Monday, April 14, 2003

Melanie Phillips of the Daily Mail would have us believe that the MPs who opposed Stony Bleugghh, are appeasers of Saddam. Likewise, all those anti-war protesters who marched in London were either deluded or actively supporting the existence of the Saddam regime.
What utter bollocks.
Opposing the war did NOT mean supporting Saddam. A vast percentage of people against the coalition’s aggressive policing action wanted to see Saddam deposed. What they did not want was the bombing of Iraqi cities in the wild hope that one of the bombs would fall in Saddam’s lap. (Which is still being debated hotly)
Phillips blames all the ills of the modern world, from Stalin through Hitler onwards, on Left Wing moral cowardice, political fantasising and “intellectual blindness”. The fact that the US, the UK, Australia and Spain, waged a pre-emptive, and therefore illegal, war that ousted a hateful regime does not mean the politicians responsible will come out of the conflict smelling of roses. I strongly suspect that, had a second UN resolution been passed calling for Saddam’s removal, there would not have been such a political backlash. The disgusting behaviour of France, Germany and Russia are equally to blame, putting vested interest before ethical responsibility. Dubya’s finger might have been on the trigger but the REAL appeasers ripped away his seriously weakened restraint.
Now Phillips is hoping that the American Right will “de-fang” both Syria and Iran because they are oppressive regimes who support terrorism. Oh, and the Palestinians should get what is coming to them as well. It will come as no surprise that this particular journalist is a pro-zionist sympathiser. She makes no secret of it. Israel and the US can do no wrong. The left, apparently all too willing to condemn western “imperialism” and unconditionally appease power-mad dictators, especially those running the Muslim world, can do no right. In fact, according to Phillips, the Muslims have done little to deserve any right to help whatsoever. Other than being bombed and shot at checkpoints of course – all in the name of democracy and freedom naturally. And since the casualties were Arab collateral damage it made no odds to her at all. She mentions nothing about the British troops that died through friendly fire. (What the fuck do they mean by friendly fire? Why isn’t it called for what it is – incompetent, trigger happy bastard fire. C’est la guerre, as they say while plucking so called blue-on-blue body parts from the debris of collaterally damaged coalition equipment.)
While the British troops in Basra are going all out to do their best to police a very difficult situation, US troops in Baghdad stand by and watch anarchy rule as they protect oil fields and the oil ministry. If anyone was in any doubt what Dubya’s true objective was then they must feel pretty foolish now.
It is not in the interests of reasonable people to destroy valuable services no matter who’s name is on the building. Therefore it is likely that hotheads, stirred up by Saddam sympathisers and soldiers disguised as civilians, became hell-bent on doing as much damage as they could, inflicting even greater suffering on the law abiding population left cowering fearfully in their homes. They were even assisted by US troops, allowing the looters access to an unmolested district by opening a bridge and standing aside as the mob stormed across and went to work.
As an archaeology student I was mortified at the looting of Iraq’s ancient history. What really left me cold was the complete lack of regard for protecting really vital buildings like hospitals and offices of works. Surely these services will feature prominently in the rebuilding of Baghdad. Oh, hang on, I forgot, the more buildings destroyed the more American companies can profit from regeneration! Stupid me!!!!
While Phillips is entitled to her opinions I too, will support the so called free speech we enjoy by saying that her opinions are a pile of shite.