USATODAY.com - Internet use spreading throughout Iraq

Internet cafes scarce during Saddam Hussein's rule are now spreading throughout Iraq.

The research covered 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces. Those that not covered included two of Iraq's more volatile regions -- Kerbala and Anbar -- and the northern province of Arbil, where local authorities refused them a permit to work

Sorry John, but you are wrong. Americans don't care. Oh sure, there may be a few loyal regular C&Lers that care, but as a whole? Americans don't care as long as it isn't Americans. Just read any and all articles denouncing the occupation and what do you read? You read about needless American deaths. How much did any Americans feel about death and destruction caused in Vietnam besides American deaths? How many still feel absolutely no sympathy for the innocent carpet bombed in Germany, or nuked in Japan? Afterall, these people never started any wars, their leaders did. Just like Bush.

Oh they don't care. Yesterday I got one of those "Feel Good" email from some detached delusional relative which praised JAY LENO'S philosophy of life, and how we should be joyfull that we're FREE and there is "NO DRAFT!"
lol

I don't doubt for a minute that an exhorbitant number of Iraqi civilians have been killed during Busholini's Crusade for Iraq, but A MILLION? That's 4% of their pre-invasion population. That's the equivalent of 12 million Americans being killed.

Candy and flowers.

I'm sure that there have been 100000 deaths or more and a million casualties. A million deaths could not have been overlooked by the media - remember, it's not just our sycophantic press covering Bush's War.

Dr. Acula @ 9:

I don't doubt for a minute that an exhorbitant number of Iraqi civilians have been killed during Busholini's Crusade for Iraq, but A MILLION? That's 4% of their pre-invasion population. That's the equivalent of 12 million Americans being killed.

did you think this thru before you responded. at the level of violence by us and the
insurgents and the civil war, if this happened in America with the same level of chaos
and lack of local government, 12 million would be a very real or low number.

President McCain will continue with the strength of America to kill more Iraqis and Iranians. As many as possible. Thank you America for putting President McCain into office. We would never be safe without him. Death of anyone necessary will ensure my personal safety.

getalife @ 18:

McInsane ♥ genocide.

you got that right.

McCrazy seeths for revenge against the "enemy" as payback for his stay in the Hanoi Hilton.

Obscene.

And that prick in the WH will just walk away from it and go cut brush with a clear conscience because he doesn't have one.

If someone made a decision that led to the deaths of Bush's twins, or Cheney's grandchild, do you think B and C would want revenge, and/or justice? Bet your arse they would.

What's this sound?

"Knock, knock, knock...knock, knock, knock..."

It's the sound of millions of deeply pissed-off Iraqis at the door, wanting justice for their losses. And wanting war reparations.

Millions.

This is what awaits all of us citizens of 'coalition' countries. Our criminal leaders led us into a manifestly criminal enterprise.

The Muslim world is yet to get over the Crusades. They ended about 500 years ago.

We will be paying for this catastrophic folly for the rest of our lives and then some.

Meatum is on the frarch?

The neo-con government of the United States has destroyed America's reputation for a generation.

I am deeply embarrassed that my country has come to this. It pains me that my tax dollars are being sent for such a disgusting folly and senseless horror.

With all the money spent on the military complex, and intelligence community complex, we citizens are sure as hell not getting our money's worth.

Democracy is on the move.

Thats 1 in every 26 Iraqis.

That'd be like 11,500,000 Americans being killed by an aggressor.

hadenuf @ 26:

We knew this, from the Johns Hopkins study, Octboer, 2006.
Not many cared then either.

Good point. But the Johns Hopkins Study that was published in The Lancet came out in March of 2006. In the summer of that year, I had attended a rally for Lt. Watada in the Pacific Northwest. At the rally, I ran into a woman who worked with Les Roberts, who was in charge of those findings. This woman was bitter that the American mainstream media had ignored the results of this study, since, as she told me, their methodology involving the deaths of so many Iraqis was quite credible. Apparently the last thing that the media wishes to do is to believe that the U.S. government could possibly be guilty of such horrible atrocities [see books such as Rogue State by William Blum and Land of Hypocrisy by Kennie Andersen for more proof of what the United States has inflicted upon other Third World countries in terms of death and destruction].

What do you expect? The First Gulf War was sold to us based on lies (the "Kuwaiti refugee" who talked about babies being dumped out of incubators was actually the daughter to the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the USA and rehearsed her script, which was not based upon any of her personal experiences, with the help of a Bush-affiliated PR firm called Hill & Knowlton), and so was the second one (the list is public knowledge).

Wars supported by lies are nothing but trouble.

This estimate, and the one reported a while ago by The Lancet et al. were performed in accordance with widely-accepted statistical estimation practices. Bet the MSM puts this information on page 21 of the newspapers, and doesn't even mention it on the daily news. They should be ashamed!

Why do the people of this country not seem to care about the deaths of 1MM innocent Iraqis? Has the US sunk to a level of hatred and ignorance that is so low, and risen to a level of apathy and/or religious fanaticism that is so high, that the killing of "brown people", the majority of whom are Muslim, is OK?

Our nation, which is part of the world community, appears to be in deep trouble here.

[Not a Ron Paul Thread-Sitemonitor]

Ex-Canuck @ 39:

Why do the people of this country not seem to care about the deaths of 1MM innocent Iraqis?

Americans have been lied to by the press, which continues to promote the far less horrifying tens of thousands, and which has barred any discussion of the warcrimes, the conspiracy, the evil, or the racism involved.

I meet people just as horrified as you every time I go out to protest. IF people have the information, many of them also have the conscience.

I knew this when Johns Hopkins came to the same conclusion quite a while ago.

ConcernedCanuck @ 45:

It is also in the UN declarations, signed by the US of course, that an uninstigated blatant attack on a sovereign nation is in violation of numerous treaties and agreements. Means nothing.

You have it right up until your 'means nothing' interjection.

Don't trip over your cynicism. The value of those treaties and laws is not that they can stop wars, but that they recognize the moral imperative to stop wars. IF America had a legal executive which was following our laws, this would not be taking place.

You say you’re moral, then show me how
You and your daddy ‘ve killed two hundred thou’
You say you’re moral, well tell me why
Fictitious reasons sending young ones to die

-Wackiavelli

How little did they know when they wrote this in December of '04...

John Amato:

"John McCain/Lieberman/Kristol/Cheney/Feith/ The WHIG’s and many more have a lot to answer for…"

Good line. I hope you follow up on this theme in depth in future.

[Not a Ron Paul Thread-Sitemonitor]

Talcott @ 54:

Paul in LA @ 47:

Ron is not an internationalist niether am I. Local government governs best.

Tell that to Martin Luther King, Jr., ya mug.

L Ron Paul's idea of localism goes along with his desire to PRIVATIZE all federal lands, including our national parks. He wants to finish the rape of Alaska, he wants to put nuclear power plants all over the country, and he wants to GUT our environmental laws. He also opposes malpractice lawsuits (which is local law). He says he thinks the states should individually regulate abortion rights, and then tries repeatedly to have the Congress and the federal gov't specify that personhood begins at conception -- a ridiculous and tragic perspective.

He thinks local homeowners can successfully sue major transnational corporations for pollution. He thinks that's better than having the federal gov't promulgate known scientific limits on toxin exposure, and the federal gov't sue those corporations with all its power and attorneys.

He's a CON ARTIST, fighting for a return to the state corruption his business backers (and KKK) love.

[Enough already. Ron Paul IS NOT THE TOPIC. Please move it along. This goes for you too, Talcott. Site Monitor]

The intention of the surge was not to make life better for Iraqis, but to make life better for the US occupiers. An obvious way to do that is to increase the number of Iraqis killed, so in that sense the surge is succeeding.

I’m sure that the Iraqi war vets wouldn’t mind spray paint their helmets using the color UN blue and wait for the call. There are so many people dying in Africa as we speak. Africom just waits for the good men of honor that just don’t seem to come, fighting wars in other places, letting the Africans feel the pain of machetes hitting their bodies (I wonder which part of your body you would expose to die the least painful, most sudden way possible as you see a guy with a machete chasing you down. I wonder what’s the best body angle to form before surrendering, hitting the ground and dying and how many hits it takes to pass away as a victim of genocide. Can anyone make a survey?)

I’m sure that if the orders came, the Iraqi war vets, hurt or not, fit or not, bankrupt or not, would pay for the tickets, guns and armor, fill up Herculeses and Boeings in a f*******g New York minute. After all, there is a difference between fighting a war of own creation and fighting a real horror where basic human principles count no matter how inconvenient and dangerous the situation is, and push you to do something to save other soul and ultimately feel good about it. Terror worth fighting hasn’t been happening in Iraq, it has been happening in Africa. You can imagine the joy, the smile, the tears of US soldiers snuffing out the Kenyans, gunning down the Sudanese or eliminating the Rwandans, one by one, out of the air or a tank, safely zeroing in and blowing the sh*t out of them, killing their militaristic, animalistic ambitions of ethnic cleansing and slaughtering the innocent, and after completing the mission, safely returning to their bases.

After fighting the Iraq war debacle, it appears that the physical healing is not enough. I’m sure that thousands of these guys would love to have a chance to recompensate for the sins, the crimes, do little soul healing to feel like real soldiers again, and after coming back from a real mission, put the blue helmets aside, go back to the places they’d come from, hospitals, houses with broken families, go to the wives with some pride, mothers and fathers or under the bridges with a sense of fulfillment. But that call will never come. It take real men of principle and here there are none. Here there is Bush, Chaney and McCain, a narrow-minded, profit-driven and vengeful. All it takes to explain what the United States of American is these days is one UK survey with 1.7% margin of error of 1 million reasons to hate it.

"What bigotry. The 'american people' are 300 million people, most of whom have only the slightest knowledge of what has happened in Iraq."

Indeed bigotry, such as the americons choices to stay ignorant and never ask a question about anything, blindly believing what they are told and ramming it down the throats of people around the world.

"H'yeah, sure, like look how many Vietnamese terror attacks there have been. Most people would rather live in peace than become terrorists."

Obviously, which is why 9/11 didn't happen ........ and why americon hasn't turned the world on itself .... dream on.

"Something like 150 million tiny."

Try not counting the apathetic and ignorant, the number is a lot smaller than that, by orders of magnitude.

"There is no such thing as 'karma.' The results of these crimes are abundantly those of the victims, and any terror attack on America would also find victims, not those 'guilty' of some karmic accumulation."

There is ....... the americon people do nothing, and the backlash will effect them, that's pretty much cause and effect.

"It's pathetic that people carry-over mythology from the villages into world events. The result of war is poverty. We are well into that EFFECT. The suggestion that 'karma' is floating around in some vague way is anti-scientific nonsense. What was the 'karma' that made Vietnamese Buddhists the target of B-52s? It's an archaic idea which is useless in stopping these crimes, because it is so obviously inadequate to describe modern reality."

You can attempt to argue semantics, much like your beloved Karl Rove, though the out come of actions will be undeniable.

I'm with Talcott, you are indeed deluded.

andy @ 62:

This is genocide by both republicans and democrats.

That's a fallacy. You are using specific terms to encompass whole parties.

As it comes to whole parties, it is the Republicans who are guilty of these crimes.

While there have always been hawkish Dems, in fact there were attempts by Democrats during the 1990s (and Republican control of the House) to soften those sanctions.

Those sanction-deaths do not compare to the heinous crimes of GHWB, who stood by and in fact armed Hussein for his genocide of the Marsh Arabs in 1991-2, and who armed Hussein in his war with Iran as part of Reagan's foreign policy, and who of course covered for Hussein's chemical and biological weapons programs at the UN.

Nothing comparable to that in Clinton's foreign policy resume. Failing to stop the sanctions and failing to stop Rwanda are sins of OMISSION, as opposed to these many sins of commission by Republicans.

1000000 people killed over about 4.5 years - thats about 600 a day! Surely it can't be that high.... can it? God I hope not.

They hanged Saddam for killing 29 Iraqis, imagine what the punishment for Bush/Cheney/Republicans/Democrats/Media will be! Brought to justice!

Andy K @ 64:

WARNING: PAULSWARM!

I know! Jeez. And it'd be fine, too if they weren't blaming every single American for this concocted fallacy of a war.

Paul in LA @ 65:

andy @ 62:

This is genocide by both republicans and democrats.

That's a fallacy. You are using specific terms to encompass whole parties.

As it comes to whole parties, it is the Republicans who are guilty of these crimes.

While there have always been hawkish Dems, in fact there were attempts by Democrats during the 1990s (and Republican control of the House) to soften those sanctions.

Those sanction-deaths do not compare to the heinous crimes of GHWB, who stood by and in fact armed Hussein for his genocide of the Marsh Arabs in 1991-2, and who armed Hussein in his war with Iran as part of Reagan's foreign policy, and who of course covered for Hussein's chemical and biological weapons programs at the UN.

Nothing comparable to that in Clinton's foreign policy resume. Failing to stop the sanctions and failing to stop Rwanda are sins of OMISSION, as opposed to these many sins of commission by Republicans.

Killing is ok when it's democrats doing it, they're the good party.

500 thousand children under the age of 5 died as of a consequence of clintons harsh sanctions, which did nothing but kill lots of Iraqis and strengthen saddam, i know a lot of democrats are in denial but the democrats policies are just as ruthless sometimes as the repubs, your in denial.

The whole US system is corrupt, both left and right are equally repugnant, bottom line is whoever is in power they will always stampede over other countries roughshod to maintain this empire, wether you like it or not both parties are just a diffrent side of the same coin, whoever gets in the brown people in far off countries will die in massive numbers, just because the democrats are cleverer at it than the repubs doesn't matter.

AshWilliams @ 74:

andy @ 73:

Paul in LA @ 65:

andy @ 62:

That's a fallacy. You are using specific terms to encompass whole parties.

As it comes to whole parties, it is the Republicans who are guilty of these crimes.

While there have always been hawkish Dems, in fact there were attempts by Democrats during the 1990s (and Republican control of the House) to soften those sanctions.

Those sanction-deaths do not compare to the heinous crimes of GHWB, who stood by and in fact armed Hussein for his genocide of the Marsh Arabs in 1991-2, and who armed Hussein in his war with Iran as part of Reagan's foreign policy, and who of course covered for Hussein's chemical and biological weapons programs at the UN.

Nothing comparable to that in Clinton's foreign policy resume. Failing to stop the sanctions and failing to stop Rwanda are sins of OMISSION, as opposed to these many sins of commission by Republicans.

Killing is ok when it's democrats doing it, they're the good party.

500 thousand children under the age of 5 died as of a consequence of clintons harsh sanctions, which did nothing but kill lots of Iraqis and strengthen saddam, i know a lot of democrats are in denial but the democrats policies are just as ruthless sometimes as the repubs, your in denial.

The whole US system is corrupt, both left and right are equally repugnant, bottom line is whoever is in power they will always stampede over other countries roughshod to maintain this empire, wether you like it or not both parties are just a diffrent side of the same coin, whoever gets in the brown people in far off countries will die in massive numbers, just because the democrats are cleverer at it than the repubs doesn't matter.

It's just been the trend of the past 60 years. Now there are, and have been, good people in office, but we are on a downhill trend of making enemies by interfering with global politics. Sometimes it's not even the people in office though...CIA.

Thats a good point, this policy of meddling and mass killing, be it by direct bombings or propping up of pro US dictators in the middle east has been a trend since about 1953 with the over throw of Mossadeq in Iran.

And also who can forget clintons bombing of the Al shifa pharmaceutical factory, which probably cost thousands of lives in the long run.

[Deleted. It ends here, andy. I posted the warning upthread. Please keep it on topic. Site Monitor]

AshWilliams @ 70:

Paul in LA @ 33:

99% of our soldiers are good, honest, brave men.

That's incorrect. There is now racist gang graffiti from US gangs on the walls of Baghdad. The US military has dropped its standards nearly across the board. Plenty of good soldiers are FURIOUS with the admittance of racists and criminals to the military, and the large numbers of MERCENARIES, and US privatized soldiers without any legal restrictions has led to an unending series of atrocities.

I have personally spoken with more than twenty Marines who bragged to me that they loved killing Hajis, hated all Arabs, and were hired killers for America. I have spoken with returning vets who have seen atrocities, and the pogroms on Fallujah and Najaf (and elsewhere) as well as Shock and Awe itself, as well as the destruction of civilian infrastructure is plenty of reason why we are guilty of genocide -- which is illegal and not 'good honesty of the brave.'

It's despicable, and down to my shoes laces I despise the generals who have so failed our loyal, dutiful soldiers.

Man, i get so down thinking about the death and destruction our leaders have brought to the Iraqi people in our name, of course all done in the name of goodness, we want to bring them freedom and flowers etc, i feel helpless though, our governments are unstoppable, makes me sick, over 1 MILLION for gods sake what have our governments become ? how do they sleep at night ? .... we're the new nazi's. The difference in what the people think there government are doing and what they actually do is massive.

[Deleted. Ryan, this is going off topic. This is the third time I've posted this warning. Keep it on topic. Site Monitor]

Tommy Gunn @ 80:

Don't forget the (at least) 10,000 Afghani civilians who have been killed by THAT immoral and illegal war by this genocidal administration.

Too many people do.

Also the Russians wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan in the 80's if it wasn't for Brezinski who sucked Russia into what he called "the Afghan trap", Brezinski now brags about starting that war by arming anti afghan government groups to destabilize the pro soviet regime forcing the Russians to invade, the ensuing war killed hundred of thousands of afghans, all because Brezinski (a democrat) wanted to bog the soviets down in a vietnam type quagmire.

andy @ 84:

Paul in LA @ 82:

andy @ 73:

Killing is ok when it's democrats doing it, they're the good party.

No, I posted a comparison between Clinton's foreign policy and Reagan-Bush-Bush. Plenty of Democrats (like me) spent the 1990s protesting Clinton's foreign policy weakness, and the party in Congress made efforts to reduce the sanctions.

The demilitarization sanctions were installed by GHWB. Oil for Food was not an effective program, but that was the Clinton program -- it is not correct to blame him solely for the military sanctions. Nothing in Oil for Food looks at all similar to handing Hussein attack helicopters and calling for an uprising, as GHWB did, resulting in the slaughter of the Marsh Arabs. Nothing is comparable to covering for Hussein's chemical and biological weapons use against the Kurds in the late 80s. And Clinton did not invade Iraq.

Ok we can compare the atrocities of Bush-clinton, bottom line is no matter who is voted in it's not going to stop, the madness and mass killings will continue and Americans will still be bemused when 9/11's happen because they're clueless of what there governments do around the world, when i criticize Clinton that doesn't mean I'm a Bush supporter, i believe both are working to the same ends, they both are elite puppets, both on the CFR, both globalists.

You forgot, "both Bilderbergers, both on the Tri-Lateral Commission, both Illuminati."

Most importantly you forgot, "and that's why I support Ron Paul."

AshWilliams @ 71:

Andy K @ 64:

WARNING: PAULSWARM!

I know! Jeez. And it'd be fine, too if they weren't blaming every single American for this concocted fallacy of a war.

Oh but he isn't. He just blames the Republicans, cuz Clinton in the 90s had nothing to do with crimes against anyone. LMAO! Deluded? Nope just your typical Dem cheerleader that follows the code of the NeoCONs in reverse.

andy @ 83:

Also the Russians wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan in the 80's if it wasn't for Brezinski who sucked Russia into what he called "the Afghan trap",

That's a supposition. Brzezinski brags about it, that doesn't make it true.

ConcernedCanuck @ 87:

AshWilliams @ 71:

Andy K @ 64:

WARNING: PAULSWARM!

I know! Jeez. And it'd be fine, too if they weren't blaming every single American for this concocted fallacy of a war.

Oh but he isn't. He just blames the Republicans, cuz Clinton in the 90s had nothing to do with crimes against anyone. LMAO! Deluded? Nope just your typical Dem cheerleader that follows the code of the NeoCONs in reverse.

AshWilliams picked up on what I was talking about, and it wasn't Paul in LA.

Andy K @ 91:

ConcernedCanuck @ 87:

AshWilliams @ 71:

Andy K @ 64:

I know! Jeez. And it'd be fine, too if they weren't blaming every single American for this concocted fallacy of a war.

Oh but he isn't. He just blames the Republicans, cuz Clinton in the 90s had nothing to do with crimes against anyone. LMAO! Deluded? Nope just your typical Dem cheerleader that follows the code of the NeoCONs in reverse.

AshWilliams picked up on what I was talking about, and it wasn't Paul in LA.

Haha, LMAO myself, sir.

Paul in LA @ 92:

ConcernedCanuck @ 88:

And Clinton did not invade Iraq.

No he just bombed the shit out of everything that moved from the air. Feel better?

Clinton bombed Iraqi military sites with targeted strikes. Desert Fox, in 1998, destroyed Hussein's ability to manufacture high-explosives. As much as I have opposed Hussein in my life, starting in 1987, I count the destruction of the HMX factory at Al-Qaqaa as one of Clinton's foreign policy successes.

Bush, by comparison, failed to guard AQQ's warehouses, and allowed those high-explosives to be distributed to all hostiles in the region. That's a HUGE act of criminal negligence at the worst. Nothing that Clinton did compares to that (in kind).

Paul. I'm not going to argue with you. Bush is a criminal, and so was Clinton, doesn't matter how you sugarcoat it to make the Dems go down. It has been proven that a majority of these so called military targets was just a big stinking pile of BS in the same line as Bushies saying they killed "insurgents" and "terrists".......no matter who was bombed or killed, or maimed, they are all the evil enemy regardless who the leader was. Ya I recall an aspirin factory. PROVEN. I recall mis-guided precision bombs missing. PROVEN. Get off the Dem horse and face reality. Good Lord, did you have a turn at the WhiteHouse on Cli.........never mind.

Andy K @ 91:

ConcernedCanuck @ 87:

AshWilliams @ 71:

Andy K @ 64:

I know! Jeez. And it'd be fine, too if they weren't blaming every single American for this concocted fallacy of a war.

Oh but he isn't. He just blames the Republicans, cuz Clinton in the 90s had nothing to do with crimes against anyone. LMAO! Deluded? Nope just your typical Dem cheerleader that follows the code of the NeoCONs in reverse.

AshWilliams picked up on what I was talking about, and it wasn't Paul in LA.

Hey Andy. YOU GUYS VOTED BUSH IN! Whether it was an illegal fraudulent election or not, the blood IS on American hands. But, you don't care? Didn't think so.

ConcernedCanuck @ 95:

Paul in LA @ 92:

Paul. I'm not going to argue with you. Bush is a criminal, and so was Clinton, doesn't matter how you sugarcoat it to make the Dems go down. It has been proven that a majority of these so called military targets was just a big stinking pile of BS

No, it hasn't. The bombings of non-military sites (such as the fiber optic network) took place in 2000. Clinton's attacks, Desert Fox in 1998, and the earlier strike on the Republican Guard hq were not so-called military targets -- they WERE military targets.

Even so, the suggestion that Democrats = Democratic Presidents is a canard. A President from Texas, from Georgia, and from Arkansas does NOT represent the whole party, and then some. It's a large party, and just about EVERYTHING that anyone can say good about American progress comes from that party, all of us together fighting historical forces toward a basically benign view of the world. To sneer at 100 million people as if they were reducible to three Presidents is absurd.

In 1963, Democratic president JFK shut down the Pentagon plan to preemptively nuke the USSR. When Clinton arrived in the White House, the Pentagon had some big plans as well. To expect Clinton to have been able to stop those plans is appropriate -- he was very weak, and he was hammered daily to keep him that way. But I don't blame Clinton or JFK for those Pentagon conspiracies. I applaud JFK for stopping it -- I down Clinton for being too weak to stop what was coming. In neither case were the Pentagon plans legal, democratic, moral, or honorable.

Look do you really think abouts care about the US killing one million Iraq people. We have not problem with the US torturing of innocent Iraq men/women/children. We have even had Iraq men/women/children raped with no second thoughts. Our only concern is how much can we steal from each other and what's Britney doing today. Our country has fallen apart with every Government Office lined with corrupt appointees by the White House. The new Attorney General does just as Al Gonzales did lie under oath. We're heard Bush and Cheney say for 7 years the US doesn't torture yet finally John Negroponte admitted we do torture, rape and even kill innocent prisoners. Our country is in a recession while Cheney has worked hard for 7 years to bring a 27 per cent profit to Halliburton even moving the company overseas so they wont have to pay taxes. The World has seen the down fall of the USA and Americans act like their watching a movie. The Iraq people will remember that they were better under the control of Saddam then the United States. History will show the truth that Hitler and Bush/Cheney are alike.

Paul in LA @ 99:

ConcernedCanuck @ 95:

Paul in LA @ 92:

Paul. I'm not going to argue with you. Bush is a criminal, and so was Clinton, doesn't matter how you sugarcoat it to make the Dems go down. It has been proven that a majority of these so called military targets was just a big stinking pile of BS

No, it hasn't. The bombings of non-military sites (such as the fiber optic network) took place in 2000. Clinton's attacks, Desert Fox in 1998, and the earlier strike on the Republican Guard hq were not so-called military targets -- they WERE military targets.

Even so, the suggestion that Democrats = Democratic Presidents is a canard. A President from Texas, from Georgia, and from Arkansas does NOT represent the whole party, and then some. It's a large party, and just about EVERYTHING that anyone can say good about American progress comes from that party, all of us together fighting historical forces toward a basically benign view of the world. To sneer at 100 million people as if they were reducible to three Presidents is absurd.

In 1963, Democratic president JFK shut down the Pentagon plan to preemptively nuke the USSR. When Clinton arrived in the White House, the Pentagon had some big plans as well. To expect Clinton to have been able to stop those plans is appropriate -- he was very weak, and he was hammered daily to keep him that way. But I don't blame Clinton or JFK for those Pentagon conspiracies. I applaud JFK for stopping it -- I down Clinton for being too weak to stop what was coming. In neither case were the Pentagon plans legal, democratic, moral, or honorable.

The people of Serbia, Kosovo, the Sudan, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are not the only or most obvious victims of Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. The day before the House impeachment vote, Clinton bombed Iraq, delaying the impeachment vote. He continued the bombing throughout all the days of the impeachment vote. Only an hour or two after the House impeachment vote ended, Clinton ended the bombing, saying, "We have achieved our objectives." Of course, because the objective was to delay and distract from the impeachment vote! In all other respects, the bombing hurt U.S. and international interests.

Clinton gave several excuses for bombing Iraq on the eve of the impeachment vote, especially the (bogus, but unquestioned) claim that Iraq had stopped cooperating with UNSCOM inspectors. In reality, Iraq’s cooperation with UNSCOM inspectors had actually been increasing, despite U.S. attempts to provoke a confrontation. However, knowing the impeachment schedule, Clinton had directed UNSCOM chief Richard Butler to write a report that Iraq was not cooperating. Even Scott Ritter, the former chief UNSCOM weapons inspector who quit because he thought the weapons inspectors were not tough enough, said that the White House had been on the phone with UNSCOM "shaping" the report to make sure it would justify bombing Iraq during the impeachment trial.

Clinton actually used the Muslim holy month of Ramadan as an excuse for the timing of the bombing. This may have fooled the American media, but didn't fool Muslims, as Clinton continued the bombing even after Ramadan had started (but halted the bombing as soon as the impeachment vote ended).

Sure, Clinton said he had unanimous agreement from his national security advisers to bomb Iraq. So what? No matter what day he asked his national security advisers, they would always agree to bomb Iraq, so why ask on that particular day, a day before the impeachment vote?

Fact: the UNSCOM inspectors were not kicked out of Iraq in December 1998 by Saddam -- President Clinton had UNSCOM chief Richard Butler pull out the UN inspectors so he could bomb. United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan was understandably angry that Clinton ordered out not just the U.S. inspectors, but all United Nations inspectors (which he had no authority to do).

http://www.ornery.org/essays/2001-01-26-1.html

Google Clinton's bombing campaigns...you'll find lots of hits and not all Republican authors.

Left&Left @ 102:

Over these few years I've heard every lame ass excuse for us breaking this country. When will the buck stop? Led by the Bush Crime Family, and with our blessing, the United States of America has committed crimes against humanity on the people of Iraq. Sometimes the simple explanation is the reason why. I know to some of you really tough Americans will think I sound like a "pussy", but I hope that the Iraqi people can one day find it in their hearts to understand that many of us were against this immoral act of aggression and to forgive us for what we have done to them and their country.

It isn't just the US, that's the sad part. The Canadian government is just as guilty with Afghanistan, the Brits and Aussie in Iraq, etc, etc......now look at what is taking place with the Kurds....truly tragic

AshWilliams @ 98:

Erroll @ 76:

AshWilliams @ 70:

Paul in LA @ 33:
BS. Typically my ass.
99% of our soldiers are good, honest, brave men.

It is difficult not to be outraged by your belief that American soldiers are brave. Brave in doing what, obeying illegal and immoral orders, the result of which manifests itself by brutalizing and terrorizing the Iraqi people? Do you not understand what the word occupying entails? It means to kill innocent civilians. It means breaking down the doors and harassing innocent Iraqis. Again, the U.S. military is not in Iraq performing a humanitarian mission; on the contrary, it is there to control Iraq's oil and to maintain their imperialistic aims and it does not matter to them how many Iraqis are killed, maimed and crippled as the U.S. flexes its military might.

Like so many Americans, you seem quite generous in your use of words. If the military ordered the troops to keep marching into the Euphrates river until they drowned, would you still label those soldiers brave? I submit that it is far easier to obey what the military tells these soldiers to do then it is not to obey those orders which contribute to the occupation and terror of the Iraqi people. The true heroes of this country are people such as those who belong to the IVAW [Iraq Veterans Against the War] and Lt. Ehren Watada, who have been brave enough to say NO to the war machine of the United States. I strongly suggest that you rent or buy the powerful documentary Sir! No Sir! to understand what true courage is. This film explored the reasons why those in the military during the Vietnam conflict defied the military and the government by telling the military that they were no longer going to take part in that illegal and unjust war, which is exactly what the IVAW is doing today. The best way to halt a war is to have it happen from within and not by blindly going along with whatever the higher-ups command the rank and file to do. It is long past the point that the average American soldier in Iraq realizes that it is not incumbent upon them to heed the call of "into the valley of death" rode the 160,000.

Are they? Like so many Americans, you seem to be devoid of the meaning of the word empathy. Try to imagine another country occupying the beloved United States. If that were to happen, then undoubtedly many acts of brutality and horror would take place against the American people. That is exactly what is taking place in Iraq, just as it took place where I was stationed those many years ago, in a place called Vietnam. What happened at places like Haditha in Iraq and My Lai in Vietnam were only the tip of the iceberg, as many of the local inhabitants would readily attest. Try reading Rogue State by William Blum and/or Land of Hypocrisy by Kennie Andersen as proof of these assertions that I have put forth. These books also examine other atrocities that the less than benevolent United States has committed against other Third World countries around the globe.

Paul in LA @ 39:

Talcott @ 28:

And if Hillary is elected it will be many more.

Past experience demonstrates that it will be many more REGARDLESS of who is elected.

Did Americans en masse weep over the 2.5 million Iraqis who died in the 1990s? The 2 million who died in the 1980s? No, they did not. And they don't now.

The idea that candidates can stop the military-industrial complex which is working its way to the Caspian sea oil by any and all means available is just the wish of a flea on the back of a rhinocerus.

hadenuf @ 35:

Sundog, arguably we are getting our money's worth: 1 million dead Iraqis to 4000+ dead Americans, zillions in profits for corporations, and not much in the way of protest.
We've smartened up since Vietnam.

The public doesn't care about this. They just watch tv fed by the networks and believe their bullshit. What we learned from Vietnam was that corporations can rape the public and other countries for government contracts and get away with it. I think it is in the psyche that the US cannot do bad like what the Germans did to the jews. Even the German public couldn't believe what had happened when they first found out. What the American public has to realize is they are the Germans now because they are funding these mass killings.

What a horrible legacy these murdering neocon scum leave.

I hope it haunts whatever shred of conscience any of their black hearts may retain.

May they be cast into the lake of fire for eternity.

The most amazing thing to me is that Americans seem, on the whole, to believe continuing this war will keep them safe. The only things the Iraq war have accomplished are:
1) Destroy the US economy
2) Create way more enemies than we had before
3) Create way more extremism
4) Over shadow all the good the US does in the world
and last but not least...
5) Make Americans one of the most hated people on the planet.

As a frequent traveler, it doesn't matter where I go, as soon as people find out I am American, I get lectured on how horrible we are, how much worse we made the world, how ignorant we are, that we are hypocrites and how completely moronic we are for voting in George Bush, not once but twice. Americans are the cannon fodder for the civilized world. All because of our ridiculous foreign policies.

And sadly, a lot of it is true. We are hypocrites. We invade countries in the name of freedom and yet sell out countries like Taiwan, that truly are democratic and pursuing free speech and political freedom.

1 Million Iraqi deaths. It's a sad day to be a part of the country we call America.

ConcernedCanuck @ 103 "The people of Serbia, Kosovo, the Sudan, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are not the only or most obvious victims of Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky."

The Serbs were slaughtering the people of Kosovo. They had artillery on the surrounding hillsides and were bombarding the town in a racist pogrom. Clinton is a major hero in the city. Samantha Power, in her book on genocide, credits the NATO freeing of Bosnia from Milosevich's racist pogrom as saving 150,000 lives.

The Sudan "aspirin" factory bombing is the only related event in that benighted country. If it was a mistake, it was a mistake. It was not a huge loss of life: "22 August 1998 Twenty people were killed in Afghanistan. More than a dozen were wounded in the wreckage of the pharmaceutical plant targeted in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum."

The idea that 35-40 persons killed in those two events compares on any scale with the actions of either Bush or Reagan is HILARIOUS.

Pakistan committed genocide in the early 1970s and has been threatening India with nuclear weapons since the 80s, with a nuclear crisis in 1999 at the end of Clinton's term which was resolved. Wow, what a bastard on that count, eh?

Shannon @ 113:

The most amazing thing to me is that Americans seem, on the whole, to believe continuing this war will keep them safe.

Find a poll which states that. Find ANY evidence of that.

Most Americans believe the opposite -- that the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses is making us far less safe.

Bush even managed to poison people with yellow cake he failed to guard. He managed to kill thousands by invading "on the cheap" (Rumsfeld) and failing to guard Al-Qaqaa, or the other hundreds of dumps of dangerous materials in Iraq.

They killed people by every negligence they could invent. And, on the other end, setting racist South African (Honduran, Chechen, Serb, etc.) mercenaries on the Iraqi public for murdering joy rides (and neighborhood kill squads) that would make Nosferatu blush.

Combine that with the rampant torture, and the Shock & Awe invasion itself, and the scope of the terrorism is plain.

Paul in LA @ 119:

Bush even managed to poison people with yellow cake he failed to guard. He managed to kill thousands by invading "on the cheap" (Rumsfeld) and failing to guard Al-Qaqaa, or the other hundreds of dumps of dangerous materials in Iraq.

They killed people by every negligence they could invent. And, on the other end, setting racist South African (Honduran, Chechen, Serb, etc.) mercenaries on the Iraqi public for murdering joy rides (and neighborhood kill squads) that would make Nosferatu blush.

Nosferatu isn't a name. The character's name was Graf Orlock, in Friederich Wilhelm Murneau's movie Nosferatu eine Symphonie des Grauens (1922). Nosferatu means living dead that exists in no language, but was a mistake of Emily de Laszowska Gerard"s The Land Beyond the Forest: Facts, Figures & Fancies from Transylvania. She was Scottish, married to a Transylvanian officer. She heard something she misunderstood, some think it was the Greek Nosphorous (Plague Bringer) or Necuratal (sp? meaning oppressive, intolerable.)

Paul in LA @ 89:

andy @ 83:

Also the Russians wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan in the 80's if it wasn't for Brezinski who sucked Russia into what he called "the Afghan trap",

That's a supposition. Brzezinski brags about it, that doesn't make it true.

hahahahahaha

Do you speak German? No... You would if we had a bunch of short sighted cowards like you running the government.

Paul in LA @ 47:

Talcott @ 42:

Oh I'm with you, that's why I support Ron Pual

L Ron Paul opposes the war in Iraq because it's too expensive and he COULD NOT CARE LESS how many Iraqis have died.

He sponsored a bill to authorize George W. Bush to attack Holland if the International Criminal Court arrested any of our warcriminals.

He wants to withdraw from the UN, from the Geneva Conventions, from all international treaties, and does not believe that there are universal human rights.

If you support that asshole, then you are the FARTHEST thing from me. I would rather have H. Clinton with all her baggage, than a peckerwood Republican Libertarian who opposes a woman's medical rights, and wants to go back to pre-Civil War 'states' rights.' He's an asshole, in a feather bonnet.

You have absolutly no understanding of Rep Paul's policies and positions on issues. Please check his website for clarification. Your ignorance is causing you to make unfounded ad hominem attacks.

Comment @ 126:

It turns my stomach when I see those numbers. Why don't US networks show these. I'd be ashamed if I was a US soldier. It's so sad so much blood is spilled. Why :(.

Because to report the truth would expose the boy-king as the traitorous, war-loving shithead that he is. Oh, and also because the neoconservatives do not give a flying fuck about them brown Arabs.

If Hitler was hold responsible for the killings so many lives, what difference does Bush is? Maybe is good if he ends up like Hitler too. World would be a better place... at least for the time being.....

BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT

BUSH is SAVING IRAQ

ha h ah ha ha hah ah hahah ahah ha ha ha

fo the next pres

karen @ 124:

That is a lot of dead Iraqis. Why doesn't this article report how many Americans died as well?

How is that pertinent? Invade a country and kill innocent people who resist your invasion, those are all victims.

Compare to the Americans who died in that invasion? Are they victims?

Some of them are (not enough body armor, unarmored vehicles, C-in-C failing to guard munitions sites leading to massive increase in roadside bombs, etc.).

Jasper @ 121:

Where is the proof of this? Not even the Arab world thinks this number is correct. I am not saying its wrong, just that there have been groups in past that have been criticized for their method of counting and who they say killed those people. How many have been killed by groups over their killing their own fellow countrymen?
http://www.spymac.com/details/?2333115

Did you actually try reading the article upon which this post is based? They actually answered your question-before you asked it!
Fuckin Magic, bay-bee...