Ire-aq, fox-hunting and hypocrisy

Ire-aq, fox-hunting, and hypocrisy.

by R. Eric Swanepoel

George W. Bush is right. There are good reasons for attacking Iraq. The
Iraqi oil reserves are immense. US-based multinational oil companies
stand to make a fortune from their exploitation. Dubya, the plutocrats'
plutocrat, benefits. Arms companies need to sell their merchandise.
Dubya, financially linked to them, benefits.

Reduce greenhouse gases? Hell, that means curbing the oil companies.
F*\%$ Kyoto. F*\%$ the planet.

Flooding, drought, warfare? Who gives a sh*t? If you're wealthy you can
always move, hide, protect yourself, or at least you believe that you
can.

This is a legitimate philosophical argument. After all, how does Dubya
know that anything outside himself and his cushioned circle really
exists, or has value? Why should the welfare of others concern him? You
may not agree with this thesis but it's at least rational, logical and
coherent. (Fox-hunters should argue the same way: the pleasure of many
people against the suffering of a few animals. You may not like this
but at least it's rational, unlike the wishful cr*p that they usefully
control the fox population!)

Trouble is, it's not the argument he uses. Saddam a threat to world
peace? Bullsh*t. Would Saddam risk using his supposed "weapons of mass
destruction" when this would legitimise and guarantee massive
retaliation? The real "weapons of mass destruction" are the trade
barriers the wealthy nations erect against the poor ones, not to
mention the sanctions against Iraq. So-called "aid" is at best almost
useless, and at worst corrupting and suffocating in the face of trade
barriers, structural readjustment plans and the subsidization of US and
European agriculture. But we don't care, as long as we get stuff
cheaply. "Gap, for every generation" - as long as these generations are
in the wealthy, label-obsessed west. Images of near slave-labour in
insanitary factories in shabby Free Trade Zones don't make it to the
advertising hoardings. (Look, I'm not asking you to deface the posters,
but I won't stand in your way&;#8230;)

Let's calm down and look at some more of the arguments they use:

1. The world would be a better place without Saddam Hussein.

Deceptively appealing. What evidence is there of a more benign
leadership in waiting? None. On the contrary, there is every indication
that Iraq would melt down into a seething mass of ethnic rivalries.
(Doesn't matter - Dubya can still get the oil out. You employ one
ethnic or socio-economic group as paramilitaries to put down dissent
among the others. Witness Nigeria. Witness Nicaragua.)

2. Look at the success of Afghanistan.

Not if you were one of the many civilians killed. Not if you are still
waiting for the promised investment.

'But we can't invest until the country is stable.' It won't become
stable until you invest. 'Too bad. All we want to do is put an oil
pipeline through your place anyway. Now be good boys and don't start
that terrorism thing again or else&;#8230;'

3. We can't allow tyrants to go unchallenged.

Right, Dubya. Why do you think I'm writing this?