The American Genocide Against Iraq: 4% of Population Dead as result of US sanctions, wars

A new household survey of Iraqis has projected the civilian death toll from the Bush administration’s invasion and occupation of Iraq at roughly 450,000. Passive information-gathering techniques like logging deaths in the Western press have produced estimates closer to 150,000, but such techniques have been proven to miss a lot of people. (To my knowledge no one was counting all the deaths reported in the some 200 Arabic-language Iraqi newspapers in the 2000s, so even the passive information-gathering was limited. And, the Wikileaks US military log of civilian deaths did not overlap very much with e.g. Iraq Body Count, so both of them were missing things the other caught.)

Of those extra deaths beyond those who would have died if the US had never invaded, some 270,000 died violently, with US troops responsible for about 90,000 civilian deaths and militias for another 90,000. Of those killed violently, 60 percent were shot, and 12 percent died from car bombs. Some 180,000 died because of the destruction of the public health infrastructure (lack of access to hospital treatment, e.g.).

Despite the horrific total, this estimate for 2003-2011 is smaller than the Lancet study of some years ago, which was done under wartime conditions. The authors admit, however, that the death toll could have been even higher; this total is a projection based on 2000 interviews.

The US/ UN sanctions on Iraq of the 1990s, which interdicted chlorine for much of that decade and so made water purification impossible, are estimated to have killed another 500,000 Iraqis, mainly children. (Infants and toddlers die easily from diarrhea caused by gastroenteritis, which causes fatal dehydration).

So the US polished off about a million Iraqis from 1991 through 2011, large numbers of them children. The Iraqi population in that period was roughly 25 million, so the US killed or created the conditions for the killing of 4% of the Iraqi population.

If Iraq had killed 4% of Americans, it would be 12 million people dead.

Iraq did not attack the United States. It did attack Iran in 1980, but by 1983 the US was an ally in Iraq’s war against Iran. It also attacked Kuwait, which it occupied quite bestially, but it was out by spring 1991. There was no casus belli or legitimate legal cause of war in 2003. Iraq’s main crime appears to have been to be an oil state not compliant with US demands.

All this is horrible enough. Even more horrible is that the US occupation of Iraq sparked a Sunni Arab insurgency, which is still vigorous. Insurgencies typically take 10 to 15 years to subside. Some 5000 Iraqi civilians have been killed so far this year by that insurgency. US occupation is the gift that goes on giving.

Despite the Bush administration’s violation of the UN charter and its war crimes in Iraq, none of its high officials has faced prosecution. Some of them even have the gall to come on television from time to time to urge more killing.

74 Responses

  1. It’s difficult to add much more to your post, Juan, but the lack of prosecutions goes a long way towards explaining the impunity with which we continue to act.
    The increasing rate at which we create our enemies will extract a punishment, one way or the other…

    • We can thank Pelosi and Obama specifically and by name for that lack of prosecutions.

      “Impeachment is off the table”. I would call it the Pelosi-CheneyBush Administration.

    • Lack of prosecutions and prosecutions of the wrong people: see veteran journalist and documentary filmmaker John Pilger’s article on the case of Dr. Rafil Dhafir. An Iraqi born Muslim doctor who is serving a 22-year sentence for his crime of compassion – sending food and medicine, through his charity Help the Needy, to starving Iraqi civilians during the brutal embargo on that country: link to newstatesman.com
      For the full story of this case see: link to truth-out.org

  2. Keith Alexander and his deputy at NSA retiring. Looks like Snowden kind of spoiled his love for the job.. That and the fact President Obama wants to ‘reform’ the place so it’s more user friendly.

    I guess Iraq was even more successful than Rwanda at destroying lives and US soldiers.

  3. I wonder what our good friend Madeleine Albright would have to say on this article.

    In 1996,as US Ambassador to the United nations she was asked about the death of these 500,000 Iraqi children. Her reply was,’a very hard choice’, but all things considered,’we think the price is worth it’.

  4. A nit to pick; did you correctly use the term genocide?
    From The Holocaust Encyclopedia:
    It defines genocide as:

    [G]enocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
    (a) Killing members of the group;
    (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
    (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
    (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
    (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
    Genocide or crimes against humanity?
    And, to others, please understand the point.

    • That is no nit to pick. Diminishing the true meaning of genocide is very wrong. See my post from earlier this morning.

    • They were well aware that the sanctions regime they were implementing would cause a humanitarian catastrophe. Once it was in place they knew absolutely that it was causing tremendous suffering and death, and they continued to enforce it anyway.

      Intent be damned, if the predictable result of a policy is one of those consequences then it deserves the name.

      • “Intent be damned,:”

        In point of fact, intent is central to the legal definition of genocide.

        Words have meaning. They’re not just there to provide emotional oomph.

    • Yes, it’s certainly wrong, and I really don’t understand the need to use it when not only do the numbers speak for themselves, but the poster rightly criticizes others who do the same.

    • I would agree with careful use of terms. If our killing level in Iraq was genocide, then the Civil War was genocide against the Confederacy, considering that something like 10 per cent of all men in the Confederate States were killed.

      If the Civil War wasn’t genocide, then the Iraq War 2.0 wasn’t genocide either.

    • Pulled this from wiki , bottom line is that US actions in Iraq might be considered a combination of many of these.
      Genocide — under the Genocide Convention, the crime of genocide does not apply to the mass killing of political and social groups. Protection of political groups was eliminated from the UN resolution after a second vote, because many states, including Stalin’s USSR,[5] anticipated that clause to apply unneeded limitations to their right to suppress internal disturbances.[6]
      Politicide — the term “politicide” is used to describe the killing of political or economic groups that would otherwise be covered by the Genocide Convention.[7] Manus I. Midlarsky uses the term “politicide” to describe an arc of mass killings from the western parts of the Soviet Union to China and Cambodia.[8] In his book The killing trap: genocide in the twentieth century Midlarsky raises similarities between the killings of Stalin and Pol Pot.[9]
      Democide — R. J. Rummel coined the term “democide”, which includes genocide, politicide, and mass murder.[10] Helen Fein has termed the mass state killings in the Soviet Union and Cambodia as “genocide and democide.”[11] Frank Wayman and Atsushi Tago have shown the significance of terminology in that, depending on the use of democide (generalised state-sponsored killing) or politicide (eliminating groups who are politically opposed) as the criterion for inclusion in a data-set, statistical analyses seeking to establish a connection between mass killings can produce very different results, including the significance or otherwise of regime type.[page needed][12]
      Crime against humanity — Jacques Semelin and Michael Mann[13] believe that “crime against humanity” is more appropriate than “genocide” or “politicide” when speaking of violence by Communist regimes.[14]
      Classicide — Michael Mann has proposed the term “classicide” to mean the “intended mass killing of entire social classes”.[15]
      Terror — Stephen Wheatcroft notes that, in the case of the Soviet Union, terms such as “the terror”, “the purges”, and “repression” (the latter mostly in common Russian) colloquially refer to the same events and he believes the most neutral terms are “repression” and “mass killings”.[4]
      Mass killing — this term has been defined by Benjamin Valentino as “the intentional killing of a massive number of noncombatants”, where a “massive number” is defined as at least 50,000 intentional deaths over the course of five years or less.[16] He applies this definition to the cases of Stalin’s USSR, the PRC under Mao, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, while admitting that mass killings on a smaller scale also appear to have been carried out by regimes in North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, and Africa.[17]

  5. -
    I’d like to hear the opinion of an epidemiological statistician before I reject the Lancet study.

    I think the US government’s sense of the importance of Iraqi suffering was summed up brilliantly by Tommy Franks:
    “We don’t do body counts.”
    -

  6. The US invasion of Iraq was motivated less by oil and more by a desire to protect Israel. Breaking up Middle Eastern states is part of an Israeli agenda (see Oded Yinon essay & clean break strategy).

    If the US was a traditional resource motivated imperialist, why not invade Venezuela for its oil?

    • I agree that the “War for Oil” theory is weak, but focusing purely on Israel is too narrow.

      The relocation of American bases out of Saudi Arabia was a primary purpose for the war, which has nothing to do with Israel.

      The establishment of a client state has implications that go well beyond just protecting Israel.

      The elimination of a hostile government was also important to the war’s architects.

      The best way to describe the Iraq War is as a war to expand the American presence and influence in the region. Israel is certainly a part of that concept, as is oil, but neither tell the whole story.

      • -
        I don’t agree that:
        “The relocation of American bases out of Saudi Arabia [had] nothing to do with Israel.”
        -

        • Honestly I believe that particular decision had more to do with it being one of the major propaganda points of al-Qaeda. It’s not for nothing that Bin Laden’s first fatwa against the United States was entitled “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places.”

          There’s a world of difference between refusing to give in to terrorist demands and continuing to give them a major recruitment tool out of bloody minded stubbornness.

        • Israel is tha main reason the Arab street hates the US
          and the repositioning certainly had something to do with this hate.

        • Adam K,

          Good point. It’s also important to note that the demand for the removal of the bases from the KSA was coming not just from al Qaeda, but from the Saudi monarchy as well – and remember, the Bushes are very close to the House of Saud.

      • Israel is tha main reason the Arab street hates the US
        and the repositioning certainly had something to do with this hate.

        This is just sloppy reasoning.

        Was moving American bases from Saudi Arabia to Iraq supposed to make Arabs hate Israel less? Make the US seem less tied to Israel?

        There are more factors at work in global affairs, even in MENA affairs, than Israel.

  7. I think about this a great deal and try to encourage others to think about the death and destruction that our country caused in Iraq, It is horrifying. Yet the so called “liberals” on MSNBC etc like Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Al Sharpton barely ever breath a word about the pain and suffering we have caused. The Lancet reported 650,000 dead/killed in 2006. The Bush administration and the US MSM basically swept those numbers under the rug. At a time when the U.S. can look at a fly on the ass of a camel from a drone being operated from a military site in Arizona so telling that the exact numbers of people dead as a consequence of our invasion is not common knowledge.

    And not one person in the Bush administration was held accountable for any of this. Why have we not heard more of an outcry from the international community at the ICC?

    • Kathleen on this score you might find John Tirman’s The Death of Others (Oxford University Press, 2011) an illuminating albeit unhappy read.

    • -
      The USA is not a party to the Rome Statute.

      ergo, by definition, Americans cannot commit Crimes Against Humanity.
      -

  8. The death toll you’re using for the sanctions is not as reliable as the one you’re using for the war. (Besides which, the war is based on excess deaths from a baseline of a period when Iraq was still under sanctions.) It does not compare directly to the pre-sanction mortality rate, but instead assumes that the death rate should’ve fallen at the same rate in the 1990s as it did in the 1980s, and imputes a baseline mortality based on such extrapolation.

  9. If the government shutdown has given me any insight it is how utterly ridiculous and unprincipled our elected leaders can be. Putting myself into the character of Canter, Cruz, Mitchell and the rest of the mongrel tea party neocons…voting to go to war with a country that posed no threat to our security now makes perfect sense.

    • -
      or, the T-Party types were trying to stave off even greater pain when the reckoning finally comes.

      Today, the US Treasury exercises a sort of hegemony over the economies of other nations. That won’t last.
      Then we will have to pay our bills, for real.
      -

  10. “Some of them even have the gall to come on television from time to time to urge more killing.”

    Hey, you do what you know how to do and what you’re good at and what you get paid for, all right? A guy (or gal) has to make a living, okay?

    One wonders how many deaths and how much illness and suffering in Iran (other than assassinations, of course) are traceable to “US” blockade and embargo. The faux moralists will point out that it’s only the common people who suffer — their elite (like ours) is immune, as Saddam and the Ba’athists were, to the actions and imposts and assaults that are supposed to result in regime (or at least behavior) change…

    /waiting now for the Crackpot Realists to tell “us” why the “gradualism” and “verification” and “segue” they espouse in removing “UN sanctions” and US-initiated economic and cyber warfare against the presumed entity they call “Iran” are “wise policy,” and of course all “legal” under the “international law” that “we” turn to occasionally, when it suits some momentary undefined “national interest” or other…Anything other than “because,” or “that’s just the way we play the Game”?/

    • Very true!

      And while we pursue what a certain occasional commentator on this blog would refer to as “our interests”, we neglect our truest interests – i.e., universal access to health care, well subsidized day care, universal access to food and education, a living wage, a clean environment, a . . . well, fill in any number of blanks.

      The playing of the Great Game in the media and in our public discourse in general is portrayed as of paramount interest, while the frittering away of our human and planetary resources plays second, nay, fifth string. Yet even Ike, the Republican’s Republican, noted that excessive militarism constituted a theft from a vibrant and secure future for our people.

      If anyone wants to argue this, then I suggest you see how many “news” stories you can dig up on the poor and underclass by the major networks and cable outlets as opposed to appearances by current and former brass and their attendant “consultants”.

      To me all of this constitutes an intellectual and moral failure of breathtaking proportions – and a damned strange definition of “our interests” and “realist” political thinking.

    • the Crackpot Realists

      You are never, ever going to get over your bitterness about your crackpot chemical weapons theory being refuted, are you?

      • You are never, ever going to stop lying about that ” theory” you keep trying to hang on me. Goes to credibility, right? Anonymity is a great place to snipe from, isn’t it? Why so important to spend such efforts to ad-hom impeach this little person? Concerned about being caught in other misrepresentations?

      • .
        If you refer to the idea that it was some party other than the Syrian military that launched the 21 Aug attacks,
        that hasn’t actually been refuted.
        -

  11. Genocide is not the correct term and should not be used even in this case. Genocide was not the goal and was not practiced. Using the term this way diminishes the true definition of a practice that should, in these times, cause an uproar all over the planet no matter who the perpetrator.

    • Using the term genocide is also problematic because, while it effectively conveys the enormity of the horror, it deflects attention away from the cause, which was not an effort to destroy a racial, ethnic or national group in whole or in part, but stemmed from a different set of pathologies and errors that need to be understood so they can be avoided in the future.

      • if you launched an illegal war of aggression on Iraq, what could a prudent person expect to happen to *Iraqis*?

        • >if you launched an illegal war of aggression on Iraq, what could a prudent person expect to happen to *Iraqis*?

          The same thing that would and has happened to the people of other nations who were invaded.

          However simply being invaded and the death of civilians does not mean that the genocide label is automatically appropriate.

        • “if you launched an illegal war of aggression on Iraq, what could a prudent person expect to happen to *Iraqis*?”

          So now we’re pretending that the word “genocide” means “any deaths in wartime?”

          Words have meaning, Professor. They’re not just there to provide emotional oomph.

        • If you deliberately launch an illegal war of aggression on a nationality, which causes the death of half a million civilians, and you could reasonably have expected that launching the war would indeed result in very large numbers of deaths among the nationality that you illegally attacked without any casus belli, it seems to me that you had the intent of killing off part of that ethnic group, which in the Genocide Convention equals… genocide

      • Disculpen que no hable en inglés. No lo domino. Creo que la palabra “genocidio” es perfectamente correcta en este caso, pues la intención era destruir a un grupo nacional (los iraquíes) de forma deliberada, lo que demuestran los hechos. ¿Cómo podemos calificar los bombardeos indiscriminados sobre la población de Faluya o de Basorah (en 1.990)? La intención es destruir totalmente las ciudades y sus ciudadanos. No es otra cosa que un genocidio.

    • I believe, invasion by itself is not genocide, but the awe and shock of baghdad, the carpet bombing of faluja, the blockade of food to children etc constitute very heinous crimes!

      I suppose by the same logic, what happened in Cambodia can not be characterized as genocide; though the mass killing of american indians does qualify.

      Maybe the civilized world needs another term, because as some one pointed out, we the US by not being signatories to a number of treaties (Rome Statute, some geneva conventions, ICC etc) are able to continue to have a holier than thou attitude.

      • I believe, invasion by itself is not genocide, but the awe and shock of baghdad, the carpet bombing of faluja, the blockade of food to children etc constitute very heinous crimes!

        This is what is so irritating: there are all sorts of “very heinous crimes” that the people who prosecuted the Iraq War could accurately be accused of.

        But Professor Cole just has to insist on the shiniest, most media-genic word he can think of.

        Internet one-upmanship.

  12. This genocide began with the seemingly noble cause of removing Iraqi soldiers from Kuwait and teaching the world’s dictators a lesson. In 1991, we destroyed much of Iraq’s infrastructure, killed thousands of civilians, and killed thousands of Iraqi soldiers while they were retreating from Kuwait.

  13. And through all of it, the architects insisted on the glories of the New Middle East they were creating, waving their purple fingers and gloating about the wonders to come.

  14. Of course we hear next to nothing about Iraq in the English language media these days no doubt reflecting a general hardness of heart but also, I believe, a certain a fair amount of guilt and shame.

  15. Those who are quibbling about whether the two invasions of Iraq constituted genocide or not should view the two following short videos. I must warn that they are quite gruesome.
    link to youtube.com
    link to youtube.com

    The blog also said nothing of the use of depleted uranium that will continue killing many people in Iraq for decades to come.
    link to youtube.com

    Of course, the vast majority of Americans had no knowledge of this and were not responsible for it, but the sad thing is that those who were responsible have not been prosecuted.

  16. Was it desirable that the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein be continued? It was responsible itself for hundreds of thousands of deaths in insurrections and the war with Iran. What then would have been the cost of replacing the regime through a civil war without foreign intervention? We are getting an idea of this in the Syrian civil war. Not that this justifies the US invasion, which I consider to be a war crime, but it is not completely irrelevant to make a comparison of this sort. Unless the Hussein regime continued unchallenged there would eventually be civil violence in some way resembling that after the US invasion – takeover by Shiites would inevitably be resisted by Sunnis.

    The US is not responsible for all violence in the middle east, although it is not our place to accelerate it either. The US is a criminal meddler, not a genocide.

      • Who is “our?” Lots of GIs and “Christians” hold to the tenet that “The only good Arab/Muslim/Librul/whatever is a dead one.” Ask a Native American how it worked, for (economic) reasons…

    • What then would have been the cost of replacing the regime through a civil war without foreign intervention?

      False dichotomy. The choices were not “foreign invasion with no involvement of local forces or parties” vs. “civil war with no outside involvement.”

      I’ll take option C: lend support to indigenous democratic forces.

  17. Iraq was a Buck$(oil) and
    Jock-strap(macho) issue.

    genocide n: the deliberate
    and systematic destruction
    of a racial, political, or
    cultural group.

  18. Note that the authors indicated that the excess deaths is between 48,000 and 751,000 with 95% confidence. Also note that that does not mean that actual deaths is just as likely 400,000 as 48,000. It’s a “bell curve” distribution, not a uniform distribution.

    I noticed that both their pre-war and wartime death rates were both significantly less than that calculated by the Lancet study.

  19. I realize you want to pick your fights with the neocons carefully, Prof., but you would have a hard time proving the
    oil lobby politicked for the war as hard (not to mention as dishonestly) as THE Lobby.

  20. right, bicker over the term “genocide” while the results are practically the same. and the guerilla war between the Shiites and Sunnis, which we fueled, will result in a similar effect.

    gosh, what particulars/such a finesse. American exceptionalism in its’ finest hour.

    reading the foreign news i read about the tit for tat between the Shiites and Sunnis and now and then it includes the Kurds. plus as said, above, the use of depleted uranium. The American Gift to the Middle East, whatever the motive.

    while their leaders did horrendous thing to the native Iraqis, does that excuse us with ours doing the same. evil is evil, two wrongs, you know, no matter who does what. Oh that’s right we had “excuses”. Saddam was a “bad” man, you mean, just like Bush, Cheney, Yoo, Rice, Rumsfeldt, Odierno, Meese? gosh i could list the whole Republican cabinet from many Presidents, with their adoring derrier kissers. but our American version is excepted from any punishment, since we OWN the world, Empire that we are.

    That line from Madeline Albright, wow, she alone deserves a special footnote in history for such a “comment.” such a base hatred and a special despicable evil, of a nature usually found in hard hatefilled excuses of a less than human. Pol Pot, Pinochet, what a special group she would fit in perfectly with. Such a “speechless” retort. Takes my breath away every time i hear it repeated! and yet she probably lives in luxury and breathes freely without any sense of “self consciousness”. like the rest of the Bush “family and friends.” there are just no words for that kind of breath of an evil spawning creature, definity beyond description, for such a capacity in twisted evil.

    but whomever dares to, do go ahead, and absolve the US and the Military of these “crimes”. as we all now the US is above the Law, as George Bush, Yoo and Cheney, and that whole Kabal. we have sown the wind, and the innocents in Iraq and Americans soldiers whom are reaping the Whirlwind.

    not like we will ever own up to such crimes there, when we let thieves run and ruin the country. we are truly Exceptional Americans.

    • I’m the one who pointed out the wrong use of the term “genocide”. I’m not being a pedant about this; but accuracy in terms is important for any meaningful discussion.
      Genocide is a very specific term/crime and not to be used in the place of massacre, mass slaughter, crimes against humanity or any other descriptor of mass murder.
      Not calling a said abomination a genocide does not and is not meant to diminish any of the attendant barbarity.
      I’ll not be responsible for the quibbling of others over terms, but communication, accurate communication is of paramount importance, IMHO.

    • If you don’t like semantic discussions of the term “genocide,” take it up with the person who insisted on injecting it into the conversation.

      And no, the statements “This is not a case of genocide” and “The Iraq War was right and good” are not, in fact, the same thing.

      I guess this is another of those fine distinctions you object to people drawing.

  21. There was just so much stupidity and so much wrong done too long to list. Accountability for war crimes and the deaths could go a long way (which should also include non-US individuals and states). But no way that’ll happen. Nixon was a one time thing.

    The hypocritical liberators claim was not going to fly with those in the region who remembered the sanctions that were slapped on earlier that killed thousands of Iraqi kids. Still, the Sunni radical insurgency was and still is insane.

    Another consequence was that Afghanistan, ‘the just war’ for 9/11, was abandoned…again.

  22. Tony Blair said in July 2004 that ‘400,000 bodies had been found in Iraqi mass graves, quoting from a USAID website. The same website stated: ‘If these numbers prove accurate, they represent a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot’s Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II.’

    Blair was forced to admit on the facts he was once again far from the truth and with 55 out of 270 mass graves identified, the confirmed toll was 5000. On his opinion though I agree – 400 000 Iraqi deaths are a crime against humanity comparable to Rwanda. Pol Pot’s slaughter, and the holocaust. And you, Mr Blair, are one of the prime architects of the slaughter.

  23. If this is not genocide, then neither is the Al Anfal campaign (which the US also supported all the way through). Hussein was doing that to eliminate any potential resistance, not because he hated Kurds, per se.

    Yesterday I happened to try to map out Iranian deaths for which the US government has complicity, vs. US citizen deaths for which Iran has complicity. It turns out:

    US citizen deaths allegedly supported by Iran: Roughly 300

    Iranian deaths supported by US: Roughly 1,070,300

    The US is racking them up by the millions. USA! USA!

    link to empireslayer.blogspot.com

    • There is nothing in the genocide definition that excludes targeting a racial/ethnic/national group in order to eliminate potential resistance in a war. Indeed, that is a very common motivation for genocide, such as the Turks targeting Armenians during World War One.

  24. In “The Fog of War,” former defense secretary Robert McNamara said 3.4 million Vietnamese were killed during the war, and transposing that percentage to the population in Vietnam to the U.S., he said if the war had been fought here 27 million Americans would have been killed. So it’s really business as usual when it comes to how America treats civilians as Professor Cole pointed out when it comes to Iraq. But what got me was when McNamara talked about the firebombing of major Japanese cities toward the end of the Second World War. 100,000 civilians were killed just in the firebombing of Tokyo. So he asked rhetorically why was it moral to kill all these civilians in the Second World War and yet immoral in the Vietnam war? So even in old age – he was 85 at the time the documentary was filmed – he was in denial when it comes to dealing with the issue of genocide in wars the U.S. has fought.

    • The common American justification for the incendiary raids over Japanese cities (as well as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki A-bombs)was that the saved lives of American servicemen.

      Many felt, on the other hand, that General Curtis LeMay – the youngest 4-star general in U.S. history at 44 years of age – was a war criminal due to his strategic bombing of Japan during that era.

      Japan, unlike Vietnam, did attack the U.S. without provocation at Pearl Harbor and the Phillipines in December of 1941 – killing namy civilians in the process. Ho Chi Minh, on the other hand, was an American ally during WWII who ordered his Vietminh to rescue downed American pilots in Indochina.

      Americans as a whole did not have any great aversion to the Vietnamese during the war and many saw them in the North and South as victims of a civil war. Japan on the other hand, terrorized not only Americans, but also Burmese, Filipino and Chinese citizens. 200,000 died during the Rape of Nanking alone and six million Chinese died in all during a genocidal Japanse occupation commencing in 1931.

  25. ” Iraq’s main crime appears to have been to be an oil state not compliant with US demands.”

    This is not the reason for the Iraq invasion, Juan.

    It has always been a part of Israel strategic planning to get rid of Saddam Hussein and to dismantle his military, both of which happened in 2003. The effort was led by the Neocons in the upper levels of the US government and by the Israeli sympathetic think tanks of Washington.

    It has always been Israeli strategy from David Ben Gurion onward for Israel to have military dominance in the Middle East and for Israel to be the Middle East hegemon.

    The very concept of the formation of the state of Israel is that it insinuated itself into the heart of the Arab world by force, and maintained itself by force. It depends on force for its survival and even its de facto legitimacy.

  26. Can you explain what you mean when you say that Iraq occupied Kuwait “quite bestially”. Quite bestially indeed was the way has waged was in these lands. It was quite bestial because the US deliberately targeted the civilian population. It was quite bestial because once war broke up, it did not have any scruples in using bestial weapons such as phosphorus and depleted uranium. It was quite bestial because it bombed -during first Gulf war- defenseless troops that had already surrendered. And to top it off, American hypocrisy is quite bestial too.

Comments are closed.