4 million Muslims killed by U.S.A since 1990?

[Rambunctious]

Trump already has signed a law looking for Poland to pay Jews money for property lost to the Nazis, and Soviets.

Zionists often despise Poles, I wouldn't really doubt they'd invade Poland just to make sure it is culturally exterminated by Refugees, and has to pay Israel cash.

Dude that's crazy...no one goes to war because they have to repay what they stole....Poland loves us and they actually really love Trump too...we are not going to war with Poland.....come on....

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

No matter the total, it's far too much.

Why do so many Zionists call for genocide?

I'm tired of this country calling for more death, and despair (Genocide)

Now here go the Zionists calling for Sanctions on Iran, the same kind of sanctions that killed millions in Iraq.

Unworthy victims: Western wars have killed four million Muslims since 1990


Unworthy victims: Western wars have killed four million Muslims since 1990
#HumanRights


Landmark research proves that the US-led ‘war on terror’ has killed as many as 2 million people, but this is a fraction of Western responsibility for deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last two decades

Nafeez Ahmed
Wednesday 8 April 2015 15:12 UTC
Monday 18 April 2016 7:50 UTC
reddit googleplus 65.2K
Topics:
HumanRights
Tags:
war, USA, Humanitarian Crisis, IDP's, Refugees
Show comments
Last month, the Washington DC-based Physicians for Social Responsibility (PRS) released a landmark study concluding that the death toll from 10 years of the “War on Terror” since the 9/11 attacks is at least 1.3 million, and could be as high as 2 million.

The 97-page report by the Nobel Peace Prize-winning doctors’ group is the first to tally up the total number of civilian casualties from US-led counter-terrorism interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The PSR report is authored by an interdisciplinary team of leading public health experts, including Dr. Robert Gould, director of health professional outreach and education at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center, and Professor Tim Takaro of the Faculty of Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University.

Yet it has been almost completely blacked out by the English-language media, despite being the first effort by a world-leading public health organisation to produce a scientifically robust calculation of the number of people killed by the US-UK-led “war on terror”.

Mind the gaps
The PSR report is described by Dr Hans von Sponeck, former UN assistant secretary-general, as “a significant contribution to narrowing the gap between reliable estimates of victims of war, especially civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and tendentious, manipulated or even fraudulent accounts”.

The report conducts a critical review of previous death toll estimates of “war on terror” casualties. It is heavily critical of the figure most widely cited by mainstream media as authoritative, namely, the Iraq Body Count (IBC) estimate of 110,000 dead. That figure is derived from collating media reports of civilian killings, but the PSR report identifies serious gaps and methodological problems in this approach.

For instance, although 40,000 corpses had been buried in Najaf since the launch of the war, IBC recorded only 1,354 deaths in Najaf for the same period. That example shows how wide the gap is between IBC’s Najaf figure and the actual death toll – in this case, by a factor of over 30.

Such gaps are replete throughout IBC’s database. In another instance, IBC recorded just three airstrikes in a period in 2005, when the number of air attacks had in fact increased from 25 to 120 that year. Again, the gap here is by a factor of 40.

According to the PSR study, the much-disputed Lancet study that estimated 655,000 Iraq deaths up to 2006 (and over a million until today by extrapolation) was likely to be far more accurate than IBC’s figures. In fact, the report confirms a virtual consensus among epidemiologists on the reliability of the Lancet study.

Despite some legitimate criticisms, the statistical methodology it applied is the universally recognised standard to determine deaths from conflict zones, used by international agencies and governments.

Politicised denial
PSR also reviewed the methodology and design of other studies showing a lower death toll, such as a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine, which had a range of serious limitations.

That paper ignored the areas subject to the heaviest violence, namely Baghdad, Anbar and Nineveh, relying on flawed IBC data to extrapolate for those regions. It also imposed “politically-motivated restrictions” on collection and analysis of the data - interviews were conducted by the Iraqi Ministry of Health, which was “totally dependent on the occupying power” and had refused to release data on Iraqi registered deaths under US pressure.

In particular, PSR assessed the claims of Michael Spaget, John Sloboda and others who questioned the Lancet study data collection methods as potentially fraudulent. All such claims, PSR found, were spurious.

The few “justified criticisms,” PSR concludes, “do not call into question the results of the Lancet studies as a whole. These figures still represent the best estimates that are currently available”. The Lancet findings are also corroborated by the data from a new study in PLOS Medicine, finding 500,000 Iraqi deaths from the war. Overall, PSR concludes that the most likely number for the civilian death toll in Iraq since 2003 to date is about 1 million.

To this, the PSR study adds at least 220,000 in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan, killed as the direct or indirect consequence of US-led war: a “conservative” total of 1.3 million. The real figure could easily be “in excess of 2 million”.

Yet even the PSR study suffers from limitations. Firstly, the post-9/11 “war on terror” was not new, but merely extended previous interventionist policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Secondly, the huge paucity of data on Afghanistan meant the PSR study probably underestimated the Afghan death toll.

Iraq
The war on Iraq did not begin in 2003, but in 1991 with the first Gulf War, which was followed by the UN sanctions regime.

An early PSR study by Beth Daponte, then a US government Census Bureau demographer, found that Iraq deaths caused by the direct and indirect impact of the first Gulf War amounted to around 200,000 Iraqis, mostly civilians. Meanwhile, her internal government study was suppressed.

After US-led forces pulled out, the war on Iraq continued in economic form through the US-UK imposed UN sanctions regime, on the pretext of denying Saddam Hussein the materials necessary to make weapons of mass destruction. Items banned from Iraq under this rationale included a vast number of items needed for everyday life.

Undisputed UN figures show that 1.7 million Iraqi civilians died due to the West’s brutal sanctions regime, half of whom were children.

The mass death was seemingly intended. Among items banned by the UN sanctions were chemicals and equipment essential for Iraq’s national water treatment system. A secret US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) document discovered by Professor Thomas Nagy of the School of Business at George Washington University amounted, he said, to “an early blueprint for genocide against the people of Iraq”.

In his paper for the Association of Genocide Scholars at the University of Manitoba, Professor Nagi explained that the DIA document revealed “minute details of a fully workable method to ‘fully degrade the water treatment system’ of an entire nation” over a period of a decade. The sanctions policy would create “the conditions for widespread disease, including full scale epidemics,” thus “liquidating a significant portion of the population of Iraq”.

This means that in Iraq alone, the US-led war from 1991 to 2003 killed 1.9 million Iraqis; then from 2003 onwards around 1 million: totalling just under 3 million Iraqis dead over two decades.

Afghanistan
In Afghanistan, PSR’s estimate of overall casualties could also be very conservative. Six months after the 2001 bombing campaign, The Guardian’s Jonathan Steele revealed that anywhere between 1,300 and 8,000 Afghans were killed directly, and as many as a further 50,000 people died avoidably as an indirect result of the war.

In his book, Body Count: Global Avoidable Mortality Since 1950 (2007), Professor Gideon Polya applied the same methodology used by The Guardian to UN Population Division annual mortality data to calculate plausible figures for excess deaths. A retired biochemist at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Polya concludes that total avoidable Afghan deaths since 2001 under ongoing war and occupation-imposed deprivation amount to around 3 million people, about 900,000 of whom are infants under five.

Although Professor Polya’s findings are not published in an academic journal, his 2007 Body Count study has been recommended by California State University sociologist Professor Jacqueline Carrigan as “a data-rich profile of the global mortality situation” in a reviewpublished by the Routledge journal, Socialism and Democracy.

As with Iraq, US intervention in Afghanistan began long before 9/11 in the form of covert military, logistical and financial aid to the Taliban from around 1992 onwards. This US assistance propelled the Taliban’s violent conquest of nearly 90 percent of Afghan territory.

In a 2001 National Academy of Sciences report, Forced Migration and Mortality, leading epidemiologist Steven Hansch, a director of Relief International, noted that total excess mortality in Afghanistan due to the indirect impacts of war through the 1990s could be anywhere between 200,000 and 2 million. The Soviet Union, of course, also bore responsibility for its role in devastating civilian infrastructure, thus paving the way for these deaths.

Altogether, this suggests that the total Afghan death toll due to the direct and indirect impacts of US-led intervention since the early nineties until now could be as high 3-5 million.

Denial
According to the figures explored here, total deaths from Western interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan since the 1990s - from direct killings and the longer-term impact of war-imposed deprivation - likely constitute around 4 million (2 million in Iraq from 1991-2003, plus 2 million from the “war on terror”), and could be as high as 6-8 million people when accounting for higher avoidable death estimates in Afghanistan.

So work with me here..... we're two people talking.

Would you have Saddam Hussein still slaughtering his own people?

I think what's most scary, is how many Nations is the U.S.A going to kill in?

The U.S.A is actually the most menacing regime, today, causing genocide, spending 48% of the World's military budget, and with military bases, or standing military's all over the Globe.

This nightmare is not what Jefferson envisioned, who even at one point did call for no standing army, despite eventually going to war with Islamic Barbary Pirates.

None the less, this U.S.A has been desecrated, the U.S.A Founding Fathers were pro-White, not-Capitalists, and were more, or less Isolationists.

This is everything the U.S.A is not.

I'm terrified, I'm awaiting when Poland gets attacked by U.S.A, and it's lapdog the U.K, when will they justify Poland as too Authoritarian, for trying to fix it's courts, or for it's anti-Defamation laws, or will they invade Poland when they don't pay Jews money for properties lost to Nazis, and Commies?

Enough is enough, but Republican Zionist Neocons call for more blood, more war, more military.

Well give me an example, where you think the US should not have been involved.

Pretty much everywhere the U.S.A has been since WW2.

I suppose you would have preferred living behind the Berlin Wall...............Living the life of the USSR..........

Of course you are probably typing in a cave in the middle east though.

The only war I support since WW2 is Brzezinski - Carter's war against Soviets in Afghanistan.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

No matter the total, it's far too much.

Why do so many Zionists call for genocide?

I'm tired of this country calling for more death, and despair (Genocide)

Now here go the Zionists calling for Sanctions on Iran, the same kind of sanctions that killed millions in Iraq.

Unworthy victims: Western wars have killed four million Muslims since 1990


Unworthy victims: Western wars have killed four million Muslims since 1990
#HumanRights


Landmark research proves that the US-led ‘war on terror’ has killed as many as 2 million people, but this is a fraction of Western responsibility for deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last two decades

Nafeez Ahmed
Wednesday 8 April 2015 15:12 UTC
Monday 18 April 2016 7:50 UTC
reddit googleplus 65.2K
Topics:
HumanRights
Tags:
war, USA, Humanitarian Crisis, IDP's, Refugees
Show comments
Last month, the Washington DC-based Physicians for Social Responsibility (PRS) released a landmark study concluding that the death toll from 10 years of the “War on Terror” since the 9/11 attacks is at least 1.3 million, and could be as high as 2 million.

The 97-page report by the Nobel Peace Prize-winning doctors’ group is the first to tally up the total number of civilian casualties from US-led counter-terrorism interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The PSR report is authored by an interdisciplinary team of leading public health experts, including Dr. Robert Gould, director of health professional outreach and education at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center, and Professor Tim Takaro of the Faculty of Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University.

Yet it has been almost completely blacked out by the English-language media, despite being the first effort by a world-leading public health organisation to produce a scientifically robust calculation of the number of people killed by the US-UK-led “war on terror”.

Mind the gaps
The PSR report is described by Dr Hans von Sponeck, former UN assistant secretary-general, as “a significant contribution to narrowing the gap between reliable estimates of victims of war, especially civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and tendentious, manipulated or even fraudulent accounts”.

The report conducts a critical review of previous death toll estimates of “war on terror” casualties. It is heavily critical of the figure most widely cited by mainstream media as authoritative, namely, the Iraq Body Count (IBC) estimate of 110,000 dead. That figure is derived from collating media reports of civilian killings, but the PSR report identifies serious gaps and methodological problems in this approach.

For instance, although 40,000 corpses had been buried in Najaf since the launch of the war, IBC recorded only 1,354 deaths in Najaf for the same period. That example shows how wide the gap is between IBC’s Najaf figure and the actual death toll – in this case, by a factor of over 30.

Such gaps are replete throughout IBC’s database. In another instance, IBC recorded just three airstrikes in a period in 2005, when the number of air attacks had in fact increased from 25 to 120 that year. Again, the gap here is by a factor of 40.

According to the PSR study, the much-disputed Lancet study that estimated 655,000 Iraq deaths up to 2006 (and over a million until today by extrapolation) was likely to be far more accurate than IBC’s figures. In fact, the report confirms a virtual consensus among epidemiologists on the reliability of the Lancet study.

Despite some legitimate criticisms, the statistical methodology it applied is the universally recognised standard to determine deaths from conflict zones, used by international agencies and governments.

Politicised denial
PSR also reviewed the methodology and design of other studies showing a lower death toll, such as a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine, which had a range of serious limitations.

That paper ignored the areas subject to the heaviest violence, namely Baghdad, Anbar and Nineveh, relying on flawed IBC data to extrapolate for those regions. It also imposed “politically-motivated restrictions” on collection and analysis of the data - interviews were conducted by the Iraqi Ministry of Health, which was “totally dependent on the occupying power” and had refused to release data on Iraqi registered deaths under US pressure.

In particular, PSR assessed the claims of Michael Spaget, John Sloboda and others who questioned the Lancet study data collection methods as potentially fraudulent. All such claims, PSR found, were spurious.

The few “justified criticisms,” PSR concludes, “do not call into question the results of the Lancet studies as a whole. These figures still represent the best estimates that are currently available”. The Lancet findings are also corroborated by the data from a new study in PLOS Medicine, finding 500,000 Iraqi deaths from the war. Overall, PSR concludes that the most likely number for the civilian death toll in Iraq since 2003 to date is about 1 million.

To this, the PSR study adds at least 220,000 in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan, killed as the direct or indirect consequence of US-led war: a “conservative” total of 1.3 million. The real figure could easily be “in excess of 2 million”.

Yet even the PSR study suffers from limitations. Firstly, the post-9/11 “war on terror” was not new, but merely extended previous interventionist policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Secondly, the huge paucity of data on Afghanistan meant the PSR study probably underestimated the Afghan death toll.

Iraq
The war on Iraq did not begin in 2003, but in 1991 with the first Gulf War, which was followed by the UN sanctions regime.

An early PSR study by Beth Daponte, then a US government Census Bureau demographer, found that Iraq deaths caused by the direct and indirect impact of the first Gulf War amounted to around 200,000 Iraqis, mostly civilians. Meanwhile, her internal government study was suppressed.

After US-led forces pulled out, the war on Iraq continued in economic form through the US-UK imposed UN sanctions regime, on the pretext of denying Saddam Hussein the materials necessary to make weapons of mass destruction. Items banned from Iraq under this rationale included a vast number of items needed for everyday life.

Undisputed UN figures show that 1.7 million Iraqi civilians died due to the West’s brutal sanctions regime, half of whom were children.

The mass death was seemingly intended. Among items banned by the UN sanctions were chemicals and equipment essential for Iraq’s national water treatment system. A secret US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) document discovered by Professor Thomas Nagy of the School of Business at George Washington University amounted, he said, to “an early blueprint for genocide against the people of Iraq”.

In his paper for the Association of Genocide Scholars at the University of Manitoba, Professor Nagi explained that the DIA document revealed “minute details of a fully workable method to ‘fully degrade the water treatment system’ of an entire nation” over a period of a decade. The sanctions policy would create “the conditions for widespread disease, including full scale epidemics,” thus “liquidating a significant portion of the population of Iraq”.

This means that in Iraq alone, the US-led war from 1991 to 2003 killed 1.9 million Iraqis; then from 2003 onwards around 1 million: totalling just under 3 million Iraqis dead over two decades.

Afghanistan
In Afghanistan, PSR’s estimate of overall casualties could also be very conservative. Six months after the 2001 bombing campaign, The Guardian’s Jonathan Steele revealed that anywhere between 1,300 and 8,000 Afghans were killed directly, and as many as a further 50,000 people died avoidably as an indirect result of the war.

In his book, Body Count: Global Avoidable Mortality Since 1950 (2007), Professor Gideon Polya applied the same methodology used by The Guardian to UN Population Division annual mortality data to calculate plausible figures for excess deaths. A retired biochemist at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Polya concludes that total avoidable Afghan deaths since 2001 under ongoing war and occupation-imposed deprivation amount to around 3 million people, about 900,000 of whom are infants under five.

Although Professor Polya’s findings are not published in an academic journal, his 2007 Body Count study has been recommended by California State University sociologist Professor Jacqueline Carrigan as “a data-rich profile of the global mortality situation” in a reviewpublished by the Routledge journal, Socialism and Democracy.

As with Iraq, US intervention in Afghanistan began long before 9/11 in the form of covert military, logistical and financial aid to the Taliban from around 1992 onwards. This US assistance propelled the Taliban’s violent conquest of nearly 90 percent of Afghan territory.

In a 2001 National Academy of Sciences report, Forced Migration and Mortality, leading epidemiologist Steven Hansch, a director of Relief International, noted that total excess mortality in Afghanistan due to the indirect impacts of war through the 1990s could be anywhere between 200,000 and 2 million. The Soviet Union, of course, also bore responsibility for its role in devastating civilian infrastructure, thus paving the way for these deaths.

Altogether, this suggests that the total Afghan death toll due to the direct and indirect impacts of US-led intervention since the early nineties until now could be as high 3-5 million.

Denial
According to the figures explored here, total deaths from Western interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan since the 1990s - from direct killings and the longer-term impact of war-imposed deprivation - likely constitute around 4 million (2 million in Iraq from 1991-2003, plus 2 million from the “war on terror”), and could be as high as 6-8 million people when accounting for higher avoidable death estimates in Afghanistan.

So work with me here..... we're two people talking.

Would you have Saddam Hussein still slaughtering his own people?

I think what's most scary, is how many Nations is the U.S.A going to kill in?

The U.S.A is actually the most menacing regime, today, causing genocide, spending 48% of the World's military budget, and with military bases, or standing military's all over the Globe.

This nightmare is not what Jefferson envisioned, who even at one point did call for no standing army, despite eventually going to war with Islamic Barbary Pirates.

None the less, this U.S.A has been desecrated, the U.S.A Founding Fathers were pro-White, not-Capitalists, and were more, or less Isolationists.

This is everything the U.S.A is not.

I'm terrified, I'm awaiting when Poland gets attacked by U.S.A, and it's lapdog the U.K, when will they justify Poland as too Authoritarian, for trying to fix it's courts, or for it's anti-Defamation laws, or will they invade Poland when they don't pay Jews money for properties lost to Nazis, and Commies?

Enough is enough, but Republican Zionist Neocons call for more blood, more war, more military.

Well give me an example, where you think the US should not have been involved.

Pretty much everywhere the U.S.A has been since WW2.

So when the Muammar Gaddafi was slaughtering his people.... You would have had us stand by and let it happen?

You have no problem with this?

Because see, the issue is, every single time things like this happen, people scream that the US should have helped them.

Then when we help them, we have people like you screaming that we killed Muslims.

So which is it? Do we just flat out do nothing to help these people, and let them all get slaughtered?

I assume that you fully support the chemical attacks on civilians by the Assad regime, right? Because that's what happens when the US does nothing. You are perfectly good with Muslims killing each other, as long as it isn't the US doing it.... right?

Libya's nothing compared to what the U.S.A has done.
How can you even bring up such a goofy response?

Israel has killed far more than Libya did under Gadaffi, when are we going to attack Israel?

The U.S.A has caused much worse genocides by going after Dictators who killed much fewer.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Let me know when they get into the billions...you know,when they actually start putting a dent in em.

So sad, you think racist opinions are wrong, but genocide is right.

Americans are clearly thoughtless bestial brutes on the whole..

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Let me know when they get into the billions...you know,when they actually start putting a dent in em.

So sad, you think racist opinions are wrong, but genocide is right.

Americans are clearly thoughtless bestial brutes on the whole..

Terrorist sympathizer......

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Let me know when they get into the billions...you know,when they actually start putting a dent in em.

So sad, you think racist opinions are wrong, but genocide is right.

Americans are clearly thoughtless bestial brutes on the whole..

Terrorist sympathizer......

Genocide is worse than Terrorism, and don't you actually support Terrorism when Israel does it?

Such a shameful display, I'm ashamed to be from such a terrible, violent, and retarded nation.

 

[Andylusion]

No matter the total, it's far too much.

Why do so many Zionists call for genocide?

I'm tired of this country calling for more death, and despair (Genocide)

Now here go the Zionists calling for Sanctions on Iran, the same kind of sanctions that killed millions in Iraq.

Unworthy victims: Western wars have killed four million Muslims since 1990


Unworthy victims: Western wars have killed four million Muslims since 1990
#HumanRights


Landmark research proves that the US-led ‘war on terror’ has killed as many as 2 million people, but this is a fraction of Western responsibility for deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last two decades

Nafeez Ahmed
Wednesday 8 April 2015 15:12 UTC
Monday 18 April 2016 7:50 UTC
reddit googleplus 65.2K
Topics:
HumanRights
Tags:
war, USA, Humanitarian Crisis, IDP's, Refugees
Show comments
Last month, the Washington DC-based Physicians for Social Responsibility (PRS) released a landmark study concluding that the death toll from 10 years of the “War on Terror” since the 9/11 attacks is at least 1.3 million, and could be as high as 2 million.

The 97-page report by the Nobel Peace Prize-winning doctors’ group is the first to tally up the total number of civilian casualties from US-led counter-terrorism interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The PSR report is authored by an interdisciplinary team of leading public health experts, including Dr. Robert Gould, director of health professional outreach and education at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center, and Professor Tim Takaro of the Faculty of Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University.

Yet it has been almost completely blacked out by the English-language media, despite being the first effort by a world-leading public health organisation to produce a scientifically robust calculation of the number of people killed by the US-UK-led “war on terror”.

Mind the gaps
The PSR report is described by Dr Hans von Sponeck, former UN assistant secretary-general, as “a significant contribution to narrowing the gap between reliable estimates of victims of war, especially civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and tendentious, manipulated or even fraudulent accounts”.

The report conducts a critical review of previous death toll estimates of “war on terror” casualties. It is heavily critical of the figure most widely cited by mainstream media as authoritative, namely, the Iraq Body Count (IBC) estimate of 110,000 dead. That figure is derived from collating media reports of civilian killings, but the PSR report identifies serious gaps and methodological problems in this approach.

For instance, although 40,000 corpses had been buried in Najaf since the launch of the war, IBC recorded only 1,354 deaths in Najaf for the same period. That example shows how wide the gap is between IBC’s Najaf figure and the actual death toll – in this case, by a factor of over 30.

Such gaps are replete throughout IBC’s database. In another instance, IBC recorded just three airstrikes in a period in 2005, when the number of air attacks had in fact increased from 25 to 120 that year. Again, the gap here is by a factor of 40.

According to the PSR study, the much-disputed Lancet study that estimated 655,000 Iraq deaths up to 2006 (and over a million until today by extrapolation) was likely to be far more accurate than IBC’s figures. In fact, the report confirms a virtual consensus among epidemiologists on the reliability of the Lancet study.

Despite some legitimate criticisms, the statistical methodology it applied is the universally recognised standard to determine deaths from conflict zones, used by international agencies and governments.

Politicised denial
PSR also reviewed the methodology and design of other studies showing a lower death toll, such as a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine, which had a range of serious limitations.

That paper ignored the areas subject to the heaviest violence, namely Baghdad, Anbar and Nineveh, relying on flawed IBC data to extrapolate for those regions. It also imposed “politically-motivated restrictions” on collection and analysis of the data - interviews were conducted by the Iraqi Ministry of Health, which was “totally dependent on the occupying power” and had refused to release data on Iraqi registered deaths under US pressure.

In particular, PSR assessed the claims of Michael Spaget, John Sloboda and others who questioned the Lancet study data collection methods as potentially fraudulent. All such claims, PSR found, were spurious.

The few “justified criticisms,” PSR concludes, “do not call into question the results of the Lancet studies as a whole. These figures still represent the best estimates that are currently available”. The Lancet findings are also corroborated by the data from a new study in PLOS Medicine, finding 500,000 Iraqi deaths from the war. Overall, PSR concludes that the most likely number for the civilian death toll in Iraq since 2003 to date is about 1 million.

To this, the PSR study adds at least 220,000 in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan, killed as the direct or indirect consequence of US-led war: a “conservative” total of 1.3 million. The real figure could easily be “in excess of 2 million”.

Yet even the PSR study suffers from limitations. Firstly, the post-9/11 “war on terror” was not new, but merely extended previous interventionist policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Secondly, the huge paucity of data on Afghanistan meant the PSR study probably underestimated the Afghan death toll.

Iraq
The war on Iraq did not begin in 2003, but in 1991 with the first Gulf War, which was followed by the UN sanctions regime.

An early PSR study by Beth Daponte, then a US government Census Bureau demographer, found that Iraq deaths caused by the direct and indirect impact of the first Gulf War amounted to around 200,000 Iraqis, mostly civilians. Meanwhile, her internal government study was suppressed.

After US-led forces pulled out, the war on Iraq continued in economic form through the US-UK imposed UN sanctions regime, on the pretext of denying Saddam Hussein the materials necessary to make weapons of mass destruction. Items banned from Iraq under this rationale included a vast number of items needed for everyday life.

Undisputed UN figures show that 1.7 million Iraqi civilians died due to the West’s brutal sanctions regime, half of whom were children.

The mass death was seemingly intended. Among items banned by the UN sanctions were chemicals and equipment essential for Iraq’s national water treatment system. A secret US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) document discovered by Professor Thomas Nagy of the School of Business at George Washington University amounted, he said, to “an early blueprint for genocide against the people of Iraq”.

In his paper for the Association of Genocide Scholars at the University of Manitoba, Professor Nagi explained that the DIA document revealed “minute details of a fully workable method to ‘fully degrade the water treatment system’ of an entire nation” over a period of a decade. The sanctions policy would create “the conditions for widespread disease, including full scale epidemics,” thus “liquidating a significant portion of the population of Iraq”.

This means that in Iraq alone, the US-led war from 1991 to 2003 killed 1.9 million Iraqis; then from 2003 onwards around 1 million: totalling just under 3 million Iraqis dead over two decades.

Afghanistan
In Afghanistan, PSR’s estimate of overall casualties could also be very conservative. Six months after the 2001 bombing campaign, The Guardian’s Jonathan Steele revealed that anywhere between 1,300 and 8,000 Afghans were killed directly, and as many as a further 50,000 people died avoidably as an indirect result of the war.

In his book, Body Count: Global Avoidable Mortality Since 1950 (2007), Professor Gideon Polya applied the same methodology used by The Guardian to UN Population Division annual mortality data to calculate plausible figures for excess deaths. A retired biochemist at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Polya concludes that total avoidable Afghan deaths since 2001 under ongoing war and occupation-imposed deprivation amount to around 3 million people, about 900,000 of whom are infants under five.

Although Professor Polya’s findings are not published in an academic journal, his 2007 Body Count study has been recommended by California State University sociologist Professor Jacqueline Carrigan as “a data-rich profile of the global mortality situation” in a reviewpublished by the Routledge journal, Socialism and Democracy.

As with Iraq, US intervention in Afghanistan began long before 9/11 in the form of covert military, logistical and financial aid to the Taliban from around 1992 onwards. This US assistance propelled the Taliban’s violent conquest of nearly 90 percent of Afghan territory.

In a 2001 National Academy of Sciences report, Forced Migration and Mortality, leading epidemiologist Steven Hansch, a director of Relief International, noted that total excess mortality in Afghanistan due to the indirect impacts of war through the 1990s could be anywhere between 200,000 and 2 million. The Soviet Union, of course, also bore responsibility for its role in devastating civilian infrastructure, thus paving the way for these deaths.

Altogether, this suggests that the total Afghan death toll due to the direct and indirect impacts of US-led intervention since the early nineties until now could be as high 3-5 million.

Denial
According to the figures explored here, total deaths from Western interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan since the 1990s - from direct killings and the longer-term impact of war-imposed deprivation - likely constitute around 4 million (2 million in Iraq from 1991-2003, plus 2 million from the “war on terror”), and could be as high as 6-8 million people when accounting for higher avoidable death estimates in Afghanistan.

So work with me here..... we're two people talking.

Would you have Saddam Hussein still slaughtering his own people?

I think what's most scary, is how many Nations is the U.S.A going to kill in?

The U.S.A is actually the most menacing regime, today, causing genocide, spending 48% of the World's military budget, and with military bases, or standing military's all over the Globe.

This nightmare is not what Jefferson envisioned, who even at one point did call for no standing army, despite eventually going to war with Islamic Barbary Pirates.

None the less, this U.S.A has been desecrated, the U.S.A Founding Fathers were pro-White, not-Capitalists, and were more, or less Isolationists.

This is everything the U.S.A is not.

I'm terrified, I'm awaiting when Poland gets attacked by U.S.A, and it's lapdog the U.K, when will they justify Poland as too Authoritarian, for trying to fix it's courts, or for it's anti-Defamation laws, or will they invade Poland when they don't pay Jews money for properties lost to Nazis, and Commies?

Enough is enough, but Republican Zionist Neocons call for more blood, more war, more military.

Well give me an example, where you think the US should not have been involved.

Pretty much everywhere the U.S.A has been since WW2.

I suppose you would have preferred living behind the Berlin Wall...............Living the life of the USSR..........

Of course you are probably typing in a cave in the middle east though.

So work with me here..... we're two people talking.

Would you have Saddam Hussein still slaughtering his own people?

I think what's most scary, is how many Nations is the U.S.A going to kill in?

The U.S.A is actually the most menacing regime, today, causing genocide, spending 48% of the World's military budget, and with military bases, or standing military's all over the Globe.

This nightmare is not what Jefferson envisioned, who even at one point did call for no standing army, despite eventually going to war with Islamic Barbary Pirates.

None the less, this U.S.A has been desecrated, the U.S.A Founding Fathers were pro-White, not-Capitalists, and were more, or less Isolationists.

This is everything the U.S.A is not.

I'm terrified, I'm awaiting when Poland gets attacked by U.S.A, and it's lapdog the U.K, when will they justify Poland as too Authoritarian, for trying to fix it's courts, or for it's anti-Defamation laws, or will they invade Poland when they don't pay Jews money for properties lost to Nazis, and Commies?

Enough is enough, but Republican Zionist Neocons call for more blood, more war, more military.

Well give me an example, where you think the US should not have been involved.

Pretty much everywhere the U.S.A has been since WW2.

So when the Muammar Gaddafi was slaughtering his people.... You would have had us stand by and let it happen?

You have no problem with this?

Because see, the issue is, every single time things like this happen, people scream that the US should have helped them.

Then when we help them, we have people like you screaming that we killed Muslims.

So which is it? Do we just flat out do nothing to help these people, and let them all get slaughtered?

I assume that you fully support the chemical attacks on civilians by the Assad regime, right? Because that's what happens when the US does nothing. You are perfectly good with Muslims killing each other, as long as it isn't the US doing it.... right?

Libya's nothing compared to what the U.S.A has done.
How can you even bring up such a goofy response?

Israel has killed far more than Libya did under Gadaffi, when are we going to attack Israel?

The U.S.A has caused much worse genocides by going after Dictators who killed much fewer.

Israel has only killed people, when people tried to kill them. Self defense is entirely 100% justified.

As for the rest..... again... give me an example. Tell me which time you think we should have stayed out.

You support Saddam slaughtering people with chemical weapons?
You support Assad slaughtering people?
You support Ghaddafi slaughtering people?

Which one would you say we should not do anything about?

Give me a specific answer. Because if you really are saying we should not be involved in anything, then I have to assume you love watching people being brutalized by cruel dictators.

And by the way, why are all these people asking us to be involved? What is it, that apparently they know, that you don't?

The irony in all this, is that part of me, even agrees with you.

To some extent, I think we should let the Muslims slaughter themselves, and say screw you, to those like YOU who claim we're the bad guys.

Maybe if enough Muslims kill each other non-stop, you'll stop being so ungrateful for our help.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

So work with me here..... we're two people talking.

Would you have Saddam Hussein still slaughtering his own people?

I think what's most scary, is how many Nations is the U.S.A going to kill in?

The U.S.A is actually the most menacing regime, today, causing genocide, spending 48% of the World's military budget, and with military bases, or standing military's all over the Globe.

This nightmare is not what Jefferson envisioned, who even at one point did call for no standing army, despite eventually going to war with Islamic Barbary Pirates.

None the less, this U.S.A has been desecrated, the U.S.A Founding Fathers were pro-White, not-Capitalists, and were more, or less Isolationists.

This is everything the U.S.A is not.

I'm terrified, I'm awaiting when Poland gets attacked by U.S.A, and it's lapdog the U.K, when will they justify Poland as too Authoritarian, for trying to fix it's courts, or for it's anti-Defamation laws, or will they invade Poland when they don't pay Jews money for properties lost to Nazis, and Commies?

Enough is enough, but Republican Zionist Neocons call for more blood, more war, more military.

Well give me an example, where you think the US should not have been involved.

Pretty much everywhere the U.S.A has been since WW2.

I suppose you would have preferred living behind the Berlin Wall...............Living the life of the USSR..........

Of course you are probably typing in a cave in the middle east though.

I think what's most scary, is how many Nations is the U.S.A going to kill in?

The U.S.A is actually the most menacing regime, today, causing genocide, spending 48% of the World's military budget, and with military bases, or standing military's all over the Globe.

This nightmare is not what Jefferson envisioned, who even at one point did call for no standing army, despite eventually going to war with Islamic Barbary Pirates.

None the less, this U.S.A has been desecrated, the U.S.A Founding Fathers were pro-White, not-Capitalists, and were more, or less Isolationists.

This is everything the U.S.A is not.

I'm terrified, I'm awaiting when Poland gets attacked by U.S.A, and it's lapdog the U.K, when will they justify Poland as too Authoritarian, for trying to fix it's courts, or for it's anti-Defamation laws, or will they invade Poland when they don't pay Jews money for properties lost to Nazis, and Commies?

Enough is enough, but Republican Zionist Neocons call for more blood, more war, more military.

Well give me an example, where you think the US should not have been involved.

Pretty much everywhere the U.S.A has been since WW2.

So when the Muammar Gaddafi was slaughtering his people.... You would have had us stand by and let it happen?

You have no problem with this?

Because see, the issue is, every single time things like this happen, people scream that the US should have helped them.

Then when we help them, we have people like you screaming that we killed Muslims.

So which is it? Do we just flat out do nothing to help these people, and let them all get slaughtered?

I assume that you fully support the chemical attacks on civilians by the Assad regime, right? Because that's what happens when the US does nothing. You are perfectly good with Muslims killing each other, as long as it isn't the US doing it.... right?

Libya's nothing compared to what the U.S.A has done.
How can you even bring up such a goofy response?

Israel has killed far more than Libya did under Gadaffi, when are we going to attack Israel?

The U.S.A has caused much worse genocides by going after Dictators who killed much fewer.

Israel has only killed people, when people tried to kill them. Self defense is entirely 100% justified.

As for the rest..... again... give me an example. Tell me which time you think we should have stayed out.

You support Saddam slaughtering people with chemical weapons?
You support Assad slaughtering people?
You support Ghaddafi slaughtering people?

Which one would you say we should not do anything about?

Give me a specific answer. Because if you really are saying we should not be involved in anything, then I have to assume you love watching people being brutalized by cruel dictators.

And by the way, why are all these people asking us to be involved? What is it, that apparently they know, that you don't?

Haha, except Israel is stealing the lands Palestinians were a majority on.

Israel can defend themselves, but Palestinians can not?

Personally I think the U.S.A is worse than all those dictators combined.

The death tolls confirm it.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Trump already has signed a law looking for Poland to pay Jews money for property lost to the Nazis, and Soviets.

Zionists often despise Poles, I wouldn't really doubt they'd invade Poland just to make sure it is culturally exterminated by Refugees, and has to pay Israel cash.

.Poland loves us and they actually really love Trump too...we are not going to war with Poland.....come on....

Most Polish people don't even know anything about the U.S.A, I live here, and know this nation is a threat to Humanity.

One thing Polish people don't like is Jews looking for money from Poland for properties lost to Nazis, and Commies.

Trump signed that law to give Jews Polish money.

What makes you think Polish people appreciate that?

 

[Andylusion]

I think what's most scary, is how many Nations is the U.S.A going to kill in?

The U.S.A is actually the most menacing regime, today, causing genocide, spending 48% of the World's military budget, and with military bases, or standing military's all over the Globe.

This nightmare is not what Jefferson envisioned, who even at one point did call for no standing army, despite eventually going to war with Islamic Barbary Pirates.

None the less, this U.S.A has been desecrated, the U.S.A Founding Fathers were pro-White, not-Capitalists, and were more, or less Isolationists.

This is everything the U.S.A is not.

I'm terrified, I'm awaiting when Poland gets attacked by U.S.A, and it's lapdog the U.K, when will they justify Poland as too Authoritarian, for trying to fix it's courts, or for it's anti-Defamation laws, or will they invade Poland when they don't pay Jews money for properties lost to Nazis, and Commies?

Enough is enough, but Republican Zionist Neocons call for more blood, more war, more military.

Well give me an example, where you think the US should not have been involved.

Pretty much everywhere the U.S.A has been since WW2.

I suppose you would have preferred living behind the Berlin Wall...............Living the life of the USSR..........

Of course you are probably typing in a cave in the middle east though.

Well give me an example, where you think the US should not have been involved.

Pretty much everywhere the U.S.A has been since WW2.

So when the Muammar Gaddafi was slaughtering his people.... You would have had us stand by and let it happen?

You have no problem with this?

Because see, the issue is, every single time things like this happen, people scream that the US should have helped them.

Then when we help them, we have people like you screaming that we killed Muslims.

So which is it? Do we just flat out do nothing to help these people, and let them all get slaughtered?

I assume that you fully support the chemical attacks on civilians by the Assad regime, right? Because that's what happens when the US does nothing. You are perfectly good with Muslims killing each other, as long as it isn't the US doing it.... right?

Libya's nothing compared to what the U.S.A has done.
How can you even bring up such a goofy response?

Israel has killed far more than Libya did under Gadaffi, when are we going to attack Israel?

The U.S.A has caused much worse genocides by going after Dictators who killed much fewer.

Israel has only killed people, when people tried to kill them. Self defense is entirely 100% justified.

As for the rest..... again... give me an example. Tell me which time you think we should have stayed out.

You support Saddam slaughtering people with chemical weapons?
You support Assad slaughtering people?
You support Ghaddafi slaughtering people?

Which one would you say we should not do anything about?

Give me a specific answer. Because if you really are saying we should not be involved in anything, then I have to assume you love watching people being brutalized by cruel dictators.

And by the way, why are all these people asking us to be involved? What is it, that apparently they know, that you don't?

Haha, except Israel is stealing the lands Palestinians were a majority on.

Israel can defend themselves, but Palestinians can not?

Personally I think the U.S.A is worse than all those dictators combined.

The death tolls confirm it.

Israel isn't going away. Period. The only way to "get that land back" is to remove Israel, and that isn't happening.

So you have two options.... you can attack Israel, and die... or you can move on, and live. Those are the only options.

Even the Saudis have now come out and said these idiots should have taken the peace deal when they had it.

That land, belongs to Israel, you can either accept that, or be ignored. Because I'm not going to argue with you over it anymore than this single post on the issue.

Go die if you want to. If you want to live, you need to accept Israel is not leaving.

Israel did not mass at the Boarder with Gaza, and start sending pipe bombs, and fire bombs to the other side.

It's not "self-defense" when you are attacking someone who hasn't attacked you.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

So work with me here..... we're two people talking.

Would you have Saddam Hussein still slaughtering his own people?

I think what's most scary, is how many Nations is the U.S.A going to kill in?

The U.S.A is actually the most menacing regime, today, causing genocide, spending 48% of the World's military budget, and with military bases, or standing military's all over the Globe.

This nightmare is not what Jefferson envisioned, who even at one point did call for no standing army, despite eventually going to war with Islamic Barbary Pirates.

None the less, this U.S.A has been desecrated, the U.S.A Founding Fathers were pro-White, not-Capitalists, and were more, or less Isolationists.

This is everything the U.S.A is not.

I'm terrified, I'm awaiting when Poland gets attacked by U.S.A, and it's lapdog the U.K, when will they justify Poland as too Authoritarian, for trying to fix it's courts, or for it's anti-Defamation laws, or will they invade Poland when they don't pay Jews money for properties lost to Nazis, and Commies?

Enough is enough, but Republican Zionist Neocons call for more blood, more war, more military.

Well give me an example, where you think the US should not have been involved.

Pretty much everywhere the U.S.A has been since WW2.

I suppose you would have preferred living behind the Berlin Wall...............Living the life of the USSR..........

Of course you are probably typing in a cave in the middle east though.

I think what's most scary, is how many Nations is the U.S.A going to kill in?

The U.S.A is actually the most menacing regime, today, causing genocide, spending 48% of the World's military budget, and with military bases, or standing military's all over the Globe.

This nightmare is not what Jefferson envisioned, who even at one point did call for no standing army, despite eventually going to war with Islamic Barbary Pirates.

None the less, this U.S.A has been desecrated, the U.S.A Founding Fathers were pro-White, not-Capitalists, and were more, or less Isolationists.

This is everything the U.S.A is not.

I'm terrified, I'm awaiting when Poland gets attacked by U.S.A, and it's lapdog the U.K, when will they justify Poland as too Authoritarian, for trying to fix it's courts, or for it's anti-Defamation laws, or will they invade Poland when they don't pay Jews money for properties lost to Nazis, and Commies?

Enough is enough, but Republican Zionist Neocons call for more blood, more war, more military.

Well give me an example, where you think the US should not have been involved.

Pretty much everywhere the U.S.A has been since WW2.

So when the Muammar Gaddafi was slaughtering his people.... You would have had us stand by and let it happen?

You have no problem with this?

Because see, the issue is, every single time things like this happen, people scream that the US should have helped them.

Then when we help them, we have people like you screaming that we killed Muslims.

So which is it? Do we just flat out do nothing to help these people, and let them all get slaughtered?

I assume that you fully support the chemical attacks on civilians by the Assad regime, right? Because that's what happens when the US does nothing. You are perfectly good with Muslims killing each other, as long as it isn't the US doing it.... right?

Libya's nothing compared to what the U.S.A has done.
How can you even bring up such a goofy response?

Israel has killed far more than Libya did under Gadaffi, when are we going to attack Israel?

The U.S.A has caused much worse genocides by going after Dictators who killed much fewer.

Israel has only killed people, when people tried to kill them. Self defense is entirely 100% justified.

As for the rest..... again... give me an example. Tell me which time you think we should have stayed out.

You support Saddam slaughtering people with chemical weapons?
You support Assad slaughtering people?
You support Ghaddafi slaughtering people?

Which one would you say we should not do anything about?

Give me a specific answer. Because if you really are saying we should not be involved in anything, then I have to assume you love watching people being brutalized by cruel dictators.

And by the way, why are all these people asking us to be involved? What is it, that apparently they know, that you don't?

The irony in all this, is that part of me, even agrees with you.

To some extent, I think we should let the Muslims slaughter themselves, and say screw you, to those like YOU who claim we're the bad guys.

Maybe if enough Muslims kill each other non-stop, you'll stop being so ungrateful for our help.

The Nazis made up the Gleiwitz Incident to invade Poland as a "Fake justification" for war.
(Sound familiar?)
How about the U.S.A made up "WMD's" to invade Iraq as a "Fake justification" for war.

The Nazis also used the same excuse in the Soviet Union, they were killing their own nation, and were a threat to the World.

As Nazis killed over 20 million in Russia, more than half of them Civilians.

The U.S.A seems to only follow the Nazis, in the most wrong way possible being "Genocide"

Not in good ways like preserving, or promoting Heritage, or going against Capitalists from being Liberal anti-Patriots, or in promoting greater Worker's rights.

I see nothing admirable in modern America, this country has become sadistic abroad, and masochistic at home. (Nothing I support)

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Well give me an example, where you think the US should not have been involved.

Pretty much everywhere the U.S.A has been since WW2.

I suppose you would have preferred living behind the Berlin Wall...............Living the life of the USSR..........

Of course you are probably typing in a cave in the middle east though.

Pretty much everywhere the U.S.A has been since WW2.

So when the Muammar Gaddafi was slaughtering his people.... You would have had us stand by and let it happen?

You have no problem with this?

Because see, the issue is, every single time things like this happen, people scream that the US should have helped them.

Then when we help them, we have people like you screaming that we killed Muslims.

So which is it? Do we just flat out do nothing to help these people, and let them all get slaughtered?

I assume that you fully support the chemical attacks on civilians by the Assad regime, right? Because that's what happens when the US does nothing. You are perfectly good with Muslims killing each other, as long as it isn't the US doing it.... right?

Libya's nothing compared to what the U.S.A has done.
How can you even bring up such a goofy response?

Israel has killed far more than Libya did under Gadaffi, when are we going to attack Israel?

The U.S.A has caused much worse genocides by going after Dictators who killed much fewer.

Israel has only killed people, when people tried to kill them. Self defense is entirely 100% justified.

As for the rest..... again... give me an example. Tell me which time you think we should have stayed out.

You support Saddam slaughtering people with chemical weapons?
You support Assad slaughtering people?
You support Ghaddafi slaughtering people?

Which one would you say we should not do anything about?

Give me a specific answer. Because if you really are saying we should not be involved in anything, then I have to assume you love watching people being brutalized by cruel dictators.

And by the way, why are all these people asking us to be involved? What is it, that apparently they know, that you don't?

Haha, except Israel is stealing the lands Palestinians were a majority on.

Israel can defend themselves, but Palestinians can not?

Personally I think the U.S.A is worse than all those dictators combined.

The death tolls confirm it.

Israel isn't going away. Period. The only way to "get that land back" is to remove Israel, and that isn't happening.

So you have two options.... you can attack Israel, and die... or you can move on, and live. Those are the only options.

Even the Saudis have now come out and said these idiots should have taken the peace deal when they had it.

That land, belongs to Israel, you can either accept that, or be ignored. Because I'm not going to argue with you over it anymore than this single post on the issue.

Go die if you want to. If you want to live, you need to accept Israel is not leaving.

Israel did not mass at the Boarder with Gaza, and start sending pipe bombs, and fire bombs to the other side.

It's not "self-defense" when you are attacking someone who hasn't attacked you.

The Israelis continue to kill, (Massacre) even, and oppress (Blockade in) even the Palestinians.

That's a problem, Israel would be treated far differently if it were not Jewish.

Oh please, Israel declaring a nation upon Palestine was a clear act of war.
Palestinians attempted resistance.

Pretty normal, unlike Americans who so often don't know right from wrong.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Let me know when they get into the billions...you know,when they actually start putting a dent in em.

So sad, you think racist opinions are wrong, but genocide is right.

Americans are clearly thoughtless bestial brutes on the whole..

Terrorist sympathizer......

Genocide is worse than Terrorism, and don't you actually support Terrorism when Israel does it?

Such a shameful display, I'm ashamed to be from such a terrible, violent, and retarded nation.

Fuck muslims.
They can either start turning in the radicals or they can get fuked.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Let me know when they get into the billions...you know,when they actually start putting a dent in em.

So sad, you think racist opinions are wrong, but genocide is right.

Americans are clearly thoughtless bestial brutes on the whole..

Terrorist sympathizer......

Genocide is worse than Terrorism, and don't you actually support Terrorism when Israel does it?

Such a shameful display, I'm ashamed to be from such a terrible, violent, and retarded nation.

Fuck muslims.
They can either start turning in the radicals or they can get fuked.

Many on this forum are radical Americans, who like Jihadist's call for blood, war, genocide, and yes even sometimes an apocalypse for the Zionists.

 

[Andylusion]

I think what's most scary, is how many Nations is the U.S.A going to kill in?

The U.S.A is actually the most menacing regime, today, causing genocide, spending 48% of the World's military budget, and with military bases, or standing military's all over the Globe.

This nightmare is not what Jefferson envisioned, who even at one point did call for no standing army, despite eventually going to war with Islamic Barbary Pirates.

None the less, this U.S.A has been desecrated, the U.S.A Founding Fathers were pro-White, not-Capitalists, and were more, or less Isolationists.

This is everything the U.S.A is not.

I'm terrified, I'm awaiting when Poland gets attacked by U.S.A, and it's lapdog the U.K, when will they justify Poland as too Authoritarian, for trying to fix it's courts, or for it's anti-Defamation laws, or will they invade Poland when they don't pay Jews money for properties lost to Nazis, and Commies?

Enough is enough, but Republican Zionist Neocons call for more blood, more war, more military.

Well give me an example, where you think the US should not have been involved.

Pretty much everywhere the U.S.A has been since WW2.

I suppose you would have preferred living behind the Berlin Wall...............Living the life of the USSR..........

Of course you are probably typing in a cave in the middle east though.

Well give me an example, where you think the US should not have been involved.

Pretty much everywhere the U.S.A has been since WW2.

So when the Muammar Gaddafi was slaughtering his people.... You would have had us stand by and let it happen?

You have no problem with this?

Because see, the issue is, every single time things like this happen, people scream that the US should have helped them.

Then when we help them, we have people like you screaming that we killed Muslims.

So which is it? Do we just flat out do nothing to help these people, and let them all get slaughtered?

I assume that you fully support the chemical attacks on civilians by the Assad regime, right? Because that's what happens when the US does nothing. You are perfectly good with Muslims killing each other, as long as it isn't the US doing it.... right?

Libya's nothing compared to what the U.S.A has done.
How can you even bring up such a goofy response?

Israel has killed far more than Libya did under Gadaffi, when are we going to attack Israel?

The U.S.A has caused much worse genocides by going after Dictators who killed much fewer.

Israel has only killed people, when people tried to kill them. Self defense is entirely 100% justified.

As for the rest..... again... give me an example. Tell me which time you think we should have stayed out.

You support Saddam slaughtering people with chemical weapons?
You support Assad slaughtering people?
You support Ghaddafi slaughtering people?

Which one would you say we should not do anything about?

Give me a specific answer. Because if you really are saying we should not be involved in anything, then I have to assume you love watching people being brutalized by cruel dictators.

And by the way, why are all these people asking us to be involved? What is it, that apparently they know, that you don't?

The irony in all this, is that part of me, even agrees with you.

To some extent, I think we should let the Muslims slaughter themselves, and say screw you, to those like YOU who claim we're the bad guys.

Maybe if enough Muslims kill each other non-stop, you'll stop being so ungrateful for our help.

The Nazis made up the Gleiwitz Incident to invade Poland as a "Fake justification" for war.
(Sound familiar?)
How about the U.S.A made up "WMD's" to invade Iraq as a "Fake justification" for war.

The Nazis also used the same excuse in the Soviet Union, they were killing their own nation, and were a threat to the World.

As Nazis killed over 20 million in Russia, more than half of them Civilians.

The U.S.A seems to only follow the Nazis, in the most wrong way possible being "Genocide"

Not in good ways like preserving, or promoting Heritage, or going against Capitalists from being Liberal anti-Patriots, or in promoting greater Worker's rights.

I see nothing admirable in modern America, this country has become sadistic abroad, and masochistic at home. (Nothing I support)

No, it doesn't sound familiar at all.

The intelligence information that was the basis for the invasion of Iraq, was investigated by the Rockefeller committee. They discovered, that unsurprisingly, all the justifications for the war, were in fact backed by the intelligence at the time, and supported by intelligence agencies around the world.

The fact is, it was not made up.

Additionally, the WMDs did exist, and were found in usable condition. Which isn't a surprise, because maybe you are ignorant of history, but Saddam used WMDs in the past. The idea that he didn't have WMDs, when he in fact used WMDs is ridiculous.

Again, you are saying that you fully supported Saddam slaughtering his people? You are perfectly fine with that? You are ok with mass murder, provided it isn't the US doing it apparently?

 

[irosie91]

Well give me an example, where you think the US should not have been involved.

Pretty much everywhere the U.S.A has been since WW2.

I suppose you would have preferred living behind the Berlin Wall...............Living the life of the USSR..........

Of course you are probably typing in a cave in the middle east though.

Pretty much everywhere the U.S.A has been since WW2.

So when the Muammar Gaddafi was slaughtering his people.... You would have had us stand by and let it happen?

You have no problem with this?

Because see, the issue is, every single time things like this happen, people scream that the US should have helped them.

Then when we help them, we have people like you screaming that we killed Muslims.

So which is it? Do we just flat out do nothing to help these people, and let them all get slaughtered?

I assume that you fully support the chemical attacks on civilians by the Assad regime, right? Because that's what happens when the US does nothing. You are perfectly good with Muslims killing each other, as long as it isn't the US doing it.... right?

Libya's nothing compared to what the U.S.A has done.
How can you even bring up such a goofy response?

Israel has killed far more than Libya did under Gadaffi, when are we going to attack Israel?

The U.S.A has caused much worse genocides by going after Dictators who killed much fewer.

Israel has only killed people, when people tried to kill them. Self defense is entirely 100% justified.

As for the rest..... again... give me an example. Tell me which time you think we should have stayed out.

You support Saddam slaughtering people with chemical weapons?
You support Assad slaughtering people?
You support Ghaddafi slaughtering people?

Which one would you say we should not do anything about?

Give me a specific answer. Because if you really are saying we should not be involved in anything, then I have to assume you love watching people being brutalized by cruel dictators.

And by the way, why are all these people asking us to be involved? What is it, that apparently they know, that you don't?

The irony in all this, is that part of me, even agrees with you.

To some extent, I think we should let the Muslims slaughter themselves, and say screw you, to those like YOU who claim we're the bad guys.

Maybe if enough Muslims kill each other non-stop, you'll stop being so ungrateful for our help.

The Nazis made up the Gleiwitz Incident to invade Poland as a "Fake justification" for war.
(Sound familiar?)
How about the U.S.A made up "WMD's" to invade Iraq as a "Fake justification" for war.

The Nazis also used the same excuse in the Soviet Union, they were killing their own nation, and were a threat to the World.

As Nazis killed over 20 million in Russia, more than half of them Civilians.

The U.S.A seems to only follow the Nazis, in the most wrong way possible being "Genocide"

Not in good ways like preserving, or promoting Heritage, or going against Capitalists from being Liberal anti-Patriots, or in promoting greater Worker's rights.

I see nothing admirable in modern America, this country has become sadistic abroad, and masochistic at home. (Nothing I support)

No, it doesn't sound familiar at all.

The intelligence information that was the basis for the invasion of Iraq, was investigated by the Rockefeller committee. They discovered, that unsurprisingly, all the justifications for the war, were in fact backed by the intelligence at the time, and supported by intelligence agencies around the world.

The fact is, it was not made up.

Additionally, the WMDs did exist, and were found in usable condition. Which isn't a surprise, because maybe you are ignorant of history, but Saddam used WMDs in the past. The idea that he didn't have WMDs, when he in fact used WMDs is ridiculous.

Again, you are saying that you fully supported Saddam slaughtering his people? You are perfectly fine with that? You are ok with mass murder, provided it isn't the US doing it apparently?

the problem is semantics------very moronic people ASSUME that a WMD must be an atomic bomb----
when, in fact, it is, very, simply a weapon that kills
lots of people-----Saddam himself was a WMD

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Well give me an example, where you think the US should not have been involved.

Pretty much everywhere the U.S.A has been since WW2.

I suppose you would have preferred living behind the Berlin Wall...............Living the life of the USSR..........

Of course you are probably typing in a cave in the middle east though.

Pretty much everywhere the U.S.A has been since WW2.

So when the Muammar Gaddafi was slaughtering his people.... You would have had us stand by and let it happen?

You have no problem with this?

Because see, the issue is, every single time things like this happen, people scream that the US should have helped them.

Then when we help them, we have people like you screaming that we killed Muslims.

So which is it? Do we just flat out do nothing to help these people, and let them all get slaughtered?

I assume that you fully support the chemical attacks on civilians by the Assad regime, right? Because that's what happens when the US does nothing. You are perfectly good with Muslims killing each other, as long as it isn't the US doing it.... right?

Libya's nothing compared to what the U.S.A has done.
How can you even bring up such a goofy response?

Israel has killed far more than Libya did under Gadaffi, when are we going to attack Israel?

The U.S.A has caused much worse genocides by going after Dictators who killed much fewer.

Israel has only killed people, when people tried to kill them. Self defense is entirely 100% justified.

As for the rest..... again... give me an example. Tell me which time you think we should have stayed out.

You support Saddam slaughtering people with chemical weapons?
You support Assad slaughtering people?
You support Ghaddafi slaughtering people?

Which one would you say we should not do anything about?

Give me a specific answer. Because if you really are saying we should not be involved in anything, then I have to assume you love watching people being brutalized by cruel dictators.

And by the way, why are all these people asking us to be involved? What is it, that apparently they know, that you don't?

The irony in all this, is that part of me, even agrees with you.

To some extent, I think we should let the Muslims slaughter themselves, and say screw you, to those like YOU who claim we're the bad guys.

Maybe if enough Muslims kill each other non-stop, you'll stop being so ungrateful for our help.

The Nazis made up the Gleiwitz Incident to invade Poland as a "Fake justification" for war.
(Sound familiar?)
How about the U.S.A made up "WMD's" to invade Iraq as a "Fake justification" for war.

The Nazis also used the same excuse in the Soviet Union, they were killing their own nation, and were a threat to the World.

As Nazis killed over 20 million in Russia, more than half of them Civilians.

The U.S.A seems to only follow the Nazis, in the most wrong way possible being "Genocide"

Not in good ways like preserving, or promoting Heritage, or going against Capitalists from being Liberal anti-Patriots, or in promoting greater Worker's rights.

I see nothing admirable in modern America, this country has become sadistic abroad, and masochistic at home. (Nothing I support)

No, it doesn't sound familiar at all.

The intelligence information that was the basis for the invasion of Iraq, was investigated by the Rockefeller committee. They discovered, that unsurprisingly, all the justifications for the war, were in fact backed by the intelligence at the time, and supported by intelligence agencies around the world.

The fact is, it was not made up.

Additionally, the WMDs did exist, and were found in usable condition. Which isn't a surprise, because maybe you are ignorant of history, but Saddam used WMDs in the past. The idea that he didn't have WMDs, when he in fact used WMDs is ridiculous.

Again, you are saying that you fully supported Saddam slaughtering his people? You are perfectly fine with that? You are ok with mass murder, provided it isn't the US doing it apparently?

LOL, Rockerfeller? That Globalist Liberal family who backed Nazis, Soviet, and also American genocides?

Are you fully aware that America killed millions of Iraqis?

America's killed up to 20 - 30 million since WW2.

The U.S.A is in line with Hitler, or even Stalin in that period for killings.

Saddam Hussein was a pip-squeak in comparison.

That doesn't begin to speak of the genocides the U.S.A dealt in during it's early days (Which were presumably smaller, but none the less present)

 

[irosie91]

sobie---the idiot fake figure you provide of USA KILLING muslims-----actually comes to LESS THAN
ONE PER MILLION of the world's muslims. Polacks
killed IN PROPORTION TO POPULATION-----hundreds times that of jews on FAKE LIBELS in
pogroms

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

sobie---the idiot fake figure you provide of USA KILLING muslims-----actually comes to LESS THAN
ONE PER MILLION of the world's muslims. Polacks
killed IN PROPORTION TO POPULATION-----hundreds times that of jews on FAKE LIBELS in
pogroms

Total BS, Poland's Pogroms killed not millions, but perhaps none, perhaps a few, perhaps hundreds.

A far cry from what you're instigating.

Besides, during the worst Polish Pogroms against Jews there was a Jewish population running to Communist authorities to oppress, and kill Poles like the Soviet NKVD.

A lot Jews seem to think it's their God given right to F*ck with everyone, be it in Palestine, or Poland, and elsewhere, and then can't seem to grasp why people fight back, and despise them in return?