Sunday, May 13, 2007

More neocons in the ST Forum

Amazingly, the ST Forum editor knows no shame, and publishes another two letters supporting American presence in Iraq. I suppose the moneymen are just thinking about the increase in circulation they can get by stoking the controversy.

One of the writers, Tan Yip Meng wrote "Singapore is not alone in supporting the US. Countries like Japan, South Korea and Denmark know what the stakes are."

If he did some factchecking, he will realise the Japanese had left Iraq for quite a while already, the South Koreans should be all gone by now, and the Danish will leave by August 2007. The remaining non-anglo (US, British and Australian) troops are from almost all former communist countries eager to please the USA out of fear of their old Soviet master, with the exception of El Salvador. The complete list can be found here. More Canadians had died in Afghanistan than these nations put together, suggesting that they are kept far far away from any serious action and their presence is just to create the facade that this is not just a Coalition of Anglos.

Tan Yip Meng also thinks that Darfur is a larger humanitarian crisis compared to Iraq, which is wrong. I believe the estimated death toll in Darfur and Iraq are roughly the same.

But that is besides the point. The Iraqis may be oppressed under Saddam, but it was still a largely peaceful place, as long as you do not cross Saddam. One scandal of the abuse of Oil for Food funds was that, instead of food, the Iraqis used the money to order a liposuction machine. Can a nation this concerned with appearance be remotely interested with a doomsday assault on the West? Bush had NO CAUSE, even unjust ones to invade Iraq. Had Iraqi oil been successfully plundered, we wouldnt have to pay over 60 bucks a barrel. Even as a villian, Bush sucks.

Four years of being stuck in the Iraqi quagmire meant that the Anti-american elements of the world undergone rapid evolution of ideas on how to deal with American weaponry. You can see some of this knowhow deployed in Afghanistan already. Furthermore, the Americans are clearly losing. Not only is the death toll for American soldiers rising month by month, their ability to control even a tiny piece of Baghdad called the Green Zone is getting shakier everyday, which is why they need a "surge" in troops - not to extend their control, but to slow down the deterioration. Already, the Brits are forced to evacuate from their consulate in Basra. It is only a matter of time the US Embassy in Baghdad is forced to evacuate. The Americans can walk away, or be kicked out. It's only a matter of time. Worse yet, the whole world now knows that advanced American weaponry is nothing to be feared.

The other letter, written Christopher Gordon is even more stupid. He calls for Singapore to send more troops to Iraq, right when everybody else is cutting and running. Yah right.


  1. An employee of a national national newspaper should rightly espouse his and her loyalties to the Country which is the owner of their employer> If an employee is not loyal to his or her employer then he or she will fully qualifies to be a turncoat!

  2. By and by, you use the term neocon lightly. Not that it is totally a negative political ideology and not that is is a postive one either. The best definition of it lies in F. Fukuyama's book, After the Neocons: America at the Crossroads.

    So I wouldn't say that the letters in the ST are totally neoconservative like.


  3. In my book, the con in neocon has the same roots at the con in con men. It's a swear word. :P


    They call themselves the "Neocons"
    Meaning conservative,
    But really they are conmen, swans
    Of nastiness which give
    No credence to the points of view
    Of any other me or you.

    The problem with the conman´s ethos,
    Awhile though they may thrive,
    Its future merely leads to pathos,
    Collapsing in the hive,
    While those supporters of it, one
    And all, can´t guess at what they´ve done.