Iraq and Bushco

WHAT I want to talk about today is the war in Iraq. I know, I know... so what? Everyone is talking about the war in Iraq (or worse, its old news and now no one is talking about it). Sure. But, between Saddam's trial and Bush's blathering, one can't help but keep thinking about it. Anyway, if I don't write about it after reading the news today, I'll just keep thinking about it all day, and I won't be able to work, and I'll get fired, and I'll have to join some "freedom fighting" group somewhere just to eat, and then I'll get napalmed by Bushco....

ANYWAY, for today I only need to get my 2 cents off my chest regarding the justification for the war. I'm not going to go citing news articles and secret service records, if you want that you can easily find other blogs with more in-depth studies that support my view. All I'm going to say is that it seems to me that the two sides (in the west) are looking at the issue on two totaling different levels.

ON the one hand are the supporters, whether they fully believe the Bush rhetoric or not. These people say, "Look, Saddam was a tin-pot dictator scumbag who suppressed the rights and freedoms of his people, kept them in poverty while he lived high-on-the-hog in his lavish palaces, and even gassed some who didn't agree with him. Clearly he had to be removed from power for the good of the world."

AND the other side says, "Yes! Sure! Saddam was all that and probably worse...but how does that differ from Bushco (except for the gassings)? The US has a huge disparity between rich and poor, a situation that the government seems to do very little about. All that happens is that gas prices keep going higher so the leaders, who own big shares in the gas companies, can get richer. or the government starts wars, so that the leaders, who own big shares in the weapons companies, can get richer. or they sit buy while cities are destroyed by natural disasters, so that the leaders, who own big shares in construction companies, can get richer. Its almost impossible even to get into power unless you start rich (I won't say independently wealth, since they are, of course, dependent for their wealth on the "less fortunate" -- i.e.: those whose parents weren't money hungry scumbags who made their fortunes off the backs of the hard-working average person – I appologize for offending any readers of honest independent wealth). And besides, when has the US (or UK) ever had problems accepting a tin-pot scumbag dictator who suppresses the rights of his people (well, maybe the UK took exception in WWII, although the US didn't. The US only joined once they were directly threatened. And then they vapourized two Japanese cities with their new toy, the A-bomb, which leads me to the whole Iran issue -- but more on that in another blog). In fact, in the last century, it has been these two imperialistic powers that have been mostly responsible for suppressing the rights of people around the world through overthrowing democratic movements, and aiding dictatorial regimes in developing countries. It seems that, for these two governments, democracy is a tool to be call on when its useful and discarded when its not. And that is really where the ideological differences between the two sides of the issue come in.

ON one side are the people who, directly or indirectly, believe in "might makes right". If you have the power and wealth, you can dictate the world's policies. Its either us or them, so it might as well be us. Survival of the fittest. Or, in the more naive cases simply "we're doing the world a favour. I believe in America and our great leader and we have the duty to bring democracy to the world even if we have to kill 30,000 Iraqi to do it."

THE other side has much more difficulty living with the hypocrisy. How can we say we are better than them if we are doing worse things:

1) They killed, at most, 3000 innocent Americans - horrible, to be sure, but nothing compared to the 30,000 innocent Iraqi the Americans have killed (the lowest estimate) not to mention the countless thousands wounded (besides, its now well known that the majority of the 19 involved in the 9/11 attacks were, in fact Saudi, not Iraqi And, for the record, none of them came into the US via Canada).

**ASIDE: incidentally, why has the US not said even ONE official word to the Saudi condemning the attacks? That's right kids, those five little letters that rule the world MONEY.**

2) They gassed a Kurdish village in northern Iraq after a failed assassination attempt. Um...the US has been dropping white phosphorous on Iraqi cities and towns - even AFTER the official end of the war (to make things even worse). Besides, who gave the Iraqi the chemical plants and know-how to produce the chemicals - you guessed it, the US and UK. And anyway, this happened in the 80's! Where was the political outrage then?

3) The US governments feel no moral difficulties in dealing with dictatorial oppressive regimes, as long as said regimes don't go threatening the US. Case in point: the Taliban of Afghanistan sent their country back to the dark ages and set back women’s right by hundreds of years, yet the US welcomed them and wined and dined them in the late 90's, all because of the natural resources of their region. It wasn't until the attack on the world trade towers and their obvious link with Al Quaeda that the US decided to remove the Taliban (and some say even then, the administration wasn't really interested in the task).

SO, it seems to me that the imperialistic western regimes (US, UK) were all fine-and-dandy about having Saddam's crew in power in Iraq, regardless of human rights violations, as long as he towed the party line. Saddam's mistake was not in being a tin-pot scumbag dictator and gassing his own people. Saddam's mistake was in attacking the valuable, rich, oil producing ally of Kuwait. That was unforgivable. It showed he had grown too big for his britches and had to be removed in favour of a more "controllable" leadership. It couldn't be done in '91 since the US went in only with the mandate to liberate Kuwait. They lost political support from their own people after accomplishing the main objective and had to wait until Bush: The Sequel arrived (or was forced upon the people - you take your choice). The rest you know (or rather, might know in 50 years when it becomes declassified).