|
With
Bush and Blair's recent meeting and the publication
of Iraq's 'potential for attack ' we are beginning
to see the intensification of the warmongering, which
interestingly but not surprisingly coincides with
the first anniversary of Sept 11th. Yet recently amongst
other such statements we have heard that 'War on Iraq
could set the Arab world against the west' - so stated
a leading Roman Catholic church leader. This questioning
on the now almost certain attack on Iraq is being
reflected across the broad spectrum. From church to
trade unionists to politicians and social activists,
with growing majorities of people opposed to any attack,
this both at home and internationally.
George
Bush states he wants the removal of Saddam Hussian
both because he may have weapons of mass destruction
and because he is a tyrant. Yet the support the US
provide for Israel against both the backdrop of their
numerous breakings of UN resolutions - which is one
of the reasons given for an attack on Iraq, and in
their repression of the Palestinian people - shows
differing approaches in both situations. Similarly
the support the US have given to Saudi Arabia whose
dictatorship is seen by many as more repressive than
that of Iraq shows not a contradiction but the reality
of their foreign policy direction for US interests.
Despite George Bush's rhetoric, the actual reasoning
for an attack on Iraq is twofold. Firstly to attempt
to assert their dominance within that region so to
demonstrate US power; in doing so then to warn other
nations of their superiority, so sending a clear message
to any potential rival. Secondly for both economic
and strategic reasons in relation to both oil and
the placing of a compliant leadership in Iraq who
will do the US bidding in the region. In other words
to attempt to begin their agenda as stated last year
of 'full spectrum dominance' .
Interestingly
enough both the West and the US supported Saddam in
the eighties while he was gassing Iraqi kurds, yet
they did nothing. Why? because of his recent war on
and opposition to Iran - an enemy of the US. The US
were also at the time both funding and providing weaponry
for him. Life of the innocent meant nothing for US
interests then and it will mean nothing to them now,
only the development of their set agenda, UN or not.
That
in part is why unlike the Gulf war most nations now
are not offering any support for this US directive,
apart from that 'special relationship' of lapdog and
master from Britain. So now George Bush is seemingly
going to attempt to court allies to give illusions
of a coalition before he attacks. From having discussions
at home on US soil, to possibly attempting to seek
- for perception only - a UN resolution for setting
a deadline, or such, for the return of weapons inspectors
to Iraq. He now through his advisors and diplomats
is attempting a programme of perceived wide spread
endorsement.
Bush
as per his predecessors he will also use bullying
tactics as required - Arab states will be confronted
with a mixed bag of 'sweeteners' and veiled threats
in order to force a coalition. Despite this there
are real fears in Arab states of possible rebellion
of their people against any attack on Iraq.
So
once again as in all wars it is the duty of those
of us who live under the war waging governments to
make it very clear - this war will not be done in
our name.
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
