The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The dark, sordid truth > Comments

The dark, sordid truth : Comments

By Tom Clifford, published 27/6/2007

Vietnam was the 'Bright, Shining Lie'; Iraq is the 'Dark, Sordid Truth'. The war is lost and the signposts to retreat are clearly visible.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
A sobering reminder that it is not the body count which measures the faulre of the invasion - it is the refugee count.
Posted by healthwatcher, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 9:25:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The war is lost," Tom Clifford says, but is it accurate to call this a war?

Lakoff has been saying we need to see Iraq as an "occupation" -- partly because it plays better as a political frame; partly because the military's role is principally aimed at logistics (especially oil), rather than combat.

We could add a third reason: "occupation" better explains how so many the Muslim world see links to the Israel/Palestine conflict. It reveals that Crusader stereotype of the Christian West more clearly.

I don't mean to split hairs here. It is a murderously violent situation involving massive military deployments. But I fear that we dignify the wrong people's mythologies when we call it a war.
Posted by Tom Clark, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 9:39:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Americans have no intention of leaving. Even if they withdraw to their three giant airbases and abandon Baghdad to chaos they will stay because they need to control oil flows in the Middle East. To quote from http://www.americanprogressaction.org/progressreport/2007/06/50_years_of_war.html:

" PERMANENT BASES OUT IN THE OPEN: The Iraq Study Group advised, "The President should state that the United States does not seek permanent military bases in Iraq." Yet for the first time, the Bush administration "is beginning publicly to discuss basing American troops in Iraq for years, even decades to come," the New York Times reported yesterday, noting that the subject is "so fraught with political landmines that officials are tiptoeing around the inevitable questions about what the United States' long-term mission would be there." In public, administration officials are mostly silent. "But when speaking on a not-for-attribution basis, they describe a fairly detailed concept. It calls for maintaining three or four major bases in the country, all well outside of the crowded urban areas where casualties have soared." "

Most of the billions invested into infrastructure spending in Iraq has gone into these military bases. They have never had any intention of leaving.
Posted by michael_in_adelaide, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 10:24:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Only for Tony Blair and John Howard joining George W Bush in the attack on Iraq, very likely the illegal action would
never have eventuated.

With both still as cocky and cocksure as ever, especially Johnny Howard, one wonders how future historians will treat them
Posted by bushbred, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 11:27:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
so, what else is new?

the most useful question to ask, in my view, is: how was the decision to enter iraq taken, and if not satisfied with the decision process, what must be done to prevent such flawed decisions in future?

there seems to me to be a submissive acceptance that presidents/prime ministers/fuehers will go on plunging the world in misery, while we watch on with shaking heads. can't we do better?
Posted by DEMOS, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 1:02:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BB Part One

Michael in Adelaide
So sad to read your Post, Michael. But also congrats to you for having the guts but commonsense to have analysed what is really happening in Iraq and the whole Middle East. Under the lap, but rampant neo-colonialism. And certainly it was all there to see or note with Paul Bremer talking about Iraq becoming an important part of a globalised economy patterned on the American Way plus. And what else could you expect with oil-man Dick Cheney really pulling the political strings.

Truly the Americans havenít changed, especially the Texans, where even a preacher would place a loaded six-gun under the pulpit before he softly caressed the Bible later as he readied for his Sermon.

So sad also to suspect that Tony Blair and John
Howard, knew what the dirty plan was about for a start, especially with neo-Con Paul Wolfowitz having helped design the US Project for the 21st Century, which strongly supported regime change for Iraq, Iran, and all those other evil global peoples.

Also sad to say, little Israel is part of the project too, obviously out to benefit, as is shown every time she makes a move America does not attempt to stop her, White House Secretary Condy Rice, stepping in and taking over the role of the UN President, the UN leaders now usually passed by the White House, making sure they have insignificant characters enough to stay out of sight and never to protest.

More Later
Posted by bushbred, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 1:42:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy