Nothing in this blog can be believed. If you think that anything in this blog is true or factual, you'll need to verify it from another source. Do you understand? No? Then read it again, and repeat this process, until you understand that you cannot sue me for anything you read here. Also, having been sucked into taking part in the mass-murder of more than 3 million Vietnamese people on behalf of U.S. Big Business "interests", I'm as mad as a cut snake (and broke) so it might be a bit silly to try to sue me anyway...

Thursday, August 11, 2011

We snuck in, we trashed, and we snuck out...

Iraq.

We secretly snuck our SAS troops in before the invasion officially began. We helped the Yanks trash the country. Totally. Mission Accomplished. And then, we snuck our last 17 troops out of the country, trying really hard not to draw attention to it.

Such courage.

But next Anzac Day, and each one thereafter, our dishonest, cowardly, contribution to that oil-grabbing mass-murder spree will be "remembered" as our gallant and heroic contribution to the betterment of humankind.

And you dare not question that lest you be deemed unpatriotic.

17 Comments:

Blogger Gerry said...

Given a "colourful" email I've received, it seems some people need to have the use of the terms "dishonest" and "cowardly" explained to them:

Dishonest: We invaded Iraq based on a pack of lies dressed up as "intelligence reports".

Cowardly: Iraq was a militarily impotent nation when it was ganged-up on by the Coalition Of the Oil Swilling. It was, from a military viewpoint, the equivalent of a street gang of strapping, young, heavily armed thugs picking on an old cripple.

August 12, 2011 8:30 AM  
Blogger lemmiwinks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

August 12, 2011 12:26 PM  
Blogger AndrewM said...

Sounds like Lemmiwinks and I are on the same page. I started a comment but it grew so much I created a blog instead:

http://andrewmwrites.blogspot.com/

On the subject of 'cowardly': it is the mark of good generalship to arrive on the battlefield with overwhelming force. That doesn't excuse the invasion of Iraq, however.

August 12, 2011 3:49 PM  
Blogger Gerry said...

@AndrewM: Congrats on you blog. Hope you keep blogging. I'll pop over and comment later tonight.

"...it is the mark of good generalship to arrive on the battlefield with overwhelming force."

I wasn't talking about generalship, I was talking about the cowardice underlying America's decision to attack a country which had no chance of defending itself - a country which was in no way a threat requiring or justifying an American invasion and the devastation wrought by that.

August 13, 2011 5:57 PM  
Blogger John Myste said...

What's wrong with attacking a country that cannot defend itself? If you are going to attack countries, those would be my first choice.

August 17, 2011 10:02 AM  
Blogger Gerry said...

@John Myste: What's wrong with murdering hundreds of thousands of people? If you need that explained to you, you must be a certain type of American, in which case all explanations are a waste of time.

August 17, 2011 4:19 PM  
Blogger John Myste said...

Oh, you mean attacking an innocent country that cannot defend itself. That is a completely different question, then.

August 18, 2011 12:05 AM  
Blogger Gerry said...

@John Myste: You're getting cute with me again - another trait of a certain type of American for whom I have very little time.

If you think the Iraq war was a just war, then please put your arguments on the table clearly for all to see. Don't just slyly obfuscate around the edges and then run away when it looks like you might actually have to put up a sound argument.

August 18, 2011 8:19 AM  
Blogger John Myste said...

I was just being playful, something for which you profess little tolerance. I am a peace-loving man, but you seem to be itching for a fight.

If I were to rebut your argument, even though I opposed the Iraq war, I would do it thus:

Dishonest: We invaded Iraq based on a pack of lies dressed up as "intelligence reports". You can make the argument that the motivation for the war is dishonest, but you certainly haven’t done it here. You did state that this is your opinion, and I agree with that.

There are motivations were wars, which are hard to prove, and there are justifications for wars, which are hard to deny.

The justification for the invasion was NOT the “lies” that accompanied the invasion.

Here was the justification:

Saddam Hussein would not comply with U.N. resolutions, the final one being this one: “United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441.”

People don’t like to remember this fact because it doesn’t make Bush look as bad. Amid repeated allegations of false intelligence and misleading statement, Bush himself seems to have also forgotten, which lends some credibility to the idea that maybe Bush is more simple than deceitful.

I agree that the WMD argument was a likely fabrication on the part of someone, perhaps Bush. However, our original justification for the invasion was that Saddam was in violation of a unanimously accepted U.N. Resolution. The only counter argument would be that the U.S. acted ahead of the U.N. and with greater force than they had yet sanctioned. No one denied that the Saddam was in violation of the completely reasonable U.N. requirements. The only dispute was over when what action would be taken.


America repeatedly told Saddam that he must comply with the U.N. resolutions or be invaded. Saddam did not comply, so America invaded, as promised. I am not defending Bush. I am certainly not claiming that Bush always thought Saddam had WMDs, nor would I ever claim Bush thought. I am saying that the U.S. gave Saddam an ultimatum: comply with U.N. Resolutions designed to stop you from wreaking terror on the world, or be invaded. Bush did not make these resolutions up. The U.N. did, and they were in force well before Bush took office (and, by the way, Saddam complied with them until he designed mysteriously to stop).

When Saddam refused to resume compliance, kept its promise and invaded. If Saddam had complied, he would not have been invaded. Whether Iraq had WMDs at that point was irrelevant, not just according to Bush, but according to every single nation in the U.N. that voted.

All Saddam had to do to stop the impending invasion was to comply with the resolutions. Bush said he would not invade if Saddam did comply. He wouldn’t have and he couldn’t have. I am not sure why everyone needs to revise history.

Now, I had no intention of rebutting your argument. I am a man of peace and you forewarned me that it would be cowardly for me to start such a war. Additionally, you and I are like-mined in some ways. I believe we are both far left liberals and I know we both opposed the Iraqi war, so we have much in common.

We are virtual twins. In fact, the only real difference I see between us is that you want to go to war over the fact that we should not have gone to war, and I opt for peace.

My trolling white flag waves before you.

August 18, 2011 9:04 AM  
Blogger Gerry said...

@John Myste: I'm not trying to fight with you. Nor am I interested in debating my assertions with you in this instance. I'm satisfied that the war was built on lies and distortions. So does Hans Blix. So does Andrew Wilkie. I'm content with my verdict. End of story.

August 18, 2011 9:58 PM  
Blogger John Myste said...

This statement: If you think the Iraq war was a just war, then please put your arguments on the table clearly for all to see. Don't just slyly obfuscate around the edges and then run away when it looks like you might actually have to put up a sound argument.

Seems a tad out of sync with this statement:

I'm not trying to fight with you. Nor am I interested in debating my assertions with you in this instance. I'm satisfied that the war was built on lies and distortions. I'm content with my verdict. End of story.

I thought I had somehow offended you by visiting your blog in a trolling manner, which was not my intention. Per your request, I laid it all on the table, which you also did not really want. I think you are saying you wish I would remain away from your blog entirely, as my comments were not purely agreement.

August 19, 2011 9:31 AM  
Blogger Gerry said...

@John Myste: There is something about your style which I find aggrevating. Do I want you to go away? Not at all. I'll respond however I respond, and you respond however you respond. Ultimately if I really don't like what you're saying I'll just not publish that comment here. Draw your own conclusions. Make your own choices.

August 19, 2011 10:00 AM  
Blogger John Myste said...

Well then, I shall endeavor to be less annoying in the future. It may not be that simple, though. I have no experience not being annoying.

Time will tell.

August 19, 2011 10:05 AM  
Blogger Gerry said...

@John Myste: If you have no experience at not being annoying then do not act surprised when I get annoyed. Feel free to say anything. I will only publish those comments I feel like publishing, so it's all good. :-)

August 19, 2011 10:23 AM  
Blogger Gerry said...

@John Myste: About asking you to put your reasons (about the Iraq war) on the table and then not engaging with them:-

I just wanted to know what they were. I never said I would want to engage with you about them.

Having now seen them in all of their banality, I certainly do not care to waste my time getting caught up in a dance of endless obfuscation about America's pseudo-altruistic reasons for killing lots and lots of people.

You really are a crafty sham, John Myste, and in order to cut you some slack, perhaps it's not your fault. Perhaps you are a victim of American culture.

That's the nicest thing I can think of saying right now. Sorry, but having to witness endless campaigns of mass murder makes me a tad cross.

So shoot me.

August 28, 2011 10:25 AM  
Blogger John Myste said...

You remind me of that episode of Seinfeld where George turns his car around to go back and say "what he should have said."

So, you think I am crafty. That is too kind, sir.

In case I did not say it, I opposed the war in Iraq. That does not mean I have to subscribe to the retelling of the tale that I constantly hear.

Having now seen them in all of their banality

I am sorry to inform you, but the truth is supposed to be banal. It sounds like you were hoping I would make something up, so you would have something to refute.

I certainly do not care to waste my time getting caught up in a dance of endless obfuscation about America's pseudo-altruistic reasons for killing lots and lots of people.

Actually, I made no pretense at answering America’s reason for entering the war. I gave you American’s justification and with it, the things that could have been done to prevent it, regardless of what the true motivation was.

You really are a crafty sham

What an irrelevant assertion. I am crafty, but I am not a sham. If I were a sham, you wouldn’t know, as I have given you nothing to go on in making that determination. You simply need to say something you consider somewhat derogatory if someone disagrees with you. Disagreeing with you is not deceitful or unintelligent. Surely you can see this, right? People disagree with other people for a million reasons. You don’t own truth.

So shoot me.

Cannot do it, sir. I am against killing of innocent people, which is the main reason I oppose most wars.

August 28, 2011 10:42 AM  
Blogger Gerry said...

Perhaps we both feel better now... :-)

August 28, 2011 11:14 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

==========
<<<<< Home
==========