 |
|
Who would you turn to ... the US or the UN? The new Archbishop of Canterbury will only support an attack on Iraq if it is sanctioned by the United Nations. As they say in the USA: Go tell it to the Marines. The Bish should stick to The Simpsons. The UN is an organisation which has long since outlived its usefulness. These days it is little more than a vehicle for tinpot despots to strut the world stage pretending to be statesmen. Britain, the USA, Israel and any other nation with a shred of decency should have pulled out of the UN after the recent, so-called “anti-racism” conference in South Africa, which turned into a grotesque orgy of anti-Jewish hatred, orchestrated by the usual corrupt cabal of African and Middle Eastern tyrants. All you need to know about the United Nations is that Syria, a state sponsor of terrorism, sits on the security council. The West is forced to take lectures on “human rights” from countries such as Cuba, Libya and the Sudan. Israel and the US have to endure condemnation from regimes which openly support Islamic terrorists, while remaining silent on anti-Jewish violence. So do you really think George W Bush is going to ask Syria’s permission to go after Saddam? Without America’s military and financial muscle, the United Nations is worthless. Bush knows it, the UN knows it. What is the UN going to do if America invades Iraq unilaterally — send a peacekeeping force, comprised of the might of Luxembourg, Liberia, Laos and Lesotho? There’s no point splitting hairs over whether an attack on Iraq would be justified under an outstanding resolution passed at the time of the Gulf War. Dubya simply isn’t interested. And neither are the people of America. When, not if, the missiles start flying in Iraq, America will be acting in self-defence — not just of its homeland but of democracy itself. After September 11, the US is entitled to get its retaliation in first. Saddam Hussein is a clear and present danger. He has weapons of mass destruction and is mad enough to use them. Those opposing war in Iraq, especially in Britain, are like those who wanted to appease Hitler in the 1930s. Not for nothing is Winston Churchill one of George W Bush’s heroes. While Saddam remains in power the stability of the world is in danger. Removing him and installing a democratic government is win-win-win. ONE, the threat of nuclear, chemical and biological holocaust is hugely diminished. TWO, control of the world’s second biggest oil reserves passes to a regime friendly to the West — removing the dependence on the duplicitous Saudis. THREE, comprehensive victory in Iraq serves as a mind-concentrating lesson to other rogue states that countries which harbour and sponsor terrorism can expect no mercy. Since September 11, the only question has been: Which side are you on? Much as European “sophisticates” may scorn, Dubya has summed it up with clarity and simplicity. This is a war between good and evil. America is in it for the long haul. And Britain should give her whatever support she asks. Most of the world has, predictably, gone missing since the dust settled on the World Trade Center and The Pentagon. The US can and will go it alone if necessary. But anyone who has spent any time in America recently will appreciate how much British support, both militarily and morally, is valued by them. Tony Blair has to keep on making the case for our involvement in the war on Iraq, in particular, and the wider war on terror, in general. He has to confront and defeat the anti-American nay-sayers and their useful idiots like the Archbishop of Canterbury. When push comes to shove, it boils down to this simple question. If Britain were to be attacked, to whom should we turn for help — the United States or the United Nations? |
