mr. zilla goes to town

Wednesday, June 09, 2004

on war, by non cloudywits

Tim Dunlop puts the question: Was the US/Australia relationship sufficient reason for our involvement in the Iraq War?

Rob Schaap replies:

"We invaded a country that was no threat to us and no longer one to its neighbours, were complicit in the deaths of tens of thousands, have produced a failed state all the King's men can't put together again, and have contributed to a self-fulfilling prophecy of Christian/Muslem belligerence. So no."

A-bloody-men. You know how to mark the damn ballot. Tell your friends. Tell them to tell their friends in marginal electorates. And don't tell me its relevant to piss around with arguments about an untried opposition leader in response. Or who broke whose taxi driver's arm.

The soundest strategic political vote, if you want to live in an upstanding democracy, is to demonstrate that those who make war against our will are placed such that their history is written by their opponents, who consign them to the rightful place.

You know it makes sense. But does this argument hold for voters in the UK, whose alternative government are more strongly in support of the war than Blair's Labour?


Post a Comment

<< Home