Friday, 29 January 2010

Blair at the Chilcott enquiry

I have to say I am appalled.  Blair, looking nervous at the beginning, soon realised it really was going to be this easy.  The cosy chat he had today with the enquiry team was an utter disgrace.  See here for a break-down on the main reasons why.

I have something to say however that I have yet to read elsewhere.  It requires no guesswork or questions to be answered, it merely means recognising the immorality of what he admits too already!

So, here's his argument. After 9/11, the concept of risk had grown regarding the danger of terrorism. The intelligence that was available to him showed beyond doubt that WMD's existed. Given that Iraq had been uncooperative for 10 years of sanctions, the post-9/11 environment demanded that something be done. The risk was there and had to be dealt with.

This alone in my mind is confession of guilt. Let me break it down. 9/11 and Iraq are utterly unrelated. However repugnent he may be, Saddam had shown absolutely no inclination to commit terrorist acts on our shores, as would presumably have been required to claim self-defense. 9/11 showed where the threat lay, and it wasn't state sponsered. Hell, Saudi Arabia represented a greater risk (A tyranny who citizens were directly part of 9/11) but we didn't go for them...

Yet he treats it all as part of the same narrative. In order to minimise the risk of a terrorist attack on UK soil, we must conduct a full-scale war in another country.  Didn't your mama ever tell you two wrongs don't make a rightDid he think for a minute about the far more real 'risk' to the millions of Iraqis that such a war would entail?

In summary: A few thousand MIGHT die of a terrorist attack. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis WILL die or become refugees in the event of war. His whole argument rests on the notion of nationalism being a justification!  Does No-one see that?!

We live in a world that we now have to share collectively.  We MUST adopt thinking that regards ALL humans on an equal footing.  The nationalistic concept of social-contract simply will not do if it leads to decisions such as these.  Old thinking combined with modern communication technology equals very fucking bad idea!
He says the world is better without Saddam and that we are safer as a nation? Sure, if we are being hypothetical and saying that by snapping our fingers he and his sons disappeared then OK, I'd agree with you. If it is as the result of a decade long occupation with hundreds of thousands killed in the fighting, resulting in mass indignation from all corners of the world whilst simultaneously continuing to support those tyrannies and militaristic regimes that are nice to us or not easy targets (Saudi, China, Israel), then NO! It has NOT made us safer.

It has made us villains in the eyes of the world. Rendition, Support for Guantanemo, Blackwater, Abu Graib, The Oil contracts, the rigged Afghan elections, the BAe bribery scandal, the scandelous post-war debacle.... and he couldn't find a regret amongst all that shit? You know what that list looks like? It looks like what baddies do.

People reply, "but Saddam killed his own people!".  Bullshit.  You ask a Kurd back in 1988, anytime in fact, whether they are 'Saddam's people' and see what they say.  They are no more his people than the Irish were UK's people way back when.  To Saddam they were alien, foreigners, unworthy of consideration.  |Perhaps we should stop putting up with the same thinking being applied by our own most gracious leaders? Saddam was a cunt but what are we going to do?  Invade every country led by a cunt?  Or just the easy targets with sanctions already in place, awaiting activation as justification so as to create a nice, easy, oily target?

No comments: