Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Kucinich never did have much to say that was useful. The US along with Israel has the best combatant to civilian ratio of any modern military and Russia, although it has improved somewhat, has he worst. The US spends a fortune using smart bombs to avoid killing civilians; Russia doesn't use smart bombs. Although the US civilian to combatant ratio was higher at the beginning of the second Iraq war, the US worked hard to bring it down to 1-1. By contrast, Russia's civilian to combatant ratio in the first Chechen war was 10-1 and in the second Chechen war was still 4-1. Of course the claim the US killed 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis is pure bullshit. By actual body counts, there were less than 10,000 civilian casualties, but two bizarre studies using epidemiological models for a statistic analysis came up the the crazy numbers of hundreds of thousands but no one ever found more than 8,000 dead civilian bodies. Kucinich was a crackpot then and is a crackpot now.It is an interesting question. Good piece by Dennis Kusinich.
The number of civilians killed in recent US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria is rising. As we bomb villages to save villages isn't it time to look back to 2002, when President Bush was so sure Iraq had WMDs that he launched a war which killed over 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis. Nearly 4,500 US soldiers have been killed. The monetary cost of the war in Iraq will exceed three trillion dollars. The US war in Iraq is in its 14th year.
Now President Trump, with the support of Saudi Arabia (which has helped fund many of the ISIS, Al Qaeda and Al Nusra fighters from 90 different countries who have descended on Syria) is escalating the war, amid rising calls for regime change, in the face of a recent gas attack (which has still not been independently investigated).
Why are the innocent civilian deaths acknowledged to be caused by US bombers less consequential?
Why Do Civilians Killed by US Bombers Count Less?
How can their deaths be accidental and unintended when it is known civilians are in the area bombed.When America bombs a location harm to civilians is accidental, unintented and regrettable.
Incidental, maybe, but intended and known.
When did the USA gas children in the USA?
Your Government has engaged in some very disgusting violent acts against its own Citizens over the years. Just do some research, and you'll quickly realize that your Government is no 'Angel.'
So why are you making shit up if you have all of this historical record? Isn't that enough?
Do some research, your Government has committed numerous heinous acts against its own Citizens. But hey, you wanna live in blissful denial about that, so be it i guess. Most Americans are misguided sheep.
Can you read? If you have all of that evidence of why we are so bad, why do you need to make up shit that is not true simply to justify your argument?
You clearly haven't researched the subject. When or if you do, you'll quickly learn that your Government has engaged in numerous awful acts against its own Citizens over the years. Maybe some foreign Nations should declare 'Regime Change' on the US?
Kucinich never did have much to say that was useful. The US along with Israel has the best combatant to civilian ratio of any modern military and Russia, although it has improved somewhat, has he worst. The US spends a fortune using smart bombs to avoid killing civilians; Russia doesn't use smart bombs. Although the US civilian to combatant ratio was higher at the beginning of the second Iraq war, the US worked hard to bring it down to 1-1. By contrast, Russia's civilian to combatant ratio in the first Chechen war was 10-1 and in the second Chechen war was still 4-1. Of course the claim the US killed 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis is pure bullshit. By actual body counts, there were less than 10,000 civilian casualties, but two bizarre studies using epidemiological models for a statistic analysis came up the the crazy numbers of hundreds of thousands but no one ever found more than 8,000 dead civilian bodies. Kucinich was a crackpot then and is a crackpot now.It is an interesting question. Good piece by Dennis Kusinich.
The number of civilians killed in recent US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria is rising. As we bomb villages to save villages isn't it time to look back to 2002, when President Bush was so sure Iraq had WMDs that he launched a war which killed over 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis. Nearly 4,500 US soldiers have been killed. The monetary cost of the war in Iraq will exceed three trillion dollars. The US war in Iraq is in its 14th year.
Now President Trump, with the support of Saudi Arabia (which has helped fund many of the ISIS, Al Qaeda and Al Nusra fighters from 90 different countries who have descended on Syria) is escalating the war, amid rising calls for regime change, in the face of a recent gas attack (which has still not been independently investigated).
Why are the innocent civilian deaths acknowledged to be caused by US bombers less consequential?
Why Do Civilians Killed by US Bombers Count Less?
You're wrong. Before we even INVADED Iraq, the US "containment/embargo" was responsible for somewhere between 200,000 and 300,000 dead Iraqis. We STARVED them, deprived them of medicinal supplies and BOMBED them DAILY for about 10 years. Mad Albright farted out a statement that all that was "acceptable collateral damage".. Get a clue. After ANOTHER 10 years in country, that toll is CERTAINLY north of 500,000 at least.
Look Moron, the USA has never gassed the USA which is the equivalent of what Assad did.You are the delusional one if you think you can not have collateral damage in modern warfare.
Oh i see, when the US slaughters innocent women and children it's 'ok', because it's 'Collateral Damage.' But when others do it, it's a horrible 'War Crime.' Y'all American Warmongers really are delusional hypocrites.
Were u born stupid or did you perfect being dumb at Harvard
Unbelievable delusional hypocrisy. Slaughtering innocent women and children is somehow 'ok', as long it's the US doing it. Y'all Warmongers really are demented.
Give me an example of where our military has intentionally attacked civilians without a high value target being involved. I'll be waiting forever for you to dig that one up.
Train bridge in Serbia. Circa 1997. Hit a commuter train. Chinese embassy (for crap sake) in Belgrade. Doctors without Borders hospital in Afghan -- recently. How many more you want?
Bullshit. The sanctions were handled by the UN, not by the US and the oil for food program would have provided all the food and medical supplies, etc. Iraq needed if Sadam had abided by it but Sadam refused to cooperate. The purpose of oil for food was to try to make sure Sadam didn't use his oil to rebuild his military, but Sadam continued to sell oil in violation of the sanctions and apparently none of the revenue was used to take care of the Iraqi people. As far as Iraqi casualties being between 300,000 and 500,000 between the two wars, again you are full of shit.Kucinich never did have much to say that was useful. The US along with Israel has the best combatant to civilian ratio of any modern military and Russia, although it has improved somewhat, has he worst. The US spends a fortune using smart bombs to avoid killing civilians; Russia doesn't use smart bombs. Although the US civilian to combatant ratio was higher at the beginning of the second Iraq war, the US worked hard to bring it down to 1-1. By contrast, Russia's civilian to combatant ratio in the first Chechen war was 10-1 and in the second Chechen war was still 4-1. Of course the claim the US killed 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis is pure bullshit. By actual body counts, there were less than 10,000 civilian casualties, but two bizarre studies using epidemiological models for a statistic analysis came up the the crazy numbers of hundreds of thousands but no one ever found more than 8,000 dead civilian bodies. Kucinich was a crackpot then and is a crackpot now.It is an interesting question. Good piece by Dennis Kusinich.
The number of civilians killed in recent US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria is rising. As we bomb villages to save villages isn't it time to look back to 2002, when President Bush was so sure Iraq had WMDs that he launched a war which killed over 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis. Nearly 4,500 US soldiers have been killed. The monetary cost of the war in Iraq will exceed three trillion dollars. The US war in Iraq is in its 14th year.
Now President Trump, with the support of Saudi Arabia (which has helped fund many of the ISIS, Al Qaeda and Al Nusra fighters from 90 different countries who have descended on Syria) is escalating the war, amid rising calls for regime change, in the face of a recent gas attack (which has still not been independently investigated).
Why are the innocent civilian deaths acknowledged to be caused by US bombers less consequential?
Why Do Civilians Killed by US Bombers Count Less?
You're wrong. Before we even INVADED Iraq, the US "containment/embargo" was responsible for somewhere between 200,000 and 300,000 dead Iraqis. We STARVED them, deprived them of medicinal supplies and BOMBED them DAILY for about 10 years. Mad Albright farted out a statement that all that was "acceptable collateral damage".. Get a clue. After ANOTHER 10 years in country, that toll is CERTAINLY north of 500,000 at least.
It's about intent.
When America bombs a location harm to civilians is accidental, unintented and regrettable. When tyrants gas their own citizens or terrorists blow themselves up, it's to specifically target innocent civilians.
Kucinich never did have much to say that was useful. The US along with Israel has the best combatant to civilian ratio of any modern military and Russia, although it has improved somewhat, has he worst. The US spends a fortune using smart bombs to avoid killing civilians; Russia doesn't use smart bombs. Although the US civilian to combatant ratio was higher at the beginning of the second Iraq war, the US worked hard to bring it down to 1-1. By contrast, Russia's civilian to combatant ratio in the first Chechen war was 10-1 and in the second Chechen war was still 4-1. Of course the claim the US killed 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis is pure bullshit. By actual body counts, there were less than 10,000 civilian casualties, but two bizarre studies using epidemiological models for a statistic analysis came up the the crazy numbers of hundreds of thousands but no one ever found more than 8,000 dead civilian bodies. Kucinich was a crackpot then and is a crackpot now.It is an interesting question. Good piece by Dennis Kusinich.
The number of civilians killed in recent US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria is rising. As we bomb villages to save villages isn't it time to look back to 2002, when President Bush was so sure Iraq had WMDs that he launched a war which killed over 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis. Nearly 4,500 US soldiers have been killed. The monetary cost of the war in Iraq will exceed three trillion dollars. The US war in Iraq is in its 14th year.
Now President Trump, with the support of Saudi Arabia (which has helped fund many of the ISIS, Al Qaeda and Al Nusra fighters from 90 different countries who have descended on Syria) is escalating the war, amid rising calls for regime change, in the face of a recent gas attack (which has still not been independently investigated).
Why are the innocent civilian deaths acknowledged to be caused by US bombers less consequential?
Why Do Civilians Killed by US Bombers Count Less?
You're wrong. Before we even INVADED Iraq, the US "containment/embargo" was responsible for somewhere between 200,000 and 300,000 dead Iraqis. We STARVED them, deprived them of medicinal supplies and BOMBED them DAILY for about 10 years. Mad Albright farted out a statement that all that was "acceptable collateral damage".. Get a clue. After ANOTHER 10 years in country, that toll is CERTAINLY north of 500,000 at least.
Back that truck up there Speedy!
Who were we bombing in Iraq? Albright was SECSTATE BEFORE OIF! I think you are quite confused.
Did you nod out for the 10 years of Iraqi containment under 2 bushes and clinton that took the keys to their economy completely away and locked them up with a madman for 10 years?? That cost 200,000 to 300,000 Iraqi lives before Bush Jr decided to end that carnage.
Look Moron, the USA has never gassed the USA which is the equivalent of what Assad did.Oh i see, when the US slaughters innocent women and children it's 'ok', because it's 'Collateral Damage.' But when others do it, it's a horrible 'War Crime.' Y'all American Warmongers really are delusional hypocrites.
Were u born stupid or did you perfect being dumb at Harvard
Unbelievable delusional hypocrisy. Slaughtering innocent women and children is somehow 'ok', as long it's the US doing it. Y'all Warmongers really are demented.
Give me an example of where our military has intentionally attacked civilians without a high value target being involved. I'll be waiting forever for you to dig that one up.
Train bridge in Serbia. Circa 1997. Hit a commuter train. Chinese embassy (for crap sake) in Belgrade. Doctors without Borders hospital in Afghan -- recently. How many more you want?
Intentionally? Wrong answer, dumbass!
Bullshit. The sanctions were handled by the UN, not by the US and the oil for food program would have provided all the food and medical supplies, etc. Iraq needed if Sadam had abided by it but Sadam refused to cooperate. The purpose of oil for food was to try to make sure Sadam didn't use his oil to rebuild his military, but Sadam continued to sell oil in violation of the sanctions and apparently none of the revenue was used to take care of the Iraqi people. As far as Iraqi casualties being between 300,000 and 500,000 between the two wars, again you are full of shit.Kucinich never did have much to say that was useful. The US along with Israel has the best combatant to civilian ratio of any modern military and Russia, although it has improved somewhat, has he worst. The US spends a fortune using smart bombs to avoid killing civilians; Russia doesn't use smart bombs. Although the US civilian to combatant ratio was higher at the beginning of the second Iraq war, the US worked hard to bring it down to 1-1. By contrast, Russia's civilian to combatant ratio in the first Chechen war was 10-1 and in the second Chechen war was still 4-1. Of course the claim the US killed 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis is pure bullshit. By actual body counts, there were less than 10,000 civilian casualties, but two bizarre studies using epidemiological models for a statistic analysis came up the the crazy numbers of hundreds of thousands but no one ever found more than 8,000 dead civilian bodies. Kucinich was a crackpot then and is a crackpot now.It is an interesting question. Good piece by Dennis Kusinich.
The number of civilians killed in recent US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria is rising. As we bomb villages to save villages isn't it time to look back to 2002, when President Bush was so sure Iraq had WMDs that he launched a war which killed over 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis. Nearly 4,500 US soldiers have been killed. The monetary cost of the war in Iraq will exceed three trillion dollars. The US war in Iraq is in its 14th year.
Now President Trump, with the support of Saudi Arabia (which has helped fund many of the ISIS, Al Qaeda and Al Nusra fighters from 90 different countries who have descended on Syria) is escalating the war, amid rising calls for regime change, in the face of a recent gas attack (which has still not been independently investigated).
Why are the innocent civilian deaths acknowledged to be caused by US bombers less consequential?
Why Do Civilians Killed by US Bombers Count Less?
You're wrong. Before we even INVADED Iraq, the US "containment/embargo" was responsible for somewhere between 200,000 and 300,000 dead Iraqis. We STARVED them, deprived them of medicinal supplies and BOMBED them DAILY for about 10 years. Mad Albright farted out a statement that all that was "acceptable collateral damage".. Get a clue. After ANOTHER 10 years in country, that toll is CERTAINLY north of 500,000 at least.
How can their deaths be accidental and unintended when it is known civilians are in the area bombed.When America bombs a location harm to civilians is accidental, unintented and regrettable.
Incidental, maybe, but intended and known.
Uh, most terrorists are civilians! DUH!
The reason that Americans can't fathom Bush Jr's decision to END the deadly and disasterous "containment" policy is that too many Americans like Adm. and toomuchtime forget about the humanitarian costs of that failed 10 year policy. And when Dems blasted Bush Jr for doing SOMETHING to end all that -- they don't want to tell you that if it was up to them -- Iraq would STILL be "under containment". There were no good options other than letting Saddam out of containment. Which we NOW KNOW --- was being conducted on the faulty WMD premise.
The villification of Saddam is much like the current villification of Assad. Or the previous villification of Khadafy or the Somalian leadership.. America needs to learn that PEACE in Mid-East REQUIRES some evil bastards to keep it peaceful...
Look Moron, the USA has never gassed the USA which is the equivalent of what Assad did.
Were u born stupid or did you perfect being dumb at Harvard
Unbelievable delusional hypocrisy. Slaughtering innocent women and children is somehow 'ok', as long it's the US doing it. Y'all Warmongers really are demented.
Give me an example of where our military has intentionally attacked civilians without a high value target being involved. I'll be waiting forever for you to dig that one up.
Train bridge in Serbia. Circa 1997. Hit a commuter train. Chinese embassy (for crap sake) in Belgrade. Doctors without Borders hospital in Afghan -- recently. How many more you want?
Intentionally? Wrong answer, dumbass!
Someone pulled the trigger. Bombs don't decide to launch themselves --- dumbass.
How can their deaths be accidental and unintended when it is known civilians are in the area bombed.When America bombs a location harm to civilians is accidental, unintented and regrettable.
Incidental, maybe, but intended and known.
Uh, most terrorists are civilians! DUH!
Yup, and they hide among the civilians and also use them as human shields.
The reason that Americans can't fathom Bush Jr's decision to END the deadly and disasterous "containment" policy is that too many Americans like Adm. and toomuchtime forget about the humanitarian costs of that failed 10 year policy. And when Dems blasted Bush Jr for doing SOMETHING to end all that -- they don't want to tell you that if it was up to them -- Iraq would STILL be "under containment". There were no good options other than letting Saddam out of containment. Which we NOW KNOW --- was being conducted on the faulty WMD premise.
The villification of Saddam is much like the current villification of Assad. Or the previous villification of Khadafy or the Somalian leadership.. America needs to learn that PEACE in Mid-East REQUIRES some evil bastards to keep it peaceful...
It's still not peaceful though. Saddam was killing people all over the place. I don't really know about Assad, but all we are doing there is replacing one bad guy for another bad guy. The only ones who can change things over there are the people who live there. If they don't stand up for themselves, which they probably won't, they will continue to live as if in the middle ages. I want no part of it. I wish we would have nothing to do with that part of the world.
First, it was the UN, not the US that handled the sanctions regime, so why are you blaming the US for a failed relationship between Sadam and the UN? There was occasional bombing during the period between the wars, and these were military objectives, so civilian casualties if any were very light. What civilian casualties there were between the wars was the result of Sadam's relentless attacks on the Kurds and Shi'ites. We didn't allow him to use fixed wing aircraft, but did not stop him from using his tanks and helicopters.Kucinich never did have much to say that was useful. The US along with Israel has the best combatant to civilian ratio of any modern military and Russia, although it has improved somewhat, has he worst. The US spends a fortune using smart bombs to avoid killing civilians; Russia doesn't use smart bombs. Although the US civilian to combatant ratio was higher at the beginning of the second Iraq war, the US worked hard to bring it down to 1-1. By contrast, Russia's civilian to combatant ratio in the first Chechen war was 10-1 and in the second Chechen war was still 4-1. Of course the claim the US killed 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis is pure bullshit. By actual body counts, there were less than 10,000 civilian casualties, but two bizarre studies using epidemiological models for a statistic analysis came up the the crazy numbers of hundreds of thousands but no one ever found more than 8,000 dead civilian bodies. Kucinich was a crackpot then and is a crackpot now.It is an interesting question. Good piece by Dennis Kusinich.
The number of civilians killed in recent US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria is rising. As we bomb villages to save villages isn't it time to look back to 2002, when President Bush was so sure Iraq had WMDs that he launched a war which killed over 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis. Nearly 4,500 US soldiers have been killed. The monetary cost of the war in Iraq will exceed three trillion dollars. The US war in Iraq is in its 14th year.
Now President Trump, with the support of Saudi Arabia (which has helped fund many of the ISIS, Al Qaeda and Al Nusra fighters from 90 different countries who have descended on Syria) is escalating the war, amid rising calls for regime change, in the face of a recent gas attack (which has still not been independently investigated).
Why are the innocent civilian deaths acknowledged to be caused by US bombers less consequential?
Why Do Civilians Killed by US Bombers Count Less?
You're wrong. Before we even INVADED Iraq, the US "containment/embargo" was responsible for somewhere between 200,000 and 300,000 dead Iraqis. We STARVED them, deprived them of medicinal supplies and BOMBED them DAILY for about 10 years. Mad Albright farted out a statement that all that was "acceptable collateral damage".. Get a clue. After ANOTHER 10 years in country, that toll is CERTAINLY north of 500,000 at least.
Back that truck up there Speedy!
Who were we bombing in Iraq? Albright was SECSTATE BEFORE OIF! I think you are quite confused.
You back up up Chief.
Sanctions against Iraq - Wikipedia
UNICEF: 500,000 children (including sanctions, collateral effects of war). "[As of 1999] [c]hildren under 5 years of age are dying at more than twice the rate they were ten years ago." (As is customary, this report was based on a survey conducted in cooperation with the Iraqi government and by local authorities in the provinces not controlled by the Iraqi government)[36]
Former U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq Denis Halliday: "Two hundred thirty-nine thousand children 5 years old and under" as of 1998.[37]
"Probably ... 170,000 children", Project on Defense Alternatives, "The Wages of War", 20 October 2003[38]
350,000 excess deaths among children "even using conservative estimates", Slate Explainer, "Are 1 Million Children Dying in Iraq?", 9. October 2001.[39]
"Richard Garfield, a Columbia University nursing professor ... cited the figures 345,000-530,000 for the entire 1990-2002 period"[40] for sanctions-related excess deaths.[41]
Zaidi, S. and Fawzi, M. C. S., (1995) The Lancet British medical journal: 567,000 children.[42] A co-author (Zaidi) did a follow-up study in 1996, finding "much lower ... mortality rates ... for unknown reasons."[43]
Half-Million Iraqis Died in the War, New Study Says
Outlines estimates taken POST invasion.....
http://reason.com/0203/fe.mw.the.shtml
After September 11, the anecdote received new life, as in this typically imaginative interpretation by Harper’s Editor Lewis Lapham in the magazine’s November issue: "When Madeleine Albright, then the American secretary of state [sic], was asked in an interview on 60 Minutes whether she had considered the resulting death of 500,000 Iraqi children (of malnutrition and disease), she said, ‘We think the price is worth it.’"
Albright has been dogged by protesters at nearly all her campus appearances the past several years, and rightly so: It was a beastly thing to say, and she should have refuted the figures. Quietly, a month after the World Trade Center attack, she finally apologized for her infamous performance. "I shouldn’t have said it," she said during a speech at the University of Southern California. "You can believe this or not, but my comments were taken out of context."
Garfield concluded that between August 1991 and March 1998 there were at least 106,000 excess deaths of children under 5, with a "more likely" worst-case sum of 227,000. (He recently updated the latter figure to 350,000 through this year.) Of those deaths, he estimated one-quarter were "mainly associated with the Gulf war." The chief causes, in his view, were "contaminated water, lack of high quality foods, inadequate breast feeding, poor weaning practices, and inadequate supplies in the curative health care system. This was the product of both a lack of some essential goods, and inadequate or inefficient use of existing essential goods."
Ultimately, Garfield argued, sanctions played an undeniably important role. "Even a small number of documentable excess deaths is an expression of a humanitarian disaster, and this number is not small," he concluded. "[And] excess deaths should...be seen as the tip of the iceberg among damages to occur among under five-year-olds in Iraq in the 1990s....The humanitarian disaster which has occurred in Iraq far exceeds what may be any reasonable level of acceptable damages according to the principles of discrimination and proportionality used in warfare....To the degree that economic sanctions complicate access to and utilization of essential goods, sanctions regulations should be modified immediately."
Unbelievable delusional hypocrisy. Slaughtering innocent women and children is somehow 'ok', as long it's the US doing it. Y'all Warmongers really are demented.
Give me an example of where our military has intentionally attacked civilians without a high value target being involved. I'll be waiting forever for you to dig that one up.
Train bridge in Serbia. Circa 1997. Hit a commuter train. Chinese embassy (for crap sake) in Belgrade. Doctors without Borders hospital in Afghan -- recently. How many more you want?
Intentionally? Wrong answer, dumbass!
Someone pulled the trigger. Bombs don't decide to launch themselves --- dumbass.
So, you have irrefutable evidence that we intentionally bombed that train, bombed an embassy and a hospital?
Are you in the running for the "Biggest Moron" reality show?
The reason that Americans can't fathom Bush Jr's decision to END the deadly and disasterous "containment" policy is that too many Americans like Adm. and toomuchtime forget about the humanitarian costs of that failed 10 year policy. And when Dems blasted Bush Jr for doing SOMETHING to end all that -- they don't want to tell you that if it was up to them -- Iraq would STILL be "under containment". There were no good options other than letting Saddam out of containment. Which we NOW KNOW --- was being conducted on the faulty WMD premise.
The villification of Saddam is much like the current villification of Assad. Or the previous villification of Khadafy or the Somalian leadership.. America needs to learn that PEACE in Mid-East REQUIRES some evil bastards to keep it peaceful...
It's still not peaceful though. Saddam was killing people all over the place. I don't really know about Assad, but all we are doing there is replacing one bad guy for another bad guy. The only ones who can change things over there are the people who live there. If they don't stand up for themselves, which they probably won't, they will continue to live as if in the middle ages. I want no part of it. I wish we would have nothing to do with that part of the world.
Prior to the instability in Syria (which I'm sure we instigated) Assad was a SECULAR -- pro-western leader that unfortunately leaned towards Russia and Iran. But the country was VERY stable. As was Iraq. And not damaged enough to become a breeding ground for terrorists and revolutionaries.
AMERICAN emphasis needs to be on humanitarian relief. Not by WISHING that all those refugees want to be German or French or Americans. But by establishing LONG TERM safe zones in cooperation with Iraq, Jordan and ALL of the neighbors.
First, it was the UN, not the US that handled the sanctions regime, so why are you blaming the US for a failed relationship between Sadam and the UN? There was occasional bombing during the period between the wars, and these were military objectives, so civilian casualties if any were very light. What civilian casualties there were between the wars was the result of Sadam's relentless attacks on the Kurds and Shi'ites. We didn't allow him to use fixed wing aircraft, but did not stop him from using his tanks and helicopters.Kucinich never did have much to say that was useful. The US along with Israel has the best combatant to civilian ratio of any modern military and Russia, although it has improved somewhat, has he worst. The US spends a fortune using smart bombs to avoid killing civilians; Russia doesn't use smart bombs. Although the US civilian to combatant ratio was higher at the beginning of the second Iraq war, the US worked hard to bring it down to 1-1. By contrast, Russia's civilian to combatant ratio in the first Chechen war was 10-1 and in the second Chechen war was still 4-1. Of course the claim the US killed 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis is pure bullshit. By actual body counts, there were less than 10,000 civilian casualties, but two bizarre studies using epidemiological models for a statistic analysis came up the the crazy numbers of hundreds of thousands but no one ever found more than 8,000 dead civilian bodies. Kucinich was a crackpot then and is a crackpot now.It is an interesting question. Good piece by Dennis Kusinich.
The number of civilians killed in recent US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria is rising. As we bomb villages to save villages isn't it time to look back to 2002, when President Bush was so sure Iraq had WMDs that he launched a war which killed over 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis. Nearly 4,500 US soldiers have been killed. The monetary cost of the war in Iraq will exceed three trillion dollars. The US war in Iraq is in its 14th year.
Now President Trump, with the support of Saudi Arabia (which has helped fund many of the ISIS, Al Qaeda and Al Nusra fighters from 90 different countries who have descended on Syria) is escalating the war, amid rising calls for regime change, in the face of a recent gas attack (which has still not been independently investigated).
Why are the innocent civilian deaths acknowledged to be caused by US bombers less consequential?
Why Do Civilians Killed by US Bombers Count Less?
You're wrong. Before we even INVADED Iraq, the US "containment/embargo" was responsible for somewhere between 200,000 and 300,000 dead Iraqis. We STARVED them, deprived them of medicinal supplies and BOMBED them DAILY for about 10 years. Mad Albright farted out a statement that all that was "acceptable collateral damage".. Get a clue. After ANOTHER 10 years in country, that toll is CERTAINLY north of 500,000 at least.
Back that truck up there Speedy!
Who were we bombing in Iraq? Albright was SECSTATE BEFORE OIF! I think you are quite confused.
You back up up Chief.
Sanctions against Iraq - Wikipedia
UNICEF: 500,000 children (including sanctions, collateral effects of war). "[As of 1999] [c]hildren under 5 years of age are dying at more than twice the rate they were ten years ago." (As is customary, this report was based on a survey conducted in cooperation with the Iraqi government and by local authorities in the provinces not controlled by the Iraqi government)[36]
Former U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq Denis Halliday: "Two hundred thirty-nine thousand children 5 years old and under" as of 1998.[37]
"Probably ... 170,000 children", Project on Defense Alternatives, "The Wages of War", 20 October 2003[38]
350,000 excess deaths among children "even using conservative estimates", Slate Explainer, "Are 1 Million Children Dying in Iraq?", 9. October 2001.[39]
"Richard Garfield, a Columbia University nursing professor ... cited the figures 345,000-530,000 for the entire 1990-2002 period"[40] for sanctions-related excess deaths.[41]
Zaidi, S. and Fawzi, M. C. S., (1995) The Lancet British medical journal: 567,000 children.[42] A co-author (Zaidi) did a follow-up study in 1996, finding "much lower ... mortality rates ... for unknown reasons."[43]
Half-Million Iraqis Died in the War, New Study Says
Outlines estimates taken POST invasion.....
http://reason.com/0203/fe.mw.the.shtml
After September 11, the anecdote received new life, as in this typically imaginative interpretation by Harper’s Editor Lewis Lapham in the magazine’s November issue: "When Madeleine Albright, then the American secretary of state [sic], was asked in an interview on 60 Minutes whether she had considered the resulting death of 500,000 Iraqi children (of malnutrition and disease), she said, ‘We think the price is worth it.’"
Albright has been dogged by protesters at nearly all her campus appearances the past several years, and rightly so: It was a beastly thing to say, and she should have refuted the figures. Quietly, a month after the World Trade Center attack, she finally apologized for her infamous performance. "I shouldn’t have said it," she said during a speech at the University of Southern California. "You can believe this or not, but my comments were taken out of context."
Garfield concluded that between August 1991 and March 1998 there were at least 106,000 excess deaths of children under 5, with a "more likely" worst-case sum of 227,000. (He recently updated the latter figure to 350,000 through this year.) Of those deaths, he estimated one-quarter were "mainly associated with the Gulf war." The chief causes, in his view, were "contaminated water, lack of high quality foods, inadequate breast feeding, poor weaning practices, and inadequate supplies in the curative health care system. This was the product of both a lack of some essential goods, and inadequate or inefficient use of existing essential goods."
Ultimately, Garfield argued, sanctions played an undeniably important role. "Even a small number of documentable excess deaths is an expression of a humanitarian disaster, and this number is not small," he concluded. "[And] excess deaths should...be seen as the tip of the iceberg among damages to occur among under five-year-olds in Iraq in the 1990s....The humanitarian disaster which has occurred in Iraq far exceeds what may be any reasonable level of acceptable damages according to the principles of discrimination and proportionality used in warfare....To the degree that economic sanctions complicate access to and utilization of essential goods, sanctions regulations should be modified immediately."
The biggest thing we did wrong during that period was turning the containment and sanctions regime over to the UN, which was not competent to handle it.
