US-Australia row over Iraq War's justification
Just as the Auatralian troops serving under an US-led coalition in Iraq have completed their five-year committment and begun to withdraw, a high-level row has also broken out between Australia and the United States on the original justification for the US-led military operations.Worldviews of McCain, Obama in perspective
posted by James Wong Wing-On at 7:52 AM
13 Comments:
Kevin Rudd and George W Bush have very different world views. A matter of time before they clash. In fact I'm surprised they managed to avoid an open argument for so many months.
Bush really needs to stop defending an indefensible position. America can only start to move beyond the Iraq fiasco if it can admit "We were wrong about the intelligence".
i suppose rudd has time as a new pm and see no point of arguing with a second term us president who is leaving the scene soon.
Iraq was a catastrophe, no doubt about it. What surprises us is that those who advocated the cause of war have now fallen silent, but still refuse to eat the humble pie.
Arrogant and self-important people like Bush have contributed to the world's suffering.
Why can't they just say: Sorry, I was wrong?
wee siong: different systems of values and interests in the real world have different definitions and asessments of "victory" and "defeat" on case-to-case basis.
My name is Wee Siang.
So, what really constitutes victory and what defeat? Whichever suits you?
Close to one million innocent lives have been lost unnecessarily in Iraq since 2003, and you still consider it victory?
Only a psycho would think likewise. Period.
If we want to analyse and understand history and current affairs, we have to look beyond the "Bush is Evil" mantra.
He may well be, but it doesn't help any objective understanding.
That advice also applies to the "Iran is Evil" crowd.
During WWII, Stalin was called Uncle Joe in the American media and during the subsequent Cold War, Uncle Joe became an Evil Man also in the American media. Honestly, could German fascism be defeated by the ex-USSR without Stalin's breakneck industrialisation in the 1930s that built up Soviet Union's capacity to build tanks and other defence system that matched that Nazi Germany?
In the 2003 Iraq war there are no winners but only losers. Tell that to all that dies in this so call war on terror. These losers are those killed in action, civilians and their family.
what about, for example, US' own weapon manufactorers and salesmen? Private Security Firms like Black Water?
this sounds like a one-man talking shop. man who keeps talking to himself, bordering on mental breakdown..... me butting out, ciao!
Wee Siang I am sorry for mispelling your name once. However, I think, with all frankness, you must learn to accept counter-argument with facts, whether you like it or not, that have not known or neglected in your fixation. The real world is more complex than your moralistic and self-righteous outlook suggests. If I am a talk-to-myself madman you think, I would not be invited to lecture in Singapore or China, or exchange ideas with the US National War College, etc. Cheers.
Hmm, I often suspect those who constantly accuse others of being "fanatic moralists" happen to be those who are eager to be in the good books of the major powers in the world today. It is not that they do not recognise the importance of moralism and consistency, but their desire to be seen "acceptable" to the powers-that-be almost always overrides their moral conscience. These are also the people who, despite all the evidence to the contrary, insist the invasion of Iraq has not been a failure and certainly not in vain.
In other words, they cannot afford to lose the favour of their patrons. :)
And it is the "self-righteous" lot who often present them with the inconvenient or home truths. Little wonder that they are livid all the time :)
Personal jealousy smartly packaged with language of moral indignation.you are still welcome anyway. cheers
Post a Comment
<< Home