The Bourbon NeoCon Congratulates Himself

The Bourbons were famously described as “Remembering everything and learning nothing”. You wanna know why the GOP keeps losing? Here’s yet another reason (cribbed from FB):

And by liberated, Rummy means:</p><p>"Iraq lost 1.4 million lives, 4.2 million additional people injured, and 4.5 million people become refugees.</p><p>The 1.4 million dead was 5% of the population. That compares to 2.5% lost in the US Civil War, or 3 to 4% in Japan in World War II, 1% in France and Italy in World War II, less than 1% in the U.K. and 0.3% in the United States in World War II. The 1.4 million dead is higher as an absolute number as well as a percentage of population than these other horrific losses.</p><p>US deaths in Iraq since 2003 have been 0.3% of the dead, even if they've taken up the vast majority of the news coverage, preventing US news consumers from understanding the extent of Iraqi suffering.</p><p>In a very American parallel, the US government has only been willing to value the life of an Iraqi at that same 0.3% of the financial value it assigns to the life of a US citizen.</p><p>The 2003 invasion included 29,200 air strikes, followed by another 3,900 over the next eight years. The US military targeted civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances  It also made use of what some might call "weapons of mass destruction," using cluster bombs, white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new kind of napalm in densely settled urban areas.</p><p>Birth defects, cancer rates, and infant mortality are through the roof. Water supplies, sewage treatment plants, hospitals, bridges, and electricity supplies have been devastated, and not repaired. Healthcare and nutrition and education are nothing like they were before the war. And we should remember that healthcare and nutrition had already deteriorated during years of economic warfare waged through the most comprehensive economic sanctions ever imposed in modern history.</p><p>Money spent by the United States to "reconstruct" Iraq was always less than 10% of what was being spent adding to the damage, and most of it was never actually put to any useful purpose. At least a third was spent on "security," while much of the rest was spent on corruption in the US military and its contractors.</p><p>The educated who might have best helped rebuild Iraq fled the country.  Iraq had the best universities in Western Asia in the early 1990s, and now leads in illiteracy, with the population of teachers in Baghdad reduced by 80%.</p><p>For years, the occupying forces broke the society of Iraq down, encouraging ethnic and sectarian division and violence, resulting in a segregated country and the repression of rights that Iraqis used to enjoy even under Saddam Hussein's brutal police state.</p><p>While the dramatic escalation of violence that for several years was predicted would accompany any US withdrawal did not materialize, Iraq is not at peace. The war destabilized Iraq internally, created regional tensions, and -- of course -- generated widespread resentment for the United States. That was the opposite result of the stated one of making the United States safer."</p><p>http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/iraq/2323-how-does-the-iraq-war-compare-to-the-worst-horrors-in-world-history</p><p>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/19/donald_rumsfeld_tweets_on_iraq_war_anniversary/</p><p>Remember, friends: they hate us for our freedoms.

And by liberated, Rummy means: “Iraq lost 1.4 million lives, 4.2 million additional people injured, and 4.5 million people become refugees. The 1.4 million d…ead was 5% of the population. That compares to 2.5% lost in the US Civil War, or 3 to 4% in Japan in World War II, 1% in France and Italy in World War II, less than 1% in the U.K. and 0.3% in the United States in World War II. The 1.4 million dead is higher as an absolute number as well as a percentage of population than these other horrific losses. US deaths in Iraq since 2003 have been 0.3% of the dead, even if they’ve taken up the vast majority of the news coverage, preventing US news consumers from understanding the extent of Iraqi suffering. In a very American parallel, the US government has only been willing to value the life of an Iraqi at that same 0.3% of the financial value it assigns to the life of a US citizen. The 2003 invasion included 29,200 air strikes, followed by another 3,900 over the next eight years. The US military targeted civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances  It also made use of what some might call “weapons of mass destruction,” using cluster bombs, white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new kind of napalm in densely settled urban areas. Birth defects, cancer rates, and infant mortality are through the roof. Water supplies, sewage treatment plants, hospitals, bridges, and electricity supplies have been devastated, and not repaired. Healthcare and nutrition and education are nothing like they were before the war. And we should remember that healthcare and nutrition had already deteriorated during years of economic warfare waged through the most comprehensive economic sanctions ever imposed in modern history. Money spent by the United States to “reconstruct” Iraq was always less than 10% of what was being spent adding to the damage, and most of it was never actually put to any useful purpose. At least a third was spent on “security,” while much of the rest was spent on corruption in the US military and its contractors. The educated who might have best helped rebuild Iraq fled the country.  Iraq had the best universities in Western Asia in the early 1990s, and now leads in illiteracy, with the population of teachers in Baghdad reduced by 80%. For years, the occupying forces broke the society of Iraq down, encouraging ethnic and sectarian division and violence, resulting in a segregated country and the repression of rights that Iraqis used to enjoy even under Saddam Hussein’s brutal police state. While the dramatic escalation of violence that for several years was predicted would accompany any US withdrawal did not materialize, Iraq is not at peace. The war destabilized Iraq internally, created regional tensions, and — of course — generated widespread resentment for the United States. That was the opposite result of the stated one of making the United States safer.”
Remember, friends: they hate us for our freedoms.

  • Scott

    But, as they will continually point out, Saddam Hussein is dead.

  • John H.

    The really sad thing Mark, is that now the liberals agree with Rumsfeld and get no one calls them on it. Here’s Jay Carney engaging in “doublespeak” saying although Obama thought it unwise to Invade Iraq, it is a “better place” today because we sacrificed American troops to liberate it: http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/going-to-iraq-was-not-right-decision-white-house-344530

    He even gives credit to Bush for this! http://nation.foxnews.com/iraq-war/2013/03/19/fox-news-james-rosen-carney-iraq-anniversary-will-you-credit-bush

  • http://www.2catholicmen.blogspot.com Ben @ 2CM

    Be careful of statistics. If it were 1,400 people killed instead of 1.4 million, would that make it right? A question becomes…is it ever justifiable for a group of free nations to form a coalition to remove a dangerous dictator when all non-violent methods fail? If yes, what are the conditions?

    Another thing to consider is what’s the cost of doing nothing? I think we will learn the answer to this question with Iran. I don’t see anyone stopping Iran from getting The Bomb. I don’t pretend to have all the answers; just thinking out-loud. What thoughts do you have?

  • Art

    They would hate us regardless of this war, let’s not kid ourselves. The war was stupid as are the people who voted for it, then a year or two year were against it. Blame the GOP, and continue to play the blame game if we want… I find it extremely hypocritical the dems who were for this war, were later venomously against it. Good ole politics in the USA.

    • Kenneth

      You’re right. Arabs and other Middle Easterners are just congenitally disagreeable people. It has nothing to do with our half century of thwarting democracy and propping up police state dictators and genocidal maniacs for oil and convenience. Nothing to do with our habit of killing their women and children like nuisance barn rats. That was the entire rationale of the neocon war strategy, and it will be invoked to justify another senseless war and atrocities in Iran. They hate us anyway, and they would do the same to us, given half a chance.

      “To keep you is no benefit. To destroy you is no loss.”

      That’s the nut of our foreign and defense policy. See if you can figure out the original authors of that motto and ponder that as we start waving the flag for the next invasion.

  • MikeTheGeek

    Does anyone bother to do any critical thinking about these numbers? We lost 4500 guys and they lost 1.4 million? Doesn’t that strike anyone as a little preposterous? That’s more than the USA, the UK, and France put together in WW2.
    You can agree or disagree with the Iraq war; there are plenty of arguments to be made, and some very good ones contra bellum. But don’t contribute to the current American plague of innumeracy. Next you’ll be telling me that half of them were from domestic violence caused by Iraqi males being exposed to the Superbowl…

    • Rosemarie

      +J.M.J+

      I wondered about the numbers as well. Though I agree the Iraq War was a mistake and a disaster, as I read that FB post I kept thinking, “Sources, please.” A string of claims like that without a single citation to back them up wouldn’t pass muster even on Wikipedia.

  • Lloyd Petre

    “Remembering everything and learning nothing”? Here’s a tidbit from an outfit seemingly incapable of either.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/13/sex-abuse-settlement-cardinal-roger-mahony/1984217/

    And let’s remember, these crimes were committed for fun.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X