A Salacious Ratings Chaser (Bombs over Baghdad)

Member Name: marandina

Product:	Bombs over Baghdad
Date:	09/02/03 (55 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: See opinion

Disadvantages: See opinion

Excuse the introduction but it's my favourite quote of the week (from the Michael Jackson documentary). I've been meaning to post this for a while now although I didn't want to do it now so soon after posting my previous opinion. However, Jill has pricked my conscience yet again so here it is, my version of the current crisis with this possibly being less controversial than letting Martin Bashir into your bedroom at lights out.

Today's Mail on Sunday reports that Tony Blair's popularity is at its lowest point since the last general election. With a country on the brink of war, public opinion seems less convinced than ever that a war with Iraq is justified. So why the uncertainty bearing in mind the previous conflict with Iraq?

A number of points are made in today's newspaper including:

 Over 60% of people feel that Tony Blair is acting more like the foreign minister of the United States than GB's PM

 A Downing Street dossier of intelligence reports on Iraq turned out to be plagiarised from the work of a US student 12 years ago.

 Ultimately, only 55% of people feel that Tony Blair is doing a good job as PM

So what's gone wrong? Isn't the reality that Iraq is a rogue state in need of reigning in for all of our sakes?

Of course, the problem is, in the main, double standards. Fact one: Iraq poses a possible nuclear threat either now or in the future. Reality: At present, Iraq is unlikely to possess a nuclear arsenal capable of doing any damage to Britain or the States. ALSO: Israel has nuclear capability and has suggested that it will use it on neighbours should a threat materialise that justifies it. Furthermore, North Korea, certain Russian states, China, India and Pakistan all have existing nuclear capability. Ask yourself just how stable you consider these states to be. I mean, India and Pakistan are constantly threatening each other, in the mai
n, due to a dispute over territory. The president of North Korea is playing "pull the lion's tail" with the US with a public re-activation of it's nuclear programme. Russian states are volatile to the point where just about anything can be bought or sold on the black market including components to make nuclear weapons. Also remember that Pakistan was one of the safest havens for Osama Bin Laden after the Afghanistan campaign in a country that is, in parts, just as fanatical as those that choose to follow Bin Laden himself. This all begs the question, why make such a big thing over Iraq?

Look, Saddam is a terrible despot who is a tyrant that starves his people and forces them to live a life of destitution in terror. Surely not in doubt. HOWEVER: Look around the world. Nigeria, Zimbabwe, China, Saudi Arabia...erm...I could go on,. All have regimes founded on one party rule that inflict terrible injustices on their peoples. Again, why single Iraq out? Just across the border lies neighbouring Iran where people suffer similarly but, of course, Iran is old news just now so doesn't get a mention.

But the regime in Iraq must be overthrown. Again, not the worst idea in the world but who would replace them? It seems a fact that Saddam's son is even worse than his father and stands accused of human rights violations almost daily. There will be numerous others that operate in spheres of influence who wouldn't hesitate to abuse power in the same way that those before them have. Puppet rulers rarely last long so whilst the West could insert it's own leader, the likelihood is that he/she would soon be usurped by a more acceptable leader in the eyes of Iraq. Don't believe all the hype that Saddam Hussein is hated by his own people. Levels of poverty in third world countries is such that ignorance is common. Public opinion is easily manipulated to the point where the existing culture is accepted without question simply because
people don't know any better. In the absence of widespread education it's virtually impossible to see this situation changing for years to come. I seem to remember a Saudi prince being quoted as saying that women would be emancipated in general in Saudi Arabia but for the ignorance of the people. He felt that the Public simply wouldn't be able to handle such a shift in culture. Needless to say, there seems to be a huge element of self-preservation in this stance although the historical argument flowing from the emancipation of the serfs in Russia and it's ensuing consequences for that nation over the following fifty years suggest that he may have a point - however wafer thin it might be.

It needs to be said at this point that I am NOT inferring that all people in these countries are poor, ignorant zombies. All will have their own social classes including bands of the population that can compete with the most intelligent from around the world. Things are such, though, that huge swathes of demographics simply do and think as they are told and it will take years of effort to change this. Any resulting armed offensive is hardly likely to help this process. Some may argue that the devastation in Afghanistan has helped the country to start again. That may be so but this situation is very different to one in which a highly dangerous man capable of inflicting misery on millions was being harboured with little or no intention of doing anything to remedy the atrocities that had been meted out by a religious zealot who overtly wants to convert the world into a Muslim Mecca as a home to the most radical of fundamentalism.

I suppose it is inevitable that I'd consider the financial implications of any conflict. To my mind, events post September 11th mean that the world really will never be the same. In Europe and the US, a terrorist could be around every corner and events in New York did more in a few minutes than generations of internal ter
ror from groups like the IRA. I can't help feeling that the world economy as a whole is generally unstable because of these events. Stock markets are built on confidence but that has never truly returned with an entrenched paranoia radiating out from the US. A conflict with Iraq simply serves to exacerbate an already twitchy system founded on a system of weights and pulleys reactive to future certainty and peace. Any fall out from a protracted contract really could mean devastation for millions with an already fragile infrastructure foundering on the longest Bear Market for generations, low investment returns, collapsing pension systems and a watershed job market. If this sounds overly black it isn't meant too as there is a strong theory in financial circles that if enough people predict a crash then it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Fingers crossed that the economy of the world, as a whole, works itself out.

Without wanting to outstay my welcome on this subject I'll wrap up. Basically, I have a horrible feeling about the route our elected government is taking on this one. Ultimately, I don't see the harm in being an ally of the US but not to the point of blind subservience. I just hope that someone wakes up and smells the coffee. Are we doing what we are planning to do for all the right reasons and have we factored the consequences out in the right way? If not...


Thanks for reading

Have a great Sunday

Marandina

Summary: