warning: this is politically incorrect.
already the rush of festivities, if one may use that term, are gearing up to remember september 11, 2001. like most of us, i can remember well where i was that morning. a good friend and i had flown down to LA on september 10, for some time of reflection and beach. little did we realize the change that morning would bring to our schedule, let alone the world as we knew it.
this weekend millions of people will spend some time reflecting on that event. hardly anyone will spend any time thinking about the 80,000+ iraqi casualties that are connected forever (though many of us struggle to see the connection) to that event.
some years ago i stood at a memorial to another watershed event in history - pearl harbour. as i meandered through the exhibit i was struck but the incredibly idealistic rewriting of history, as presented by the tour guide. the largely american audience was regaled with sentimental drival concerning the loss of human life. though i can appreciate the sacrifice made on that day, though i mourn the loss of any human life, many of us do not see pearl harbour as a senseless loss.
He speaks with respect to the American sacrifice in WWII and goes on…
Published 3 years, 2 months agowhich brings me full circle back to the events surrounding 9/11. like all civilized people i believe that what happened on that day was more than tragic. that innocent civilians could be sacrificed to the fortunes of political conflict is inexcusable. i wonder, however, how choked up we would be had those been merely iraqi or somalian or rwandian lives… if they had not been predominately middle-class, white, north american lives. some hundreds of people die in a flood in the states and it is seen as an international tragedy. thousands die in the same way in a mid-eastern country and it barely makes the news. thousands of innocent iraqis die because of american foreign policy and you have to search the net to find out the casualty lists. imagine the outcry, just try to imagine it, if 80 or 100,000 americans or canadians died by foreign political will.
this weekend, as i reflect on the horror of 9/11 i intend to take a moment or two to pray for those expendable iraqi citizens who daily face the horror of loss of life and unimaginable violence.
for those who suffer by the millions in african countries where there is no oil to liberate.
Search
Subscribe 
You are currently browsing the Bene Diction Blogs On weblog archives.
Related Entries
For blog design, Wordpress or MovableType coding or blog consulting, see cre8d design.
Nice article, except I would more than likely compare the Iraqi war to our Revolutionary war, where hundreds of thousands of our citizens died. This is a war for freedom for Iraq; it also happens to be very, very beneficial to our nation to see the Iraqis as a free nation, which is why we are there now. .
The hurricane was tragic, but not by global standards. As a citizen of the US, I should mourn, and feel it is tragic, just as for 911. But I haven’t personally asked anyone from a different country to care one way or the other. I don;t expect the world to see these tragdies of ours in the same way I do. But I do know that my nation is a bit whiny, and overall, unable to cope with disaster the way our forefathers did.
No oil to liberate?
Nice cheap shot on a solemn day.
Amen, Tom. Also, how many of those 80,000 were supporters of Saddam? I feel it is a travesty to lump people who are part of Al Quida, Saddam’s regime, etc. in with those who are fighting for true Freedom and Liberty for all.
Those who use War for oil arguments must also use no war for oil arguments as well. How about France and Germany’s being against the War in Iraq because they were getting oil from Saddam’s regime? We seem to forget that. So which is it folks? So I could say logically if you were against the War it was for oil reasons as well because of France and Germany getting oil from Saddam.
Bene I’m glad you feel your view is politically “incorrect”. I too agree with you. I personally like to be politically “correct”, if you get my drift. Just being humorous.
i didn’t write the lead DH it’s part of Scott’s post, what I said is in italics.
How can Scott be so naive as to think that Pearl Harbor wasn’t senseless killing. Japan supported Hitler!!! There was no re-writing of history. The fact remains Japan attacked unprovoced. The US never attacked Japan first. In fact 4/5 of our navy were in Hawaii 2500 miles away from Japan!!
I think the re-writing is by Scott. I have studied this subject so much and to label my view as “idealistic” in light of the research is appauling in my opinion. I get it facts that portray the US in a better light in relation to all opinions must be wrong. (Sarcasm)
I was willing to overlook this until the itallics were brought up. I was originally being fun. I’m sorry you didn’t think it was humorous.
To compare insurgents (those numbers contained within the 80,000) to the innocent lives lost on 9/11 is appauling as well. Those groups are not even in the same category nor should they be mentioned in the same breath.
I think France and Germany’s reasons for lack of involvement in the war for political reasons is inexcuseable as well.
I wouldn’t want you to feel ignored DH.
I didn’t put Scott’s post in blockquotes (laziness) and was merely clarifying my lassitude.
I’m sorry you feel attacked.
later: Okay DH, I reformatted to the more familar style here at BDBO.
you may be missing the point of the pearl harbour analogy. perhaps you should read the whole rationale. i never sought to downplay the sacrifice of those who died, only to paint it in light of the millions of lives that were saved as a result.
80,000 civilians. civilians who, though some may have supported saddam had no right to be killed for their political idiology any more than those who were killed in 9/11 deserved to die for the political idiology of their nation.
Thanks Bene, I wouldn’t have posted Scotts piece but it is your site and I respect that.
Your bro, D. 
To Scott:
You may never sought to downplay but you did. That is a fact. To try to rewirte history the way you did seems so off. To call what I say mu view as idealistic and a rewriting IS insulting in light of the research on this time period I have done.
Your last paragraph? I totally disagree (ok 99.9% disagree and I explain later). If someone agrees with an evil dictator, to me, they are the ones enabling the dictator and therefore are in the same category. Again to put those insurgents and those who supported Saddam in the same category with those who died from 9/11 is a terrible insult to those who died in 9/11. I’m appauled by your last paragraph. On a somewhat balancing point, I am neutral (neither approve or disapprove) on how the US is integrating people who supported Saddam and later renounced Saddam back into Iraqi society properly. It takes time. We will see if this becomes a downfall to the Iraqi’s. However, that statement doesn’t change my feelings with the way you said those statements Scott.
I’m sorry the US is totally different than the insurgents. To put them in the same breath is a travesty. Oil to liberate? I prevented France and Germany from liberating their oil they were receiving under Saddam. It can’t be one side on this “oil thing”.
I will react to anyone who says insurgents are innocent.
sweet, a pissing contest. let’s debate who knows more about history, who’s read more, who’s ‘appauled’ more, who understands politics or the american foreign agenda more. let’s pretend the war is about freedom. let’s demonize all terrorists.
made you think…
You didn’t make me think you just pushed me more to being stronger in my position by the. This type of vitrolic response by the other side solidifies what I already know to be accurate history (France in 1938 and later under Vichy even though they were the number 1 world power at the time (fact), Italy when they supported Mussolini, Germany when they supported Hitler, Japan when they supported Hirohito, Cambodia when they supported Pol Pot, China when they supported Mao, North Korea when they supported Jung-il, Iraq when they supported Saddam, Afghanistan when they supported the Taliban. If you look at many of these countries now they are wonderful democracies and are successful now after getting their governments to support the people on a grand scale (Japan, France, Italy, Afghanistan and to a lessor extent Iraq being an embryonic freedom).
We must help people who are not these people to not to be tortured under these evil regimes. To even slightly imply Americans or the government to these groups is horrendous. To sit back and let Saddam torture the Iraqi people is worse than what has happened already. Is war terrible? I totally agree with you but in this and of some cases necessary for the greater good. Question: Is it wrong to cut off a grangenous arm because it is painful? no but it is for the greater good of the body. Is cutting off a gangrenous arm good because it is for the greater good? no because it is one of the most painful of surgeries and compassion should be given to those who have this terrible of surgeries done to them. So this is analogous to Iraq. I cry for Iraq that this has to be done but I also know it is for the greater good and the people overall know this. We can’t let these people down.
the fact remains Japan attacked unprovoced. The US never attacked Japan first.
Not to be nitpicky, but technically Iraq did not attack the US first, either.
Bene, thanks for the article. I do believe that our government has some questions to answer. And whether or not the parting line was a cheap shot, it made a valid point. There are millions suffering elsewhere under oppressive regimes and we don’t pay them the same attention. It’s a stain on our nation’s soul.
No, but the people within Iraq was attacked and tortured. Therefore, the US came to their defense. Just like the US came to the defense of the UK in WWII. You misunderstood my comments and therefore it is equivilent.
Drina, I agree there are others under repressive regimes and I think in Sudan there needs to be help to defend the people who support freedom and justice from being attakced within those countries. Diplomacy has been tried for years and has been unsuccessful in many of those countries. This begs the question on many issues as well. Drina, you and I are in agreement on the other regime comment you mentioned.
Drina, it was isolationism the idea you must be attacked within your country to come to the defense of another nation that made WWII longer and therefore more lives lost. It was erroneous belief that diplomacy with Hitler and their allies would be successful that actually promoted a greater injustice than what actually happened.