Voices of Reason
The well-known paragon of moderation and restraint, George W Bush, has had a sudden attack of veracity. Iraq, he said, is the main front in a global battle with extremists. Starting with Iraq, the extremists are seeking to "enslave whole nations and intimidate the world". Of course we all knew that, which is why we hope the insurgency will win; but it is encouraging to see Bush admitting the fact at last.
Not being an extremist himself, Bush has only one prescription for the fight against the militants: "we never back down, never give in and never accept anything less than complete victory". The militants, he said, had an ideology comparable to communism. After all, communism is atheistic, secular and originated in Europe, while Islam is monotheistic, mystical and originated in Arabia. You can see why they would both oppose America and all it stands for. They're practically indistinguishable.
Bush, like his doggie, has been blessed with an uncanny insight into the way the militants think: "The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia." It's a pity he wasn't more specific about which governments in the region are so moderate that they're in danger from their own people.
Meanwhile, the Vicar of Downing Street has echoed his own anonymous flunkey by stating categorically that certain explosions in Iraq are suspected to have been caused by material provided by Iranian "elements" who may or may not have had the support of their government. Eight British soldiers (and, no doubt, sundry lesser persons) have been killed since May in roadside bombings, which may or may not have had anything to do with Iran. Nevertheless, Blair warned that Britain would not be intimidated into giving up America's demand that Tehran abandon its nuclear programme, which may or may not be intended to create an independent nuclear deterrent in as little as a few years' time.
Blair informed the Iranians that British troops were helping in the development of a "sovereign, democratic government", and asked, presumably not unrhetorically: "What's it going to be like if you have a free Iraq ... run by the rule of law, with a free press ... run by the will of the people?" Of course, that will depend on who makes the laws that rule, and who is decreed by the White House to embody the people's will. Until 1990, I seem to recall, the nominee was Saddam Hussein: a precedent which might give the Iranians some (spurious) cause for concern.
Not being an extremist himself, Bush has only one prescription for the fight against the militants: "we never back down, never give in and never accept anything less than complete victory". The militants, he said, had an ideology comparable to communism. After all, communism is atheistic, secular and originated in Europe, while Islam is monotheistic, mystical and originated in Arabia. You can see why they would both oppose America and all it stands for. They're practically indistinguishable.
Bush, like his doggie, has been blessed with an uncanny insight into the way the militants think: "The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia." It's a pity he wasn't more specific about which governments in the region are so moderate that they're in danger from their own people.
Meanwhile, the Vicar of Downing Street has echoed his own anonymous flunkey by stating categorically that certain explosions in Iraq are suspected to have been caused by material provided by Iranian "elements" who may or may not have had the support of their government. Eight British soldiers (and, no doubt, sundry lesser persons) have been killed since May in roadside bombings, which may or may not have had anything to do with Iran. Nevertheless, Blair warned that Britain would not be intimidated into giving up America's demand that Tehran abandon its nuclear programme, which may or may not be intended to create an independent nuclear deterrent in as little as a few years' time.
Blair informed the Iranians that British troops were helping in the development of a "sovereign, democratic government", and asked, presumably not unrhetorically: "What's it going to be like if you have a free Iraq ... run by the rule of law, with a free press ... run by the will of the people?" Of course, that will depend on who makes the laws that rule, and who is decreed by the White House to embody the people's will. Until 1990, I seem to recall, the nominee was Saddam Hussein: a precedent which might give the Iranians some (spurious) cause for concern.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home