Monday, 13 July 2009

The War on Terror …

Hmm-mm … …

Well …

Where do I go with this one … ?

Probably to all sorts of places …

I mentioned, this morning, that I’ve an old friend who’s in the Army and being shipped out, tomorrow, to Afghanistan.

Which, if you’re in the UK, and have seen the news, you’ll realise is worrying for anyone with friends — or, God help us, family — who’re in the Army.

And, gods help me, I’m still none too sure about the whole chain of international events, leading here …

Well …

That’s not entirely accurate.

I can remember the biggie.


Who can’t?

It was one of those events, wasn’t it, like the deaths of Kennedy, Diana, or Gandhi; we can remember exactly where we were when they died.

The Twin Towers getting hit was like that, for me; I can remember where I was.

Boy, can I remember. Which is a whole other story, in and of itself.

And seeing the footage, I can remember what I thought, too, to this day; quite literally, I thought to myself, “Dear God, I hope that’s local …

Because, seeing the smoke coming out of the World Trade Centre, I know my next thought was “ … ’coz if that’s some bunch of loons in the Middle-East, there’ll be hell to pay.

Boy, was I right.

And, while I can understand the US and UK government’s sending the troops into Afghanistan — even though there’s a part of me that doesn’t like the idea of war as a political tool — I didn’t approve of the Second Gulf War. However good Tony Blair and company claimed the evidence was.

The first Gulf War, we could point at Saddam Hussein’s actions in invading Kuwait, and at least say we had some sort of moral justification for sending troops in; and yes, before you ask, I heard a lot of speculation in the pub, about George Bush, Sr’s links with oil companies providing a good way of explaining his motivation for that.

But we could at least say something about big bullies invading the little guy, and look smug.

Hmmm.

That could’ve been better phrased, couldn’t it? But you take my point.

We could say a had a morally justifiably reason for the First Gulf War.

But — beyond the very dubious line about Weapons of Mass Destruction — I don’t think we could say the same about the Second Gulf War. I really don’t.

After, I as many other’s, quite quickly worked out that — if Saddam Hussein had some form of WMD’s — he’d’ve used them on the invading troops.

OK, so we toppled an evil régime.

I’ve an old friend who regards China’s Communist government as equally as evil — and, yes, I know China’s record on human Right’s isn’t squeaky clean, even though I don’t necessarily think ‘evil’ is a helpful word to use — but I don’t see us invading the gaff.

Go figure!

But here’s the point I’m trying to make; I think that whatever we’re trying to do in Afghanistan — spread democracy, overthrow the Taliban, guarantee rights and education for Pashtun women, what have you — wasn’t helped by invading Iraq.

Which means that, tomorrow, I’ve a friend going to fight a war that could have been finished along time ago.

And has taken more lives than it should. (Including, according to the BBC News Channel, three 18 year-olds. 18 years old? That’s to young to be a war hero!)


19 comments:

Daswolven said...

Well, personally I think there's little to nothing that we will be able to accomplish in the Middle East in the long run. There is no will for democracy there, where such will exists to the degree it must in order to be effective, the people take it for themselves. There is no end to the secondary and unspoken justifications for why we are there, anything admitted is excuse. That being said, I have no problem being in Iraq, Afghanistan, or going into Iran either for that matter. Every extremist with a rifle our soldiers kill is one less in the pool of people who would gladly kill our civilian women and children for some psycho-religious zealotry. That cannot be construed as a bad thing.

Nik Nak said...

I’m not too sure about that last point, there, Guy; don’t forget, the 7/7 attacks on London’s underground were UK natives!

Daswolven said...

"I and thousands like me are forsaking everything for what we believe. Our drive and motivation doesn't come from tangible commodities that this world has to offer. Our religion is Islam, obedience to the one true God and following the footsteps of the final prophet messenger. Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. Until we feel security you will be our targets and until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation."

This is a quote from Mohammad Sidique Khan, one of the 7/7 bombers. He was rifleless, granted, but no difference otherwise. We're not talking nationalities, we're talking extremisim. I don't care where they were born, or what flag they wave, these are people who cannot be reasoned with, and who have no tolerance for other belief systems or ideals. The Madrasas they studied in and the pseudo-political views they carried are a virus that originates in the Middle Eastern hellholes we seem insistent on trying to clean up.

Nik Nak said...

Oh I can’t disagree, there; extremism is definitely NOT a good thing. And I can agree that it’s something that transcends nationalities.

But there’s extremism in all walks of life, and not just religious extremism, either. Lest we forget that, whilst the Nazi’s aimed there collective ire at people — in part — because of their faith, there was also a large dollop of racism in there, as well.

And a danger, here, is to tar all members of a religious community with the same brush. I’ve met a few member’s of AA and NA, many of who see Islam, and other faiths, as a key part of their recovery; and do nothing but deplore the actions of the extremist few.

The proverbial bad apples are thankfully few , if invidious and vocal.

Daswolven said...

Ah, but I have no ill will towards the 99.999% of the Muslim faith that don't partake in such primitive ideologies. I don't however, give a rat's ass about their feelings, or whether or not they feel pressured or prejudiced against because of the anti-extremist sentiments out there. When whites in the 50s and 60s were opposed to racism, they made their beliefs known and protested openly. I see very, very little open condemnation of the extremists by the rest of the Muslim world. Silence is nothing but an awkward and cowardly acquiescence.

Nik Nak said...

Good point!!

I’m fully behind those (non) extremist of the Muslim world who wish to protest when our troops are brought back in coffins …

BUT …

Like you, I don’t see anybody Muslim protesting against extremists, and do see plenty anti-American ones. (Saying that, I also think that the USA isn’t the perfect example of democracy and freedom that some elements of the Bush administration would’ve have us believe.)

Daswolven said...

Ah.... We have some fundamental disagreements, which of course, is what freedom is all about! :) Let's start over. I will say that I think it was a terrible mistake to go into Iraq. The people do not want, and cannot cope with the freedoms they have within their grasp, but are still not willing to fight for. When we do eventually leave, they will again descend into chaos, and the militant extremists will come in to restore order. Regardless, I will not protest the war, nor our presence there. We have not done ill with these actions, but good. We have lost lives, lives which are best respected and honored by standing up and being proud of the sacrifice they made in service to our country, for the idea of freedom, and the liberation of the oppressed. For you see, no one can argue that the people of Iraq were oppressed, that is inarguable fact. We have given them a gift which they will squander, an opportunity they will ignore. and we killed a fair number of these extremist cockroaches to boot. That's something I will support any day. If I will protest something, it will not be the mission these men and women died for, but the ignorance and weakness of the people who will inevitably reject their sacrifice. The only people there with the will to have the gift we have earned with blood and sweat are the Kurds, and ironically, we keep them for liberation to placate the spineless remnant.

Paul Diamond said...

How come THEY are always extremists and WE are not?

How could invading a whole country on the basis of some tenuous-at-best evidence linking some local warlords (maybe) with a terrorist event not be described as extreme?

We are busy creating the next generation of 'terrorists'.

Blair, Brown, Bush, Obama = all the same = all full of crap.

Nik Nak said...

Oh, I can and do honour British doing their job, even though I personally feel being sent to Iraq was an extremely bad move.

I’m also thinking Paul and Nicole have a point, there, as well; I personally feel we’re were on firmer ground occupying Afghanistan, in light of the 9/11 attacks; however, I do think the Taliban were a side issue.

Sort of.

Again, a bad régime, certainly, and one that supported Al-Qaeda in it’s work.

And one that we and the US government supported — as we did Saddam Hussein’s — when we felt it was doing what we wanted.

We can accuse the Taliban of being extremist.

There’s no doubt they are.

But we weren’t complaining, when we were helping them fight Russian occupation.

I think ~SomeGuy~ has a point in saying there isn’t a desire for democracy, in Afghanistan.

But they, and we, all want peace, quiet, and tomorrow to be much like today; one in which we can raise our families, and earn a (metaphorical) dollar.

Daswolven said...

Well, we do seem to have some common ground. I find humor in hearing the same people who bash the war in iraq express outrage at the iranian election debacle. the irony there is unescapable. As for the comparison of our actions to suicide bombers who target civilians as a matter of course, I really can't even comment on such moronic idiocy. It makes me want to laugh and vomit simultaneously. The fact is we are there, and we will eventually leave. When we do there will still be terrorists there, just as there were before we went. Its an uncivilized region controlled by religious zealotry just as most of the now civilized world was 300 years ago. Minus thinkers and works of art. We put saddam in, and we taketh away. Americans are selfish, and I'm one of them. I only care about the results. My friends and family are less likely to be killed in their homes or places of business. The justifications are of no consequence to me. We didn't make terrorists, nor encourage them. We can kill them however, and terrorist states as well. And we will, regardless of who likes the idea.

Nik Nak said...

Hmmm … Food for thought, there, ~Guy~

How’s this, though; there]s a very cynical side of me that’s going to put out the amount of times that US bombers have gone in, and been accurate. There’s also times when US bombers have gone in and hit civilian targets.

There’s also a cynical point that one person’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist.

Have a look at the Wikipedia entry for NORAID, for example; and, as it counted as a charity in the US, I seem to recall stories that McDonalds were seemingly happy to donate to the cause.

As foe the Iranian election ; well …

Over on this side of the pond, usually the opposition just sacks the party leader, Iran just riots. (I’m not going to complain about their definition of democracy; their head of state is a priest, nominated by the last priestly head of state. As a man who’s a citizen of a country who’s head of state is the eldest child of the last one, who am I to complain?)

Anonymous said...

I have to say that i don`t get it.
All i will say is that in my opinion our troops should not be there and they are dying for nothing.

Daswolven said...

Good points, and well taken. I honestly have no problem with civilian casualties when the target is the enemy. I have an issue with them when they were the target. If terrorism consisted of attacks on military, I could buy the freedom fighter idea 100%. They don't. The people we are erasing have no distinctions between a man in uniform with a gun, or your grandmother. They simply have more men with guns to target at the moment, when we all withdraw, they'll be back after your grandmother, no pause, no hesitation. I would much more favor complete withdrawl, along with an immediate shift away from oil dependancy for the worlds civilized countries, and extreme profiling at all border points.

Honestly though, I do buy the weapons of mass destruction intelligence bit. Not because of what bush or blair have to say, but because of what bill and hillary do not. If this little tidbit were not legit, they'd be preaching from the hilltops. That said, iraq doesn't solve anything. We have plenty of rouge nations itching to turn london or new york into a sea of black glass. Iran, north korea, etc. There's always another scenario to be dealt with. Odds are one of them will eventually succeed in making 9/11 look like a scraped knee.

Id rather be a little preemptive then reactive when it comes to such things. You?

Nik Nak said...

Oh, you’re right; BUT!!

Blair and Bush both put forward the idea that we went into Iraq with the thought of wiping out Saddam’s WMD capacity. But I still hold to the basic thought that if he’d had it, he’d’ve usedit.

I’m with you on withdrawal, though, and on moving to greener alternatives. (There’s still ongoing debate in the UK about what counts as green, though; somehow, I don’t think. But having whoever controls the fuel being outside our control? Not good; have a look at Frank Herbert’s “Dune”, if you get the chance …)

And, unless I was reading the news wrong, Iran started rattling it’s nuclear testing sabre, when it realised it had a large unfriendly coalition army, next door, that had shown itself perfectly capable of invading somewhere it didn’t like the look of …

Correct me if I’m wrong!!

Nik Nak said...

And, not to put too fine a point on it, the UK has had it’s nasty moments; internment, the Opium Wars, what have you …

Daswolven said...

We sir, live in nations that hold great responsibility for maintaining the stability of the rest of the world. As such, they must by course involve themselves in all manner of unpleasantry to maintain the status quo. One does not really debate the despots of the world in open forums and achieve results.

The U.S.A. no doubt leads the world in underworld political activities, both within and without its borders. And make no mistake, while we have that whole aversion to torture business, that G.B. sees its fair share of the outsourcing.

Somehow, I can see a Brit pulling someones fingernails out and still managing to be polite about it. I also happen to be pro torture btw. If someone has information that could save the life of a citizen of a free nation, and doesn't want to share, by all means, chop chop. I get queasy when I think about the fact that 9/11 could have been avoided with a few well placed knitting needles and one or two inconvienenced would be virgin collectors.

Does that leave room for abuse? Absolutely. Omelettes and eggs and whatnot. Innocent people go to prison too, but the other 98% are damn well guilty. It's the cost of an efficient governmental structure.

Were life fair, we would all get what we deserved. I sure as hell wouldn't want that.

The fact that he would have used them given the chance absolves in my soul our presence and his demise. I again would have preferred a quieter means, but oh well. As for Iran, you are correct. Prior to us having such an immediate presence, their constant threats to annhiliate isreal in a nuclear hell was the constant state of the nation address. I happen to like isreal. We go way back.

Given enough time, and considering the invasion of kuwait, you would think that things would have eventually gotten to the point that the entire world would be behind this preemptive and evil plot were now engaged in.

Looking back, I think we should have stepped in on germany a bit sooner than we did. There's the proactive vs reactive quandary. Wait for the justification, or do what you think is right, and make the reasons up on the way there? I also like to think that the civilian casualties of nagasaki and hiroshima were necessary. Without such an atrocious show of force, you would be speaking german, and I would be making transistors in a sweat shop right now.

Nik Nak said...

Hmmmmm …

Nagasaki and Hiroshima, necessary?

An old boss of mine, Arnold Jackson, would agree with you; so would I.

But my old boss compared them toe Holocaust, Coming from someone Jewish, that stuck in my mind!

And, yes, you’re right about sweat shops!

I also know MI6 had a few lads at Guantanamo Bay …

But I’m still of the belief that torture — whatever the rights and wrongs — doesn’t necessarily work; I think the Inquisition showed us that.

As for preemptive over reactive? Well, I don’t know; ones as good as the other, I think, but I’d’ve preferred to see Saddam use the weaponry he’s supposed to have had, before we went in. Either that, or invaded at the time the carried out the 1st Gulf War.

Daswolven said...

Well. I just read your bio actually, and I see the root of our differences. Ill detail, but only if you promise not to take offense. I've actually come to enjoy this discourse. You're a macintosh user. You have a beautiful machine that runs smoothly with little intervention or correction required. Designed by someone else, without user input or customization. If something goes wrong, you bring it to someone else, and they fix it for you. Its a gloriously easy and somewhat socialistic experience.

I run a 3.2ghz quad core amd processor I mounted on an asus motherboard with 4gigs of ram. I assembled it myself from name brand parts I purchased online without warranty. Mounted drives give me my choice in operating systems. Its an incredibly devastating piece of 64 bit architecture. I put it in a $15 flimsy and unappealling case.

I do not care about aesthetics. I have no use for appearances or status. I care that it works, the way I want it to work. I care that I hold the responsibility for its function or failure. I want to be able to open it up and fix it, change it, or make it better without anyone elses intervention or dependancy.

I also detest microsoft, and eagerly await a semi open source OS from google, which will be forthcoming in good time. I am writing this from my G1, running rooted android.

As with all of the international politics under discussion, we have the ability to shape the world, and take responsibility for the consequences of our actions and decisions. I like being at the heart of things, shaping them to our will, assuming such will is in the end directed towards the intention of making our experiences in this short life better in the end for the majority of its populace. I like the idea of freedom, responsibility and self reliance. Personally, nationally, and internationally. I also like the idea of consequence.

I agree we should have finished the first gulf war. We succumbed to caution in the face of potential international criticism and backed off before finishing the ordeal. Hindsight being what it is, we should have wrapped things up then. We had a much better excuse.

Nik Nak said...

Didn’t we just have an excuse!

And you’re right, politics at ANY level is shapable — you might have read one or two of my posts, I don’t know — and yes, we as individual’s have to take responsibility for any decision we make, at whatever level.

I’m also very aware that — as a Mac user — I get a lot of flack about the ol’ style over substance.

I’m also fairly aware that my old G4 had two interior drives; one with Tiger, another with the breezy Badger version of Ubuntu.; and, given the money, I’d’ve gone for a MacPro, with a similar set-up.

Ultimately, for me, it’s also not about the look; although I’ll happily admit the Mini’s a joy to look at.

It’s about easy of use, reliability, and — I think this is something many don’t pick up on — familiarity with the operating system. That’s a big part, I think! I’m also fairly convinced that that’s a big factor against switching, at least for many Windoze users; those of us who’ve chosen something else, know there’s choices available.


And I’m also — having looked around — know how to modify my Mini, so I can — when the money’s better — up the RAM, hard-drive what have you.

We all have freedom’s.

And choices …

And the right — or possibly obligation — to speak when we see something we feel needs speaking about!