I find it funny that US troops are now reportedly ‘indignant’ that Iraq is firing back at them – especially after firing a missile intending to kill Saddam himself. I knew the war was going to be fairly one-sided, but this is ridiculous.
I find it funny that Blair’s speech touched on September 11, but didn’t even mention the name, Osama. If the US and UK claim the right to a pre-emptive strike on Iraq, shouldn’t they step up the hunt for Osama all the more, since he has already attacked and killed thousands of innocent Americans?
And it’s funny that most of Blair and Bush’s rhetoric can also be applied to various regimes in other parts of the world – yet little is being done about them.
And their lip service to the UN is laughable. So they think they can launch an attack not sanctioned by the UN, but when it’s over (and they’ve won, presumably), they will seek more Security Council resolutions to rebuild their country.
I also find it funny that my weblog is getting hits this month from the US Government, Israel and the US Military (ranked #13-15 in that order).
I find it disturbing, however, that so many respectable bloggers think that war is the only option. They write with glee at the impending destruction of Iraq; they mock the nations who don’t support the coalition; they brag about the military might their country possesses and make anti-war protesters sound like imbeciles. Am I missing out on something here?
The world is becoming increasingly polarised. I find myself sliding over to the left. But for anyone to take on an extreme stance on either side would be pointless. How can we come to a solution when roughly equal numbers of people have completely opposing points of view?
I agree that Saddam is a tyrant who is capable of killing members of his own family and who will continue to oppress dissent in Iraq. I can understand how some democratic countries would wish to put an end to his dictatorship. However, I found the coalition tactics rather transparent. Why ask for weapons inspections, then refuse to wait a couple more months and launch the attack? Why ask for UN resolutions when they can be disregarded? Why even the visit to the Pope, when the Vatican continues to condemn this war?
The Boston Globe looks back at Bush’s election promises on foreign policy: to be humble to other nations, and to use US troops sparingly in areas of conflict. But to be fair, I don’t think he expected September 11 either.
The Economist questions: Is the war legal? which is a detailed discussion of the UN resolutions at stake.


  1. Electrin

    They’re even going as far as asking the soldiers not to use chemical weapons. If you’re shooting to kill me I’d pretty much use whatever I have to kill you.

  2. vantan

    Hang in there Electrin, I see you’ve been getting some flak for the stance you’ve taken in your blog.
    The best defence is probably knowledge, which is why I’ll probably hole myself up for a few nights and read up on foreign policy to try and make sense out of this thing we call war.
    By which time, hopefully, it will be over.

Comments are closed.