Let's get this right. Because the US is planning to attack Iraq, bin Laden urges Muslims to support the Iraqi people (and he explicitly stated not the Iraqi regime), which, in turn, justifies the US attack! Interesting logic.
What next? Will Blair argue that we must attack because the impact on the Iraqi people of UN sanctions were so horrific? Amazingly, yes! He actually argued that we must "look also at the morality of ... the policy we've had for 12 years," arguing that under the sanctions, children were dying, Iraqis were on food aid, and thousands were imprisoned or killed. He states that "the only alternative to disarmament is we keep sanctions year on year ... a moral choice with bad and devastating consequences for the Iraqi people."
Yet disarmament could be achieved by allowing the weapons inspectors more time to do their job, as the French and Germans demand. The truth is that the 1991-98 inspections ended in almost complete success. Scott Ritter, chief UN arms inspector at the time, insists that Iraq was "fundamentally disarmed" by December 1998, with 90-95% of its weapons of mass destruction eliminated. Of the missing 5-10%, he states that "it doesn't even constitute a weapons programme. It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons programme which in its totality doesn't amount to much, but which is still prohibited." (War On Iraq, Scott Ritter and William Rivers Pitt, Profile Books, 2002, p.24)
I wonder why this information is not being reported by the media instead of speculation about spurious "links" between Saddam and bin Laden?
You cannot make this stuff up, part deux!
Thursday, 13th February saw reports that UN inspectors had discovered a missile in Iraq with a range of 93 miles. This was "extremely serious", said Blair. He went on to explain that this discovery by the UN inspectors demonstrated the futility of giving the inspectors more time. As he put it: "Any evidence that comes to light ... is extremely important because it demonstrates the futility of giving them more time when its proof obviously they are not co-operating."
Interesting logic! So, if the inspectors find something, then it is evidence of the futility of looking and the necessity of war. If they don't find something, then it is evidence of the futility of looking and the necessity of war. I wish he was honest and stopped treating us like idiots...
Incidentally, Blair asserted that "if these reports are correct it is very serious because it would be not just a failure to disclose information but a breach of resolution 1441." Yet the BBC indicated that the inspectors "first learned of the Iraqi missile's range from test results contained in the 12,000-page arms declaration made by Iraq on 7 December." But why let the facts get in the way of a war? They haven't so far.
Saddam, the new Hitler?
After the French government showed some backbone to the US Junta, the Sun took to the war path. Amidst the re-cycled "cowardly Italian" jokes, it helped its readers understand its argument by providing two pictures: one of Hitler before the Eiffel Tower, one with Saddam before it. Thus Saddam is the latest in a long, long line of new Hitlers (all of whom, by coincidence, happened to be lined up for US/UK attack at the time).
Now, let's get this right. Is the Sun actually stating that Saddam Hussein will, if Iraq is not destroyed, invade Western Europe? That he will be able to transport his troops halfway across the world and successfully attack one of the world's major political, economic and nuclear powers?
On the face of it, highly unlikely. About as unlikely as the claim that the US is attacking Iraq in "self-defence." But, wait, that is what is claimed!
And no one can deny the facts. In the 1930s, Nazi Germany was one of the world's largest industrial economies, with a correspondingly powerful military machine. It openly armed and proclaimed an annexation policy and implemented it. Iraq is a crushed developing country, with a devastated infrastructure. It does not control all its own territory (for example, under the Northern "no-fly" zone, where, incidentally, Powell's "terrorist" camp is located). It has posed no credible threat to its neighbours, let alone Britain or the US, for more than a decade. Its armed forces (weakened by the last Gulf war, sanctions and the post-war arms inspectors) face the most powerful military force in history -- Iraq's military spending is estimated to be about one per cent of the US's $380 billon budget. Which is, perhaps, why it is not mentioned?
That the Sun is peddling the Saddam/Hitler comparisons seriously says a lot about the role of the popular media. Given its laughable "link" between bin Ladin and Saddam based on the formers tape, let me suggest an equally plausible link, namely the Sun/Saddam link. Not only do both their names start with "S" (significant in itself!), but the Sun is obviously helping Saddam's war effort by causing anyone reading its nonsense to die laughing! I hope the military will take the necessary steps.
But, to be fair, there is a possible analogy between Hitler and Saddam. After all, until September 1939, the vast majority of the British ruling class were pro-fascist, a perspective reflected in the mainstream press (including those papers which now denounce opponents of war on Iraq as traitors). The tyranny of Hitler, his appalling human rights record and his intervention in foreign countries were not an issue. They became so once the interests of British capital were threatened and the masses had to go fight for their masters. The same with Saddam. But heaven forbid that the Sun confuse its readers with such information!
We are fighting for freedom, so do what you are told!
This crisis is, we are told, about many things. Which one depends on whether the previous one has been debunked or not. But there is one thing we can all agree with, namely that Saddam's regime is an evil dictatorship (as it was in the 1980s when the US and UK were supporting it, but lets forget about that!). Hence the playing of the "emotion" card, that this conflict is about liberating the Iraqi people.
The Sun gives us a taste of what that freedom will involve. Commenting on Labour MP Glenda Jackson's praise for Belgium's opposition to the US plans for NATO, it recommends that she go live there. So, if this is anything to go by, the freedom we are fighting for is simply the freedom to agree wholeheartedly with what our leaders say (as long as Rupert Murdock agrees with it, of course!) or to leave the country.
Trust a "lefty" to undermine liberty by using it! Has she no shame? Never mind that she is expressing the opinions of the majority of the population. After all, our opinions do not count. Convincing (or marginalising) us is just another hurdle in the path our masters are beating to their war.
No, for questioning the Bush Junta and its poodle she is obviously showing how little she understands the liberty which our rulers are planning to shower the Iraqi people with (alongside the bombs and missiles): The "liberty" to do what you are told.
So, remember, according to the Sun in this country you are free to love your state or to leave it, not to question it or to change it (unless Rupert Murdock agrees, of course). And except for Rupert Murdock's "veto," Saddam would agree.
Minority Report 2?
I wonder if Blair's favourite movie last year was "Minority Report." After all, he seems intent on attacking Iraq for what he claims it will do in the future. Does he have three mutants in his bath, predicting future crime? And does he want Tom Cruise to play him in any movie of this crisis? But who will play George Bush? Where will they find a monkey willing to be shaved and capable of portraying such a limited intellect?
Pot looking for Kettle...
Democratic Congressman Tom Lantos, said he was "particularly disgusted by the blind intransigence and utter ingratitude" of France, Germany and Belgium. "The failure of these three states to honour their commitments is beneath contempt." This from the country which has unilaterally ripped up numerous international treaties!
Straw man arguments...
Jack Straw stated that "I hope that France and Germany support any further resolution if that's necessary. But if they don't, what they're putting at risk is the whole authority of the UN." Unlike the US and UK, when they decide to attack Iraq without UN approval? Or, perhaps, it was a slip of the tongue and Jack meant to say "US" instead of "UN"?
A bit late for that, surely?
The government, aiming to bring democracy to the people of Iraq, are going their bit for democracy at home. Faced with the demand that Parliament should have a vote on starting the war, it has rejected it arguing that any such a vote would remove the element of surprise in the event of an attack on Iraq! I hate to point this out, but I think that Saddam knows that an attack is on its way...
This government's contempt for even bourgeois democracy is only matched by its contempt for the intelligence of the general public.