War not in the name of Peace
You think you are living here and now in the 21st century, blessed with enlightenment and advanced technology to deal with human needs. Well, we are not; it feels like living in the Dark Age where the troglodyte barbarians had their way.
It is perfectly justifiable for America to defend itself against conventional or surprise attacks in any shape or form both on and off shore, but to go around the world looking for trouble something else. It would endanger America and the rest of the world from the type of attack and instability it had hoped it would prevent in the first place. A pre-emptive strike of the sort carried out now will undoubtedly lead to arms proliferation by nations who fear they are the next targets. Far from safety this brings the world closer to the brink of world war.
This unholy war and its aftermath that we are daily witnessing was declared on the basis of removing weapons of mass destruction from the hands of unstable tyrant, so as to make the world a safer place to live in. People may have bought such an idea to safeguard themselves their offspring from what they regarded as a potential threat. But the truth is: most of the time politicians play with people’s emotions and fears.
The reality is far from what such politicians prefer to tell the world. For a start the weapons of mass destruction are as yet not found and more importantly they are not in use in the battlefields. We hope they will not feign that they have discovered such weapons of mass destruction by flying them in and play foul tricks. The fact that the invaders have not take with them members of UN disarmament Commission for verification purposes undermines their claim of any so called discovers in the future.
Now the belligerent forces have reach their final destination – the out skirts of Baghdad – such weapons even if the Iraqis are in possession cannot be used against the invaders without causing massive destruction of the Iraqis themselves.
The question to ask: why would the Iraqi authorities still possess such weapons of mass destruction and not use them at a time like this when they are encircled and attacked from sea, land and air ironically with unprecedented weapons of mass destruction?
The likely scenario appears to be that there are no such weapons of mass destruction of credible military value in Iraq and the bases of this war that it was conducted to get rid off weapons of mass destruction is null and void. Those who persecuted this war on the bases of unsubstantiated allegations have to answer for the destruction of properties and human loses they have caused. This is not to justify the track record of the regime in Baghdad. Far from it. But one wrong cannot be redressed by yet another wrong. No one ought to take extra judiciary measures to prosecute a cause however compelling the circumstantial evidence prove to be in one's own favour.
Remember politician have such despicable degree of contempt of the people. To put it differently when they are caught red-handed in doing something they meant not to do or promise they wouldn’t then they shift the gaol posts.
This is because they believe the public have short memories and is pressed by future needs rather than holding steady fast to what it has been promised in the past.
As they get closer and closer to the end of the war game, the same politicians are hunted by the words they public tried to sell to achieve their objectives. Now the emphasis is not weapons of mass destruction but the suffering of the Iraqi people in the hands of the regime that sparked their relentless war that has claimed many lives and untold physical destruction assets of the country.
Likewise, recently we hear that the same politicians are preparing the UN to take partial responsibilities in the running of the country once the military objectives are concluded in their favour. These are forces who walked away from the UN’s table and decided to take matters onto their own hands and now they turn around and tell the world the UN will be given a role to play in the construction of the nation. Do we believe them after what they had pledged and reneged on – that the war or no war on Iraq would be decided by the Security Council? Even if we assume they, at least for now, will stick to their words, what does it mean to the UN and the rest of the world?
Well, if the UN is instructed to do single handily, This means the UN is legitimising the act of invasion it did not give any mandate in the first place. Let us even assume that the UN is given the sole responsibilities of running Iraq after the war is ended without other powers interfering in the administration of Iraq. Still this would be an act of legitimacy of the invasion.
If the UN represents the interest of all people in of the world, then it should not and could not do so. It cannot get involved in something it did not initiate and try to put things right in someone’s messy affairs. Unless of course the UN is a puppet that can be summoned at will.
This war is a war like any other wars but not be dubbed in the name of peace and stability – not in my name.