WHAT NOW?

 

So the war is Iraq is over…. So what is happening at the moment inside Iraq with the coalition forces controlling things?... We don’t seem to hear anything now… the most public and televised war ever, and it seems all the reporters are back home now, covering the more important events that are now going on like the David Beckham transfer, and Prince Williams birthday. Good quote in one of the tabloids I noticed from Prince William where he said he wanted to be like his mother… what – DEAD !!!!?? If only……. Thought that was quite an amusing quote, couldn’t resist!  So what has the war in Iraq achieved? Pretty much the same as the bombing of Afghanistan really…. It’s thought that Osama Bin Laden is still alive, and the same could be true for Saddam Hussein, its by no means certain that he is dead.  Lets get this straight – I by no means support the regimes of Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden…. But the US gov’t attitude of ‘you are either with us or against us’ is just blatantly arrogant… and this attitude was prevalent in a lot of the press too… I mean, we can be opposed to the actions of both sides  you know! Thankfully not all the UK press was for the war and even one of the tabloids the Daily Mirror was against the war… I’m sure that did help the cause a bit and there certainly seemed to be more caution about a war, and more protest against it in the UK and Europe than in the States…. But did the US take any notice of the European countries opposed to the war?

 

After all they are some of the countries blighted most by war and on the receiving end of war during the 20th Century,  more so than the USA….. But the main ringleaders went on unabated, backed to the hilt by big business of course.

 

So the big question is, where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction ? Where did the information come from supposedly that Saddam had stockpiles of nuclear and chemical weapons? I suppose the US intelligence services are private run firms, maybe owned by large multinationals? By oil companies  or construction firms perhaps? ! So where are these weapons? If Saddam had them, surely he would have used them? Especially when he was desperate ie. his country was overrun by the coalition forces..  Lets face it, he doesn’t have them. He may have bluffed and pretended to have them, but lets face it, all countries who have nuclear weapons tell us they aren’t going to use them right?  He had no weapons of mass destruction,  it seems he didn’t have much of a defence for his country at all, considering the ‘ease’ with which the coalition swept into Baghdad.

 

And anyway, who is the US (who decided to go to war despite no resolution from the UN, which makes them the aggressors, not Iraq) to decide which countries have weapons of mass destruction?

 

Oh, of course its regimes they don’t like or that they have no presence in or control over that they feel ‘threatened’ by… Israel has nuclear weapons, why aren’t the US bothered about that?

 

Surely being as they are already at war, they are more of a threat to the region than Saddam? What about the nuclear weapons that India and Pakistan have and not long ago threatened to use?  And if regime change is the argument for war, why aren’t the Americans ‘liberating’ many other peoples around the world? There are countless dodgy regimes all over the world that are constantly at war with their neighbours, or in most cases, repressing their own minorities or their general populations…. Some of these in even poorer countries than Iraq….  And if the US (and western governments in general) don’t want dodgy regimes and dictators to spring up everywhere, maybe they should stop arming them in the first place….lets face it most dodgy regimes have been armed to the hilt by the US and western governments, plus Russia. I suppose that’s alright when our arms companies are making lots of money, and while they are on another continent and not posing a direct threat to ‘us’ !  Saddam was once an ally of the US when it suited them, during the time of the Iraq/Iran war, presumably because the US deemed the Iran regime more of a threat at the time! And Britain helped Saddam with his chemical weapon programme during the time of Margaret Thatcher’s government! And surely by arming governments with conventional weapons gives them more chance to spend their time developing nuclear or chemical weapons? Can Western governments (France and Germany are as bad despite their history of war on their own soil!) not make money or make their economies prosperous without selling arms??  It seems not.

 

Even if Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, how did the coalition disarm him? By using, er, weapons of mass destruction !! Only ‘ours’ were bigger and better than his! So what is a cluster bomb if its not a weapon of mass destruction? The US has more weapons of mass destruction than anyone! Supposedly the bombers were trying to avoid dropping bombs on civilian areas, but in a city such as Baghdad that must be pretty difficult, and we all know how the Americans are slap-dash and prone to plenty of ‘mistakes’ don’t we?

 

And a lot of the bombs dropped on Afghanistan and Iraq contained Depleted Uranium! Definitely a weapon of mass destruction. Oh, so it was a nuclear war then? Except that only one side turned out to have any nuclear weapons. What would have happened if Iraq had a nuclear weapon and had retaliated? I suppose the US then would have dropped a big one? After all, the US was the first country to drop a nuclear bomb in 1945 on Nagasaki. A disgusting act that killed and poisoned a population and that was unnecessary as Japan was already on the brink of surrender… seemed like the US just needed somewhere to test their new toy…..

 

So as well as being sanctioned for 10 years by various UN resolutions, Iraq has now been bombed to oblivion, and its population poisoned by the depleted uranium dropped on it. Even coalition troops are now already starting to get sick because of these bombs that were dropped. So the US doesn’t care about its own troops either? Well at least that’s something the US government has in common with Saddam, they each poison their own people! Meanwhile the Iraqis high population of children will grow up with all sorts of cancers and deformities. Maybe the US are hoping that the future populations will be too sick to arm themselves or defend themselves or to fight any American presence over their oil… (notice how the oilfields are being defended more vigorously than Baghdad’s hospitals…) but despite that the war and actions of western governments are bound to have polarised the region even more and is likely to give rise to future terrorists and suicide bombers. War never solves anything. It never does.

 

Although this article was mainly about the war, it does tie in with globalisation too, because it seems obvious to me that this war was about western, and in particular US business interests… so the West will continue to get richer and the East & South will continue to get poorer. More and more countries are being stripped of their resources and being raped by western multinationals…. And are given simply peanuts if they are lucky ie. If they behave themselves and don’t resist! So what will happen when the resources run out in all of the poor countries ?  They will come for Europe next. Their business interests will have to be protected (“we will not give up the American way of life”) and don’t think that the US wouldn’t bomb the UK to oblivion if it suited its interests !?  The way the world is going who knows in a few decades? Remember, one economy’s prosperity is ALWAYS at the expense of someone else’s……

 

Steve 25/6/03