3000 Iraqi Civilians Killed In 2 Months!

On the news last night, a pale-looking John Simpson announced the disclosure of details that had clearly shocked him. On Sunday the program Panorama will reveal that between July and September, U.S. forces in Iraq bore the main responsibility for the deaths of 3000 Iraqi civilians. Of the 3000, only a very small proportion were killed by insurgents. The Bush Administration had previously claimed most civilian deaths had been caused by terrorists.
Here, it's important to understand we're not talking about enemy combatants, Iraqi resistance or suicide bombers but civilian men, women and children who have been affected by the occupation.
So, first the Bush Administration and Blair tell us that military intervention is necessary in Iraq as the regime harboured weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat that had to be confronted. According to Blair, Saddam Hussein had the capacity to hit the U.K. within 45 minutes.
These claims turned out to be false, so the motive for invasion changed to the subject of human rights.
We were shown footage of murdered Iraqi Kurds on TV and informed with great detail how the Saddam regime brutalised and murdered its own people. The U.S. had decided to intervene in Iraq to remove an evil dictator and promote human rights.
All well and good. However, it wasn't long before photos were revealed that showed Iraqi prisoners being hooded, humiliated and intimidated by coalition troops. Even so, we we're assured by Bush that this really wasn't the American way at all and just a small group of untrained rookies had seemingly gotten carried away. Despite this, these very rookies assured the media the orders to abuse Iraqi prisoners had come from the highest level.
So, now we have a figure of 3000 Iraqi civilians killed between July and September but has any footage of the dead bodies been beamed across the U.S. in the same way the Kurds were when Hussein's Guard repressed them?
Don't hold your breath.
The question we need to ask is based on the following realities:
(1) The first justification for invasion (WMD) aren't to be found in Iraq. So, why are U.S. troops still there?
(2) The second justification for invasion, promotion of human rights is basically a farce. Occupation forces have evidently violated human rights in every way. So, why are U.S. troops still there?
(3) The third justification is the establishment of democracy and liberty. However, the present elections appear to be neither free nor fair. So, why are U.S. troops still there?

Well, unfortunately there is a rather good reason for US (and UK) troops to be there at the moment: it's fairly universally agreed upon that if a country or coalition of countries uses military force to overthrow the government of another country, it is their responsibility to oversee law and order and prevent the place descending into anarchy until a working, stable system has been established to relace the previous one. Only it seems it's, er, not quite like that in practice. What with the abuses and mass killings and other odds and ends.

John Simpson has apparently visited Iraq during the Saddam and post Saddam eras. His general view has always been that the Iraqis are better off without Saddam but, while making the Panorama documentary, he was shocked that 3000 civilians had been killed in such a short space of time. It's not clear whether most of these deaths were a consequence of the assault on Fallujah but here is the link for the Panorama program:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ma/4184323.stm
Here is an interesting question some of you might pause to consider:
It seems to me that the Bush Administration may follow 2 possible courses of action now these elections are being held:
(1)The first scenario is the Bush Administration may focus all their efforts on trying to turn Iraq into a successful democracy so that other Middle Eastern countries decide to introduce "democracy" themselves - the domino effect.
(2)The more worrying scenario is that Bush may decide to invade each Middle Eastern country in turn, force the current regime out of power and install alternative, so called "democratic" regimes that will allow American companies and investers to move in.
I hate to sound pessimistic but I suspect it's the second scenario that will be acted out.
If the second scenario becomes reality we'll soon be seeing spools of propaganda about WMD or human rights abuses in Iran over the coming weeks, followed by a military assault and occupation of the oil fields, as some sort of democratic regime is imposed on the country.
That would give Bush control over 2 Middle Eastern oil reserves and make the likelihood of action in Syria ever more likely.
However, this isn't only my view but a view I think Piers Morgan already outlined (as other Mirror reporters already did prior to Pier's resignation).
The question is, how will Europe and South East Asia act if it turns out Bush is attempting to turn the Middle East into a gigantic petrol colony and gain control of a huge percentage of the world's oil supplies? I mean, if this is what Bush and Rumsfeld have in mind, it's certainly a pretty sinister and worrying development that will undermine human rights while promoting corporate greed and political corruption.
It's also clear that if the bulk of Americans continue to support Bush in this approach, it's pretty certain human rights in America will also take a backward step and Americans may eventually lose their freedoms (as terrorism and anti-terrorism policy becomes more influential).
Will an invasion of Iran split the U.K. U.S. alliance and prompt the U.K. to allign itself with Europe? Will NATO split to be replaced by a new European global security alliance that's hostile to the U.S.?
The final point of consideration is whether the U.S. may exhaust its reserves if they attack Iran. On Dateline London they were discussing this very concern and one political analyst stated he thought resitance in Iran would be so much stronger than in Iraq that Bush would finally bankrupt his economy.

[sarcasm]At least they died free men, thanks to the liberators..[/sarcasm]