The occupiers have no right! They have no security for their blood, property and honour and they deserve none. Whilst the oppressed and the dispossessed have every right to resist by any means necessary. There is no blame on them for any acts of violence executed in the course of resisting the criminal aggressors. The above stated principle has been practiced for centuries by every civilisation in history. One could certainly argue that this has been enshrined within the UN charter, where it clearly states the right of a sovereign nation to defend itself, if attacked without provocation or authorisation. Absence of legal authorisation was concurred by the overwhelming majority within the UN assembly as they all rebuked Bush for his “unilateralism”. A clear majority will not amount to any weight here; there is no room for democracy when it works against the US interests. It can be applied as a stick over Iraq or elsewhere but the good old yanks are completely exempt from it. Similarly the US advocates that countries and individuals be tried by the ICC (International Criminal Court) but yet it refuses to be subjected to the same jurisdiction by itself. Likewise we see the invention of certain terminologies for the convenience of the powerful. Had a weak nation resorted to “unilateralism” the action would have been termed a crime and the nation would have been classified as a rogue state and consequently dealt with severely by the application of economic sanctions and military force. As for moral and ethical arguments deployed for a regime change, apart from being an after thought, it can be simply dismissed on the basis that the Iraqi regime was a product of US Imperialism. Furthermore, treatment of the illegal captives held in the Guantanamo Bay cages exclude Bush and his cohorts automatically from advocating any moral or ethical arguments. No nation can advocate moral or ethical premise when it behaves like an animal. They exhibit shameless overt hypocrisy by violating all its fundamental principals. It makes one wonder whether the word “hypocrisy” has been erased from the American dictionary!
Under such circumstances how is it that Bush was allowed to address the United Nations, whilst he is occupying a sovereign nation without any UN mandate? How is it that leaders of the Muslim countries sat unashamedly in the UN assembly and listened to the speech of this murderer and a war criminal? Cannot the Arab League and OIC (Organisation of Islamic Countries) for once show some teeth even if it can’t bark or bite, to raise at least a small symbolic protest? To the contrary each member is ready to send its soldiers as mercenaries to do the dirty work for the US in return for some meager financial benefit.
The primary and legal pretext for the war –” WMD, has been proven to be clearly false. The only WMDs visible are the ones that have been dropped by the coalition forces, be they Napalm, Cluster bombs on civilians, Cruise missiles, JDAMS, Daisy Cutters etc. The combined destructive power is the same as any WMD. Jack Straw, Tony Blair and Donald Rumsfeld may argue that absence of evidence is not itself evidence. In another words, assume the evidence to exist, dispense the verdict of guilty and execute the punishment. Simply put “guilty until proven innocent”. Such methods of reasoning implies that Messrs Straw, Blair and Rumsfeld would not object if their houses were bull-dozed without a legal warrant (unilaterally) in search of stolen goods, resulting in their arrest and the killing of their families (collateral damage). They would be perfectly happy to accept the judgment even if the alleged stolen goods were not found, as Jack Straw says, absence of evidence does not prove the non-existence of the evidence.
So where is the justice for those who have lost their lives as a result of Bush’s “unilateralism”? First of all Iraq as a nation is clearly entitled for War reparations. As for the relatives of Iraqi victims, they have every right to seek just retribution. It would be much better to seek this retribution in mainland US and UK rather then in Iraq. The innocent foot soldiers are simply following orders, many of whom are from the impoverished families looking for a way out of poverty as reports within the US indicates. They are being sacrificed to make the rich corporations even richer. A high percentage of the US army on the grounds is composed of Hispanics and blacks. You will not find the sons of Clinton, Bush, Cheney, Blair, Rumsfeld, Straw, Hoon, and Wolfwitz. The real guilty ones are these chicken hawk politicians, along with the journalists and the media moguls who deliberately aided in the manufacturing of this war. In order to prevent or at least placate the responses from the Iraqi victims- normally described as "terrorism", the UK and US public, should take their leaders to task and demonstrate to them and the world that they have a notion of fair play and justice. The masses need to convey to their leaders that preaching to the world about freedom and injustices are not false notions that can be used to serve the whims and desires of the powerful. This should be done not just for the victims in Iraq but above all for the innocent British and US soldiers who have lost their lives. Resignation or impeachment is not good enough. Since innocent blood has been split, they must equally pay with their blood. Hang’em high in the US, send them to the gallows with in the UK. This is the recipe to curb terrorism (retaliation) and build a fairer and a peaceful world.