|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
History may prove me wrong, but I can't help but feel that America and Britain, the two countries to which I hold allegiance as a citizen and subject, respectively, are about to make a colossal error of judgment. We are about to launch an imperial war on flimsy pretexts in a part of the world that is already extremely hostile to us. In short, we are stirring up a hornets nest for reasons that are not altogether clear either to our citizens or, more importantly, to the soldiers on the ground who will be expected to fight and die for a cause that seems murky at best. Unlike many within the modern left, I do believe that there is such a thing as a just war. The Second World War is a good example of a conflict in which it would have been both foolish and morally - yes, morally - reprehensible for the US not to enter on the side of Great Britain and her allies against fascism. Likewise in the case of the American Civil War, without which the abolition of legalized slavery may never have occurred. I personally have no problems saying that I would have risked life and limb for these causes had I been alive at the time and called upon to do so. I also consider the war in Afghanistan against the forces of Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban to have been a just and necessary war that I would have served in for either of my countries had my taking up arms and putting on a uniform been deemed necessary. To do nothing in any of these cases, to have allowed the triumph of fascism, racism and/or armed religious fanaticism would have been both foolish and dangerous. But Iraq seems like a different matter altogether. Saddam Hussein's regime is no doubt both repressive and evil, but if Iraq really is such a direct menace to us then why did we let Saddam sit there and remain in power for 12 years after the first Gulf War? The upcoming war just seems like another Panama to me, where a regime led by a dictator whom we once employed became a convenient target to demonstrate our military might against. And better still, Iraq has oil, a liquid currency that speaks loud and clear to Big Baby Bush and his gangster capitalist cronies like Dick Cheney. Our citizens and our troops alike are constantly being told that the war against Iraq will be a fight against tyranny and for freedom, but freedom for whom? For you and me and our children's children? I don't see any Iraqi invasion forces massing on, say, the Mexican border, or even on the border of any of Iraq's neighbors. The idea is laughable. For the people of Iraq? Prior to 1990, we were Saddam's main sponsors. For Haliburton, Texaco and BP? Now we're getting somewhere. But of course our governments won't say that because few people would consent to lay down their lives - or allow the sacrifice of their sons and daughters - for oil alone. Hence all the rhetoric about "freedom vs. tyranny." We are on the verge on committing our armed forces halfway around the world for dubious reasons which even an idiot can tell have little to do with our immediate self-defense or that of our allies. And the people back at home are, quite naturally, divided and questioning both the morality and the logic of what is taking shape. The last time we did anything like this against such a well-armed nation was during the 1964-75 Vietnam War, and the result was a de facto defeat, 58,000 Americans and over a million Vietnamese dead and the tarnishing of America's prestige and moral leadership abroad. Having considered all of this, I would not fight in the coming Gulf War II, and I fear that even if we win it will be a Pyrrhic victory as America will have even more enemies around the world after it is done than before. The Bush Administration and their oil company paymasters will no doubt get their oil, but in the longer term the cost in blood is likely to be higher than they imagine. God save America. |
Greasy
Jesus
|