Skip navigation

Today I had the misfortune of hearing part of a speech by that indefatigable terror warrior, John McCain. Although, it’s not really significant that McCain, in particular, was doing the speaking. The tripe that was spewing forth from his mouth could have been, and has been uttered by numerous neoconservatives who are just as enthralled by the warfare state as Mr. McCain. The annihilation of a foreign enemy is number one on their priority lists. These are the people who were inspired and influenced by the recently departed William F. Buckley, the father of “modern conservatism.” Hear more about Buckley as antiwar.com’s Scott Horton interviews Lew Rockwell.

Now, as we all know, the neocon war propaganda mill has been working overtime since their beloved war to remake the Middle East hasn’t been going quite as swimmingly as they had hoped it would. We hear plenty of reasons why the U.S. simply cannot leave Iraq now. We are told that chaos would ensue. The terrorists will follow us home. We need to fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here. On and on it goes. But, in his speech McCain pulled out another one about which I had briefly forgotten. And here it is. We know that over 4,000 American troops have been killed in Iraq. If the U.S. leaves before achieving “victory” those deaths will be in vain. So we must stay until we have “won,” even though none of the neocons, including McCain explains how we will know what victory looks like.

So let’s see. We don’t want all of those deaths to be in vain. Well, tragically those fallen soldiers were fighting because of the disinformation provided by the State. We know that they were fighting for lies. How are those deaths not already in vain? And how do we improve the situation by committing even more troops to a protracted war in which victory can never be defined? As thousands more troops die people like McCain will just keep sending more troops into battle to make sure those deaths were not in vain. And when those troops are killed, the cycle repeats itself. This is not a strategy. This is madness!

But what about all of the Iraqis who have been killed? Estimates range from tens of thousands to around a million people. We can argue all we want about which data is correct. But just think about this for a moment. What difference does it make? If the war has killed ANY innocent Iraqis that is simply murder. To quibble over “thousands” of deaths should give any reasonable human being pause for thought. It’s never suggested that not a single innocent Iraqi has been killed in this war. Everyone knows some innocents have died. But, hey, as long as that number is relatively low, the war has been a roaring success, right? Once again this is madness! Talk about deaths being in vain! Can anyone honestly believe that any Iraqi who has lost friends and relatives because of the war will say it was worth it so they could be free from the rule of Hussein? Do we really expect them to say, “please America, don’t go before you achieve victory. For then the deaths of my loved ones will have been in vain?”

I say we tell it like it is. ALL deaths in this war are murder. However, in cases of murder by government, the murderers usually suffer no punishment for their crimes. It seems like this time it will be no different. But, if people like John McCain really want to stop people from dying in vain, there is only one morally permissible course of action to take: END THE WAR!

10 Comments

  1. I agree on what you’re saying about the deaths of our troops and innocent Iraqis, and I also agree on the fact that it is sad when you have a relative or friend die on you because of war, but what I don’t agree on is that when you said our troops our dying in vain, that just made me furious. Our troops are dying for the good of our country and for the good of the Iraq country. The U.S. needs to be there to help establish safety for the Iraqis now and the Iraqis of the future. If the U.S. left now, the U.S. would leave the Iraqis out to dry and even the Iraqis don’t deserve that. Plus, the U.S. is also getting rid of some of the top terrorist in the world.

    According to the article “A Scared, Confused People Voices Its Fears on Iraq’s ‘Dark Period’,” James Hider and Richard Beeston says that “Security is the big concern, with many saying that without the bare minimum of protection, no elections or rebuilding of the ravaged country can advance. They [Iraqis] wonder why their police do not have sufficient weapons to defend themselves and protect Iraq’s citizens; why the promises of freedom to live their lives never materialized.” So tell me, would you really leave a fallen country like that? Would you want people to be afraid of their own government? I know I wouldn’t.

  2. Cody, thanks for the comment. But how are our troops dying for the good of our country? There was no threat from Iraq. There were no WMDs. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before the U.S. government invaded. Please don’t misunderstand me. When I say the troops are dying in vain, I am not trying to belittle them. What I am saying is that they have been lied to, as we all have been lied to about this war. As Ron Paul has said many times, just look at Vietnam. Everyone said the U.S. couldn’t leave Vietnam because chaos would follow. Well, Vietnam is doing just fine.
    As far as leaving a fallen country I should remind you that Iraq is a fallen country precisely because the U.S. invaded in 2003 and overthrew their government. Do you honestly think that “we” are staying there to help the Iraqis become independent? This is an occupation. Our government is attempting to make Iraq another satellite nation in the American empire. “We” cannot, and do not have the moral authority to shape any other country’s government.
    As far as getting rid of the top terrorists in the world, how can the deaths of possibly a million innocent people be justified because a few terrorists got taken out, too? When the police are chasing a murderer through a crowded town in the U.S., are they justified in spraying the entire area with bullets, killing innocent bystanders, as long as they also get the bad guy?

  3. Well let me ask you one thing, how can you assume that there is no war on terror and that the Iraq is not part of the War on Terror? Didn’t Saddam Hussein hate American’s? What I am trying to say is that did you really think that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. The main hijackers in the 9/11 attack were Iraqis! I think that the troops still need to be in Iraq so we can clean up the mess Hussein has made in Iraq and in America.

  4. Cody, I’m sorry to correct you but the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, and Egypt. As a matter of fact 15 of the 19 men were from Saudi Arabia, which is, by the way, considered to be an “American ally.” None of the hijackers were from Iraq.
    Here’s a link to a page on wikipedia where you can see all of the hijackers names, click on them, and find out various information about them.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Participants_in_the_September_11%2C_2001_attacks

  5. By saying that the US has no point in Iraq, you’re assuming that there is no war on terror.

  6. I believe you are correct when you state there are many deaths constantly occuring in Iraq but I disagree with your assumpution that The United States is fighting for lies and we are fighting deaths until we are in vain. There is a War on Terror. Yes, many people have died in Iraq but if this war were to suddenly end, then there may be even more people dead due to terrorist attacks. If the United States does not take action now, then there may be a further oppertunity for future terror attacks which will end up in more people dying.

  7. Do you realize that you are assuming that there is not a war on terror?

  8. Erin, I don’t understand how I’m assuming there is no war on terror. Our government has made it perfectly clear that there IS a war on terror. They only remind us about it several times a day. But war on terror or no war on terror, our government has no business being in Iraq. Our government could have responded to the 9/11 attacks by issuing letters of marque and reprisal. Information here: http://www.progress.org/fold232.htm

    A “war on terror” was not necessary.

  9. Elaine, so how long does the U.S. stay in Iraq? Until every single terrorist in the world is killed? How long will that take? How much will that cost? We will certainly need to reinstate the draft. And when will we know when the “threat” has been eliminated? Is there a finite number of terrorists in the world? After we kill, let’s say terrorist 400,356, will we somehow know that we are safe?

  10. Wow, Ed. You sure got the attention of the deluded sheep who have succumbed to the war-mongering media propaganda. How did they even find your blog? Strange. Very strange.
    People don’t realize that we’re creating more terrorists than we’re killing. Heck, I’m pretty sure there’s more than a few Iraqis who think WE’RE the terrorists.
    The war in Iraq is pointless. When we have to PAY certain people to keep insurgents from attacking us… we are no longer actually fighting anything anymore.


One Trackback/Pingback

  1. […] Iraq-9/11 connection, Paul Wolfowitz, Saddam Hussein Based on a few comments I have received on this post it appears that there is still some confusion regarding the issue of whether or not Iraq had […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: