Well hooray for everything, they found him. Now the Iraqis and troops can celebrate a bit more, which they deserve after all they've done, whether they should have been there or not: which they shouldn't have been. As for everything else, this doesn't really mean anything, except that Saddam can confirm once again that there are no weapons of mass destruction and that America had no right to enter Iraq. Yes, they've 'freed' a large proportion of the populace (and killed most of the rest), but they still had no right. Saddam was a tyrant, a dictator and a wicked man, but he didn't interfere with the affairs of countries he had no claim to, unlike a certain other dictator.
Ah yes, now all this tosh about a 'just war'. What Mr Bush and Mr Blair don't seem to realise (and in not doing so prove themselves to have no right whatsoever to be leaders of any country, town or pair of scissors) is that by definition they didn't meet a single one of the six criteria for a just war: the war was not initiated by a legal head of state (or who should have been legal head of state); there was no proof that Iraq posed a threat to anyone else; the war was most definitely not the last resort; innocent civilians were hurt - they were even fired at intentionally; and a big question mark hangs over the motives behind the war. I still think America wanted to get their greedy hands on the country's oil, while Bush and Blair just wanted to get into the history books. The sixth criterium is that peace must be restored after the war has finished. Of course America declared the war was over long ago and then look what happened. We'll just have to wait and see, but in all honesty it doesn't make the phrase 'just war' any more morally acceptable to be used by either Bush or Blair.
|