In Iraq the tsunami was US

[c| Spetsnaz.]

The 'tsunami' victims that we don't count

By Derrick Z. Jackson  |  January 7, 2005

SECRETARY of State Colin Powell tours tsunami-stricken Banda Aceh and says, "I cannot begin to imagine the horror that went through the families and all of the people who heard this noise coming and then had their lives snuffed out by this wave."

Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, issued a resolution that said: "The tsunami disaster constitutes a humanitarian tragedy of incredible proportions. . . . My heart goes out to the victims of this tragedy."

Last and hardly least, President Bush said: "The devastation in the region defies comprehension. . . . Our flags will fly at half-staff to honor the victims of this disaster. We mourn especially the tens of thousands of children who are lost. We think of the tens of thousands more who will grow up without their parents or their brothers or their sisters. We hold in our prayers all the people whose fate is still unknown."

In the abstract, the outpouring was appropriate. In context, the sympathy was a stench unto itself. Tens of thousands of people die by an act of nature and we say we cannot imagine the horror. We say it defies comprehension. We call it a catastrophe.

In Iraq we kill off thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of innocent civilians with our own hands, and we reject any attempt to comprehend what we have done. Countless Iraqi civilians are homeless. We call it liberation.

Bush quoted all the numbers for the tsunami in speeches this week: 150,000 lives lost, including 90,000 in Indonesia; perhaps 5 million homeless; millions vulnerable to disease. That stands in hypocritical contrast to the refusal to count the Iraqi civilians killed in his invasion over false claims of weapons of mass destruction and the crime-ridden chaos of an occupation that did not plan on an "insurgency."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former Iraqi commander Tommy Franks both said, "We don't do body counts." Then, right in our faces, Powell said civilian casualty figures were "relatively low." Central Command spokesman Pete Mitchell hailed the invasion for its "unbelievably low amount of collateral damage and needless civilian death." Paul Bremer, Bush's former civilian reconstruction envoy, said, "We have freed people with one of the great military battles of all time, in a period of three weeks, with almost no collateral damage, very few civilian deaths, and they are now free."

The White House left the counting to journalists, doctors, think tanks, and human rights groups. The numbers range from conservative guesses of 3,200 in the first few weeks of the war and occupation estimates ranging from 15,000 to 100,000. No matter if the number was 3,200 or 32,000, this atrocity of silence makes the torture in Abu Ghraib pale in comparison.

No flags have been flown at half-staff for Iraqi civilians. There have been no moments of silence in Congress. There have been no speeches by Bush mourning "the tens of thousands of children who are lost." Americans have not been asked to think of the "tens of thousands more who will grow up without their parents or their brothers or their sisters."

In a nation that supposedly reelected Bush on "moral values," there have been no prayers from the White House for "all the people whose fate is still unknown" in Iraq. This was a bipartisan hypocrisy. Even Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, fell into the trap of favoritism, fueling the appearance that this war was a religious crusade.

At the beginning of the war she said, "We pray for the swift and successful disarmament of Iraq with the least possible loss of life among our forces and the civilians of Iraq." But then she closed her message with: "May God bless our courageous forces and their brave families. May God bless the president of the United States. And may God bless America."

Not once did Pelosi or any American politician say in the last two years, "God bless Iraqi civilians" or any variant. Only one time has Bush uttered "God bless the people of Iraq," and that was in announcing Saddam Hussein's capture. Not once has he asked God's blessing for the courageous civilians and the families of Iraq who had no choice but to brave our bombs.

Let us do what we can for the victims of the tsunami. But no matter how much we weep for them, no matter what donations we spare, the offerings will not spare us from history's judgment, if not God's. Lugar said his heart goes out to the victims of the tsunami. No hearts have gone out to Iraqi civilians in this heartless coverup.

Powell said of the tsunami, "The power of the wave to destroy bridges, to destroy factories, to destroy homes, to destroy crops, to destroy everything in its path is amazing." He said, "I have never seen anything like it in my experience."

Yes, he has. It was in Iraq. The tsunami was us.

Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address is jackson@globe.com.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

Yeah, and how about the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of INNOCENT people Saddam SLAUGHTERED while he was in charge of Iraq?  Guess he, like Hitler, Stalin, and others, were just real good guys that the EVIL United States opposed.  Give me a fucking break.

[BFG]

Were all the Civilians killed in the Gulf war like Saddam GS? no i don't think so. Has there been anything much in terms of recognition for those victims of those many tragedys?

[*DAMN Bondo]

Yeah, and how about the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of INNOCENT people Saddam SLAUGHTERED while he was in charge of Iraq?  Guess he, like Hitler, Stalin, and others, were just real good guys that the EVIL United States opposed.  Give me a fucking break.

But we already feel the hundreds of thousands who Saddam killed was very tragic just as with the tsunami. The only mass death of innocent people that we aren't recognizing and aren't considering tragic are those the US is responsible for. Thus it isn't a case of excusing murderous dictators, but not holding ourselves accountable for our actions.

[Maniac]

 When i look at something like this only a few things pop into my mind who, where and why. President Bush by all means shows his compassion for the people in the tsunami and in Iraq. How can any person justify killing you're own people for stealing food because they were starving for days, how can you justify killing and torture because a women showed a little skin or spoke out of line? The only word i can think of is one i don't like to use and i have been called that by people who don't agree with me around here and thats ignorance.

Like Ghost Sniper said that is madness that a person could come up with something like to say, then try to justify it with some big words and some stupid story to try and make soft hearted people agree with him. Almost every day i hear Bush, his father and even ex president Clinton giving money away to a good cause. That is what it's all about people who disagree, but respect each other enough to team up and help people in need.

I can only think this man used the tsunami as a way to further hack at president Bush and the operations in Iraq. The world is a better place with out Saddam period, and in my opinion and 51% of America we are doing the right thing. In these times we need to stop looking in the past and move on and take a look at the big picture; "the future". Some of the most intelligent people i know and ever will know are on these forums and i respect them even though i disagree.


To wrap this up i think that essay is crazy when every day i see and hear things that contradict it. America is not the tsunami on Iraq there was one, and it was Saddam.

[BFG]

Maniac, not being funny or flaming but did you actually read Spetz post?

in my opinion and 51% of America  we are doing the right thing. In these times we need to stop looking in the past and move on and take a look at the big picture; "the future". Some of the most intelligent people i know and ever will know are on these forums and i respect them even though i disagree.

Now that is very easy for us to say that. I sit here in my cosy basment, the cat fast asleep on the end of my bed, a cuppa coffee beside me and a few thousand pounds of equipment humming gently to itself - My life did not change when America and its 'allies' invaded Iraq. My parents are still alive, i can go to University and study hard, i can go out and drink and enjoy myself with my friends. And im sure life did not change dramatically for you. So to say lets move on now, we got rid of Saddamn and everything is great is very easy. But i find it shocking the implicit suggestion i get from this that now that Saddam has been removed from power we can forget about the hundreds of thousands of peoples lives who were shredded by the invasion? People your age Maniac, who's lives have been turned upside down - imagine another country decided that Bush had to be removed from power by force, an invading force destroyed most of the town you live in - your father was arrested for beinig a male who in theory could have been a resistance fighter - he was beaten and attacked while in detention. I don't know if you have any siblings but imagine they were killed by cross fire... Imagine you house has been half destoryed - and everyone around you has been affected.

The Tsunami was horrific. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and millions of peoples lives have been affected - And this was a natural disaster that could not have been stopped - we cannot control Nature.

The war in iraq killed thousands of people, Fighters and civilians, how many we will never know as the US refuses to track the number of Civilian casualtys from its actions. this was a disaster caused by Humans - a great loss of life that did not need to happen - and so in my eyes it is in many ways far worse than the horrific Events of the Tsunami.

• The Tsunami was a natural force that could not be stopped, we have no power to prevent it.
• The War happend becasue of human beings. Thousands of people lost their lives becuase of the actions of other humans. humans killing other humans

Why do you treat the death of these people differently? I fail to comprehend why a innocent human killed in a sunami should be mourned any more than a innocent human killed by another human

What saddam did to the Kurds begs belief. the use of gas and horrific chemicals in his war against them is terrifying. the touture and execution of those who did not keep line with him is shocking. There is no doubt that his actions were terrible and the loss of life tragic. The loss of all life is, you cannot justify killing all those civilians in the Iraqi war that way.

Great to hear people are giving money in Aid to help those recovering from the Tsunami. I wonder where is the support for those in Afganistan however, or Iraq - when will they get the support and help so desperatly needed as well?
Its very easy for them to write their cheques with big money - im sure it will fail to even dent their bank accounts. Actions would speak a lot louder than the promise of small amounts of money.

The world is no safer without saddam. In fact i would argue it is completly the reverse.  - Sadam had no capability to attack or endanger any other country. the Country was devestated from the last Gulf war. Countless times it has been shown that there were no links between Iraq and Al-Quieda. Yes Saddam posed a threat to Iraqi's and that was not acceptable, but are iraqi's safe and happy now? are their lives any better? Iraq is swarming with insurgents and people are killed daily - not because of saddam but they are still dying.

So please explain how the world is a safer place, and how we can brush this under the mat and look forward.

[SanitarySal]

how about the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of INNOCENT people Saddam SLAUGHTERED while he was in charge of Iraq? 

Saddam did not slaughter hundreds of thousands people.

There are two primary events in history people point to when trying to incorrectly brand saddam a mass-murderer.

1 - the Gassing of the Kurds
2 - the 1991 Uprising (Civil War)

In terms if the kurds, they had recently suceeded from the Republic of Iraq and declared indepence (Much like the South did in the Civil War), to further exasperate the situation in Halabja in 1988, Iranian armour had moved into the city.  Of course shooting down your own citizens (even when they have revolted) may be a hard thing to do, but when it threatened National Security (northern oil fields)  Saddam was left with few options (than to use the US provided intel and checmical weapons).   In fact more Americans died in the battle of Gettysburg (at the hands of Lincoln) than died in Halabja (Kurds), so unless you are willing to call Lincoln a mass murderer, you must realize that you apply a double-standard.

In terms of the 1991 Uprising, again this was a civil war, and had it been allowed to proceed without squashing, you can be sure more would have died.   Further this was a US pushed, CIA cback project to attempt to overthrow the leader of Iraq.   Of course the US backed, and President Bush Snr left the uprising to be slaughtered.   The point is, the antagonist in Iraq made a choice, uprise but with the potential of losing.   The "mass graves" being found in Iraq today, are remnants from these battles, and suggesting anything to the contrary is the media outright lying to you.

About the media, they have a history of lying on the Subject of Iraq.   The NYTimes, The Washington Post and the LA Times, have all 'been caught lying' and each one has issued a public appology for its "LACK OF JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY" related to its prewar reporting on the issue that lead to Invasion.

In summary, Saddam was really no different than Abraham Lincoln, both were charged with the difficult task of keeping a Republic intact.

...

I was in error.-Lone


I respectfully disagree with you lone, the remainder of the post was included intentionally to portray my own experience on the ground in Iraq and to back up what was already said with some vailidty of having been there.   I will leave it to you to decide whether or not re report the part you censored keeping in mind the reasons stated.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

Dude, you are really warped in the head if you think Abraham Lincoln was anything like Saddam.  Saddam and his two sons were sadistic murderers of the lowest order.  They tortured people to death just for the fun of seeing them die.  They did horrible things to people.  And you want to sit here and say what a good guy Saddam was?  I can't honestly believe you ever served one day in the U.S. Military.

-GhostSniper Out.

[SanitarySal]

Once again Ghostsniper you are full of misinformation.   

My problem with historians (and journalists, politicians, historians, experts, analysts, and uh historians) is that they often neglect to qualify things they present as facts.   So allow me to break down what you said (since it is too much to ask you to be accountable for your own allegations).

Saddam and his two sons were sadistic murderers of the lowest order. 

To have any credibility in your claims you have to be specific and provide sources (not regurgitated misinformation).   What are you referring to?  Pulling information as fact from a Television drama hardly counts as a credible source.  You arent the one going around claiming to be a historian are you?

They tortured people to death just for the fun of seeing them die.  

This sounds to me like there is some editorializing going on with your sources of information.  Or is it  just outright propaganda you have accepted.   Do you really think the leader of one of the wealthiest countries in the world is going to take time out of his day to torture people for fun?   As an American you should be concerned about the torture Americans exact on other people.   Your very own US soldiers have done exactly what you accuse the Iraqi President of doing, and with a frequency most might find startling.   I KNOW the US has committed widespread torture,  I just have a hard time thinking an outrageously wealthy person is going to get his hands dirty torturing people "for the fun of seeing them die?"   come on.

They did horrible things to people.  

Very likely true, but then what leader of a country has not?   You could say Bush (or Clinton) has done horrible things to people.   As an American you morally obliged to focus on the ills of your own leadership, don't waste your time consuming the skewed propaganda presented to you by a corrupt and biased corporate media.

And you want to sit here and say what a good guy Saddam was?  

You (like my girlfriend) argue solely for the sake of argument, regardless of the facts.   I never said Saddam was a good guy.   I simply take the opportunity to point out misinformation when I see it.  I prefer to know the truth, however ugly.  If that means critical introspection towards my own government ... fine.   I dont have an agenda to defend Saddam, and as an American, I think it unpatriotic to mindlessly defend America when it is critique that our country is most in need of.


[quote
I can't honestly believe you ever served one day in the U.S. Military.
 

You will just have to speculate as to what my function was on a US military base that cmae under nightly mortar attack.   I will tell you that you and many americans might be very surprised to know that alot of the soldiers are intelligent people, who do not follow blindly, are very critical of the war, critical of the president, critical of the objective, and critical of the stated intent of going to war in the first place.   Some have a very very keen understanding of how it all came about.  If only you could get the same understanding from the position of 'couch potato war supporter'.

[c| Lone-Wolf]

They tortured people to death just for the fun of seeing them die.  

I think we need to make a distinction between Saddam and his sons, specifically, spending time in a room with the impliments torturing people, as opposed to them just letting the lower officials go off on their own and do what they want.  I believe that yes, a disturbingly large number of people were tortured and murdered under the Saddam regime, that is undeniable, but i think something we should be aware of is how many were -directly- tortured and killed by Saddam and his sons. 

If you're going to tell me then that Saddam and his sons vicariously had people killed and murdered in their name, told someone to go and find them and execute them, i dont entirely believe that Saddam would just go through a list presented to him, checking off names, saying "yep, kill this guy, that guy, and that one over there" 

What im getting at is a lot of the torture, rape, and murder that went on in Iraq was not done either personally or knowingly by Saddam or his sons.  By their thugs, yes.  As to the numbers, that is something i am unfortunately unable to say, since I have not been there and seen for myself, and as such am reduced to only what the media can provide. 

I can't honestly believe you ever served one day in the U.S. Military.

You know, GS, how would you feel if someone started telling you that they cant possibly believe you served in the U.S. military, or that your buddies served in the military?  Or that the sacrafice of your friends in Kosovo, and wherever you may have fought in the world, is something that you just made up to make yourself sound more credible?  Something tells me that would put you in more or less a killing mood, and extremely pissed off to boot, for people not showing you the respect you think you deserve for having served your country.  Maybe you should give Sal the same.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

Okay, now I know for sure the whole lot of you are insane.  You guys aren't even making any sense now.  Either you've been totally brainwashed by liberals, the press, or both....or you have all been smoking the crack pipe a little too much lately.  I can't believe I'm sitting here debating with you people whether or not Saddam and his sons personally tortured people.  The very fact that you are on Saddam's side with this rates you right up there with the countries who were in his back pocket during the Food For Oil crap with the UN (namely France, Germany, and Russia).  Guess you also don't want to admit that the leaders of those countries were pocketing millions of dollars from that program.  And yes, there are sworn testimonies from family members in Iraq that said his two sons did indeed torture people to death PERSONALLY, as in themselves, as in they liked that shit.  Wonder where they got that thirst for torture from?  Maybe DADDY SADDAM?  I'm done talking to you people.  Anyone who would back Saddam instead of the United States in this isn't worth my time talking to.

If anyone wants to direct any further comments to anyone in this thread, make sure they aren't directed at me because I'm done with this topic.

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.[/size]

[c| Lone-Wolf]

Even though you wont read it, I never said that Saddam and his sons never tortured people.  They surely did.  I agree wholeheartedly they were sick, and extremely saddistic fucks.  The only distinction i was trying to make is that they arent responsible for every murdered or tortured to death Iraqi during the Saddam regime.

[BFG]

Lone i kinda don't agree with your post modifications -  i found that last section of Sals post both relevant and inportant.

Aside from that, Sal you just reminded me that despite the 51% there are a lot of sane and very intelligent americans out there who are not afraid to critisise their countrys actions. If i was wearing a hat i would take it off to you. no joke.

Anyone who would back Saddam instead of the United States in this isn't worth my time talking to.

Unfortunatly i don't think he either read or understood anything u guys said - or he has just totally misinterpreted it seeing our comments as "pro Saddam" ... nobody has questioned the fact that Saddam and his sons etc did some apauling shit. no question about it. but that is no exuse for what has happend as a result

[BTs_GhostSniper]

If anyone wants to direct any further comments to anyone in this thread, make sure they aren't directed at me because I'm done with this topic.
[/size]

I was serious about that.  I'm over it.[/size]

[*DAMN Bondo]

This thread has gone to a scary place so can I just say...Lincoln was gay.

[Brutha]

Look, the simple truth is that Saddam is gone. Good thing. America and Britain lide/misled/was misled when it came to the motives fort the invasion of Iraq. You know what? That is actually not a big problem for me either, but I would prefer it if Bush would lay it straight and say: Hey, lets correct my fathers mistake and get the SOB.

What I do have problems with, is the way it was done. Not an invasion, because that was a clean invasion. Quick and painless. Little casualties on all sides. But this is where it all went wrong. 2 years later America is still force do send troops because it's leaders were shortsighted.

So what about economic motives?  Thats a tricky one, and I am sure that many corporations in America were going "YAY" when they first attacked, and it may have been one of the smaller motives as well. But using this as an argument for not going to war is useless and there are two reasons for that.

1. The European states that said no to the war was going to lose oil interests on an invasion(not Norway, cause we have a lot of it..but then again..we have troops in Iraq today)

2. In a hyoothetical world, this war went fine, and America withdrew within 6 months and Iraq is now self governed. So, a few american companies are making money now as a result, but that also means work for the Iraqi ppl, a boost for the Iraqi economy. All in all, a + for the people.

And now where I am going with this. The result of an action can't tell you whether the action in itself was a bad thing. You have to look at the motives. A wellmeaning action can also bring death and destruction, and though I have some issues with the American government, I can't believe they set out to bring death and destruction.

But I think that America need to think differently though. Looks like the troops are failing.