JaneM January 31st, 2008 1:25 pm said, "When does it become genocide?"

That is much the same as, "How important do you have to be to be assassinated instead of murdered?"

Perhaps the Iraqis don't have the same clout as the Armenians or the Jews. I think Darfur is getting there. The Iraqis will just have to be patient.

All these Iraqis dead (murdered) for U.S.'s war of aggression for Israel....

I totally agree with Mike Corbeil, when he says that people "label themselves" as Christians. This is a very convenient badge to wear, because it sets you apart as a person who believes in justice and equal rights, and someone who will fight against evil, and crusade against injustice. In reality, this is something you choose which will enable you to be accepted by your peers, and ease you into a chosen social clique. Tony Blair has converted to Catholicism, and I am disgusted that the elders of the Roman Catholic church have accepted him. This is the very reason that I am a lapsed Catholic, and would refer to myself as Agnostic. I see so many double standards in the Christian faith, that I have been sickened by the duplicity of the teaching. This appalling behaviour existed in the second World war, when the Catholic church did not oppose Mussolini.
Getting back to the politics, it would seem that you in the US do not have the choice of a third party, who are clearly anti war, and this is the problem.
Unless there is a massive change, then we are left with the status quo, which means more retoric, followed by UN sanctions, followed by threats and culminating in war.
Why does this sort of logic never make the mainstream media, because we deserve better than the most powerfull nation in the World, leading us back to the middle ages.

I am in 'shock and awe'!! We need a super hero as my 5 yr old grandson would say. Who is it to be?? We are! VOTE! No excuses. Share your reasoning off line with people on the fence. PERSUADE! Don't harangue. VOTE! Do you know an 18 yr. old who thinks it won't matter anyway? Convince him/her otherwise. Convince him/her they are needed! Donate your time/car to get homebound people to their voting booths. VOTE!

Kalia, if your tongue was in your cheek, i do get your point.

Mike Corbeil,

Very good commentary. I read the article by Ralph Schoenman, (one of my heros) and the origional article from Truthdig, also. Again, we see how people's viewpoints are distorted and misrepresented.

It seems the only thing that has changed since Vietnam are yearly calenders. We haven't learned didley!

Kalia, What's difference does it make whether they were white, or christians? I don't get your point.
And McCain is one of the sickest war mongering assholes around.

Terryb, it is not as if these million souls were white Christians. Listen to McCain he knows what he is talking about when he mentions casualties.

Today's Christians don't tip over the tables of the moneylenders. They don't carry a soldier's pack an extra mile to cause trouble with the law that says a peasant must carry a soldier's pack one mile (and no more). They don't get in trouble with the courts for righteous reasons.

Jesus of Nazarath, on the other hand, didn't sit around and eat cookies. (not that there's anything wrong with cookies).

I am not surprised by the estimate. I really thought the US military figures of somewhere around 500,000 was way to low. But, either way you look at it. It's going to be the crime of the century. One that the US via Bush is completely responsible for. And for what? To leave a void in the Iraqi government that will only be filled when another Saddam Hussein comes along. Or an Islamic fundamentalist government takes over like the Taliban and starts purging again. What have we honestly solved in the end...nothing! This whole scheme of Bush's has been pure insanity. I don't think Bush's finagling and trying to insure US presence in the country is never going to work. What's the first thing that's going to happen when a some form of legitimate government takes over in Iraq. Get rid of the US! All the money that's been sunk into bases is going to the one who takes over. And once again we will get our ass kicked out! It will be just another waste of the taxpayers money!!!!

A soldier's line from one Vietnam massacre was, "we had to kill them all in order to save them."

I'm sure that those christians here on C.D., when at church every week, are standing up in their congregation, and demanding that their leaders take immediate action to end the carnage?
What i hear from your leaders is nothing but support for bush, who claims to doing god's work. If the masses are truly against this carnage, where the hell are they? I haven't heard a peep. I am hearing however, some kind of rationalization for your faith, and the silence.
Lets say, just 25%, of christians, (and i will give you the benefit of the doubt of your number 160 million), took to the streets in protest, that would be 40 million strong.
Where are you?

Mike Corbeil, Sorry, i got the zeros wrong.
% of u.s. christians. 78.5. do the math.

" coco February 1st, 2008 7:16 am

... however, it's not the people posting here who are the 'hypocritical cowards'."

SOME HERE AREN'T MUCH BETTER THAN THAT though; or so it seems anyway. And I certainly don't speak for others as loosely or liberally as coco did or does pretend to be able to do. I SPEAK FOR MYSELF and let others do the same for themselves; plain and simple.

"it's the 'inactive' slobs sitting around watching rubbish soap operas and rubbish news stations who are to blame. and even then, are they guilty? they are brainwashed and have no power to think for themselves. and when they did do something (ie: protested the 'invasion' of iraq beforehand)"

I DOUBT THAT MANY of those protesters, who opposed the launching of the war, fit this above description of coco's. Some if not many may now be sadly supporting Hillary Clinton, aka Billary, or Obama, and that's ..., again, sad; as explained in my first or second post in this page. However, I doubt that the people who opposed the war starting before it was launched have switched to the opposite position.

Some of them might support what's going on now on the mistaken belief that it's no longer war, but occupation, which is damn dead wrong for assessment. However, I certainly hope that this would be or is only an at-most small minority of the pre-launch protesters.

If I'm mistaken about that, then "man" is the U.S. AWFULLY, DISGUSTINGLY SICKER and more ignoramus THAN I THINK IT IS, which is already to think that it's hellbent sick and ignorant; while having some sizable minority of sane and intelligent enough people.

Maybe the reality is the one that I'll be down about though. I'm one of the pre-launch opposers, and have been against the whole hellbent GWoT as of 9-11 and what the Bush administration immediately started saying. I've never edged one millimetre away from my oppositional viewpoint. My "feet" have remained solidly planted [throughout].

Terryb, unfortunately the people who you are talking to, are not interested in taking part in Common Dreams, so your message is wasted. Here in the UK, we had around a million people who marched against the war, and other people like myself who protested to our elected members, and then as a last resort voted for our third party, who to a man were against the war, and still are. Our third party here in the UK - the Liberal Democrats, are constantly ridiculed by the media and the two main parties. I don't know why, because at the last election they polled 22% of the votes, against Labour 37% (Tony Blair), and Conservative 32%, with other parties making up the balance. What this tells us, is that here in the UK, there was a sizeable number of people speaking out against the war, including our religious leaders. We have a situation where Tony Blair was re-elected by only 37% of people who bothered to vote (67% of the electorate turned out).
I am dismayed when I read out the so called "Christian" viewpoint in the US, it seems as though Christianity has been hijacked by some sort of "Western values" right wing fundamentalism.
The truth is that many people cannot be bothered to protest or march for any cause, because their lives are too easy, and they do not recognise life outside the confines of their communities. The only reason most Americans (and indeed people here in the UK)want an end to the war in Iraq, is to stop American casualties, they are simply uncaring about people outside of the US.
I am not of course including most of the people who post on Common Dreams, because we are aware of the problems which our countries are causing in the World, but as a minority, just like Dennis Kucinch, we are up against the media and the corporate giants.

TERRYB

i understand your sentiments and agree with you entirely on that score. however, it's not the people posting here who are the 'hypocritical cowards'. it's the 'inactive' slobs sitting around watching rubbish soap operas and rubbish news stations who are to blame. and even then, are they guilty? they are brainwashed and have no power to think for themselves. and when they did do something (ie: protested the 'invasion' of iraq beforehand) they were ignored. so perhaps they are in denial or they've just given up..................but there are some people out there trying to put a stop to this carnage.

" Cosmicharlie February 1st, 2008 6:40 am

...
Let us not forget that after Gulf War I the US continued to bomb Iraq for nearly eight years ... (also snipped) Their favorites targets were power plants, water supplies and access roads. Along with the sanctions, it was all part of the plan to bring the Iraqis to their knees before moving forward with phase II"

STRONGLY FITTING FOR THAT is Ralph Schoenman's article linked in my first post in this page.

"I would think that over the past 15 years - a 1,000,000 casualties is a very conservative (God, I hate using that word) estimate."

WRONG! The estimate was closer to 1.5mn during the sanctions years alone. The ORB report the Reuters article is for 9xx,xxx to 1.12mn excess Iraqi deaths [due] to this present war, so not counting the many who died due to the UN imposing the sanctions the U.S. required from 1991 to March 2003.

So the total of all of that is what? Try roughly 2.6 million.

Quote: " terryb February 1st, 2008 6:42 am

240 million christians, in america. 1,000,000,000 dead Iraqis,"

NOW THAT IS BEING AWFULLY POOR WITH NUMBERS. 1 followed by 9 zeros is NOT 1mn, but 1 BILLION! And there are NOT 240mn Christians in the USA, either!

They generally say that around 60% of U.S. citizens are Christians, most of whom are only that due to falsely labeling themselves this way. And I've read that the population of the U.S. is now around 300mn, 60% of which is 180mn, not 240mn.

BUT, people should not forget that it wasn't only the FALSE Christians of the U.S. who supported this war on Iraq; and that it's also not only these FALSE and therefore really non-Christians who support the continuation of this war, regardless of whether they consider it ongoing war, which is what it really is, or only occupation.

"We always hear from the mouths of you christians about love, morality, thou shalt not kill etc., etc."

That's either blatant hypocrisy, or is based on serious ignorance, imo.

Around 77% of all U.S. citizens, and I suppose the non-citizen but official residents of the U.S., supported, including stongly-insanely so, this war on Iraq. There may have been one so-called Christian denomination that supported the war to this extent; there likely was one, if not more, of these. But some rated in the 60 to 70 % range, and I believe that what I read was that it was the RCC and the Presbytarians who were the two least supportive.

But, and as too sickeningly usual of U.S. culture, "ignorance is (hellishly) bliss" for MANY US'ians.

240 million christians, in america. 1,000,000,000 dead Iraqis, murdered by your administration, and what do we hear from you? Nothing, absolutely nothing.
We always hear from the mouths of you christians about love, morality, thou shalt not kill etc., etc. Yet if you really believed in what you preached, there would be outrage, and protest, the likes your country has never seen before. I just have to say, that you are all hypocritical cowards. YOU, are all complicant in this genocide and carnage, because of your silence, and you all should get down on your knees, and pray for a backbone, and get some courage to stand up for your convictions, if in fact you have any.
Pathetic!

Thank you Tommybones. you saved me from a lot of two-finger typing in conveying my thoughts (tommybones January 31st, 2008 12:47 pm), especially since I need to run off to work here very soon.
Let us not forget that after Gulf War I the US continued to bomb Iraq for nearly eight years (under the Clinton administration) in the so-called "No fly zones" Their favorites targets were power plants, water supplies and access roads. Along with the sanctions, it was all part of the plan to bring the Iraqis to their knees before moving forward with phase II
I would think that over the past 15 years - a 1,000,000 casualties is a very conservative (God, I hate using that word) estimate.
Off to work I go. Hi Ho Hi Ho...
L8r
Peace

" greatbear215 January 31st, 2008 12:09 pm

The US has killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did. Killing over one million people is not spreading democracy, or improving the quality of anyone's life!"

See the very important article by Ralph Schoenman that I posted a link for around two posts above this one. Also carefully consider what Keith Harmon Snow's articles ( www.allthingspass.com ) tell us about the genocides, including the ongoing ones, in some African countries; and which, so far, dwarf the genocide in Iraq, as ugly, horrifying, and real as that genocide also is.

The war on the Taliban and really all innocent Afghanis is another genocide, only the death toll isn't as high. It's still genocide though; imo anyway.

Quote: " AndyUK February 1st, 2008 4:27 am

I wish that I could believe Kem Patrick about Hillary Clinton, when he says that "she will pull our troops out of Iraq within 60 days". Where does this information come from? ..."

Answer: From his (weak) IMAGINATION!

Kucinich explains very well and in brief words. For that, as well as plenty more of what he said and which remains ongoingly pertinent, see the following debate with him included.

"Video: Breaking the Sound Barrier.
Democracy Now! Re-Hosts NBC Las Vegas Debate to Include Kucinich After NBC Wins Appeal to Exclude Him", Jan 16 2008,

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/16/breaking_the_sound_barrier_democracy_now

Kucinich quite irrefutably, and in very simple and straightforward terms, explains what Clinton's, Obama's and Edwards' [real] positions were; while now that Edwards has withdrawn his campaign, then Kucinich's explanation remains fitting and important with respect to Obama and Clinton, who definitely are war criminals, already.

As he basically says, they definitely [are] telling us, although implicitly, but nonetheless really, that they're going to remain war criminals of and/or in these GWoT wars. They are NOT going to end these wars; regardless of how stupidly they try to (maliciously and deliberately) [pretend] otherwise. Only awfully stupid, "dumb animal!", people could believe otherwise.

They are LYING and surely know that they are. F.e., they certainly, absolutely must know that the U.S. embassy in Iraq is totally illegal, criminal, etc., and that even the puppet Iraqi govt's endorsement of this embassy is invalid; that it cannot be supported under intl laws and moral ethics, both. They know that the embassy MUST BE TERMINATED; while of course without destroying the complex, which'd be another fiendishly stupid thing to do. I suppose if the Iraqi govt, after the U.S. et al have withdrawn, demanded for the embassy to be destroyed, then this'd be different; but the embassy otherwise should be left as it is. It's the U.S. et al that need to GET OUT of Iraq that we need to happen.

It's all briefly, but straightforwardly and irrefutably well explained by Kucinich in the DN debate.

McCain's definitely another pick only fiends and fiendishly stupid or sick people or voters could make, but one thing that I think distinguishes him from Obama and Clinton is that McCain quite explicitly promises to continue this war and for potentially 100 YEARS. He's honest about continuing the war if he's elected; while being dishonest in terms of refusing to acknowledge that it's a totally criminal war of aggression. If he's fooled about the latter, then it's just another example of him being fiendishly sick, for it's very, very easy to realise that this is a war of wholly criminal aggression.

Obama and Clinton try to fool voters into believing that they'll work on ending this war on Iraq, which they clearly have no intention of doing. And, afaik anyway, they say nothing at all about the criminal war of aggression on Afghanistan, which also needs to be ENDED. It's an issue that needs to be corrected, but which MOST people, including, evidently anyway, most of the people in the so-called "leftists", constantly sideline as if this war is hunky-dory okay, as if it's not criminal, which it [wholly] is and will remain for as long as it's continued.

Three DEAD-ENDER candidates, and their plans are akin to hell; the end [and] the path to it. They are not peace and justice makers, but among hell's reiner or reining servants on Earth. Of course that's meant figuratively, mostly anyway; I don't think all of these people, if even any of them, deliberately act this way for the purpose of serving hell's desires or goals.

They're all hypocrites, but a lot of U.S. voters seem to be stupidly and sickeningly fooled by the words of such fiends; perhaps figuring that it's more profitable to side with hell than it would be to side with the God of love, truth, justice, and so on. Hell must have these Americans living in some sort of state of mental FOLLY, for there's no sane credibility in any of these candidates.

I've done a LOT of reading on these and other world issues of great import since Fall 2002, and Kucinich's explanation in the DN debate is clearly right and very straightforward.

Obama? THUMBS DOWN!

Clinton? THUMBS DOWN!

McCain? THUMBS DOWN!

Etc.

And I mean minimally both thumbs; plus something to eliminate serious nausea. They make me SICK.

Kucinich, Nader, McKinney? BRING THEM ON NOW! STRONGLY ALL THUMBS UP! And I don't have enough thumbs, having only two; for what deserves to be expressed for this thumbs-review!

And since Kucinich withdrew (sadly, but understandably), then NADER AND MCKINNEY are the pair to now support and as strongly as U.S. voters can; IMHHFO, in my humble, honest, and firm opinion. And then, as second choice, it seems there's only Ron Paul. It's that I, for my principles, prefer Nader and McKinney; definitely.

Of course U.S. voters will screw up again, remaining their customarily sick selves, instead of supporting McKinney and Nader though; tragically, and for both the U.S. and Humanity, worldwide.

The U.S. electorate seems to NEVER tire of repeating the same extreme mistakes over and over ... like a bunch of demonically demented robots running on Duracells.

If Nader and McKinney, or, else Ron Paul, are not elected in November, then I'm going to give a lot more serious thought to abandoning my U.S. birth citizenship. I want no affiliation whatsoever with a hellbent people like it'd take to not make sure that minimally Ron Paul, while ideally Nader and McKinney are elected.

When couples seriously don't get along and there exists only cause for fighting, then divorce is a good instrument to apply.

I wish that I could believe Kem Patrick about Hillary Clinton, when he says that "she will pull our troops out of Iraq within 60 days". Where does this information come from? The US (and others), have so many troops in Iraq, that this would not be possible logistically, and the military infrastructure is such, that it is obvious that the US is there for the long haul, irrespective of who gets elected. You have the green zone in Baghdad, and the massive embassy construction, then there is the huge airbase North of Iraq, which resembles a decent sized city. I would dearly love to see the US get out of Iraq, and then have a multi national peacekeeping force, under UN control (but without US interference). This article shows why, in pretty graphic terms, the US are not wanted in the Middle East. The heartless comments by Madeleine Allbright, would have done credit to Hitler or Stalin, and show clearly the disregard with which the US (and UK)look at Iraq and other states.
If this figure is as low as 250000 or as high as 1000000, I am still horrified and disgusted, that we have caused death and destruction on such a huge scale. Every Iraqi citizen knows someone killed as a result of the war, so what do we honestly think their views are of the US and UK, and anyone else who sent troops there?
There was never any plan to rebuild Iraq after the war, no attempt to organize relief, or to get the infrastructure up and running - power, water, food, medicine - all the things we take for granted.
There were millions (possibly billions) of dollars paid to US firms to rebuild schools and hospitals, millions paid to private security firms, lining the pockets of mercenaries, whilst the Iraqi people experience death, desease, poverty and no hope for the future.
Meanwhile, "insurgents" are fighting the US/UK troops, these are never Iraqis mind, but foreign fighters from Syria and Iran (never Saudi Arabia, because they are our friends) and also Al Quaeda, who are up for a fight anywhere in the World.
There should be a war crimes tribunal, and our leaders should be charged, but how many allied commanders/leaders were charged at Nuremburg?
It pays to be on the winning side, because you can get away with murder!

" Jaded Prole January 31st, 2008 11:58 am

We need war crimes trials applying the Nuremberg laws."

SEE THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE, and people should not delay reading this at all!! It's strongly, wholly pertinent to the above quoted statement.

"US War Crimes in Indochina in the 1960s: Truth as Casualty
A Response to Carol Brightman and Carl Ogelsby on the Sixties

by Ralph Schoenman

Global Research, January 29, 2008"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7930

It's about Brightman's Jan. article at Truthdig.com and in which she proposes extremely bogus, deceitful, lying reviews on three books, one or more of which are by Ogelsby. However, Schoenman's provides additional information; the purpose of which is to expose Brightman's flagrant lying, which clearly is war propaganda and extremely pro-GENOCIDAL U.S. warring. Etc.

And it's based on the intl war crimes tribunal investigations and findings with respect to the genocide(s?) flagrantly committed by the U.S. in the Vietnam War. His quotes of Jean-Paul Sartre, f.e., illustrate that the U.S. was seriously believed to be very if not totally deliberately committing genocide there as of 1962 or 1963, though that's based on what was written at that time; therefore, the genocidal intent would've surely be suspected even earlier.

In any case, that does not do Schoenman's article justice; it's very important to not delay reading it, for it is wholly fitting for more thorough understanding of the present U.S. wars of aggression today. And for those who don't learn anything new from the article, they will definitely learn of an important article to make others aware of.

Lastly, he, along with his partner, Maya Shone, have a weekly radio show that can be listened to over the Internet.

http://takingaimradio.com

Much to my frustration, the article, and the posters here do not seem to understand why the numbers from the Iraq Body Count (IBC) are so low. The reason is because it is NOT an estimate at all. It is a count of deaths that have been documented in at least two major media organs (mostly western newspapers).

On the one hand this is good, because it provides a lower boundary on the number of deaths that no one can dispute, because each death is documented. But you cannot take that as an estimate on the number of deaths, unless you assert that all deaths in Iraq are reported in the western media.

So... Get it right. The IBC is a count of documented deaths. The Lancet studies, and this one, are the ONLY serious estimates of fatalities.

lizard: I can't post on non-progressive blogs because I almost always get banned... there are a couple of exceptions where I just say something like "Look at what the loony Left is posting on Daily Kos!" and then link to one of my diaries.

It's usually good for a laugh!

The best example was my diary Petraeus Eats a Booger on National TV, which numerous wingnuts loved to hate.

That diary comes up first if you google "Petraeus booger"...

Harharharhar!!!

Yes, odoco! I've been telling friends about Common Dreams for a long time - how it is my home page, how I love the articles, how addicted I am to readers' comments...

Only once or twice have I actually sent a CD page along to someone. But now I agree with you: I am going to send it along to all 536 contacts on my email list.

Yeah Rebel, God makes mistakes too, he's human.

About Hillary and her Iraq War vote, Edwards too and 75 other Senators. There really is a big misconception about that vote by many. Much of that misconception is due in a large part, by the wording of Obama's speeches.

Congress wasn't voting to have America attack Iraq. They voted to allow the UN inspections to progress and if, IF remember, WMDs were found by the Hans Bliss UN team of inspectors, then the vote was to authorize Bush to use military force, IF again, it was absolutely the last resort if Saddam then refused to destroy his WMDs. He didn't have any, but Congress was not aware of that when they voted. Saddam had had them and he kept saying that he still had them up until just prior to that vote.

Congress was not voting to attack Iraq with that vote, what they didn't realize was, that as soon as they voted yes, Bush would force Hans Bliss out of Iraq and commense the war. That is precicely waht he did do. Congress made a serious mistake to trust Bush, but at that time he really had not displayed that he was insane.

So Hillary and John Edwards and theother 75 Senators have to live with that vote, but it is not fair or correct to say either of them voted to start the war, for that is just not so. I'm not a supportr of Hillary or Obama, but what I just posted is accurate. If Hillary is elected, as the new Commander In Chief of our Armed Forces, she will pull our troops out of Iraq within 60 days. I don't know what Obama would do for certain, but any of the Republicans will stay the stupid Bush course.

Until Kennedy, I thought the US a torch bearer for freedom, human rights, human dignity. I was probably wrong even then but compared to what we have now, the world -- much of the world -- looked up to the US as a country that stood for human rights, for human decency, for peace THEN.

The nefarious mixture we have now of a Bush telling the nation that unfortunately, in self-defence, the US had to kill some 30,000 Iraqi, and the reality of +/- a million Iraqi killed for -- oil.

Psychopath or moron? The psychopath believes what he wants is right, never mind the consequences for the victims. According to this definition, Cheney is No.1 and GWB is a very close second.

That one million Iraqi murdered does not include the tens of thousands killed in the first Iraq war or the half million children killed by the ten-year embargo.
If all the casualties were / could be tallied up correctly, we'd probably be close to, if not past, a million and a-half.

And this by the people who rode to power by posing as pro-lifers! Whose life / lives? An abortion of a fetus not yet conscious is against the law. Killing more than a million to line the pockets of the oil barons and the armaments barons obviously has nothing to do with being por life.

O brave new world that has such people in it!!!

This would not have happened if God hadn't put all those people on top of the oil fields, what the hell was he thinking?

Jesus said "love thy neighbor", but not if they get in the way, if they do then blow them away!

bbr-001,

To answer question number one, please scroll up to PJD's post at 3:57. Recall that the 650,000 figure is a couple years old...

Jacob freeze: Why don't you say it in a non-progressive blog?

You can repeat that number 1000 times and ask the American people how many have died and they will still say about 30,000. That's a number they are comfortable with. 1 million is outrageous so they will tune it out. The number is 30,000.

bbr-001:

"Number one: I can't believe its one million. There must be something wrong with the method. Another estimate is less than 100,000?"

It's because other surveys ask different questions. This and the Lancet surveys have tried to establish excess deaths that have occurred imagining the situation had the war not occurred. These deaths include violent deaths, but also deaths from disease, accidents, malnutrition, etc. Other surveys ask specifically whether the deaths occurred as a result of violence, who did the killing, or rely on morgue reports. All of these will have a lower estimate.

There are some good articles out there on how the various surveys actually converge statistically, rather than disagree as it might seem at face value.

Surely Bush is a criminal. But let's remember that Clinton killed as many Iraqi than Bush. Remember this: "Madeleine Albright, former U.S Secretary of State who when asked by Lesley Stahl about U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, thats more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it? Madeleine Albright said: "we think the price is worth it."

Kernel:

"Several others have stated they did not think they were giving permission at that time to go to war." I knew, my friends knew, 30 million protesters knew it. If she's that naive, she's a fool and I don't want a fool for president.

"If she had voted against whatever it was and I am not sure anyone even knew exactly what they were voting on, she would have been pilloried as a soft on terrorism traiter woman." So you're saying that 1 million dead is OK as a sacrifice for her not being pilloried? That's political expediency at it's worst, in fact it's criminal. I don't want a criminal for a president.

Just part of the PLAN:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261

rsterling1: Thanks for the heads-up about Newsweek publishing the notorious anti-Islam racist George Weigel. I dropped a note in their comments, and maybe others should do the same.

Why is this notorious neo-con signatory of the Project for a New American Century being published in Newsweek? This is one of the "geniuses" who predicted all good things would follow the invasion of Iraq! Is anti-arab racism the new program of Newsweek Magazine?

Now this so-called religious scholar is preaching never-ending war against an enemy that no one can define! Jihad is defensive war against foreign occupiers of muslim soil... there are no "jihadis," because every muslim is bound to protect the ummah wherever it is attacked. Weigel is really preaching eternal war against Islam, and his hate-mongering has no place in a publication that pretends to subscribe to rational standards of journalism.

Few have mentioned 'Blowback' as the suffering of the Iraqi's is a direct result of the Imperialist policies of the U.S. The general thinking by the top brass is that Iraqi's are too poor, too ignorant and too far away to pose any threat to Americans at home. However there are lots of rich and sympathetic neighbours who can easily fund 'blowback'. Forget about all of those ridiculous scenarios about stolen nuclear weapons (and stolen ballistic missiles to carry them too I presume?) because any determined terrorist could easily take out tens of thousands of Americans using conventional means such as fertilizer and diesel fuel (Re:Timothy McVeigh).

When or if that happens, I can guarantee that the MSM and the White House (regardless of whether its Obama, Hillary or McCain) will quickly ignore the reasons except for that ole standard of 'they hate our freedom' and use that disaster to further milk taxpayers (except the rich of course!) to fund even more military hardware in the name of the war on terror.

Ideally, if you're corporate America, you would like at least one big bang every couple of years to keep up the false impression among Americans that there are just zillions of fanatical Muslims who are hell bent on destroying America for no other reason except that they are jealous of us.

It's a very difficult cycle to stop.

Number one: I can't believe its one million. There must be something wrong with the method. Another estimate is less than 100,000?

Number two: US forces did not kill all of those people. Its not a genocide. It's a mistake made by our leadership, thinking they could colonize Iraq and snatch the oil on the cheap.

Number three: Mistake or not, the Bush Administration is responsible for what happened, and the US should be making reparations to Iraq until every Iraqi citizen has a home, food on the table... We should offer to develop the oil fields and port facilities for free, or at least at cost, with no strings attached. (While we rebuild hospitals, electric power... also at our cost.) Its time to start paying back a little of what the neocons took away. Its time to put down the guns and pick up the shovels and hammers.

Maybe Bush and Company should be tried for war crimes in absentia, but don't hold your breath.

In the face of global warming and Peak Oil, the Iraqis should be encouraged to husband their oil and sell only what they need to seed their economy. Of course, Cheney would pump it dry in 10 - 15 years.

Iraq has million-woman social time-bomb - Reuters

Is this Christianity's real WMD?

President Bush said Thursday he will not jeopardize security gains in Iraq by withdrawing U.S. forces - How does killing children make us secure?

It seems impeachment is not possible, in spite of a list of crimes against the Constitution and against our democracy and human rights and those of other countries, because of the lack of enough votes in the Senate.

Question: Can our esteemed Bush, Cheney and friends be referred to the Hague for war crimes trials while they are still in office?

Their assured conviction and imprisonment would work better than impeachment.

"1 million Iraqis killed for 3000 Americans killed one September day."

IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11

It is genocide. That is exactly what the neo-cons who control the world's wealth want to happen. The planet is over populated with humans and the powers what are realize, the only effective means to correct that situation, is to kill off billions of humans. That only makes sense. Iraq is just one piece of the puzzle, besides there is oil there. There is much more genocide to come.

Don't think for a moment, that the Asian bird flu pandemic for just one example, is not one of the better andeasier methods. The only ones who will have an effective vaccine when that epidemic hits, are the military forces, medical personnel and the rich elite. Of course enough farmers and other servants to run the power plants etc required to serve the elite will be inoculated.

Bidalo and greener than thou__ Do you realize what would have happened to Hillary if she had stuck her neck out with a very few others and voted against getting involved in the war? Several others have stated they did not think they were giving permission at that time to go to war. Remember, the Bush cabal did not ever tell anything straight as 935 lies attest to.

If she had voted against whatever it was and I am not sure anyone even knew exactly what they were voting on, she would have been pilloried as a soft on terrorism traiter woman. I expect many CD posters would have done the very same thing at that time under those conditions.

I am not convinced that Hillary is a cruel warmonger with no thought for others. She could surprise some of you if she got elected, regardless of the previous fiasco which caught most everyone in Congress not knowing what to do. By the same token, Obama could surprise some also once it was all his deal to figure out and he needed something besides warm thoughts.

Tough week if you're an Iraqi with access to the News. It's like, "Hold up - this handful of loons told 935 lies in order to kill a million of my brothers and sisters for... what again? That's like a thousand dead per lie and stuff! Holy mackerel you God-blessed Americans are starting to piss us off... gotta stop reading the news, man..."

How long before we're forgiven, you know? How long would it take you?

A million and counting! Oh what a lovely war.

wikipedia: Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, or gender racial, religious or national group.

The official definition of genocide probably should be expanded to include the Iraq sanctions mass manslaughter. It's a crime of both intent and neglect. Much of the intent was to pressure the Iraqi people to revolt againts Saddam. Other intentions were to oppress any/all people at every available opportunity. The only reason genocide does not currently encompass the wider definition is that the "dear leaders" who negotiated the definition at the UN demonstrate such terrible weakness as "dear leaders" consistently do.

Part of the problem with Americans voting "least worst" corporate candidates for public office is they end up with these criminals like Hillary who are destroying the rule of law, and the rule of international law, thus preventing us from strengthening the laws and law enforcement. When you go to polls and vote "least worst" in November, you're enabling the mass manslaughter of the future "courtesy of the Red White and Blue".

Can't be a problem.

It's only 1/6th of a holocaust.

Greenerthanthou: I hope you realize this is not new. The US has been a killer nation for over 200 years. Our country was built on theft, murder and slavery. Our country is corrupt to the core. Unlike Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, the axis of evil, the US is a plutocracy. Live with that.

Iraq was an authoritarian socialist government supported by the people.
Iran is a theocracy at odds with its people.
North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship at odds with the people.

But none are a plutocracy, and if they are corrupt, it isn't quite as obvious as the US.

1 million Iraqis killed for 3000 Americans killed one September day.

Is that enough revenge? Has moral equivalence been reached? Will Americans continue to support this so-called war?

The US oil firms have offered 5 million to each Iraqi member of Parliament to vote for the oil law. The US is trying to buy the Iraqi parliament into selling out its people. They think since they bought the American congress they can buy the Iraqi parliament. I think, but I am not sure, that they are about to discover that not everybody is as easily bought as an American politician.

Somebody has to keep these well-documented studies coming. The punch-pullers were at it
just yesterday, saying that thousands or
hundreds of thousands were dead.

A MILLION (AND MORE!). TELL IT LIKE IT IS
JUST ONCE, PUSILLANIMOUS AMERICAN JOURNALISTS!!!

We cannot allow the politicians to continue the killing. Democrats and Republicans alike need to be held accountable by being kicked out of office. Activists will be telling the Democratic Candidates for president how they feel tonight...
Anti-War Protest at Presidential Debate in Los Angeles Tonight!
http://peacecandidates.com/discuss/271/anti-war_protest_at_presidenti

Ironic part is that Saddam was tried for killing far fewer.

One more time:

UNITED STATES GUILTY OF GENOCIDE IN IRAQ

It doesn't do much good to write it on a progressive blog, but it's better than silence.

Who speeks for the murdered Iraqi civilians??? Who can bring charges of war crimes to the Hague??? Who will remember George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Connie Rice Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle, and the rest of these NeoCons who ordered this illegal war??? Are the U.S. Generals, who have, and still are in command, also liable for war crimes trials???

Who will bring these War Criminals into the Dock and make them pay for their crimes against the human race???

This story didn't make the front page of the New York Times today(http://www.nytimes.com/pages/index.html?partner=rssnyt), and all the corporate media continue to ignore it. It may not do much good, but there's a little satisfaction in writing the appropriate headline wherever we can write it:

UNITED STATES COMMITS GENOCIDE IN IRAQ

Only a million? Wait another two or three years. it wll be more like genocide.

http://www.uraniumweaponsconference.de/background.htm

I followed 2 of the above links. The Holocaust Memorial Day one was chilling. I feel very ashamed to be an american. I used to work with someone who participated in the Basra road turkey shoot. He was not ashamed. He said that they killed all those retreating soldiers because they were "stealing" equipment. The americans didn't want them to have tanks, trucks or even cars.

The sympathy for the devil one was also chilling. What was with the ann coulter ad? Was this a link proud of the death and destruction that the US military is raining down upon the Iraqi people now?

Those soldiers were so young, so clearly having a good time rolling through Iraq with their really cool weapons. Support the troops? Those adobe houses causally destroyed. Has anyone tried to build with adobe? I have. It's slow, hard work. To take something that someone made with such care and blow it up for fun is so sick, I can't believe it.
The garden that someone clearly cared for, bombed. These kids don't have a clue what it means to cherish a place.

And how did the soldiers know to focus the camera on a place about to be destroyed by a bomb? Is this the airstrikes we're told are so wonderful, so advanced, that we must celebrate American know-how? All america knows how to do now is destroy and kill.

I am sickened by the callousness and cruelty that the US ruling class and its storm troopers represent.

More than one in ten Iraqi citizens are buried between the Bushes. I wonder what Faux News would say if 40 or 50 million American citizens had been slaughtered by an illegal invading force. It's not just Afghanistan and Iraq that have been destroyed by Corporate Cruelty and Avrice. We have destroyed our own future.

"The widely watched Web site Iraq Body Count currently estimates that between 80,699 and 88,126 people have died in the conflict, although its methodology and figures have also been questioned by U.S. authorities and others."

From reading this, one would never gather that the criticism of IBC is tht it fugures are too low.

Also, why did Reuters cite the 2003 Lancet report rahter than the later, 2006 report that estimated about 650,000 dead as of 2006.

thank you, tommybones, for answering kemel's belief that Hillary would show concern for Iraq children.

That must be why Madeline Albright, of the "we think it's worth it" fame, is advising the Clinton campaign.

And this does not address the 7 million displaced - both inside and outside Iraq.

The refugee situation needs addressing or the 1 million will increase sharply in this worse than normal winter in the MidEast.

This is the all too predictable result of letting viscious morons run your country. Bush is psychotic and doesn't feel any guilt for what he has done. I don't know what excuse we can use for congress and the rest of the administration. It's been years since they could use the excuse they were fooled.
The first Iraq war was bogus and a slaughter. The embargo and bombing under Clintion is unexcusable. W Bush is a continuation of the genocide that has been going on in Iraq since 1992.
Then the kicker, they did the 9/11 event to enable the whole mess.
Have a good day!

welshTerrier2: Thanks for the link. I've looked for something like this for a while. It takes someone like Halliday, a person with integrity and a belief that the standards of humanitarian law apply to everyone, to say something like this.

Thanks, GW! And what 4,000 plus young Americans killed and 20,000 wounded or maimed for OIL!

And then GW, Cheney, et al wonder why the world hates America. Where is the justice? 1,000,000+ INNOCENT PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The current issue of Newsweek magazine has a major opinion editorial "The War Against Jihadism" calling for more of the policy and mentality that led to the occupation and bloodbath in Iraq. The author is George Weigel, "Distinguished Senior Fellow of Washington's Ethics and Policy Center". They neglect to mention that he is also one of the founding members of the infamous Project for a New American Century. I believe PNAC shut their doors and slunk out of town. But while they may be gone the people and ideas behind it are still very much alive and being promoted by the corporate media. Today. Please let Newsweek know what you think of George, his ethics, and his mainstream promoters.

JaneM and killyt - here's some info on genocide in Iraq (most of this occurred with Bill Clinton in the White House)

source: http://www.cnn.com/COMMUNITY/transcripts/2001/01/16/halliday/

Former U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq Denis Halliday opposes U.N.'s sanctions (Halliday was the head of the UN Oil for Food program in Baghdad)

CNN Moderator: In the program, you state that, "We cannot have the United Nations, the guardian of well-being, sustaining a regime of embargo or sanctions against a people that impacts only on the people, not on the government." You go so far as to call the sanctions genocide. However, can we have the United Nations rewarding a nation with financial aid after what many consider genocidal action against the Kurds and others?

Denis Halliday: That's a good question. But I think one needs to correct the impression of aid or assistance to Iraq because there is no assistance to Iraq. The government of Iraq finances everything Iraq receives under the oil-for-food program.

Secondly, we have a United Nations today that is governed by a Charter. Articles 1 and 2 of that Charter require that the sovereignty of member states be respected and that the United Nations work towards the well being of the people of the world. However, with the embargo in Iraq, we have a United Nations whose decisions in the Security Council have led to the deaths of possibly more than NOE MILLION PEOPLE in ten years. Now that is a tragedy. And that begins to meet some of the definitions of the United Nations Convention on GENOCIDE.

JaneM asks: "When does it become genocide?"
Great question. I wonder when we'll see the UN coordinate with regional organizations to monitor and record the atrocities committed under US occupation. Whoops, I forgot! That can only happen in the Darfur because only black and brown people commit genocide; white people stop it by wearing t-shirts and getting George Clooney to make documentaries. (Sarcasm)

Every military method used in the US brutal occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq and Africa came from the israeli (IDF) play book, including using children as human shields. Add to that the number of duel Isreali-US citizens in the US administration and one can appreciate the full impact of why the entire global community resents the US and Israel.

Truly the devil is on the loose in the holy land. The end of this video shows what the country has been reduced to. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ef8_1201763684
The 1 million dead leave behind so many more millions filled with grief. Their anger and frustration grows with every day and every death. We are simply breeding hate now. There is nothing to win in Iraq. All that is left is a land filled with burned out buildings and ghosts. I doubt that any of them have a favorable opinion of America.

maybe the Iraqi Resistance should ask China for 500,000 well-trained, heavily armed volunteers to help Iraq drive the invaders.

It appears the U.S. is as racist as Israel when it comes to Arabs/Muslims. Apparently, to the imperialist warmongers, they have less value than dogs. (I've seen the way people in the U.S. pamper their dogs). Whatta country!!
:(

There must come a time when for the defense of those that can not defend themselves that when an empire imposes their will and tyranny indiscriminately, that empire must be removed by any means necesary.

"What is there to win and when will we have "won" it? OIL is the only thing that comes to mind."

Certainly, it's oil. From what I understand, more specifically, is getting the Iraqi parliament to sign a certain 'oil law' that will grant priviledged exploitation access to US oil companies, as well as other western companies. But the political opposition in Iraq to such a law is growing.

Tragically, we are not even killing as a way to pressure the Iraqi parliament. Our killing is just the result of our being there, and the high political costs of US deaths results in the use of tactics that spare the lives of US soldiers, relatively speaking, at the cost of more indiscriminate killings among Iraqis. An example is the increased use of air power, which is much less precise in targetting enemies than going door to door.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7920

The "Surge" is working.

The U.S. already lost. It's just a matter of going through the motions until it becomes painfully obvious.

Both McCain and Clinton should be repeatedly asked what it means to "win" in Iraq because there is no difference between them on this issue. The continual pass that the MSM gives them on this is rediculous. What is there to win and when will we have "won" it? OIL is the only thing that comes to mind.

Maybe Madeleine Albright will again say that it is worth it as she did when asked if a half million Iraqis dying from the 1990's sanction was worth it.

When does it become genocide?

We need to throw out the entire US Congress, sign onto the ICC and then send every one of them to the Hague!

Vacant Seats: 5 House Dems, 28 Republicans will not run for re-election
http://peacecandidates.com/blog/nadia/01/31/vacant_seats_5_house_dems_28_r

That U.S. scum always attacks the women and children because that weakens the targeted society. You can analyze any war that the U.S. has been involved in and you will find the same modus operandi. Everyone seems to credit the Nazis as being the worst regime in history, but if you investigate the events which define the U.S.'s domestic and foreign policies you will find that the Nazis were the Keystone Kops of evil when compared to the sustained policies of the U.S.A.

Kernel:

"...and she might even be concerned about the slaughter in Iraq". As concerned as someone who voted for it, I suppose.

Let's not forget:

"A reaction might take place as a result of the US government's hitting Muslim civilians and executing more than 600,000 Muslim children in Iraq by preventing food and medicine from reaching them. So, the US is responsible for any reaction, because it extended its war against troops to civilians." Osama Bin Laden on CNN, 1997

On May 11, 1996 Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State in the Clinton administration was asked by 60 Minutes correspondent Leslie Stahl about the reported 500,000+ Iraqi children who died in Iraq as a direct result of U.S. imposed sanctions. Her reply stunned many, "I think this is a very hard choice, but we think the price was worth it."

The history of the sanctions (rarely, if ever discussed in mainstream media) begins with the strategic bombings of critical infrastructure within Iraq during the 1st Gulf War. The U.S. dropped over 90,000 tons of bombs, intentionally destroying civilian infrastructure, including 18 of 20 electricity-generating plants and the water-pumping and sanitation systems. The bombings themselves were a direct violation of the Geneva Convention against the specific targeting of infrastructure "indispensable to the survival of the civilian population," thus making them a war crime.

Recently released de-classified documents from the Defense Intelligence Agency revealed that the U.S. knew full well that Iraqi water needed purification with chlorine in order to avoid "epidemics of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis and typhoid." Later documents revealed that the U.S.-imposed sanctions SPECIFICALLY embargoed the import of chlorine needed to purify the water systems. Additionally, the U.S. sanctions forbade the import of the parts needed to repair the damaged purification and sanitation systems.

The results of these actions are well documented. Colonel John A. Warner III wrote in Airpower Journal, "…as a result (of the destruction of these facilities), epidemics of gastroenteritis, cholera, and typhoid broke out, leading to perhaps 100,000 civilian deaths and doubling the infant mortality rate." Anupama Rao Singh, the United Nations Children's Fund Representative in Baghdad observed that food shortages were virtually unknown in Iraq prior to what the State department admitted were the "toughest, most comprehensive sanctions in history." Richard Garfield's universally accepted mortality studies put the number of Iraq children killed because of the sanctions at 350,000. The Lancet study, for the British Medical Society, estimated it at 550,000. Denis Halliday, the U.N. coordinator in Iraq called the sanctions, "a deliberate policy to destroy the people of Iraq," calling their implementation "genocide." His resignation in 1998 in protest received little if any coverage by the U.S. corporate media.

Some help we are to the Iraqi people...

It must be alright as they are just Muslim terrorists and have no value. Born-again Bush communes daily with his father (in heaven) and finds out what is proper behaviour for our country. This administration is pro-life and that makes it all ok, as long as we prohibit all abortions everywhere for any reason. We are not too worried about children here after they are born as it is too expensive and we need the money for the occupation. That is why we do not want to support Hillary as she would push for proper health care for children, and she might even be concerned about the slaughter in Iraq.

Everyone who reads these posts should select 10 friends / acquaintances who are ill-informed but progressive by nature and share website addresses such as Common Dreams. The only chance we have to save our country is to educate the masses - we can't do it by sitting in front of our computers and making each other feel good by sharing our thoughts with those who are already in our camp.

The US has killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did. Killing over one million people is not spreading democracy, or improving the quality of anyone's life!
It is just, plain, killing over a million people. Period.

The damage we have done to Iraq and the Iraqi people makes us not just war criminals but monsters.

We need war crimes trials applying the Nuremberg laws.