2,000
And the question remains-- why?
Not for WMDs. Not for oil (output is far lower than before the war). Not for "democracy." Not for the war on terror-- we've created more terrorists and more terrorism.
For what?
Update: CNN and others retract, putting the death toll at 1,999. The question remains the same.
2,000: Tragic, Horrifying, Criminal
This is a tragic milestone, horrifying for the senseless, inexplicable loss, and the result of criminal--homicidal--policies of this unconscionable administration.
Craig
I think you go too far in your claims.
"Not for WMDs. Not for oil (output is far lower than before the war). Not for "democracy." Not for the war on terror-- we've created more terrorists and more terrorism."
Not for WMDs: the strongest of your arguments, because the administration was so bad on this issue, cherry-picking, exaggerating, lying, *preventing* the inspections from being completed which would have answered the issue peacefully within months - but nonetheless, there is an argument for the future threat of WMDs from Iraq - what Saddam would/could have developed after the sanctions were ended.
We've all seen the quotes from the Clinton administration that they saw a major threat on this too, and chose a policy of regime change.
The Bush administration was very aggressive in pursuing the policy they did - seeing that the option to go after Saddam later might not exist. There's all kinds of room for criticism of them on this, but it's not as simple as 'we didn't find the WMD the administration falsely alleged, so the issue has zero merit'.
Not for oil: the oil is still there, even if it's not being extracted much now. Will it be in 2, 5, 10 years? The administrations policy has strategic aspects to it, increasing the likelihood the oil will be going where we like and not to others. Yes, there are problems with the policy - but again, it's short-sighted to judge the issue by the output at the moment as the only measure.
Not for the war on terror: On the one hand, Saddam had terrorism a lot more under control than Iraq does now (other than his own, which killed an estimated 300,000 Iraqis, and who knows how many people in the Iraq/Iran war in which we had some complicity, and yet more in the Kuwait invasion we so provocativly green-lighted).
But the *potential* introduction to the middle east of democracy *might* bear a lot of good. It might not. Again you can't look only at the current situation and judge: you have to look years down the road too, which no one can tell what will happen yet.
Your article is as if someone had written it in 1778 about the US, saying 'what good was that lousy declaration of independance, all it brought was not any new democracy, just increased killings, war, suffering'. Well yes, at the time that was true.
I do not mean to say whether the war was right or not, or whether its effects will be good or bad later.
I mean to criticize the article's arguments as fallaciously limited and short-sighted in how it answers the war's merit.
B.S.
Craig:
Your article is as if someone had written it in 1778 about the US, saying 'what good was that lousy declaration of independance, all it brought was not any new democracy, just increased killings, war, suffering'. Well yes, at the time that was true.
What sits atop this howler are more howlers.
America wasn't a Democracy in 1778. Is was arguably a democracy in 1787, but not 1778. War did not make America a democracy, it made it a nation. What made it a democracy were people like Jefferson and Madison. The Constitution didn't exist during the Revolution. It is a false statement to say that any Revolutionary soldier was fighting for democracy. Many citizens of the newly-formed American nation specifically didn't want democracy.
As is typical of Iraq War apologists, you can't even describe well-documented history acurately, and yet you expect ominous warnings about "what Saddam would/could have developed after the sanctions were ended" to be accepted as a credible justification for war. Whatever. You are an demonstrated ignoramus, so pardon me if I don't feel comfy sacraficing American lives on the basis of your infantile fantasies.
And so what if Clinton was wrong, too? I don't let my elected officials do my thinking for me. Frankly, I'd prefer they didn't do my governing either, but practical considerations force the issue. That said, millions of us, including people with direct knowledge such Hans Blix and Scott Ritter, screamed as loud as we could "There are no WMDs" so this "how could we know otherwise" B.S. is just sickening.
How many deaths will it take before the supporters of this war feel a twinge of regret? You people are supposedly human, so I'm holding out hope that there is, in fact, a number.
-- Winston
You misunderstand
It's clear you did not understant my post - far from 'correcting' the history, you said the same thing and called it a correction.
That was the point, that at 1778 we did not yet have a democracy or other later developments; a commentator in 1778 would have been able to make similar observations as the original poster here did, citing the war and costs without seeing any of the future benefits. The positive would be, 'at least King George the tyrant is not in power', just as now it's 'at least Saddam is not in power'.
Calling me a 'typical war apologist' is simply an embarrasing revelation of your lack of reading comprehension.
I am a little to the right of the people who are certain what disasters are going to happen in the long term from the war, the people who see zero good that has or could come from it, the people who oppose taking a chance to try to do good - and note, I don't give the Bush administration credit for that.
I do see the Bush administration as having the wrong priorities, the wrong methods, as corrupt and incompetent, as taking dangerous steps to undermine global cooperation, as not only having the obvious mistakes in handling Iraq but apparently having even worse plans it was unable to implement based on far right-wing ideology; I see the risk of the war making things far worse, with an 'Iran West' enemy.
I see some chance for some good to come; I see the long term as uncertain.
However, it's not enough to criticize mistakes; the left needs its own policies for the middle east. Hands off, assassination, covert political activities, better fought war, carrots with aid to encourage good behavior, whatever, but policies. The people who wanted our constitution originally to ban slavery chose to still support it when they lost that issue. They didn't just criticize.
I don't have the answers to the complicated questions of the middle east, but I can see the flaws in some inadequate policies.
As far as my comments to the original poster, I stand by the original post I made about its limitations and flaws.
1,999: Tragic Horrifying, Criminal
I think Mathew's update brings forward an excellent point. The count is tragic. Period. What's really sad is that milestones like "Another 1000" provide occasion to highlight that fact.
I'm hoping that we don't have another reason -- a "3,000 KIA" -- for organized memorials.
2000, yes war is hell. But,
2000, yes war is hell. But, I'ld rather fight the bastards over there where it originates than in our country. The terrorists come from the middle east, train there, are brainwashed there, breed there, etc. Strike them down before they get here. President Bush and his administration responded to their unlawful criminal acts, recognized the threat of inaction, developed a plan, and declared war on the terrorists. Not taking aggressive action lets them fester and brings them to us. They already hated our civil society, our democracy, our freedoms, our equalities. They are, however, a dying breed. If it takes a war to eliminate them than so be it. That's what our military is for, Praise our president for having the guts to use it. The ungreatful war protesters whine, but on the other hand they are glad to enjoy the fruits of a free society. They just don't have the vision to realize freedom isn't free. They think freedom is supposed to be handed to them on a silver platter, with no sacrifices made to insure it for us and generations to come.
On a lighter note - Cindy you don't speak for me, but I hear the White House is electrifying the fence, and Vice President Cheney has the remote.
love, Johny, the antiliberal
Cheney better stay away from
Cheney better stay away from that fence. With his Darth Vader bionic heart, they don't even let him go near the microwave!
Appropriate Destinations:
Crooks-->jail
Chickenhawks-->war
Jerks who attack Cindy Sheehan for using free speech-->special torture room in hell
Cliches are Hell
Nice work, Johny -- you managed to get all the popular war -- and, specifically, Iraq war -- cliches into a single post.
Freedom isn't free? There's no factual basis for claiming that the 2,000 American lives lost have purchased any freedom for anyone. Read a newspaper for a change, and join the Reality-Based Community.
Freedom isn't free? What, exactly, have you paid for it, Johny?
dear john
"President Bush and his administration responded to [the terrorists'] unlawful criminal acts, recognized the threat of inaction, developed a plan, and declared war on the terrorists."
-Yes, that was called Afghanistan. Now what's your reasoning for invading Iraq?
Do you think that calling yourself an antiliberal means that anyone who disagrees with you is liberal?
reason for invading Iraq
OK, the reason GW Bush invaded Iraq was: 1. he was on a roll with Afghanistan under his belt, and Afghanistan was not enough, someone else had to pay. Someone who was evil, yet not appearring to be a seriously worthy opponent 2. the fervor of still being pissed about evasive, spread out and from not one particular country, terrorists getting us on 9/11, 3. S. Hussain threatened to kill his dad GHW Bush during his tenure as president - so it was partly revenge. GW felt this was the ultimate opportunity for revenge - to satisfy a personal vendetta. It was up to his surrounding powers (Rumsfeld, Homeland Security, et al) to tie in reasons the world would buy into.
"....anyone who disagrees with you is liberal?"
most of the time, but I realize there will be exceptions due to my going through learning periods.
Johny, the antiliberal
Flypaper
Johny-
You say fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here is a good thing. Think on this. If China decides that the growing number of Christians in China is a problem, what if they invade the US. They decide to fight Christianity here, so they don't have to fight it over there. As their justification, they say that we had brutal murder rates here under democracy, so they take away the guns, and build farms and schools. They write a new constitution, and make us choose from their ideas of what is right. This is a logical extension of your thinking.
just one big temper tantrum
that's the only explanation that fits the facts...
2,000: Tragic, Horrifying, Criminal
This is a tragic milestone, horrifying for the senseless, inexplicable loss, and the result of criminal--homicidal--policies of this unconscionable administration.