If one bears in mind the date, some of you may have wondered if world events had passed before my very eyes without me taking notice. Of late it has become a hackneyed fashion to comment on the so-called American atrocities pertaining to 9/11 with whichever degree of righteousness the author professes to exhibit. This impels me to consider the actual circumstances, which can be tricky since (1) I'm not resident in the US, (2) my grasp of American politics in Washington is limited, (3) I have no real claim to have a truer view or version of events than most, if not all, other people.
Bearing this in mind it is clear to me that Bush has not been truthful with his citizens the entire time. Some may say this is rather an understatement, but I'm damned if my journal in cyberspace is going to become mired in finger-pointing and handbag-throwing. It is also clear that the major Western powers faced an ultimatum of whether to use force or not in Iraq. On one hand, if they stood by and did nothing, then those dictators they aimed to eliminate would still be where they were. On the other hand, if they intervened, it might very well make things worse, and sadly, this is what appears to have become par for the course.
You see, citizens of any given country aren't usually terribly satisfied when another country or union of countries attempts to impose legislation and bureaucracy directly upon them. Meddling in international affairs (attempted citizen's arrest of Mugabe, capture of Hussein) is as liable to exacerbate dissent, let alone quell it. For how hated is the EU within Great Britain? It is basically the same situation where a despised external force is attempting to enforce its idea of "good" or "true" without proper consultation of those who really matter - the people.
Returning to why Bush has been economical with the truth, it is common knowledge that the US has been, all along, bankrolling these terrorist organisations. So how egg-on-yer-face would it look if this was revealed to the American public? After all, a nation complicit in the funding of terrorist programs can hardly dare to criticise them. Bush would be out the White House faster than the time it would take Blair to announce 10 new NHS targets. Speaking of Blair, the Anglo-American 'axis of power' has been well documented of late. I wonder if publicly supporting a man with whom there is much more than meets the eye is really the right way to go for Blair. However, I do suppose it is of no consequence. Most living, breathing people in Great Britain know that Blair is One Great Liar, and nothing he says can be trusted. Unless it's a tax rise. The problem with domestic policy is that things can go badly very, very quickly (teen pregnancies, school dropout rates, university crisis) but take an absolute age to solve. (national railways, NHS)
It should also be noted that Iraq has particular commercial strengths in oil and other associated chemicals. Was the war waged in Iraq because the two Western leaders really wanted to oust an evil dictator and save hundreds of thousands from his brutal regime, or was it because of their own selfish impulses to hoard valuable commodities? I doubt we will ever know the truth, but it is probably a combination of the two. Certainly these two situations aren't mutually exclusive. It is also hugely convenient for the West that the dictator whom Washington had set the metaphorical sights on also had such commodities in plentiful supply.
I find it hard to sympathise with general public feeling about "the crisis that befell America" when it is clear to me that they themselves have had a hand (at least) in their own downfall. I find it hideous that people choose to publicly display their emotions in the hope that it will propel themselves higher up the opinions of those they know, as was the case with the Soham murders. I find it disturbing that ill-informed Englishmen and other citizens of this country feel the need in themselves to exacerbate racial tensions amongst Muslim communities, when Islam teaches specifically that violence in the form of terrorism is prohibited. What so many commentators have failed to point out (and it is a great shame, because they should know better) is that the terrorists are hiding behind a smokescreen, if you will, of religion. The terrorists know that it is controversial to talk about religion in today's Britain because if you are not careful with your words, you will be labelled a racist.
As long as common sense eludes the vast majorities of the general public and the latest headlines are sought instead of honest, true intelligence, then the terrorists have won. An honest debate is required now on this subject so that the thousands who died three years ago didn't do so in vain.
No comments:
Post a Comment