Tuesday, 1 December 2009

The Inquest

Whoever tells you that humans all have te same value and are all equal are lying through their innocent teeth. As much as i wish for it to be true, the reality is, it will never be.

Whats brought my mini tirade of politics- well The Iraq War Inquest has begun, and suprise suprise, the results are disappointing.
Wait, no they're not disappointing-they were expected. I expected it, but wished for it deeply to be not to be true. I wished deeply to have my faith in equality restored.

Alas, it was not.

One thing that annoys me to no bounds, is when someone looks at me patronisingly and wonders why I am not grateful for the War.
Now Read that sentence above slowly- who in their right mind would and could ever be grateful for a war?
To make my viewpoint more clear- i do not believe in sacrificing human lives. Lives cannot be measured in quantity - the death of 10 people is equally as devastating as the death of 1000. I refuse to put a value on human life. (quantity is not quality where life is concerned).

Whats even more annoying is the clarity of how unequal we are. I'm not going to lie here, or even try to be politically correct.
Its so blaringly obvious in politics, its depressing.

As this inquest progresses, all that seems to be clear to me, is there never was any intention to 'rescue the iraqis' until the terrorist attacks occured. Is anyone really suprised?

Who cares anyway? The baddie got killed, the revenge for the terrorism was brought, and armies got to test out their new toys and flex their muscles. Never mind the thousands that got killed...or the aftermath.

It was too late. It was too selfish. And it was too ignorant.
Did anyone even know where Iraq was on a map? Did they know of the suffering? Did they realise people died as families brought medicine from the black markets, that were actually little more than aspirin and flour?
Of course not.
For all your objections, the truth is, the average person did not know. They lived in a hyper world, being pumped by the media, that the upcoming War was fighting terrorism. It wasn't. It was a piteous revenge. And IF there was any good intentions, then why did it take so long?

But then my annoyance slowly fades, and i ask myself, am i truly that naive, to think that when our own government and people, lied and lie, will continue to lie to us (past, present and future), that other governments will always tell the truth?
Maybe i'm just overly pacifistic? Or overly trusting? Two qualities which perhaps are going to get me into more trouble than i'd like. :D

Political rant over. I think. I'm not sure, maybe I'm just annoyed.

In other news - mmmmmmm, i'm too tired to carry on and write personal stuff. I wouldn't know where to begin. :)

So i'll stick to the required:

Happy Eid!!

(and my sister informs me there's something called thanksgiving now as well, so happy thanksgiving).

18 comments:

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

As this inquest progresses, all that seems to be clear to me, is there never was any intention to 'rescue the iraqis' until the terrorist attacks occured. Is anyone really suprised?

Not if they know anything about the political situation in the United States. And, btw, this isn't new. Before we entered WWII we had to be attacked in Pearl Harbor by the Japanese to get Congress to declare war.

In Iraq's case, the first President Bush wouldn't go further then the UN resolution to dislodge Saddam from Kuwait back in 1991 and risk destabilizing the region further.

Then we had President Clinton for 8 years and he wouldn't go out on a limb and upset the status quo either.

Yes, I believe it took a terrorist act to get the second President Bush and Congress to actually do anything to try to resolve the situation in Iraq.

Who cares anyway?

You do, or you wouldn't be blogging about it. And I do, or I wouldn't be here talking to you about it.

The baddie got killed,

Yes. But his poison still lives on.

..the revenge for the terrorism was brought,

No, revenge implies Iraqi involvement in 9/11, which was not the case. It also implies actions taken for spite rather than for defense. The events of 9/11 may have been a catalyst for action, but that was it.

...and armies got to test out their new toys and flex their muscles. Never mind the thousands that got killed...or the aftermath.

To imply that our military personnel are playing at a game and care nothing for the innocent people caught up in this war is to completely overlook their efforts to try to avoid innocent casualties. It completely overlooks the people we have tried to help and the sacrifices made by our troops in their efforts to give Iraqis a chance for a different life without a dictator. Compassion for the innocent is not unheard of, Touta.

It was too late.

It's never too late.

It was too selfish.

The inattention over the years was too selfish.

And it was too ignorant.

Yes. For what we were attempting we were woefully ignorant in our handling of the situation.

Did anyone even know where Iraq was on a map?

Some did. Some didn't.

Did they know of the suffering?

For all your objections, the truth is, the average person did not know.


I believe this to be true. Most had no idea of the effects of the sanctions.

And IF there was any good intentions, then why did it take so long?

To do nothing is easier than to do something, particularily given our political situation and people's inattention to things outside their own little world.

Thank you for the Thanksgiving wishes. We here in the states have much that we take for granted and it is right to pause and give thanks once in a while.

JG said...

Touta,

Eid mubarak and happy Thanksgiving!

Your frustration and anger is understandable.

And IF there was any good intentions, then why did it take so long?

There were no good intentions. None.


Lynnette,

To imply that our military personnel are playing at a game and care nothing for the innocent people caught up in this war is to completely overlook their efforts to try to avoid innocent casualties.

You miss the point here. It's the people who send the troops into war that we're talking about.

This war was fought for narrow, selfish, geo-strategic reasons. There is absolutely nothing surprising about this, it's what more or less every war in history has been fought for (with some limited exceptions).

Yes, I believe it took a terrorist act to get the second President Bush and Congress to actually do anything to try to resolve the situation in Iraq.

This makes no sense. If Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, which everybody now acknowledges, then why would 9/11 lead to an invasion of Iraq?

Ihsiin said...

Because without The climate of fear that 9/11 inspired in the western world (particularly in America), it would have been impossible from the various western governments to justify the war in Iraq to their respective publics. So people talked of "national security" and all the rest of that bollocks.
Or so it seems to me. To be honest, I'm not very politically astute and I was only thirteen in 2001, fourteen in 2003.

JG said...

I wouldn't disagree with that, Ihsiin.

Basically what you're saying is that Bush was able to use 9/11 to get the war he already wanted but couldn't get. But why did he want to invade Iraq? Lynnette? ;)

Touta said...

lynnette,
i have read and thought about what you wrote, and some points are convincing, while others are not.

to live and experience the reality, is different to what we would like to think happens, as much as i tried to convince myself otherwise.

"its never too late".

i'm afraid a lot of iraqis will disagree with you on that, and with good reason.

"To do nothing is easier than to do something, particularily given our political situation and people's inattention to things outside their own little world."

i couldnt agree with you more on this, believe it or not i went along with 'the war is great' for pretty much most of my early teens, and i did it with vigour....now i can say what i've seen and experienced has lead my beliefs otherwise.when it hits home, it hits home.

JG,
thanks! :)
mmmm, i dont know if politics ever has 'intentions', but rather is based on circumstances and what is perceived to bring the most 'satisfaction', sometimes regardless of what is right and wrong

"it's what more or less every war in history has been fought for (with some limited exceptions)."- sadly true, and i'm glad to be reminded of this, as i think it makes war seem slightly more 'understandable'.

ihsiin,
"So people talked of "national security" and all the rest of that bollocks."
hahaha indeed. :D
"Or so it seems to me. To be honest, I'm not very politically astute and I was only thirteen in 2001, fourteen in 2003."
tell me about it. i was even younger (11/12) and i basically went along with what my mama and baba said. i nodded my head and smiled, and didnt think.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

JG,

This war was fought for narrow, selfish, geo-strategic reasons.

Please elaborate.

If Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, which everybody now acknowledges, then why would 9/11 lead to an invasion of Iraq?

Ihsiin hit the nail on the head.

Ihsiin,

I pretty much agree with your assessment, except for the part that national security is "bollocks". :)

It is extraordinarily difficult to get people to support military involvement for purely altruistic motives. Not too many people will approve of sending their family to possibly die for someone else.

JG again,

Basically what you're saying is that Bush was able to use 9/11 to get the war he already wanted but couldn't get.

Considering that President Bush ran on a platform of non intervention in other countries, this seems a bit of a stretch. Nation building was not his thing. And one thing most people will agree on about President Bush was that he was a very stubborn man who did not change his mind easily. That he would have supported a military intervention in Iraq on the scale we saw in 2003, without some extreme event pushing him to do so, seems to be speculation on many people's part.

Touta,

to live and experience the reality, is different to what we would like to think happens,

I will agree with you. Reality is very seldom the same as what we imagine will happen. This holds true in many situations.

"its never too late".

i'm afraid a lot of iraqis will disagree with you on that, and with good reason.


For those Iraqis who waited for an intervention in 1991 that never came, you are right. But for those who would try to build a country that will allow them to live and prosper, you are not.

believe it or not i went along with 'the war is great' for pretty much most of my early teens, and i did it with vigour....now i can say what i've seen and experienced has lead my beliefs otherwise.when it hits home, it hits home.

Disillusionment can be a tough thing to deal with, Touta.

By arguing for our position of military intervention in Iraq, I do not mean to imply that I feel war is good. If possible it is something that should be avoided. It's just that I cannot in good conscience argue for the status quo of Saddam's Iraq. Nor could I argue for the continuing of sanctions.

Todd Sommers said...

your blog is very heartfelt and your writing pulled me in if we could all see each other as people instead of countries or advasaries the world would be a much better place, best wishes for you and keep posting your doing a great job

Anonymous said...

Lynnette: "Yes, I believe it took a terrorist act to get the second President Bush and Congress to actually do anything to try to resolve the situation in Iraq."

Resolve? Are you talking about saving Iraqis, or are you talking about the PNAC agenda that was NOT particurlary interested in Iraqis but the furthering of AMERICAN interests in the larger Middle East?

Get real Lynnette. There was no threat to America from Saddam or from Iraq. The 9/11 tradgedy was cynically used to convince Americans and "allies" (although not many allies were convinced) that Saddam was a threat, an imminent threat. Which he was not. 9/10'ts of the world knew that BEFORE the invasion. And 9/10'ts of those that did believe it then have now accepted that they were duped. You are one of the remaining one in a hundred who still seem to cling to the fantasy that you actually did this for a good cause.

The reasons for this war was not to help Iraqis, not at all. Never was.

/Marcus

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

The reasons for this war was not to help Iraqis, not at all.

Strangely enough, Marcus, there are those of us who believed that the removal of Saddam would actually help Iraqis. We believed that Iraqis were capable of governing themselves without the confines of a dictatorship.

It is those Iraqis who would help facilitate the horrendous attacks that are still taking place now who should be ashamed.

///RhusLancia said...

"We believed that Iraqis were capable of governing themselves without the confines of a dictatorship."

We believe that Iraqis are capable of governing themselves without the confines of a dictatorship.

Fixed it for ya, Lynnette.

For those who still facilitate horrendous attacks, they are cut from the same cloth as the ones who lorded over Iraq pre-'03, if not they are the same people.


ces couleurs exécuter en trois ans. Öbama.

programmer craig said...

JG,

This makes no sense. If Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, which everybody now acknowledges, then why would 9/11 lead to an invasion of Iraq?

It's not as simple as you make it out to be, JG.

For one thing, 9/11 was sponsored, planned and committed by Arabs. But, they were working out of South Asia and not out of the ME. Do you think the US should have given the Arab world a free pass for that, just because Arabs were smart enough not to shit in their own house? The Bush Admin obviously decided that they had to make an example in the Arab ME and they picked Iraq because the US already fought a war with Iraq, already had UN resolutions against Iraq, already had a broken ceasefire agreement with Iraq, and already had US public opinion against Iraq.

Personally, I didn't support the invasion of Iraq mainly because Iraq had not as far as I know ever sponsored terrorism against the US and it was supposedly a global war on terror, right? I would have rather the US invade Iran. Iran has a long history of terrorism against the US. A longer history of sponsoring and perpetrating acts of terror against Americans that Arabs do, actually. But if we'd done that, you'd now be pointing out that Iran had nothing to do with 9/11 would you not?

Which is why it is more complicated than you suggest. 9/11 didn't happen in a vacuum. Nor was it an isolated incident. It was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

Touta,

Did anyone even know where Iraq was on a map? Did they know of the suffering? Did they realise people died as families brought medicine from the black markets, that were actually little more than aspirin and flour?

Iraq was in the news here in the US pretty much constantly during the 1990s. So, yes :)

I'm not sure what this Iraq War Inquest is. I tried googling it and didn't find anything. I'll check the news sites now.

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Rhus,

We believe that Iraqis are capable of governing themselves without the confines of a dictatorship.

Fixed it for ya, Lynnette.


Thank you, Rhus. :)

Craig,

I'm not sure what this Iraq War Inquest is.

I think it's something the Brits are doing. I haven't been paying attention to the details.

programmer craig said...

Thanks, Lynnette! I did find a bunch of articles on it using "Iraq War Inquiry". You are right there isn't much new being reported... it's somewhat interesting to see where the British are beating themselves up vs what we Americans beat ourselves up for, though.

I say "somewhat" because I stopped paying attention to what the British think after they sold us out for Libyan oil. Who knows what they would do or say for Iraqi oil? There's so much more of it, right!? Or how about that lovely Iranian oil?

///RhusLancia said...

Hi Touta,
Ideally, what would you like to come out of the inquest?

Touta said...

what i'd like to come of the inquest?

well i'd like every other country who took part in the war to have an inquest

i'd also like for the admittance that in all honesty thanks to the path the world decided to take with saddam, a lot of suffering happened.

And i'd like them to admit that they are hypocrites for abandoning until harm and threats came to them.....

truth be told, i'm not sure exactly what i want, but all i can say is my ideals are not being met.

i suppose these investigations/paperwork etc just remind a lot of iraqis that the foreign nations are 'beating themselves up' decades too late.

perhaps the problem is that these inquests are missing the point completely, whci provokes annoyance in me?

///RhusLancia said...

Ah, gotcha. I see what you mean about the selfishness/hypocrisy of the Iraq policies. It looks to me like commentary on the inquest is seeking to punish Britain for its actions against Saddam, as in he should have been left alone as "contained", so you might remain annoyed if you're waiting for an accounting of the policies regarding Saddam in total. One article even has lawyers for the former regime planning to go after Britain or something.

FWIW I think we should have supported the rebellion in '91 but the realists and pragmatists wanted to stick with the known entity of Big Mustache instead. A very shameful decision, IMO. An even better solution, morally, might have been to condemn his invasion of Iran like we did his invasion of Kuwait. I know it wasn't gonna happen given relations with Iran at the time.

BTW, you were born in '91, right? Is there anything you would share with us about the rebellion, like what your family said about it, how you learned of it, etc.?

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Craig,

I say "somewhat" because I stopped paying attention to what the British think after they sold us out for Libyan oil.

I think part of the problem I have with so many people in Europe is their taking for granted the security umbrella that we have provided for so long. If they were without that, they may view world events rather differently.

Touta,

i'd also like for the admittance that in all honesty thanks to the path the world decided to take with saddam, a lot of suffering happened.

Well, I have no problem admitting that. Like Rhus, I think he should have been removed in '91.

Touta said...

Rhuslancia,

"Is there anything you would share with us about the rebellion, like what your family said about it, how you learned of it, etc.?"

there's lots and lots of interesting things, but since evryone is preparing for christmas and the new year...i'll tell you the details later . :)

lynnette,

i suppose ultimatley its the frustration of what should have happened over what did happen that has and will continue to dissapoint many people.