Now, here is the question - are all of those fatalities where they are because of the unruly Sunni, or because the coalition only controls two major roads in the country? (I am sure it is both, but what's the mix?)
Maybe because Iraqi fatalities are a mix of victims, soldiers and terrorists only Allah can untangle. The rest of the players' casualties are more clear cut: either soldiers or contractors of some sort.
Oh, people do care and do count, but there is a valid point here. How many Sunni were taken at gunpoint in the middle of the night by the Kurdish 'police'? How many undocumented Kurds were whacked by Sunni? It is a common problem for a country that never cared much about its citizens. For the record, (cema can testify), I do not approve of this war - but it is naive to think that suddenly, with the appearance of the occupation force, a life of an Iraqi is suddenly worth significantly more than it was for centuries. The occupants don't murder Iraqis for fun - that's more than what was to be said about the previous regime - but it doesn't mean everyone's got their social security card now.
Yes, yes -- some people do count, but there is no official count from anywhere! Governments that took countries to war on false premises (not that I would approve it even if they didn't turn out false) doesn't care about lives lost by Iraqis.
It is a good point about value of Iraqi life: now and then. I am not so sure on what exactly you base your "low value" prior to invasion argument, but not knowing enough will not contradict. However, the countried that imposed war on Iraq claim that they do care about human lives. And in my opinion we (american citizens -- unfortunate to have governemnt we dont' agree with) still can't be relieved of a responsibility for the lost life. We do care about human lives, our own for sure -- thus we have to care about others' lives too! For as long as I am not ready to sacrifice my life for some cause, I can't make this sacrifice on other poeple's behalf. And even if I were ready to say farewell to my own life, still I have no right to make that decision for anybody esle.
They did not go to war on false premises. The emphasis on WMD was the result of attempts to find common ground with the UN, and then it was overblown by journalists.
The argument are are making at the end of the second paragraph simply states that you do not want to consider a career of a military officer. Many people don't.
WMD was one of the reasons, yes. Not the only reason.
(I am strongly pro-war, but I have my own reasons and do not have to rely on someone else, even a government. I would not have put so much emphasis on WMD had I been asked about it, but nobody cares much about my opinion.)
> I am not so sure on what exactly you base your "low value" prior to invasion argument
First, we had a Kurdish friend (whos extended family was largely gassed out by Saddam, so she was/is extatic about the invasion). Her stories about Iraq are pretty horrific. Doesn't make her unbiased, or me an expert - but but but. If you have a country, where a third - or two thirds? - of citizens are treated like dogs simply because of their race/beliefs, you don't get much value for life there.
Second, have you traveled through third world in general? Starting from our good ole USSR's southeast? Poor countries, even the ones that are not ideologically malicious (like Thailand) simply have no money or desire to enforce any order other than the one that siphons money out of citizens. You might get military security, but you're sure as hell ain't getting civic security. You get tribes, warlords, so-called-police (really, a tribal militia), etc. Again, not much value.
> However, the countried that imposed war on Iraq claim that they do care about human lives.
This claim was really brought forward after our Govt. failed to substantiate the WMD claims, the reasoning, probably being - "whatever we do, it can't be really as bad as it was under THAT guy!" And indeed, I believe the occupants themselves are infinitely better than "that guy". But the real question it - how much of a cost of providing security for an Abdullah Q. Public from the middle of nowhere north of Baghdad can you pin on a US taxpayer. And - more important - how much of a US soldier's blood will we sacrifise to defend this Abdullah Q. Public from his own countrymen? And before you answer that this is our moral obligation now, remember - it (hopefully) won't be your son's blood, because your/my son will go to college. How moral is for me to advocate safety of Abdullah Q. Public at the expense of private LeShawn Q. Public from PG County? To wit: this (our questionable ability to make things better for Iraqis) is one of the reasons I oppose this war, but once our contingent is there, I think it should play a very limited role in protecting Iraqis from Iraqis.
I agree with you on may points (paragraph 1) -- however we don't need to go far in time to have low value of life in western culture. It was not until WWI that life's value became an issue. And nothing but progress could/can change this. No imposing of our values on anybody will lead to them accepting these values. If you remember, "" had one of the greatest paragraphs dedicated to meddling into others' societies -- that nothing good ever comes out of it.
Oh, yes, sure -- I totally agree: first our governemnt was pushing WMD on us, and when there were non to be found, we heard other reasons. However, being a citizen of this ocuntry I do feel personally responsible for electing the president we have, and I do feel that it's our duty to pay for this war (maybe not by pouring more lives into it, but rebuilding infrastructures and paying UN for providing peace keeping forces).
I think the issue is not whether the occupants are better than the other guys, but whether the occupation will lead to a regime which is better. Qualitatively better, so to speak. I hope so, but a lot depends on the will of the Iraqis to work towards that goal. And to some extent, on the will of the Americans to support them, and not to run away like they did in Vietnam.
That's true, but it is a catch 22 (again, one of the reasons I do not like this who;e business). If Americans meddle in Iraqi affairs heavily, they will bring on resentment for being invasive. Their proteges will be seen as mere puppets and will be hated probably more than they deserve to be hated just for being collaborationsts. Vietnam is a fine example of that: before the US got the hell out, it kept escalating, and what good did that bring?
Escalation of Vietnam war was not good, but the really bad part was that the war was surrounded by lies and stupidity, on all sides (stupidity of journalists and pop culture icons had especially painful results). I have a suspicion that this time there are fewer lies but more stupidity.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
It is a good point about value of Iraqi life: now and then. I am not so sure on what exactly you base your "low value" prior to invasion argument, but not knowing enough will not contradict. However, the countried that imposed war on Iraq claim that they do care about human lives. And in my opinion we (american citizens -- unfortunate to have governemnt we dont' agree with) still can't be relieved of a responsibility for the lost life. We do care about human lives, our own for sure -- thus we have to care about others' lives too! For as long as I am not ready to sacrifice my life for some cause, I can't make this sacrifice on other poeple's behalf. And even if I were ready to say farewell to my own life, still I have no right to make that decision for anybody esle.
no subject
The argument are are making at the end of the second paragraph simply states that you do not want to consider a career of a military officer. Many people don't.
no subject
no subject
(I am strongly pro-war, but I have my own reasons and do not have to rely on someone else, even a government. I would not have put so much emphasis on WMD had I been asked about it, but nobody cares much about my opinion.)
no subject
First, we had a Kurdish friend (whos extended family was largely gassed out by Saddam, so she was/is extatic about the invasion). Her stories about Iraq are pretty horrific. Doesn't make her unbiased, or me an expert - but but but. If you have a country, where a third - or two thirds? - of citizens are treated like dogs simply because of their race/beliefs, you don't get much value for life there.
Second, have you traveled through third world in general? Starting from our good ole USSR's southeast? Poor countries, even the ones that are not ideologically malicious (like Thailand) simply have no money or desire to enforce any order other than the one that siphons money out of citizens. You might get military security, but you're sure as hell ain't getting civic security. You get tribes, warlords, so-called-police (really, a tribal militia), etc. Again, not much value.
> However, the countried that imposed war on Iraq claim that they do care about human lives.
This claim was really brought forward after our Govt. failed to substantiate the WMD claims, the reasoning, probably being - "whatever we do, it can't be really as bad as it was under THAT guy!" And indeed, I believe the occupants themselves are infinitely better than "that guy". But the real question it - how much of a cost of providing security for an Abdullah Q. Public from the middle of nowhere north of Baghdad can you pin on a US taxpayer. And - more important - how much of a US soldier's blood will we sacrifise to defend this Abdullah Q. Public from his own countrymen? And before you answer that this is our moral obligation now, remember - it (hopefully) won't be your son's blood, because your/my son will go to college. How moral is for me to advocate safety of Abdullah Q. Public at the expense of private LeShawn Q. Public from PG County? To wit: this (our questionable ability to make things better for Iraqis) is one of the reasons I oppose this war, but once our contingent is there, I think it should play a very limited role in protecting Iraqis from Iraqis.
no subject
Oh, yes, sure -- I totally agree: first our governemnt was pushing WMD on us, and when there were non to be found, we heard other reasons. However, being a citizen of this ocuntry I do feel personally responsible for electing the president we have, and I do feel that it's our duty to pay for this war (maybe not by pouring more lives into it, but rebuilding infrastructures and paying UN for providing peace keeping forces).
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
But this is a war we cannot choose not to fight.