The “Morality” of the Warmongers — a personal view.

UN inspectors refuse to endorse Washington’s wild allegations against Baghdad. The French threaten to veto any new resolution giving UN approval for aggression. Two million demonstrate in London alone, joining countless more millions around the world. So what does our panic-stricken PM do? Stakes everything on the pretence that war is “morally” justified by the iniquity of the present Iraqi government, which must be overthrown by force of arms.

Having scraped to the very bottom of the barrel in search of an excuse for war, without managing to unearth any convincing “smoking gun” or relevant “terror link”, our Government now tells us that the innately “evil” nature of Saddam’s regime on its own constitutes a sufficient “moral case” for war, thus conveniently relieving the warmongers of the burden of having to find or fabricate actual “evidence” of any specific hostile intent on Baghdad’s part.

Yet no less an authority than top brass General, Sir David Ramsbotham, describes a war fought on such a basis as a “deliberate breach of international law” (Guardian 18-02-03). “Who is being threatened? Not the United States or the United Kingdom directly.” The fact is that there is no sanction in international law for the use of war as a means of toppling foreign governments, however bad they are judged to be.

And if just being plain “evil” were sufficient grounds for invasion, then what about the corrupt semi-feudal tyranny of US allies Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, or the routine outrages perpetrated by Washington’s Zionist catspaw against the heroic Palestinian resistance?

The fact is that the US had no qualms about Saddam’s behaviour either when they first helped install him in the ’70s, or when they stoked up his war against Iran in the ’80s, or any actions of the Iraqi government and army during this period.

Only when Saddam became too closely identified with the independence and sovereignty of the Iraqi nation, so becoming an obstacle to America’s “full spectrum dominance” ambitions, was he suddenly “discovered” to be the “new Hitler”. “Getting rid of Saddam” is merely code for tearing up the national independence of Iraq and stealing its oil.

This latest desperate appeal to the “moral case” merely underlines the immorality and illegality of what is being threatened against the Iraqi people, and makes clearer than ever the truly predatory nature of the intended war. However dutifully the pretence is maintained that the proposed post-Saddam government of “opposition” quislings will be “less brutal” and “more democratic”, the real aim is to secure a regime which can more reliably deliver the profits from Iraq’s oil resources safely into the hands of Exxon, BP and Shell, thereby entrenching Anglo-American monopoly positions in the Middle East.

Millions will join the Archbishop of Canterbury and his Roman Catholic counterpart in recognizing that our Prime Minister’s claim to a “moral” justification is entirely false. True moral courage is shown by those who dare to resist this unjust and immoral war.