nothing and is pathetic.

Advocating the assassination of a President? Telling us our civilians deserve to be attacked/// :thumbsup: :rolleyes:

Your inability to seperate the American people from the government is an interesting display of ignorance.

Did you leave on your own accord or were you asked?

Ignorance and stupidity come in many guises. I would rather be me than you with your views. You have my pity, that's about all I can give you.

Pity, LOL! There is indeed very little you have to offer beside that.

"We had to kill them in order to save them"
.
.
Seriously, How many of these poor souls were killed by American combat forces, and how many were killed by "locals" or "foreign devils", trying to create havoc.
Please explain why Germans and Japanese didn't start killing each other after the end of the second world war?

let the military bomb the shiite out of middle america in attempt to get, in bush's own words, "a really bad guy" and then we would see the outrage.
fact is, the entire premise of criminal bush syndicate and their premeditated deceptive wars for the sake of corporate profits by exploiting the resources of a region is what led to this situation.
the idea that it is possible to object to quantiyfing these crimes is similar to the objections surrounding the 60 million jews number from the hitler era, as if moralizing by quantifying will make the atrocities committed by the us somehow right.
that being said, it is a sad day in america when it takes this quantity of dead to acheive publicity in order to create an outrage, given all the decimation of innocents that has gone on up to this point in the taxpayer funded bush wars.


As you have noticed, most Americans don't give a f*ck about anything else but themselves.

Plenty of other countries give more foreign aid per capita than the US.... FYI.

One might even raise the point that other countries don't politicize their foreign aid to the degree that the US does.

Why bring a child into this world? Many parts of it are quite beautiful.

I wasn't speaking only of foreign aid. I'm also speaking of non-monetary things such as tecnological advancements and medicines (regardless of motive for providing these things.)

there's 2 type of people on this world: those who agree with me and those who I wouldn't even stoop to piss on

now what is it you were trying to say?

peace be upon you

where do some so-called liberals here stand on the acceptance of the premise of civilian deaths commited during the bush wars?
are some ok?
does this not equate to approval of the concept of civilians deserving to be attacked which you question GBOA about?

put yourself in the place of those whose homeland continues to be attacked.

the squirming, justifying, and rationalizing that can be expected from these kind of absolutist questions reveal just how much some ally themselves with near all of the democrats in congress who continue to write bush blank checks for which it is known full well will be used for the very purpose of attacking civilians, even while lamely trying to symbolicaly protest
they offer something substantive in terms of opposition...



Gay Biker,

Why do I doubt you understand the true meaning of your signature, "peace?" Your own narrow-mindedness and hatred contribute nothing and is pathetic.

Advocating the assassination of a President? Telling us our civilians deserve to be attacked/// :thumbsup: :rolleyes:

Your inability to seperate the American people from the government is an interesting display of ignorance.

Did you leave on your own accord or were you asked?

The madness of today is only the lack of diplomacy and the motivation of greed by western interests of yesteryear. whilst the US and the western nations might have profited for many years by their actions we are seeing that eventually the price will always be paid in the long run. if we hadn't filled out pockets so heavily and shared a little more back then there would be no terrorism, divide between cultures and philosophies, and need for nation building. those nations were raped and torched long ago, and they are being raped and torched again, and much more openly now and the people of iraq have been made to feed on each other whilst others profit from it.

This is completely lost on anyone who supports the whole PNAC philosophy. To them, the world is a US playground. We know best, have nothing but everyone's best interests in mind and, because we're the strongest and richest, we should be able to call the shots however we want. No matter what you say, how much logic you provide or how many people die in the process, they refuse to acknowledge that they could be (and usually are) wrong and don't care that others are dying as a result. In their minds, we are justified in everything we do. They can not comprehend that our leaders could ever be less than altruistic or that they could have less than virtuous motives. These are the sheep that make up a large percentage of the population here.

There are a many of us who aren't blind to the truth or apologetic for those who abuse their position and power for profit. But we're severely outnumbered by the ignorant, the greedy and the lazy and those in power do everything they can to keep the masses ignorant and lazy. It will take a lot of time to right the wrongs my fellow Americans have foisted upon America and the rest of the world. We may never succeed and, if we don't, the blame for the death of the dream will lie squarely on their heads.

Amen. Perfectly said.

It will take a lot of time to right the wrongs my fellow Americans have foisted upon America and the rest of the world.


You don't have to right the wrongs already done ... we all wan't to move on and loook toward tomorrow. It's righting the wrongs of today, now .... that's the answer. Lobby, pester local representatives, have them understand your displeasure, make your senators do some work for real issues instead of playing one upmanship against each other over 1 pervert in office, have them understand it's not just a question of votes ... it's more important than that, it's for your children and all the children in the world.

I don't care 2 hoots for admission of guilt or repatriation for the past ... it's about fixing problems of today and for the better of tomorrow.

The death count in Iraq is beyond massive. If the US asked only middle east nations for a hand and offered genuine diplomacy in the region there would be peace in Iraq within a month, the US could withdraw and there would be a genuine collaborative and combined emphasis to maintaining peace and goodwill throughout all the region on it's own. As it is the US is trying to be the judge, the police and the executioner in a region where it's only true interest is motivated by profit and sustaining it's reliance on oil. Absurd.

peace

Your inability to seperate the American people from the government is an interesting display of ignorance.

Don't be naive. What might seem logical to Americans is irrelevant to anyone hurt by the policies of the American government. That "interesting display of ignorance" is repeated every day, every hour, every minute, all over the world. It's what makes ordinary Americans targets. It's what makes American troops targets. And what might be logical to Americans is actually quite illogical when exported. If we claim to be government of the people, by the people, and for the people, how can you then claim there is a separation?

Thanks, that makes me very proud. At least, he has you to hold his hand in his time of emotional trauma.

Tough guy syndrome on the internet = amusing.

Having lived in French speaking Canada, living with refugees from WWII, then growing up in Washington DC and NYC, and traveling all over the world during my adult life, what you're saying about why America is hated rings very true.

Were it not for the powerful "military-industrial complex" Eisenhower warned us about, our leaders would be listening to their far more rational European friends, and not have gone into these disastrous military forays into Afghanistan, Iraq, and many other places before. A few outraged suicidal maniacs taking over airliners with box cutters, and toppling the two tallest structures in the financial capital of the world, should have been a wakeup call for Americans to do a bit of soul searching and move into a new consciousness of the world and their place in it. But they didn't.

Impatiently, moralistically, arrogantly working their agenda (Democracy in the Middle East!) Americans simply don't listen well to the people on who's behalf they truly believe they're acting, and are dumbfounded when their perceived generosity and sacrifice is not taken well. This has been true since the end of WWII.

The first thing compassionate, thinking Americans can do is vote the Democratic Party into power next month. The Democrats aren't nearly as much in the hip pocket of big business and the military, and they have compassion for the little guy. This is a step in the right direction to understand and appreciate what GBOA is saying about the people of Iraq, and why we are failing there.

thank you

now if you all don't mind, I been up all night and without sleep banging the keyboard to this thread. it's now early morning, a beautiful day and there still a little wave which is fast waning from yesterday. Im gonna go for a paddle but before I go .. i just wanna say that I know Im not the sharpest tool on the shed, many of you here are both smarter and more eloquant than I. but I do know what's wrong at heart and the masses of Iraqi civilian deaths isn't helping them or any of the western world and it's a major issue for us all to solve and quickly set right. sorry if im blunt, sorry if I ruffle feathers or am alarmist but that is just who i am and this news truly has me upset, in dismay and very angry.

rant over ... for now

surfy time :p

peace

I want to believe that we weren't truly as hated as we are today until, following September 11, our administration took us in to war against the wishes of the entire international community and continues to do so today. Unfortunately, there was no "should we go to war" vote on which the public had a say and the impeachment process is such in the US that unless Bush commits something that our lawmakers constitute as a crime, the public can't even impeach him. Presently, there are simply too many people that are ignorant and blindly supporting the war on terror, fearing another attack, sucking up Bushs' constant speeches that all seem to mention 9/11, even when he's talking about something completely unrelated. For proof of this, see our previous election where we had the opportunity to get rid of Bush and we failed. He actually did receive the popular vote in that election. And though his approval rating fell drastically in recent months, it's on the rise again, for who knows what reason.

We'll have to see how the upcoming elections go. I know the GOP is squirming and they may actually lose both houses. Maybe in 08 they'll lose the office too, there's no true way to tell at this time.

If you truly believe this, I feel sorry for ya. The numbers may be correct IF you include all the years Saddam was in power.

GBOA has said a couple things that may be true.

-But who ever he is he should know that if he IS in fact on US soil, his opening statement advocating the assassination of our Prez is in itself a crime, and if any one forwards this thread over to the NSA, he's fuct.

nsapao@nsa.gov

They'll trace back to his computer in 5 minutes.

I'm just sayin, *****.

GBOA has said a couple things that may be true.

-But who ever he is he should know that if he IS in fact on US soil, his opening statement advocating the assassination of our Prez is in itself a crime, and if any one forwards this thread over to the NSA, he's fuct.

nsapao@nsa.gov

They'll trace back to his computer in 5 minutes.

I'm just sayin, *****.

cool ...

i'll happily entertain the CIA out here in sunny australia or I can take a flight over to meet them ... is there good surf in Cuba? :rolleyes: I wouldn't mind joining my fellow australian david hicks in Gitmo who is still in detention after 4 and half years and legalese crap and ethical sidestepping by our own government. :mad2:



peace

Alright, I forwarded it, so we'll find out *******.

GBOA has said a couple things that may be true.

-But who ever he is he should know that if he IS in fact on US soil, his opening statement advocating the assassination of our Prez is in itself a crime, and if any one forwards this thread over to the NSA, he's fuct.

nsapao@nsa.gov

They'll trace back to his computer in 5 minutes.

I'm just sayin, *****.

Nice work. What else are you keeping track of to forward off?

Nice work. What else are you keeping track of to forward off?

It's Dwight from Teh Office. I just know it.

It's Dwight from Teh Office. I just know it.

Just in case our little informant needs an avatar...

Don't be naive. What might seem logical to Americans is irrelevant to anyone hurt by the policies of the American government. That "interesting display of ignorance" is repeated every day, every hour, every minute, all over the world. It's what makes ordinary Americans targets. It's what makes American troops targets. And what might be logical to Americans is actually quite illogical when exported. If we claim to be government of the people, by the people, and for the people, how can you then claim there is a separation?

Oh, I don't believe I'm the one being naive here. To blame the American people for the actions and failures of THIS government is ignorant at best. I don't think I have to explain why...

I refuse to accept Gay Bikers assertions that we deserve to be attacked. It justifies what bin laden did on 9/11. "I'm angry about X, so it's acceptable to attack America?" Gay Biker is just spreading hate. The premise is false. All Gay is trying to do is put America in a box. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Blame and hate America. There's nothing else in his message but hate. It's the message that is currently being used to promote terrorism.

When people like Gay Biker advocate the assassination of a President, it clearly shows they don't understand our system of government. Assassination may be acceptable in third-world countries, but it's not how we right the ship thats gone wrong.

This ship can right itself come Nov 7.

If you truly believe this, I feel sorry for ya. The numbers may be correct IF you include all the years Saddam was in power.


Ditto.

there's 2 type of people on this world: those who agree with me and those who I wouldn't even stoop to piss on

now what is it you were trying to say?

peace be upon you

Whuts up, you gettin irritated? Why don't you just stick with those you CAN piss on, you'll make out better.

Nice work. What else are you keeping track of to forward off?

Really...what a putz...:rolleyes:

//FWIW...I'm gonna smoke me a big fatty tonight...want to email the DEA and let them know?

You don't have to right the wrongs already done ... we all wan't to move on and loook toward tomorrow. It's righting the wrongs of today, now .... that's the answer. Lobby, pester local representatives, have them understand your displeasure, make your senators do some work for real issues instead of playing one upmanship against each other over 1 pervert in office, have them understand it's not just a question of votes ... it's more important than that, it's for your children and all the children in the world.

I don't care 2 hoots for admission of guilt or repatriation for the past ... it's about fixing problems of today and for the better of tomorrow.

The death count in Iraq is beyond massive. If the US asked only middle east nations for a hand and offered genuine diplomacy in the region there would be peace in Iraq within a month, the US could withdraw and there would be a genuine collaborative and combined emphasis to maintaining peace and goodwill throughout all the region on it's own. As it is the US is trying to be the judge, the police and the executioner in a region where it's only true interest is motivated by profit and sustaining it's reliance on oil. Absurd.

peace

You really oughta put that bong down.

You really oughta put that bong down.

Maybe you oughta pick one up...

At least, he has you to hold his hand in his time of emotional trauma.


We know you're jealous but you're too proud to let on.

far from it, you know the truth and thats where it starts. if one person in every house, in every family, in each social group, in any workplace knows the truth and shares that with others so that they may also undertsand and come to realization then that is a nation changed.

Spot on... The general public's knowledge and perceptions shape policy.

We know you're jealous but you're too proud to let on.
Snake may be too old to join up, but he can still go over as a merc...have you been thinking about it Snake? The military needs a few good men like you to back up what your mouth says.

Bok! Bok!

Ignorance and stupidity come in many guises. I would rather be me than you with your views. You have my pity, that's about all I can give you.



Back at ya...

- my pity... you don't need it and you don't deserve it.

Alright, I forwarded it, so we'll find out *******.

Another one who whould've made a good East German.

A functioning police state needs no police. -- William S. Burroughs

Another one who whould've made a good East German.

A functioning police state needs no police. -- William S. Burroughs

I just commited a thoughtcrime...I'm so ashamed!

I just commited a thoughtcrime...I'm so ashamed!

There's a crime wave in my head and the cops are getting ready to break down the door.

-- pass over that bong, bogart.

Ditto.

I still haven't seen anyone show the flaws in the methodology.

They did a cluster sample, in which they asked households about deaths in the family. They asked for and saw death certificates in over 80% of the claims. The clusters were drawn based on population levels in various areas.

They then calculated the death rate from that sample. They extrapolated that to the entire population.

They then subtracted the number of the death rate pre invasion. You know, the rate under Saddam?

The higher death rate resulted in over 600k extra deaths. The lower bound was over 400k.

How is that study flawed? I posted the link above, so please refer to the actual text of the study when you tell me how it might be in error.

Edit, here is the link for your ease of use.


http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf


Double edit:

Here is some discussion of critiques, and answers to them. Perhaps you should read this discussion before starting on the article.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/flypaper_for_innumerates.php

it is one of the problems in the American educational System. Because we rarely teach 'actual history' children grow up thinking the Great American mythology is true. They nnever learn of the biological warfare on the trail of tears, they only learn manifest destiny so what happens is kids grow up that America always wears the White Hat. Most outgrow it by High School or college but some live it their entire lives. This 'rose colored' history creates the mindset that "America only does good' in peoples minds which is what creates the ignorant hubris that tends to piss off our world neighbors. You are correct, starts with a person at small levels just being aware and passing it on. I've been at it with this present system since inauguration and it is amazing how finally people are figuring things out. I have hope for November but am jaded, given what we know they've done and give what we expect they have done, I'm not putting anything past them.

I still haven't seen anyone show the flaws in the methodology.

They did a cluster sample, in which they asked households about deaths in the family. They asked for and saw death certificates in over 80% of the claims. The clusters were drawn based on population levels in various areas.

They then calculated the death rate from that sample. They extrapolated that to the entire population.

They then subtracted the number of the death rate pre invasion. You know, the rate under Saddam?

The higher death rate resulted in over 600k extra deaths. The lower bound was over 400k.

How is that study flawed? I posted the link above, so please refer to the actual text of the study when you tell me how it might be in error.

Edit, here is the link for your ease of use.


http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf


Double edit:

Here is some discussion of critiques, and answers to them. Perhaps you should read this discussion before starting on the article.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/flypaper_for_innumerates.php

I just finished reading this study and I do have some concerns about the biases that deal with the population data and the canvasing.

We all know that wars create massive refugee problems. Because the "population data was over 2yrs old," this can cause an over-representation of their mortality rates of particular clusters:

"The population data used for cluster selection were at
least 2 years old, and if populations subsequently migrated
from areas of high mortality to those with low mortality,
the sample might have over-represented the high-mortality
areas."

"Large-scale migration out of Iraq could affect our death
estimates by decreasing population size. Out-migration
could introduce inaccuracies if such a process took place
predominantly in households with either high or low
violent death history."

Another significant bias that shouldn't be overlooked is when survey teams canvas door-to-door. Will a survey team visit a house that looks as if it were riddled with bullets over a house that is pristine? The study certainly acknowledged these biases...

Another part of the report stands out where they list the civilian death rate in during the Viet Nam war to be 3 million. It appears they selected the high-end of the Viet Nam casualty rate. I've never seen anyone come out with a firm number like they do in this study.

One thing I was surprised to learn from this study is how unreliable observational surveys are in comparison to population surveys when dealing with mortality rates. I think they said historically observational surveys rarely exceed 20% accuracy rate.

"I think they said historically observational surveys rarely exceed 20% accuracy rate."
.
Hush. The people who did this survey, don't want to hear this. Mr average Joe might get the idea that the people who did this survey were looking for results to fit their beliefs.
.
PS. There were a few million people who died in the mass migrations just after the second world war. Did this make our involvement in the war a "bad thing"?

"I think they said historically observational surveys rarely exceed 20% accuracy rate."
.
Hush. The people who did this survey, don't want to hear this. Mr average Joe might get the idea that the people who did this survey were looking for results to fit their beliefs.
.
PS. There were a few million people who died in the mass migrations just after the second world war. Did this make our involvement in the war a "bad thing"?

Grumps, this actually came from the study. The study they did was a population survey not an observational survey.

I just commited a thoughtcrime...I'm so ashamed!


Dang. What's that email addy again? Is there a reward involved for turning you in?

Seriously, I've never seen anything so lame as an internet political discussion f'ed with by someone claiming to make a report to The Man. I mean, really. Does anyone think that anything in this convo was about actual violence?

Dang. What's that email addy again? Is there a reward involved for turning you in?

Seriously, I've never seen anything so lame as an internet political discussion f'ed with by someone claiming to make a report to The Man. I mean, really. Does anyone think that anything in this convo was about actual violence?



Maybe BJII's next avatar can be some sort of Wanted Dead or Dead poster.

For one thing, contributors to these forums are also from outside the US. The beauty is that it doesn't matter. Each voice is heard and equally considered, voices from different sets of experience and insights. That is all to the good. From the many voices comes a consensus, a rationale, a way of understanding, which in turn can open up new ways of action.

Suggesting the death of a president for his misjudgments and terrrible destruction of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, in the context of this discussion, is a rhetorical way of saying, "Get rid of the fool," a fool at best guilty of senseless manslaughter; "collateral damage" to the generals behind their computer terminals, but life defining moments for the hundreds of thousand of victims, leaving the survivors, like those from our defining moment at the World Trade Center, with traumatic memories that will profoundly influence the rest of their lives. Wars do that to people. They have always done it. They are a terrible way to conduct international affairs, or to work social change. All they can do is destroy, not only property and lives, but orderly, rational, civilized behavior.

150,000 American troops could never control the disparate social divisions in Iraq. The planners should have known that, before getting their fists stuck in this tar baby. But here we are, 4 years later, wringing our hands about what to do, as our fortune continues daily to be squandered dealing out this rising death toll, with the end, the resolution, the victory, ever increasing beyond our reach.

was it not always the implied if not openly stated goal for the us to commit assasination,
"surgical strikes" aimed at taking out leaders who are contrary to the american way,
remember libya? and then there was saddam's sons, what about the most wanted on the playing card deck? all of these examples amount to state sponsored assasination.

just look at all the talk here among the so-called "libs" as to how the us needs to
"finish the job", regarding certain figures, is this not an outright pro-assasination stance?

as for your derogatory reference to "third world" acceptable norms regarding assasination,
remenber the us has always had a hand in covert assasination, remember the death squads of cost rica, guatemala, panama, el salvador...the us training facility for such endeavors was called the "school of the americas", and the list goes on.
remember also the contrived concept of what defines "third world".
used to be, a nation was either a god fearin' democracy worthy of the blessin' of the us,
or god forsaken commies, or something else, like a heathen indigenous peoples that deserved better in the eyes of the us.
the way it is now, this term "third world" is an artifact of the commie fearing reagan era as last used in this context.
at present, the same thing is called "emerging nation", or developing nation", this is to indicate the exploitation of said nations is favorable to the us.

what is perhaps overwhelmingly naive (esp. given the fraudelnt recent presidential elections) is pinning one's hope on some nov. miracle, the truth is the us is ruled by a one party system, just look at the pro -bush voting record on the "dem" side of the aisle...
and then tell us how it isn't so.


Oh, I don't believe I'm the one being naive here.
When people like Gay Biker advocate the assassination of a President, it clearly shows they don't understand our system of government. Assassination may be acceptable in third-world countries, but it's not how we right the ship thats gone wrong.

This ship can right itself come Nov 7.

We all know that wars create massive refugee problems. Because the "population data was over 2yrs old," this can cause an over-representation of their mortality rates of particular clusters:

"The population data used for cluster selection were at
least 2 years old, and if populations subsequently migrated
from areas of high mortality to those with low mortality,
the sample might have over-represented the high-mortality
areas."

"Large-scale migration out of Iraq could affect our death
estimates by decreasing population size. Out-migration
could introduce inaccuracies if such a process took place
predominantly in households with either high or low
violent death history."


They are talking about the rate here. What they mean is that if those that left differ from those that stayed, it could bias the numbers either way. When it comes to bias, the goal is to have no systematic bias. But when assessing potential biases you should ask which direction the bias is most likely to fall. Are those whose families suffer more deaths more likely to leave? Or is it those whose families have suffered less deaths than others? I would say those hit harder would be more likely to leave, thus the most likely bias is AGAINST the conclusion. In other words, I would think that if all the refugees stayed, the rate might have been higher.

That is not a bias, it is a potential bias. Which the authors themselves point out. They also point out that households with in migration and out migration were the same in their sample. Which means that such migration numbers probably are not an ACTUAL source of bias. So they point out the potential, and then point to evidence that it probably is not an actual issue.

So, what about the total number? Suppose 10% migrated out of the country since the population data were drawn (way higher than estimates I have seen). That would mean instead of 600k it would be 480k for excess deaths. Still big.



Another significant bias that shouldn't be overlooked is when survey teams canvas door-to-door. Will a survey team visit a house that looks as if it were riddled with bullets over a house that is pristine? The study certainly acknowledged these biases...


What happens when a phone survey gets no answer? That person is not in the survey. And do bombed out houses have a higher or lower probability of having deaths in the household? I would say on average higher, so any potential bias would be against larger numbers of deaths because of undersampling those households hit by bombs, not a bias for higher numbers.



One thing I was surprised to learn from this study is how unreliable observational surveys are in comparison to population surveys when dealing with mortality rates. I think they said historically observational surveys rarely exceed 20% accuracy rate.

Yep, 20% or lower. So take the lower estimates that people think are better, and multiply them by 5. Do the results of this population based study look a little more believable now?

Oh, and the vietnam numbers, those came from an publication by the American Public Health Association.

Note that this study actually acknowledges potential ways it could be wrong. Also note that they pointed out potential bias that could make their numbers higher, but also potential bias that could make them lower as well. It does not cover up such sources of potential errors, it says they exist and where they can they try to avoid the errors. That is a scientific approach, not a political one.


Busy day ahead, but I'll check in when I can.

the 200K or so that have fled the country.

Dang. What's that email addy again? Is there a reward involved for turning you in?

Seriously, I've never seen anything so lame as an internet political discussion f'ed with by someone claiming to make a report to The Man. I mean, really. Does anyone think that anything in this convo was about actual violence?

Once the movie titled "Death of a President"(which documents a ficticious GWB assasination) hits the screens, will we be able to talk about the subject in that film openly here in the US? Or will an approving mention of that film on a board such as this constitute a threat to our leader in chief, and warrant some idiot reporting it to the NSA?

I actually hope it does just that. I can't think of anything better than inundating the new SS with thousands of bogus threat reports.

was it not always the implied if not openly stated goal for the us to commit assasination,
"surgical strikes" aimed at taking out leaders who are contrary to the american way,
remember libya? and then there was saddam's sons, what about the most wanted on the playing card deck? all of these examples amount to state sponsored assasination.

just look at all the talk here among the so-called "libs" as to how the us needs to
"finish the job", regarding certain figures, is this not an outright pro-assasination stance?

as for your derogatory reference to "third world" acceptable norms regarding assasination,
remenber the us has always had a hand in covert assasination, remember the death squads of cost rica, guatemala, panama, el salvador...the us training facility for such endeavors was called the "school of the americas", and the list goes on.
remember also the contrived concept of what defines "third world".
used to be, a nation was either a god fearin' democracy worthy of the blessin' of the us,
or god forsaken commies, or something else, like a heathen indigenous peoples that deserved better in the eyes of the us.
the way it is now, this term "third world" is an artifact of the commie fearing reagan era as last used in this context.
at present, the same thing is called "emerging nation", or developing nation", this is to indicate the exploitation of said nations is favorable to the us.

what is perhaps overwhelmingly naive (esp. given the fraudelnt recent presidential elections) is pinning one's hope on some nov. miracle, the truth is the us is ruled by a one party system, just look at the pro -bush voting record on the "dem" side of the aisle...
and then tell us how it isn't so.

Ah shut it! Or we'll bomb your third-world arse-backwards sub-continent back to the stoneage... :D

Don't be so sensitive. If Americans can't act superior to the rest of the world, then why should we police it? :p :D :)

Just kiddin'.

......

SH led one of the most terrible regimes in history. his secret police, trials and methods were a monstruosity. the fact that iraqui people could not get rid of him partially explains the current bloodshed. blaiming it entirely on the american invasion is either ignorance or cynicism.
the same can be said of anyone defending the "peacefull and tolerant" iran whose president amongst other pearls of wisdom denies the holocaust.

hmmm lets see
Hitler
Stalin
Mao
Pol Pot
and that's just 20th Century

how about ole Vlad?

sorry Saddam is a second tier tyrant at best, maybe 3rd.

the current bloodshed is similar to the Balkans. Long standing ethnic and sectarian violence only kept silent by a powerful controlling govt. some force removes controlling element (us in Iraq and the fall of the Soviet Union there) and instant violence. So yes, had Saddam still been in power we would not be seeing the violence today, annd when we think of the death count I bet is was 'safer' under his iron fist than it is today.

his death count may not compare but the cruelty is up there (gasing of curds, torture in prisons) w/ dracula. taking him out was good service.. even if it was not popular w/ AQ types.

Vlad impaled 20K of his own people in one day just to send a message that he's a fellow NOT to be messed with. Saddam never even close. Gassing big deal, see WW1.

torture, good lord, Saddam's torture methods are pretty commonplace amongst tyrants. heck still tiddly winks compared to Middle Aged Christian Europe. drawn and quartered, disemboweled, iron maidens, etc....

better? you are Pro Israel, are you happy with the growth of power of Iran and Hezbollah?
If so thank the US.

the equation iraq invaded equals a stronger iran is flawed.
if saddam was lesser evil than pol pot he should be kept in power?? the WMD deal may be croq but taking that SOB from power is good riddance. may be even good intl politics in the long run though the body count is horrible.
where do you find your logic that Iran got stronger from the instability in Iraq? do you believe the ME wouldn't radicalize and jihadists would be shunned or fundamentalists would be scourned if the US left the ME alone? that's a mistake. islamic fundamentalism has high ambitions and it's not defensive only.

.....

While you claim to have a monopoly on the world's knowledge on U.S. foreign policy, let's do a little review on some other aspects of U.S. Foreign Policy

1. Berlin Airlift.
2. Complete Rebuilding of Japan after World War II
3. Rebuilding of United Kingdom after World War II
4. Rebuilding of Germany after World War II
5. Coming to the aid of the Government of South Korea during North Korean invasion 1950-1953
5a. Rebuilding of South Korea after Korean Conflict
5b. Maintaining troop presence for more than 50 years to help defend Govenment of South Korea
6. Complete forgiveness of all lend lease payments to the govenments of Great Britain, France, Holland, Poland, Denmark, Norway and Finland
7. More than 5 billion dollars donated to relief in Africa towards AID's
8. Somalia Relief Effort
9. Liberation of the people of Kuwait (by the way I WAS THERE!!)
10. More than 35 million dollars worth of aid delivered to the people after Banda Ahce Tsumani
11. More than 3 million dollars(bty each time) delivered and assistance given by US Govt. for 1969, 1972 and 1983 earthquake relief for Mexico
12. Aid and Comfort delivered to the people of East Timor
If you need more proof of our generosity and kindness, I will be more than happy to supply it and also include citations ! You can't paint the world black and white, it just does not work. For every bad step made we have two or three to make up for. Next time Gay biker do a little more homework!

Saddam was a frickin modernist, secular dictator in the land of fundi theocracies. He kept a lid on the growth of shi'a fundamentalism by suppressing the majority of his own population.
he kept Iran in check because he went to war with them alot. Now there is a power vacuum and Iran has stepped up. We have removed the physical element that stopped the shi'a crescent from extending from Iran to Lebanon. They soon will have land transport routes from Iran through the South of Iraq to Syria (not Shi'a but Shi'a friendly) to Hezbollah.
Our actions have given more power to the radicals in Iran at a time when it was slowly starting to westernize thus we have gone backwards on that front. Hezbollah attacks Israel
and seems to have endless supply of rockets.

So keeping Saddam in power was actually a decent deal for the west. He was a loose cannon who kept the Sauds and Kuwaitis in debt to us for protection, he kept Iran in line by being their #1 enemy. I'm not alone in this opinion, it is shared by HW Bush and was shared by Dick Cheney (see his 91 speech in support of HW).

Now lets compare with the architiect of this fiasco William Kristol's PNAC plan

topple Saddam, replace with secular democratic govt.
everyone in Iraq benefits, this sells the idea to Iran.
Iran has youth revolution overthrowing the mullahs and buying blue jeans
New Iranian gov stops funding Hezbollah, Hezbollah has to negotiate with Israel and lebanon.
Terrorism decreases.

exactly the opposite has happened, the US is in massive debt, no safer from terrorism (as is Israel) more people hate us and we have less allies to help fight agaisnt it.

how is that an improvement?

While you claim to have a monopoly on the world's knowledge on U.S. foreign policy, let's do a little review on some other aspects of U.S. Foreign Policy

1. Berlin Airlift.
2. Complete Rebuilding of Japan after World War II
3. Rebuilding of United Kingdom after World War II
4. Rebuilding of Germany after World War II
5. Coming to the aid of the Government of South Korea during North Korean invasion 1950-1953
5a. Rebuilding of South Korea after Korean Conflict
5b. Maintaining troop presence for more than 50 years to help defend Govenment of South Korea
6. Complete forgiveness of all lend lease payments to the govenments of Great Britain, France, Holland, Poland, Denmark, Norway and Finland
7. More than 5 billion dollars donated to relief in Africa towards AID's
8. Somalia Relief Effort
9. Liberation of the people of Kuwait (by the way I WAS THERE!!)
10. More than 35 million dollars worth of aid delivered to the people after Banda Ahce Tsumani
11. More than 3 million dollars(bty each time) delivered and assistance given by US Govt. for 1969, 1972 and 1983 earthquake relief for Mexico
12. Aid and Comfort delivered to the people of East Timor
If you need more proof of our generosity and kindness, I will be more than happy to supply it and also include citations ! You can't paint the world black and white, it just does not work. For every bad step made we have two or three to make up for. Next time Gay biker do a little more homework!
The problem with both lists is they don't tell even an ashtray's depth of the entire story (I could easily pick through your 1-6 (esp 5a-b) without so much as cracking a book that would cast a historically revisionist, interventionist and American utopist view of each but SNAKE hates it when I go longer than a paragraph.) So let us suffice it to say this...both lists are accurate...but neither offer more than a corner piece in a mammoth jigsaw puzzle of any totalizing modernist look at American history.

.....

Saddam was a frickin modernist, secular dictator in the land of fundi theocracies. He kept a lid on the growth of shi'a fundamentalism by suppressing the majority of his own population.
he kept Iran in check because he went to war with them alot. Now there is a power vacuum and Iran has stepped up. We have removed the physical element that stopped the shi'a crescent from extending from Iran to Lebanon. They soon will have land transport routes from Iran through the South of Iraq to Syria (not Shi'a but Shi'a friendly) to Hezbollah.
Our actions have given more power to the radicals in Iran at a time when it was slowly starting to westernize thus we have gone backwards on that front. Hezbollah attacks Israel
and seems to have endless supply of rockets.

So keeping Saddam in power was actually a decent deal for the west. He was a loose cannon who kept the Sauds and Kuwaitis in debt to us for protection, he kept Iran in line by being their #1 enemy. I'm not alone in this opinion, it is shared by HW Bush and was shared by Dick Cheney (see his 91 speech in support of HW).

Now lets compare with the architiect of this fiasco William Kristol's PNAC plan

topple Saddam, replace with secular democratic govt.
everyone in Iraq benefits, this sells the idea to Iran.
Iran has youth revolution overthrowing the mullahs and buying blue jeans
New Iranian gov stops funding Hezbollah, Hezbollah has to negotiate with Israel and lebanon.
Terrorism decreases.

exactly the opposite has happened, the US is in massive debt, no safer from terrorism (as is Israel) more people hate us and we have less allies to help fight agaisnt it.

how is that an improvement?

intresting points but.. what's decent about being a secular murderer and aggressor x a religious one? from a moral standpoint (where i prefer to stand) both are repugnant and call for extraction.
how certain would be an ethernal antagonism between iran and iraq? ethnically certain?
"more people hate us".. that's mostly a phallacy. the US supported right wing regimes which destroyed latin america future and yet no one hates americans here. fanatic leaderships hate america but most of the people admire the american way of life.. as stupid as it sounds, it's true. that"people hate us" line is propaganda that reaches american's guilt. as much as the guilt is reasonable the idea is false.

Here is an interesting column out of today's National Post

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=a136eb68-224f-4dfd-9762-b62d9915f4b5

This for starters: What has always attracted me to conservative thought is that it privileges empiricism and experience over utopian ideologies and blind faith. Yet, in the case of the Iraq War and its conduct, this pattern has been turned on its head.

Blind faith?...this war could have had a happy ending (at least from a humanitarian perspective) had Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz listened to the many experts who warned them to put more boots on the ground. Instead, America invaded with what Ricks calls "perhaps the worst war plan in American history." George W. Bush's war cabinet wanted a revolution, but they wanted it on the cheap. Iraqis are paying for this penury with their lives.

Here's what they got:Rival sectarian militias, rogue Iraqi security units, foreign Jihadis and coalition soldiers locked in an endless war of all-against-all. Amidst the carnage, millions of brave Iraqis have voted in national elections. But the forms and pageantry of democracy can't disguise the fact that the tolerant, pluralistic government everyone wanted remains a pipe dream: While Iraq's legislature serves as an arena for squabbling amongst the country's three main groups, the real spoils are hashed out on the streets by their various militias. Far from setting off a freedom epidemic in the Middle East, Iraq's tragedy has created Exhibit A for every Arab tyrant looking to justify his hold on power.

Who's sparked the higher moral outrage?These 1,849 families had collectively suffered a staggering 547 violent deaths since the American invasion, a number almost eight times higher than one would expect based on pre-invasion death rates.

In terms of total human deaths, sacrifice, and suffering, 9/11 pales by comparison.

"more people hate us".. that's mostly a phallacy. the US supported right wing regimes which destroyed latin america future and yet no one hates americans here. fanatic leaderships hate america but most of the people admire the american way of life.. as stupid as it sounds, it's true. that"people hate us" line is propaganda that reaches american's guilt. as much as the guilt is reasonable the idea is false.

What people all over world hate is not America itself or Americans per se, but the arrogant, inconsiderate American leadership (in the hip pocket of greedy, power mad capitalists), who has sent its military in, guns shooting, to parts of the world it had no business in, for at best naive, or at worst trumped up idealistic reasons. The only time the American homeland was atttacked by foreigners since it's war of independence, was on 9/11, and that was by a tiny group of rogue terrorists with box cutters, who's leader was holed up in a cave somewhere in the desert in Afghanistan. Was that enough of a threat to squander billions and cause the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, not to mention raise the ire of the rest of the world, and create a threat level that wasn't there before?

If one is feeling guilt about the actions of American leadership, the first way to overcome that guilt is to go to the polls next month and vote Democratic. These shameless idiots have to get booted out of power!

What people all over world hate is not America itself or Americans per se, but the arrogant, inconsiderate American leadership (in the hip pocket of greedy, power mad capitalists), who has sent its military in, guns shooting, to parts of the world it had no business in, for at best naive, or at worst trumped up idealistic reasons. The only time the American homeland was atttacked by foreigners since it's war of independence, was on 9/11, and that was by a tiny group of rogue terrorists with box cutters, who's leader was holed up in a cave somewhere in the desert in Afghanistan. Was that enough of a threat to squander billions and cause the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, not to mention raise the ire of the rest of the world, and create a threat level that wasn't there before?

If one is feeling guilt about the actions of American leadership, the first way to overcome that guilt is to go to the polls next month and vote Democratic. These shameless idiots have to get booted out of power!

Man the war of 1812 gets no respect...it is forgotten nearly as often as POLAND!

Man the war of 1812 gets no respect...it is forgotten nearly as often as POLAND!

1812.... isn't that when the Germans sunk Pearl Harbor?

1812.... isn't that when the Germans sunk Pearl Harbor?

But Hawaii wasn't a state, nor on the North American continent. It was 2000 miles out in the Pacific Ocean, and the Navy was attacked, not the civilian population. Alright, the Japanese imperial military and the Nazi forces were legitmate threats to America, but comparing these with 8 suicidal maniacs with box cutters and extraordinary luck, is ridiculous.

Americans have never suffered through a war in their own streets, with the chaos, destruction and death that ensues. We got a taste of it onn 9/11. So we've never thought realistically about war, or waging war as an instrument of foreign policy. I can't think of any govenment decision maker, with possibly the exception of Madeleine Albright, who ever experienced war from under the bombs and bullets. That's why people like Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush can so casually set up the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and guiltlessly call it all for the good.

But Hawaii wasn't a state, nor on the North American continent. It was 2000 miles out in the Pacific Ocean, and the Navy was attacked, not the civilian population. Alright, the Japanese imperial military and the Nazi forces were legitmate threats to America, but comparing these with 8 suicidal maniacs with box cutters and extraordinary luck, is ridiculous.

Americans have never suffered through a war in their own streets, with the chaos, destruction and death that ensues. We got a taste of it onn 9/11. So we've never thought realistically about war, or waging war as an instrument of foreign policy. I can't think of any govenment decision maker, with possibly the exception of Madeleine Albright, who ever experienced war from under the bombs and bullets. That's why people like Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush can so casually set up the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and guiltlessly call it all for the good.


Was the whole burning of Washington DC no big deal then? The attack on Baltimore and Ft. McHenry (of Star Spangled Banner fame) and that we almost lost were of no consequence?

Well someone burned down all of our government buildings wearing red coats forcing Madison (then president) to convene his cabinet in the only government building not on fire...a post office.

Then of course there is that whole civil war thing if your criteria is that "Americans have never suffered through a war in their own streets, with the chaos, destruction and death that ensues."

Not sure really where you are heading with this line of thought...

Well someone burned down all of our government buildings wearing red coats forcing Madison (then president) to convene his cabinet in the only government building not on fire...a post office.

Then of course there is that whole civil war thing if your criteria is that "Americans have never suffered through a war in their own streets, with the chaos, destruction and death that ensues."

Not sure really where you are heading with this line of thought...

I don't know how anyone could have forgotten those Redcoats. They really pissed me off, how did you feel about it back then?

I don't know how anyone could have forgotten those Redcoats. They really pissed me off, how did you feel about it back then?

And your point is...?? Or are you trying to flirt?? Because I have to tell you upfront that it isn't my scene...

I don't know how anyone could have forgotten those Redcoats. They really pissed me off, how did you feel about it back then?


Ok, Rafiki.

Man the war of 1812 gets no respect...it is forgotten nearly as often as POLAND!

Found this fairly concise summary of that war:

http://gatewayno.com/history/War1812.htm

It all comes back slowly. I went to grade school a few miles from Bladensburg, where the redcoats marched from into DC. Blimey!

Interesting that the worst defeat the British had, the battle of New Orleans against Major General Andrew Jackson, was weeks after the Threaty of Ghent, ending the war, was signed.

Its possible the reason nobody has remembered the war of 1812 was because neither side gained much advantage, and it ended in a stalemate. Not worthy of mythologizing, like the revolution or WWII.

The line of thought I'm on is that war is abstract, like a chess game, to those waging it, but quite the opposite to those spilling blood and destruction. Neither Vietnam, nor Iraq was necessary to protect the US from any real threat. There weren't aliens lobbing rockets into our towns, trying to take us over.

What I've always been told is that Americans will defend themselves from the indians, but wait until they fire the first shot, then make sure you shoot the right man.

as many American men died in a single day at Gettysburg as the total of Viet Nam and if memory serves me right we lost more Americans in the not-so Civil war (what was civil about the march?) than we did in all 20th Century Wars combined.

And your point is...?? Or are you trying to flirt?? Because I have to tell you upfront that it isn't my scene...

Naw, naw, I'm not flirting with you, just wondered how you felt when they were burning all those buildings. I figure you must have been very young, still, the memory stays with you. Must have been traumatic for you, invading army on our own soil and all.

Naw, naw, I'm not flirting with you, just wondered how you felt when they were burning all those buildings. I figure you must have been very young, still, the memory stays with you. Must have been traumatic for you, invading army on our own soil and all.

How many French (since they are in another thread) were around at the Battle of Verdun? How many more could remember Vichy or German occupation? Despite this the conciousness of what makes them who they are still has repurcussions today. Just as the Civil War still has reverberations here in the U.S. 140+ years after its end. One does not have to live through something to understand how it shaped the nations consciousness. I would never suppose to feel what they felt or think I would have lived through their ordeals with anywhere near the heroism or despair of war...but I can attest to the cultural paradigm that these incidents have had on our national consciousness...

How many French (since they are in another thread) were around at the Battle of Verdun? How many more could remember Vichy or German occupation? Despite this the conciousness of what makes them who they are still has repurcussions today. Just as the Civil War still has reverberations here in the U.S. 140+ years after its end. One does not have to live through something to understand how it shaped the nations consciousness. I would never suppose to feel what they felt or think I would have lived through their ordeals with anywhere near the heroism or despair of war...but I can attest to the cultural paradigm that these incidents have had on our national consciousness...

But what does that have to do with the price of toilet paper at Wal-Mart?

But what does that have to do with the price of toilet paper at Wal-Mart?

Hoo's law is really at work in this thread...

Silas

Hoo's law is really at work in this thread...

Silas
Yep.... Doomed as soon as it gets to page 2.


Yep.

yet we make out "they" different, "we" wouldn't act like that,

I agree with many of the points you make, but I also see this as a personal attack in a way. I also have a small issue with the statement above. If America was invaded, we would bomb shoot knife and kill every invader possible. You would have average civilians defending their country, just like in Iraq. You would not, however, see beheadings on national TV, anymore than you would if Austraila were invaded. We would act different in that area.

You also state that war doesn't work, love does.
The same logic applies to the saying "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."
GBOA, You normaly make a good point in your posts, but you might consider toning down the agression. If this was just venting anger, then that's fine, but don't stick with this type of posting, it's not your best.

1812.... isn't that when the Germans sunk Pearl Harbor?

...1812...the last time Canadians sacked and burnt the white house..