Tweet
I fell off the fence yesterday. There's been a lot of debate as to what measures should be taken against Iraq but I was undecided as to what I felt was the right move. The choices, as far as I can see, boil down to the following-
1- Do nothing.
2- Economic war (sanctions)
3- Limited/surgical military action.
4- Invasion.
First a spot of background. My politics would mark me out as being pretty middle-of-the-road by European standards and a lefty by US standards. I also opposed the Gulf War, just as I opposed the Falklands War. Therefore it might come as a bit of a surprise to hear that the option I've chosen is number 4. Full-blown invasion of Iraq.
This isn't an easy decision to make- it would be narcissistic to suggest such a decision is more difficult for me than for others, but then again I am near-pacifist in my views. However I hate dictators with a venom that borders on the psychotic. That left me looking at the options in this way....
1- It's the 1930's appeasers and the Clivedon Set all over again. I found myself asking "What would Orwell have done", and I'm certain he would have drowned this option in scorn. Some people are just far too evil to be tolerated if we're to consider ourselves to be civilised. Stuff that.
2- Tricky. Up until recently this is the option I'd have been proposing noisily. I still think it's the right early respose. But.....in this case it looks like trying to treat a gangrenous leg by attempting to wear away the limb with a nailfile. Besides, the same people who are opposing a war tend to be the same who remind us that the current sanctions are linked to a million deaths in Iraq. I seriously doubt that this is the humane option. Besides, it's had 11 years- it's not going to topple Saddam now.
3- Pointless. You won't topple Saddam by waving your willy at him. This option, more than any other, is laughable. It's a waste of time. It might look good on CNN but it'll achieve the sum total of bugger all. Forget it.
That leaves option 4. Yes, it will cause the deaths of a large number of innocent people, but what other option is there?
I've been looking back at why I opposed the Gulf War, and I think I did it for the wrong reasons. My reasoning, at the time, was as follows-
A- Commercial factors played a strong part in the decision to go to war (ie- oil).
B- There are more evil regimes in the world that we were doing nothing about.
C- Therefore the war was wrong.
Now I'd call that reasoning flawed. Whatever the motives for the war, it could have removed one of the world's evil dictators. True- he wasn't at the top of my "must be toppled" list, but at least it would have been one fewer of the bastards to moan about. Use the opportunity to kick one of the vermin out and then try to persuade people to do something about the others
So why should anyone care? Well it's proof that even a wooly liberal can be won over, and there's nothing more dangerous than a liberal in a righteous irie. Get a liberal fighting mad, and he'll not only be ready to maim you but he'll be 100% convinced that every decent and thoughtful human being will back him to the hilt.
Anyway, that's enough from me. What do you think?
1- Do nothing.
2- Economic war (sanctions)
3- Limited/surgical military action.
4- Invasion.
First a spot of background. My politics would mark me out as being pretty middle-of-the-road by European standards and a lefty by US standards. I also opposed the Gulf War, just as I opposed the Falklands War. Therefore it might come as a bit of a surprise to hear that the option I've chosen is number 4. Full-blown invasion of Iraq.
This isn't an easy decision to make- it would be narcissistic to suggest such a decision is more difficult for me than for others, but then again I am near-pacifist in my views. However I hate dictators with a venom that borders on the psychotic. That left me looking at the options in this way....
1- It's the 1930's appeasers and the Clivedon Set all over again. I found myself asking "What would Orwell have done", and I'm certain he would have drowned this option in scorn. Some people are just far too evil to be tolerated if we're to consider ourselves to be civilised. Stuff that.
2- Tricky. Up until recently this is the option I'd have been proposing noisily. I still think it's the right early respose. But.....in this case it looks like trying to treat a gangrenous leg by attempting to wear away the limb with a nailfile. Besides, the same people who are opposing a war tend to be the same who remind us that the current sanctions are linked to a million deaths in Iraq. I seriously doubt that this is the humane option. Besides, it's had 11 years- it's not going to topple Saddam now.
3- Pointless. You won't topple Saddam by waving your willy at him. This option, more than any other, is laughable. It's a waste of time. It might look good on CNN but it'll achieve the sum total of bugger all. Forget it.
That leaves option 4. Yes, it will cause the deaths of a large number of innocent people, but what other option is there?
I've been looking back at why I opposed the Gulf War, and I think I did it for the wrong reasons. My reasoning, at the time, was as follows-
A- Commercial factors played a strong part in the decision to go to war (ie- oil).
B- There are more evil regimes in the world that we were doing nothing about.
C- Therefore the war was wrong.
Now I'd call that reasoning flawed. Whatever the motives for the war, it could have removed one of the world's evil dictators. True- he wasn't at the top of my "must be toppled" list, but at least it would have been one fewer of the bastards to moan about. Use the opportunity to kick one of the vermin out and then try to persuade people to do something about the others
So why should anyone care? Well it's proof that even a wooly liberal can be won over, and there's nothing more dangerous than a liberal in a righteous irie. Get a liberal fighting mad, and he'll not only be ready to maim you but he'll be 100% convinced that every decent and thoughtful human being will back him to the hilt.
Anyway, that's enough from me. What do you think?
Comment