This will probably be my last contribution to this thread before the killing starts or special branch arrest me, or I check into the funny farm, so I would like to spell out where I stand on this bloody war.
I'm not against war per se. I hate it, but I'm not a pacifist. In certain circumstances I would agree that Saddam and his regime must be removed by force, just as I would favour removing Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. But those circumstances have not yet arisen.
The lead agency in the authorisation of force must be the United Nations. It cannot be right that Britain is led into war against another member of the UN which poses no direct or immediate threat to us, at the behest of an ally - however close - whose reasons for embarking on a military adventure are at best not clear, or at worst dubious, ill considered and dangerous to our interests.
Hans Blix does not report to me. Neither does he report to Donald Rumsfeld. He reports to the security council of the UN. Therefore let his report be considered and voted on by the UN.
It was clear from the outset that Bush did not want to go the UN route. Military planning for an attack on Iraq has been on going for over a year. Bush, Rumsfeld, Daniel Perle, Paul Wolfovitz et al have made it abundantly clear that it is their policy to remove Saddam. For them, any UN endorsement is peripheral and not a necessary or even a central component of their plan. This war as we all know, is going ahead. In fact it does not matter what Blix reports or how the UN votes, because the war plans are proceeding to timetable, avoiding the hot weather, and finishing in time for the US primary elections. Blix has been denied intelligence by the US to enable him to do his job more efficiently. From the very outset, the US intimated that he was not up to doing the job. Colin Powell presented a glitzy show last week, long on impact, and short on substance. When Jacques Chirac says there is no definitive proof that Saddam possesses WMD (which is true, there isn't, or if there is, the UN hasn't been allowed to see it) Bush effectively calls him a liar. Its pretty obvious that the US will use the UN while it suits, but will ignore the security council when it doesn't suit.
Nevertheless, we are told by our PM that it is likely the council will pass a further resolution authorising the use of force. Fine, let them do that. But without that resolution, military action is illegal and in my opinion, must be opposed.
If the US and UK proceed regardless, I shall support our troops in the field - that goes without saying - but lobby at every opportunity, no matter how the war develops, that this illegal action is not in Britain's interests and that our forces must be withdrawn at the earliest moment.
'bye for now and have a nice war.
