|
Iraq
|
|||
|
If Bush and Bliar as a glib media manipulator and an electoral fraudster who should have resigned when he was caught, really want to use their puissant power to bring peace and justice to the World, they could if they really wanted to do something edifying have sought more wholeheartedly for example, to restore the Dalai Lama or at least Tibetan independence: whose nation's tragedy is as real as any in this century. To my mind there is obviously something seriously wrong about the business, besides the fact that I haven't the slightest scrap of faith in the so called 'leaders of the western world' and would rather sleep in a pit of Vipers than entrust any of my well being to either or perhaps any. Tony Bliar's latest speech was a profound insult to the English Language in which he evidenced all the moral scruple of an infant in a Kindergarten about to steal a biscuit. That there is unquestionably 'something of the night' about Saddam's personality may be debatable and is hardly unusual or surprising for someone of his background. Besides the fact that he has intelligence which I almost always respect, he seems to understand virtue which not many so called evil individuals can and I find this fascinating. I don't suppose it can really be doubted that the regime has murdered hundreds of thousands of people who have basically done nothing wrong and deserved better from their own; some of the stories about how eg young children have seen their relatives burned alive in front oftheir eyes and suchlike stories are certainly difficult to believe. In attempting to be objective about the situation One ought I feel to rationalise thatgiven the hegemony acquired by the US and Nato after WW2 the appearance of such a regime in the middle east is quite logical. What I feel is not so good about the invasion of Iraq by western allies is the fact that people organising it ought to be clearly seen to be above board in all their dealings in terms of right and wrong and the fact that freeing innocent people from prisons and ending torture without trial and so forth may be a good idea but coming from someone like George Bush it only begs the question of, mightn't this happen to anyone whose Daddy can't arrange the sale of a Government bought Baseball Stadium with which to bankroll a career in politics? Also logically therefore what about all the countries whose people would obviously be glad of a regime change but are not an obvious stepping stone to oil revenue and further subjection of any potential threat to US hegemeony and, what on earth are we going to do with all those who haven't super wealthy parents? I'm afraid That Jawwuj, junior is on a Crusade to atone for his Father's broken promises to the Shi'ite Marsh Arabs after the last Gulf conflict and would question the integrity of his reasoning that wrongs can be righted thus amongst other things: there is much that could be said about the clash of cultures and understandings that will result from this conflict. Whatever the outcome, I personally wonder whether Saddam's record of killing is particularly unusual by South American standards as Pinochet for example had certainly wasted many of his compatriots to the extent of somewhere between 10-100,000 or more, but our so called democratic leaders simply don't evidence such scruples with these characters unless it suits them! The problem isn't merely however that this is a large looming crisis as the fact of hundreds of thousands of well armed killers backed up by enough explosive power to destroy virtually every thing of value in existence is under the best possible of circumstances inherently dangerous and not just for themselves I might add. The simple expense of martialling the civilian population and the economy leads to fatal economies being made at NASA, there are foreign governments who are going to have to be bribed for their assistance or ignorance and there is the very serious question of their being better things for these people to do at home. To say nothing of any of the countless lessons that could be learned from History which suggest that it is best to avoid this sort of direct interferences with foreign governments, nations and societies at all costs especially one such as the Iraq which is very arguably the oldest and that it very rarely works out in the manner in which they were intended: how many of us know ourselves whether or not the chances of effecting any of the desired or perhaps desirable goals are in the least bit realistic or have considered how they would feel if they had watched militant Islamists or Easterners of one sort or another do what the Europeans have done in the last four centuries. Of course it seems a good idea to replace Saddam Hussein with someone who doesn't murder or torture by the thousand, no-one could possibly doubt this but the fact remains that this is an Imperialist pipe dream arguably lacking proper legal basis and opposed by the vast majority of those who had an opinion, even after months of media exhortation unparallelled I should think since D Day 1944 in which Rupert Murdoch has done everything but plead with the nations' housewives to threaten their partners with castration as effete unpatriotics if they don't want to jump on the pro war bandwagon: I personally resent being told that it is our War as the conflict was decided on by The PM and a 'coterie' of pro establishment advisers whose main purpose is usually to to see that no attempt is made to institute anything that smacks of socialism. In view of many of the US crime statistics one could easily make out a case for the conclusion that this is a piece of hypocrisy. It is unfortunate for those young men and women who are presently contracted out to the MoD that the PM has left them in the position of being regarded as 'criminals' by a majority of nations though this may betoken resentment of the US more than aught else. As for the manner in which the UN is being mooted by the World's press as some sort of honourable Court of Justice: well the rhetoric might fool poorly educated workers such as do read Rupert Murdoch's newspapers but I really think the powers that be are underestimating the capacity of the people to comprehend such matters in terms of their their general intelligence in the 21st century. There are too many cases of UN resolutions against the US and it's allies being ignored for the allegation that the body has any credence among thinking people as an international Organ for the dispensation of justice to hold any currency with the general climate of opinion in the world today: aside from which neither Bliar nor Bush has the slightest intention of honouring the principles in question and are rather more concerned at the thought of giving their critical electorates alternative food for thought to the fact of their own broken promises and personal inadequacies. Saddam is no threat to Britain, his missiles cannot even reach Cyprus and he's certainly no threat to me whereas Tony Bliar is in fact a long standing tormentor and exploiter; the fact that anyone uses mere violence to attain their goals should be frowned on in principle and this doesn't apply merely to the fact of states or individuals wishing to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's Oil resources and US Imperialism are the real reason that the US and it's close allies want to make a point of magnanimously deposing him and the fact that he is such an effective power in the region is at least significantly the result of their own black hearted and at times half witted scheming. It isn't enough to say that a trust fund will be instituted, the fact of choosing how what will be sold by who to whom is an act designed to strengthen the dominance established by the US after WW2: in general anyone who seriously thinks these forces are being directed by charitable motives is a custard short of a pudding I'm afraid. I do sympathise with anyone who suffers from any form of intolerance, oppression or prejudice however inconsequential and on an absolutely unconditional basis: the only sort of occasion One can make an exception to this notion is in the case of seeking to use freedom of speech to encourage other crimes and reprehensible acts such as inciting others to commit violence and murder and so forth. It is heartbreaking to see the corpses of poverty stricken women and children lying in the streets and the fact that such 'goings on' are commonplace in the World today is the real reason why the financially wealthy don't enjoy their existences as much, or in quite the way they would like to. I really feel the best means of establishing a general concensus among nations to prohibit this sort of behaviour is by being open and honest and setting a good example: I know it souds like a fatuous cliche but Ineverthless believe that it is true. The Americans should be showing more respect for international conservation agreements and holding more honest elections; it wasn't so long ago that George Bush senior said of the consensus of nations represented by the Kyoto accords? I think it was from the Earth summit in South America that " it wasn't worth one American Job." The British seemed to be clearly stating they were not interested in the option of War without the fairly unequivocal blessing of the UN and the Prime Ministerial dictatorship which has seen 'Phony Tony's,' ethical foreign policy torn up for military adventures with a spuriously elected Republican President in the US has been backed up by, as I say, the most astonishing sustained barrage of pro war articles from a Press which in the UK at least, has seemed very reluctant until a few weeks before the cnflict was instigated whatever the man on the street might happen to think; it being the case that this can be a lot more difficult to evaluate than the contemporary prevailing views of professional critics in that these latter are given to promulgating their views almost as often as possible and we are always being fed one line or another for reasons which tend to appeal to the ruling class rather than the man in the street. I don't say those western allies who envisage using Saddam's unpopularity as a genocidal Dictator to avail themselves of sufficient Oil reserves to glut their already obese electorates don't have a good chance of succeeding in the short term. I say that it isn't worth the contempt, the ensuing chaos and conflict that posing as a Tolkeinesque gang of 'goodies,' will incur in the medium and long term. I'm afraid that anyone who thinks good will come from adding to the power of the UK's corrupt Oligarchy or augmenting the puissant capability of the Cowboys who attacked the Democrat party machine with Anthrax and constantly joke away on the Internet about frying Niggers and Gooks who want to bring their industrial machine to book for it's selfish destruction of commonly held natural resources is living in cloud cuckoo land! It perhaps ought to be borne in mind also, in putting a proper perspective on all these momentous and expensive events, that genocidal activity has been perpetrated on American Indians, still within living memory and that it is in many cases the children and the children of the children who profited from this who seek to persuade us that they are motivated by unselfish concern for others. The British are similarly if not quite so spectacularly guilty themselves of such acts in places like Malaysia, Kenya, even Ireland. We should view 20th century history with a cold realistic eye and refuse to be bamboozled by politicians who seem to assume they have no real need to make genuinely responsible provisions for the future and can manipulate the media from one U turn to the next whilst seeming to lack the ability to even determine whether or not it can be realistically said to be possible to devise 'solutions' for certain perennial problems they are all too keen to feign valuable insights into. One very brutal conclusion that arises as the result of such analysis is that it is certainly the case that the general tone of a lot of media information and debate which is presented to us is unquestionably seeking to reassure on behalf of the 'haves,' rather than to keep the 'have nots,' informed and that this is very arguably a disappointing state of affairs as the new Millenium gets underway. I'd like to see some more, and better informed debate about the circumstances by which a Tikrit urchin has risen to elicit such hatred from the leaders of the West with particular reference to the 20th century European wars and the manner in which treaty makers have devised a state tramelled from the Coast on the South by a puppet state Kuwait and further threated by the emergence of Israel more recently: being sure I cannot imagine how my British compatriots would react to this demand being made for their political Leader to be handed over for summary execution. I reiterate that we in the West have little or no idea as to the way in which Dictatorships such as that being menaced are viewed by those who are living in them or how legitimate they are considered by neighbouring nations and personally enjoin Mr Hussain as do many, to forswear evil, seek the light of truth, offer sincere penitence and compensation to the kin of those who have died directly and indirectly at his hands etcetara woffle drone etcetara etcetara: which is roughly what I usually say to people who possibly have problems of conscience and concerns about lack of esteem. It's hardly a surprise that few in Iraq trust westerners and the sheer numbers of people who do not know anything about the place and yet are willing endorse War on various pretexts is deeply disturbing. Palestine and the Nations immediately to the east were provinces of the Ottoman Empire (now Turkey) for several hundred years until it broke up and contracted under the constraints of WW1. The British had promised anything and everything whilst it was imperative to secure Arab friends in the conflict and they were treated like dogs by the arrogant and cynical European treaty makers once their aid was no longer necessary. My own Grandfather was among troops garrisoned there in the inter-war years who ocupied Palestine as a British protectorate and his only daughter my Aunt was born there, in the district of Bethlehem I believe (as it happens) hahaha. The rights and wrongs of the issues involved in media coverage of such conflict are in themselves unquestionably worthy of a major essay; I can only say that I am ashamed to be sitting at home watching much of the carnage and destruction of those who are fighting for their lives, beliefs and homes and that I really consider it a fact that military adventures are at best going to effect only a temporary solution to various problems from all points of view and should have the blessing of the UN preferably one that is more respected than it is today. Excepting willingness to perform genocide on the poorly armed hordes opposing the coalition I honestly consider it a fact that open and honest debate in good faith is the only, way to establish a genuinely workable lasting settlement for the problem of instability in the region. I fear that Saddam Hussain will simply be replaced by another dictator with the same territorial imperatives if he is bloodily deposed, which was always going to be more difficult than was openly admitted. Recent history shows only too well that dictatorships prove remarkably more resilient than the bourgeois armchair theorists of the West have typically adduced or have we all forgotten what it took to get rid of Hitler and Stalin or the fact that they both still have followers and admirers, even among the ranks of those whom they persecuted and relatives of those they killed and for which various explanations might exist. Given the current attention being paid to friendly fire incidents and the behaviour of different armies nations and politicians; I wonder how much for example the coalition forces know about their own military history and the intrigues in which they have become involved. It isn't often said that General Patton, an icon of all Imperialist minded Americans delivered vast tracts of Germany into Russian hands by his glory seeking antics on the western front in 1944, which were amongst other things in direct contravention of Eisenhower's orders. This is a good example of history having been completely rewritten or ignored for the convenience by those who claim to champion free speech and like to portray themselves as defenders of freedom with particular reference to the fact that the Leaders of the western world like to depict themselves as in control of what is going on whereas, they are in fact merely opportunists following the crowd so to speak and there isn't much about their actions that is genuinely well thought out or well intentioned. Again, with particular reference toward the US we should ask ourselves what kind of people actually are in control of this 'rebel colony' gone mad as they have systematically pillaged the remains of the German war machine, arguably after waiting for the British to be bled white whilst saving the World from fascism (they were also trying to save their Empire but had gone to War over the issue of Polish independance) and have arguably demonstrated since, nothing but lack of obvious genuine concern for such concepts as 'the balance of power.' which guided the thinking of European statesmen up to and after WW1 and the moral rights of many peoples in poorer parts of the World. There is more at stake here than prising control of Iraq from its denizens on any pretext however justified, or the question of any threat existing to American expectations: Kennedy wanted to go into space not to War, what is at stake here is arguably the future of civilisation itself. Given the endless rational doubts about American capability of masterminding anything except how to get fat and lazy at the expense of others and given as many misgivings as have been voiced about such matters as the investigation into Kennedy's death the so called suicide of Marilyn Monroe and the general question of the validity of the civilisation of the North American Continent; in today's world the power of consensus ought to be able to demand a very significant meaningful and worthwhile surrender on the part of the US with regard to the views it has of itself if such a conversation is really to be carried to a proper logical conclusion, it's role in the world today and future accords for the waging of so called legitimate wars between states given amongst other things saliently, the overwhelming capability the US has to impose to impose it's will on others and the continuing danger represented by untrammeled power of the sort the Americans and Russians have even if the latter lack the resources for the kind of overt actions we are witnessing. In short the majority of people want to disarm the superpowers first not those who have a few long range conventional missiles. As for possible solutions to the present situation that might be reasonably congenial for all rather than yet another expensive sham with further long term repercussions like discernable lumps on the forehead and other phenomena that amusingly don't match up with the verbal: well, this is a question which is occupying the minds of countless expensive hacks and greasy politicians. I am fairly sure that no-one really wishes to die and given the amount of publicity the attempted 'regime change' has attracted I sincerely hope we are going to see a more honest dialogue something along these lines. The nation can only justify the alleged motive for the invasion and demonstrate genuine disapproval of his summary acts by refusing to hand him over to anything except a reinstated, reconstituted or novel judicial system agreed on by the people of the country themselves. Such possible eventualities might lead to some very interesting revelations about how he and the Americans such as Rumsfelt have allegedly plotted to gas civilian populations and we might even get some interesting comparisons with US involvement in South America: as I have seen some of the video evidence of the dead Kurds I would just like to know more of the accurate facts that are related to such issues before adopting an elaborate viewpoint on the fact of this happening. An acceptable trial is the most obvious best option under most desirable cirumstances assuming that Mr Hussain doesn't have an ace up his sleeve such as an atom bomb which might turn the military tide, doubtless enough accusers can be found for him but given a number of things not least of which is the need for some acceptable precedent to be set rather than another monstrous piece of US inspired hypocrisy not least in view of the fact thata some of Milosevic's detractors have come up with a well place bullet or two whilst people are seeking to impose their norms and values upon, and impress their daughters with the business of imposing justice. One further supposes that should it come to such a matter as a capture and a Trial which might be preferable to the assassination that the Americans are talking about. I think this at least ought to be considered from the British point of view as enough instability has arisen from endemic mistrust between nations, peoples and creeds in the last fifty years. The UK has very arguably been jockeyed quite unwillingly into a very real War however glamorous or plausible it might seem: which in the final analysis is very much to say that it isn't just Iraqis who might have the deepest of misgivings about their leaders and what the future might hold. From the point of view of the Arab world I think the remark that their civilisation isn't really responsible for the root of all evil and that much of the world's problems do stem rather more from the fact of the European peoples having expanded at the expense of others over the course of the last several centuries and that they have neither used nor are able to use the kind of weapons that the US government dropped on Japan, is going to prove a rather more fruitful avenue of speculation than allowing themselves to be cheated via the medium of elaborately contrived English over these issues with regard to a few, contemporary events such as the existence of Mr Hussain. Opening Epilogue 24/07/03 With regard to the recent deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein, I think it best said that they died trying to redeem their Father's reputation. More soon. |