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?

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.

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.

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.

Just part of the PLAN:

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

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.

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."

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.

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.

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

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...

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!

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!!!

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.

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.

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!!!

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.

" 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

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!

" 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.

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

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!

" 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.

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.

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.

" 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].

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

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?

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

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!!!!

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).

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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

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.