Dennis Kucinich: Why Do Civilians Killed By US Bombers Count Less?...

[Dschrute3]

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?

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.

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. 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.

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."

Hussein was contained. He barely had a military. The 'No-Fly Zones' which are illegal, kept him isolated and defenseless. And now they're proposing doing the very same thing in Syria. History just keeps on repeating itself. And the American Sheeple keep on eating up the lies. It's always 'For the Children.' Always be very wary when you hear them screeching about it being all 'For the Children.' That means they're up to no good.

 

[The Original Tree]

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?

Where did ISIS and Syria get their WMDs? And Saddam did have them. He used them on the Kurds.
There were WMDs in Iraq. Traces of them were found all over.
That is a Dem Lie that there were no WMDs in Iraq.
Hussein even launched a SCUD with Chemical Weapons at Israel, but it fell in the desert and on a day where there was no humidity, so not much happened.

 

[blackhawk]

They don't but when someone uses chemical weapons something that has not been used on a large scale since WW1 that takes things to another level.

 

[Dschrute3]

They don't but when someone uses chemical weapons something that has not been used on a large scale since WW1 that takes things to another level.

Wag the Dog False Flag. And why doesn't the US demand Israel sign onto the Chemical Weapon Convention Treaty? It's one of the very few nations on earth that hasn't signed onto it. Syria and most of the nations in the Middle East have.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

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.

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.

Enforcement of the sanctions was done EXTERNAL to the UN. By a coalition of the US and Euro partners. And the "no fly" zones and embargo was LARGELY all American. Then there was the EVIL "oil for food" program. That was an attempt to LESSEN the humanitarian crisis from these 10 years of neglect. Ending up exposing a LOT of UN graft and corruption. OBVIOUSLY -- a lot of folks have not learned a THING from all those past mistakes. We're TOO STUPID to be "an empire"..

The US and Europeans implemented the containment and sanctions programs, but the decisions were all made by the UNSC, so whatever you may believe was wrong with what was done, was the responsibility of the whole world, not the just the US as you have claimed. But what was the alternative? Allow Sadam to rearm and invade his neighbors again? Invade and occupy Iraq? There were no good choices.

Hussein was completely contained. He barely had a military. But regardless, Iraq was never a threat to the US. The invasion was one of the worst military blunders in history. All it achieved was massive horrific carnage, and handing the country over to the Shiites who are aligned with Shiite Iran. Time for the US to end its 'Regime Change' policy. It's wrong and illegal.

Time for you to stop twisting the facts to fit your ideology.

 

[Dschrute3]

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.

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.

Enforcement of the sanctions was done EXTERNAL to the UN. By a coalition of the US and Euro partners. And the "no fly" zones and embargo was LARGELY all American. Then there was the EVIL "oil for food" program. That was an attempt to LESSEN the humanitarian crisis from these 10 years of neglect. Ending up exposing a LOT of UN graft and corruption. OBVIOUSLY -- a lot of folks have not learned a THING from all those past mistakes. We're TOO STUPID to be "an empire"..

The US and Europeans implemented the containment and sanctions programs, but the decisions were all made by the UNSC, so whatever you may believe was wrong with what was done, was the responsibility of the whole world, not the just the US as you have claimed. But what was the alternative? Allow Sadam to rearm and invade his neighbors again? Invade and occupy Iraq? There were no good choices.

Hussein was completely contained. He barely had a military. But regardless, Iraq was never a threat to the US. The invasion was one of the worst military blunders in history. All it achieved was massive horrific carnage, and handing the country over to the Shiites who are aligned with Shiite Iran. Time for the US to end its 'Regime Change' policy. It's wrong and illegal.

Time for you to stop twisting the facts to fit your ideology.

No 'twisting the facts' my friend. It was a military blunder of epic proportions. It was based on nothing but lies.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

Enforcement of the sanctions was done EXTERNAL to the UN. By a coalition of the US and Euro partners. And the "no fly" zones and embargo was LARGELY all American. Then there was the EVIL "oil for food" program. That was an attempt to LESSEN the humanitarian crisis from these 10 years of neglect. Ending up exposing a LOT of UN graft and corruption. OBVIOUSLY -- a lot of folks have not learned a THING from all those past mistakes. We're TOO STUPID to be "an empire"..

The US and Europeans implemented the containment and sanctions programs, but the decisions were all made by the UNSC, so whatever you may believe was wrong with what was done, was the responsibility of the whole world, not the just the US as you have claimed. But what was the alternative? Allow Sadam to rearm and invade his neighbors again? Invade and occupy Iraq? There were no good choices.

Hussein was completely contained. He barely had a military. But regardless, Iraq was never a threat to the US. The invasion was one of the worst military blunders in history. All it achieved was massive horrific carnage, and handing the country over to the Shiites who are aligned with Shiite Iran. Time for the US to end its 'Regime Change' policy. It's wrong and illegal.

Time for you to stop twisting the facts to fit your ideology.

No 'twisting the facts' my friend. It was a military blunder of epic proportions. It was based on nothing but lies.

All your alleged facts are wrong. Sadam still had a 500,000 man army with his tanks, artillery, and helicopters. While he could not use his fixed wing aircraft because of the no fly zones, they remained a threat if he ever broke out. The containment and sanctions programs were run by the UN under appropriate resolutions, but evidence emerged people in the Secretary General's office were accepting bribes from Sadam to sell his oil in violation of the sanctions and the UN put Syria in charge of sanctions enforcement at the same time Syria was running an illegal pipeline to buy Sadam's oil in violation of the sanctions. The entire Iraqi population was suffering because people like you wanted to keep Sadam in power.

A lot of mistakes were made because no one knew what to do with Iraq once it was liberated, but we learned and today Iraq is a functioning democracy which recently underwent a peaceful transition of power after an election. If you follow US politics, after every US election we pat ourselves on the back because we are proud to have peaceful transfers of power as proof we have a functioning democracy.

Of course the Shi'ites have taken over because they make up the majority of the population, and if you haven't noticed, in a democracy teh majority rules. How can Iraq be aligned with Iran when they turned to the US to help them fight ISIS?

In no sense was Iraq a military blunder. We quickly dispatched Sadam's military suffering only light casualties ourselves. It was the nation building that was a long and painful process, but we finally got it right and turned Iraq into a functioning democracy, much to your consternation, apparently.

The process in Syria should be much easier, not only because of the lessons we learned in Iraq but also because Syria was a democracy before Hafez Assad, the current president's father, overthrew it in a military coup.

Ron Paul is a fool and a liar. You need to try to distance yourself from his nonsense and learn to think for yourself instead of just echoing your master's voice.

 

[flacaltenn]

Enforcement of the sanctions was done EXTERNAL to the UN. By a coalition of the US and Euro partners. And the "no fly" zones and embargo was LARGELY all American. Then there was the EVIL "oil for food" program. That was an attempt to LESSEN the humanitarian crisis from these 10 years of neglect. Ending up exposing a LOT of UN graft and corruption. OBVIOUSLY -- a lot of folks have not learned a THING from all those past mistakes. We're TOO STUPID to be "an empire"..

The US and Europeans implemented the containment and sanctions programs, but the decisions were all made by the UNSC, so whatever you may believe was wrong with what was done, was the responsibility of the whole world, not the just the US as you have claimed. But what was the alternative? Allow Sadam to rearm and invade his neighbors again? Invade and occupy Iraq? There were no good choices.

It was US/Euro policy done thru coalition. Clinton and Dems demanded that the UN "bless" the plan for geo-political purposes. So it didn't look like another Christian Crusade to the Arab League and others.

If you remember, the Euros bailed early. Started having talks with Iraq about "nomalizing". Leaving the US/UK holding the entire bag from about 1997 -- 2002..

It was the Security council that made all the decisions and no one had any better Ideas on how to deal with Sadam's Iraq. The US had no hidden "geo-political purposes". We were just trying to prevent Sadam from rearming and starting another war. The US can't demand the UNSC "bless" a plan if the majority doesn't approve of it and if any permanent member objects to it.

And that brings up back to the OP topic. You said "NO ONE had better ideas on how to deal with Saddam's Iraq". Actually a handful of CONSISTENT leaders -- LIKE DENNIS KUCINICH, Ron Paul and others DID advocate that we let Saddam out of containment after pulverizing and killing Iraqis for over a decade. And my Libertarian Party for example who NEVER changed their principles or opinions on the matter. And then there were the French and Germans who calling for "normalization" 8 years into the containment and eventually left the "coalition". A LOT of folks had the CORRECT idea to let Saddam out of containment rather than pursuing the faulty and highly EXAGGERATED WMD fallacy.

Took a lot of guts to call for walking away from a TERRIBLE policy that went on FAR too long. And ole Dennis was right there all along.

Not like all those Dem/Rep heroes who voted consistently to CONTINUE that policy. And then expected the Iraqis to LOVE US when we triumphantly marched into Iraq. Who do blame most for this carnage? Bush Jr who AT LEAST did something to end that situation or the Dems who didn't have the guts to ACKNOWLEDGE the humanitarian crisis we created with the containment and the bombing and suggest we wind the containment down?

So your better idea was to allow Sadam to rearm and start more wars, endangering the ME oil supply and threatening the global economy. Perhaps it's the word, better, that confuses you.

Letting him out of containment doesn't mean that NATO or Russia or China could sell him weapons. Although not allowing Iraq the ability to defend itself in that region would be an end to their sovereignty. As is happening NOW anyways after ANOTHER decade of US occupation. Since Iran (the perennial enemy of Iraq) is in functional security control of about 1/3 of that country right now.

 

[flacaltenn]

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?

Where did ISIS and Syria get their WMDs? And Saddam did have them. He used them on the Kurds.
There were WMDs in Iraq. Traces of them were found all over.
That is a Dem Lie that there were no WMDs in Iraq.
Hussein even launched a SCUD with Chemical Weapons at Israel, but it fell in the desert and on a day where there was no humidity, so not much happened.

Chemical weapons require much less time and energy to replicate. ISIS could've developed batches at any of the industries and universities within their control. And the "traces" you refer to -- are HIGHLY overblown. Because those "finds" include raw ingredients and precursors.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The US and Europeans implemented the containment and sanctions programs, but the decisions were all made by the UNSC, so whatever you may believe was wrong with what was done, was the responsibility of the whole world, not the just the US as you have claimed. But what was the alternative? Allow Sadam to rearm and invade his neighbors again? Invade and occupy Iraq? There were no good choices.

It was US/Euro policy done thru coalition. Clinton and Dems demanded that the UN "bless" the plan for geo-political purposes. So it didn't look like another Christian Crusade to the Arab League and others.

If you remember, the Euros bailed early. Started having talks with Iraq about "nomalizing". Leaving the US/UK holding the entire bag from about 1997 -- 2002..

It was the Security council that made all the decisions and no one had any better Ideas on how to deal with Sadam's Iraq. The US had no hidden "geo-political purposes". We were just trying to prevent Sadam from rearming and starting another war. The US can't demand the UNSC "bless" a plan if the majority doesn't approve of it and if any permanent member objects to it.

And that brings up back to the OP topic. You said "NO ONE had better ideas on how to deal with Saddam's Iraq". Actually a handful of CONSISTENT leaders -- LIKE DENNIS KUCINICH, Ron Paul and others DID advocate that we let Saddam out of containment after pulverizing and killing Iraqis for over a decade. And my Libertarian Party for example who NEVER changed their principles or opinions on the matter. And then there were the French and Germans who calling for "normalization" 8 years into the containment and eventually left the "coalition". A LOT of folks had the CORRECT idea to let Saddam out of containment rather than pursuing the faulty and highly EXAGGERATED WMD fallacy.

Took a lot of guts to call for walking away from a TERRIBLE policy that went on FAR too long. And ole Dennis was right there all along.

Not like all those Dem/Rep heroes who voted consistently to CONTINUE that policy. And then expected the Iraqis to LOVE US when we triumphantly marched into Iraq. Who do blame most for this carnage? Bush Jr who AT LEAST did something to end that situation or the Dems who didn't have the guts to ACKNOWLEDGE the humanitarian crisis we created with the containment and the bombing and suggest we wind the containment down?

So your better idea was to allow Sadam to rearm and start more wars, endangering the ME oil supply and threatening the global economy. Perhaps it's the word, better, that confuses you.

Letting him out of containment doesn't mean that NATO or Russia or China could sell him weapons. Although not allowing Iraq the ability to defend itself in that region would be an end to their sovereignty. As is happening NOW anyways after ANOTHER decade of US occupation. Since Iran (the perennial enemy of Iraq) is in functional security control of about 1/3 of that country right now.

If Iran were as influential as you claim, why did the Iraqi government turn to the US to help them fight ISIS. Back in the 1960's Khomeini lived in Iraq and he tried to incite Shi'ites there against the Sunni government. The Iraqi Shi'ites complained and he was kicked out of Iraq. While the Iraqi and Iranian Shi'ites do share a religion, the Iranians are not Arabs and they speak a different language and have a different culture and history from Iraqis. Iraqis do have a sense of nationalism.

 

[JBond]

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?

Our policy is to avoid civilian deaths, while the enemies plan is to maximize civilian deaths. I understand why you are confused. It baffles most liberals.

 

[Dschrute3]

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?

Our policy is to avoid civilian deaths, while the enemies plan is to maximize civilian deaths. I understand why you are confused. It baffles most liberals.

Our policy is world domination. It's Empire-Building. It's exactly what our Founding Fathers warned against. All Empires fall. We're $20 Trillion in Debt and spread too thin. There will be a reckoning.

 

[JBond]

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?

Our policy is to avoid civilian deaths, while the enemies plan is to maximize civilian deaths. I understand why you are confused. It baffles most liberals.

Our policy is world domination. It's Empire-Building. It's exactly what our Founding Fathers warned against. All Empires fall. We're $20 Trillion in Debt and spread too thin. There will be a reckoning.

You sound like one of those dope smoking college professors that pile loads of crap on kids. I will agree that we have a spending problem. A trillion in welfare last year.

 

[eagle1462010]

Big difference. One is considered a crime against humanity and the world has banned it's use. Why? It is a very horrible way to die..............not that getting bombed doesn't kill people as well. The videos of the 2013 gas attack shows those dying in agonizing pain......It is not over quick it lasts for hours before they finally sufforcate in complete agony............

 

[toomuchtime_]

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?

Our policy is to avoid civilian deaths, while the enemies plan is to maximize civilian deaths. I understand why you are confused. It baffles most liberals.

Our policy is world domination. It's Empire-Building. It's exactly what our Founding Fathers warned against. All Empires fall. We're $20 Trillion in Debt and spread too thin. There will be a reckoning.

That's just crazy Ron Paul talk.

 

[flacaltenn]

It was US/Euro policy done thru coalition. Clinton and Dems demanded that the UN "bless" the plan for geo-political purposes. So it didn't look like another Christian Crusade to the Arab League and others.

If you remember, the Euros bailed early. Started having talks with Iraq about "nomalizing". Leaving the US/UK holding the entire bag from about 1997 -- 2002..

It was the Security council that made all the decisions and no one had any better Ideas on how to deal with Sadam's Iraq. The US had no hidden "geo-political purposes". We were just trying to prevent Sadam from rearming and starting another war. The US can't demand the UNSC "bless" a plan if the majority doesn't approve of it and if any permanent member objects to it.

And that brings up back to the OP topic. You said "NO ONE had better ideas on how to deal with Saddam's Iraq". Actually a handful of CONSISTENT leaders -- LIKE DENNIS KUCINICH, Ron Paul and others DID advocate that we let Saddam out of containment after pulverizing and killing Iraqis for over a decade. And my Libertarian Party for example who NEVER changed their principles or opinions on the matter. And then there were the French and Germans who calling for "normalization" 8 years into the containment and eventually left the "coalition". A LOT of folks had the CORRECT idea to let Saddam out of containment rather than pursuing the faulty and highly EXAGGERATED WMD fallacy.

Took a lot of guts to call for walking away from a TERRIBLE policy that went on FAR too long. And ole Dennis was right there all along.

Not like all those Dem/Rep heroes who voted consistently to CONTINUE that policy. And then expected the Iraqis to LOVE US when we triumphantly marched into Iraq. Who do blame most for this carnage? Bush Jr who AT LEAST did something to end that situation or the Dems who didn't have the guts to ACKNOWLEDGE the humanitarian crisis we created with the containment and the bombing and suggest we wind the containment down?

So your better idea was to allow Sadam to rearm and start more wars, endangering the ME oil supply and threatening the global economy. Perhaps it's the word, better, that confuses you.

Letting him out of containment doesn't mean that NATO or Russia or China could sell him weapons. Although not allowing Iraq the ability to defend itself in that region would be an end to their sovereignty. As is happening NOW anyways after ANOTHER decade of US occupation. Since Iran (the perennial enemy of Iraq) is in functional security control of about 1/3 of that country right now.

If Iran were as influential as you claim, why did the Iraqi government turn to the US to help them fight ISIS. Back in the 1960's Khomeini lived in Iraq and he tried to incite Shi'ites there against the Sunni government. The Iraqi Shi'ites complained and he was kicked out of Iraq. While the Iraqi and Iranian Shi'ites do share a religion, the Iranians are not Arabs and they speak a different language and have a different culture and history from Iraqis. Iraqis do have a sense of nationalism.

Smell the coffee. The grand vision of promoting "democracy" in Iraq failed in Iraq. Leading to one of the largest "hybrid" corruptocracies in the ME. The answer to your question is -- Low Sunni voter turnout contributed to a Shia favorable central government. Which has DIS-unified Iraq and greatly increased Iran's influence and participation in providing "security" for the current regime...

 

[flacaltenn]

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?

Our policy is to avoid civilian deaths, while the enemies plan is to maximize civilian deaths. I understand why you are confused. It baffles most liberals.

Yet for TWO DECADES --- you evidently snoozed thru a complete embargo and isolation and a war and occupation in Iraq that resulted in AT LEAST 600,000 dead civilians. "We avoid civilian deaths"?? Apparently not if there's a coalition or UN resolution blessing our military activities.

 

[Dschrute3]

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?

Our policy is to avoid civilian deaths, while the enemies plan is to maximize civilian deaths. I understand why you are confused. It baffles most liberals.

Our policy is world domination. It's Empire-Building. It's exactly what our Founding Fathers warned against. All Empires fall. We're $20 Trillion in Debt and spread too thin. There will be a reckoning.

You sound like one of those dope smoking college professors that pile loads of crap on kids. I will agree that we have a spending problem. A trillion in welfare last year.

Yeah sure, blame it all on the poor least fortunate among us. Typical 'Good American/Good Christian' Neocon Republican. Y'all are gonna have to answer in the afterlife for your transgressions. Jesus has a bone to pick with you.

 

[Dschrute3]

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?

Our policy is to avoid civilian deaths, while the enemies plan is to maximize civilian deaths. I understand why you are confused. It baffles most liberals.

Our policy is world domination. It's Empire-Building. It's exactly what our Founding Fathers warned against. All Empires fall. We're $20 Trillion in Debt and spread too thin. There will be a reckoning.

That's just crazy Ron Paul talk.

I disagree.

 

[toomuchtime_]

It was the Security council that made all the decisions and no one had any better Ideas on how to deal with Sadam's Iraq. The US had no hidden "geo-political purposes". We were just trying to prevent Sadam from rearming and starting another war. The US can't demand the UNSC "bless" a plan if the majority doesn't approve of it and if any permanent member objects to it.

And that brings up back to the OP topic. You said "NO ONE had better ideas on how to deal with Saddam's Iraq". Actually a handful of CONSISTENT leaders -- LIKE DENNIS KUCINICH, Ron Paul and others DID advocate that we let Saddam out of containment after pulverizing and killing Iraqis for over a decade. And my Libertarian Party for example who NEVER changed their principles or opinions on the matter. And then there were the French and Germans who calling for "normalization" 8 years into the containment and eventually left the "coalition". A LOT of folks had the CORRECT idea to let Saddam out of containment rather than pursuing the faulty and highly EXAGGERATED WMD fallacy.

Took a lot of guts to call for walking away from a TERRIBLE policy that went on FAR too long. And ole Dennis was right there all along.

Not like all those Dem/Rep heroes who voted consistently to CONTINUE that policy. And then expected the Iraqis to LOVE US when we triumphantly marched into Iraq. Who do blame most for this carnage? Bush Jr who AT LEAST did something to end that situation or the Dems who didn't have the guts to ACKNOWLEDGE the humanitarian crisis we created with the containment and the bombing and suggest we wind the containment down?

So your better idea was to allow Sadam to rearm and start more wars, endangering the ME oil supply and threatening the global economy. Perhaps it's the word, better, that confuses you.

Letting him out of containment doesn't mean that NATO or Russia or China could sell him weapons. Although not allowing Iraq the ability to defend itself in that region would be an end to their sovereignty. As is happening NOW anyways after ANOTHER decade of US occupation. Since Iran (the perennial enemy of Iraq) is in functional security control of about 1/3 of that country right now.

If Iran were as influential as you claim, why did the Iraqi government turn to the US to help them fight ISIS. Back in the 1960's Khomeini lived in Iraq and he tried to incite Shi'ites there against the Sunni government. The Iraqi Shi'ites complained and he was kicked out of Iraq. While the Iraqi and Iranian Shi'ites do share a religion, the Iranians are not Arabs and they speak a different language and have a different culture and history from Iraqis. Iraqis do have a sense of nationalism.

Smell the coffee. The grand vision of promoting "democracy" in Iraq failed in Iraq. Leading to one of the largest "hybrid" corruptocracies in the ME. The answer to your question is -- Low Sunni voter turnout contributed to a Shia favorable central government. Which has DIS-unified Iraq and greatly increased Iran's influence and participation in providing "security" for the current regime...

Bullshit. Two thirds of the population is Shi'ite so the Shi'ites of course are the majority in the government. The US has a low voter turnout rate, so does that mean we aren't a democracy? Iraq has passed the ultimate test of a democracy when there was a peaceful transition of power as the result of an election. Your post is entirely bullshit. You are just another disgruntled Democrat who is bitter that Iraq has become a functioning democracy instead of he brutal dictatorship you favored.