William Shawcross is a journalist based in London and yet another media chicken hawk. He's been a supporter of the Iraq invasion from the beginning and continues this line in today's Age:
"It seems unlikely that many of the so-called peace marchers who trooped through Washington and London two weekends back listened last Thursday - at least not with an open mind or sympathy - to George Bush's cogent explanation of why coalition troops are fighting and dying in Iraq.
"The sacrifice of US soldiers, of their coalition allies and of Iraqis is horrifically painful. But if we can stay long enough to enable the Iraqis to lay the firm foundation of civil society, their deaths will not be in vain. We should leave when the elected Iraqi government asks us to do so."
Same old arguments, nothing new to offer. Shawcross suggests the Western forces in Iraq are on a noble mission to bring democracy and freedom to the country. Only Bush, Blair and Howard clones still believe this anymore.
Interestingly, the LA Times originally published this Shawcross article on October 9. The headline? "Peace is not the answer." But ongoing violence and war clearly is.
Shawcross seems incapable of understanding that the mayhem will only intensify as Western troops remain in Iraq. As more of the country falls to the insurgency, perhaps ideologues like Shawcross will understand that the American, British and Australian troops have neither legitimacy nor right to remain in the country. And no matter how much Shawcross wishes it was different, people like him are contributing to our leader's ongoing delusions of "victory."
UPDATE: Letter writers in the LA Times respond to Shawcross. One example:
"I don't need to be lectured by Shawcross on who he feels is moral. Regardless of his endorsement of staying the course, he refuses to admit the lies that got the coalition in Iraq in the first place. That would make those so-called peace marchers who he claims are not open-minded or lack sympathy considerably more moral than he is."
KERRY MORSE
Irvine
"It seems unlikely that many of the so-called peace marchers who trooped through Washington and London two weekends back listened last Thursday - at least not with an open mind or sympathy - to George Bush's cogent explanation of why coalition troops are fighting and dying in Iraq.
"The sacrifice of US soldiers, of their coalition allies and of Iraqis is horrifically painful. But if we can stay long enough to enable the Iraqis to lay the firm foundation of civil society, their deaths will not be in vain. We should leave when the elected Iraqi government asks us to do so."
Same old arguments, nothing new to offer. Shawcross suggests the Western forces in Iraq are on a noble mission to bring democracy and freedom to the country. Only Bush, Blair and Howard clones still believe this anymore.
Interestingly, the LA Times originally published this Shawcross article on October 9. The headline? "Peace is not the answer." But ongoing violence and war clearly is.
Shawcross seems incapable of understanding that the mayhem will only intensify as Western troops remain in Iraq. As more of the country falls to the insurgency, perhaps ideologues like Shawcross will understand that the American, British and Australian troops have neither legitimacy nor right to remain in the country. And no matter how much Shawcross wishes it was different, people like him are contributing to our leader's ongoing delusions of "victory."
UPDATE: Letter writers in the LA Times respond to Shawcross. One example:
"I don't need to be lectured by Shawcross on who he feels is moral. Regardless of his endorsement of staying the course, he refuses to admit the lies that got the coalition in Iraq in the first place. That would make those so-called peace marchers who he claims are not open-minded or lack sympathy considerably more moral than he is."
KERRY MORSE
Irvine
10 Comments:
Same old arguments, nothing new to offer.
Wow, you and him have something in common after all.
Ah Waterton...
A student of life you are...
So young and yet so much experience...
Teach me, grasshopper.
Antony : I would, but I've got some kittens to drown. Toodooloo!
Incidentally, the term "Grasshopper" comes from the nickname of one of the main characters in a 70s TV series called Kung Fu. The character is the student, and Grasshopper is what his master calls him. So you're buggering up a cliche (and I know how DBO hates cliches - imagine how he'll react to this outrage!) when you say "Teach me, grasshopper". Antony, to use the phrase that has sunk into popular parlance; you have much to learn, Grasshopper.
Er, I was being ironic. But not in the Alanis M. way.
Good night and God bless.
The Iraq war is too good for key republican businessmen.
The only persuasive force that will get US (and thus UK and Oz) troops out of Iraq is the will of the American public.
This will take a higher rate of coalition casualties.
Such is the circle of death.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I know you were being ironic. Point is you muffed it up. Oh, you knew about the Grasshopper thing? You mixed up the meaning for ironic effect? It was all part of your big joke, huh, that I should have got but didn't? (long silence) Yup, I'm buying that.
By the way, it's nice to see you're following the comments threads.
DBO : Oh, I am a cliche? Woe is me! To answer your question re. meaningful contributions around these parts - not very often any more - I used to before, but I quickly learnt that it was a waste of time. However, I do enjoy playing with you guys. Don't worry, I'm on the way out. I used to find the sentiments expressed on this blog amusing, but now they're getting dull in their monotony - like the comment directly above this one (which is why I had to post again, sorry!) So you won't have to put up with me for much longer.
James, I truly enjoy your retorts. Don't go just because of a troll.
I can't say whether or not James is right, just that he actually posts other than bigoted snide remarks as is dirts' stock in trade.
Post a Comment
<< Home