Wednesday 2 May 2007

Bush And I In Agreement

It would be fair to make the comment that the US President takes some stick. One of the most unpopular presidents ever at home and considered on par with the scum that collects on top of ponds abroad, he will not be winning popularity contests anytime soon.
With that in mind, i am shocked to find myself agreeing with his veto on withdrawing the troops from Iraq. Before my front room fills with bricks thrown through my windows,let me explain in terms Bush supporters will understand.
America, along with the UK and a few other lickspittle countries, went into Iraq and basically destroyed it. Did to Iraq what Paris Hilton does to anyone male and breathing.
What the Democrats want is to pull out the troops. This would save American lives sure, but seeing as Iraqis are being car bombed in their hundreds, where is the moral right in just upping sticks and leaving them to die at the hands of Insurgents?
If they are dying in such large numbers with the Americans there, it does not bear thinking about what numbers of innocent civilians will perish if left to fend for themselves.
Bush and I obviously reach the same conclusion for different reasons but to take a country, fill it with terrorists and then to run away is reprehensible. If the cost of protecting Iraqi lives is more American and UK military deaths, then it is something we will have to suck up because a UK or US life is not worth any more or any less than an Iraqi life, and it was us who put them in such a life threatening position. We owe them.

22 comments:

Paula said...

I agree too, Lucy. We can't just pull out right now, and I think Biden's three-state plan deserves a good look. We need some creativity here.

Mark said...

Just for curiosity, why are your and our, and a few others, "lickspittle" countries?

Cheezy said...

I understand the moral direction that you're coming from, Lucy... and I agree that, in a perfect world, we'd definitely stick around and clean things up.

But surely the real question is the more pragmatic one of "What good are we now capable of doing there?".

And I think that we're increasingly seeing that the answer is pretty much none.

(Unless this brillaint 'troop surge' idea is performing wonders that we're not hearing about?... I suspect not).

Even military men like General Sir Michael Rose is now admitting there's nothing constructive can now be done:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6618075.stm

There was stuff-all pragmatic, realistic planning involved with the invasion of Iraq right from the start... so I think a little bit of practical thinking starting from now wouldn't go atray... even if it results in an unpalatable withdrawal.

Unfortunately, all options in Iraq are now unpalatable. We just need to be realistic and choose the least shitty one.

Anonymous said...

I also have to wonder if the bull is going to be able to glue the plates back together if we keep him in the china shop.

Kos said...

Who are you and where did you put our Lucy?

Falling on a bruise said...

I don't disagree with you Cheezy and in any other situation i would agree that we should get the hell out but as much as i was against the war in the first place, i am equally against just pulling out and leaving it in a far worse state then we found it.
I don't see us withdrawing because our presence is unpopular and provoking violence, for me it is because UK & US troops are getting killed daily.
It isn't about helping the Iraqi population rebuild it's country, it is about dead American and British soldiers arriving back home in coffins. To my mind the welfare of the Iraqi's is way down the Bush/Blair list of concerns.
We broke it, we should fix it.

Cody Bones said...

I knew you would come around if you read Mark and myself enough. ;)

Mark said...

Good one, Cody!

Look out Lucy, your liberal tan is fading...

Cheezy said...

I don't see this as a conservative vs liberal argument at all... It's a matter of logic and basic empiricism, surely?

Here's what I'm talking about: There are a group of experts who have been proven correct with everything they said about the invasion of Iraq, dating back to before it happened. They warned us about the lack of WMDs, the lack of Iraqi involvement in 9-11 and the danger of starting a bloody sectarian civil war. Yes - they did say all these things, whether Fox/CNN/BBC/etc reported it or not...

And on the other side of the argument, there are also a group of ideological non-experts who said just the opposite - that there were WMDs, there were links to 9-11, and that it would be a piece of piss to install a democracy in the conquered lands. And all would be well.

Now, by and large, these experts who I'm referring to are favouring immediate withdrawal as imperative to improving the situation on the ground in Iraq. They recognise that the foreign occupation is a major part of the problem causing all the violence. So the removal of this problem is seen as crucial by these experts. They realise it won't cure the clusterf*ck overnight, but to withdraw from a situation that we cannot improve (and simultaneously remove a major grievance of many Iraqis) is seen as a necessary first step.

Conversely, the ideological non-experts still reckon that we can still 'win' in Iraq if we 'stay the course' and don't 'cut and run'. Deep down, these are probably the same people who think that Jane Fonda was mostly responsible for losing the Vietnam War.

While I realise that it's possible for smart people to get things wrong sometimes, and equally possible for 'unsmart' people to occasionally get things right, I think that - this time - we should probably throw the ball to the people who have been correct about it all so far...

Having said that, I still really admire the pure motivation behind wanting to 'fix' what we've broken... and I just wish I could share your optimism that it's at all possible. However, I suspect that this is a lethal delusion.

O' Tim said...

I second Cheezy's emotion for the most part. In my non-expert opinion, our president (the one Lucy is agreeing with) should implement the points brought forth by the ISG.

The Fez Monkey said...

[The US and Britain]] Did to Iraq what Paris Hilton does to anyone male and breathing.

You mean, the US and UK made Iraq vomit and consider becoming a homosexual??

Wow!

Ook ook

Falling on a bruise said...

We share the same sentiments in that we want to make Iraq safe for the Iraqis. We differ in the solution to make it happen.
By removing the protection (that is it) provided by the US & UK forces, we will just be leaving these people to their fate.
The Sunni/Shia conflict will explode and although we may not be keeping a very tight lid on things at the moment, any lid is better than none at all.
Of course we have to get out at some time but to do it while Iraqi's are dying in record numbers, due to our intervention, is ethically and morally wrong.

Mark said...

"Of course we have to get out at some time but to do it while Iraqi's are dying in record numbers, due to our intervention, is ethically and morally wrong."

How many Iraqis did Saddam off?

Just curious...

Falling on a bruise said...

According to the Documental Centre for Human Rights, in Saddams 24 year rule there were 600,000 civilian deaths.
How reliable the DCHR figures are is unknown but it is widely quoted.

Mark said...

Ah, thanks, Lucy.

Next question:

How many Iraqi civilians in this war have died directly at the hands of the coalition?

Cheezy said...

"We don't do body counts". General Tommy Franks

Falling on a bruise said...

I would argue all of them are a direct result of the invasion but i could only get 2004 figures from THE LANCET http://www.jhsph.edu/PublicHealthNews/Press_Releases/PR_2004/Burnham_Iraq.html and they estimated that 100,000 more Iraqis died than would have been expected had the invasion not occurred. Eighty-four percent of the violent deaths were reported to be caused by the actions of Coalition forces and 95 percent of those deaths were due to air strikes and artillery.
I will have to dig about for more up to date numbers.

Falling on a bruise said...

Lancet again in Oct 2006, 655,000 more Iraq's have died since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.

Best i can find becasue as Cheezy pointed out, we didn't do body counts. Our own we did but not the Iraqi's.

Mark said...

So if the majority of deaths are, in fact, a direct result of the Coalition's involvement, and one thinks that we should not cut and run, is it not reasonable to think perhaps those who are opposed to the war but think we have a duty to fix Iraq might want to try being supportive of the effort at this point to get a handle on the Sunni-Shi'ite violence and attacks and stabilize the damned place?

Falling on a bruise said...

I wholeheartedly support the effort to 'fix' Iraq, which was what this post said, as i will wholeheartedly support bringing war crime charges against Bush, Blair & any of our forces afterwards for the actions which led us to this stage.

Mark said...

Supporting the effort to fix Iraq is not the same as supporting the war. If one wants to see the war end and Iraq fixed, one should support the effort en toto, in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

"Saddams 24 year rule there were 600,000 civilian deaths. "

Well, does that answer the question? I mean, does this prove that Sadaam killed them ALL??

Maybe some died of old age? Disease? Car accidents? Lettuce with e. coli? Stepping on a rusty nail?

I've always marvelled at the "logic" that says we're doing the Iraqis a favor. Sure, they hated having food, water, and electricity. And all those buildings they lived in, they're better off without them. I mean, they may be dying in record numbers, but at least they don't have to worry about Sadaam, so life is better, right?

And who better to decide how they should live than us?