We're counting down to war in Iraq so maybe it's time I put my cards on the table.
I fully support the fact that our government made Shannon available to US troops although I was not happy that they did not conform with the law and appeared to be hiding what they were doing. The use of Shannon helped with the military build up which forced Saddam Hussein to cooperate with the inspectors and I'm proud that this country contributed to that.
As for military action, I believe Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator and that he needs to be removed for the sake of his own people and his neighbours. Some will say that civilians will suffer. This is undoubtedly true an is the reason why war is evil. But is it more or less evil to leave Saddam in place? Civilians died in great numbers as a result of allied action during World War II. Does that mean they should have allowed Hitler keep the countries he had invaded?
But here's the kicker. I believe that any military action taken must have the backing of the UN and preferably it should be undertaken by a coalition of Islamic nations and not the US. There is so much anti-american feeling in the Islamic world at the moment that people's natural opposition to war could be stirred up by extremists. Pakistan in particular is at risk. The government there is not popular anyway and could fall to a popular uprising. The country's nuclear arsenal would then be in the hands of people who sympathise with Osama bin Laden.
And if George W. Bush and Tony Blair go it alone without explicit UN backing they will undermine the credibility of that organisation and that is their true crime. By doing so they set a very disturbing precedent. Will Arab nations now be able to legally justify action against Israel on the grounds that they are authorised to do so by existing UN resolutions?
We are about to enter a very dark period. The repercussions could last for years if not generations. Let us hope level heads prevail.
9:01:08 AM  Google It!
|
