In all the welter of coverage about Iraq it might be helpful to make "the Zimbabwe comparison".
Say it was 1991 and that Mugabe had been in power for some time with US backing. Imagine that he had killed a great many people in his own country, suppressed opposition, then invaded a small neighbour.
Would you not be staggered if the response to this was massive and sustained bombing of Harare and the whole of Zimbabwe by the US and England?
If in response to this the US and England bombed, starved and destroyed Zimbabwe and its people for 12 years killing many people, and leaving its regime intact, then invaded and occupied Zimbabwe for 5 years and refused to leave, stole its natural resources and continued to bomb and attack parts of the country, what would you think?
You would think that the US and England were commiting terrible crimes.
What makes this different from what was done in Iraq?
Nothing at all.
The reason for the assault on Iraq is anti-Semitism.
Saddam Hussein was nothing more than a (not coincidentally Arab) bogeyman for propaganda purposes, and he was used to justify the 17 year and continuing anti-Semitic assault on Iraq.
In the 1990s Clintstone needed someone to bomb after all....
---
Or another comparison would be:
What if China and Japan bombed and destroyed Zimbabwe for 17 years.
Would there not be serious censure from the international community?
Say it was 1991 and that Mugabe had been in power for some time with US backing. Imagine that he had killed a great many people in his own country, suppressed opposition, then invaded a small neighbour.
Would you not be staggered if the response to this was massive and sustained bombing of Harare and the whole of Zimbabwe by the US and England?
If in response to this the US and England bombed, starved and destroyed Zimbabwe and its people for 12 years killing many people, and leaving its regime intact, then invaded and occupied Zimbabwe for 5 years and refused to leave, stole its natural resources and continued to bomb and attack parts of the country, what would you think?
You would think that the US and England were commiting terrible crimes.
What makes this different from what was done in Iraq?
Nothing at all.
The reason for the assault on Iraq is anti-Semitism.
Saddam Hussein was nothing more than a (not coincidentally Arab) bogeyman for propaganda purposes, and he was used to justify the 17 year and continuing anti-Semitic assault on Iraq.
In the 1990s Clintstone needed someone to bomb after all....
---
Or another comparison would be:
What if China and Japan bombed and destroyed Zimbabwe for 17 years.
Would there not be serious censure from the international community?