Friday, 3 January 2014

What We Did To Iraq

The UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNIRAQ) report makes sombre reading, 2013 was the highest annual death toll for five years. A total of 8,868 people, including 7,818 civilians, have been killed in attacks across Iraq in 2013, in December alone, 759 Iraqis were killed and another 1,345 wounded in terrorist attacks and violence.
Hardly a day goes by in Iraq without news of blasts outside schools, mosques or markets and as the nations that wrecked the country pull out, it seems things are going from bad to worse for your average Iraqi.
After the deaths and destruction we have heaped upon the Iraqi nation, the worst part is that it never had to be like this.
We can never know what would have happened if we had left things alone but we can see what happened because we never left things alone and it is hard to see how matters could be any worse. 
Saddam Hussein was never a threat to the United States in removing him we have acted as the recruitment officer for Al Queada and radicalised more Muslims than Bin Laden ever did.
Three trillion spent, over a million Iraqi, thousands of Americans and hundreds of British deaths, a more powerful Iran, a weaker USA, civil war raging in Iraqi cities and the Middle East a more dangerous and unstable place than it was in 2003.
As the troops begin to leave Afghanistan, this is the template the Taliban will follow, filling the void left by the invading troops and seeking revenge.
The bottom line is we took an Iraq with no weapons of mass destruction, weapons inspectors ensuring there wasn't going to be any, a leader crippled by sanctions and a country bound by two no-fly zones, and filled it full of terrorists and generally wrecked it.
Rather than pulling out, the case could be made that we go back in to sort out the mess we made, to make the country properly secure and not what we define it as just so we can scarper out of the way of danger.
You would hope that in the 21st century, our leaders would have figured out by now that war is seldom a good idea. Shamefully, they haven't.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

An interesting point of view Lucy. You have a long memory for the mistakes made by people you disagree with.

You seem to have a short memory about everything else.

Iraq under the rule of saddam was a minority using military force to hold down the majority (something you despised about south Africa).

Saddam was hardly a benevolent ruler and since his regime controlled most information we hve no idea how many people he killed - would have to guess.

we do know he used chemical weapons on his own citizens.

Iraq was not invaded because it was a threat to the USA, but because unlike Quadafi (sp?) and others in the region Saddam refused to let the USA track down terrorists in his country - thus giving them a safe haven.

and once again I remind you that the Russians, French, germans, brits, Italians, americans, egytians, Norwegians, martians and everyone else thought saddam has weapons of mass destruction - which we did not want in the hands of terrorists.

lastly, all of yawl said we did it for the oil (bullshit then, bullshit now).

q


Lucy said...

I have a long memory for mistakes that lead to millions of deaths. I also seriously question your powers of recall. Where you not paying attention then or did you just swallow the nonsense that the likes of Bush and Blair were pushing out?

Keep Life Simple said...

yeah I question your numbers. The press loved bush so much, yeah they just printed everything W wanted (NOT)... sorry, that is reserved for Obama and people from the left.

q

Nog said...

At best, Iraq has been an enormous boondoggle.

I've increasingly been getting the sense that America fights far more wars because of other countries telling us we should fight them than I used to think.

Take Syria for instance. Countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan all have respectable militarizes which should each be independently capable of invading and conquering Syria. Same for the European countries gunning for an invasion. Why then was it that everyone expected America to do the invading?

Has the international community just agreed that America is the designated invader? It seems like it.

Obviously we should not allow ourselves to be repeatedly toolbagged into this role, especially when we are expected t pay for it in blood, treasure, and reputation.


-Noah

Lucy said...

You mean you question the UN's numbers, i never counted them.

Exactly right Nog, look at your list and throw in Israel and Egypt in the Mubarak days. All countries in the region that the US support in return for oil, military bases and acting as their mouthpiece in the region but for that support you are expected to do their dirty work.

In Europe, they want the US involved in any large-scale military action because war isn;lt cheap and they (we) know the US will bear the brunt of the expenses and provide most of the weaponry/troops.

You have become the designated invader of choice but it is a role your guys seem to revel in, not often a nice bit of conflict gets turned down by the US Government.

Nog said...

I think you're right that we sort of revel in it. It seems like there's a weird (and dumbfoundingly idiotic) process that goes about like this:

1. Some country or group of countries (i.e. Israel, Saudi Arabia, and France) have their diplomats talk our politicians into thinking invading some country is a good idea
2. Our politicians are persuaded and do media rounds about how the country to be invaded is evil and should be invaded
3. The majority is convinced that the invasion is a good idea for America
4. America invades, by this time thinking that the idea of invading was entirely domestic in origin
5. Everything goes to hell
6. The countries that originally came up with the idea become greatly upset with America, forgetting that the invasion was their idea in the first place
7. Americans, hearing the complains, remind themselves how much better they are than everyone else

Nog said...

I almost forgot...


8. repeat

Cheezy said...

If I hadn't already known that people are apt to see what they want to see, rather than seeing what actually happens, in basically every current event, then right about now I'd be weeping in either laughter or sorrow, or maybe a bit of both.

In any case, I enjoyed scrolling straight back up and seeing your new banner, Lucy. Very nice, very Lichtenstein!

Keep Life Simple said...

nog,

I think you underrate our leaders. every move is calculated. if we do something wanted by another nation, it is because we think it best serves our interests.

q

Keep Life Simple said...

cheezy,

luckily we have you to insure that we see all of the facts and the truth!

q

Lucy said...

Keep reading q, nothing but facts here (apart from the bits i leave out which may weaken my point or compromise my left wing bias obviously).

Thanks Cheezy, when i was asked what sort of banner i wanted to replace the Xmas one i asked for something colourful, maybe a bright Pop Art style, so glad it looks Lichtenstein-esque to other people.

Cheezy said...

Q

Hey man, I call it as I see it. And I can't deny it - I see a great banner!

C

Anonymous said...

Bingo. I actually liked the banner she used for 2 days with the clock look

Q