Shattered lives, ruined families, revenge bombings. The regular SNAFU in Iraq, thanks to the benevolent Western powers.
The phrase mentioned above will, for many people, always have a slightly ironic connotation. The Iraqi people are still without an effective governing body. What makes the news now though is many people are killed when sectarian violence escalates and innocents die.
“The death toll from explosions at a market in Iraq’s second-largest city has risen to 43, Iraqi officials said Sunday.
They added that as many as 185 people were also wounded in Saturday’s blasts.”
The swampy sectarian stew that is Iraq continues to churn and froth, claiming more victims with every explosion and gun battle. The gormless words from the US about Afghanistan ring hollow for much of the world looks to the US’s first project; ‘Nation Building’ in Iraq looks a lot like anarchy.
“In other violence Sunday, a car bomb exploded near a school and a cluster of stores in the former insurgent stronghold of Fallujah west of Baghdad, killing two people and injuring four.”
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
16 comments
August 9, 2010 at 9:17 am
Vern R. Kaine
Wait a minute – a bunch of idiot, fanatic freaks have once again stuffed a car full of explosives and detonated it – at a military base? No – in the middle of a public place, knowingly and intentionally killing their own people, and you not only give them a free pass you take their side.
The last thing these terrorists want to see is America helping their people build a road, a school, a hospital, water treatment plant, etc.. Obviously that’s a threat to their power, so what do you think they’re going to do when they see it happening – write a letter to their MLA?
No, they’ll build another IED and detonate it. They prefer the more murderous method, and you take their side in every conflict because ultimately, you think we deserve it and they’re merely “defending” themselves. An “eye for an eye” works for you, but only when it’s against us, apparently. What do I base this on? The fact that I’ve never seen you once chastise or denounce the terrorists for what they do.
Let’s also once again call for decreased troop levels to prolong the war, watered down ROE that tie one hand behind the Allies’ backs, or even insist that America pull out and leave the country completely so that murderers like these can continue to win the battles and eventually, once again take control.
Better yet, why not let the UN take care of it in their oh-so-peaceful-and-diplomatic way? Let’s let about 800,000 die under their noses and try “nation building” that way. As long as we didn’t drop a bomb or fire a bullet, that would be ok by your rules?
The only way the car bombs will stop is by either a) bringing these losers to their knees, or b) giving them (back) control over an entire country and allowing them to rebuild. You seem to prefer the latter, thinking that’s the more “peaceful” way to do things, but I believe your ideology takes a far longer and more deadlier road, costing way more innocent lives.
What exactly does your plan for Iraq and Afghanistan look like? What’s your idea of “Nation Building”? Does it go anywhere past ideology?
LikeLike
August 9, 2010 at 1:20 pm
The Arbourist
Hope you do not mind Mr.Kaine, but I closed your tags for you in your post.
The last thing these terrorists want to see is America…
Do you not mean, the last thing these people of Iraq…? Describing the people of Iraq as ‘Terrorists’ seems to take the humanity out of the picture because official enemies aka terrorists are less than human. Consider that the Iraqi civilian deaths were much to troublesome to tabulate during the invasion, perhaps now they are more meaningful?
Obviously that’s a threat to their power, so what do you think they’re going to do when they see it happening – write a letter to their MLA?
It would be a nice idea if they actually could write a letter to their MLA, or the mayor or anything resembling a functioning state apparatus. Is there a recourse since “Shock and Awe” worked its lethal magic on the political, economic and civil infrastructure of Iraq? Most of the basics of civilization, water, electricity, sewage and garbage disposal are either broken or are functioning sporadically at best. How can civil discourse begin with such conditions?
The last thing these terrorists want to see is America helping their people build a road, a school, a hospital, water treatment plant, etc..
How to do reconstruction when security for the people of Iraq is not a priority? When was the last time major damage was done to the refineries or oil wells? The number is close to zero because keeping the oil flowing isa priority for the occupying forces. Clearly, past that, not so much.
and you not only give them a free pass you take their side.
It is after all only their country. The country that, with any sort of reasonable historical analysis, would have shown to be a powder keg for sectarian violence and infighting as it was cobbled together by the British and French after WWI. This sort of violence is unsurprising considering the history of the region, and to invade and occupy it, and then wonder why things are going so poorly has the earmarks of imperial hubris and ignorance. The lessons of Algeria and the Russian campaign in Afghanistan went unheeded.
So, why should I be on the side of the people who, for their own imperial interests, went and destroyed one of the secular bastions in the Middle East? Further to the point, to criticize a failing imperial venture the same as ‘siding with the terrorists’? The US waged illegal war, destroyed a country, and now are fussing about all the shite they disturbed while blowing Iraq up. Pragmatically (and somewhat simply, probably too simply), the US “broke” Iraq and has not put forth the resources to “buy it”.
They prefer the more murderous method, and you take their side in every conflict because ultimately, you think we deserve it and they’re merely “defending” themselves.
I do not think anyone deserves to be killed in a car bomb, regardless of nation,creed, political leanings. Suicide bombing is abhorrent and I certainly do not condone it. Concomitantly though, people also should not be killed by occupying forces whose justice is very similar to what suicide bombers provide. I lean toward the side of the people whose country has been ruinedin the name of avarice and standing in the great geopolitical game of the Middle East.
The fact that I’ve never seen you once chastise or denounce the terrorists for what they do.
Should I stake my claim and plant my flag firmly in the camp of the Western powers and denounce the terrorists for what they have done? Why do our enemies deserve the label ‘terrorist’ when the actions we perpetrate across the globe are the very definition of state terrorism? Are we any less guilty than them? Do you really believe that we are the ‘good guys’ and find solace in that questionable fact? I ask only because it seems important in the conversation to determine whose “side” I am on.
America pull out and leave the country completely so that murderers like these can continue to win the battles and eventually, once again take control.
If another Saddam-like emerged from the sidelines I bet that the US would endorse him and his authoritarian regime. The western support for the various dictatorships and autocracies that span the Middle East is unabashed and for the most part unchallenged, because it is good for business. Stability, not democracy, not liberty, not human rights, but stability our goal in the Middle East because stability is what guarantees our access to the resources we need from the region.
Better yet, why not let the UN take care of it in their oh-so-peaceful-and-diplomatic way?
A UN that would not be hamstrung by the American Veto? I would like to see that. Of course, the American sanctions also has disastrous effects on Iraq:
“Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.”
So perhaps before condemning the UN, one should look at ones own foreign policy decisions and motivations regarding Iraq. How warmly would you embrace the nation that was responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of its children?
As long as we didn’t drop a bomb or fire a bullet, that would be ok by your rules?
Oh you mean not invading sovereign nations on false pretences,lying to justify an illegal war, short-circuiting the UN and going to war for Imperial conquest?
Yes I agree, I’m not much for that, as it does fall outside my ‘rules’.
The only way the car bombs will stop is by either a) bringing these losers to their knees, or b) giving them (back) control over an entire country and allowing them to rebuild. You seem to prefer the latter, thinking that’s the more “peaceful” way to do things, but I believe your ideology takes a far longer and more deadlier road, costing way more innocent lives.
As far as I can tell, at least historically speaking, A usually does not work unless the War is on a grand scale (WW2). Instances of ‘A’ failing are quite numerous, Cuba, Algeria, Vietnam, Afghanistan (multiple times throughout history) quickly come to mind. The consequences for the occupying nation in the A method are usually quite disastrous. ‘B’ is the outcome whether the believers or ‘A’ like it not, it just depends on how much imperial blood and treasure they are willing to spend until ‘A’ becomes too costly and the conclusion is reached that we’ll declare ‘victory’ and go with ‘B’. So as far as ‘B’ being deadlier and costing more lives, I would think that would a tough statement to justify.
I think I would add one more to the list: c) Apologizing for raping and pillaging their country, getting *completely* out of the nation in question (I’m looking at the oil corporations happily making millions in Iraq) and pay reparations for the damage done so the country in question can repair its infrastructure and assemble a functioning state once again. Or even d) Not invading and illegally occupying a state in the first place. I’m actually quite a big fan of “D” come to think of it.
What’s your idea of “Nation Building”?
My version of Nation Building begins with not destroying other nations in the first place. It begins with a strong international body that can mediate disputes between nations diplomatically and have the capacity to enforce conditions on anyof its members. Such a body currently does not exist. Scoff at the UN as it lurches along, but it is our best hope toward preserving our species into future. It is being proved right now that bigger and better guns do not fix problems, they only create more.
So specifically for Iraq, US withdrawal on all fronts business and military (oh hey, full marks for bringing free trade to Iraq wiping out domestic industry) and reparations say half of what you are spending right now shooting the place up and killing people. Let them nationalize the oil fields and processing so that the profits can go back to the people of Iraq, who happen to live over and *own* the oil we destroyed their country for. Encourage democracy but realize that it probably will not happen until reconstruction of the state is complete and live with the consequences of ruining a relatively stable secular state that will probably include a fundamentalist regime (with strong anti-American sentiments, of course) of some sort for quite awhile. Consider though, stability is good for business.
Afghanistan roughly the same. Get out, pay reparations and let the chips fall where they may. Afghanistan is/will bleed the US dry and remain a fundamentally unstable state. Will we get a pro western, pro human rights, pro democratic society out of the mix? Most likely not, but then again the result will be the same to continue with the “A” strategy but only with a more thoroughly bankrupt USA.
Does it go anywhere past ideology?
I think so, but this is already an overlong reply. We’ll save a little for the next round. :)
LikeLike
August 9, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Bleatmop
It was obvious to the world that there were no WMD in Iraq in the first place as it is obvious to the world that a US created government will never be effective and only last as long last young USian men and women shed their blood to keep said ineffective government afloat. Too bad it’s not obvious to the
world policeUSA.LikeLike
August 9, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Much of what you’re saying sounds great, but it again ignores the reality that for one, this unfortunately isn’t something we can hit the rewind button on.
So the US withdrawals completely (business and military) and we now trust the people of Afghanistan and Iraq to take care of things themselves? Everyone will breathe a big sigh of relief, and the Afghan and Iraqi people will embrace their newfound peace?
I seriously doubt it – all you will have done is created a commerce vacuum and a power vacuum which is going to fill with even NASTIER people the next time around. And do you honestly think Iraqi business would be left to Iraqis? No way. Russia and/or China would be in there in a heartbeat. Put some useless UN Rules in there and they’d be in there under the table just as France and Russia were during the Oil for Food program.
And militarily – how do you think the regime that claims each of the countries is going to protect their control? 1) By having their own little slice-and-dice making examples of everyone who was against them (or not, still gets the same message across). 2) By making under-the-table agreements on arms and money with a country (or countries) that I can assure you are far less concerned about human rights and infrastructure as the US, Britain, or Canada is. 3) By raping their own land of its profits and its people, ensuring that it all stays at the top and not a cent of it reaches their citizens, JUST AS THEY DID BEFORE. 4) By turning their schools and churches into breeding grounds for more jihadists who will now be better armed, better financed, and revitalized thanks to this magnificent plan.
And I’m sorry, but I don’t see the UN as a solution AT ALL. I’d rather be fighting the enemy and reducing their numbers than just standing by idly handing out Yoko Ono albums while hundreds of thousands of people die. By the way, how much attention is China paying to the genocide in Sudan? America isn’t the only one with a veto, as I’m sure you know.
So to be fair, here’s three main points where I agree with what you’re saying:
1) We (“they”) grossly underestimated what would happen in Iraq and Afghanistan both during and after the wars.
2) We were lied to, and still are lied to, as to the full reason why we’re there.
3) We continue to assume everyone in the world wants “our” version of freedom and democracy, and will welcome anyone with open arms who offers it.
Where I disagree:
1) I believe nothing can be fixed by withdrawal.
2) I believe these nations were already broken.
3) I believe they do not have the capability or capacity to self-govern.
Specifically on #3, I don’t believe the people of Iraq and Afghanistan really understand what free choice is. I think they have become “learned helpless” as a result of the years of religious and political oppression they’ve experienced.
Although not in a military or political context, Sheena Iyengar discusses the issue of “choice” amongst cultures, and I think there are parallels to what options the Afghans and Iraqis truly believe they have.
To me, the only way Afghans are going to take over their country is if the common person feels secure, and I see no way of that happening through withdrawal. In fact, I would argue that half the reason its own people don’t stand up to the corruption and abuse is because they’re afraid the Allies are going to leave once again and they’ll be left on their own to face the repercussions.
LikeLike
August 9, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Oops, here’s the link to Sheena’s TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_on_the_art_of_choosing.html
LikeLike
August 9, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Vern R. Kaine
“It was obvious to the world that there were no WMD’s in Iraq in the first place.”
That’s completely said in hindsight, and I believe untrue.
First of all, we had weapons inspectors there asking for more time to confirm it right up until the end. They wouldn’t have been there if it was so “obvious” as you state.
Second, you had Iraqi defectors going on 60 Minutes saying Saddam was “closer than ever” (http://www.nci.org/a/60min2-Iraq.htm).
Third, NOT ONE country in the entire world stood up and said, “No, USA, your intelligence is incorrect. Here’s the CORRECT intelligence.”
Iraq was not disposing of its old, useless WMD’s due in part to its ruse to Iran and everyone else that the country HAD WMD’s.
I will concede that we were lied to about going into Iraq, but to sit there and say we all knew beforehand I think is a stretch.
LikeLike
August 9, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Arb,
If I can share in your frustration, I agree that it is unfortunate the focus isn’t more on the fact that there’s STILL little stability in the Afghan or Iraqi governments after all this time and that it’s only the car bombs that seem to be getting the news.
I don’t know what the timeline is for installing an effective government and securing a country (ex: how long did the IRA bombings go on for?) but I do agree that “Nation Building” – however one defines it – starts with securing a governing body which it appears has slid down the list of priorities.
LikeLike
August 9, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Whoops – the link I gave was for the first war. This was for the second:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/21/60minutes/main541565.shtml
“(CBS) Plans for a Baghdad subway were used instead to build underground tunnels to hide Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, says one of the Iraqi dictator’s former top scientists. Dr. Hussein Shahristani, once Iraq’s top nuclear scientist, speaks to Steve Kroft for a 60 Minutes report to be broadcast Sunday, Feb. 23, at 7 p.m. ET/PT…
Among the weapons Shahristani believes may be hidden in the tunnels are deadly agents like Sarin, possibly anthrax and also the nerve agent VX…
U.N. inspectors have told 60 Minutes they have heard of the tunnels for years, but cannot find their entrances…”
LikeLike
August 9, 2010 at 11:31 pm
Bleatmop
Since you like links, here are two for you
1. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-09-02-WMD-indepth_x.htm
There is a very well written article by USA today describing how it was known that all the weapons were destroyed in 1991 and that basically all the evidence for new weapons was fabricated off of either bad or debunked evidence.
2. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-135611528/chretien-bush-and-war.html
An article describing Canada and the US’s relations at the time. Here’s a quote for you from Canada’s then Foreign Affairs Minister: He continued, “Iraq under Saddam Hussein is clearly always a threat, but we have no evidence he is in possession of weapons of mass destruction or that he would intend to use them at this time.”
I don’t know what more you would want. There is another government of the world telling the USian government that there was no evidence that there were WMD. One that was saying that we need to rely on multilateralism and the UN. You know, maybe up those weapon inspections that were coming up all negative for years and years. But Bush et al. didn’t want to hear that, now did they?
LikeLike
August 10, 2010 at 5:59 pm
Vern R. Kaine
? You said everyone “knew” there were no WMD’s before the war. Your one article comes from two years after the war started, and the other suggests “uncertain(ty) at best” which is still not actual proof.
Here’s Martin saying in 2004 exactly the opposite of what you claim Canada or anyone knew:
“The fact is that there is now, we know well, a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that many weapons that Saddam Hussein had, we don’t know where they are,” Martin told a crowd of about 700 university researchers and business leaders in Montreal. “That means terrorists have access to all of that.” Source: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/05/11/pf-455210.html
Again, no one stood up with actual proof beforehand that there were in fact no weapons, and in the meantime there were compelling arguments on both sides. Yes, Bush played this all to his advantage (as did other countries) but unless you had some clairvoyance or access to military intelligence that no one else in the general public had, no one actually “knew” anything.
I make this point because I often people use the “I knew all along” thing to try and grab some sort of moral or intellectual high ground on the issue, when in fact they didn’t know jack. The belief that Iraq had the weapons at the time was just as valid as the belief that they didn’t because there was no definitive proof on either side – a good part of the reason why even Bush-haters at the time supported the war.
Just because people supported the war, it doesn’t mean that they wanted it or enjoy it.
LikeLike
August 11, 2010 at 3:32 pm
The Arbourist
So the US withdrawals completely (business and military) and we now trust the people of Afghanistan and Iraq to take care of things themselves? Everyone will breathe a big sigh of relief, and the Afghan and Iraqi people will embrace their newfound peace?
The above plus reparations would be ideal. Leaving them alone with UN monitors would be a step in the right direction.
And do you honestly think Iraqi business would be left to Iraqis?
I honestly thing Iraq would have more of chance if we would have decided not to make it a “free trade zone’ with almost no tariffs and business taxes and regulations. This shock treatment, harsh even by structural adjustments IMFishness is brutal. Domestic industry was destroyed by the influx of cheap goods from across the world.
No way. Russia and/or China would be in there in a heartbeat.
If the people of Iraq chose to deal with these nations, it would be their right as a sovereign nation. The argument is a little hard to justify as currently Iraq has no governance of any significance to speak of.
1) By having their own little slice-and-dice making examples of everyone who was against them (or not, still gets the same message across).
Like when George Bush Sr. decided to incite the Shia majority to rise up and then leave them to twist in the wind while Saddam slaughtered them. Our methods are not much better than theirs.
2) By making under-the-table agreements on arms and money with a country (or countries) that I can assure you are far less concerned about human rights and infrastructure as the US, Britain, or Canada is.
Again, sovereign nations do what they must. By imposing our control and rules on the people of Iraq and Afghanistan we breed only hatred for us and our ways. Our very presence in these to nations is antithetical to the notion of ‘nation building’ or bringing ‘civilization’ to a country. The more we do, the worse it gets.
3) By raping their own land of its profits and its people, ensuring that it all stays at the top and not a cent of it reaches their citizens, JUST AS THEY DID BEFORE.
Iraq was a modern secular state before we broke their country. People had power, access to higher educations, a measure of security etc. It was an oppressive and authoritarian state, do not get me wrong, but by Middle Eastern standards, not too too bad. As far as raping the land and its people, it is what states do, I’m am certain the Native Canadian and American populations are not exactly boosters of the way of life we violently imposed on them either.
ensuring that it all stays at the top and not a cent of it reaches their citizens,
I requote and wonder what is wrong with this, at least from an Aamerican ‘conservative’ point of view. Building a super-rich class seems to be par for the course in the States, less taxes, less redistribute policies, less help for the underclass seems to fall right up ‘conservatives’ alley. Of course, socialism just ruins a country, and oligarchy clearly does not, so we are all good.
4) By turning their schools and churches into breeding grounds for more jihadists who will now be better armed, better financed, and revitalized thanks to this magnificent plan.
Most Iraqi children do not go to public school. Many go to the private religious schools where they are taught about the invidious Crusader forces and how much revenge needs to be wrought. Also, consider the ‘education’ being taught during the occupation. Black-Water and other mercenaries running amok, indiscriminately killing and butchering. Air strikes, artillery strikes, combat operations all causing civilian casualties. Ruined families, ruined infrastructure, no security. All is blamed on the occupying force. The bloody lessons being taught during the occupation need no review, as they are constantly refreshed and relearned.
And I’m sorry, but I don’t see the UN as a solution AT ALL. I’d rather be fighting the enemy and reducing their numbers than just standing by idly handing out Yoko Ono albums while hundreds of thousands of people die.
Fighting the enemy? Reducing their numbers? Now how exactly does that work when the people of Iraq see you as the enemy and your presence as the cause of their suffering and grief? Could this be the reason why outside the ‘green zone’ lawlessness and anarchy reign? The green zone reminds me of the old Crusader Castles dotting the Middle East where the Europeans would sit and rot wondering why their military victories rang so hollow. There will be no victory in Iraq or Afghanistan, what only remains is how much American blood and money will be sacrificed for a lost cause.
America isn’t the only one with a veto, as I’m sure you know.
Absolutely. However, China is not as nearly prolific in exercising its Veto as the US has been. You wonder why the UN is not working, much can be traced back to the US’s intransigence when dealing with the rest of the world.
Specifically on #3, I don’t believe the people of Iraq and Afghanistan really understand what free choice is.
Said the Colonial General to the savage native. It is a irksome burden we’ve been saddled with, bringing civilization to the world isn’t it?
I would argue that half the reason its own people don’t stand up to the corruption and abuse is because they’re afraid the Allies are going to leave once again and they’ll be left on their own to face the repercussions.
They are terrified now as nothing resembling security in Afghanistan exists. Historically speaking, given that Afghanistan has kicked the ass of every imperialist venture that had dared to cross their border, would you rationally blame the people of Afghanistan for not trusting the current occupiers?
LikeLike
August 12, 2010 at 10:10 am
Vern R. Kaine
I honestly thing Iraq would have more of chance if we would have decided not to make it a “free trade zone’ with almost no tariffs and business taxes and regulations. This shock treatment, harsh even by structural adjustments IMFishness is brutal. Domestic industry was destroyed by the influx of cheap goods from across the world.
From an economic perspective, I’d probably agree with you here.
As for the rest, however, I believe once again you’re up in the stratosphere with high-level ideology that is for the most part out of touch with present, on-the-ground reality. For example:
1) KBR “indiscriminantly killing”. Come on! You can’t honestly be telling me that ANYONE in either country, be them military or contractors, actually goes out with a mission to kill women and children. If so, then you obviously know no one in the military, or if you do, how could you respect what they do one bit beyond your pity?
2) Our methods are not much better than theirs.Actually, our methods are a LOT better than theirs when you look at it from beyond a 50,000ft view. Just some examples:
a) we don’t deliberately target women and children
b) we don’t recruit child soldiers
c) we prefer to fight out in a desert with uniformed soldiers
d) we actually have rules of engagement
e) our laws don’t promote or allow raping or disfiguring
e) we don’t gas our people
… and more. You just refuse to recognize or acknowledge them.
3) Like when George Bush Sr. decided to incite the Shia majority to rise up and then leave them to twist in the wind while Saddam slaughtered them.
Here you have historical proof of what happens, yet you still suggest withdrawal once again knowing what the outcome would be.
And also, once again you blame the US instead of the people who ACTUALLY DID THE SLAUGHTERING. After all, you say, “it’s their country”, so they have a right to slaughter their own people, don’t they?
You seem to want to continue to argue whether we should be there, which I think is moot, and then second, that we should just “let them be” to stone, disfigure, and rape all they want. To me, if we’re already there, then we have a moral obligation to prevent it at all costs.
4) The above plus reparations would be ideal. Leaving them alone with UN monitors would be a step in the right direction.
“The right direction”? Towards what? Ya, it worked like a charm in Rwanda and Bosnia. The UN has done NOTHING, and would have likely allowed Russia to put nukes in Cuba, too. Yup, THAT’S who we want to trust the safety of a nation to.
Saying that we should put the UN in there to “supervise” as though that’s a solution is not only ignoring history and reality for the sake of ideology, but to me it is worse – it is turning a blind eye. You might have your guilt appeased by pretending that the UN is actually doing something, but all that would be is an attempt to ease your conscience and nothing more.
While we’re at it, let’s also create ten thousand more Romeo Dallaire’s, too.
5) “If the people of Iraq chose to deal with these nations… (China, Russia)”. This is what I mean by seeming out of touch. There is no “dealing” with these nations. You think Sudan struck a “deal” with China? You think Russia was going to “strike a deal” with Afghanistan? Those deals would be completely under China or Russia’s terms, and you say, “Oh well.” We may not be angelic, but at least with us (the Allies) there’s the court of public opinion that will no doubt play to the Afghans and Iraqi’s favor – at the very least where human rights is concerned. Take a look – it’s only the West that actually cares to put Human Rights on their agenda regardless of whether you think it’s there enough.
6) Proposing a full withdrawal “with reparations”. Again, out of touch. “OK people of Iraq and Afghanistan, we’re leaving now. Sorry that you’re going to be slaughtered and raped as punishment once we’re gone, but here’s a check. Sorry.”
Before you go back to the ideological “what we do is worse” thing here again, why not first address this point directly and say flat out that you believe the rape and slaughter that will most definitely occur with a full withdrawal is “worth it”.
… and finally:
I’m am certain the Native Canadian and American populations are not exactly boosters of the way of life we violently imposed on them either.
How dare those Naturopaths! ;) Actually, although they say they hate it, when you look around they seem to be enjoying the casinos, the free medical, the free education, countless grants, and the constant welching on debt just fine.
LikeLike
August 12, 2010 at 10:17 am
Vern R. Kaine
On Dallaire:
“Dallaire said peacekeeping operations are no longer about soldiers “standing there watching” in blue berets and short pants. Today’s peacekeeping operations mean troops must be prepared to protect the vulnerable.
“Protect the moderates, protect the innocents from extremism — and that means that no matter what mission you’ll be engaged in, the risks of casualties exist,” he said. “That is what peacekeeping is — it’s peacemaking in our era.”
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/04/22/13686496-qmi.html
Put Dallaire in charge of the UN with some actual decision-making authority and you might see my opinion of the UN turn around.
LikeLike
August 14, 2010 at 11:14 pm
Gardens of the Moon | garden plants
[…] Nation Building via Car Bombs and Bloodshed « Dead Wild Roses […]
LikeLike
August 15, 2010 at 10:04 am
The Arbourist
KBR “indiscriminantly killing”. Come on! You can’t honestly be telling me that ANYONE in either country, be them military or contractors, actually goes out with a mission to kill women and children.
Mercenaries are not bound the the military code of justice, they answer to no one and therefore are not legally culpable for what they do in Iraq. So speaking of ideological high ground, the naive belief they we are the *good* guys runs rampant in your arguments. Blackwater and other mercenary contractors ran rampant in Iraq, committing atrocities including the murder of women and children.
then you obviously know no one in the military
Me knowing or not knowing anyone in the military does not affect the content of the argument. I do not know any Garbage Men, but I can comment and opine on their actions with a reasonable amount of accuracy, my arguments about trash collection do not suddenly lose weight when it brought to light I do not know a sanitary engineer personally.
Just some examples:
a) we don’t deliberately target women and children
No, but we starve them to death via sanctions and bomb them indiscriminately during various ‘shock and awe’ campaigns and assorted drone strikes. Collateral damage death is so much more humane than other methods of killing innocent people.
c) we prefer to fight out in a desert with uniformed soldiers
d) we actually have rules of engagement
I would prefer to fight in the desert where I could easily slaughter my enemy with my advanced weaponry. As to ROE, the Iraqi’s seem to have only one, do whatever it takes to get the invaders out of their country. I suspect that if the US was invaded and people had to resist an occupying force similar tactics as we are seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan would be employed.
e) our laws don’t promote or allow raping or disfiguring
e) we don’t gas our people
… and more. You just refuse to recognize or acknowledge them.
No, we just severely under report rape and domestic violence while continuing to endorse a violent culture of rape and debasement for women. Certainly the misogyny is much less overt here that in more traditional religiously addled societies, but it is still a major concern.
No, we don’t gas our people, we just provide the means for others to gas theirs. US/UK complicity in providing poison gas to Iraq is documented and certainly not a moral stand or something to put on a list saying “we are better than them”.
[Mr Kaine on the Shia uprising of 1991]: Here you have historical proof of what happens, yet you still suggest withdrawal once again knowing what the outcome would be.
Historical proof that revolting against an organized state apparatus is a risky venture. No state exists in Iraq right now, making this a tenuous historical comparison.
And also, once again you blame the US instead of the people who ACTUALLY DID THE SLAUGHTERING. After all, you say, “it’s their country”, so they have a right to slaughter their own people, don’t they?
Well, blaming the people responsible seems to be a good place to start when it comes to assigning blame. I mean if you incite a rebellion, you are at least partially responsible. Sitting on your hands just across the border does not seem to be a particularly noble or just decision, but rather one grounded in the realpolitik of the time.
You seem to want to continue to argue whether we should be there, which I think is moot,
Well destroying a country based on fabrications and imperial ambition sort of sets the tone for the rest of argument does it not. The current incarnations of the Iraq and Afghanistan are unjust, immoral and illegal in the case of Iraq. Dispensing with the ‘we are the good guys mythology and can do no wrong’ is still remarkably difficult to counter.
and then second, that we should just “let them be” to stone, disfigure, and rape all they want. To me, if we’re already there, then we have a moral obligation to prevent it at all costs.
We cannot say conclusively that they will stone, disfigure and rape. Granted, it is likely, but we continue to add to the conditions that make these sorts of atrocities possible. Our presence in these countries is making it worse, not better.
I would hardly call it a moral obligation. Our moral obligations seem to depend a lot on if it suits our economic and political agenda. We deal with, and support regimes that could hardly be described as democratic or infused with human rights. Selective morality is not morality at all, and claiming we have a moral obligation to do “X” now sounds like attempt to rationalize our unjust presence in these countries. Western powers tend to let the human rights slide if there is economic or strategic advantage to be had. Overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 that brought about a tyrannical religious dictatorship is not exactly good boy scout behaviour.
Arb:4) The above plus reparations would be ideal. Leaving them alone with UN monitors would be a step in the right direction.
VRK: “The right direction”? Towards what? Ya, it worked like a charm in Rwanda and Bosnia. The UN has done NOTHING, and would have likely allowed Russia to put nukes in Cuba, too. Yup, THAT’S who we want to trust the safety of a nation to.
The UN has had many successes in peacekeeping as well. Consider:
I would suggest that UN intervention after the US provoked the USSR, would not be a effective way to use the UN. A simple solution would have been to remove the missiles targeted on Moscow that were placed by the US in Italy and Turkey.
Saying that we should put the UN in there to “supervise” as though that’s a solution is not only ignoring history and reality for the sake of ideology
So looking up at all of the successes as quoted above is ignoring history then? No, I think my view is a little closer to reality than yours, which seems at times to be caught up in the selective use of facts that support American Exceptionalism and the imperialism that goes along with it. Yes Rwanda and Bosnia were peacekeeping failures, but to define the peacekeeping record exclusively based on those examples is unwarranted.
directly and say flat out that you believe the rape and slaughter that will most definitely occur with a full withdrawal is “worth it”.
The chaos caused by our withdrawal, of course, will be our fault and thus the reparations. The alternative is perpetual war, which if we are going to make assumptions about peoples intentions, seems to be what you support. So which is going to cause more death and destruction, withdrawal or perpetual war?
Actually, although they say they hate it, when you look around they seem to be enjoying the casinos, the free medical, the free education, countless grants, and the constant welching on debt just fine.
Ah yes, the envy/hatred of the poor comes back again. Those lucky First peoples of Canada that are hugely overrepresented in the prison system, who children have periodically been taken away and ‘reeducated’, those lucky souls who do not have access to clean drinking water. You’re right Vern, they are living the life. And of course if they are not, it is all their fault. They must be lazy slackers who, with just a little of the capitalist spirit, would be doing fantastic right now.
LikeLike
August 15, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Not sure if this reply will get to the proper spot…
“Me knowing or not knowing anyone in the military does not affect the content of the argument.”
Actually, I believe it does. The argument is that you believe the military and contracted forces go out on missions to kill women and children. It would be like saying because women and children die at the hands of doctors every day, they must be murderers.
The argument centers around their intent, and their character. Even though women and children die at the hands of doctors, I don’t believe their intent is to kill them. Military guys are trigger-happy for the enemy, and they pride themselves on PROTECTING women and children, not “killing them indiscriminately”. Your portrayal of their general character and intent is purely wrong, and if you knew anyone in the military, you’d know that.
The only people that actually DON’T care if women and children die are the people you support – the terrorists and insurgents.
[starving women and children with sanctions]
Weren’t those sanctions put in place by the UN? Regardless, these people starve less because of the sanctions and more because their dictators prefer to give all available food to their rapist armies instead. Letting their women and children starve also fits well into their PR campaign.
[They must be lazy slackers who, with just a little of the capitalist spirit, would be doing fantastic right now.]
We’ve had that discussion before – that’s never been what I have said. There are many First peoples who have done very well for themselves and their community. I’ve actually worked with them in helping to change their circumstances (have you?)
I don’t disagree that many First peoples have it bad in our countries (the Reserves are atrocious), and our society plays a significant part in that, but it just surprises me how much you see “us” (i.e. Western society) as the “bad guys”, and how you never seem to acknowledge any good.
And yes, I do believe we are the good guys. We occasionally do bad things, but there are far more things for us to be proud of in terms of our advances and achievements and that in general, our peoples’ intentions are honest and moral. By your statements about our military people being sadistic butchers and business people being exploitative rapists, you seem to think otherwise and its a worldview that I just don’t agree with.
But hey, that’s what makes our discussions enjoyable. :) (At least from my end!)
LikeLike