|
?It’s not like Saddam’s
a new kid on the block, he’s been around for two decades and hasn’t
ever had a reputation for being over-friendly so what exactly has triggered
this rush to arms??
|
Lara joins the Iraq debate
For the past couple of weeks, I’ve felt as if there’s a black
cloud looming over me. Sometimes, thanks to the notorious British weather,
there really has been, but the rest of the time I’ve just been carrying
around this feeling of heaviness which oscillates between depression, anger,
sadness and lethargy.
I can’t put my finger on any particular problem that this weird moodiness
is stemming from but I don’t think the talk of us joining the U.S
to engage in conflict with one of the world’s most radical, volatile
and armed-to-the-hilt dictators is helping my sense of well-being at all.
I don’t know if I’m just being overly sensitive but it makes
me feel very unsettled when I hear reports that our military are moving
in the “hardware” as an “exercise”. If they want
an exercise, can’t they do a few push ups or climb some ropes? And
do they really think we’re so dumb that we can’t differentiate
between an “exercise” and preparations for combat?
When it comes to the combination of Bush and Saddam, we all know there’s
going to be trouble; it’s just a matter of how much. They are both
powerful men with big egos who will not be told what to do, particularly
by someone whom they regard with as much contempt as they do each other.
I know this sounds flippant and over-simplified and I in no way mean to
minimise a very tricky political situation because of course it is extremely
worrying that Saddam may be accruing weapons of mass destruction that could
endanger us all but why is Bush suddenly getting a conscience about the
world’s safety? It’s not like Saddam’s a new kid on the
block, he’s been around for two decades and hasn’t ever had
a reputation for being over-friendly so what exactly has triggered this
rush to arms?
We know that Saddam has been very remiss in lying to, then throwing out
U.N weapons inspectors and not explaining discrepancies but that was at
the end of 1998, four years have lapsed since then, and now, suddenly, Bush
and Blair are worrying about world security and saying Saddam could “build
a nuclear bomb within a year”. Why weren’t they telling us all
this in ’98? He could have built four bombs by now.
And if it was the September 11th attacks that have stirred up this fear,
then why wasn’t action taken a year ago whilst we were busy taking
out the Taliban and attempting to find a man with a long beard who may or
may not have been living in a cave, whose name was Osama, but now seems
to be being referred to as Usama? (Is this a sort of “J.Lo”,
“P.Diddy” thing? And why didn’t they catch him at the
Deed Pollers? I don’t think they’re really trying.)
Perhaps new information has come to light which vindicates Usama and points
the finger of culpability for “9/11” in Iraq’s direction,
but Bush can’t tell us this because that would mean admitting that
billions of dollars of tax-payers money have been wasted on the wrong witch-hunt.
Or could it be that the U.S government need something to divert the American
people’s attention from the flagging economy lest they conclude that
Bush really isn’t up to the job of President after all?
I just don’t buy this “we’re doing this for the good of
the world” line; the U.S- or any other country- would only embark
on such a risky endeavour if they were confident they would make considerable
personal gain. If the U.S government were simply being “prudent”
and “pre-empting” a possible catastrophe, they would have enforced
a resolution a decade ago when Saddam first flouted the mandatory conditions
set out by the U.N Security Council.
There is no question that Saddam should comply with the U.N and have his
stock-pile of biological booty checked, but I believe that based on previous
behaviour and because of the nature of dictators, when Saddam is faced with
an ultimatum such as Bush is threatening to enforce, he’ll do as much
damage to the world as he can before letting what he considers to be the
enemy, into his camp.
When Saddam’s authority has been questioned in the past, he has retaliated
by using chemical warfare on his own people and on Iraq’s neighbouring
countries so we know his preferred methods of conflict resolution- and that’s
with people he tolerates a lot more readily than us. God only knows what
horrors he’ll unleash on the world once he feels cornered by the U.S.
At least at the moment, Saddam’s weapons are contained, but he doesn’t
strike me as someone who needs much coercion to launch any missiles he may
have and obviously the U.S realise this so I wonder exactly what positive
results they expect to achieve.
Bush has made it clear that with or without the backing of the U.N, the
U.S are going into Iraq thus demonstrating that the American way isn’t
so much democratic as it is a hypocritical abuse of power which renders
the work of the U.N completely redundant.
Unfortunately for us, Blair’s going to support the U.S whatever action
is decided for fear of losing a powerful ally and because we still owe them
for WWII. We, the people, the people that will pay in blood for the actions
taken by our leaders, have no say in the matter, despite the fact that opinion
polls show we do not want to support Bush on this as we feel it’s
too great a risk.
As with all things political, we, the mere public, are never fully acquainted
with all the facts and in most cases are simply showered with propaganda
lest we realise what a sham our “democracy” has turned out to
be and start an up-rising, so I realise that I will not find the answers
to my queries in the press.
Even when I spend three or four hours face to face with a journalist, who
tape-records and takes notes during an interview, the personal details I
impart are NEVER reproduced accurately in print and in many cases are so
far off the mark, I wonder whether the reporter and I were actually in the
same country, never mind the same room, during the interview. Therefore,
what chance is there that any truth will reach us from politicians whose
spin has been picked apart and re-packaged by throngs of party line towing
advisors and jargon experts before being tossed into the press?
We have to rely on our common sense and instincts when making judgements
about politics, particularly when motives are as ambiguous as in this situation.
The only reasonable explanation I can think of is that the U.S government
knows for sure that Saddam plans to build a nuclear bomb, but, for fear
of endangering the future of the intelligence source that they rely on for
this kind of information, they cannot reveal publicly what they know. I
just hope I’ve got it totally wrong.
Me on TV
I'm on "That's Esther", ITV, Sunday 22nd Sept, not sure what time,
12 I think. It's a whole programme about me working with "Mind Instruction"
and learning to walk again.
And, I'll be inerviewing actor Mat Fraser on "That's Esther" on
Sun Sept 29th . |
