>> Jim heartfield wrote:
>> >Really? The figures that Michael Hoover published here not so long ago
>> >would seem to demonstrate otherwise. How about the 180 000 killed in
>> >Iraq, or the 1 000 000 that have died since as a consequence of the
>> >sanctions regime? How about the 300 killed so far in the bombing raids
>> >on Yugoslavia, or the tens of thousands of 'two bit pricks' (Clinton's
>> >words) that were killed by the US forces in Somalia?
>>
>> I'm afraid you make my point for me, in part. Under
>> whose auspices are these killings being done?
>
>under whose auspices?...Margaret (who doesn't sign her posts)
>is kidding, right?...above doesn't prove point at all and to
>suggest it does is sheer buffoonery...read the Parenti excerpts
>I posted (better yet, read his books) and you won't have to ask
>the question...sheesh, Michael Hoover
My point was that the US hardly ever sends actual troops in off its own bat to personally shoot dead actual people. The US MIC much prefers to cloak its killing in some international flag, or to kill indirectly. As for example the current killings: it's not the US doing it, it's NATO. The US is just a member and agent. Nor is the US responsible for the indirect deaths in Iraq -- the kids are just dying. Their deaths are spontaneous and causeless, like maggots in rotting meat.
And is your 'Margaret (who doesn't sign her posts)' meant to be some sort of accusation, Michael? It's too subtle, if so -- you'll have to crank it up a bit.