| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"stoney" |
| Date: |
11 Apr 2004 09:12:55 PM |
| Object: |
Neil Clark: These three blokes just don't get it |
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9251997%255E7583,00.html
Neil Clark: These three blokes just don't get it
12apr04
TWELVE months on from the toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein in
Baghdad, the folly of the war against Iraq is now clear to all but the
most wild-eyed occupants of Planet Neo-Con.
In launching their war of aggression, George Bush, Tony Blair and John
Howard brushed aside those who warned that deposing a cigar-smoking,
Sound of Music-loving secular dictator – whose long-serving deputy was a
practising Christian – would only play into the hands of Islamic
fundamentalists. They rubbished those who doubted their claims that Iraq
possessed WMDs. They scornfully dismissed the millions who marched
against war in Washington, London and Sydney as "appeasers". And they
ludicrously sought to portray themselves as the successors to Winston
Churchill.
Now, as the insurgency in Iraq enters a new and even bloodier phase,
it's time for all of us who predicted the consequences of military
intervention to make our political leaders pay the price for their
arrogance, deceit and recklessness. That means calling for independent
public inquiries – not into the workings of the intelligence services,
which our leaders now find it so convenient to use as scapegoats – but
into the high-level political decisions which led our nations into such
a disastrous conflict. It means exercising our democratic right not to
vote for any MP, senator or political representative who supported the
illegal invasion of a sovereign state in defiance of world public
opinion.
And it means campaigning for an immediate, unconditional withdrawal of
all coalition forces from Iraq. Blair calls a withdrawal "running away".
Bush vows there will be no U-turn in policy. And Howard has made
similarly resolute statements.
Yet, for all the tough talk, the reality remains: all coalition troops
should be replaced by a temporary UN/Arab League peacekeeping force
authorised by a new UN resolution. This is the only way out of the
morass that our three would-be Churchills have led us into.
Examine the arguments for finishing the job and you'll see that they are
as full of holes as the ones were for starting the job in the first
place. Pulling out now, the neo-conservatives say, would be a setback
for the war on terror.
But, after the long-running sore of Palestine, it's hard to think of
anything more likely to fuel Islamic hatred for the West than the
continued forcible occupation of an Islamic country against the wishes
of its population.
Who needs al-Qa'ida recruitment videos to warn of the evil of Western
imperialism when you have the US military firing missiles at a mosque in
Fallujah, killing 40 people during afternoon prayers? With their bull in
a china shop foreign policy, Bush, Blair and Howard are the sort of
recruiting agents Osama bin Laden could only dream about.
Withdrawing troops now, the war lobby warns, would lead to Iraq
descending into civil war. But if the coalition forces were to be
replaced by a UN/Arab League force of peacekeepers – not including
troops from any country that had taken part in the invasion of Iraq –
the chances of full-scale hostilities would be considerably less than
they are today.
The coalition troops will never be able to bring stability to Iraq for
the simple reason that they have no business to be there. US, British
and Australian troops have no more right – morally or legally – to be
patrolling the streets of Basra, Baghdad or Fallujah than Iraqi troops
would have to ride in jeeps down the streets of New York, London or
Brisbane.
Once we acknowledge this, and accept that coalition troops in Iraq are
an illegal army of occupation of the same status as the Wehrmacht in
Poland in 1939, then we can make progress. Peacekeepers must be
perceived by the population to be genuinely impartial before they can
gain public consent for their operations.
Armies of occupation, by contrast, are there to be shot at. The
"coalition of the willing" chose force as a way of implementing the
political change they wanted in Iraq. They can hardly complain now that
indigenous Iraqis are following their example.
The alternative to an immediate withdrawal of coalition forces really is
too terrible to contemplate. The US, Britain, Australia – and any other
country foolish enough to have sent troops – would have their forces
bogged down for years.
They'd be occupying a country and a people who do not wish to be
occupied. Billions of dollars, which could have been spent on domestic
health and education programs, would instead be spent on sieges of Iraqi
cities and a never-ending war against one group of insurgents after
another. "Fallujah remains one of those cities in Iraq that just don't
get it," says Brigadier-General Mark Kimmitt, deputy director of
operations for the US military in Iraq.
But Kimmitt and those who share his view that coalition firepower will
ever be able to stop a people determined to free themselves from foreign
occupation are the ones who just don't get it.
Neil Clark is a tutor in history and politics at Oxford Tutorial College
in England.
© 2004 The Australian
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Neil Clark: These three blokes just don't get it |
11 Apr 2004 10:22:48 PM |
|
|
In article <njuj70dvg2smqnl7ep8cnqqm462l9rbenr@4ax.com>, says...
And they
ludicrously sought to portray themselves as the successors to Winston
Churchill.
Actually, part of that comparison might have been apt, since Churchill as a
xenophobic, war-mongering terrorist. However, Churchill had the luxury of
fighting a somewhat more justifiable cause, since he actually didn't start the
hostilities (though he would have if he could have) and was actually defending
his country, instead of waging a war of aggression.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Neil Clark: These three blokes just don't get it |
12 Apr 2004 12:45:40 AM |
|
|
In article <MPG.1ae3b9747772af969896fa@news.individual.net>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <njuj70dvg2smqnl7ep8cnqqm462l9rbenr@4ax.com>,
says...
And they
ludicrously sought to portray themselves as the successors to Winston
Churchill.
Actually, part of that comparison might have been apt, since Churchill as a
xenophobic, war-mongering terrorist. However, Churchill had the luxury of
fighting a somewhat more justifiable cause, since he actually didn't start
the
hostilities (though he would have if he could have) and was actually
defending
his country, instead of waging a war of aggression.
I think that the comparison might be more apt because while everyone
remembers Churchill from WW2, he also took part in British colonial wars
in Sudan and in the Boer war in South Africa. He, also on occasion,
spoke of maintaing the British Empire, even though many of the imperial
subjects wanted out.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, but in
proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
