Wednesday, October 11, 2006

655,000 dead since invasion


I have a major problem with the amount of people dead and dying in Iraq because of decisions made by politicians who represent my place of birth and the country i now study in. These guys are implicated in a death toll that has reached 655,000. As i've said before that is not only a war crime but a crime against humanity. Under a supposed banner of democracy, lets not forget Bush stole both elections, such a death toll is now a normal part of Western everyday life. We read it like it don't matter, its just out there. Like we did the right thing. Wankers.

6 comments:

rima said...

i suggest that you add the photo of "bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity" to this post. just for emphasis in case the number 655,000 doesn't do it for everyone. some people are visual learners.

Dylan said...

done

Anonymous said...

That comes to 600 people a day. Think someone might have noticed all those bodies piling up in the street if these numbers were accurate?

Another example of nonsense being accepted as fact.

Dylan said...

The irag government says the number of dead from violence since the invasion is 43,580. Not the word invasion too. That would work out by your method as 40 dead a day. Still horific if you ask me.

So lets accept that number as 'fact'.

The United Nations (UN) has said that the methods used in the Lancet survey were appropriate and the numbers were valid in the frame of statistics science. So to call it 'nonsense' shows you're missing the point about such scientific surveys.

Why should we believe one truth over another? A scientific survey gives you different persepctives and data depending how its conducted. It also tells you that the real figure is somewhere in between both the highest and the lowest denominators.

You can take 40 day - i will take the Lancet report and 600 a day. Why should 40 a day be worth less than 600 a day. Isn't one death a day from violence provoked by a Western invasion based on the idea Saddam had weapons of mass destruction unacceptable?

Why are we still there? We leave and the Iraqis will fix this situation eventually. We stay for geopolitcal reasons like oil and more will die from bullets and the violent ideology behind neoliberal capitalism.

nonsense is what does not make sense. Killing people for oil and capital profit to me does not make sense

Anoush Rima said...

dyl i agree with you. even 40 a day is appalling and ridiculous, especially when there was no reason for it all in the first place. similar the the one month bomb fest in lebanon. look at that country now. its ruined. for what? and now what?

however, i dont think that if we leave the iraqis will be able to fix the situation. at least not any time in the forseable future. there is no infrastructure, economony, governance, institutions. iraq will have to rebuild itself from less than zero. we can't be guilty of another crime: eats, shits and leaves. It's not that I agree with the bush/blair idea that "we started this so we have to finish it" (let me just say that i NEVER thought we should be in the first place), we can't be so naive as to think that things will mend once we pull out. And though i'm not sure what efforts exactly are the right/least malevolent ones (perhaps a UN sanction on any American or British company who sets foot in Iraq for the next 10 years. hah), but some efforts need to be made to help iraq put the pieces back together.

Dylan said...

UN sanctions dont do much when the 5 security council members ignore them as is often the case, and will certainly be the case with oil.

I think the UK/US coalition should pull out. Replacing them with non-hegemonic world powers. Send in the Chinese or the arab nations. Both options the US won't allowed.

How come youre sounding more and more like Bush and Blair yourself with your "we can't be so naive as to think that things will mend once we pull out." In my opinion things will mend once 'we' pull out. But our experiment with turning Iraq into a free market wonderland will have convincingly collapsed and we will have given up geopolitical control over raw materials. The US cannot allow that to happen so they make you thing that things can't be fixed without our help. Yes they can. I disagree with your UN-sounding rhetoric. NGO's who ultimately follow the US partyline instead of promoting alternative options are merely tools of hegemony. Something that while it can;t be appied to everyone working for the UN can be set about the UN as an institution just as much as it can be said about the world bank or IMF. We should leave. But we won't