Smugness count
Two points to raise about this site.
1. The preamble, to give it its due, concedes that these numbers include those civilian deaths caused by "insurgent or terrorist action". It appears to shy away, however, from presenting that number separately from the Allied troops-related number. I'm willing to speculate which is the higher. At no point, of course, is there mention of that fact that a great many of those terrorists have no greater right, under whichever nebulous international "law" by which the invasion of Iraq was originally adjudged illegal, to be in Iraq than have the Allied troops. Technically, therefore, Iraq has been invaded by two armies (although only one of them dismantled the oppressive, bloodthirsty regime found therein previously; the other apparently wishes to see it restored).
2. I'm willing to speculate, too, that the civilian death toll in Iraq since April 2003 would by no means be insignificant had the Allies not invaded. The assumption seems to be that it's a zero-sum game, that Saddam wasn't in the habit of killing, or more accurately having killed, thousands of his citizens every year. And, of course, let's not overlook the fact that the vast majority of these civilian deaths since April 2003, whether caused by a terrorist suicide bomb or by a bullet discharged from an M-16, were ultimately caused by the so-called insurgency.
Speaking of which, can we stop romanticising that, please? An insurgency is when people rise up to defend their own country from state oppression, not when people rise up to resist the liberation from state oppression of another country. Enough mealy-mouthing. It's terrorism.
1. The preamble, to give it its due, concedes that these numbers include those civilian deaths caused by "insurgent or terrorist action". It appears to shy away, however, from presenting that number separately from the Allied troops-related number. I'm willing to speculate which is the higher. At no point, of course, is there mention of that fact that a great many of those terrorists have no greater right, under whichever nebulous international "law" by which the invasion of Iraq was originally adjudged illegal, to be in Iraq than have the Allied troops. Technically, therefore, Iraq has been invaded by two armies (although only one of them dismantled the oppressive, bloodthirsty regime found therein previously; the other apparently wishes to see it restored).
2. I'm willing to speculate, too, that the civilian death toll in Iraq since April 2003 would by no means be insignificant had the Allies not invaded. The assumption seems to be that it's a zero-sum game, that Saddam wasn't in the habit of killing, or more accurately having killed, thousands of his citizens every year. And, of course, let's not overlook the fact that the vast majority of these civilian deaths since April 2003, whether caused by a terrorist suicide bomb or by a bullet discharged from an M-16, were ultimately caused by the so-called insurgency.
Speaking of which, can we stop romanticising that, please? An insurgency is when people rise up to defend their own country from state oppression, not when people rise up to resist the liberation from state oppression of another country. Enough mealy-mouthing. It's terrorism.
posted by Novus at 23:16
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home