[Peace] Charnel humor

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Gentles-- I was going to save this for the weekly AWARE report, but it's
too good to put off.  It's from a columnist for the Independent (London),
Mark Steel. --CGE]

Don't ask for the evidence, just nuke Baghdad

'There will probably be an announcement soon that our steel industry was
harbouring al-Qa'ida'

Mark Steel 

14 March 2002

The American military has become like one of these couples that always
goes on holiday to the same resort. They're sat in the Pentagon muttering:
"We always bomb the same place, every year. This year we looked through
the brochures and thought of bombing somewhere new, like Yemen or North
Korea, but in the end we thought we'd play safe and stick with Iraq as
usual."

Because Saddam has acquired "weapons of mass destruction". Just now, at
exactly the same time as the American military is on a roll and can
justify anything it wants by pointing to Ground Zero. What a coincidence.
And we know this is true because "there is evidence". Well that pretty
much wraps the case up, then.

Some politically correct types might ask what the evidence is, but that's
the sort of bureaucracy that snarls up any legal system. The evidence is
bound to be as damning as that produced by Nato chief George Robertson
when he held up an Iraqi canister and announced it would be lethal if
Saddam filled it with deadly anthrax. Just as a bottle of lemonade would
be lethal if you filled it with deadly anthrax, which is why the axis of
evil should include Iraq, Iran and the Schweppes bottling plant in Sidcup.

What slightly confuses me is this. In 1991, following a 10-year war in
which Saddam had been allowed, indeed encouraged, by the Americans to
build up his military strength, the most destructive weapon he came up
with was the Scud. Which is probably safe to let off in your garden as
long as you make sure it stays upright and don't light it while it's in
your hand. But since then Iraq has been observed day and night, pelted
with cruise missiles and subjected to sanctions that prevent almost all
imports. Even ping-pong balls are banned, presumably in case they're
filled up with deadly anthrax.

Yet despite this, the place has got itself a pile of weapons of mass
destruction. Saddam doesn't need to rule Iraq, he could play Las Vegas as
the greatest magician in history. The climax of his show would be to
invite someone on to the stage and say: "We've never met before, have we?
Now I'd just like you to tell the audience if there's anything destructive
here, anything at all." Then – kazoom – and out of a puff of smoke pops a
beautiful assistant astride a silo full of nuclear warheads. Then David
Blaine and Uri Geller say: "How the bloody hell has he managed that?"

It's also claimed that Iraq may have been connected to the attack on New
York. For this is now the excuse for every act of American aggression.
There will probably be an announcement soon that the British steel
industry was harbouring al-Qa'ida terrorists.

Each new stage of the war against terrorism makes it clearer that the real
aim has little to do with the twin towers and is a bid for what the
American military describes as "full spectrum dominance". Partly, this
entails revenge against anyone who's caused the US embarrassment, starting
with the most recent and going back, making the named targets so far Iraq,
Somalia, Iran and North Korea. Blair ought to be careful. Historically
speaking, after that it goes Japan, Spain, the Confederacy, Mexico and
then Britain.

But still Americans write in to newspapers such as this one, whining about
any criticism of their government's warmongering. They're like a
superpower version of Harry Enfield's Kevin the Teenager. Someone only has
to suggest that maybe they shouldn't threaten to frazzle half the planet
and they're screaming: "Oh it's so unfair. We're not allowed to do
anything."

Almost every week sees a new "post 11/9 film" in which American soldiers
blast their way heroically through a sinister land to deliver democracy to
ungrateful savages. Mel Gibson's next effort will be to play Henry
Kissinger parachuting into Santiago to help General Pinochet to stop the
Chilean parliament drowning a litter of kittens.

In a typical article in one Sunday paper, an American writer lamented how
he had "thought twice" about becoming a father in this "post September
11th world". Funny how it didn't bother him that he was bringing a child
into a post-napalming-Cambodia world or a post-Chile-coup world or a
post-Contra world. To the inevitable accusation that this makes me
"anti-American", I would point out that three of my greatest living heroes
are Muhammad Ali, Richard Pryor and Bart Simpson. To suggest that anyone
who questions the American military is "anti-American" is like suggesting
that someone who voices concerns about the techniques of Harold Shipman
holds an "instinctive hatred of doctors".

But no matter how barmy they get, there will be Tony Blair, shoulder to
shoulder. Some people are suggesting that, by remaining faithful to George
Bush, our Prime Minister has won some influence over him. This is true.
Blair licks his arse so thoroughly that George now listens to Tony's
opinion as to whether he should lick his right buttock first or his left.

	--30--