| Virus of violence unleashed on the world: USUK.IMP William Bowles (27/08/03) | |
Everyday I scan the news heads from the various sources I receive (I can never keep up with it all obviously) and it's clear that the US has unleashed a virus of violence on the planet. Just a short selection from the last few days paints the picture: 21/08/03
22/08/03
23/08/03
24/08/03
25/08/03
26/0803
And this is by no means the total for the past six days. The terror has been unleashed and not by Al-Queda but by the USUK declaration of war on the planet. And there seems no end to it. Bushs statement that "these people [in Iraq] have declared war on the entire civilised world" is just too much to stomach, yet the medias response to the mayhem is probably even more astounding. Principally it consists of a lot of whining about how Bush has failed to live up to his promises of winning the war on terror and that in fact, unleashing terror on the world has had the opposite effect. Todays Independent (27/08/03) has the following to say on the imperiums assault on Iraq and the resulting bloodbath and chaos, "In presenting his [Bushs] case for invading Iraq, he offered these arguments: the danger that Saddam Hussein presented to his people and the world, the suffering of ordinary Iraqis, and the imperative, after 11 September to root out terrorism, wheresoever it lurked .Iraq would no longer be a threat to anyone; Arab governments would understand the perils of opposing the US; terrorist organisations would pack up; and Israel and a Palestinian state could coexist in peace." I dont know which planet the editor of the Independent lives on, but its obviously not the same one as I do. Lets have a look at what the Independent is saying here, "[T]he imperative, after 11 September to root out terrorism, wheresoever it lurked" I dont remember this being part of Resolution 1441, indeed, missing entirely from the reasons stated by the Independent are the WMDs. And it should be remembered that the principle reason the Independent 'opposed' the invasion was that it didnt have the UNs blessing. It then goes on to make what is an even more outrageous statement. "Arab governments would understand the perils of opposing the US" So the invasion was about teaching Arab governments a lesson and getting them to tow the imperiums line? I dont remember the Independent telling me this back in March. "[T]errorist organisations would pack up" Pack up what? Being terrorists? Pack up and go home? What drivel, what nonsense this all is! Does the Independents editor really expect anybody to take this kind of crap seriously? And the Independents principle objection is not that any of the above has absolutely nothing to do with the Independent's 'objections' but that, "It hardly needs to be stated how far Mr Bush is from attaining any of these objectives." So the objectives are okay with the Independent, its the fact that Bush failed to acheive them that is the problem. Well I'm glad I know now. And finally, the Independent tells us that by flattening Iraq and occupying it, "Israel and a Palestinian state could coexist in peace." So this is yet another reason for the invasion that the Independent offers us that they didnt tell us about before. Yet "It hardly needs to be stated how far Mr Bush is from attaining any of these objectives." Is the Independent telling us that none of these results were foreseen by anyone? Where was the Independent when this country went to war, having drinks with its fellow blind, deaf and dumb journos in the bar of the UN in New York? The editorial goes on to say, "The Israeli-Palestinian road-map, which was Mr Blairs reward for his unconditional support, is in shreds." And whose fault it is this? The much vaunted road-map which even a complete idiot could see was a non-starter, was never part of any rationale Ive ever seen for Blahs backing of the US. Indeed the road-map didnt even exist back in March 2003. And to call it a reward is nothing short of obscene given the level of violence that has been unleashed on the Palestinian people and the fact that from the very day it was published, Sharons 12 or 14 conditions blew it out of the water. How can the Independent even suggest that Blah was being rewarded for the UKs complicity in the illegal, immoral and globally destabilising results of the invasion is just beyond me. Blah should be punished not rewarded for the war criminal he is. And finally, rubbing some more salt into the wounds of the Arab world, as well as taxing my credulity beyond all acceptable bounds, it says, "Britain and others have failed to shame them [Arabs] into helping." And how pray, did Britain and others (whoever these others are) not only fail to shame them, but what exactly is it that they were trying to shame them into doing? Accepting the invasion and subjugation of a neighbouring Arab country? Accepting the genocidal destruction of the Palestinian people? Accept the threats against Syria (as well as actual incursions and murder of Syrian citizens)? Obviously, the only thing acceptable to the Independent is the complete surrender of the Arab world to the demands of the West. Well at long last, we see the real face of the liberal media for what it is, so I suppose its not all negative. Flying saucer spotted at the Hutton inquiry: Aliens blamed for leak The issue of war and chaos is nowhere to be seen and indeed as I point out above, it's all Bush's fault anyway, but you knew that all along didn't you. |
|
|
|
|
| All content on this site is copyright © 1987-2003 William Bowles unless otherwise stated. All rights reserved. You have the right to reproduce content if it is not-for-profit, non-commercial or fair use. For commercial reproduction, please contact the copyright owner. | |