obama said its okay to murder 100,000 people

[jeninflorida]

So last nights obana disaster talk...the wishy washy obama...said its okay to murder 100,000 people with shells and bullets but NOT okay to murder 1400 people with chemical weapons...

And if you do we will talk about war...them back off and do nothing.


Obama, a disaster like detroit ... amateur hour at the sad comedy club

 

[phrodeau]

The contraction of "it is" needs an apostrophe. It's an easy rule to remember, even if you aren't a published author.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

The contraction of "it is" needs an apostrophe. It's an easy rule to remember, even if you aren't a published author.

It's never been big on grammar or spelling. Odd thing for an author, but in her derp fueled rage it can't even manage to spell the President's name correctly.

I guess they didn't teach spell-check at whichever school she dropped out from.

 

[jeninflorida]

Derp de derp

U completely understood my message and thats all that matters

Im no Hemingway but you can become my editor! If its not too much to ask

 

[jeninflorida]

Maybe if the obama acted like a POTUS and not a little bitch ....

 

[Wings]

Maybe if the obama acted like a POTUS and not a little bitch ....

...

Then you would learn how to use contractions?

 

[dan_c00000]

Bush's War Dead: One Million

IN THE BUSH PRESIDENCY: HOW MANY DIED?

We are now able to estimate the number of Iraqis who have died in the U.S.-instigated war during George W. Bush’s presidency. Looking at the empirical evidence of his war legacy will put his claims of victory in his final days in perspective.

Even by his own standards—“stability” in Iraq—the jury is out. Most independent analysts would say it’s too soon to judge the political outcome. Nearly six years after the invasion, the country remains riven by sectarian politics and major, unresolved issues like the status of Kirkuk.

We have a better grasp of the human costs of the war. For example, the U.N. estimates that there are about 4.5 million displaced Iraqis—more than half of them refugees—or about one in every six citizens, a very high number. Only 5 percent have chosen to return to their homes over the past year, a period of reduced violence from the high levels of 2005-07. The reliable availability of health care, clean water, functioning schools, jobs, and so forth remains elusive. According to UNICEF, many provinces report less than 40 percent of households have access to clean water. In major cities like Basra and Baghdad, about half or more of children cannot attend schools.

Those conditions—chronic and showing few signs of change for the better—are one legacy of the war. Their effects will persist for many years, not least in the malnutrition and lack of education for children. Many of those same children are without one or more parents, too, because the mortality caused by the war is also high.

How high? Several household surveys were conducted in Iraq between 2004 and 2007 to gather data on mortality. While there are differences among them—as one would expect in the midst of war—the range suggests a general congruence of estimates. But none has been conducted for 18 months, and the two most reliable surveys were completed in mid-2006. The higher of those found 650,000 “excess deaths,” mortality attributable to war; the other survey’s data yields 400,000 excess deaths.

The war remained ferocous for about 12-15 months after those surveys were finished and then began to subside, though violence remains at troubling levels in many parts of the country. Iraq Body Count (IBC), a NGO in London that uses English-language press reports from Iraq to count civilian deaths, provides a means to bring the 2006 estimates up-to-date. While it is known to be an undercount, because press reports are incomplete and Baghdad-centric, IBC nonetheless provides useful trends.

The trend line is rather striking. IBC’s estimates are now nearing 100,000. In June 2006, it was about 45,000. That indicates a doubling of the total deaths attributable to violence among civilians. (It does not count non-violent excess deaths—from health emergencies, for example—nor deaths of insurgents.) If this is an acceptable marker, a plausible estimate of total deaths can be calculated by doubling the totals of the two 2006 household surveys, which used a much more reliable and sophisticated method for estimates that draws on long experience in epidemiology.

So we have, at present, between 800,000 and 1.3 million “excess deaths” in this war as we approach its six-year anniversary.

This gruesome figure tracks closely to what we know from other wars, in which the number of deaths compared with the number of displaced typically hovered around 1-to-5 or less. It also makes sense when reading of claims by current Iraqi officials that there are between one and two million war widows in Iraq (reaching back to previous conflicts), and 5 million orphans.

This constitutes direct empirical evidence of total excess mortality and indirect, though confirming evidence of the displaced, the bereaved, and general insecurity in the country. These are the results of the war that we know. And the overall figures are stunning: 4.5 million displaced, 1-2 million widows, 5 million orphans, about one million dead—in one way or another, affecting nearly one in every two people in Iraq with tragically life-altering (or ending) impacts.

By any sensible measure, it would be difficult to describe this as victory of any kind. It speaks volumes about the repair work we must do for Iraqis, and in the Arab and Muslim world more generally. And it should caution is against the savage wars we are prone to, even as the drum roll for attacks against other countries picks up.

Now that Bush is gone, perhaps the United States can face honestly the damage we have wrought, and the responsibilities that we must learn from it.

--John Tirman

A version of this article appears in The Nation, February 16, 2009

 

[jeninflorida]

Once again dan you show the world what an clueless ignorant jackass you are.

So its okay what obana did because of Bush.

Got it...but your still a fucking idiot

 

[phrodeau]

Once again dan you show the world what an clueless ignorant jackass you are.

So its okay what obana did because of Bush.

Got it...but your still a fucking idiot

The US armed forces are not yet involved in Syria, dumbass. There's no Syrian blood on Obama's hands.

 

[dan_c00000]

Once again dan you show the world what an clueless ignorant jackass you are.

So its okay what obana did because of Bush.

Got it...but your still a fucking idiot

I don't know who Obana is much less obana. Anyway, as of right now, the only person to attack Syria was...that's right Bush II.


AlterNet [1] / By Stephen Zunes [2]

comments_image


Bush's Unauthorized Attack on Syria Killed Civilians; Dems Silent


November 10, 2008 |
A raid by U.S. forces into Syria last month was not only a major breach of international law, but has resulted in serious diplomatic repercussions which will likely harm U.S. strategic interests in the region. On October 25, four U.S. Army helicopters entered Syrian airspace from Iraq, firing upon laborers at the Sukkariyeh Farm near the town of Abu Kamal; two of the helicopters landed and eight commandoes reportedly stormed a building. By the time it was over, eight people had been killed, at least seven of whom were civilians, including three children.

It is believed to be the first time the United States has ever engaged in ground combat operations in Syria. And, though Congress did not authorize any operations against that country, there appears to be virtually no opposition in the Democrat-controlled Congress to President George W. Bush unilaterally deciding to attack Syria, even when the casualties appear to have been almost exclusively innocent civilians.

Claim of Counter-Terrorism

The apparent target of the raid, who was the sole non-civilian casualty (though no evidence of finding his body has been publicly reported), was Abu Ghadiya, whom the United States has accused of helping to smuggle foreign fighters into Iraq for the an extremist Salafi Sunni group known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). There appears to have been no effort by the Bush administration, however, to ask the Syrian government to either arrest Abu Ghadiya or extradite him.

An administration official told [3] The Washington Post, "You have to clean up the global threat that is in your backyard, and if you won't do that, we are left with no choice but to take these matters into our hands." In reality, there was no indication that Abu Ghadiya had any relationship with the branch of Al-Qaeda headed by Osama bin Laden which does have a global reach. (Many analysts see AQI as simply an Iraqi-led group that simply appropriated the name.) Furthermore, the Syrians have been quite aggressive in tracking down suspected al-Qaeda cells that did.

For example, former CIA director George Tenet had praised Syria for providing the United States with intelligence dossiers on al-Qaeda in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and had called for increased intelligence cooperation with the Syrian regime. In one example, intelligence provided by Syria helped thwart a potentially devastaing attack [4] on the headquarters of the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet, based in Bahrain.

Syria's secular government, which has itself been the target of the very kind of hard-line Salafi Sunni terrorists the U.S. claims they were targeting, would have little motivation to knowingly allow someone like that to operate within their territory. Nor would they want to facilitate the growth of such dangerous groups destabilizing their neighbor Iraq. Indeed, a recent National Intelligence Estimate [5] noted how Syria had "cracked down on some Sunni extremist groups attempting to infiltrate fighters into Iraq through Syria because of threats they pose to Syrian stability."

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem just completed a visit to Great Britain, where he and British foreign minister David Miliband issued a joint statement declaring that "tackling al-Qaeda and groups inspired by it was a high priority" and that the two governments had "agreed to work more closely together to tackle this threat."

Syria is among a small minority of Arab countries which have formally recognized the Iraqi government, which also raises questions as to why they would seek to destabilize it. Furthermore, Syria's closest regional ally is the Shia government of Iran, which served as the exiled base for the major Shia parties which currently control the Iraqi government and which have been a target of hard-line Sunni groups like AQI, which are fanatically anti-Iranian and see Shiism as apostasy.

Iraqi President Jalal Talbani noted [6] that Syria does not currently pose a threat to Iraq's stability. Indeed, the Iraqi government specifically condemned [7] the attack, which originated in its territory, declaring that "The Iraqi government rejects U.S. aircraft bombarding posts inside Syria. The Constitution does not allow Iraq to be used as a staging ground to attack neighboring countries."

Guerrilla Infiltration

There is no question that there are places along Syria's 300-mile border of Iraq, much of which is sparsely-populated desert and mountains, where foreign fighters have illegally crossed the border, including some who have allied with groups like AQI which have engaged in acts of terrorism. Neither the Bush administration nor its Congressional supporters, however, have been able to make a convincing case that Syria has been encouraging such infiltration or why they would choose to do so.

In part as a result of U.S. pressure, the Syrian government has moved as many as 10,000 troops to the Iraqi border to guard against such infiltration. The State Department has acknowledged [8] that Damascus "upgraded physical security conditions on the border and began to give closer scrutiny to military-age Arab males entering Syria." In a report published late last year, the State Department also noted [9] how the Syrian government had "worked to increase security cooperation with Iraq," including hosting "a meeting of technical border security experts representing Iraq's neighbors, the United States, and other countries" as well as participating "in two ministerial-level Iraq Neighbors' Conferences." In addition, high-level Syrian officials had been scheduled to meet with their Iraqi counterparts, as well as U.S. officials, later this month.

The report also noted that "According to U.S. and Iraqi officials, 2007 witnessed a marked reduction in the flow of foreign terrorists transiting through Syria into Iraq." This year, the number of foreign fighters reportedly entering Iraq from Syria, once estimated as high as 100 a month, had been reduced by more than 80 percent. General David Petraeus, commander of Central Command, which oversees U.S. security concerns in the Middle East, acknowledged that "Syria has taken steps to reduce the flow of foreign fighters through its borders with Iraq."

As a result, it makes little sense as to why the United States would choose to attack Syria now.

Diplomatic Fallout

The diplomatic fallout for the U.S. attack, a clear violation of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, was widespread. French president Nicolas Sarkozy, expressing his "serious concern" over the U.S. attack, called for "the strict respect of the territorial integrity of states." European Union foreign affairs spokesman Javiar Solana also expressed his concern, as did the governments of Russia, China and a number of NATO allies, including Germany and Great Britain.

The attack may have put the Status of Forces Agreement into further jeopardy. In response to the attack, the Iraqi government is now demanding that the agreement include a specific ban on American forces using Iraqi territory to attack neighboring countries.

Meanwhile, the Syrian government ordered the Damascus Community School - the highly acclaimed American institution - closed along with the U.S. Cultural Center. The U.S. Embassy has cut back its hours. The Syrians have also threatened to cut off cooperation with the United States regarding Iraqi border security.

The Silence of the Dems

Given that the October 26 raid was an unauthorized and illegal attack, killed innocent civilians, resulted in negative diplomatic fallout, and likely increased rather than decreased the threat of terrorism in Iraq, it would appear to be a great opportunity for the Democrats to attack the Bush administration for its dangerous and reckless action.

Yet, even in the course of the final dramatic week of the presidential campaign, neither Barack Obama nor Joe Biden uttered a word of criticism. And, despite contacting the offices of every single Democratic member on both the House and Senate Foreign Relations Committees, I was unable to find any criticism from any of these leading Congressional Democrats either.

The raises the serious possibility that, even under an Obama administration and an expanded Democratic Congressional majority, such militaristic policies may continue. This is particularly disappointing given that many observers had hoped that Syria would be the focus of a likely early diplomatic victory of an Obama administration.

Sabotaging the Next Administration

Indeed, this may have been what may have motivated the Bush administration's otherwise questionable timing for the attacks.

Obama has been critical of the Bush administration's efforts to sabotage peace negotiations between Israel and Syria, which would likely result in the return of Syria's Golan province, currently under Israeli military occupation, in return for full diplomatic relations, security guarantees, and an end of Syrian support for anti-Israeli extremists. Indeed, Obama would likely have the United States become actively involved in the peace process, currently under the auspices of Turkey.

In addition, the alliance by the secular Baathist regime in Syria with the mullahs of Iran has always been more of an alliance of convenience than one rooted in any common ideology, so there were those in Obama's foreign policy team that were hoping that they could wean Syria away from the Iranians and provide enough incentives for that country to become a more responsible member of the international community. Syria recently formally recognized Lebanon for the first time, a country which had historically been part of Syria until wrested away, in a classic divide-and-rule act of colonialism, just prior to independence by French occupation forces after World War I. Along with the renewed peace talks with Israel, there appeared to be signs that the Syrians would be willing to strike some kind of grand bargain with the West under a more enlightened U.S. administration.

Last month's attack may have been designed to make this more difficult. Not only has it set back moderate elements in Syria, it has emboldened those in Washington and the mainstream press to start egging on Obama to continue Bush's policy. For example, the Wall Street Journal editorialized, "Mr. Obama has promised he'll engage Syria diplomatically as part of an overall effort to end the conflict in Iraq. If he really wants to end the war faster, he'll pick up on Syria where the Bush Administration has now ended."

Obama's refusal to criticize the U.S. attack on Syria raises the troubling prospect that, rather than pursue the diplomatic route as hoped, he will instead take the newspaper's advice. This may be just what the Bush administration had planned.

.













See more stories tagged with:


bush [10],

democrats [11],

international law [12],

syria [13],

civilian casualties [14]


.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/story/10632...attack_on_syria_killed_civilians;_dems_silent


Links:
[1] http://alternet.org
[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/stephen-zunes
[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/27/AR2008102700511.html?hpid=topnews
[4] http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/07/28/030728fa_fact?currentPage=1
[5] http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20070823_release.pdf
[6] http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/10/20081026182232891957.html
[7] http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE49R3FO20081028?virtualBrandChannel=10112
[8] http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/82736.htm
[9] http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2007/103711.htm
[10] http://www.alternet.org/tags/bush-0
[11] http://www.alternet.org/tags/democrats-0
[12] http://www.alternet.org/tags/international-law
[13] http://www.alternet.org/tags/syria-0
[14] http://www.alternet.org/tags/civilian-casualties
[15] http://www.alternet.org/+new_src+

 

[wellnow]

You folks just might want to read the following article from the guardian.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti.../10/silent-military-coup-took-over-washington

enjoy

 

[jeninflorida]

The US armed forces are not yet involved in Syria, dumbass. There's no Syrian blood on Obama's hands.

did u c what a jack ass obama was last night? obama - the train wreck


I guess you failed to see the simple facts.

1. obama drew a red line in the sand
2. obama redrew the red line
3. obama re-redrew the red line

obama said that under no means could Syria use chemical weapons.... they did.

here is the kicker .... wait for it....wait

obama is okay that Syria murdered 100,000 people but obama pissed that 1400 were murdered via chemical weapons. awesome.

so the key for obama murders is to use bombs, bullets, and artillery shells

and we can't forget that the obama loves drones. the drone murdering business is good! soon, obama murders are coming to a neighborhood near you!

 

[M. Jordan]

did u c what a jack ass obama was last night? obama - the train wreck


I guess you failed to see the simple facts.

1. obama drew a red line in the sand
2. obama redrew the red line
3. obama re-redrew the red line

obama said that under no means could Syria use chemical weapons.... they did.

here is the kicker .... wait for it....wait

obama is okay that Syria murdered 100,000 people but obama pissed that 1400 were murdered via chemical weapons. awesome.

so the key for obama murders is to use bombs, bullets, and artillery shells

and we can't forget that the obama loves drones. the drone murdering business is good! soon, obama murders are coming to a neighborhood near you!

Does anyone else see an alcholic, crack addict mentality here like I do? Seems so frantic and narrow in scope. Can be funny but mostly just sad. I do enjoy the humorous come-backs though. Please keep it up.

 

[jeninflorida]

Does anyone else see an alcholic, crack addict mentality here like I do? Seems so frantic and narrow in scope. Can be funny but mostly just sad. I do enjoy the humorous come-backs though. Please keep it up.

so, your a fucking idiot. got it. now run along and smoke some obama juice as its free

 

[M. Jordan]

so, your a fucking idiot. got it. now run along and smoke some obama juice as its free

See? Same shit every time. I do like the predictability.

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

Obama, a disaster like detroit ... amateur hour at the sad comedy club

hahah

 

[jeninflorida]

See? Same shit every time. I do like the predictability.

have you thought about getting help? oh wait, they can't fix stupid

 

[Liar]

So last nights obana disaster talk...the wishy washy obama...said its okay to murder 100,000 people with shells and bullets but NOT okay to murder 1400 people with chemical weapons...

And if you do we will talk about war...them back off and do nothing.


Obama, a disaster like detroit ... amateur hour at the sad comedy club

Should the United States immediately and with full force intervene in the Congo conflicts?

Yes or no.

 

[M. Jordan]

have you thought about getting help? oh wait, they can't fix stupid

And it's a good thing they can't! Your annual book sales would plummet from 5 to zero.

 

[dan_c00000]

And it's a good thing they can't! Your annual book sales would plummet from 5 to zero.

Its never sold a book in its life. Much less read one.