TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- A deafening silence on report of one million Iraqis killed under US occupation
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

A deafening silence on report of one million Iraqis killed under US occupation

By Patrick Martin
17 September 2007

When those responsible for the American war in Iraq face a public reckoning for their colossal crimes, the weekend of September 15-16, 2007 will be an important piece of evidence against them. On Friday, September 14 there were brief press reports of a scientific survey by the British polling organization ORB, which resulted in an estimate of 1.2 million violent deaths in Iraq since the US invasion.

This staggering figure demonstrates two political facts: 1) the American war in Iraq has produced a humanitarian catastrophe of historic proportions, with a death total already higher than that in Rwanda in 1994; 2) those arguing against a US withdrawal on the grounds that this would lead to civil war, even genocide, are deliberately concealing the fact that such a bloodbath is already taking place, with the US military in control.

The reaction to the ORB report in the US political and media establishment was virtual silence. After scattered newspaper reports Friday, there was no coverage on the Friday evening television newscasts or on the cable television news stations. There was no comment from the Bush White House, the Pentagon, or the State Department, and not a single Republican or Democratic presidential candidate or congressional leader made an issue of it. On the Sunday morning talk shows on all four broadcast networks the subject was not raised.

This was not because those involved were unaware of the study, which received wide circulation on the Internet and was prominently reported in the British daily press. Nor was there any serious challenge to the validity of the study�s findings.

Opinion Research Business (ORB), founded by the former head of British operations for the Gallup polling organization, is a well-established commercial polling firm. It gave a detailed technical description of the methods used to make a scientific random sample.

Six months ago, by contrast, an ORB survey in Iraq was hailed by the White House because some of its findings could be given a positive spin in administration propaganda. That survey, conducted in February and made public March 18 in the Sunday Times of London, found that only 27 percent of Iraqis believed their country was in a state of civil war and that a majority supported the Maliki government and the US military �surge,� and believed life was getting better in their country.

That survey also reported figures on violence that largely dovetail with those of the survey conducted in August and reported last Friday, including 79 percent of Baghdad residents experiencing either a violent death or kidnapping in their immediate family or workplace. But its findings of Iraqi political opinions�not the figures on deaths�were given headline treatment in the US press, with articles in the Washington Post, the Christian Science Monitor and other national media outlets.

White House press spokesman Tony Snow cited the ORB poll at a March 23 news briefing, when he used its findings to rebut the results of a poll of Iraqis by ABC News, the British Broadcasting Corporation, the German ARD network and USA Today newspaper. Asked about the ABC poll�s finding that Iraqis were more pessimistic about the future, Snow declared, �there was also a British poll at the same time that had almost diametrically opposed results.� He added that the British poll had �twice the sample� of the ABC poll, and should therefore be considered more authoritative.

The March ORB poll was widely hailed in the far-right media, including Fox News Network. The right-wing magazine National Review declared, �Supporters of Operation Iraqi Freedom will be buoyed by a new poll of Iraqis showing high levels of support for the Baghdad security plan and the elected government implementing it.�

The latest ORB poll, focusing on the enormous death toll produced by the US invasion, has received no such positive reception at the White House. There is, of course, ample reason for such hostility. The figures reported by ORB undermine Bush administration claims that its goal in Iraq is to �liberate� the Iraqi people from tyranny and terrorism, or to defend �freedom and democracy.�

The real motivation for the war was spelled out by former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan in a newly published book of memoirs, in which he wrote, �Whatever their publicized angst over Saddam Hussein�s �weapons of mass destruction,� American and British authorities were also concerned about violence in an area that harbors a resource indispensable for the functioning of the world economy. I�m saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil.�

Equally significant is the silence from congressional Democrats and the Democratic presidential candidates, all of whom claim to be opposed to the Iraq war. This antiwar posturing, however, has nothing in common with genuine compassion for the plight of the Iraqi people or principled opposition to the predatory interests of American imperialism in the oil-rich country.

The Democrats oppose the Bush administration�s conduct of the war, not because it has been a bloody and criminal operation, but because it has been mismanaged and unsuccessful in accomplishing the goal of plundering Iraq�s oil resources and strengthening the strategic position of US imperialism in the Middle East.

The Democrats do not want to highlight the massive scale of the bloodbath in Iraq, as suggested by the ORB survey, because they share political responsibility for the war, from the vote to authorize the use of force in October 2002, to the repeated congressional passage of bills to fund the war, at a total cost of more than $600 billion. In any war crimes trial over the near-genocide in Iraq, leading Democrats would take their place in the dock, second only to the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld war cabal.

Appearing on NBC�s �Meet the Press� program Sunday, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, Senator John Kerry, denounced suggestions that congressional Democrats would allow the United States to be defeated in Iraq. He criticized the Bush administration�s conduct of the war on the ground that it had weakened US national security interests, particularly in relation to Iran.

�We�re not talking about abandoning Iraq,� Kerry said. �We�re talking about changing the mission and adjusting the mission so that the bulkier combat troops are withdrawn, ultimately, within a year, but that you are continuing to provide the basic backstop support necessary to finish the training, so they stand up on their own, and you are continuing to chase Al Qaeda.�

Kerry made it clear that he advocated a more aggressive, not less aggressive, policy in the Middle East. �We need to get out of Iraq in order to be stronger to deal with Iran,� he said, �in order to deal with Hezbollah and Hamas, to regain our credibility in the region. And I believe, very deeply, they understand power.�

When �Meet the Press� host Tim Russert pressed Kerry on the refusal of the Democrats to force the White House to stop the war by cutting off funding, Kerry evaded the question, claiming�falsely�that such action would require 67 votes in the Senate to override a presidential veto. The supposed 67-vote hurdle is an obstacle deliberately conjured up by the congressional Democrats, in order to play their double game of publicly posturing as opponents of the war while allowing the Bush administration to continue waging it.

Kerry continued: �I will fund the troops to protect the national security interests of America, to accomplish a mission that increases our national security and protects the troops themselves. We are not proposing failure...�

What does the pursuit of �success� mean in the context of the reports of 1.2 million violent deaths in Iraq since the US invasion and occupation? It means the devastation of that country will continue until the American and international working class intervenes to put an end to it.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/s...2-s17_prn.shtml

That's a Socialist rag reporting on dodgy figures.

quote:

QHow many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 (ie as a result of violence rather than a natural death such as old age)? Please note that I mean those who were actually living under your roof. None 78% One 16% Two 5% Three 1% Four or more 0.002% Given that from the 2005 census there are a total of 4,050,597 households this data suggests a total of 1,220,580 deaths since the invasion in 2003. Calculating the affect from the margin of error we believe that the range is a minimum of 733,158 to a maximum of 1,446,063

This question asks about if someone has died in your household:

1. 13% didn't answer the 'how many killed from your household' question. Thats a high number!!! What are the reasons?

2. It extrapolates using households, how can you avoid double counting by asking two members of the same household?

3. There are apparently more people killed than injured. Thats VERY counter-intuitive.

4. 6.2% were apparently killed as results of an 'accident'.... how is that possibly 'as a result of the conflict'?

5. Their margin of error leads to a swing of 100% (700k min to 1400k max)... that seems crazy.

6. The report data has typos in it.... doesn't do much for it's credence.

7. This is just asking people, it's not confirmed data. People tend to exaggerate.

8. The 'unweighted' raw data has a figure of 85% had no one die. They said they spoke to a representative sample why do they need to 'weight' it then?

9. The figure they use for households in the data has a decimal involved in it... "4050597.015" as far as I know it's impossible to get .015th of a house....?

10. Using the 'unweighted' (raw i.e. true) data IS apparently their minimum.... if your going to add error information to a data you can't only have + it's always +/-. The figures are just guess work otherwise. In fact with this question you would expect it to be more - than +.

Finally it says:

quote:

Detailed analysis (which is available on our website) indicates that almost one in two households in Baghdad have lost a family member,

How exactly is that possible? Their own figures say 85% of people say they haven't had someone die in their household.

All together it's all looking pretty crap data, especially the deaths to injury data.

>Data Link<

and who do we think is killing the most iraqis currently? hint: its not the americans.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN and who do we think is killing the most iraqis currently? hint: its not the americans.

Who opened the flood gates?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Who opened the flood gates?

There is the key question right there.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Who opened the flood gates?

hardly the point of the statistics.

hey, let's all debate exactly which countries invaded iraq!

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer There is the key question right there.

for god's sake, explain to me how that is a "key" fucking question?

edit: i know, let's give the insurgents a free ride coz it was the americans that destabled the country. let's blame everything on america, you know, coz they're the ones blowing up civilians in markets etc.

nobody in the world is evil, coz america is evil!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN hardly the point of the statistics. hey, let's all debate exactly which countries invaded iraq!

You asked, "and who do we think is killing the most iraqis currently? hint: its not the americans."

Now I'm assuming you are making the assertion that Americans are not directly killing the majority of Iraqis that have been killed. Technically you are right. It is Iraqi vs. Iraqi violence.

But my assertion is if there was no occupation, as in the "flood gates" comment, there would not be hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, and millions displaced. So I'm saying the occupation of Iraq is an INDIRECT cause of the deaths and displacement of millions of Iraqis.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton But my assertion is if there was no occupation, as in the "flood gates" comment, there would not be hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, and millions displaced. So I'm saying the occupation of Iraq is an INDIRECT cause of the deaths and displacement of millions of Iraqis.

which makes you captain obvious? honestly, wtf are we debating pointless subjects like this that everyone knows the answer to?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN which makes you captain obvious? honestly, wtf are we debating pointless subjects like this that everyone knows the answer to?

I got the impression you are defending the occupation by trying to point out stats about Iraqis getting killed. Sorry, but I'm no captain..

What intrigues me is how in all media outlets in the States, there is almost NEVER any indication of how many iraqis have been killed.

Though the numbers of US servicemen killed is reported, I can't believe the numbers to be true... they are most likely higher, probably obfuscated by lawyer-speak (ie: if a soldier is wounded and dies on the way to the hospital, does it count as a fatality of war, etc)

Forget it pkc, some people can't take the hint, and dont realize that Sadam was the true "occupier" of Iraq. Now there may instability in the region, but the number of people killed during Sadam's illegitimate regin was far bigger.
Furthermore, the country is now a democracy run by and large by the people of iraq, not by America.

I suggest you ignore the Kryptonian. All he does is never admit he's wrong, ask you for proof when its unnnecessary, and dictate to you what your writing style should.

Some libertarian

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles Forget it pkc, some people can't take the hint, and dont realize that Sadam was the true "occupier" of Iraq. Now there may instability in the region, but the number of people killed during Sadam's illegitimate regin was far bigger. Furthermore, the country is now a democracy run by and large by the people of iraq, not by America. I suggest you ignore the Kryptonian. All he does is never admit he's wrong, ask you for proof when its unnnecessary, and dictate to you what your writing style should. Some libertarian

um, most of that ^^ is quite incorrect. especially the part about democracy. the state needs to function for it to be a democracy.

France's first attempt at democracy involved a lot of chaos too, and didnt last for too long. It was nontheless a democracy.

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles I suggest you ignore the Kryptonian. All he does is never admit he's wrong, ask you for proof when its unnnecessary, and dictate to you what your writing style should.

What an IRONY...

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN for god's sake, explain to me how that is a "key" fucking question? edit: i know, let's give the insurgents a free ride coz it was the americans that destabled the country. let's blame everything on america, you know, coz they're the ones blowing up civilians in markets etc. nobody in the world is evil, coz america is evil!

May I ask who is to blame here then? I know you are saying that these groups have been in war for many years but it was Saddam who had them under control.Now that you have a lawless Iraq with no security,it is like a free brawl for these groups to go at it.

Iam sking you this,if the Americans didnt have invaded Iraq would we be having these problems today?

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer if the Americans didnt have invaded Iraq would we be having these problems today?

of course not. but i take exception to various posters that seem to ignore those that are actually carrying out the murders, as if they are somehow less to blame than the US, which is clearly ridiculous.

those that deliberately bomb civilians do not deserve to hide behind the US' wrongs that began in 2003, and neither should those here excuse them for it.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN of course not. but i take exception to various posters that seem to ignore those that are actually carrying out the murders, as if they are somehow less to blame than the US, which is clearly ridiculous. those that deliberately bomb civilians do not deserve to hide behind the US' wrongs that began in 2003, and neither should those here excuse them for it.

Absolutely.

We are murderers, and so are they. All the sugar-coated bullshit explanations in the world for why things allegedly had to go down the way they did doesn't excuse any party.

It's just a mess, but this is not news. All I get out of this whole situation is the realization that my government has no idea what the fuck it's doing.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer May I ask who is to blame here then? I know you are saying that these groups have been in war for many years but it was Saddam who had them under control.Now that you have a lawless Iraq with no security,it is like a free brawl for these groups to go at it.

So mass murder under Saddam was ok because it was, "Under control"?

The only thing that's changed are the guards...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r So mass murder under Saddam was ok because it was, "Under control"? The only thing that's changed are the guards...

You might want to do a little investigating...

----------------------------------------------
{{{Donald Rumsfeld meets Saddam Hussein on 19 December - 20 December 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984, the day the UN reported that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops. The NY Times reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name."}}}http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82



US Corporations named in an Iraqi UN Report as providing logistical support Iraqi WMD program...

U.S. corporations involved...

A - nuclear K - chemical B - biological R - rockets (missiles)

1) Honeywell (R,K)
2) Spektra Physics (K)
3) Semetex (R)
4) TI Coating (A,K)
5) UNISYS (A,K)
6) Sperry Corp. (R,K)
7) Tektronix (R,A)
8) Rockwell )(K)
9) Leybold Vacuum Systems (A)
10) Finnigan-MAT-US (A)
11) Hewlett Packard (A.R,K)
12) Dupont (A)
13) Eastman Kodak (R)
14) American Type Culture Collection (B)
15) Alcolac International (C)
16) Consarc (A)
17) Carl Zeis -U.Ss (K)
18) Cerberus (LTD) (A)
19) Electronic Associates (R)
20) International Computer Systems
21) Bechtel (K)
22) EZ Logic Data Systems,Inc. (R)
23) Canberra Industries Inc. (A)
24) Axel Electronics Inc. (A)

http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/uscorpsiniraq.html

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r So mass murder under Saddam was ok because it was, "Under control"? The only thing that's changed are the guards...

A Mass murderer who at least had control over his country and would never have allowed for such disaster that we have today.You may call whats happening today as "Democracy" but me and many others see this as a major disaster with no ending on sight.

First of all, yes, the American government supplied Sadam with things it shouldn't have back in the 80s.
Second, I think it sucks that people in Iraq are dying, and America's presence in Iraq leaves a lot to be desired, to put it lightly.
The choas that ensues Iraq presently has to do with different groups vying for power. None of them want to be left out, yet for some reason they seem to think suicide bombings are the answer. That is not what the American military is advocating or preaching.
The US is in a catch 22, which it largely brought on itself. It can leave and let some other dictator rise to power in Iraq, or it can stay and continue to see parts of Iraq tumble to the ground in the hopes of someday (soon?) seeing a somewhat stable country unfold.
I don't apologize for America wanting to take out Sadam, for whatever political interests it might have done so. I will apologize though for whats happened as a result of Sadam being taken out of the picture.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN and who do we think is killing the most iraqis currently? hint: its not the americans.

You're disregarding the fact that the reason so many civilians have died were directly from US invasion. Just because most of them died by other people [not American forces], American occupation forces deliberately weakened the country as to allow countless foreign and domestic terrorists and radicals to blow the country to bits. So obviously US occupation and its way of dealing with things is at fault. Even Saddam didnt murder this many people in his last few years before he was taken down. The violence caused is by mismanagement of the country, mainly helped by American political failures in Iraq. Americans came in, weakened the borders, the system, put incompetent puppets in power, and then blames foreign countries for its failed tactics ... Iraqis hate Americans. Because Americans failed to win the support of Iraqi hearts and minds. And no wonder why some choose violence. US troops have protected themselves very well, so most of violence is directed against pro-American Iraqis or Iraqis who co-operate with occupation forces. These people are weak, unprotected, not properly backed. They die because of American occupation.

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles First of all, yes, the American government supplied Sadam with things it shouldn't have back in the 80s. Second, I think it sucks that people in Iraq are dying, and America's presence in Iraq leaves a lot to be desired, to put it lightly. The choas that ensues Iraq presently has to do with different groups vying for power. None of them want to be left out, yet for some reason they seem to think suicide bombings are the answer. That is not what the American military is advocating or preaching. The US is in a catch 22, which it largely brought on itself. It can leave and let some other dictator rise to power in Iraq, or it can stay and continue to see parts of Iraq tumble to the ground in the hopes of someday (soon?) seeing a somewhat stable country unfold. I don't apologize for America wanting to take out Sadam, for whatever political interests it might have done so. I will apologize though for whats happened as a result of Sadam being taken out of the picture.

According to what you just said here, the US has no business in the continuation of the occupation. Unfortunately, a $600 million dollar embassy is being built inside the Green Zone. The empire will not be leaving.

the point to be noted here is how the US government and media widely reported findings of the same polling organization when they were positive but remained conspicuously silent when they were not. It's got nothing to do with the polling methods used and whether the estimates are accurate or not.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.