Our cause might be right, so battle we might
Strange reasoning from all sides on the apparently vexed question of declaring war on Saddam Hussein …
From the left we have:
- We are currently in the process of starving the Iraqis to death in the nastiest way possible
- It is abundantly clear that it is politically impossible to end the blockade while Saddam Hussein is in power
- Saddam Hussein is a horrendously unpleasant dictator
- Therefore, opposition to the war has the practical effect of lengthening the blockade and thus killing Iraqis, and the political effect of making the Left look like friends of murdering dictators.
- HEY HEY HO HO DOUBLE YA HAS GOT TO GO! YANQUI GO HOME! SOLIDARITY FOREVER WITH IRAQ!
And from the right:
- Saddam Hussein, if he is a monster, is a monster of our own creation; we built him up
- We have no very compelling evidence that he has nuclear weapons, or that if he does he intends to use them
- However, we suspect that he might build them, use them, or pass them onto someone who might use them, and we are not currently in a mood to take chances
- Therefore, we reluctantly find ourself in an unholy mess largely of our making, the best solution to which appears to wade further into the gore with an attack on Iraq that is completely unjustified under any concept of a “just war”, but which makes us feel more secure about the world and has the secondary effect of removing a dictator we don’t like
- USA! USA! USA! USA! AUSTIN 3:16 SAYS WE KICKED YOUR ASS! OUR CAUSE IS JUST SO BATTLE WE MUST! DON’T TREAD ON ME!
I have this disease of the inner ear which makes me fall asleep at political meetings until someone mentions tea and biscuits, at which point I wake up and vote for the people who seem the nicest. Don’t blame me, I’m a sufferer. I sure as hell would be grateful if someone would fill me in on the missing premises … (I put the righties chants in bold and colours, because they’re usually louder and more annoying)
Personally, every day I move closer and closer to Bill Hicks’ position on the first Gulf War; “for the war, but against the troops”.