digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

An estimated 4.2 million Iraqis have left seeking refuge in another country

zmag.org — According to an Amnesty International (AI) report published last month, of those who have left Iraq, the US has resettled 753 since April 2003. The US refugee resettlement program is designed to accommodate 70,000 yearly. Other industrialised countries with resettlement programmes have behaved similarly. Syria has accepted the most Iraqis.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • chillroom, on 10/24/2007, -5/+62Seems to me the Administration is like a lot of the folk who regard this country -- with its formerly secular government and its population of doctors, lawyers, financial experts, i.e., regular people -- as "a bunch of dudes in caves." In other words, some lower order who deserve what happened to them. It makes me sick. Our presence in Iraq is what caused this exodus, and we only resettled 753? What is it about human rights with this Admin?
    • notque, on 10/24/2007, -4/+51That ties in to the "supreme war crime" at Nuremberg, which they determined (rightly so in my mind) that the supreme war crime of aggression is responsible for all crimes that occur because of the initial war crime of aggression.

      We have committed the supreme war crime of aggression, but do not accept our responsibility. Thus we are a depraved government that must be stopped.
      • kerryhall, on 10/24/2007, -3/+17Very well put, notque.
      • masterm1nd, on 10/22/2007, -12/+2"(rightly so in my mind) that the supreme war crime of aggression is responsible for all crimes that occur because of the initial war crime of aggression."

        Notque, I don't think you intended to justify the wars after 911...
        • GawtMilk, on 10/24/2007, -9/+2Agreed. We were not the aggressors, we were taking retaliatory action. If the events that unfolded on 9/11 hadn't happened, we wouldn't be in the war.
          • drgmdp, on 10/22/2007, -1/+3taking retaliatory action against a country that did nothing to the US in +20 years......
          • StarlessKnight, on 10/22/2007, -1/+4You're thinking Afghanistan, the forgotten war. The War in Iraq had nothing to do with it. Hijackers? Nope. Method of attack (airplane)? Nope. Weapon used aboard airplane (sharp blades and the planes themselves; AKA no WMDs)? Nope. Backing by the Iraqi government under Saddam (ties to Al Qaeda)? Nope. Threat to national security by possessing WMDs that have nothing to do with 9/11 and is solely concerned with the so-called 'War on Terror' (see: possesses WMDs)? Nope.
          • masterm1nd, on 10/21/2007, -1/+1Forget the quote already? The initial war crime (911) is responsible for all war crimes that result (Iraq).
        • Beveridge89, on 10/21/2007, -2/+4But Iraq didnt attack us on 9/11.
          Doesn't matter really, because agression shouldnt be a war crime and isnt neccessarily a bad thing. Nuremburg was just an excuse to punish the Nazis.
          • LeeSoong, on 10/23/2007, -3/+3Genocide.
            Stay and get killed, or run
            for you life.
            American Racism and Christian Bigotry in action.

            MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
          • masterm1nd, on 10/21/2007, -1/+1Did Afghanistan attack us on 911? Does al qaeda have their own country we could have hunted them down in? Doesn't matter really because according to the quote we're talking about, the initial crime of 911 is responsible for the "crime" of Iraq war.
          • Beveridge89, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Ok, I see what you are saying now. Apologies for misunderstanding, and good point.
        • caferrell, on 10/21/2007, -1/+7mastermind, 911 can't justify Iraq, since Iraq had nothing to do with 911, sorry....
          • masterm1nd, on 10/21/2007, -3/+1What don't you get? We were initially attacked on 911. According to notque, that initial war crime of aggression bears responsibility for "all crimes that occur because of the initial war crime of aggression". It's not really that difficult to understand.
    • Tiak, on 10/21/2007, -7/+2The problem is, that thought is making it closer and closer to being true that "a bunch of dudes in caves" are the people of the country Most of those that can afford to are leaving (and wouldn't you?), and those that want to cause trouble are entering the country
      • tracker1, on 10/21/2007, -0/+8Fair enough... there have been a lot of people entering Iraq for a chance to kill some americans... I honestly don't have issue with people wanting to leave the area, I would if I were there. However, I hold far more than the White House administration responsible... how many people out there re-elected their congress-critters that voted for the Iraq invasion in the first place? Mrs. Clinton is still in office, among many others...
      • Beveridge89, on 10/21/2007, -6/+1I blame the insurgents really. There the ones causing the violence.
        • LeeSoong, on 10/21/2007, -1/+2Ben Dover and take it in stride?

          The USA's new "Wide Stance" approach to foreign policy.
        • caferrell, on 10/22/2007, -0/+4Beveridge, what we you do if a conquering army rolled into New York and Washington? I'd be joining the insurgents along with George Washington and Ethan Allen and Lighthorse Harry Lee and ....
        • spawnfree, on 10/21/2007, -0/+3Blaming is great. Nothing is ever my fault anymore.

          signed: A. Sociopath
        • notque, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2Human beings have a right to resist when they are being invaded. Any country being invaded has a right to resist. Any country being occupied has a right to resist.
        • Beveridge89, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1What is resisitance? Is resistance walking into a crowded market and blowing your self up? Is resistance murdering as many innocents as possible? Maybe you should consider what the insurgency is resisting; that is, liberty and democracy for their fellow Iraqis. What gives any people the right to resist others liberty?
    • MiddleOfNowhere, on 10/24/2007, -3/+8FTA: "The overwhelming majority of Iraqis who have left their country since the invasion have sought refuge in neighbouring Arab states, namely Syria, Jordan ..."
      OK, let’s pull up a map. So we now have almost two million Iraqi refugees in two countries that have borders (and a very complicated and violent history) with Israel, adding to the economic and social pressure in the region.
      Surely none of the young men who were able to flee from the hell that Iraq has become will take is revenge on America’s closest ally in the Middle East by becoming a suicide bomber. After all, that would only prolong the senseless killing and the cycle of hate - and who would want *that*?
      One can only marvel at the brilliance and foresight of the current US administration.
      Later, the article describes the desolate situation of the Iraqi children in Syria, most of whom are not enrolled in school and - not learning and not allowed to work - are facing a bleak future. Great material for a new world order.
      If this doesn’t make you angry, probably nothing will.
    • fixedcoma, on 10/21/2007, -1/+2now all those iraqi's are going to teach people in other countries their pain and suffering due to us and the will build an even stronger force to battle us! Don't these dinks think in washington or are they just drones to a bigger problem?
  • SuperMoses, on 10/24/2007, -8/+56The pro-war crowd loves to use the argument "It's better to fight the terrorists there than here in the US". I hope they're happy. They took the nation of a people and turned it into their own personal battlefield, forcing the innocent to flee their own home.
    • Tiak, on 10/21/2007, -15/+2Well, it is a brilliant plan, moving all of the terrorists to an unfamiliar country, then killing off everybody in that country.
      • spawnfree, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3At least we got the uncontrolled oil source under OPEC's control.
        See, there's always a silver lining.
        Now we just have to get Chavez under control, the dirty wealth redistributing man.
    • masterm1nd, on 10/22/2007, -21/+3Do you realize masses of people were being slaughtered long before we got there? The moral absolutist crowd loves to use the argument that everything would be just wonderful had we just ignored the circumstances that showed up at our front door. At the rate Saddam slaughtered people, we've saved roughly as many lives that were lost if not more; most of the lost being terrorists, resulting in even more saved lives. At least they now have a chance at being free and free of genocide, which would not be possible under Saddam's cycle of genocide, which by the way basically goes back more than 5000 years to the beginning of civilization. I'm glad someone is at least trying to do something about it...
      • goffy59, on 10/21/2007, -2/+6Now your talking about things that are not our business. How come we don't invade China? They seem to be ***** their people over too. What about the slaughterings of the villages in Africa? Your logic is still ***** stupid. If we never showed up and if we left; their would be no more problems (at least as much as we have now). As much as our stupid military likes to underestimate these "terrorists"(for your information, in the revolutionary war; the US were terrorists), I still do not think they could come to our soil and really hit us hard. The WTC "attack" really wasn't that impressive. If all it takes is going to school to fly a plane and whatever the ***** they used on the plane(still have some issues with the report they gave of the entire investigation), then I could of easily done that. Any man or women could pull this off. Its not anything to be scarred of. Because it can happen. It just happen to be these "terrorists". The ones we gave money to, and the war we never finished in Desert Storm. If we didn't have Saddam we would need a new enemy to point our fingers at. Thats where all this BS from then news comes from. They have to keep us at our toes so when they want to do something; they get our support. Even if they cause it all, they can fix it and say "oh look we stopped the terrorists". Like the ones that were planning to attack a military base in the US. For what ***** reason? And what would that even do. We have many military bases. And with all the rights they have taken away and the security they added. Some terrorists managed to get on our soil? I call *****; at its finest. If you have a problem with my words, then your not American. Wait thats the type of BS Bush always goes on about in his idiotic speeches.(then again it keeps all the morons in the US happy and calm that Bush is "putting his foot down". "Your either with us or against us." -Bush
        Kind of reminds me of Hitler, no I'm not being cliche. I'm just calling it like I see it. If you don't agree with the constitution your not American.(Doesn't Bush defile it all the time?)
        Bahahahahaah, keep watching the news, I'll keep laughing at you tools.(not everyone, but all the morons trying to defend this sad excuse for a war)
      • Beveridge89, on 10/21/2007, -1/+2We dont invade China because it has strong military.
        We should send peacekeeping forces to Darfur.
        Things would get worse in Iraq if you guys just got up and left. See in the South the UK is doing well, and can discuss handing power back to the government. The US administered regions arent so good, so leaving now would be a catastrophe. It needs to be stabilised first before you can leave.

        Then you seem to go a bit mad. You complain we didnt finish off Saddam in Desert Storm (btw it was neo-cons who said we should have) but also complain that we're are doing it now. Then you say not finishing off Saddam was letting the terrorists get away. What?

        If you don't think that the idea that terrorists can murder 3000 people in one day is scary, your a braver man than 90% of the Western World. Its the fact that what they did wasn't so hard that makes it scary, that makes the media be sensationlist. because people are scared, and maybe that fear is irrational but it doesnt mean im going to condemn them for feeling it.
      • Tiak, on 10/21/2007, -2/+3Please supply me with any data on any genocide Saddam was enacting since the mid-90s.... He hadn't killed anyone lately, so half of what you're saying is invalid.
        • MewTwo, on 10/21/2007, -0/+2oh, he hasn't performed a genocide LATELY. Oh, okay then. He's fine.
        • Beveridge89, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Since the mid-90s? So how long do you think it would be until he had another. I'd bet it would be as soon as the Iraqis fought back again.
    • MattnJax, on 10/21/2007, -3/+8I couldn't agree with you more. I know it'll never happen but wouldn't it be great if we could ship all the pro-iraq war people over there to live in this hellhole? That way the idiots might be able to see through their thick skulls what a f-ed country it is now. Now I know it wasn't paradise when Saddam ran the country but it was better then than it is now, only an idiot would disagree with me on that. Those people need a strong dictator to rule over their screwed up divided nation.
      • Beveridge89, on 10/21/2007, -5/+1No it wasnt better under Saddam. You really need to read up on Saddams rule.
        • annonimality, on 10/21/2007, -1/+4Saddam had a secular government, unlike the conservative Islamic rule of the Shia currently in power. So which would you choose? Secular or sharia law?
          • pintomp3, on 10/21/2007, -1/+4religious or not, the US always supports a dictator over a democracy. we supported saddam for a long time, we replaced iran's secular democratically elected leader with the shah. we support general musharraf in pakistan. it's easier to for us to negotiate/dictate favorable terms to a few corrupt people and line their pockets than to have favorable terms with an entire populace. that's why we can't stand people like hugo chavez who take the power away from the elite few that we had favorable terms with. we have funded many guerrilla armies and coups in order to topple popular governments that weren't in our business interests.
          • Beveridge89, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Why does secular mean good? The Soviet Union was secular, doesnt mean it didnt abuse civil rights.
      • SuperMoses, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1They don't need a strong dictator, they need imperialist powers to leave them the ***** alone so they can solve their own problems.
    • Hale, on 10/30/2007, -12/+6That's 4.2 million people that wouldn't have been able to flee their country under the previous ruler.
      • tracker1, on 10/21/2007, -9/+3Wish I could click you thumbs up more than once... I don't agree with the Iraq invasion as it was sold, and there are/were far bigger threats in the region, Syria, and Lebanon topping my list... however, what you are pointing out is very true.
        • nick111, on 10/21/2007, -0/+7I don't think it is true to be honest.

          And what it is, is an utterly ***** unbelievable... and I mean utterly ***** unbelievable.... attempt to spin 4.2 million refugess as somehow being better off than before
        • Beveridge89, on 10/21/2007, -3/+1There were a lot of iraqi refugees under Saddam as well, they were just called exiles.
      • ZenMojo, on 10/21/2007, -2/+8Saddam Hussein was guilty of a lot of things. Barring emigration was most definitely not listed as one of them.
        • Beveridge89, on 10/21/2007, -0/+2Thats true. In fact, so little people wanted to emigrate, he had to force march tens of thousands of Kurds out of Iraq. Maybe he was running out of gas or something.
    • pineutrino, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2"We'll fight them there so we don't have to fight them here." - You know, I've always wondered about that argument. Surely its proponents aren't suggesting that terrorists don't actually know how to get to America, so it looks like they're saying that this is the best way to secure the country. We send hundreds of thousands of troops out of the country, and this makes the USA safer? So the fewer troops we have guarding our borders, the safer the country is. Hm. Okay then, let's completely disband the military, and also the CIA and NSA for good measure! That'll show those bastards we mean business!

      Because if we don't, the terrorists will win.

      This article sums things up nicely: http://old.exile.ru/2007-May-18/editorial.html
      • SuperMoses, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1I was more concerned about the inconsiderate mentality of making another country a battlefield for a war they had nothing to do with. But your bring up a good point as well.
  • MattnJax, on 10/24/2007, -5/+23Just another depressing statistic from a f-ed up country. We do this to every third world country where we want something (In this case oil).
    • AgentKPB, on 10/28/2007, -23/+1"Boo hoo! Stop blowing us up! We lack the motor skills to run away from bombs! Wah wah wah!"
      • Matthew720, on 10/21/2007, -3/+11Try saying such an assholish thing when your house is leveled and your parents or your kids are gone with it.
    • annonimality, on 10/21/2007, -2/+6Right, because when a bomb is falling on your house all you need are motor skills to survive.
    • pintomp3, on 10/21/2007, -1/+2it's not so much about oil or even defense contracts. we are misled into thinking the oil lobby dictates our middle east policy. they opposed embargoes against iran, just look at the deal conono wanted to make with iran but couldn't. the neo-cons have a dream about realigning the power in middle east and molding it in their vision of american hegemony by force. the israel lobby has a similar vision, having the US take out all rival powers in the region, including iraq, iran, and syria. PNAC, AIPAC, and similar groups are the primary actors in molding our middle east policy.
      • solid12345, on 10/21/2007, -1/+0The plan by PNAC is to pacify the middle east. They want Israel to be safe and they want a generation of Arab children growing up not being taught that the Jews are the devil and that they should train for jihad at an early age.

        • pintomp3, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1right, and what better way to bring about peace and reduce terrorism than to bomb the homes of those children. that's what US soldiers sign up for, to fight for israel, right?
  • asauterChicago, on 10/21/2007, -8/+11Why? I mean look at what's it got going for it: Plenty, plenty of year round sun, tons of police protection, cheap gas and a really "explosive" urban street scene...
    ok feel free to dig me down for that
    • MattnJax, on 10/21/2007, -3/+6I know dude. I mean what guy wouldn't want to carry a machine gun with him at all times?
      -Sarcasm
    • Matthew720, on 10/21/2007, -2/+11Dugg down for making light of other people's misery. Bitch and moan about people making fun of 9/11, but when it's not you who's suffering, it's ok. Sometimes I'm ashamed of fellow Americans.
  • BenitoMussolini, on 10/21/2007, -4/+14Title is a bit misleading. 2 million have sought refuge in another country, the rest lost their homes (still a depressing statistic).
    But interestingly enough, the population still managed to increase from 24,000,000 in 2002 to 27,500,000 in 2007 according to the CIA's online factbook. Not sure how these numbers were produced or what factors they did and didn't take into account.
    • Tiak, on 10/21/2007, -3/+12It seems that is more a matter of the sources of data than anything. Saddam wasn't big on cooperating and sharing information, so we had to make our own estimates based upon what we knew.
    • bilbus, on 10/21/2007, -2/+3Perhaps the influx of US Troops added to the population count
      • PaulPinfield, on 10/21/2007, -2/+1... perhaps it's the insurgents?
    • famarin, on 10/21/2007, -1/+4Yea, wonderful environment to carry out population statistics!!!!
  • chupavacas, on 10/22/2007, -8/+22Those iraqis should feel blessed that we "liberated" them from their homelands and houses.
    • MattnJax, on 10/22/2007, -3/+13Yeah, they need to bow down and thank us. I mean all we want to do is to steal their oil and put a starbucks and McDonalds on every corner. What's so wrong with that? Shesh. We get no respect in the world.
  • Dysarthria, on 10/22/2007, -2/+30Look at the bright side, just 20 million more and well finally have that country under control!
    • MattnJax, on 10/21/2007, -2/+4Yep, then all we have to do is brainwash the rest to believe that we are the great savoriors of their nation.
  • apalys, on 10/21/2007, -11/+3...and?
    • masterm1nd, on 10/21/2007, -2/+1"Ron Paul"
    • Bodhinature, on 10/21/2007, -1/+2Yeah. Who cares what happens to them forners! They shoulda been born in 'Merica! If they believed in God they would have!
  • ZenFountain, on 10/21/2007, -1/+13I'm almost nostalgic for the good old days when Rice and Rummy were on top of their game and could spin news like this into a terrific development, exemplary of our dear leaders cunning abilities as a war President.

    "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

    "The world is witnessing the birth pangs of a new Middle East"

    You know, those days, before the Bushies gave up trying to polish this flaming turd.
  • mal1964, on 10/21/2007, -14/+2Many other countries have went though similar circumstances it takes time but it is and will be better than before. .at least now they have the right to come and go as they please
    • MattnJax, on 10/21/2007, -2/+11Are you retarded or something?
      "to come and go as they please" only an idiot would make that statement. These people can't leave their friggen house each day without thinking this might be their last. But yeah it's sooo safe, that is, as long as you don't run into some ***** or sunnis or whichever is your opposite. I mean, yeah it's safe, if you have blackwater escorting you through the streets. We need to send you over there to see how safe it is in person. Your white ass wouldn't make it one day over there without an escort. But yeah, it's so safe.
      • mal1964, on 10/21/2007, -4/+2"The Country" Does name calling make you feel better ?
        • MattnJax, on 10/21/2007, -1/+5Yeah, actually it does, especially when idiots like you make unintelligent comments that show how naive you are. Like I said, take your white ass over there and see for yourself how safe it is 'to come and go as you please.'
        • mal1964, on 10/21/2007, -3/+1I'll go if you go.
        • mal1964, on 10/21/2007, -2/+24.2 million made it so far, but my point was you can come and go as you please nowhere did I say it was safe. and there are some safer areas than others, people are trying to lead as normal of a life as possible. you are a good name caller but check your facts people are not all locked in the house and not going out..
    • Matthew720, on 10/21/2007, -2/+7""to come and go as they please" only an idiot would make that statement"

      Not just an idiot, but someone who's had his head in a bucket of sand since 2003.
    • Bodhinature, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1You should probably relocate to Iraq right now to beat the land rush.
  • xsquirrel378x, on 10/22/2007, -2/+18man that country is such a ***** mess because of us.
    • Beveridge89, on 10/21/2007, -7/+1Because of the militias and insurgents. if they weren't there, things would be fine.
      • Tiak, on 10/21/2007, -0/+7But of course, they weren't there before we invaded...
      • PaulPinfield, on 10/21/2007, -0/+4MMM... lie about WMD, invade a Muslim country, kill, wound and displace hundreds of men women and children, replace a corrupt regime with a err... corrupt regime. Why the ***** would Muslim militias and insurgents enter the country to fight you?

        Yeah, if only "the militias and insurgents. if they weren't there, things would be fine".

        What is going on in your head Beveridge?
        • spawnfree, on 10/21/2007, -0/+2counter intelligence training is my guess.
      • Beveridge89, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Well, its true isnt it? Your so keen to see hidden meaning in a simple truth that one would think you just have way too little to do.
  • leonidas333, on 10/21/2007, -0/+13Yeah and how many refugees does the US take? Last I heard it is under 400 a year. If that is correct that is ***** pathetic
    • swrostmore, on 10/21/2007, -2/+8Last I heard when I read the description of this article on digg.com it was 753 since April 2003.
      • leonidas333, on 10/21/2007, -1/+8Get the ***** out of here. Man that is worse then pathertic! That is criminal. The US illegal bombs the ***** out of this nation and they dont take in the resulting refugees. That is shocking
      • Tiak, on 10/21/2007, -1/+2That number refers to those we "resettle" i.e. find homes for in other countries that probably aren't America. He was talking about the number allowed into the US.
    • Matthew720, on 10/21/2007, -3/+7The last thing Bush and his cronies want to do is take responsibility for their own ***** ups AND as the racists they are take in all those "brown" refugees. If they were German or Dutch they'd be allowed into the country in a heartbeat.

      Heck, Barbara Bush is probably watching TV right now and exclaiming how many in Iraq have it much better now than they did before the invasion.

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7378362677 ...
    • FluffyWolf, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1A very small percentage of the refugees currently flee to the west, but of those close to 50% seek asylum in Sweden. However the amount of refugees that flees from Iraq to the west is still smaller than it was in the 90's.
      List of refugees in 2006 per western country: http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/publ/graphi ...
      More info here: http://www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/461e4a6c2.html
  • googeling, on 10/21/2007, -1/+4thank you America!
  • skyfire1, on 10/21/2007, -7/+342.
  • TexMurphy, on 10/21/2007, -0/+12Iraq is nothing but a nightmare with no end in sight. Its the republicans who have mismanaged this war.
    I hope its a hundred years before the republicans are in power again. We ***** up Iraq beyond all recognition.
    The worst part is that we only let a few hundred Iraqies into America a year. That is the most damming part of all the nightmare.
    • Matthew720, on 10/21/2007, -3/+7Please call it what it is, an "occupation", not a war.
      • PaulPinfield, on 10/21/2007, -2/+3Smell the cordite? Then it is a war.
  • whorelock, on 10/21/2007, -1/+5Its good to see that our tax dollars are being put to good use!
  • OverDosis, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1I just got a lovely 3/2 in a flowery culdesac in East Baghdad for a great price! Freedom at work, I say...
    • MattnJax, on 10/21/2007, -1/+1Ahhh yes, and with only a few bullet holes and bombed out rooms. You made out like a bandit.
      Now as soon as KB Home is allowed into iraq, sometime in the next ohhh...never, I'll be building me a vacation home. American commerce at work baby!
  • evo8ftw, on 10/21/2007, -12/+0Quit posting information from uncredible source you sheep. 70000x 4 = 280,000 not 4.2 million but whatever math isn't the strong point of kindergärtners
  • rz8472, on 10/21/2007, -0/+12Great. I bet at least some of those 4.2 million Iraqis will give into despair and turn to terrorism. So much for "fighting over there to keep us safe here".

    If there was ONE good thing that came out of Vietnam, it was that we took in as many Vietnamese as possible when Saigon fell. Looks like we're giving the middle finger to all those translators who are literally risking their lives to help the US Army.

    Regardless of what you think of Syria on other issues, they deserve recognition for taking in all those Iraqi refugees.
    • evo8ftw, on 10/21/2007, -1/+0could you be more narrow minded? Stop buying to the lies you are being feed anyone would have a brain would see this article doesn't add up
  • danconia, on 10/22/2007, -1/+15"We'll be greeted as liberators!!"
  • there, on 10/22/2007, -1/+23 Reminds me of 1930s when no one wanted to accept Jews fleeing persecution and slaughter in Germany. Only problem is this time I'm ashaming to say its us we causing most of the crap Now that the Republicans have turned Iraq into essentially Darfur..... they want to bomb Iran to create an even bigger mess. Iran nor Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 or WMDs.....yet the racist xenophobic Republicans continue to attack them on behalf of Israel that's trying to keep Palestinians from having a state and nutty end-of-days fundamentalist evangelicals...alleged christians who advocate wars. (I wonder what Jesus would think of that?)

    I hate to say it but seems most of our government politicians have lost their minds in megalomania. Even some of the Democrats sit idly by while these amoral killers justify torture of untried prisoners of war, take away our rights, and use the government treasury as a corporate crony piggybank.

    I never thought I'd say this but I'm seriously starting to think some of these politicians need to start being put in jail.
  • bremstrong, on 10/22/2007, -1/+20One can only imagine the protests on the U.S. college campuses if Russia had invaded Iraq and caused 4.2M people to leave their homes.
    • there, on 10/21/2007, -1/+4
      Most of them are too busy watching TV or out partying. Obviously that's far more important than several hundred thousand deaths triggered by the actions of their own government. Anything to dull the senses of a generation of spoiled children that care nothing for human life but would riot for a wii or Iphone. They're even more pathetic than the native Indians that gave up Manhattan for some beads and trinkets.
      • tehpwnrate, on 10/21/2007, -4/+1I hope you're out protesting all the time, and make sure to send plenty of letters to your representatives about the issue. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.
        • there, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1 Since you ask....I typically spend several hours a week on the matter. In fact I have literally spent thousands of hours over the last few years on this issue..... so no I am not a hypocrite. (and I have done this even though I happen to be an atheist)

          I couldn't understand how the Nazis got away with the evil ***** they did but now I completely understand. Everyone is too busy... It's every one else's problem...they look kinda of funny so they deserve it.

          First they came for the Jews
          and I did not speak out
          because I was not a Jew.
          Then they came for the Communists
          and I did not speak out
          because I was not a Communist.
          Then they came for the trade unionists
          and I did not speak out
          because I was not a trade unionist.
          Then they came for me
          and there was no one left
          to speak out for me.
    • Matthew720, on 10/21/2007, -2/+5It's an interesting point, but I don't know if it will go as you think it would. How many people are protesting about Darfur? It's a genocide in progress and most in the U.S. don't even know what or were Darfur is.
  • thomasprebble, on 10/22/2007, -1/+18So is this how Bush defines liberation?
    • pintomp3, on 10/21/2007, -0/+2liberation from your home and all worldly possessions. we are just helping the iraqis reach the next level of spiritual enlightenment.
  • laughmore, on 10/21/2007, -9/+2How could this have happened?
    If it's the only thing you do useful in your life, watch R. Gage, AIA, Architect - "How The Towers Fell" - Complete 2 Hour Presentation
    http://www.911blogger.com/node/10025
    The only video you need to watch on 911.
    Watch or not watch? Red or blue pill?
    Now you know.
    • the6thReplicant, on 10/21/2007, -2/+5Shouldn't you be at a Bill Maher taping?
    • MewTwo, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1"Red or blue pill?" Reference to a fictional movie to spread a fictional message.
  • fearlessfx, on 10/21/2007, -7/+1lol if any of them booked it to Iran, they are gonna get quite the surprise when the US shows up there in full force ready to make war on Osama bin Ahmenjad.
    • annonimality, on 10/21/2007, -0/+3You're "lol" at the prospect of innocent people being killed?
  • tonto69, on 10/22/2007, -4/+13And most of the ones who have fled are Christians. The biggest losers in the Iraq War have been Christians. Saddam allowed Christians to practice freely. In fact, his U.S. diplomat, Tariq Aziz was Christian. Now, Christians are being slaughtered and the remaining ones are fleeing.

    This was not a war against WMD's or Al Queda! It is a war for Israel!

    NO MORE WARS FOR ISRAEL! CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN TODAY!
    • Beveridge89, on 10/22/2007, -4/+1Yeah, Israel just hates dem christians. Jesus, if it was a war for Israel we would have invaded Syria or Iran, not Iraq.
  • DigitAl56K, on 10/21/2007, -1/+14Don't worry, guys. Obviously the US Government has a plan for these people. I mean, if they just bombed, invaded, and destabilized another country and then left 4.2 *million* people with nowhere to go, that would be really outrageous. I mean, you would have to be really, really ***** up to do something like that without a good solid plan behind you! Boy, I can't wait to here about it!

    Before I go, I'd also just like to congratulate the US for resettling 753 of those 4,200,000 people, and pledging to resettle 25,000 more. That only leaves 4,174,247 to go. I'm already counting down to the second iteration of Mission Accomplished!

    Remember folks: It's a post-911 world. Fight the terrorists, support our troops, and think of the children.
  • meachen, on 10/21/2007, -12/+44.2 million less suicide bombers to worry about
    • MattnJax, on 10/21/2007, -1/+5Yeah you idiot, cause people that we've displaced and made homeless wouldn't hate us now would they? no, no of course not. I'm sure they have nothing but love for us, and their children will grow up loving the country that made their lives sh*t. Definitely no future suicide bombers there.
    • FluffyWolf, on 10/21/2007, -1/+6They are not dead... Just without any property, job, and have fled their homes and now lives in misery.
      So, it is more like: Yay, 4.2 million new potential suicide bombers!
  • thailand1972, on 10/22/2007, -2/+3A lot are coming to the UK via lax border control around EU countries. If you get into the UK without papers, guess what happens? The police will tell you to make your OWN way to the asylum seeker centre in London. They won't arrest you. They'll point they're finger in whatever direction London is in. This is why the UK has a lot of asylum seekers, because there's no trouble if you're caught and news spreads fast.
  • birkoph, on 10/22/2007, -1/+4That would explain the over abundance of Shawarma shops.
    • kenadamsmith, on 10/21/2007, -0/+3love shawarma..
      • birkoph, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1yeah because rotating meat left out in the open makes my mouth water.
  • wachter1, on 10/21/2007, -6/+0The plight of ordinary Iraqis is depressing. And yes, incompetence and misguided policies from the Bush Administration are a big part of the problem. But too many comments on this thread put too much of the blame on the U.S. Iraqis need to learn to coexist without slaughtering one another. If they could figure that much out, there would not be so many refugees seeking asylum in Syria and Jordan. Why cant you anti-American, way over the top Bush bashers figures that much out? Arab nations who claim to subscibe to a religion of peace and mutual support can do more to help those in need. Having been to Syria I know the generoristy of the Syrian people. The people are not to blame -- Assad is. He is milking this for all it is worth to him. Why can't you blinded-by-hate-for-Bush dumbasses figure that much out, and spread out some of your criticism?
    • Putts335, on 10/21/2007, -0/+0Ok, next time I'm over at your house I'm gonna knock ***** over and generally make a mess of the place. When I turn around and tell you to step up and take responsibility for your *****, what are you gonna say?
  • goffy59, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3So much for the incoming Iraqi government.
  • drapelyk, on 10/22/2007, -3/+8Support Ron Paul.
    • nick111, on 10/22/2007, -2/+2Why? So he can deregulate the media, allowing Rupert Murdoch to buy the whole lot... and we'll never have to hear bad news ever again?
      • thecoolestguy, on 10/22/2007, -1/+5If Ron Paul is elected, the world will shift in a positive direction. Tensions will ease in the middle east, and the entire charade of the pro-war crowd will collapse.

        Re: the media. You do not need government regulations restricting who can buy what, what you need is active determined citizens who educate each other about what media sources are credible and which ones are not. Consumers can bankrupt Fox News by simply not watching it. No one forces the TV viewer to watch Fox. Stop presuming citizens are children that need to be protected by government regulations. Take responsibility.
        • carpespasm, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1it's too bad that it's been assumed that citizens are children that need to be protected by regulation to the point that citizens are children who need protection because they were never shown to think for themselves.
          Remember, American Idol is popular.
      • danconia, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2Rupert Murdoch's enterprise has grown during the period of regulation by the FCC. If you think that the FCC has kept things "fair" then you haven't looked deep enough into things. Sure there's Fox News vs ABC/NBC and so on BUT the truth is that both sides are pushing two types of the same agenda-- a pro big-government agenda. Fox supporters the Republicans who want a bigger military and the other networks are pushing a Democrat agenda that supporters regulating all sorts of commerce.
        Ironic how you are scared of Murdoch getting a monopoly when he's already part of a huge oligopoly. Please tell me you don't support "internet neutrality"... if the government gets to regulate the internet then it will be the end of just about all political dissent as we know it.
  • ZenMojo, on 10/22/2007, -0/+4Capitalism at work. Just sell them new houses to replace the old ones. Then sell them guns to protect those houses.
  • ZenMojo, on 10/22/2007, -1/+11New rules. You break it, you bought it:
    If the United States insists on tearing down the infrastructure of third-world countries, they should be responsible for the clean up. And no, I don't mean permanent occupation to control oil routes, I mean it should be the United States' job to fix the country from the ground up, plumbing to parliament. And if the Iraqis still aren't happy with the hellhole we've left them, they get an "immigrate free card" upon request. Written on the back and signed personally by George W. Bush are the words, "Whoops, sorry about that. Help yourself to some low-income housing and a McDonald's dollar menu!"
    • scottknick, on 10/21/2007, -0/+4I agree that the U.S. bears a daunting moral responsibility to Iraq, but I'm afraid fixing the country is now going to involve working through third parties like the UN. After all, when a bull destroys a china shop you don't send the bull back in to clean up.
  • biocandy, on 10/22/2007, -0/+15Why the hell did you guys vote for Bush in the first place?
    • goffy59, on 10/21/2007, -0/+4They are ALL just misinformed, fooled, or tricked.
  • friedman420, on 10/22/2007, -0/+8ahh so thats how were gonna win the war in iraq, we'll make life so bad there that everyone either dies or leaves, then violence will drop significantly.
  • hamidious, on 10/21/2007, -1/+3I think this is a form of cannibalism, the bigger country is feeding on the smaller one. You Americans who have remorse about this should just shut up and enjoy the luxury your policies are providing you, after all you guys elected your president.
  • smek2, on 10/21/2007, -0/+7No wonder. Before the US invaded, they got schools, health care system and culture. Look what they got now. And the future doesn't quite look so good either with a US puppet government and McDonalds already waiting.
  • peterp772000, on 10/21/2007, -5/+0Is the the same AI which described Guantanamo as a gulug? AI is an international joke and I wouldn't believe a single word they say. ***** them. Get a grip you lefties. Don't believe everything you read, even if it is politically convenient for you to do so.
    • smek2, on 10/21/2007, -0/+3You say it, as if Guantanamo somehow didn't turn out to be a gulag.
  • livingwater, on 10/21/2007, -4/+1I just need one digger to confirm that they are 100% certain that there is no possible way a terrorist could be mixed in with any of these refugees coming into America that are not being screened and I will be absolutely confident and feel safer!
    Thanks Bush for throwing the Mexican/American border's door off its hinges allowing them to cross over in trucks with no screening, and now letting all these "refugees" into America without any screening or tracking. Makes perfect sense (as long as it has a chance at destroying America, right?) ***** whackos.
    • sonambulist, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2You seem to be one of these people who thinks America can do whatever the ***** it likes without any consequences. It's fine, because it's going on over there where you can comfortably ignore it. Well I've got news for you-- 4.2 million refugees is a big consequence, and it's sad that nothing short of a suicide bomber on your own doorstep would ever bring that home to you.
      • livingwater, on 10/22/2007, -0/+0So me complaining that Bush and his liberal policy on opening the borders to millions of unscreened people from other countries combined means I am pro Iraq war? How do you figure? That's right, you didn't figure: You jumped to your brainwashed conclusion that if anyone says something with one bit of conservatism, then they are immediately deemed war mongering republicans. Scary times, scary times...
    • sonambulist, on 10/22/2007, -0/+0You didn't come off as pro-war, just apathetic and self-centered. When your government creates a humanitarian crisis, your first thought is your own safety, and whether the .00004% of the refugees your government has agreed to help are going to cause trouble. At least many in the pro-war camp believe on some level that it's all for the good of the Iraqi people.

      If your understanding of international politics is limited to 'people want to blow us up', and your solution to the problems with America's foreign and economic policies is 'tighten the borders', then maybe you're the one who needs rethink things, because this is precisely the kind of isolationist, xenophobic shortsightedness that makes people hate America, and ultimately prevents it from addressing its problems honestly.
  • flair1, on 10/22/2007, -3/+2Let's be honest. Most Shias and Kurds prefer Saddam being out of power. Most Sunnis wish that Saddam was still around.
    • solid12345, on 10/21/2007, -0/+0I don't know why you are being dug down. The Kurds love us.
  • synthpop, on 10/22/2007, -0/+4"refugees" is such a negative word. let's call it "given the freedom to explore new opportunities".
  • theelectricafro, on 10/22/2007, -0/+12One word: Blowback. How many children do you think you can kill before a family member will swear their life to your destruction. You people are living in a fantasy world. 1,000,000 million Iraqi's dead. How many terrorists are you making? All of them.
  • SeethisPass, on 10/22/2007, -2/+1When bush mis-lead us into Iraq the estimated population of Iraq was reported to be 5 million.
  • barkingmoonbat, on 10/22/2007, -2/+0It would have been nice if those people had stayed in their country to battle the Islamic terrorists who forced them to leave. Oh well, not everyone can be brave.
    • statrick, on 10/21/2007, -0/+3yeah they could run around barefoot like John Macclain taking out bad guy terrorist with there bare hands.

      please tell me you are not being serious?

      im pretty sure these people have families just like us. the first thing i would do if their was a war going on im my backyard (where either side could care less whether i live or die) would be to relocate my family to a safe place specially my children. the though of my family being harmed by violence scares me more than anything.
  • n8f8, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1Bathists perhaps?
  • Kakcoo, on 10/21/2007, -0/+2Thank you USA. We'll take care of them.
  • solid12345, on 10/22/2007, -3/+1Saddam Hussein exiled about a million Kurds, Turkmen and Marsh Arabs from their homes, but oh wait, that was still not good enough for him to be deposed in the eyes of the left.
  • seraph582, on 10/22/2007, -4/+3buried as lame - highly biased article for not talking about exiles and refugees before the war. ***** off.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.