Thousands of protest took place in Britain before the war, as military action began in Iraq. School students disrupted many city centres stopping traffic. Four thousand school students massed in Parliament Square in London. In Liverpool, police were called to remove protestors including many school children who blocked the Mersey tunnel. Many hundreds of schools were affected across the UK. How did it come to this, and so quickly? History can be a roller coaster ride.
But for all the markers along the way, it is still hard to understand how in 18 short months the ride has led from Osama Bin Laden to Saddam Hussein; from a nightmarish day of terrorist attacks in the US to an unprovoked war against a country that had nothing to do with those attacks. On September 11 America had the sympathy of the world. Now, as 200,000 of its troops invaded and took over Iraq, with 40,000 plus form its faithful ally Britain alongside, attitudes have been transformed.
America or more accurately, the people who run America have rarely been so mistrusted, disliked or even hated. The countdown to war started from September 11, the two hijacked planes that crashed into the world trade centres was just the beginning as Bush vowed to punish those responsible. Then Osama Bin Laden was blamed for September 11 attacks, Afghanistan was told to hand him over or there would be war, there was war. Further on, in Bush’s state of union speech he named Iraq, North Korea and Iran as ‘axis of evil’ two days before the ‘anti terrorist’ operation in Philippines.
Then the US scare mongering in East Africa (a strategic US military post) about ‘possible’ new terrorist threats that more probably are to do with US security services. After Osama Bin Laden was supposedly killed in Afghanistan he is now alive and kicking according to US and Pakistani sources. After Saddam refusing to hand his weapons of mass destruction over, war in Iraq began. The above might seem as they have nothing in common and are unimportant, but they add to the required myth necessary to support ‘war on terrorism’ to distract people away form the US led terrorist war.
It may be argued that this isn’t the war against terrorism it’s the war for America to conquer the world, Bush doesn’t want to get rid of terrorists, he himself is a terrorist, he just wants to take over the world. The symbols of America’s power are its military bases and regional commanders among whom the planet is divided like provinces. There is an African saying that you can only lie 99 times… but the hundredth? Well it was the ‘moment of truth’ according to Colin Powell in his speech on the dawn of the declared war on Iraq, (March 17).
Much can be said about history repeating itself; however, when one goes through historical speeches over the decades, one wonders how much of history is but a point of reference. To give reality to the idea of this war, at the last hour everything has been cast to the wind until one reaches the point of being convinced that maybe the front man- President Bush- is actually speaking the truth. As Tony Blair went ahead with his decision on backing the US in the war against Iraq, Robin Cook cabinet minister and also a good friend of Tony’s, wrote a resignation letter to Tony
He also gave a resignation speech, in his devastating resignation speech Mr cook said among other things that, ‘… The worst thing about this situation is that if the Bush family hadn’t fixed the US election we’d have Al Gore as president and would not be sending our troops into this war… ‘ There were lots of reasons for war but were outnumbered by the reasons against. Some of the reasons for the war were: to eliminate the weapons of mass destruction, to eliminate the threat of international terrorism and to promote democracy in Iraq and surrounding areas.
The only reason this war started off was because of the weapons of mass destruction Saddam was claimed to have BUT as none were found, why did we go to war? What was the real reason? There are no advantages of war, it is unethical. Innocent people have been killed and without the support of the UN if all goes wrong Tony Blair could lose his job. This discussion is how the war started and whether or not we should have been at war with Iraq.
The first main reason for us not to have been at war with Iraq is that innocent people who haven’t done anything wrong have been killed, Tony Blair said before the war… … If I thought we were going to kill half a million, I wouldn’t be here. I don’t believe the casualties will be anything like that number… ‘ But at the end of the day it doesn’t matter whether it was less or more it just matters that people died. Even if 1 person died it made a difference, it made a difference to a lot of people. That 1 person could have belonged to a family and it made a difference to them even if it didn’t to Tony Blair or George Bush. How would we feel if a member of our family died in a horrific war like that?
This war was over the weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam was claimed to have but even after the war no weapons of mass destruction were found, so what was the real reason of it all? Thousands of protests took place all over the world against the war, the public didn’t want the war to go ahead, but it all seemed like a waste of time as George Bush had decided from day 1 that the war was going to happen with or without any support. Barring a miracle, war with Iraq was inevitable.
The war was unlawful, unethical and worst of all unstoppable. The one reason war should have took place was because of the weapons of mass destruction and the apparent threat that Iraq cause for a terrorist to take place, but what about the threat that the US cause to the rest of the world? No weapons of mass destruction have been found and won’t be found either, as there probably aren’t any. There were a lot of options around this war, which Tony Blair could have used, for example,
Pull out of the US coalition, which would force US to act alone. Or he could have waited a few more days for Saddam Hussein to give up his weapons of mass destruction which don’t exist, and if that desperate to get rid of Saddam they could have sent a sniper in to kill him. Which leaves me to conclude that this wasn’t over the weapons of mass destruction or even over the apparent threat that Iraq cause for a terrorist attack to take place, all of this was because of 1 reason, that America want to take over the world.
America itself has weapons of mass destruction and they pose a threat and a danger to other countries, but you don’t see anyone calling the US and starting war with them. There are 16 other countries that have nuclear weapons, 25 countries may have chemical weapons, 19 other countries may have biological weapons, and 16 other countries may have missile systems. So if the biggest producer and inventor of all these weapons America is that desperate it should go and pick a fight elsewhere and eliminate its false concern for democracy.
No’ is a misunderstood word for a power with a false sense of security. ‘No’ is what Saddam Hussein said to the largest UK and US oil multinationals. ‘No’ is what the world should be saying not only to this war, but to the other methods of domination (trade for example) sought by the US and its supporters. War is never the first answer it is always the last resort. But the alternative, in this case, was to leave Saddam there with his ‘so called’ weapons of mass destruction. War doesn’t determine whose right or wrong it just determines whose left.