24 June 2008

Zimbabwe Exemplifies Why Iraq Was About Oil.

I reckon George Bush could win back the faith of Europeans simply by launching an invasion of Zimbabwe and removing Mugabe from power (mobile footage of Mugabe hanging would be more popular than...
the demise of Saddam).

Here is a country clearly being despotised amid universal world condemnation. When Bush invaded Iraq, he brushed aside the condemnation of Iraq's neighbours, he ignored the UN, all he needed was his 'moral crusade' (or so they told us). The objections of Zimbabwe's neighbours could equally be ignored.

It was obvious even to a child that Iraq was no threat (intelligence on Iraqi weapons was comprehensive - the gulf war and Israeli/US air attacks had completely disabled Iraq and everyone knew their rockets could not reach Europe), the weapons inspectors would have confirmed there were no WMD within weeks if the invasion had been delayed. But Bush rushed ahead. If Bush invades Zimbabwe in the next few months he would prove me wrong. But until that dubious day, I can only conclude 'oil crusade' not 'moral crusade' was the real agenda.

15 comments:

  1. Ahem, yes, sort of agreed, but can we just remind ourselves that it was Labour who enthusiastically joined in this Iraq and Afgh nonsense with no signs of a let up?

    As to Zim, isn't that up to the AU to sort out?

    ReplyDelete
  2. You say we shouldn't have invaded Iraq because it was no threat to us.

    And the threat to us and the IS from Zim is?

    ReplyDelete
  3. What's the big deal if Iraq really was all about oil!?! Oil is essential to the Western economies and security of supply is of paramount importance to all of us - witness Gordon Brown's recent visit to OPEC at Jeddah.

    As for Zimbabwe, why should we get involved? Britain had a moral obligation when we were a colonial power but Rhodesia decided to go it alone.

    ReplyDelete
  4. GS: You misunderstand. If it was ok to invade Iraq on the pretence of removing Saddam, surely it really is ok to remove Mugabe. Neither were/are a direct threat to us, but on the grounds of 'moral crusade' we would at least have some consistency from Bush. The fact Bush has treated Zimbabwe differently suggests that Iraq was just about oil.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Snafu: Was it right to manipulate public opinion if Iraq was just about oil? I think most wars are economic (as Marx correctly worked out). I am unsure as to the long-term implications of Iraq - it has definitely destabilised the region, killed a lot of Iraqis and heightened Islamic terrorism. We all depend on oil, but I think it is a mistake to be so heavily dependent on a region so politically explosive. I also think that the oil profits should have been more evenly distributed, especially to the Iraqis.

    ReplyDelete
  6. MW: Just as the Middle Eastern states could not handle Saddam, the AU seems unwilling to do anything about Mugabe. As there is no oil (no profit) in intervening, we do not. That is the bottom line. I just want to shoot down comprehensively the lie that there was any morality involved in the right-wing interest in Iraq. There wasn't and Zimbabwe proves it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Neil, Labour has been manipulating public opinion for the last eleven years! For what it's worth, I trusted Tony Blair to be privy to information from intelligence sources that could not be shared with the general public when making the case for war so at the time, I supported the action!

    Marx correctly worked out nothing! It's a bit rich expecting us to work out how oil revenues should be redistributed! It's Iraqi factions that have led to widespread bloodshed. Iraq seems to have relied on state terror to maintain law and order prior to the invasion.

    Some people might suggest that Iraq is another example of multi-cultural and ethnic tolerance in action!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I trusted Tony Blair to be privy to information from intelligence sources that could not be shared with the general public when making the case for war so at the time, I supported the action!

    There was ample evidence before the war that that the claims about WMD were exaggerated. Clearly boneheads like you who supported the war should pay a special tax levy to compensate the rest of us for your criminal folly. That would be the libertarian way of deal with people like you who choose to be berks.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Stephen, when you vote for any Government, you expect them to be privy to intelligence information from covert sources that are not available to the general public...

    Which part of that do you not understand!?!

    I also assumed that Labour were above going to war and risking British lives for the sake of mere political egos...

    ReplyDelete
  10. snafu: Somehow I doubt it was Blair or Labour you trusted over Iraq, but the relentless right-wing press and Tory party MPs and supporters who universally supported it and mostly still do - certainly far more enthusiastically than Labour MPs or Labour supporters did.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Neil, I don't support the appeasement of aggressors.

    I'm not Liberal or socialist.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Stephen, when you vote for any Government, you expect them to be privy to intelligence information from covert sources that are not available to the general public...

    That doesn't absolve you from the responsibility to use your own judgement and moral compass. Millions of people came to the right conclusion so you should be asking yourself why you didn't. You show little inclination in trusting the government on other matters so it is absolutely no excuse to say that you trusted Blair on this.

    Neil, I don't support the appeasement of aggressors

    You appeased Blair, who was the agressor.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Stephen, just ask any Kuwaiti if Saddam Hussein was an aggressor?

    I am quite consistent with my view, I believe in individual responsibility and that the first priority for national Government is national security and defence.

    I am not surprised that a bunch of left wingers and peace activists disagree with me. They live in a dream world.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Stephen, just ask any Kuwaiti if Saddam Hussein was an aggressor?

    I am quite consistent with my view, I believe in individual responsibility and that the first priority for national Government is national security and defence.

    I am not surprised that a bunch of left wingers and peace activists disagree with me. They live in a dream world.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Stephen, just ask any Kuwaiti if Saddam Hussein was an aggressor?

    Snafu, old chap, you have the wrong war. Iraq was not the aggressor in the 2003 war. Blair and Bush were.

    I am quite consistent with my view, I believe in individual responsibility and that the first priority for national Government is national security and defence

    Then you should have opposed the war as it had absolutely nothing to do with the security of the nation or self defence. It has made us less secure and wasted a great deal of money.

    I am not surprised that a bunch of left wingers and peace activists disagree with me

    I am not a 'peace activist'.

    They live in a dream world

    Says the ijeet who believed every lie Blair fed him!

    ReplyDelete