Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
XingWi

Half million Iraqis died in war, occupation

63 posts in this topic

Nearly half a million Iraqis have died as a result of the war in their country, according to the findings of a new study. An estimated 461,000 Iraqis died between March 2003 and June 2011 as a direct or indirect result of the conflict, a new study published in journal PLOS Medicine has shown.

Source: http://www.huffingto..._n_4101631.html

Almost half a million deaths in Iraq between 2003 and 2011 were caused by war and occupation, according to new research. The figure is around four times bigger than most previous estimates.

Source: http://rt.com/news/r...s-died-war-247/

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've just described WAR. Iraq was a mistake, yes, but a crime? I reject that. I also reject that most of those casualties were directly caused by US fire - one need only look at the daily body count TODAY to see that these folks don't work and play well with one another. America is at fault for destabilizing a country that had no real concept of freedom and was under internal pressures that seem only to be controlled by a dictator who is ruthless. See Syria, Yemen, Libya, Jordan etc. These populations have known no other way of life for generations and when the strong hand is removed the internal bloodlusts and strife start.

These pieces are just anti American rhetoric, plain and simple. I do not even bother to dispute the numbers. The attitude contained here is that America is responsible for every death under ANY circumstance since long before the first shots were fired and I call B.S. on that - have a nice day man.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America is at fault for destabilizing a secular state and turning it into a Shiite Islamic state. As always, the blowback proves the policy is insane. I have no interest in taking food out of my childrens' mouths to subsidize some Islamic state in the Middle East that my tax dollars paid for. Any war of aggression is a crime. Iraq didn't attack us, we had no right to attack them. Iraq wasn't an imminent threat, our politicians who lied us into war should be in jail for war crimes. Of course it's a crime. The democrats proved immediately in the first few months of 2009 they were all manners of limpotent when Obama said he wasn't going to pursue any legal investigations of the Bush administration and they all said "Derp!" in response. I never saw an anti-war movement shrivel up faster than that, like a scrotum in ice water.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America is at fault for destabilizing a secular state and turning it into a Shiite Islamic state. As always, the blowback proves the policy is insane. I have no interest in taking food out of my childrens' mouths to subsidize some Islamic state in the Middle East that my tax dollars paid for. Any war of aggression is a crime. Iraq didn't attack us, we had no right to attack them. Iraq wasn't an imminent threat, our politicians who lied us into war should be in jail for war crimes. Of course it's a crime. The democrats proved immediately in the first few months of 2009 they were all manners of limpotent when Obama said he wasn't going to pursue any legal investigations of the Bush administration and they all said "Derp!" in response. I never saw an anti-war movement shrivel up faster than that, like a scrotum in ice water.

Yeah... by all accounts it was a GRAND place to live before 2003. Our pols do a lot that they should answer for and maybe someday they will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A powerful and timely investigation into the media's role in war, tracing the history of embedded and independent reporting from the carnage of World War One to the destruction of Hiroshima, and from the invasion of Vietnam to the current war in Afghanistan and disaster in Iraq.

As weapons and propaganda become even more sophisticated, the nature of war is developing into an electronic battlefield in which journalists play a key role, and civilians are the victims. But who is the real enemy?

John Pilger says in the film: "We journalists... have to be brave enough to defy those who seek our collusion in selling their latest bloody adventure in someone else's country... That means always challenging the official story, however patriotic that story may appear, however seductive and insidious it is.

For propaganda relies on us in the media to aim its deceptions not at a far away country but at you at home... In this age of endless imperial war, the lives of countless men, women and children depend on the truth or their blood is on us... Those whose job it is to keep the record straight ought to be the voice of people, not power."

Link: http://topdocumentar...r-you-dont-see/

This is a good documentary, that tells the truth about the Iraq War.....

anonymous-war-quotes.jpg

Edited by Kowalski
6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America is at fault for destabilizing a secular state and turning it into a Shiite Islamic state. As always, the blowback proves the policy is insane. I have no interest in taking food out of my childrens' mouths to subsidize some Islamic state in the Middle East that my tax dollars paid for. Any war of aggression is a crime. Iraq didn't attack us, we had no right to attack them. Iraq wasn't an imminent threat, our politicians who lied us into war should be in jail for war crimes. Of course it's a crime. The democrats proved immediately in the first few months of 2009 they were all manners of limpotent when Obama said he wasn't going to pursue any legal investigations of the Bush administration and they all said "Derp!" in response. I never saw an anti-war movement shrivel up faster than that, like a scrotum in ice water.

LOL....What makes me ill, is the fact Rachel Maddow, was so vocal about Bush and the Iraq War, but when Obama tried to do the same thing in Syria, that was okay, though..... :no:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've just described WAR. Iraq was a mistake, yes, but a crime? I reject that. I also reject that most of those casualties were directly caused by US fire - one need only look at the daily body count TODAY to see that these folks don't work and play well with one another. America is at fault for destabilizing a country that had no real concept of freedom and was under internal pressures that seem only to be controlled by a dictator who is ruthless. See Syria, Yemen, Libya, Jordan etc. These populations have known no other way of life for generations and when the strong hand is removed the internal bloodlusts and strife start.

These pieces are just anti American rhetoric, plain and simple. I do not even bother to dispute the numbers. The attitude contained here is that America is responsible for every death under ANY circumstance since long before the first shots were fired and I call B.S. on that - have a nice day man.

LOL, the concept is quite simple. It's called cause and effect.

No proof, no intervention. No intervention, no invasion. No invasion, no deaths.

Whether or not these populations were living like bloodthirsty troglodytes, once we (the US and it's western allies) stepped in we became responsible and guilty for their deaths. The Bush Administration were the direct culprits and have on their hands the blood of every single death (close to a million people IMO) caused by the invasion from day 1. Western ally leaders are guilty by association and have on their hands the blood of every single death caused by the invasion from day 1. The UN turned a blind eye on flimsy evidence, are guilty by association and have on their hands the blood of every single death caused by the invasion from day 1.

Western populations are guilty for allowing their elected leaders to conduct themselves like war criminals.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how many Iraqis was good old Saddam killing year in and year out in that lil bit o' paradise on the Tigris he built?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how many Iraqis was good old Saddam killing year in and year out in that lil bit o' paradise on the Tigris he built?

So we go in to save the day and kill ten times the amount. Duh, that makes sense...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've just described WAR. Iraq was a mistake, yes, but a crime? I reject that. I also reject that most of those casualties were directly caused by US fire - one need only look at the daily body count TODAY to see that these folks don't work and play well with one another. America is at fault for destabilizing a country that had no real concept of freedom and was under internal pressures that seem only to be controlled by a dictator who is ruthless. See Syria, Yemen, Libya, Jordan etc. These populations have known no other way of life for generations and when the strong hand is removed the internal bloodlusts and strife start.

These pieces are just anti American rhetoric, plain and simple. I do not even bother to dispute the numbers. The attitude contained here is that America is responsible for every death under ANY circumstance since long before the first shots were fired and I call B.S. on that - have a nice day man.

I'm always baffled by your apathy toward human suffering. How can anyone be so cold to turn their backs on myriad human-rights violations and war crimes that were commited by the US during the invasion and occupation of Iraq?!

The number of deaths taken into account are only those that were either directly caused by violence or indirectly caused by war related events. It was an independant research carried out by a team that constitutes American and Canadian researchers.

Attacking and murdering unarmed civilians, bombing them with depleted uranium and white phosphorus is not a war crime?! Attacking and mass murdering the civilians is not war, its genocide. Radiation affected regions are still plagued by rising number of cancer cases and congenital deformities in the newborns:

Fallujah more radioactive than Hiroshima

A recent study on weapons used by the United States in a brutal battle campaign in Fallujah during the invasion of Iraq has revealed dangerous levels of radiation. The after effects from the campaign have already started to surface due to many birth defects and disfigurements:

[media=]

[/media]

More:

Iraq War Anniversary: Birth Defects And Cancer Rates At Devastating High In Basra And Fallujah

Cancer rate in Fallujah worse than Hiroshima

...

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is misleading. American soldiers did not shoot half a million Iraqis. The death toll includes the actions of insurgent and Iraqi forces, and deaths caused by the disruption to society that war inevitably brings.

There was no genocide committed by US or allied forces. If genocide was the aim of the mission the death toll would be a lot higher. Certain soldiers did commit crimes, and were punished.

The US military has actually been dedicated to minimising civilian casualties in every war since WW2. I'm no supporter of the Iraq war, but I'm not going to slander the US military by parroting BS.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is misleading. American soldiers did not shoot half a million Iraqis. The death toll includes the actions of insurgent and Iraqi forces, and deaths caused by the disruption to society that war inevitably brings.

There was no genocide committed by US or allied forces. If genocide was the aim of the mission the death toll would be a lot higher. Certain soldiers did commit crimes, and were punished.

The US military has actually been dedicated to minimising civilian casualties in every war since WW2. I'm no supporter of the Iraq war, but I'm not going to slander the US military by parroting BS.

Did you even read the links in the OP or are you just parroting what andthen said above? Nobody said American soldiers shot every one of them, the death toll includes the casualties as a result of direct violence as well as other causes related to war, its already mentioned very clearly in the news articles I gave links to. The question is why there was a war in the first place? If the US is not resposible then who is?

It's mindless sheep like you that are parroting the western media's propagandas. Yeah, "minimising civilian casualties" surely does include bombing them with incendiary white phosphorus and depleted uranium.... hilarious!

Edited by XingWi
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why people refuse to attribute value to the lives of other human-beings just because they belong to a different nationality/race/religion, and when somebody voices their discontent to that they are accused of "slandering".

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we go in to save the day and kill ten times the amount. Duh, that makes sense...

Clearly (in hindsight) it was a mistake. My problem with those who spew hatred toward the motivations of my government is that they have as their greatest example of "propriety", the support of nothing but the status quo ante. IOW it's okay if a dictator ruthlessly enslaves a population for decades because if we attempt to change that calculus and fail then we are seen as MUCH worse than the original evil. It's ridiculous on it's face to a person of traditional morals - and NO I'm not calling everyone who disagreed with the war immoral. I'm saying that some things are worth fighting for even when you lose. It gets old when the motives of western civilization are found to be more worthy of your condemnation than the evil of a Saddam or an Assad. I pray I'm never at the mercy of your grace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm always baffled by your apathy toward human suffering. How can anyone be so cold to turn their backs on myriad human-rights violations and war crimes that were commited by the US during the invasion and occupation of Iraq?!

The number of deaths taken into account are only those that were either directly caused by violence or indirectly caused by war related events. It was an independant research carried out by a team that constitutes American and Canadian researchers.

Attacking and murdering unarmed civilians, bombing them with depleted uranium and white phosphorus is not a war crime?! Attacking and mass murdering the civilians is not war, its genocide. Radiation affected regions are still plagued by rising number of cancer cases and congenital deformities in the newborns:

Fallujah more radioactive than Hiroshima

A recent study on weapons used by the United States in a brutal battle campaign in Fallujah during the invasion of Iraq has revealed dangerous levels of radiation. The after effects from the campaign have already started to surface due to many birth defects and disfigurements:

[media=]

[/media]

More:

Iraq War Anniversary: Birth Defects And Cancer Rates At Devastating High In Basra And Fallujah

Cancer rate in Fallujah worse than Hiroshima

...

DU is NOT a carcinogen due to "radiation". http://www.thefreedictionary.com/depleted

It's called "depleted" because it IS depleted - no longer radioactive. There were no nukes used on 9-11 yet the same kinds of illnesses are rife in the rescuers - care to guess why? When the material that was part of old buildings in cities is vaporized, burned, crushed and generally dispersed into the air to be breathed then those contaminants will cause great harm. The silliness about DU is laughable. It's as bad as lead, yes, but no worse. I suspect that if I used DEBKAFILES as a source you'd ignore it out of hand - and you'd mostly be justified - same for using RT...it's an anti western rag sheet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why people refuse to attribute value to the lives of other human-beings just because they belong to a different nationality/race/religion, and when somebody voices their discontent to that they are accused of "slandering".

Perhaps it's because even when someone admits the war was a mistake, that isn't enough for the detractors. They want a pound of flesh. There is no country in the history of this sorry world we live in that has done more to repair the harms our fighting forces have caused. To deny this is patently anti American rhetoric. The world view that is being expressed is quite simple: America and to a lesser extent the west is responsible for all the problems faced by the planet. Worthy of shame and punishment. It's like a kindergartner who gets angry because the world isn't "fair".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DU is NOT a carcinogen due to "radiation". http://www.thefreedi...ry.com/depleted

It's called "depleted" because it IS depleted - no longer radioactive. There were no nukes used on 9-11 yet the same kinds of illnesses are rife in the rescuers - care to guess why? When the material that was part of old buildings in cities is vaporized, burned, crushed and generally dispersed into the air to be breathed then those contaminants will cause great harm. The silliness about DU is laughable. It's as bad as lead, yes, but no worse.

Wow andthen! Blown away by your research! You have concluded that depleted uranium is not radioactive just by refering the word "depleted" in a.... DICTIONARY?!

Depleted Uranium is RADIOACTIVE. It has 60% radioactivity compared to natural uranium. The arguments about it's alleged safety generally focuses on handling issues like those that have to deploy it, BUT to those that are targeted, it is clearly dangerous and long term exposures especially when inhaled, eaten or drunk undeniably poses radiation hazards.

4. Does depleted uranium pose a radiation hazard?

All isotopes of uranium are radioactive. Both uranium and depleted uranium, and their immediate decay products, emit alpha and beta particles and a small amount of gamma radiation.

Depletion of U-235 during processing leaves DU appreciably less radioactive than naturally occurring isotopic mixtures. It typically contains 30-40 per cent of the concentration of U-235 found in natural uranium, or about 0.2 to 0.3 per cent by weight. This means that the radioactivity of newly produced DU is only about 60 per cent of natural uranium.

DU munitions collected in Kosovo also contained trace amounts of other radioactive elements, but they increase the overall radioactivity by less than one per cent.

All natural uranium isotopes emit alpha particles – positively charged ions identical to the nucleus of a helium atom, with two protons and two neutrons. Their beta and gamma activity is low. Alpha particles are relatively large, and do not penetrate far in tissue – they are stopped by the skin, for example. This means uranium only poses a radiation hazard if it is breathed in, eaten or drunk, or enters part of the body exposed by injury.

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/depleted-uranium/en/l-2/4.htm#0

I suspect that if I used DEBKAFILES as a source you'd ignore it out of hand - and you'd mostly be justified - same for using RT...it's an anti western rag sheet.

I didn't just quote from RT alone, I also gave a link to huffingtonpost. And here it is from another source, theguardian:

How the World Health Organisation covered up Iraq's nuclear nightmare

Do you claim that the news published in theguardian are anti-American propaganda too?

This one is also worth reading:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/us-depleted-uranium-as-ma_b_3812888.html

Clearly (in hindsight) it was a mistake.

Perhaps it's because even when someone admits the war was a mistake, that isn't enough for the detractors.

And what does "admitting the mistake" mean? Repeating it again going through the same cycle of war-mongering against yet another Mideast nation (i.e. Iran)?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps it's because even when someone admits the war was a mistake, that isn't enough for the detractors. They want a pound of flesh. There is no country in the history of this sorry world we live in that has done more to repair the harms our fighting forces have caused. To deny this is patently anti American rhetoric. The world view that is being expressed is quite simple: America and to a lesser extent the west is responsible for all the problems faced by the planet. Worthy of shame and punishment. It's like a kindergartner who gets angry because the world isn't "fair".

I have to ask, If Osama Bin Ladin said, " Oops, 9-11 was a mistake, sorry about that!" then by your logic we should just let him go unpunished because the world is not fair?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what sort of Middle east might exist today If Foreign powers had not been diddling with it and redrawing borders all this time? Redrawing borders is an Olllllllld and effective trick to erase any stability painstakingly established by those borders. Causing internal strife is the easiest way to take advantage of a country.

* Re-Building efforts are in the main, MONEY MAKERS. For some.. at the expense of the rest of us.

http://www.npr.org/t...storyId=3860950

Edited by lightly
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to ask, If Osama Bin Ladin said, " Oops, 9-11 was a mistake, sorry about that!" then by your logic we should just let him go unpunished because the world is not fair?

What, exactly, did he or the Taliban do to correct the wrong they did? This is my point Gromdor and it's being intentionally, as usual, overlooked. I have been CLEAR that I think the Iraq war was a mistake in hindsight. BILLIONS were sent there to try and help the country with rebuilding. No other nation does this but it is not enough is it? NOTHING EVER will be enough because it's not really the attempt to fix a wrong that is at issue here is it? It's just condemnation of the great evil in the world. You guys are going to wake up someday with a "new" sheriff in town and boy are you gonna be p***ed :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What, exactly, did he or the Taliban do to correct the wrong they did? This is my point Gromdor and it's being intentionally, as usual, overlooked. I have been CLEAR that I think the Iraq war was a mistake in hindsight. BILLIONS were sent there to try and help the country with rebuilding. No other nation does this but it is not enough is it? NOTHING EVER will be enough because it's not really the attempt to fix a wrong that is at issue here is it? It's just condemnation of the great evil in the world. You guys are going to wake up someday with a "new" sheriff in town and boy are you gonna be p***ed :)

So if China invaded the U.S. based on falsified information, it would be OK if they spent billions on rebuilding damage they caused based on this lie?Or if they killed half a million innocent people, it would be OK if they were trying to reduce this number?Quite frankly, the U.S. government has committed crimes by illegally invading Iraq and have destabilized Iraq so much so that radical muslims are causing havoc daily.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if China invaded the U.S. based on falsified information, it would be OK if they spent billions on rebuilding damage they caused based on this lie?Or if they killed half a million innocent people, it would be OK if they were trying to reduce this number?Quite frankly, the U.S. government has committed crimes by illegally invading Iraq and have destabilized Iraq so much so that radical muslims are causing havoc daily.

Tell you what Buzz.... how's by you if the next time we just nuke someone that attacks us and be done with it? I mean, if America IS evil then we'd save a LOT of time, money and talk by just invading, taking and leaving and telling the world to shove it, right? That's where the logic of this BS argument falls apart - and the idea that we in the US CAUSED radical muslims to continue fighting in Iraq is so wrong I don't feel like even explaining. They didn't fight prior to the war because Saddam kept their bloodier aspirations in check with his own "special" kind of benevolence.

eta - I KNOW...Iraq did not attack us -hint: it's why I've said it was a MISTAKE to attack their country.

Edited by and then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US invaded Iraq as a direct response to 9/11, not to engage in democracy building, not because of a stockpile of WMD's, not because of an Iraqi uranium enrichment program; those became the excuses after the fact. The neocon group Project for the New American Century proposed a Middle East invasion as early as the 1990's The 9/11 attacks provided an excuse to put this plan into play. Here's part of a letter the group wrote to President Clinton in January 1998, taken from their website: The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

I read all the news at the time. There was no clear evidence the Iraq was involved with 9/11, according to the CIA. Then Colin Powell pretty much ruined his reputation by letting the Bush administration persuade him to make that UN speech that included fabricated proof to justify our invasion. We have some shameful history, as US citizens we let ourselves be lied to and deceived, and persuaded into supporting a war that was never justifiable. Thousands of Iraqi citizens died, and thousands of US contractors made millions of dollars from this enterprise. And tell me who the winner is?

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush The Stupider is criminally insane. You could tell he was taking anti-psychotics, if you knew what to look for.

In answer to many posts, I tell my Congressmen/women that if we are to go to war, it should be with the Saudis, if any country, a country who instigated and funded 9-11.

Edited by regeneratia
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.