Deceit Of Leaders (Iraq)

Member Name: SlyClone2k

Product:	Iraq
Date:	28/02/03 (90 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Gets rid of one nutter, I say better the devil you know.

Disadvantages: Needless conflict that will only make us a bigger target.

This seems to be the place chosen to rant about the imminent war and I fancy a go to.

_____

The Dreams of The Blue Turtle (1985) by Sting has one particularly memorable song called Russians, whilst driving in to work today the song struck a chord, not just because of its memorable, haunting russian-esque style but because, save a couple of words, the song could be as relevant for our current climate as it was for the political hot bed that was still in peoples minds toward the end of the cold war.

For those that haven’t heard it, or have forgotten the words the song sings of the threat and fear of nuclear weapons in the cold war period. Of most important note is possibly the following set of lines;

There is no monopoly on common sense
On either side of the political fence
We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology

I don’t understand what it is Bush thinks he is achieving as he switches his reason for invasion from one foot to the next. He continues to probe in an effort to find backing from his people and the people and governments of Europe. I find his arguments transparent, even without the current, somewhat cynical and possibly even entirely propaganda-esque view that the U.S. are running out of oil and its just a big ploy to get more.

So far he has chosen three tacks to choose, the first and most notable is that Saddam harbours weapons of mass destruction. As has been said, many times, there is little doubt that Iraq has a substantial stock pile of weapons that they shouldn’t own, in all reality the weapons makers of the west had a BIG hand in providing the components for them. Although in perspective the weapons he is believed to own are nowhere near the par of the toys at the hands of the worlds most powerful (and un-educated good time) man.

But god knows its looks as though they are at least beginning to show signs of co-operation. No doubt as a response t
o the growing army that sits just of its shores. As I read elsewhere, Hussain is largely just a power mad fool, though not too much of a fool to realise that he can’t win a war against the U.S. So he has finally capitulated and begun to destroy weapons. Hans Blix is heard to say that he wishes that Iraq had made this move sooner, but surely anytime is good.

The next stance is that Hussain is breaking the UN policies. Policies that have been put into place to ensure that he actually allows the weapons inspectors access to the files, munitions and sites pertaining to illegal or banned weapons. Particularly those of chemical and biological warfare. I don’t find it odd that Saddam chose to stall for as long as possible. I find it something akin to making sure the bailiffs don’t come into your house and started counting things up if you’ve promised them the money, it comes down to trust. I have no issues with America building up a presence to enforce international law, but when concessions begin to get made then the threat should begin to ease. Its fine to say that Hussain has done little to provoke trust in the world; stalling and lying are his natural defence tools. But despite the stalling Hans Blix has been able to gain entry and begin reporting.

The third stance, and I feel Bush is beginning to clutch at the straws of credibility now, is the desire to oust Saddam as his tyrannical and oppressive regime is an abomination to human rights. Not only that but Saddam is an ecological nightmare, having destroyed massive areas of natural land. Fantastic. This is what we want, you can’t argue with that. So why choose this stance as the THIRD reason for going to war with Iraq? While we are on the subject lets not forget the human rights aspect, I can think of at least two other leaders in the troubled third world that in serious breech of humans rights and they continue to flout the rules defined by the International Committee
of the Red Cross and the UN. Does America go after them? No. It has its site set and there it is going.

Incidentally before you start lobbing accusations about destroying any of the world ecology, I think you should take a quick look at the American record on that. America is more than happy cutting down swathes of the rain forests in South America. America is in a strong position to ignore requests to curb emissions from their industrial sector. Woooah. You should have kept your head down on that one. I can’t understand how America can criticise any countries ecological policy when it can barely relied upon to conform to the requests outlined by the rest of the civilised world. Bush can’t afford to push for increased levies or cuts on industrial waste when it is the oil and industry barrens that got him where he is today.

Another issue Bush has risen, and I’m sure you’ve heard this before as well is that Saddam has backed several militant groups, and we all know about the war on terrorism.

The truth is that Bush junior has little else in his political arsenal than the ability to wage war. I can understand he was miffed that Al Quada should choose to begin a terrorist war on his soil during his leadership. At least he could be called a man of his word, it is clear that he will feverishly rain American style hell on the perpetrators of such atrocities. But again it is hard not to levy some criticism at the approach Bush has chosen on this front. Whilst most countries in the world have suffered some form of terrorist attack it wasn’t until a strike of magnitude occurred against his own people that the American president chose to act.

Let me look it another way for a moment, do the reasons above fill you with fear that Iraq are a danger to you and your family? They do. That’s good, potentially they are. So off to war we shall go to combat this threat. But, and it’s a pretty big but here. Wh
ere do you draw the line? Do we allow America to alter the government of any country that begins to detract from the rules it sets down? If we do then at what stage is it that America is becoming the tyrant? With a fear of major conflict occurring what are the other countries in the world going to do if the U.S. decides to attack even if the support isn’t there? At what stage will America be breaking its own laws and who can stop her?

None of these reasons inspires in me confidence in the need to go to war. I wouldn’t consider myself anti-American. I like Americans, I have Americans in my family, and I have American friends, both real and virtual (in the online sense not in my head!). I am not a fan of the current American regime. Its election seems entirely dubious and its political credentials are extremely suspect.

Further more its gung-ho approach to leadership defies reason and belittles the very peace and tolerance its country is supposed to ordain upon the world. Its choice of reasoning behind a war on Iraq appears to be a particularly cheap way of gaining support, capitalising on the fear of the American people.

Thank god for the Russian veto, as the second largest power (China isn’t far behind now) their influence is essential, though probably as a result of them not wanting the U.S. to get all that lovely black gold.

I can understand the desire of Tony Blair to stay on side. He can obviously see the inevitable. Bush has made it perfectly clear of his intentions but he will need to preen and strut until the rest of the world capitulates to his requests.

What I can’t understand is how Blair continues to defy the request of the British public, 2 million people is quite a sum, some 1 percent of the British population chose to march, not a staggering figure but its what lies beneath that makes the difference. Like an ice-burg that figure is merely the visible head above the water.

A
t some stage he has forgotten that his power isn’t ordained by god but given by the public. He has chosen to ignore nearly half of the politicians in parliament who remain unconvinced as the need for war. Personally I don’t think he cares anymore what we want. His and the power that his party held upon election has crumbled away and their time grows short. Surely only massive apathy or a miracle could save the Labour party from retaining power another term.

I’m finding hard to wrap this up. So I’ll end with;

Tony, if you are listening then listen to your population. They voted you in, they will vote you out and completely ignoring them over a matter such as war is not going to help your cause.
There’ll be three new leaders in the world soon. That of Iraq, the US and the UK.

Summary: