Total (rounded to nearest 1000):
Total (rounded to nearest 1000):
The human toll of America’s wars and interventionist policies in the Middle East is staggering. 801,000 people have died in that region since September 11th, 2001, according to Brown University’s Cost of War Project. The Host of MSNBC’s „All In“ Chris Hayes, Investigative Journalist and New York Times Magazine Contributor Azmat Khan, and author Zainab Salbi join Katy Tur to discuss.
Judiciary chief Ebrahim Raisi issued an order on Saturday, calling on the military court to gather all the related data and documents from Iran’s General Staff of the Armed Forces, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps and the country’s Civil Aviation Organization.
Raisi also called for testimonies from the officials who were implicated and informed on the matter.
Iran’s Prosecutor General Mohammad Jafar Montazeri ordered Tehran’s military court to conduct a swift investigation into the incident.
4- The General Staff of the Armed Forces offers condolences and expresses sympathy with the bereaved families of the Iranian and foreign victims, and apologizes for the human error. It also gives full assurances that it will make major revision in the operational procedures of its armed forces in order to make impossible the recurrence of such errors. It will also immediately hand over the culprits to the Judicial Organization of the Armed Forces for prosecution.
5- The relevant authorities at the IRGC were also instructed to appear on state TV and give detailed explanation of the incident as soon as possible.
The Ukrainian leader hopes the investigation will continue without any artificial delays and obstacles.
“Under such sensitive and critical conditions, the Ukrainian Airlines flight 752 took off from the Imam Khomeini airport and while rotating, it was placed completely in the position of approaching a sensitive military center in the altitude and trajectory of an enemy target.
„In these circumstances, the plane was unintentionally hit due to human error, which unfortunately resulted in the martyrdom of a number of our dear compatriots and the death of a number of foreign nationals,“ it said.
“Surgical” U.S. air strikes destabilize villages, drive displacement and fuel al-Shabab recruitment.
We are now in a position to seal a United States-Taliban agreement that would lead to intra-Afghan negotiations and move the conflict into the political realm. We should not miss this opportunity.
The war has exacted an overwhelming cost: 1,892 American military personnel killed in action and 20,589 wounded, about a trillion dollars spent, the psychological and emotional impact on veterans and their families, and similar material and human costs to our allies. And there is the devastating cost paid by the people of Afghanistan: Of the 147,000 killed in the war since 2001, more than 38,000 have been civilians. This long war must end.
PTSD symptoms are a psychological reaction to an experience of life-threatening physical danger or harm. Moral injury is the lasting mental and emotional result of an assault on the conscience — a memory, as one early formulation put it, of “perpetrating, failing to prevent, or bearing witness to acts that transgress deeply held moral beliefs and expectations.”
The idea remains controversial in the military world, but the wars that Americans have fought since 2001 — involving a very different experience of war fighting from that of past generations — have made it increasingly difficult for military culture to cling to its old manhood and warrior myths.
Embroiled in a dispute with former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) defended her foreign policy views in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece. She joins Ali Velshi to respond to her critics.
(18. August 2011)
“We have consistently said that President Assad must lead a democratic transition or get out of the way,” Mr. Obama said in a written statement released Thursday morning after coordination with allies in Europe. “He has not led. For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.”
Almost simultaneously, Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany issued a joint statement urging Mr. Assad “to face the reality of the complete rejection of his regime by the Syrian people and to step aside in the best interests of Syria and the unity of its people.” Canada made a similar appeal, as did the European Union.
Then-candidate Trump said often that the Iraq War was a mistake, and that we were in too many places for too long. Fast-forward to 2019, and the president is now moving forward to stop the “endless wars.” I stand with him.
The idea that our president would make this decision from this perspective is refreshing and long-awaited. Virtually every president in my lifetime has ended up in a new conflict or extending and expanding the old ones.
In particular, in the past 18 years, from Iraq to Libya to Syria, past presidents went into one bad misadventure after another.
As we observe another anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attack that shattered American life 18 years ago, its full impact is still unfolding. Those who planned it succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. The airborne assaults that took nearly 3,000 lives on that day may now be seen as the most diabolically successful terror attack in history. That attack not only wreaked carnage at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in rural Pennsylvania. It wound up dragging the United States into an endless state of war that has drained our treasury, poisoned our politics, created waves of new terrorism, and made us the enemy of millions around the world.
As Biden acknowledged this week, the plan to divide Iraq along ethnic lines he cooked up with Gelb was criticized at the time as more likely to incite than tamp down sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing, as it had early in the war in Bosnia and following the partitioning of Ireland, India, and Palestine in the last century. In each of those prior cases, partition, which looked good on paper and was accepted enthusiastically by extreme nationalist/segregationist leaders in each place, had the same result in practice: It encouraged violent sectarian cleansing and the destruction of the multiethnic societies that had existed in those territories for centuries.
„Nine months ago, I voted with my colleagues to give the president of the United States of America the authority to use force and I would vote that way again today. It was the right vote then and would be a correct vote today,“ Biden said in a July 2003 speech at the Brookings Institution.
Of the 20 Democrats still running for president in 2020, only two — Biden and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders — were in a position to vote on authorizing President George W. Bush to go to war in Iraq back in 2002.
This version of events is so twisted that the very next sentence of the NPR story starts debunking the idea that Biden was antiwar. But it’s worth unpacking more fully. Let’s start from the beginning and work our way through:
Hillary Clinton engaged in the same kind of historical revisionism. She was a reliable hawk on military interventions, including the disastrous intervention in Libya, without even a resolution; regarding Iraq, she jumped on the popular bandwagon for war. When it became less popular, however, she claimed to have been misled, even though she and her colleagues ignored those of us opposing the original war resolution.
Following the Vietnam War, a narrative developed among the U.S.-military officer corps that civilian leaders had stabbed military leaders in the back by cutting a deal to withdraw U.S. troops, rather than allowing them to win. A broader literature suggests that a “stabbed in the back” narrative is a common cultural response among militaries that have failed to achieve their wartime goals.
It was meant to be part of a social media tribute on Memorial Day weekend. On Saturday afternoon, the United States Army posted a video on Twitter featuring a scout in fatigues who said his service gave him the opportunity to fight for something greater than himself, making him a better man.
In its next tweet, the Army opened the floor and asked: “How has serving impacted you?”
The post was shared widely and received thousands of responses. But many were probably not what the Army was looking for.