Friday 21 March 2003

Iraqi Capital Is Lit Up by Antiaircraft Fire and Large Blasts. American-led coalition forces began an intense bombing campaign in Iraq, blasting targets in Baghdad and at least two other cities, Pentagon officials said. By Patrick E. Tyler. [New York Times: NYT HomePage] I am sick to my stomach!. The severity of tonight's attack on Baghdad and the horrific images which sullied our television screens can surely do nothing other than fuel the anti-war campaign. Of course, this is not 'war' at all. War, I always thought, involved conflict between opposing forces, rather than the use of massive firepower by one side against an 'enemy' who is woefully defenceless. Tonight's images were disgustingly sickening, and the unleashing of such a disproportionate show of military might was totally reprehensible and reckless.       Mr Rumsfeld's remarks at the subsequent Pentagon briefing added insult to injury. The barely hidden tone of delight in his voice was disgusting, as was his interjection when the military spokesman finished his remarks and called for questions. Mr Rumsfeld's little speech about the precision of targeting and about the wonderful way in which coverage of the 'conflict' was being facilitated for the 'embedded media' (where do they come up with these phrases?) was insulting to any viewer's intelligence.       Of course, this evil man managed to casually drop into his earlier comments a gratuitous reference to 'the threat posed to the United States by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction'. What threat is this? If Iraq is such a threat, how come it hasn't been able to react to the military onslaught with anything greater than anti-aircraft batteries and a few scud missiles? Of course, the constant images of soldiers and TV reporters in Kuwait donning gas masks each time the raid sirens sound are such a blatant attempt to give the impression of an enemy who will resort to gas and chemical warfare as to be laughable. The amazing way in which news reports have managed to spin comments such as 'the missiles did not appear to carry chemical or biological warheads' so as to make them sound as if Saddam obviously has such weapons and is expected to use them is another sickening aspect of the so-called 'free' coverage.       And as for this much-used phrase 'weapons of mass destruction'! It's interesting, of course, that the operative word here is 'destruction', as if the greatest evil possible is an attack on property, real estate, infrastructure -- rather than the loss of life which is the real evil which would result from the use of such weapons. The other aspect here, naturally, is the sheer hypocrisy of criticising Saddam for having such weapons while at the same time raining down literal mass destruction on a defenceless city.       Tonight I witnessed a display of pure evil such I never imagined possible. How can an attack such as this be spun so as to make it seem a proper and appropriate thing to do? How can the MSNBC TV network seriously use the caption 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' as the tag-line for its coverage? 'US Might is Right' would surely be more appropriate. 9:52:21 PM  Your view

U.S. Uncertain Whether Air Strike on Baghdad Got Hussein. The White House and the Pentagon said today that they do not know whether it was Saddam Hussein who appeared on Iraqi television last night. By David Stout. [New York Times: NYT HomePage] What a way to begin this dreadful 'war', with a comicbook-style 'decapitation' strike on a location where Saddam Hussein was reported to be. The reaction to a subsequent television appearance by Saddam says little for teh accuracy of the original report, of course. was it Saddam? Was it a double? Had it been recorded before the attack? If they're not sure if it was Saddam on television, then how are they sure it was he in the targeted location? 12:56:47 AM  Your view

	Thursday 20 March 2003

Bush Orders an Assault and Says Americans Will Disarm Foe. American forces struck Baghdad after American officials received fresh intelligence that suggested a gathering of senior Iraqi leaders. By David E. Sanger with John F. Burns. [New York Times: NYT HomePage] So it's begun!Here in Ireland our Dáil (the national parliament) meets this afternoon in emergency session to debate whether or not to continue granting refueling rights to US military aircraft at Shannon airport. Reports suggest that our wek-kneed government will argue that the 'national interest' demands that we keep the US sweet because of our high dependence on American companies which provide such a high proportion of employment throughout the country. Since the government nejoys a confortable majority, this will probably be the outcome ? a sad day when moral integrity goes out the window! 8:06:39 AM  Your view

	Tuesday 18 March 2003

This rotten 'War' My cousin in Richmond Virginia thinks Dubyoo is 'decisive', whereas Bill Clinton, though liked in Ireland because of his tireless efforts towards arriving at an agreement which bridged a desperately wide gap, was perceived in the US as ineffectual and indulging in 'bad things'. (So how come he was elected for a second term?) Anyway, we had a disagreement on the phone today. She failed to see how terrible the actions of her President are, and perceived the UN situation as proof of the need for the US to 'go get Saddam'.       This perception gulf is disturbing. Seen from my perspective there is absolutely no justification for this preemptive 'war'. Saddam poses no immediate threat to the US or anyone else, but nonetheless he has been singled out for attack -- an attack which is being launched because he is supposedly guilty of not 'disarming' sufficiently. So the logic here is that he isn't weak enough, so we're going to attack him? This is the most ridiculous reasoning imaginable. And yet the international media swallows the official line hook line and sinker, bandies stock phrases such as 'axis of evil'. 'weapons of mass destruction' and so on without questiion, and we are all sucked in to a conflict which no-one wants and which is totally unjustified.       Not actually on the RSS feeds, but significant nonetheless, this article on the BBC site neatly sums up the situation. The first paragpraph is hugely signifcant: 'The United States says American forces will enter Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction even if President Saddam Hussein complies with an ultimatum to leave.' What more can anyone say in response to this? 11:07:42 PM  Your view

	Monday 17 March 2003

Senior British Official Resigns Over Blair's Iraq Policy. Robin Cook resigned today after disagreeing with the government's decision to back military action against Iraq without U.N. approval. By The Associated Press. [New York Times: NYT HomePage] I must admit that I wasn't a great admirer of Robin Cook when he was British Foreign Secretary, but he has gone up considerably in my estimation because of this principled stand. 6:03:09 PM  Your view

An excellent cover article from Newsweek This sums up in a single article what it takes the Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies book 'Why Do People Hate America?' over 200 pages to describe. A particularly telling phrase, and certainly the actions which instilled my own concern about US policy since Dubyoo came to power, is this: 'In its first year the administration withdrew from five international treaties, and did so as brusquely as it could. It reneged on virtually every diplomatic effort that the Clinton administration had engaged in, from North Korea to the Middle East, often overturning public statements from Colin Powell supporting these efforts. It developed a language and diplomatic style that seemed calculated to offend the world.'       Today is St Patrick's Day. Bertie Ahern, leader of the Irish government, headed off to Washington for the weekend for the celebrations as so many of our politicians tend to do. This would usually be greeted with a fair share of contempt, but on this occasion it was seen as a last chance for the Irish government to inform the US administration of the strong anti-war feeling in Ireland and hopefully to impress on the US President that it cannot depend on refueling or overflight rights in Ireland if there is an American attack on Iraq without UN backing. Mr Ahern has been asked over and over again to state the government position on this issue but has consistently refused to do so, saying that it would be unwise to preempt a reaction to a hypothetical situation. The coming week will be crucial. Ireland will be asked to state its position on a fundamental moral issue: do we or do we not provide support for a 'war' launched outside the ambit of international law? Mr Ahern has already stated that the reality of our dependence on American investment must be faced up to, but if he fails to adopt a stand on moral grounds I dread to imagine the political consequences. 12:44:39 PM  Your view

U.S. Advises Inspectors to Leave Baghdad [AP World News] This sums up the whole thing really, doesn't it? The UN sent in the inspectors, but it's the US who advises them to leave! 12:00:45 PM  Your view

A Long, Winding Road to a Diplomatic Dead End. A train of miscalculations and misunderstandings over Iraq has set back American diplomacy and world standing. By Steven R. Weisman. [New York Times: NYT HomePage] This is an excellent read and a fairly perceptive analysis of the many heavy-handed mistakes made by the US during the unfolding of the Iraq situation. It neatly sums up the inept manner in which the Bush administration has succeeded in a short space of time in undermining the delicate balance of international relations which have built up over the past fifty years. The shift in Irish public opinion is indicative of how things have changed. What used to be perceived as a 'friend' in international terms has now turned into a nation whose leaders have lost all respect. The bullyboy tactics, the blatant disregard for international institutions, the petulant reaction to any criticism of their policy (that notorious 'old Europe' comment!), the simplistic gung-ho phraseology employed by the so-called 'leader of the free world', the cynical assumption that principles can be bought by threats and bribes, the general inept high-handedness which has epitomised the conduct of the Bush administration -- all this has resulted in a quite extraordinary shift of attitude in a very short space of time.       Whatever the true motives behind this obsession with Iraq and Saddam, the way in which the whole thing has been handled only serves to reinforce the initial impression of this man who stole the presidential election: he's a cowboy with a John Wayne approach to problems. God help us all! 8:25:11 AM  Your view

U.S., Britain and Spain to Make Final Push for U.N. Support. After holding crisis talks at the Azores, President Bush said today that "tomorrow is a moment of truth for the world" in the effort to disarm Iraq. By Warren Hoge. [New York Times: NYT HomePage] So it's come down to a cynical show, designed to save face for the British and Spanish leaders and to shift 'blame' onto President Chirac, even though anyone with eyes in their head and even a modicum of brain knows that it's all about the US calling the shots and George W Bush losing patience because he didn't get his own way in the UN. The cynicism behind it all is quite disgusting. The play-acting. The treating of innocent lives as pawns in some game of powerplay. The spinning of the situation so as to try to divert attention from the real facts, which are that Bush and Blair totally miscalculated the will of the international community.       A final irony behind it all as far as we Irish are concerned is the contrast between the actions of two American presidents, with one displaying true and determined statesmanship in his efforts towards peace in the difficult ciscumstances of Northern Ireland and brokering negotiations which led to the Good Friday Agreement, while his megalomaniacal successor slaps us in the face by setting St Patrick's day as 'a moment of truth for the world'. Truth? What is truth? Must it from now on be whatever the White House tells us it is? I pray God that France and Russia and China maintain their principles and not further tarnish the name of the United Nations by granting 'legitimacy' to the amoral agenda of the US administration and its misguided supporters. 2:03:06 AM  Your view

	Sunday 16 March 2003

Serbia Party Nominates Djindjic Successor [AP World News] It is always sad to hear of any political assinastion, but more so when it happens in Serbis with all the resonaces this conjures up. As if the doings of the White House and Downing Street were not enough for us to worry about, this killing is desperately disturbing. Whatever about the Middle East being the cradle of world instabnility, will we now have to factor in the Baltic again? 4:27:41 PM  Your view

	Friday 7 March 2003

President Readies U.S. for Prospect of Imminent War. The president said the U.S. would seek a U.N. vote even if it appears that a new resolution could not pass. A defeat would not deter him, he said, from disarming Iraq. By David E. Sanger with Felicity Barringer. [New York Times: NYT HomePage] Of course, we've always known that the UN route was nothing more than a smoke-screen aimed at achieving some form of legitimacy for a wholly unjustified attack on Iraq. It's been hinted at several times before, but now at least we have it straight from the horse's mouth: 'Saddam Hussein pose[s] a direct threat to the security of the United States and . . . "we really don't need anybody's permission" to defend the United States.' Sure sounds like Texas-talk to me! It's like John Wayne and his 'a man's got to do what a man's got to do'.       May God protect us all from the consequences of this disastrous, irresponsible, ill-conceived action. It's taken Dubyoo just two years to unsettle countless international agreements and organisations. Now he appears hell-bent on blindly following an agenda which has already destabilised Euro-American relations and can only further complicate an already volatile situation in the Middle East. 11:12:11 AM  Your view

	Wednesday 5 March 2003

U.S. Sending 2 Dozen Bombers in Easy Range of North Koreans. President Bush said that if diplomacy failed, he might be forced to turn to military options to prevent the North from making nuclear weapons. By David E. Sanger and Thom Shanker. [New York Times: NYT HomePage] Oh God! Just what we all need, isn't it? As if a totally unjustified 'war' in Iraq weren't enough to destabilise the world, let's add another factor to it all while we're at it. Of course, we're the US, so the only way we can think of reacting is witha threat of force. This big-stick mentality coming out of Washington is scary, scary, scary. 8:11:14 AM  Your view

		© Copyright 2003 Jim MacCormaic . Last update: 21/03/2003; 09:58:23 pm .