So, what is the position to hold in a situation where there are no good guys?
Now the bombs are going off, the missiles are raining in, the argument and posturing is finished, what's to think?
Who to admire?
The peacenicks? The ordinary protesters who don't want anyone to die? In Iraq they die anyway, have done for decades and the peacenicks have no argument about what might be done to stop it. Very good on the West's inglorious history regarding Iraq and exposing the vapid twists and turns of the warmongers' logic, but nothing to say except not in my name.
The French? Nice how they appear to be high and mighty and moralistic about all this, when the main reason they have to oppose the war is economic, or so it is claimed. They sold Saddam Hussein his nuclear capability years ago and always seemed eager to do business with him.
But if they were so against this war, why did they tell the world they would use their UN veto, thus giving Bush an excuse not to go for a second resolution?
The Russians? Plenty of Chechens would raise a hollow laugh at the thought of Putin the humanitarian.
The UN? Hoist by the petard of their own weakness, vacillation and general uselessness.
The Bush Administration? Where to start? Won't go over the peacenick arguments, but most of them are true. All I can say is, if this war was about what the yanks tell us it is about - liberating Iraq, making the world a safer place, yader, yader, yader, at least some dialogue with the various exiled Iraqi opposition parties would have taken place, but they seem to be out of the loop altogether, which rather suggests that US interests are the driving force here. Which, of course, is all of a piece with US Foreign policy since before WW2.
Blair and Co. A puzzle. Delusions of mattering a shit defines them, I suppose.
The Iraqi opposition? Haven't heard enough from them. Spineless and divided is the image I have, unfair as that may seem.
So what's to think in this new world order? Pray (lol) that it's over quickly and wait for the terrorist reprisals.