Victims of Saddam's Iraq
Feb. 19th, 2003 07:07 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
djm4_ljAnyone on the anti-war demonstration feeling at all ashamed about their part in 'helping Saddam oppress his victims' should take comfort from how the UK's Home Office treats victims of Saddam Hussein. I, like Jeremy Hardy, find it hard to believe that 'an independent and properly constituted judiciary' is the from the same Iraq that Tony Blair's talking about, or that it has become so over the past five years.
(Jeremy Hardy characterised himself on The News Quiz just before Christmas as neither a hawk nor a dove, but a 'frightened starling'. I think I'm one, too.)
I'm not sure I am anti-war. I know I'm anti-Saddam and anti his regime, and have been for considerably longer than both the UK and US governments. I'm anti this war now, waged by the UK and US alone, two countries who should really have the humility to stay the hell out of Iraq, having done enough damage to the area already over the past 100 years.
To give Tony Blair his due, I find his tone over the past couple of days much better, and I actually agree with him when he says 'I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honour but sometimes it is the price of leadership and cost of conviction'. But there's that word 'sometimes'. 'Sometimes' what Tony Blair's doing is good leadership, and 'sometimes' it's a sign that he's lost the plot. I'm honestly not in a position to say which, at this point. It was also Tony Blair who made the comment a year ago that people opposed to the way the war on terrorism was being conducted were not terrorists, and were entitled to hold and express their views, a nicety that's always seemed to escape George W Bush.
Inciidentally, for anyone believing that the people of Afghhanistan are amazingly better off having been liberated by the war on terrorism, here's a counter viewpoint from RAWA.
(Jeremy Hardy characterised himself on The News Quiz just before Christmas as neither a hawk nor a dove, but a 'frightened starling'. I think I'm one, too.)
I'm not sure I am anti-war. I know I'm anti-Saddam and anti his regime, and have been for considerably longer than both the UK and US governments. I'm anti this war now, waged by the UK and US alone, two countries who should really have the humility to stay the hell out of Iraq, having done enough damage to the area already over the past 100 years.
To give Tony Blair his due, I find his tone over the past couple of days much better, and I actually agree with him when he says 'I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honour but sometimes it is the price of leadership and cost of conviction'. But there's that word 'sometimes'. 'Sometimes' what Tony Blair's doing is good leadership, and 'sometimes' it's a sign that he's lost the plot. I'm honestly not in a position to say which, at this point. It was also Tony Blair who made the comment a year ago that people opposed to the way the war on terrorism was being conducted were not terrorists, and were entitled to hold and express their views, a nicety that's always seemed to escape George W Bush.
Inciidentally, for anyone believing that the people of Afghhanistan are amazingly better off having been liberated by the war on terrorism, here's a counter viewpoint from RAWA.
