Support NeoGAF

[ApharmdX]

But I'm sure the reason the terrorists hate us is our freedom, right?

In 2001, when Bush said this, many Americans actually believed it. Those were frightening times.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

Not unexpected, which is why it is always infruirating when people here don't see how hypocritical it is when the US constantly condemn countries and generally acting as if they are the beacon of Whats right. 1.3 fucking million people, no one comes close.

 

[Abinash117]

The irony of Obama's response is that the protests from liberals forced his hands into something which is, imo, even more repulsive than boots on the ground.

He has the legal authority to practically drone anyone out of existence as long as they meet a specified set of criteria and nobody, from the judiciary, to Congress (in today's context), can do anything about it because of his commander-in-chief powers.

Who should make the US responsible considering the US caused all this? Otherwise the US would keep doing this right?

 

[Goro Majima]

At this point, the US is to blame for stuff if they intervene, but also if they don't. A lot of people called on the West and the US to intervene in Libya. They did. Now they get the blame for the fighting there. It's either get involved and be responsible, or don't get involved and be responsible for a dictator killing his own population.

That was largely true even with the Persian Gulf War and the Iraq War.

There were a lot of arguments that both wars were extremely late to the party and should have happened when the Kurdish genocide was going on back in the late 80s.

 

[Aureon]

I thought this was about Syria\Lybia, since it speaks about Obama?

It's Iraq \ Afghanistan \ Pakistan, and nigh all deaths are indirect, that is, arisen out of conflict created by the invasions of the 9/11 aftermath.

I'm unsure Obama is to blame on those.

 

[DOWN]

America didn't kill 1mil Iraqi civilians.

 

[SliceSabre]

Why is it American citizens so happily condemn other countries for their atrocities when all but the biggest and most terrible don't even approach the scale of what this country has perpetuated?

Because when you commit war crimes in the name of American freedom it isn't a war crime.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

America didn't kill 1mil Iraqi civilians.

No, they killed hundreds of thousands and hundreds of thousands more died as a result of that invasion. That isn't any better than killing 1 million people.

 

[Jumeira]

Not American, so maybe don't assume that. There are plenty of people outside of America who don't see the country responsible for all evil in the world.


At this point, the US is to blame for stuff if they intervene, but also if they don't. A lot of people called on the West and the US to intervene in Libya. They did. Now they get the blame for the fighting there. It's either get involved and be responsible, or don't get involved and be responsible for a dictator killing his own population.

No. They arnt blamed if they dont intervened but are morally questioned, though thats completely different for the blame associated with the Iraq/Afghan war. Your missing the point, the war by Bush/Blair is largely responsible for the state the Mideast is in now, the above facts point to it. Mideast may have been toxic before but was not this bad, over a decade of misery for the people that did not ask for war, and to a larger extent, Europe is suffering because of it. Trying to absolve them by ignoring obvious truths isnt helping.

 

[noshten]

There is also instances where the blowback is not even considered. For example toppling Gaddafi lead to loads of arms ending up in the hands of Boko Haram, ISIS and al Qaeda

 

[Netherscourge]

I'm thinking the numbers are skewed...

Are these killed directly by US weaponry?

Or does the number of dead include all casualties, including the civil war fighting and terrorist attacks that the US military/weaponry is not apart of?

 

[Sax1031]

There is also instances where the blowback is not even considered. For example toppling Gaddafi lead to loads of arms ending up in the hands of Boko Haram, ISIS and al Qaeda

Same thing happened when moving all those weapons into Syria.

 

[Jumeira]

I agree that the US is responsible for a lot of it, don't get me wrong. But I think it is too easy to say the region would be all peace and happy if the Iraq invasion didn't happen.

I also put a lot of responsibility on the people there doing the killing now against their own people for stupid religious and ethnic issues, while they should be trying to rebuilt their country and shape a better future.

Alot of these people (in their 20s) would have been children at the time, a war that was brought upon them would have undoubtably affected them. These factions, IS for instance were initially formed as a resistance movement to the Iraq invasion, which became a death cult. Doesnt change the fact there was a call to arms which was a direct result of Bush's war.

 

[GYODX]

Not American, so maybe don't assume that. There are plenty of people outside of America who don't see the country responsible for all evil in the world.


At this point, the US is to blame for stuff if they intervene, but also if they don't. A lot of people called on the West and the US to intervene in Libya. They did. Now they get the blame for the fighting there. It's either get involved and be responsible, or don't get involved and be responsible for a dictator killing his own population.

Nobody who mattered would have faulted us for not intervening without UN approval. This is the point that many don't get: UN-sanctioned humanitarian interventions are not imperialism and non-intervention when international support is not there is not isolationism. Either way, people need to read up on what actual early 20th century American isolationism entailed.

Another point that many don't get is that the reason people criticize NATO intervention in Libya is that we overstepped our UN mandate. Even Russia, the usual obstructionist, abstained from voting against intervention in Libya because the deal was that we would set up a no-fly zone to stop the Libyan government from killing its civilians, not that we would take an active role in aiding the rebels achieve regime change. This kind of unilateral enforcement of outcomes we deem favorable not only tends to do more harm than good, as the previous 3+ decades of US policy in Middle Eastern affairs will show, it also hurts our international standing and emboldens others (Russia, etc) to act with similar disregard for international consensus. It is literally making the world a more unstable place. Localized conflict is bad, but having all the big powers push their weight around (because we've set the example that you can act unilaterally so long as your cause is righteous) is worse.

 

[trembli0s]

Who should make the US responsible considering the US caused all this? Otherwise the US would keep doing this right?

You're seriously going to boil down a region's history and issues to one country who's been involved in the region for approximately 70 years?

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

There is also instances where the blowback is not even considered. For example toppling Gaddafi lead to loads of arms ending up in the hands of Boko Haram, ISIS and al Qaeda

Absolutely, the war in Lybia ended up kickstarting a massive wave of new islamist groups in West Africa and bolsterd one's that were irrelevant up to that point. Boko Haram one of the worst terrorist organizations and killed thousands after that regime change, the war in Mali also happened. All are far reaching ripples brought about by the intervention in Lybia.

 

[Funky Papa]

Word of advice: While the War on Terror is a worthless, murderous endeavour, it's worth noting that Telesur is Venezuela's version of Russia's RT. Their reports are always to be taken with a huge pinch of salt.

 

[NullPointer]

America didn't kill 1mil Iraqi civilians.

When you decide to (pre-emptively) invade and decapitate a country's leadership you are responsible for the results, even after the "mission accomplished" banners go up.

The fact that the American people were misled into supporting it as revenge against Al Qaeda, or to avoid nukes going off in US cities just makes the whole tragedy that much more insane.

People shouldn't be quick to "move past it". Its not past history, its now.

 

[Corronchilejano]

Word of advice: Telesur is Venezuela's version of Russia's RT.

Even though this is true, the report is from PSR, you can find it here.

 

[Abinash117]

You're seriously going to boil down a region's history and issues to one country who's been involved in the region for approximately 70 years?

No, because I don't think the US is entirely responsible, but many people think the US is guilty of many crimes. Although, if the US is responsible to some issues it did and is currently doing like drone strikes, who should make the US responsible for all it has done? The question wasn't necessary directed to you, but I was bouncing of your reply.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

You think a million peple were killed by US soldiers in Iraq?

Because those figures include all the sectarian shit that spiraled out of the invasion. Still US fault to a certain extent, but less dramatic than saying the US murdered a million civilians.

In the end, dead is dead. It doesn't matter if the US sparked the sectarian flames and instability through CIA covered rebel funding of radical groups, or if they directly died in the line of fire.
Many Americans are ignorant about how just how much the infrastructure have been ruined, and just how little Islamic sectarian violence that existed in region before the first Golf War.
The United States very much created a large part of the conditions that lead to the formation of the extremism it deals with today.
And that doesn't even include the periods of war time.
During the sanctions on Iraq in the mid 90s, more than 500,000 children died of starvation as a direct result of the effects of the war. Sanctions that were described as genocidal in nature as they harmed the weakest.
Those sanctions were imposed by the security council but led by the US due to Saddams biological weapon programs.
If the United States had learned from their history they would have realized that another war in Iraq would be completely incompetent, and would destabilize and already fragile country. The soundwave of that war is what has led to the destabilization of large parts of the region.
There simply didn't exist such a form of radicalization before the US invasions. To me it is no surprise that tribal cultures rise up against those they feel oppressed about. The loss of life is beyond catostrophic and the US should have known better.

What do you want people to do? I don't condone what my government has done, but my condemnation is powerless. And people have more immediate and personal issues to sort out before they can protest for those across the globe.

For starters, the American people need to stop voting for politicians who think it is their right to police the world. They need to understand that it causes more death to stop dictators or trying to topple regimes by arming tribal extremist rebel factions.
American and UN intervention needs to be reserved for genocidal and ethnic cleansings. When it stops being uprisings and/or civil wars, and turn into a faction slaughtering a defenseless civilian populace. That is the point where the US/UN enters.
But to arm rebels is in Syria is a bad deal, and it is good that Obama has moved away from that strategy even though some have pushed towards that the US should insert itself into the region.

History shows us that it is up to the populaces and uprisings of a local country to instigate change and a true reform that is the will of the people. Outside forces trying to alter the stakes have a history of not working out well. If you look at the cause of progress in Europe over the last 100-200 years you can see a lot of revolutions, toppling of states and failed governments and civil wars, and that eventually had lead to stability.
The US and UN needs to take a humanitarian capacity, and the US specifically needs to vote for legislators who favor war as the LAST option, not as a right to chalk up against countries like Russia to show a dominance.
Lastly, the US needs to stop armstrading with the likes of Israel and Saudi Arabia. Those weapons and technologies are directly responsible in the slaughter of innocents, and the US, UK and other EU nations who have sold arms to these countries have part in the blame.
Arms trafficking is a weirdly accepted element of the US government, even though it shouldn't. I assume that the selling of arms is part of the export that funds the massive Defends budget of some 40-50 billion annually.

 

[Alric]

Is there figures for how many returning soldiers have committed suicide?

 

[Funky Papa]

Even though this is true, the report is from PSR, you can find it here.

And the infograph is a complete load of horseshit because it ambiguously blames Obama for Iraq's bodycount right at the title ("military interventions of a Nobel Peace Prize winner").

I'm hardly a supporter of Obama's foreign policy and his attitudes towards whistleblowers, but crap reporting is crap reporting. That's my concern.

 

[Parch]

Its so scary to see Americans dismiss this as a "US hate train" bandwagon. If you cant even accept that this is a mess your country caused then there is no hope for avoiding this in the future.

It wouldn't be so bad if we saw some improvement and lessons learned, but there is none of that. We just get a lot of justifications and chest thumping.

It is complicated with other factors, but American intervention is accomplishing very little beyond economic greed. Until there is a major change in american public opinion, death will continue with no stop in sight.

 

[Abinash117]

In the end, dead is dead. It doesn't matter if the US sparked the sectarian flames and instability through CIA covered rebel funding of radical groups, or if they directly died in the line of fire.
Many Americans are ignorant about how just how much the infrastructure have been ruined, and just how little Islamic sectarian violence that existed in region before the first Golf War.
The United States very much created a large part of the conditions that lead to the formation of the extremism it deals with today.
And that doesn't even include the periods of war time.
During the sanctions on Iraq in the mid 90s, more than 500,000 children died of starvation as a direct result of the effects of the war. Sanctions that were described as genocidal in nature as they harmed the weakest.
Those sanctions were imposed by the security council but led by the US due to Saddams biological weapon programs.
If the United States had learned from their history they would have realized that another war in Iraq would be completely incompetent, and would destabilize and already fragile country. The soundwave of that war is what has led to the destabilization of large parts of the region.
There simply didn't exist such a form of radicalization before the US invasions. To me it is no surprise that tribal cultures rise up against those they feel oppressed about. The loss of life is beyond catostrophic and the US should have known better.






For starters, the American people need to stop voting for politicians who think it is their right to police the world. They need to understand that it causes more death to stop dictators or trying to topple regimes by arming tribal extremist rebel factions.
American and UN intervention needs to be reserved for genocidal and ethnic cleansings. When it stops being uprisings and/or civil wars, and turn into a faction slaughtering a defenseless civilian populace. That is the point where the US/UN enters.
But to arm rebels is in Syria is a bad deal, and it is good that Obama has moved away from that strategy even though some have pushed towards that the US should insert itself into the region.

History shows us that it is up to the populaces and uprisings of a local country to instigate change and a true reform that is the will of the people. Outside forces trying to alter the stakes have a history of not working out well. If you look at the cause of progress in Europe over the last 100-200 years you can see a lot of revolutions, toppling of states and failed governments and civil wars, and that eventually had lead to stability.
The US and UN needs to take a humanitarian capacity, and the US specifically needs to vote for legislators who favor war as the LAST option, not as a right to chalk up against countries like Russia to show a dominance.
Lastly, the US needs to stop armstrading with the likes of Israel and Saudi Arabia. Those weapons and technologies are directly responsible in the slaughter of innocents, and the US, UK and other EU nations who have sold arms to these countries have part in the blame.
Arms trafficking is a weirdly accepted element of the US government, even though it shouldn't. I assume that the selling of arms is part of the export that funds the massive Defends budget of some 40-50 billion annually.

Most Americans don't have foreign policy as their top priority or one of the highest unless it deals with a specific group. Also Obama is a person that take cautious approaches, but still does certain things that might be considered causing more problems. CIA did supply rebels and are currently doing so, and trains, supplies, and supports rebel groups to fight ISIS. The US is escalating in Iraq in the fight against ISIL. All of that isn't without Obama's knowledge and approval.

 

[ApharmdX]

For starters, the American people need to stop voting for politicians who think it is their right to police the world. They need to understand that it causes more death to stop dictators or trying to topple regimes by arming tribal extremist rebel factions.
American and UN intervention needs to be reserved for genocidal and ethnic cleansings. When it stops being uprisings and/or civil wars, and turn into a faction slaughtering a defenseless civilian populace. That is the point where the US/UN enters.
But to arm rebels is in Syria is a bad deal, and it is good that Obama has moved away from that strategy even though some have pushed towards that the US should insert itself into the region.

Sadly we are in the process now of electing a president who is more of a war hawk than the outgoing one. So you won't see these changes for at least four more years.

The rest of your post is good, and I agree. But you have to understand something- war is profitable. It has made many corporations rich here. And because of the nature of our political system that money is funneled right into candidates who support more war, to make these corporations more money. It's a vicious cycle that we can't break.

 

[GYODX]

And the infograph is a complete load of horseshit because it ambiguously blames Obama for Iraq's bodycount right at the title ("military interventions of a Nobel Peace Prize winner").

I'm hardly a supporter of Obama's foreign policy and his attitudes towards whistleblowers, but crap reporting is crap reporting. That's my concern.

I agree. Telesur is utter garbage.

 

[Akiraptor]

History shows us that it is up to the populaces and uprisings of a local country to instigate change and a true reform that is the will of the people. Outside forces trying to alter the stakes have a history of not working out well. If you look at the cause of progress in Europe over the last 100-200 years you can see a lot of revolutions, toppling of states and failed governments and civil wars, and that eventually had lead to stability.

I agree with much of what you've said, but going to disagree with this bit here. Europe has made a lot of progress, but I wouldn't put that entirely down to uprisings or the will of the people. Europe has an incredibly violent past, culminating in World War II which ended European dominance on the world stage (as far as the individual countries are concerned).The continent was largely under the influence of outside powers for much of the second half of the 20th century.

Calling Europe stable is a bit of a stretch too if you consider it as a whole. Ukraine, Greece, and much of southeast Europe would likely disagree with you there.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

For starters, the American people need to stop voting for politicians who think it is their right to police the world. They need to understand that it causes more death to stop dictators or trying to topple regimes by arming tribal extremist rebel factions.

Sorry, but Americans, like all people, are going to vote first and foremost with their own selfish interests in mind. So no matter how unfortunate it is, if a voter feels a candidate has the best chance of bringing the domestic change they want, then they're going to deafen foreign concerns, regardless of how damning they are.

 

[potatohead]

America used to be so great. Someone should do something about it.

"Don't tread on me" philosophy somewhere down the line transformed into "tread on everyone else."

Sorry, but Americans, like all people, are going to vote first and foremost with their own selfish interests in mind. So no matter how unfortunate it is, if a voter feels a candidate has the best chance of bringing the domestic change they want, then they're going to deafen foreign concerns, regardless of how damning they are.

It isn't selfish interests though, it's stupidity. It kills Americans in the thousands and wastes billions and trillions of tax dollars.

The biggest thing people complain about in American politics is just that: reckless spending of tax dollars. And yet they vote in people who waste billions and trillion of tax dollars sent directly to the military industrial complex of the corporations they say keep their wages down.

It's not selfish, it's fucking stupidity.

Selfish and self-interested would be voting for minimum wages changes to $15, that is selfish and populism. And it should happen IMO too.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Sadly we are in the process now of electing a president who is more of a war hawk than the outgoing one. So you won't see these changes for at least four more years.

The rest of your post is good, and I agree. But you have to understand something- war is profitable. It has made many corporations rich here. And because of the nature of our political system that money is funneled right into candidates who support more war, to make these corporations more money. It's a vicious cycle that we can't break.

What you're saying is giving me the shivers. But it is not like, even in the current climate that Russia or China is a better prospect for a world power. But everyone has the heighest expectations of the United States, as they were during the days after World War II!

Most Americans don't have foreign policy as their top priority or one of the highest unless it deals with a specific group. Also Obama is a person that take cautious approaches, but still does certain things that might be considered causing more problems. CIA did supply rebels and are currently doing so, and trains, supplies, and supports rebel groups to fight ISIS. The US is escalating in Iraq in the fight against ISIL. All of that isn't without Obama's knowledge and approval.

I feel for the American public. It is clear that it has massive problems at home, and everyone is selfish to their own interests. I also, would have my own problems affecting me personally take priority over those problems that my tax money causes in countries on the other side of the world.

And my country (Denmark) is not innocent in this. We've stood with the US in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and we are currently supplying rebel groups against ISIS.
Our neighbor, Sweden is the third largest weapons trade partner with Saudi Arabia after the US and the UK.
It is not like there is not enough blame to go around. And what is more- As a European we enjoy a luxury in being allies and protected by the US. In the evident of war or conflict the US has our back, and we don't have to spend a considerable amount of our resources on military. It is a deal that is beneficial to us, and we can sit back and criticize the United States, when we also, in our own way are co-conspirators and enablers.
It just makes me sad.
We should know better. We cannot expect tribal nations who have engaged in religious conflicts and instability for so long to respond differently than they have. So much of this are on us.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

It isn't selfish interests though, it's stupidity. It kills Americans in the thousands and wastes billions and trillions of tax dollars.

The biggest thing people complain about in American politics is just that: reckless spending of tax dollars. And yet they vote in people who waste billions and trillion of tax dollars sent directly to the military industrial complex of the corporations they say keep their wages down.

It's not selfish, it's fucking stupidity.

So you think people vote for stupidity and not their own interests?

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

The million figure for Iraq looks... iffy. Most sources I've seen put it substantially lower, at a couple hundred thousand at most, often less.

Not taking away from how horrific the true count is, but I'm just not sure where that high a figure is coming from.

Edit: Ah, they explain it in the journal as including indirect causes. Still not sure: that would mean about 1/10th of the Iraqi population was killed over that time period, which seems a bit of a stretch, even if you're modeling things like increased infant mortality.

 

[potatohead]

So you think people vote for stupidity and not their own interests?

Have you not seen Republican voters for the last 20 years?

The entire world knows it, that trickle-down economics has not worked, and will never work, because corporations who profit most will always serve "their" own interests, not the people's.

Yet they vote for that exact same policy, knowing that their wages have stagnated under that policy for the last 25+ years.

So yea, stupidity. It's not up for debate, it's just stupidity.

Americans continue to vote for the same oligarchy that has consistently got them into the same chicken-hawk messes that also put downward pressure on their own wages.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Have you not seen Republican voters for the last 20 years?

The entire world knows it, that trickle-down economics has not worked, and will never work, because corporations who profit most will always serve "their" own interests, not the people's.

Yet they vote for that exact same policy, knowing that their wages have stagnated under that policy for the last 25+ years.

So yea, stupidity. It's not up for debate, it's just stupidity.

Americans continue to vote for the same oligarchy that has consistently got them into the same chicken-hawk messes that also put downward pressure on their own wages.

As someone who grew up in a heavily republican area, nobody cared about foreign issues and their main voting point was for whichever candidate promised the least amount of gun control. These are people who are completely fine living in a trailer park as long as they continue to have access to their toys. So I will once again iterate that people vote first and foremost with their own selfish interests in mind. I've never met a republican offline who cared about raising minimum wage or any of that. In fact most oppose it because they get upset how 'less deserving' people will also benefit from it.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

wow

I didnt know the Nobel Peace Prize winner started the Iraq war.... ::rolleys::

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

The million figure for Iraq looks... iffy. Most sources I've seen put it substantially lower, at a couple hundred thousand at most, often less.

Not taking away from how horrific the true count is, but I'm just not sure where that high a figure is coming from.

Edit: Ah, they explain it in the journal as including indirect causes. Still not sure: that would mean about 1/10th of the Iraqi population was killed over that time period, which seems a bit of a stretch, even if you're modeling things like increased infant mortality.

It seems that there has been a lot of bogus and censored reporting on the death toll throughout the last ten years;

"The figure is approximately 10 times greater than that of which the public, experts and decision makers are aware," the study's authors write. "And this is only a conservative estimate. The total number of deaths in the three countries... could also be in excess of 2 million."
The study also cites other efforts to obtain an accurate casualty count from the US-led wars. Among these:
The 2006 Lancet study: Considered the most meticulous investigation of Iraqi deaths conducted at the time, researchers estimated that 655,000 Iraqis had died between March 2003 and June 2006. Their findings were published in the Lancet, one of the world's most prestigious medical journals.
The 2008 ORB International study: London-based polling agency ORB International published the results of a survey estimating more than 1 million Iraqi deaths, although like the Lancet study, the results were heavily criticized, even by other groups compiling casualty figures.
The 2013 PLOS study: The medical journal PLOS estimated the number of Iraqis killed between 2003 and 2011 at more than 500,000. The study's authors approached their work conservatively, in order to preemptively avoid criticism of their methodology.

( http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-deaths-survey-idUSL3048857920080130 )



And regarding the methodology;

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

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

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

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

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

Despite some legitimate criticisms, the statistical methodology it applied is the universally recognised standard to determine deaths from conflict zones, used by international agencies and governments.
- See more at: http://www.middleeasteye.net/column...on-muslims-1990-39149394#sthash.njgb6sWH.dpuf

( http://www.middleeasteye.net/column...ave-killed-four-million-muslims-1990-39149394 )

 

[baxter2231]

How did Lybia cost 1 billion but Iraq only 6 plus?

 

[NullPointer]

Sorry, but Americans, like all people, are going to vote first and foremost with their own selfish interests in mind. So no matter how unfortunate it is, if a voter feels a candidate has the best chance of bringing the domestic change they want, then they're going to deafen foreign concerns, regardless of how damning they are.

When it comes to the invasion of Iraq, Americans were manipulated into supporting it. Most thought that Saddam had a hand in 9/11, and that we had proof of a renewed nuclear program that threatened the US mainland.

Even then you had huge mass protests both in the US and across the world.

It didn't matter. Bush fashioned his meager 'coalition of the willing' and moved forward with this pre-emptive war with very few official voices raised in protest.

 

[G.ZZZ]

This to remind people that while war atrocities are disgusting and all that jazz, for most of the world, they are a thing of the past. Not for the middle east, for various reasons of course, but the US foreign policy being by far the biggest one. When you step in a mud, it ain't easy to just "step out" and anything you do will have consequences, even dire. We talking about human lives and some people would rather have commodity at home even at the spite of countless humans live abroad.

This western mindset of prolonged interventionism has to stop, the sooner the better. The world hasn't become a better place for it. All the new emergent countries are in places where the west has meddled little if nothing (eastern asia) for a reason.

 

[ChouGoku]

In 2001, when Bush said this, many Americans actually believed it. Those were frightening times.

There are many Americans who still believe it. I hear a lot they don't like us because our freedoms. They dont like us because they are haters

 

[TheJLC]

The price of American freedom.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

When it comes to the invasion of Iraq, Americans were manipulated into supporting it. Most thought that Saddam had a hand in 9/11, and that we had proof of a renewed nuclear program that threatened the US mainland.

Even then you had huge mass protests both in the US and across the world.

It didn't matter. Bush fashioned his meager 'coalition of the willing' and moved forward with this pre-emptive war with very few official voices raised in protest.

I'm not sure how any of that relates. Yes, it's true, a lot of Americans were polled as supporting the war. But is that the reason they voted a second term? Do you think polls would reflect the same if Bush did a 180 on his stance on something like gun control and began a campaign to limit access? Because I know many people who would have went from favorable to disdain if that were the case. Because, once again, those people are voting for what is most important to them. And as sick as it is, guns are just that important to them.

 

[MisterFalcon]

It seems that there has been a lot of bogus and censored reporting on the death toll throughout the last ten years;

The source for the '1 million killed' is a survey by ORB which has some pretty strange findings which are highly suggestive of fraud:

Differences in a few months are massive and for 'family or household' the number is lower in some cases then just the family. For the ORB survey to be true there would have to have been 130,000 deaths from car bombs in Baghdad. Or for every car bomb that is reported in the press there would have to be 20 not reported. With car bombs being hightly visible and even small ones being reported this is very far fetched.

 

[NullPointer]

I'm not sure how any of that relates. Yes, it's true, a lot of Americans were polled as supporting the war. But is that the reason they voted a second term?

I seem to remember a lot of talk about not changing horses midstream. And not bugging out because that would mean we'd have to face losing a war we waged under false pretenses to begin with. You rally around your leader in a time of war, even one that looked to be a complete failure on most levels.

Those were very dark days, but we're not really out of them yet.

I only bring it up because its not the classic apathetic voter response, or world police, or selfishness. The American people were in panic and dread, and manipulated with lies and distortions into supporting what they thought to be a response to Al Qaeda, in a country that supposedly represented an imminent existential threat to the USA.

 

[Nivash]

The infographic is so obviously biased it's not even funny. That said, the primary source - the PSR report - could use some serious discussion.

I'm sure it's been mentioned already but first of all, the 1 million deaths in Iraq number is an outlier. Even the Lancet report, which is criticised for being excessively high, is only two thirds of that. The high number comes from a proxy-type survey using extrapolation that has a method that's vulnerable to exaggeration. The primary source (ORB) used a self-reported system which comes with a risk that a lot of deaths were counted twice and tries to extrapolate the results to fit the entire nation. The PSR didn't actually perform any survey themselves, they simply conclude that the ORB number is plausible because the Lancet study - which reported "excess deaths", not violent deaths, for that matter - ended in 2006 and could be extrapolated to a million if it had continued. This could very well be true but it is far from above questioning, it's basically an educated guess. You can read the report for yourself here:

http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/body-count.pdf

And secondly come on, you're going to blame the US for every single death? Not place any on the Islamist insurgents and terrorists like ISIS? That's pretty absurd. That's not how you assign casualties - by that metric, the US killed no one in Korea because North Korea invaded first. It's an impossible, unfair and dangerous standard. Both sides are obviously responsible for their own actions. Sure, you could argue that without the US invasion there would have been no insurgency, but I would disagree with that. The insurgency and later civil war happened because of endemic reasons for the most part, the US didn't create it out of nothing. Look at Syria. My money is on the Arab Spring happening with or without the US invasion - because it was also due to endemic reasons - and that Iraq would have descended into chaos the same way Libya and Syria did. Saddam's iron fisted rule was not sustainable and there was no indication that there would be a peaceful transition.

That's obviously not to say that the US is not to blame, they obviously are. It was an illegal and frankly incredibly stupid war. If the ICC had universal authority I would support any effort to prosecute the Bush administration for it. But it shouldn't be described as a genocide, because that would cheapen the term seeing as how that normally requires intent, and the US did not actually kill 1.3 million people. Although the tens or arguable hundreds of thousands they did kill (depending on what metric you use) is plenty bad enough and utterly despicable for such a fools errand.

And the infograph is a complete load of horseshit because it ambiguously blames Obama for Iraq's bodycount right at the title ("military interventions of a Nobel Peace Prize winner").

I'm hardly a supporter of Obama's foreign policy and his attitudes towards whistleblowers, but crap reporting is crap reporting. That's my concern.

Agreed. It's pathetically obvious that it's propaganda, if someone wants to argue the point they should use serious sources, not an infographic filtered through journalistic sewage. Particularly when there actually are serious primary sources to choose from. Using Telsur as a reference just poisons the discussion.

The source for the '1 million killed' is a survey by ORB which has some pretty strange findings which are highly suggestive of fraud:

Differences in a few months are massive and for 'family or household' the number is lower in some cases then just the family. For the ORB survey to be true there would have to have been 130,000 deaths from car bombs in Baghdad. Or for every car bomb that is reported in the press there would have to be 20 not reported. With car bombs being hightly visible and even small ones being reported this is very far fetched.

Thank you for that, I didn't have time to go through the ORB survey myself but that's what I'm suspecting. I don't actually think it's fraud though. My suspicion is that they don't actually know who's related to who and this - combined with the fact that Iraqi extended families can be pretty large while still remaining in contact - results a lot of those numbers simply referring to the same death several times over. Retrospective survey type projects are inherently vulnerable.

 

[Bonfires Down]

I keep hearing how Hillary has mostly the same policies as Sanders, she's just 'a bit more hawkish'. Well, that little bit of hawk might not matter that much to you, but it could cause suffering and death for millions of people in the middle east.

 

[PhantomX1313]

As of 'War On Terror' it is to be called, only the death toll for Pakistan and Afghanistan could be around 5 million as of 2001. Considering there population of more 230 million combined

 

[GYODX]

I keep hearing how Hillary has mostly the same policies as Sanders, she's just 'a bit more hawkish'. Well, that little bit of hawk might not matter that much to you, but it could cause suffering and death for millions of people in the middle east.

A lot of Americans, even liberals, are surprisingly tolerant to the trivialization of civilian deaths from Obama's drone strike program. (I know drone strikes didn't start under Obama, but they have expanded under his administration as a matter of policy.)

Of course they'll always preface it with "it's awful when innocents die" but they'll ultimately rationalize it to themselves as a necessary evil. They'll ratchet up the token outrage when it's a particularly abhorrent incident, like bombing a wedding, but it never leads to any real calls for oversight or reform.

There's a surprising amount of nuance to be had when foreign lives are at stake. They would never tolerate such calls for moderation, nuance and pragmatism for a topic that hits close to home. Like, say, police brutality. I know, it's not a perfect analogy. Actually, in terms of net amount of innocent deaths, drone strikes are worse. So I can't help but feel a little disgusted when someone says "yeah Hillary is a bit hawkish but it's not a deal-breaker".

 

[darscot]

I only looked at the picture but I love how Obama get's called out specifically but no other president.