I don't see why this is so shocking, most of it's been sheite and suni factions killing eachother.

I saw bill o riley claiming that the number of deaths is only 53,000. He said it with such a self rightous smirk. He also said that the lancet is a Discreadited British Medical Journal! He is a very dangerous man.

The Lancet a discredited British medical journal? He probably didn't even know of the Lancent until that day...

I don't see why this is so shocking, most of it's been sheite and suni factions killing eachother.

Its shiite and Sunni. Anyway, its not a question of whether its shocking, the media is not there for shocking people.(oh, wait..) Its a question of importance. These numbers refer to "Excess" deaths, in other words deaths that most likely wouldnt have occured if it wasnt for the invasion.

The Sunni and Shiite clashes have happened, as far as I can recall, mostly in 2006(or maybe that was just earlier underreported as well, who knows), and these numbers came out a while ago. Anyway, the clashes started because there is very little control in Iraq, the country is in chaos, and extremists on both sides took advantage of the situation.

Saddam was a bad guy, no doubt, but atleast he had some control there, and without the invasion, they probably wouldnt have clashed.

The Lancet Study has skewed high both in 2004 and now in 2006.

I am not sure whether it is because of the nature of the cluster sampling or the bell-curve estimates drawn from the clusters. The Iraq Body Count (which I tend to think skews low) has the documented deaths of Iraqis at about 1/10 of the Lancet total. I would argue that this story is under-reported precisely because the number and the competing methodologies are so unreliable. And currently, it is even more difficult to sort out civilians from combatants over the last two years.

Here is a fascinating article about the number and the controversy it engenders - http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/0207web/number.html

And the IBC:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Whatever the precise number - it is a hell of a lot more than the 30,000 figure that Bush and his supporters cling to. It is definitely in the hundreds of thousands, and the simple fact is that the US media gives far more attention to the death of one US serviceman - tragic though that may be - than it does to the loss of hundreds of Iraqi lives every single day.

Furthermore, a lot of these deaths could have been avoided if the illegal invasion had been better planned and supported by an international mandate. It would also help if the morons who planned the invasion knew even the slightest thing about the modern history of Iraq and the origins of the current Sunni-Shi'a divisions.

The 30,000 figure is indeed pure Bush fantasy. I think that the Bushies merely multiply American casualties by 10 to get that figure. Frees them up to go take bribes from lobbyists.

The modern history of Iraq is a state of civil war temporarily tamped down by despotism. Remove the despot and here we are today. The true crime of this war was not the false justification for entry; it was the flaccid preparations for a sunny 6 month occupation. Cheney/Rummy were grotesquely wrong and the suffering has been magnified exponentially because of their stupidity.

The American media has gotten a handle on covering the daily civilian casualties in Iraq. I see stories about Iraqi casualties every day. And of course, American military casualties will always receive more play due to nationalism and the fact that they are verifiable and attached to families on the homefront.

I just don't think that you add value to that story by promoting a number that is patently artificial.

We'll have to agree to disagree - I think the 655,000 is pretty convincing, and the methodology behind it is sound.

Here is another site worth checking out that offers a coherent (non-Republican, non-O'Reilly) critique of the Lancet methodology:

http://www.rhul.ac.uk/Economics/Research/conflict-analysis/iraq-mortality/

However, I entirely agree with Prof. Burnham (Lancet Study) when he said the following in the Hopkins article:

"Burnham, who is professor of epidemiology and co-director of Johns Hopkins' Center for Refugee and Disaster Response (CRDR), tried to keep attention focused on what he thought the public needed to understand. "I have one central message," he says. "That central message is that local populations, people caught up in conflict, do badly. This is not a study that says, Ain't it awful. This is a study that says, We need to do something about this."

I still can't believe that returning soldiers cannot be filmed... I dislike that we have gotten back to the point of Vietnam where casualty rates are just numbers... I personally feel almost nothing now... it's just numbers now.

"The death of one, is a tragedy. The death of one million, is a statistic." - Joseph Stalin

Funny I learned that quote by playing C&C:Red Alert. It's slightly altered from his original quote but you get the gist of it.

good comments. agreed that Iraq Body Count methods may be more appropriate at this time.

Bush's dismissive remark is classic supervillain. One would imagine the President of the United States to be a bit more interested in not coming off as evil.

Boy that American President sure is a douche, that clip really shows it.

I guess we could two more to the count, since Islamic Terrorists are not above using children as cannon fodder for their attacks. But somehow I'm sure this is still America's fault.

"Islamic Terrorists are not above using children as cannon fodder for their attacks."

They learnt that from the Israeli army who regularly use Palestinian children as human shields: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2030222,00.html

But I guess you'd rather ignore facts like this wump because they don't fit into your simplistic, ignorant, bigotted, black and white view of the world!

"But somehow I'm sure this is still America's fault."

While America is not solely responsible, they are principally to blame for creating the current situation in Iraq through their illegal invasion and occupation.

Saddam kept control by killing those of the opposing faction, the problem is Iraq can't establish a new government until the religious war stops. Which will take years. And once we leave a new dictator or warlord will take helm and who knows what Iraq will be then.

Never in history has a country had outside civilizations help establish a new order of government short of conquering it. So in retrospect, it would have been better to stay out of it or conquer it. Liberating is a process that will take years to come. And I am actually interested to see if the U.S. can pull of something that has never been done in the history of man.

I'm betting the apparent public outcry will stop us short of finding out.

"Never in history has a country had outside civilizations help establish a new order of government short of conquering it. So in retrospect, it would have been better to stay out of it or conquer it. Liberating is a process that will take years to come. And I am actually interested to see if the U.S. can pull of something that has never been done in the history of man."

Let's not kid ourselves - humanitarian concerns were not a major factor behind America's illegal invasion of Iraq. The humanitarian argument was only voiced by America when they realised that the international community were not buying their lies about WMD's, and an Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to the invasion. So what were the major motivating factors behind the invasion? Oil was certainly an important factor and one that everyone is aware of. It is clear that many in the Bush administration are closely tied to the oil industry and they saw an opportunity to create a new ARAMCO. But there is another major factor which is often ignored - particularly in the States. Ask yourself, even if Saddam had had WMD would he really have posed a threat to America? Of course not! America was completely beyond his range - he didn't even have the technical capabilities to hit Europe. The only country within his range, and the only one that posed a direct threat to Iraq was Israel. AIPAC put enormous efforts into lobbying Senators and Congressmen to support the illegal invasion of Iraq. AIPAC are now putting the same effort into drumming up support for an illegal 'pre-emptive' strike on Iran.

http://www.stopaipac.org/

Liberty given through force will never work.

Liberty given does not.

Liberty earned will.

One word Wumpus then, Vietnam. You cannot force a people to become democratic overnight with simple rhetoric. Nor should you fight their independence for them.

Afghanistan was a better strategic picture because most of the military assisted the Northern Alliance and special forces detachments. Yet somehow to track down Osama Bin Laden didn't warrant the same troop deployment as Iraq then... Funny isn't it.

Stop selling the Iraq war as one of liberty and freedom. When it's clear its not.

As a journalist my self (NOTE: FREELANCE JOURNALIST I barely get paid), I find it suprising that this number hasn't been more publicized. I am of the unwavering postition, that this generation is in DIRE need of its own "Deep-throat", and that the media still needs to take a MUCH more agressive stance in their role as "watchdog" (see any political science page for definition).
Couple notes
"They learnt that from the Israeli army who regularly use Palestinian children as human shields" It is SO damn hard to get reliable information from any "warzone" where any information recieved from either group is regarded as volatle and biased. The palestinians zealously blame Israeli forces for anything that concievable goes wrong and the Israeli's expedite the problem with their zealous militantism.

BTW American Politics 101: The average citizen is COMPLETELY SUSCEPTABLE to hoards and hoards of bullshit no matter what the source is. Let's not forgethow easily Clinton (still one of my favorite politicians ever by the way) was able to slipslide his way out of any responsiblity for Kosovo and Rwanda, and he was considered one of our country's most progressive Presidents, what is the chance that Bush, one of our country's most conservative Presidents would give a shit about humanitarian efforts. Here's a fun quote transcribed from some anyanomous talk show from '03. "Somehow the pentagon just isn't finding 'Operation Re-Elect Bush' that appealing a name."

The lesson of Vietnam is that we didn't fight to win and we allowed polititions to use the war for their own gain, and when we left it opened the door for the North Vietnamese to slaughter milions people. We still haven't learned that lesson and if we pull out, Iran will sweep through and kill half the population in attempt to take control and expand the Islamic Republic.

The Iraq war was not about liberty and freedom, it was about preemptively engaging a threat that the international intelligence community and prominent liberal politicians agreed existed. Liberty was supposed to be the side-effect, but I'm also saying we can't give it to them, they have to earn it.

"it was about preemptively engaging a threat that the international intelligence community and prominent liberal politicians agreed existed."

A few points wump:

(1) Pre-emptive action is illegal in international law for very good reasons. There are two major sources of international law - statutes and custom. There are no international instruments which allow pre-emptive strikes because it is very difficult to determine objectively whether a potential threat is legitimate or not. If pre-emptive strikes were legal then any state could justify aggressive action towards another state by reference to a perceived or potential threat. By justifying the illegal invasion of Iraq by saying that it was a pre-emptive strike against a perceived threat, a dangerous new precedent of customary international law was established. This means that any state can now legally justify aggression against another state by citing the illegal invasion of Iraq as an established precedent of international law.

(2) Many in the international intelligence community were very sceptical about the claim that Iraq had WMD's or that there was an Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to the illegal invasion. It is also telling that a great deal of America's 'intelligence' about the Middle East comes directly from Israel - the only country directly threatened by Iraq's arsenal.

(3) In the UK most prominent liberal MP's, and the entire Liberal-Democrat party, were opposed to the invasion. Millions marched in the streets of London - and other parts of the UK - to condemn the illegal invasion of Iraq. These were the largest political demonstrations in British history.

"Iran will sweep through and kill half the population in attempt to take control and expand the Islamic Republic"

There is absolutely no evidence to show that Iran wishes to expand its borders into Iraq - the Iraqis wouldn't stand for it! Yes Iran supports a Shi'a controlled Iraq. But Iran does not want a civil war on its doorstep. Iran has made many efforts to work with the Americans - dating back to before the invasion - but America (due to the influence of AIPAC) has always shunned these advances.


And none of this changes the central message of this video - HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF IRAQIS ARE DEAD AS A DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF AMERICA'S ILLEGAL INVASION!!!

Wumpus, your clear disregard for human life is disturbing. You do ralise that war affects the people who have no concern in it the most. What do you know about vietnam or anything else? All you've heard is what you have been told. America had no right to be in Vietnam as had France before. Now we hear of another vietnam, why? Do you realy believe what you are told?
You make rash statments with no proof. Who said Iran are going to invade who. This is rubbish.
You are single minded to the fallacy that all the American government is doing is good. Good against evil. A war on terror. A war against the evil doers.
Religion should have no place in pollitics, it polarises people. Yet that is what is happening.
It is therefore reasonable to think that the muslims see the Americans (and other nations involved) as the evil doers.
So who is evil wumpus?
I don't know enough to really make a good argument. All I can say about the matter is that there are hundreds of thousands of people at risk here. Spare a single thought for them...........If you lived there you too would be a number.

Good points, gwaan about the seductive perils of the preemptive war doctrine. But we shouldn't continue arguing about 2003.

I am in the interesting position of absolutely opposing the war in 2003 (for all of the reasons that gwaan cites) and absolutely supporting an escalation now.

Because of its many and myraid of errors and the fine work of the CPA, the United States cannot simply "leave Iraq." Leave Iraq to what? Shi'a slaughtering Sunnis? Sadr?

And I do believe that the United States alliance with Israel is essentially good, even though AIPAC (like cigarette and Walmart lobbies) is essentially evil.

So what do you do about the increased loss of Iraqi life over the last two years? Does removal of American troops stop this trend?

"And I do believe that the United States alliance with Israel is essentially good, even though AIPAC (like cigarette and Walmart lobbies) is essentially evil."

The power of lobbying organisations in general is sickening - it's not just AIPAC. But the influence of AIPAC is particularly problematic. AIPAC work flat out to silence all critics of Israeli government policy in all spheres of American public life - media, politics, academia, etc. It has gotten to the stage where it is almost impossible to be elected to Congress or the Senate without getting support from AIPAC. AIPAC contributes so extensively to campaigns on both sides of the political divide that it is ensured support. However, where has blind support for Israeli government policy got America? America, once loved in the Arab and Islamic world, is now widely loathed - principally because of its unquestioning support of Israelis' continued mistreatment of the Palestinians. Don't forget that the major motivating factor behind the 9/11 attacks was America's continued support for Israeli aggression against the Palestinians. America's blind support of Israeli government policy is not in America's best interests!!! Furthermore, true supporters of Israel should be asking 'Are AIPAC acting in the best long-term interests of Israel?'. Israel is increasingly isloated. It is hated more and more each day for its unjust treatment of the Palestinians and its illegal invasions of Lebanon. Furthermore, a continued state of hostility is not in Israel best long-term interests. In Britain a new lobby group - Independent Jewish Voice (http://jewishvoices.squarespace.com/home-page/) - has been established to try and change public opinion. They argue strongly that being critical of Israeli government policy, and being critical of the appalling mistreament of the Palestinians, is in the long term best interests of Israel and the Jewish people.

"I am in the interesting position of absolutely opposing the war in 2003 (for allof the reasons that gwaan cites) and absolutely supporting an escalation now."

I have to strongly disagree - the American presence in Iraq is widely loathed and even those Iraqis who welcomed the Americans in 2003 want them out now. This isn't a situation which can be solved by military might. Diplomacy is the key and that means America must strongly engage with Iran, Syria, and the Gulf states. This is the logical course of action. But yet again, it is unlikely that this course of action will be taken because of huge opposition from AIPAC. AIPAC does not want America engaging with Iran and Syria - both countries are strong supporters of the Palestinian people, and for this reason alone are accused of being sponsors and exporters of terrorism. AIPAC have invested a great deal of time in demonizing these nations in order to undermine their support for Palestine.

"So what do you do about the increased loss of Iraqi life over the last two years? Does removal of American troops stop this trend?"

There is no simple or quick solution, but if America had not insisted on unilateral action in the first place then it would be much easier recruiting an international multilateral force to police Iraq. Countries like Saudi Arabia contributed troops to a multilateral force in the first Iraq war because the war was legal - a direct response to hostility, not a pre-emptive strike based on dubious intelligence. America actually need to turn to Islamic states - Sunni and Shi'a - and ask for their help. It needs to include Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, in the reconstruction of Iraq.

Military escalation would only be viewed as an expansion of the forces, you do forget that while here in the west we put up with rhetoric, Iraqis are the ones who see massive military bases established in the Iraqi green zones. It would only drive more people into militias and various insurgent forces, the American presence creates this, there is a common enemy to attack by all sides.

From our perspective it looks like we are helping them out, but you forget that Iraqis were welcoming coalition forces in 1991, only to see them stop, pull back impose sanctions and empower Saddam to the point that you had to be in support of him or face certain death. Saddam is gone, the Americans are sticking around, Haliburton is making billions, while we are losing valuable voluntary troops. What's more sickening is that military presence is now little based on honor or duty, but economic reasons, going to small cities and communities to people who have nothing and hunting them down to recruit them into the army. Blackwater and other PMCs run around Iraq with no Army R.O.E. oversight or rules, they can take up any offensive position against Iraqis, the rules of the army don't apply to them.

More forces, more bullish positions would only strengthen and create the very Islamic army against the west. The only reason the American goverment will never pullout or do anything on it's own within this administration would be admitting defeat in their eyes, working multilaterally seems like such a horrible idea. However the fast pace of global economic interlinking must force the American people to reconsider their position, there is a chance now for a possible turnaround, but it will not happen, it takes a certain man to try and recover what has happened and that man is not in the White house. Nor has any candidate really proven themselves so much either.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Quality discussion.

But we all agree that there is a very real police problem in Iraq. While I agree that multilateral enforcement and opening diplomatic channels with Iran and Syria are necessary (and let us not forget Turkey who is very wary of a potential Kurdistan), if the "number" is anywhere close to being correct, only more security forces can begin to quell the unchecked violence and the roving militias of all stripes.

I can't imagine that a person living outside of the Green Zone right now cares a whit about AIPAC or Palestine. They want, need, and deserve electricity, running water, and basic security. And American presence is essential to resolving this current problem (created and fostered by the incompetent and feckless bullish policies cited by Farhad) because the Americans are the only party with any resources. The moderate Iraqis have been starved by the stupid economic sanctions, the Kurds still decimated by Saddam, and the Baathists with knowledge/experience of governmental functions are still locked out.

And I think it profoundly oversimplifies things to say that the American presence is widely loathed. Certainly, the Sunnis loathe the American presence. The Kurds love us. The Shiites are ambivalent at best. Some of the most reliable reporters on the ground in Iraq (Burns, Packer, et al.) seem to indicate a deep ambivalence rather than a widespread loathing.

To the extent that the continued American presence radicalizes polity in the Middle East, it is the world we now live in. Radical Islam will not go away if Gaza and the West Bank is handed over to the Palestinians, though its appeal to young Muslims may indeed be dented by such actions.

@Wumpus - if Iran were to attack Iraq they'd suffer even worse than the Americans are suffering now - while some Iraqis band together against Americans, the ensuing bloodbath against an Iranian invasion would be many times worse, despite the weak Iraqi government. IMHO, of course. But I see others have made the point too.

It'd be interesting - in a dark macabre fashion, of course - to see the effect of a foreign power attacking Iraq. It could easily escalate into a region-wide war (see Turks and Kurds getting in on the show, and everyone else joining in for one reason or another).

At least that "interesting" scenario isn't happening - a small mercy for sure!

@farhad - did the Americans even enter many significant parts of Iraq 'proper' back in '91? I was under the impression they didn't go to far deep in. And taht was the biggest disaster of course.

What I think most will agree with is that a REAL UN blue-helmet peacekeeping force is desperately needed there. When (if ever) it'll be deployed is beyond me. What I can, sadly, forsee is that whenever such a force DOES arrive, it'll be far too late.

I'm just guessing (and thinking back to some articles I've read recently), but there seem to be quite a few Iraqis who hope the Americans don't leave anytime soon, b/c that'll quickly lead to an even faster slaughter of human beings.

The military probably has actual footage of kills from laser guided whatevers where you could probably sit down and count heads and come up with more than 30,000.

Heck in just pre-May 2003, the US and Brits used at least 13,000 cluster munitions, and in the air war before invasion, let's see 40,000 sorties flown and 30,000 bombs + 1,000 more cluster bombs.

I mean.. 5,000 JDAM 1-ton GPS guided bombs.... 1,000 cruise missles.... just in the bombing campaign... You think those things miss? This is all before a single bullet was fired. So yeah, probably a million dead.

Russia & China should 'liberate' the US from Bush, see how YOU like it

At least the American construction and defense industry is benefiting from all this. Have you [i]seen[/i] the amount of contracts handed out exclusively to US firms? It's so funny and yet so very, very depressing

"If Iran were to attack Iraq they'd suffer even worse than the Americans are suffering now - while some Iraqis band together against Americans, the ensuing bloodbath against an Iranian invasion would be many times worse, despite the weak Iraqi government. IMHO, of course. But I see others have made the point too.

I see your point and I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree. If the U.S. were to pull out, Iran will almost certainly move in to take over. There are already Iranian agents in Iraq mounting attacks against military and civilian targets, and with all the oil and resources in Iraq, it's an opportunity far too rich to pass up and if they don't someone else will. The key difference is that the U.S. is held accountable in the media everyday for everything it does and happens. Iran is not.

The American campaign is aimed at defeating the armed insurgency and helping the country back on its feet. An Iranian campaign would be aimed at suppressing the population and crushing any opposition by killing as many civilians as possible. But for the sake of debate, the scenario you describe could happen. The real question in either case is, Who is going to stop them?

One point at a time:

"And I think it profoundly oversimplifies things to say that the American presence is widely loathed. Certainly, the Sunnis loathe the American presence. The Kurds love us. The Shiites are ambivalent at best. Some of the most reliable reporters on the ground in Iraq (Burns, Packer, et al.) seem to indicate a deep ambivalence rather than a widespread loathing."

You're right - not everyone loathes the Americans. But the vast majority of Iraqis resent the American presence because of its ineffectiveness, and the brutality of its troops. They are also starting to see through the lies that America used to justify the invasion. Historical perspective is important here. The roots of modern political Islam lie in the Islamic movements that opposed colonialism/imperialism - be it European or Ottoman - in the nineteenth century. If you look at the impact of British imperialism on the Islamic world in the nineteenth century you will see many paralleles with the current situation in Iraq. At first the British were liked - even praised - by the Islamic communities they colonised. For example, Muhammad Iqbal - one of the most important Muslim leaders in the subcontinent and one of the chief architects of an independant Pakistan - at first praised the British Empire as a 'civilizing factor'. He argued that: "England, in fact, is doing one of our own great duties, which unfavourable circumstances did not permit us to perform. It is not the number of Muhammadans [Muslims] which it protects, but the spirit of the British Empire which makes it the greatest Muhammadan [Islamic] Empire in the world." Yet only a few years later Iqbal was condemning the negative influence of the British Empire. In general, as time went by the colonised began to realise that the colonial/imperialistic program of the British Empire was motivated purely by self-interest - economic interest, strategic interest, etc. Disillusionment set in and resistance began to grow. The same is happening in Iraq. Furthermore, as the situation deteriorates it is no wonder that Iraqis are looking to other regional powers like Iran to help resolve the situation. It is also simplistic to say that the Kurds love the Americans. While the situation in Northern Iraq has improved it is important to remember that the Kurds had more autonomy than any other region before the illegal invasion. Furthermore, it remains to be seen whether the Kurds will achieve their long-term political goal of independence. America will not support an independent Kurdistan because such a situation would severly antagonise Turkey - a key ally of America and Israel. Therefore the Kurdish opinion of the Americans could change dramatically if their autonomy and long-term political goals are undermined by the Americans.

"To the extent that the continued American presence radicalizes polity in the Middle East, it is the world we now live in. Radical Islam will not go away if Gaza and the West Bank is handed over to the Palestinians, though its appeal to young Muslims may indeed be dented by such actions."

Palestine is one of the greatest injustices in the world today. The Palestinian people have been appallingly treated for over fifty years by the Israelis and the Americans have not only stood idly by, they have funded it! It is not only a rallying point for 'radical Islam' but for all Muslims, and all other peoples who oppose injustice and oppression. The vast majority of people in the world are appalled by the way Israel treats the Palestinians and they cannot understand how America - a country which is meant to stand for freedom and justice - could not only allow this to happen, but could openly support it. Add to this the illegal invasion of Iraq, the illegal invasions of Lebanon, and American support for tyranical regimes throughout the Middle East, and you understand why the majority of Muslims - and a large number of non-Muslims - detest America. This is why they will not cooperate with the Americans. Contrary to what many American politicians, AIPAC, and the Israeli government argue organisations like Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas do not 'hate our freedoms' they hate the injustices that are committed by Israel and America on a daily basis. The prinicpal political objectives of these organisations are the liberation of Palestine, and the overthrow of the Gulf monarchies. America and Britain have only been targetted because of their blind support for Israel. Again, I'm not advocating that we stop supporting Israel, I'm advoacting that we start supporting Palestine and being more objective. All funding and aid to Israel should be suspended until they start recognising the right of the Palestinian people to live a life free from terror and oppression. But thanks to the concerted efforts of AIPAC this will never happen. And day by day more Palestinian land is stolen and more Palestinian kids are killed as Israel extends its illegal settlements - funded by US aid. People in Iraq do care about what is happening in Palestine - they can sympathise greatly with an oppressed people let down for fifty years by the Americans. And they do worry about the power of AIPAC precisely because AIPAC is preventing any kind of multilateral talks or engagement with countries like Iran and Syria who could help resolve the situation in Iraq.

"wumpus - if Iran were to attack Iraq they'd suffer even worse than the Americans are suffering now - while some Iraqis band together against Americans, the ensuing bloodbath against an Iranian invasion would be many times worse, despite the weak Iraqi government."

Very good point Krupo! If Sunni militants resent the American presence in Iraq, they would be twice as determined to get Iran out as they see all Shi'a Muslims as evil heretics.

"If the U.S. were to pull out, Iran will almost certainly move in to take over. There are already Iranian agents in Iraq mounting attacks against military and civilian targets, and with all the oil and resources in Iraq, it's an opportunity far too rich to pass up and if they don't someone else will. The key difference is that the U.S. is held accountable in the media everyday for everything it does and happens. Iran is not."

The US media is starting to hold Bush to account for his actions but it is five years too late. Furthermore, the enormous political bias of so much of the American media ensures that many people are kept in the dark. Furthermore, the power of AIPAC and other unquestioning supporters of Israel in the media ensures that many of the most contentious issues are kept out of the news. As I have said before, and as Krupo has argued, Iran does not wish to conquer Iraq - they are fully aware of the potential consequences of such an invasion. You talk about Iranian agents helping to plan attacks against the Americans and the civilian population of Iraq because this is what Bush, the neocons and AIPAC want you to talk about. The vast majority of attacks are perpetrated by Sunni militants - yet the Whitehouse has held several press conferences highlighting the role of Iranian agents. Why? Could it be part of AIPAC's continual campaign to sully Iran's image in the build up to a pre-emptive strike on Iran? You bet it could!

"The American campaign is aimed at defeating the armed insurgency and helping the country back on its feet. An Iranian campaign would be aimed at suppressing the population and crushing any opposition by killing as many civilians as possible."

No - the American campaign is aimed at establishing a new ARAMCO, removing a potential threat to Israel, and establishing a new American base in the Middle East. America is only interested in defeating the insurgency because it threatens their vision of an American and Israeli dominated Middle East. If America was truly interested in helping the country back on its feet it would have had a better plan at the beginning, backed up with the full support of the international community. Furthermore, it would be engaging with other regional powers like Iran and Syria in order to resolve the current situation. American troops have killed far more Iraqi civilians than Iranian agents. When you say that "An Iranian campaign would be aimed at suppressing the population and crushing any opposition by killing as many civilians as possible" you are simply wrong. The Iranians are no more cold hearted butchers than the Americans, and the Americans are just as ruthless when it comes to silencing opposition.

*waronterror

Adding video to channels (Waronterror) - requested by MarineGunrock.

*death *length=4:09

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 4:09 - length declared by geo321.

Adding video to channels (Death) - requested by geo321.