| Subject: Re: (The Full) Monty Python on Iraq |
Author:
hiti
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 01:20:32 02/21/03 Fri
Author Host/IP: llydsk01d010101205.sk.sympatico.ca/142.165.233.205
In reply to:
Garnet Shoup
's message, "Re: (The Full) Monty Python on Iraq" on 12:49:42 02/20/03 Thu
"But how would stronger dictators, weaker democracies, more weapons and less respect for international control and inspection make for a more peaceful, more stable world?"
--------------------------------------------
Peace rallies give Saddam free ride
By PAUL STANWAY -- Edmonton Sun
It took a while, but after a day and a half searching newspapers and Web sites for photos of last weekend's "peace" demos, I finally found a guy in Sydney, Australia, waving a placard that said something along the lines of "Saddam Quit Iraq."
At least I think that's what it said. It was blurry, way at the back of the crowd and surrounded by a sea of the usual "Give Peace A Chance," "Drop Bush Not Bombs" stuff, but among dozens of photos of the several million people who hit the bricks to "protest against war in Iraq" that was the only visible criticism of Saddam Hussein.
My point being that the weekend demos were united in their condemnation, variously, of George W. Bush, the United States, Israel, Zionism, capitalism, and big oil. There was even one (in Edmonton) demanding "Get Canada Out Of NATO," but since we've been little more than excess baggage to that organization since 1993 we can probably assume the point is moot. What there was a conspicuous lack of was condemnation, of any sort, aimed at the Iraqi dictator whose 12 years of flouting the Gulf War ceasefire agreement and no less than 17 UN resolutions has brought us to the possibility of armed conflict.
Not that I find this strange. I once made myself very unpopular at an anti-Vietnam War protest by showing up with a sign which read "Moscow Out, No More Meddling in Hanoi." I thought the sentiment gave some balance and credibility to a protest against an ill-conceived war in which the Soviets seemed to be the only winners. Unfortunately my fellow protesters took the view that any deviation from an anti-American message was tantamount to endorsing the burning of Vietnamese babies. I was told to take my placard and shove it.
(The incident prompted one of the first columns I ever wrote for a newspaper, which developed into a regular weekly spot. The moral being, I suppose, that you should avoid telling anyone to shove their placard. You may be responsible for creating yet another columnist in an already over-opinionated world.)
Which is not to suggest that all those demonstrating were the usual rent-a-mob, serial protesters who can be relied upon to condemn capitalism, the military and - above all - the Americans, at the drop of a toque. The crowds were large enough (tens of thousands in Canada and millions in Europe) to suggest the attendance of many people who honestly believe war against the Iraqi dictatorship cannot be justified on any account.
So let's assume, for a moment, that they get their way. Since opinion polls and mass demos have an obvious influence on public policy in a democracy, let's assume that George Bush, Tony Blair, Australia's John Howard and others follow Jean Chretien's lead and decide that the use of force against Iraq would be morally wrong and unpopular with the voters. What would happen?
The UN would have proved itself toothless in dealing with Saddam, so sanctions, the enforcement of Iraq's no-fly zone, weapons inspections - all would most likely collapse. Who would enforce them if the Americans and other nations concluded force was unnecessary or unthinkable in ensuring UN resolutions were respected? What would be the point?
Saddam would, presumably, be free to resume his bloody persecution of the Kurdish and Shiite majorities in Iraq, free to rebuild his military and resume the aggressive policies that led him to attack Iran and Kuwait at a cost of over a million lives.
Who would restrain him?
And if the UN and the U.S. fail to restrain Saddam, what message does that send to Kim Jong-il in North Korea and other despots who care nothing for anti-war protests but who see militarism and threats of mass destruction as a means to greater power and influence?
One Canadian anti-war protester said on the weekend she was demonstrating for "a better world" for her grandchildren.
But how would stronger dictators, weaker democracies, more weapons and less respect for international control and inspection make for a more peaceful, more stable world?
In Baghdad a group of around 3,000 Saddam supporters staged their own demo. Waving assault rifles, machine-guns and other weapons, they chanted warlike defiance and threatened to "burn down the Zionists and the U.S."
Well, at least they're clear about who and what they support, which is more than you can say for the other lot.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 