The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
I just watched our beloved Prime Minister talking tough on Iraq at PM's Questions in the House of Commons. Tony Benn challenged the legality of an anglo-american bombing without Security Council backing, to which Blair replied that Butler's report indicated breach of the agreement achieved on 14 November and hence that spontaneous air strikes were justified. There followed an interview with George Galloway, who was made to look a bit "loony-left" and "anti-American" by Dennis Macshane of the Foreign Office, when he implied that all of this was a scam to take US Congressional attention off the impeachment saga. In a separate interview on her achievements in International Development, Clare Short stated clearly that while we should not collude with oppressive governments there was no reason to penalise the people living under dictatorships we do not agree with, and that on the contrary we should make every attempt to ensure that Human Rights are maintained under such regimes, that children under such regimes can live and eat and are educated etc. etc. When probed about Iraq she immediately ignored the human factor and said that we should take all appropriate action to prevent Hussein from wielding his infamous weapons of mass destruction. Yet, how does bombing innocent civilians constitute supporting Human Rights, particularly bombing without warning or mandate? And what is the objective of this bombing? No one is even pretending that they're going to destroy any weapons of mass destruction or hit Hussein. So aside from a lot of bravado, corpses and infernos in Baghdad, how will the situation change at all after this bombing? What will it take to make Butler happy? He talks of getting rid of weapons of mass destruction with finality, as if he's going to neuter a dog. Surely with his infinite expertise, he must realise that the issue is a lot less clear cut than that; that in fact as long as the Iraqi people exist he will always be able to argue the case for POTENTIAL Iraq threat? I don't get it at all. Just glad that fate dictated that I should be born in Colchester, Britain, and not Baghdad, Iraq. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a discussion list run by Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To be removed/added, email firstname.lastname@example.org, NOT the whole list. Archived at http://linux.clare.cam.ac.uk/~saw27/casi/discuss.html