Skip to comments.Who grieves for dead Iraqis? (GREELEY ALERT)
Posted on 07/28/2006 4:39:54 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
What is the worth of a single Iraqi life?
The New York Times reported that during recent months a hundred Iraqis die violently every day, 3,000 every month. In terms of size of population, that is the equivalent of 300,000 Americans a month, 10,000 every day. Yet the typical television clip on the evening news -- an explosion, automatic weapon fire, dead bodies on the streets -- has become as much a cliche as the weather report or another loss by the Cubs. The dead Iraqis are of no more value to us than artificial humans in video games. The Iraqis seem less than human, pajama-wearing people with dark skin, hate in their eyes, and a weird religion, screaming in pain over their losses. Weep with them, weep for them?
Rarely do Americans tell themselves that the United States of America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, is responsible for this slaughter. In a spasm of arrogance and power, we destroyed their political and social structure and are now unable to protect them from one another. Their blood is on the hands of our leaders who launched a war on false premises, without adequate forces, without plans for the time after the war and then sent in inept administrators who could not provide even a hint of adequate public services.
As Colin Powell, who knows something about war, unlike the president and his top thinkers, told President Bush, "If you break it, you own it." If you shatter a society, it is yours, and you're responsible for it. The United States shattered Iraq and we are responsible for the ensuing chaos that we are unable to control. So a hundred human beings are killed every day, and the most powerful military in the world (as Messrs. Rumsfeld and Cheney insist) is unable to stop the killing.
On most of the standards for a just war, the invasion of Iraq was criminally unjust. Messrs. Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted to invade Iraq the day after the World Trade Center attack. They tried to persuade the people that Iraq was somehow involved in the attack. They insisted that the Iraqis possessed weapons of mass destruction. Their arguments for the war, we all know now, were not true.
There was, therefore, no just cause, no attempt to exhaust all possible alternatives short of war, no real hope for victory, no postwar plan, and no ability to prevent the postwar butchery that was easily predictable to those who understood Iraq. The war leaped from slogan to slogan -- weapons of mass destruction, the critical front in the global war on terror, stay the course, freedom and democracy in Iraq. All these slogans are false.
Were America's leaders deliberately lying? Did they really believe that the Shiites and the Sunnis would not murder one another, or did they know better? One must leave the state of their consciences to God. However, they should have known, and in the objective order, they are criminally responsible for the hundred deaths every day. They should be tried for their crimes, not that such trials are possible in our country.
The hundred who die every day are not merely numbers, they are real human beings. Their deaths are personal disasters for the dead person and also for all those who love them: parents, children, wives, husbands. Most Americans are not outraged. Iraqis are a little less than human. If a hundred people were dying every day in our neighborhoods, we would scream in outrage and horror. Not many of us are lamenting these daily tragedies. Quite the contrary, we wish the newscast would go on to the weather for the next weekend.
Is blood on the hands of those Americans who support the war? Again, one must leave them to heaven. But in the objective order it is difficult to see why they are not responsible for the mass murders. They permitted their leaders to deceive them about the war, often enthusiastically. How can they watch the continuing murders in Iraq and not feel guilty?
How would you feel if the street were drenched with the blood of your son or daughter, if your father was in the hospital with his legs blown off?
We cannot permit ourselves to grieve for Iraqi pain because then we would weep bitter and guilty tears every day.
Kind of like Clinton at Ron Brown's funeral.
Is THIS what Greeley thinks of them?
Classic case: Stuck on Stupid.
What a tool. Hey Greeley, how mmany Iraqi's were tortured and raped on your watch? If you're going to bring up trials, I think you should be tried for your depraved indifference.
I always heard about the German who blithely walked past the concentration camps with his fingers in his ears. Always wondered what he looked like. Now I know.
Tell you what, you liberal sissy punk-a&& motherhugger.
You grieve for a single Israeli, and I'll grieve for all the Iraqis.
Bet ya I won't have to buy a handkerchief.
Where was Greeley's concern when even greater numbers were being massacred by Saddam Hussein?
What's better, someone who is sensitive to the plight of others at all times, or someone who is sensitive to the plight of others only when there's a political advantage to "showing concern"? Greeley is the latter.
Another liberal twit heard from. Greeley should put it to poetry, like the Berkley girl did in another thread, for added entertainment value.
When Iraqis tell us in a hundred ways every day that they don't give a thought to killing their fellow Muslims because they are not the right brand of Muslim, why in the world should we be concerned with the body count? We have good and brave men dying every day trying to quell Muslim vs. Muslim violence. That's what we should care about.
But Saddam, by feeding people into woodchippers and gassing hundreds of thousands of Kurds and invading his neighboring countries, kept Iraq well.
I've seen dust with more intelligence.
I'd vow to kill the terrorists or die trying.
Ahem...Mr. Greeley... we are not killing these Iraqis (except the ones that need to be killed).
Shiites killing Sunnis and Sunnis killing Shiites..this is their way of dealing with their differences. The fact Saddam prevented them from doing so by killing them himself, well, that doesn't make our being there wrong.
Yeah we shattered Iraq. Sadaam's torturers,rapists,bomb makers,killers, and germ cookers were much more discreet.
Not only that, Saddam joined Osama in declaring war (issuing a fatwa, as they flatulently like to call it) on us in '98/'99.
I wonder what his interpretation of this is...http://www.sullivan-county.com/images/nazis_islam.jpg
Our streets were drenched in blood - and dust and debris.
We refer to it as 9/11. Everyone of those hijackers was an Islamic extremist. And actually, I'm sure that since we have been in Iraq, more Iraqis are being killed by fellow Iraqis than by our forces. We aren't the ones planting the roadside bombs or setting off car bombs and people bombs (the suicide bombers).
A better question is "Who is killing these dead Iraqis".
Hmmm.....that would be their fellow Muslims.
Too bad soft core porn author Andy doesn't get this worked up over the ~45 million babies who have been aborted since Roe v. Wade was passed.
Brilliant, Horace. This is an excellent example of the "New Liberal Math".
1. Horace says 100 Iraqis die violently every day (which is a lie - more later).
2. The US has 11x (not 100x!) more people than Iraq (295 mil. vs. 26 mil.)
3. The US equivalent of this violence would be 1,100 people dying violently every day (not 10,000!)
So even if Horace's statement #1 were correct, this would translates to a violent death rate of 140 violent deaths for every 100,000 people annually.
If true, this would be an extremely high rate, though only 1/9th of what Horace's "new math" would lead you to believe.
So what is the "real" murder rate in Iraq? Horace's sources are unimpeachable; after all, "the New York Times reported" that "in recent months a hundred Iraqis die every day."
Is that really "every day", Horace? Really? Or is that maybe a few notable days? What difference does it make?
Here's the difference...
* The far-left, rabidly anti-war Iraq Body Count project puts the figure at 36 violent deaths per day which translates to 50.5 violent deaths per 100,000 population per year.
* Most more moderate, reliable sources, put the figure between 25 and 35 violent deaths year per 100,000 population per year
For comparison, Detroit's "apples-to-apples" rate is 41.8; Baltimore's is 37.7; Atlanta's is 34.9; St. Louis is 31.4 and Pre-Katrina New Orleans was 53.1.
So let's give them the benefit of the doubt andsay that the violent death rate in Iraq is really 35. That means that 9,100 people meet violent deaths in Iraq annually.
If we took Horace's article at face value, it would mean that 100 x 365 or 36,500 die every year. And of course his comparisons to US equivalents are complete nonsense.
This reminds me of my wife's dopey moonbat uncle who was apoplectic over the "250,000!!!, 250,000 of our boys - our US servicemen and women - killed in Iraq and for what?!?!"
2,500...250,000...whatever. Facts just don't matter to these people.
Andrew Greeley.....What a cruel heartless degenerate
Bravo! Great post!!!
Great post!!! BTW, could it be your wife's uncle may be a little senile?
I agree that these numbers are cooked up. It just goes to show that religious whackos like this Father Greeley should learn a little math and science intead of trying to outlaw them in our schools.
"Liberal"? I don't think so. At least this guy qoutes his sources unlike ex-Libertarian over here.
Bragging that more Americans kill other Americans than Muslims kill other Muslims?
Shame on you ex-Libertarian!
I wish I didn't have to put my ass in the line of fire every day to protect American-haters like you.