Bush says 30,000 Iraqis killed

Well, it's good to know what the fuzzy math president estimates the toll as. I don't know which is more ridiculous; that this fellow has any credibility in view of his own innumeracy and tendency to blather whatever springs into his head, or that he has any credibility in view of the inability of his administration to say even one truthful thing, ever.

Anyway, I'd say Bush's statement qualifies as solid advice that the true estimate is somewhere above 100,000 after all.

Today's Washington Post says this:

The Iraqi death toll has been the subject of considerable debate. A group of British researchers and antiwar activists called Iraq Body Count estimates civilian casualties between 27,383 and 30,892, not counting Iraqi troops or insurgents, by tabulating incidents reported in media and human rights reports. Iraqi authorities have said that roughly 800 people die a month in violence there, a rate that if typical over the course of the conflict would come to 25,600.

An epidemiological study published in the British journal the Lancet last year estimated 100,000 deaths in the first 18 months since the invasion based on door-to-door interviews in selected neighborhoods extrapolated across the country, an estimate that other experts and human rights groups considered inflated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/12/AR20051…

I don't know which is more ridiculous; that this fellow has any credibility in view of his own innumeracy and tendency to blather whatever springs into his head

I thought that to critize President Bush was un-american?! Are there 2 "z"'s commenting on this blog?

no no, innumeracy and ignorance are good things. knowledge and understanding and science are soooooo totally last millenium. the future belongs to feudalism and superstition and we are building a bridge to the 12th century. even going to create another medieval warming period.

Ohio Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich, BTW for those who reside in furrin lands, was the only Democratic presidential candidate to be consistently anti-Iraq-war, AFAIK. Of course, he was eliminated early in the Democratic primaries.

"The Administration's unilateral first strike policy, and its harsh
rhetoric against Iraq, has very serious ramifications for not only Iraq
and the middle east region, but on the carefully constructed alliances
upon which the US relies. Pre-emptive military action in Iraq would
only destabilize the region and place at risk the lives of those
American men and women who would be called to action. It is important
that the United States work in coordination with the international
community to contain Iraq, and not proceed unilaterally with an
unprovoked war." Dennis Kucinich, July 19, 2002
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=26550

"I don't think there's any justification to go to war with Iraq.
There's no evidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. There's
no... there's nothing that says that they have the ability to deliver
such weapons, if they did have them." Dennis Kucinich The News Hour
with Jim Lehrer, Sept. 3, 2002

Buchanan: "Congressman Kucinich, does not the President have a clear,
factual point here? Saddam Hussein is developing these weapons of mass
destruction, he agreed to get rid of them, he has not gotten rid of
them."
Kucinich: "Well, frankly we haven't seen evidence or proof of that, and
furthermore we haven't seen evidence or proof that he has the ability
to deliver such weapons if he has them, and finally, whether or not he
has the intent." Dennis Kucinich, Buchanan and Press, Sept. 4, 2002

"There's no evidence Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, or the
ability to deliver such weapons if it had them or the intention to do
so." Dennis Kucinich, Baraboo, Wisconsin, Sept. 7, 2002

"We owe it to the memories of those who lost their lives September 11th
to remember, to reflect, and bring justice to those responsible.
"We also have a similar obligation not to use the events of 9/11, and
the great loss which so many endured, as a pretext for launching a war
against Iraq.
"Iraq was not responsible for 9/11.
"Iraq has not been linked to 9/11.
"Yet here we are on the anniversary of that grim day, and the
Administration is attempting to reframe 9/11 by beating the drum for
war against a nation not connected to 9/11." Dennis Kucinich
Washington, Sept. 10, 2002
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=26543

"Since 1998 no credible intelligence has been brought forward which
suggests that Iraq is manufacturing weapons of mass destruction or has
developed capabilities for delivery of such weapons." Dennis Kucinich
Sept. 12, 2002
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=26539

Dennis Kucinich, BTW for those who reside in furrin lands, was the only Democratic presidential candidate to be consistently anti-Iraq-war, AFAIK. Of course, he was eliminated early in the Democratic primaries.

Gee, I wonder why that was?

Stll jckng ff bt pls f dd Irqs hy Tmmy?

Irrespective of the number of war casualties, the democratically elected Iraqi government supports the continued presence of Coalition forces. Surely that is the most salient fact in judging the rightness or wrongness of this war.

Murph- I wish you were on the other side. Grow real. Grow up. Grow away.

It's also interesting why the rest of the media never covered the Lancet study. As Lila Guterman reported, it was well done.

http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i22/22a01001.htm

I think it goes back to the idea that most journalists can't do math.

Note that it's been over a year since the Lancet study and violence in Iraq is just as bad, so the best estimate is now much more than 100,000.

On what basis are you claiming that?

As a difference of two numbers, it is in principle as likely to go down as up. Given the lack of any fighting of the scale and intensity of fallujah, let alone the conventional war, since the survey, I would say if anything down seems more likely.

soru

Be reminded that killings would not have been zero if the U.S. hadn't attacked. Mass graves have been discovered, I believe. There was a story, possibly true, that Uday saw an attractive newlywed couple and responded by murdering the young lieutenant and raping the bride. So as dreadful as the body count is, whether it's 30K or 100K, the U.S. has undoubtedly saved some lives along the way.

"Be reminded that killings would not have been zero if the U.S. hadn't attacked."

Again, there is a factor involved here; the timing of Saddam's killings. No doubt he was cuting a pretty wide swath 20 years ago, when he had the heartfelt support of the Reagan and Bush administrations, but most of the evidence I've seen indicates that since he's fallen out of favor, he was forced to behave himself more recently. Of course, as the occupation grows longer, in order to compare symmetrical time periods before and after the war, we will be pushing back into Saddam's gory past; so eventually we will indeed get to a point where the deaths prior to the war will be greater than the deaths since the war. An interesting benefit of the openended occupation. I don't think we're quite there yet, but in another decade or two....

Good point Bill Ahern. Saddam was merely unpleasant. He killed 300,000 of his own citizens and started two wars- one on Iran and the other on Kuwait- that involved probably another million or so corpses.

However, eventually Saddam would have been beckoned by Allah and duly awarded his 40 virgins. Then the real yucky stuff would have started. His twisted sons would have taken over the Hussein dynasty.

I recall reports of Uday, whom Saddam put in charge of the sports ministry, forcing members of the Iraqi soccer team to stand in vats of human excrement as punishment for losing games. Female athletes were raped for poor performance. Assorted tales of murder and torture are legendary. Qusay was apparently not as bad as his younger brother, although he also regularly engaged in the family tradition of murder and torture.

I do not condemn the overthrow of the Hussein dynasty for the same reason I do not condemn Vietnam for overthrowing Pol Pot in Cambodia. Call me old fashioned if you will but I have an aversion to brutal, psychotic tyrants.

Soru, Bill: the Lancet estimate is for "excess deaths" ie the increase in the Iraqi death rate after the invasion. So however bad the period 2002-3 was under Saddam, the fourteen months after the invasion were worse.

Soru is correct to say that things have got a bit better since Fallujah, but there are still lots of fatalities to insurgent action and coalition counterinsurgency and water and electricity provision is not yet back up to pre-invasion levels so I would think it unlikely that the current mortality rate has fallen so much that we are piling up negative excess deaths.

"the democratically elected Iraqi government supports the continued presence of Coalition forces."

Interesting and rather extensive survey of iraqis' attitudes:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/121205iraqdata.pdf

"Call me old fashioned if you will but I have an aversion to brutal, psychotic tyrants."

Well then, you'll probably want to drop a strong letter to Mr. Bush regarding this (remember, we're not torturing people if we're getting somebody else to do it!):

Our President's New Best Friend Boils People Alive

06/26/03: Let me introduce you to our president's new best friend, President Karimov of Uzbekistan.

President Karimov government was awarded $500m in aid from the Bush administration in 2002. The SNB (Uzbekistan's security service) received $79m of this sum.

The U.S. State Department web site states "Uzbekistan is not a democracy and does not have a free press. Many opponents of the government have fled, and others have been arrested." and "The police force and the intelligence service use torture as a routine investigation technique."

Now I would like to introduce you to Muzafar Avazov, a 35-year old father of four. Mr Avazov had a visit from our presidents friends security force (SNB), the photographs below detail the brutality and inhuman treatment our tax dollars subsidize, with the full knowledge of our president and his administration.

Muzafar Avazov, body showed signs of burns on the legs, buttocks, lower back and arms. Sixty to seventy percent of the body was burnt, according to official sources. Doctors who saw the body reported that such burns could only have been caused by immersing Avazov in boiling water. Those who saw the body also reported that there was a large, bloody wound on the back of the head, heavy bruising on the forehead and side of the neck, and that his hands had no fingernails.

WARNING
The pictures of Mr. Avazov's body are horrific and should only be viewed by a mature audience

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3943.htm

Growing evidence U.S. sending prisoners to torture capital
Despite bad record on human rights, Uzbekistan is ally
- Don Van Natta Jr., New York Times
Sunday, May 1, 2005

Seven months before Sept. 11, 2001, the State Department issued a human rights report on Uzbekistan. It was a litany of horrors.

The police repeatedly tortured prisoners, State Department officials wrote, noting that the most common techniques were "beating, often with blunt weapons, and asphyxiation with a gas mask." Separately, international human rights groups had reported that torture in Uzbek jails included boiling of body parts, using electroshock on genitals and plucking off fingernails and toenails with pliers. Two prisoners were boiled to death, the groups reported. The February 2001 State Department report stated bluntly: "Uzbekistan is an authoritarian state with limited civil rights."

Immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, however, the Bush administration turned to Uzbekistan as a partner in the global fight against terrorism. The nation, a former Soviet republic in Central Asia, granted the United States the use of a military base for fighting the Taliban across the border in Afghanistan. President Bush welcomed Uzbek President Islam Karimov to the White House, and the United States has given Uzbekistan more than $500 million for border control and other security measures.

Now there is increasing evidence that the United States has sent terror suspects to Uzbekistan for detention and interrogation, even as Uzbekistan's treatment of its own prisoners continues to earn it admonishments from around the world, including from the State Department.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/01/MNGE5CI9…

March 19, 2004
UZBEKISTAN: COURAGEOUS MOTHER OF BOILED MUSLIM NOMINATED TO INTERNATIONAL AWARD
Source: Muslim Uzbekistan
Uploaded/Updated: 12/14/2005 11:47:13

Yesterday Index on Censorship, international organization monitoring censorship and free expression abuses in some 70 countries worldwide, announced the nominees to its annual award for outstanding contributions to free expression around the world.

Fatima Muqoddirova, mother of Muzaffar Avazov, boiled to death in Jaslyq colony in August 2002 now is on trial for displaying post-mortem photographs of her son.

Fatima Mukhadirova, a well-known 63-year-old Uzbek mother, was sentenced last autumn to six years hard labour, later retracted after international protests, for 'possessing unsanctioned religious literature and attempted encroachment on the constitutional order' is among them. She was punished by Karimov's regime for speaking out about the torture and death of her son Muzaffar Avazov (photos), while in state custody in Jaslyk colony. An investigation by foreign institutions like Britain's embassy in Uzbekistan and the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture concluded that he had been submerged in boiling water.

http://www.muslimuzbekistan.com/eng/ennews/2004/03/ennews19032004_3.html

Note, by the way, that the deaths in the assault on Falluja were not counted by the Lancet study (even in their estimate that included Falluja).

The SMH gets the Lancet study wrong and claims it measured the civilian death toll.

How many newspapers (or other media) have actually reported the Lancet study correctly? Maybe you should blog the ones that do, it sounds like it would be less work than blogging all the ones that get it wrong!

The BBC summary of the 2005 Oxford Research International survey "Z" refers to at comment 15 says the following:

"When asked to choose a priority for the new government due to be formed after this week's elections, 57% wanted to focus on restoring public security."

Only 10% of survey participants nominated the withdrawal of Coalition forces as the top priority.

Steve,

Polls can say a lot of things. In the middle of last year, prime-war criminal Bush claimed that his dream was to bring democracy to the middle east (and, we might infer Africa, the Americas, Asia, Mars, Pluto etc). His pronouncenment was greeted with almost reverential awe amongst US pundits; some claimed he was wrong about the way he was going about it, but there was no doubt amongst any of them that 'spreading democracy' was his legitimite aim, as it had been uncritically assumed for all previous administrations. It is part of the myth of 'basic benevolnece' of western foreign policy, which is never questioned by our media, let alone challenged.

By sheer coincidence, a poll in Iraq had been conducted by the Pew Center at about the same tie as Bush's historic pronouncement. One of the questions asked of Iraqi citzens was, "Do you think the coalition invaded to bring democracy to Iraq?". The result was that there were some who believed this: 1%. More than 70% believed that the US had invaded to control the country's resources; more than 60% believed that, even were there to be elections, that the US would only allow a nominal democracy that they could 'control'. In other words, Iraq can have any democracy it likes, as long as it does what the US tells it to do.

This should have been headline news in the west: 100% of American pundits believe the US wants to "bring democracy" to Iraq but only 1% of Iraqis believe it.

As for your rather inane comment about Iraq wanting the coalition forces to say, this conflicts with the recent Pew Center poll in which 45% of Iraqis support insurgent attacks on coalition forces. Take out the Kurdish voice, which almost unilaterllay supports the occupation, and this means that well over half of the Iraq population support insurgent tactics. Methinks this suggests that most Iraqis don't want the coalition to stay there.

The whole thing is academic though: the invasion was pure and simple aggression, violated the Nuremburg code and constituted a major breach of international law.

Jeff Harvey- You conveniently overlook the elephant in the room. That is, Iraq has a democratically elected government that supports the presence of coalition troops.

The invasion was illegal because it lacked a UN security council mandate. However the security council has China as one of its permanent members. China is a malign dictatorship that shoots its own citizens and has no respect for human rights. It currently protects hideous regimes like Burma and Zimbabwe because it perceives an economic benefit.

Your support for this state of affairs is shameless and immoral.

Steve,

You are speaking absolute nonsense, of course. I don't have the time to detail here direct or proxy US atrocities over the past 100 years, but the body count would easily exceed 10 million civilian victims. These are the "UNPEOPLE" whose lives conflict with western foregn policy, and who are only worthwhile in the views of the western elites when they serve a useful purpose. To the super powerful and super violent, which this current administration of 'crazies' in Washington represent, the Iraq population are effectively "UNPEOPLE" except when their claimed 'liberation' can be used to camouflage the real agenda (e.g. outright expansion, control of resources, creating another client state etc.). US-UK sanctions, which resembled a medieval siege, killed over half of million of Iraq's "UNPEOPLE" between 1991 and 2003, and the latest aggression - for that is what the invasion was - has snuffed out the lives of many tens of thousands more. I don't need some smart aleck telling me what is "shameless" and "immoral". Learn some history, man, instead of parroting western media propoganda ad nauseum.

The US has waged terrorist wars against Nicaragua (condemned at the World Court in 1985, where the US was found guilty of 'illegal use of aggression' - in other words, state terror, the only country to receive this penalty) and wars of aggression against Iraq, Korea, and Viet Nam (in Indochina, the body count exceeds 5 million). I won't even start on the US slaughter of Phillipinos in 1901-02, which exceeds many other US-sponsored campaigns in terms of sheer calculated brutality and horror.

Since the end of the Second World War, the US and its junior partner (Britain) have directly or by proxy overthrown 40 democratically elected governments and have helped to suppress or destroy more than 50 movements against intolerable regimes. The US at present harbors convicted terrorrists and mass murderers (e.g. Prosper Avril, Emmanuel Constant, Orlando Bosch, and several notorious individuals from death squads in Central America who live in sumptuous retirement in California, Florida and New York); support several brutal regimes (Colombia, Nigeria, Uzbekistan) whose leaders rival Saddam for brutality and are responsible for many civilan deaths; and have labeled some of the worst terrorist states (e.g. Algeria, Turkey, Russia) as "pro-active partners in the war on terror".

The US supported General Suharto of Indonesia for over 20 years, in full knowledge of the fact that he was one of the world's biggest torturers and mass murderers in the second half of the twentieth century; in 1996, a Clinton aide called him "our kind of guy". Suharto lives in a luxurious retirement in Jakarta. Ditto support for the regimes of Marcos, the Shah of Iran, Mbutu Sesu Seku, Pol Pot, successive brutal South African regimes, Pinochet, Somosza; the US (empowering the sadistic Monroe Doctrine) has virtually destroyed any semblance of 'bottom-up' democracy across much of Latin America. All this is to suppress indigenous nationalism and ensure that control of these countries' resources were and are retained by western elites and business interests and are not used for the benefit of the local populations. This nationalism has always been perceived as a threat to western business interests, so any number of excuses have been used (communist expansion, support for internation terrorism) to ensure that these countries fulfill their 'service functions'. Don't beleieve it? ead declassified documents, one of the benefits of living in a so-called 'democracy'. I have.

Thus Steve, if you wanna argue, read up on recent history. But until you do you'll just be wasting my breath - and yours.

Jeff Harvey- I am well aware that the US has done many terrible things throughout its history. Its record in Central and Southern America in particular is hideous. Britain has also done numerous terrible things, particularly during the colonial era.

Nevertheless the current discussion is about Iraq and each case has to be examined on its own merits. There are occasions when the perceived self-interest of a superpower can be characterised as enlightened self-interest. The Marshall Plan is a good example. I would say the same about America standing up for Taiwan, and remonstrating with the European powers, like France, who want to recommence selling arms to China.

I'm intrigued. Would you have opposed America fighting the Axis in WWII because of, lets say, the mistreatment of native American Indians and African Americans? Surely not. The world doesn't conform to the back and white Hollywood schema you imply. Distasteful choices must sometimes be made. Personally, I despise Bush and the neo-cons, however I despise Saddam even more. Get the picture?

P.S. Could you please provide a reference for the following comment: "Since the end of the Second World War, the US and its junior partner (Britain) have directly or by proxy overthrown 40 democratically elected governments and have helped to suppress or destroy more than 50 movements against intolerable regimes."

I have seen some bizarre conspiracy theory material on the web, including claims that the CIA were responsible for "The Dismissal" in Oz in 1975. Have you fallen for this claptrap?

--

Soru, Bill: the Lancet estimate is for "excess deaths" ie the increase in the Iraqi death rate after the invasion.

That's not actually the case, despite what the introduction to the study says.

From the study:

during the 14.6 months
before the invasion (Jan 1, 2002, to March 18, 2003) and
to compare it with the period from March 19, 2003, to

the date of the interview, between Sept 8 and 20, 2004

First air strikes were on March 20, Bush's 'mission accomplished' speech on May 1st.

To realistically compare pre and post-war mortalities, you would have to put deaths within the 6 weeks of the conventional war into a seperate bucket, not slip them onto the post-war side of the scales.

soru

Steve,

I am being conservative wth my criticisms. Read Bill Blum's "Rogue State" or better still, Ward Churchill's "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens", Mickey Z's "The Seven Deadly Spins", or Norman Solomon's "War Made Easy". These detail, in chronological order, US foreign policy atrocities over the years (especially the first two). You might also peruse Mark Curtis's two book: "Web of Deceit" and "Unpeople". Curtis is perhaps the most thorough and meticulous historian in the UK today. Of course, you can label any such discourse as a "conspiracy theory" or the like. You then might also peruse more mainstream literature like works from Anatol Lieven and Andrew Bacivich. These fellows aren't liberals but their words are no less chilling.

As for US policy in Iraq, and the alleged 'humanitarian' motive: even if we ignore the trifling matter of mass killing, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The US has spent approaching 250 billion dollars in this campaign; that money, if spent on truly humanitarian grounds, could have greatly helped to elimiate global poverty in a suite of areas. As I said, the invasion had nix to do with democracy and freedom; these are irrelevant to the western establishment. The Iraqi's are "Unpeople" and join a long list of 'unepoples' whose lives conflict with the interests of western elites. Dont' expect to hear Bush and his junta crowing about democracy in Colombia, Nigeria, or of eliminating chronic poverty in Latin America. Read these words: THEY DON'T CARE. Their major aim is to further secure the interests and wealth of the privileged few and to maintain the status quo.

I have a good laugh when I hear defenders of US actions admit that there are 'anomlies' in US foreign policy. Anomalies? How many of these anomalies does it take to constitute the 'rule'? How many civilian corpses must pile up before you accept that this 'basic benevolence' of western foreign policy forever paraded in our media and the cornerstone of our 'democracies' is a load of garbage?

For the last time, the current doctine of "full spectrum dominance" by the US, manifested via gunboat diplomacy, with its universal doctrine of preventive wars and the like, carries conditions. The US will only attack countries that are (a) worth the troble, (b) defenceless, and (c) if it is easy to portray them as a threat to humanity. Iraq qualified on all counts. At the Nuremburg trials, prosecuting attorney Robert Jackson (an American), in summing up, claimed that the "Supreme internatuional crime is the crime of aggression for it embodies the accumulated evil of the whole". He did not exempt the United States or any other country for waging wars of aggression in future. This has been the cornerstone of international law since 1945. The new Bush grand imperial strategy - whereby the US claims the unilateral right to attack countries preventatively - is in violation of the international charter and contravenes the Nuremburg code. The implications for humanity and for the planet are bleak, unless acountability is restored to the world order. I will admit that ther presidents kept the option of preventive wars in their 'back pockets', but the present DC incumbents have put the doctrine in full view.

Jeff Harvey- Iraq has just had a fresh election and it appears likely that the voter turnout will exceed the 60% figure last time. In my book, whatever Government emerges will therefore be legitimate. If the new Government pleads for the Coalition to stay on to put down the insurgency, should it? Or should the Coalition simply pack up and leave regardless? I think there is only one moral answer to this question.

Thanks for the book recommendations. I'll look into them.

Steve,

There was an election in South Viet nam in 1967 in which 83% of the electorate turned out. The US media trumped this as a 'support for the US-led war' but it was nothing of the kind. Inevitably, this election, like its predecessors, will be used in the same way - to give the impression that the Iraqi people support the occupation (which they categorically DO NOT). The people of Iraq are voting because they want the occupation to end asap. As long as the Americans remain in Iraq, there will be violence and bloodshed.

Because the coalition has caused such carange and misery, and is therefore part of the problem, I believe that it should end now and be replaced, if anything, by a force from combined Middle Eastern nations (except of course Israel). The bottom line is that the US cannot and will never be able to defeat a well-organized insurgent resistance. Every time US cluster bombs or daisy cutters maim and kill more Iraqi civilians, then the alleged battle to win 'hearts and minds' is further eroded.

To be honest, I am sure that the neocons in Washington must be trembling in their boots at the thought of a Shia theocracy in Iraq, that will aim to restore ties with Iran. This sure isn't what Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, Feith etc. had in mind when they planned this little (mis)adventure.

Jeff Harvey- You have hit a raw nerve by mentioning South Vietnam. My partner is Vietnamese (from Dalat). It was an epiphany for me to realise just how many South Vietnamese would have much preferred the US to stay on rather than cut and run.

Your atitude is appallingly patronising. If the Iraqis overwhelmingly want the US out, and that is their top priority, then they will elect a Government that reflects such a desire.

If the Iraqis overwhelmingly want the US out, and that is their top priority, then they will elect a Government that reflects such a desire.

Assuming the US and the current Iraqi government allowed any party to campaign on such a platform.

"Iraq has just had a fresh election and it appears likely that the voter turnout will exceed the 60% figure last time"

Those lucky Iraqis:

"Louisiana Governor Blanco Orders Delay In New Orleans Elections
Author: Steve Sabludowsky
12/12/2005
On Monday, Governor Kathleen Blanco took the extraordinary step and signed an executive order delaying the qualifying period and the February 4 and March 4, 2006 elections in Orleans Parish due to the collapse of the electoral process in New Orleans.
Governor Blanco did not provide a replacement date for qualifying nor an election date.
...
I am one of those people who believe that if the Iraqi people could go to the polls under duress of being killed, the citizens of New Orleans could have held an election. Makeshift voting polls could have been installed in buildings and even in tents using the power of generators if necessary in some locations."
http://www.bayoubuzz.com/articles.aspx?aid=5710

The more cynical may wonder if the prevailing attitude in the region regarding the performance of the Bush adminisration might possibly have had an influence.

Ian Gould- Do you have any evidence that the Coalition and/or Iraqi Government suppressed a political because it wanted the Coalition to withdraw? Or are you simply pissing in the wind?

By the way, if I heard tonight's news correctly, even the Sunni parties no longer advocate an immediate Coalition withdrawal. I rest my case.

Steve,

The vast majority of south Vietnamese wanted the Amercans out; the US carpet bombing of the country and the north killed more than two million Indochinese. I think that your partner has incurred her wrath in the wrong direction. How much of a raw nerve does it hit to know that Nixon ordered genocide be perpetrated against Cambodia? His order, relayed by the ever obedient Kissinger as "Anything that flies on anything that moves" should be what angers you; and US foreign policy in general. Civilians, as in virtually all wars, are expendable to achieve political aims. The US has always been scared stiff of indigenous nationalism - that countries will embrace political movements that prioritize looking after their own people instead of redirecting their resource wealth for the benefit of western investors and the conglomerates and corporate interests they represent. This explains the carnage they have indirectly or directly inflcited on Viet Nam, Korea, The Philippines, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Haiti, Iran, Chile, Indonesia and elsewhere.

The bottom line is that I don't have a clue why you ventured into this thread. You have no political or historical facts at your disposal so instead you rely on pedantics. The US has inflicted massive suffering on Iraq, first during the years it supported Saddam Hussein, and later, when he 'slipped the leash' and lost his role as an obedient thug. The US demands obedience from its clients, hence why Uribe (Colombia) Obasanjo (Nigeria) and, until recently, Karimov (Uzbekistan) had a free hand to torture and kill civilians in their lands. Suharto was much worse than Saddam, yet the US supported his regime almost to the bitter end. Military 'aid' to Turkey peaked in 1997, which was well past the end of the cold war but coincided with the most brutal suppression of the ethnic Kurdish population in that country. The US knew full well thast its attack helicopters and other assorted weaponry were being used to kill Turkish Kurds, as much as they know that Uribe in Colombia (the biggest current recipient of US military aid') uses his American-supplied artillery in much the same way.

As far as Iraq is concerned, the US never intends to fully withdraw, whatever the security situation there. The 14 "enduring camps" and the world's biggest embassy (being constructed in Baghdad) are clear enough evidence that they intend to stay indefinitely. The huge oil fields are a prize that will not easily be pried from the hands of the neocons (arch neocon Grover Norquiast has made this abundantly clear). Most of the economy had been set up for immediate privatization by Bremer (in violation of the Geneva Conventions) and the oil will follow when things 'settle down'.

The US maintains 700 military bases in 145 countries around the world. If you want to rule the globe economically and militarily, you need this kind of 'gunboat diplomacy' (projecting 'power' as the Project for the New American Century described it) and you need to control the vassals of oil and natural gas in the Middle East and Asia (the Caucasus). None of this should be remotely surprising or controversial. So Steve, your pithy arguments on the new 'democracy' (read: plutocracy) in Iraq lack any basis in credible fact or history. You exasperate me.

Jeff Harvey- You are obviously a well read and intelligent bloke, nevertheless I do not agree with your analysis of US hegemony. I won't proffer my alternative since it is way off topic. However, I will briefly address the Vietnam (VN) issue that you raise.

I have read a reasonable amount about the VN war, although I am by no means a proficient historian of that war. But I do believe I have some insight into the thinking of the South VN people because of my 15 year involvement with VN people, thru my relationship and various friendships, and 4 trips to VN since 1991. I can confidently say that you are way off base in saying that most South VN people wanted the Americans out. I say that based on numerous conversations with South VN people from Hue to Saigon as well as in Oz. Of course, this constitutes purely subjective evidence. I'm afraid I can't point you in the direction of any relevant survey, since Marxist VN would imprison anyone who tried to conduct such a survey.

Nevertheless, there is some objective evidence that lends support to my claim. This includes the estimated 300,000 corpses in the sea of South VN citizens who unsuccessfully tried to flee VN. Secondly, there are the millions of boat people who made it to the West, including the dreaded United States, as well as here in Oz.

Also, have you ever seen the red and yellow South VN flag proudly flying in "little Saigon" enclaves around the world on 30th April each year, to commemorate the fall of the South? Wake up. Open your eyes.

Finally, you have provided not one scintilla of evidence to support your claim that the latest Iraqi election has produced a plutocracy rather than a democracy. Why not? Can I assume that you, like Ian, are simply pissing in the breeze?

I don't think it can be said with any confidence that the "vast majority" of South Vietnamese wanted one thing or the other. The vast majority of Saigonese wanted the Americans to stay, because they were good for the economy and they correctly assessed that they would be safe while the Americans were there. However, support was much less in the countryside; the Cu Chi tunnels could hardly have been dug or maintained if the Viet Cong did not have substantial support.

dsquared- The Viet Cong did indeed obtain significant support from illiterate peasants. I would argue that is a result of masterful propaganda. Marxists, to their credit, have displayed a Goebbels like understanding of the importance of propaganda.

However if you talk to a peasant in VN today, North or South, they will express nothing but cynicism for the current regime (that is, if they have the courage to speak freely). Everything they were promised by the VC was a lie. At least, that is my experience.

To me, the notable thing about bush's 30,000 is not its accuracy or inaccuracy (i don't go to bush for accurate numerical analysis) it's that he seems to be just speaking his mind in his public appearances again all of a sudden, after the tightly politically managed appearances he had been making for quite a while now. admitting mistakes, even. I think he just picked up the 30,000 number by osmosis the same way the rest of the conservatives tossing it around did, not as some kind of carefully thought out figure selected for him to say.

I don't know if the return to lovability for bush represents a carefully thought out change of political image, or whether Rove et al are too busy fighting off plame-blame, or whether bush had a sudden attack of authenticity and/or christianity in the light of his current troubles and decided to go "off the reservation" and be his own man; it was suggested once that the nomination of Miers for the court was actually an abortive first stab at advising by a more folksy bunch including Laura, trying to supplant the party elite.

Steve,

In his recently published memoirs, Robert McNamara (the US Secretary of State under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations) admitted to US strategic errors during ther Viet Nam war, and issued an apology. To whom was he apologizing? Not to the Viet Namese people or nation, who were the victims of US aggression, but to the US people for "letting them down". Some 58,000 US service personnel died in Viet Nam, compared with more than 2 million Viet Namese, but McNamara had no apologies for these victims or US crimes against humanity in neighbouring Cambodia (admittedly carried out by the Nixon administration).

In 1977, there was international pressure applied to the US to pay substantial reparations for the human and physical damage inflicted by US bombs on Viet Nam and Cambodia. Jimmy Carter refused on the grounds that the "damage was mutual". Was it? This is nonsense! The damage inflicted on Viet Nam and its people by US bombs, napalm and chemical defoliants is incalculable, but one thing is for certain: the country was virtually destroyed. In fact, since that time Viet Nam has actualy been paing substantial funds to the US for the US service personnel listed as 'missing in action' i the war. This is just another example of the victim paying the aggressor.

In discussing the My Lai massacre, Mickey Z, in his book "The seven deadly spins" quotes personnel in Viet Nam who say that there was nothing 'unusual' at all about My Lai. In fact, several claim that almost every operating unit had its own My Lai story hidden away. You must know of the infamous "Tiger Unit", a US platoon which, virtually commanderless, murdered, tortured, raped and pillaged its way across Viet Nam for several years. This sordid story was hidden away until a small town newspaper in the US midwest brought it out two years ago. The details are horrific.

The fact is, that a conference in Geneva temporarily partitioned the country into the nationalist north and republic south in 1954; this was until elections were to be held under international scrutiny in 1956, when it was inevitable that Ho Chi Minh would win the unity vote. The US balked at this aspect of so-called 'democracy' because, as in Nicaragua 30 years later, the 'wrong' side was going to win. The same thing happened in Chile (1973), Iran (1953) and Guatemala (1954). In each case, the populace elected a nationalist whose policies conflicted with business interests of the US government and its corporate cronies. This is why the US has tried every trick in the book, along with elites in Venezuela, to oust populist leader Hugo Chavez from power. In south Viet Nam, the US 'installed' a dishwasher from New York (Diem) as leader in the early 1960's, a man who routinely violated human rights and whose brutal regime became despised in the south, especially as writer z points out) in rural areas, where the Viet Cong had enormous support.

As for US hegemony, nothing I have said is even vaguely controversial. I suggest you read up on "The Grand Chessboard" by Zbignieuw Brezinski, "Project for the Twenty First Century", authored by prominent neocons in the current administration and the American Enterprise Institute, "Full Sprectrum Dominance" by the US Space Command, and the National Security Document (Bush's grand imperial strategy) of 2002. On top of that, you might go back to Paul Wolfowitz's 1992 piece, "Defense Planning Guidance" (resurrected in 2001 for the 'war on terror'). All of these nakedly expose imperial US ambitions. Again, if the media were doing ts proper job, instead of channeling accredited lies as facts, the public would be in deep, deep, shock.

As for the elections in Iraq, I am wasting my breath on you. You clearly rely on such stalwart sources as The New York Times, CNN or Fox News(US) for your information, or, if you are a Brit, as I believe, then the BBC, Telegraph, or other 'mainstream' source of disinformation.

Jeff Harvey says: "As for the elections in Iraq, I am wasting my breath on you. You clearly rely on such stalwart sources as The New York Times, CNN or Fox News(US) for your information, or, if you are a Brit, as I believe, then the BBC, Telegraph, or other 'mainstream' source of disinformation."

I'm Australian actually. You must be pulling your hair out with frustration after reading about the high turnout for yesterday's elections. Even in Sunni areas, turnouts of 70% and more have been estimated. About 48 different parties were listed on the ballot papers, which seems like a good range of choices to me.

The source on Iraq I have the most respect for is Paul McGeough, a left-liberal journalist who has spent most of the last couple of years in Iraq, with occasional forays into Afghanistan. I stay clear of the Murdoch media, which is hopelessly biased. Likewise, I stay clear of far-left cranks like John Pilger.

I will make only one more comment on VN. That is, get your nose out of books for a minute and go talk to some VN people in your local area. The knowledge you gain from books is no substitute for the lived experiences of ordinary people. Regards.

Be reminded that killings would not have been zero if the U.S. hadn't attacked. Mass graves have been discovered, I believe. There was a story, possibly true, that Uday saw an attractive newlywed couple and responded by murdering the young lieutenant and raping the bride. So as dreadful as the body count is, whether it's 30K or 100K, the U.S. has undoubtedly saved some lives along the way.

Be reminded that killings would not have been zero if the U.S. hadn't attacked. Mass graves have been discovered, I believe. There was a story, possibly true, that Uday saw an attractive newlywed couple and responded by murdering the young lieutenant and raping the bride. So as dreadful as the body count is, whether it's 30K or 100K, the U.S. has undoubtedly saved some lives along the way.

Be reminded that killings would not have been zero if the U.S. hadn't attacked. Mass graves have been discovered, I believe. There was a story, possibly true, that Uday saw an attractive newlywed couple and responded by murdering the young lieutenant and raping the bride. So as dreadful as the body count is, whether it's 30K or 100K, the U.S. has undoubtedly saved some lives along the way.