Grrr, I just typed a huge long blog and then something went wrong and none of it got posted. V annoying. Well guess I'll have to type it all again...

It hasn't taken me long to choose what to write about in this, my second blog. I think I would like to make clear my stance of the current 'war' (probably better described 'illegal invasion' of Iraq by a 'coalition of the willing', lead by the mother of all mothers, the United States of America.

Just to make it totally clear, I am totally, 100% anti this illegal invasion (yes, I know Georgie Bush calls it a 'just war', but I just find it slightly hard to use that terminology coz it just aint true). Firstly, and most simply, the assault that is being waged on Iraq right now is illegal. According to the Charter of the United Nations, military force is not to be used until every peaceful means of solving the conflict is worked through. And, as it currently stands, the US has never been committed to solving this conflict - during the intense diplomacy leading up to the beginning of the invasion, what was the Bush administration doing? Well, apart from bullying some countries into accepting the looming invasion, they were building a state-of-the-art Command Centre in Qatar from where they could control the attack on Iraq. Can the Bush administration say that it has always been committed to a peaceful resolution to the conflict when they were drawing up maps for invading? Hmm, call me cynical but I think not. Plus, once you've sent hundreds of thousands of troops to go and fight a war (just in case you can't solve things peacefully mind! *wink*) it looks slightly silly to bring them home without seeing action. But it proves Cowboy Georgie was never really committed to peace.

"But," some people will say, "he is a tyrant and this is a just war. We are fighting for the good of humanity". Ha! Well, apart from the fact that it's not a war, it certainly isn't just. Maybe I'm just forgetful but I still don't remember any evidence being presented by the US (or anyone else come to that) proving Saddam deserves to have the entire forces of America unleashed up him. So he has a few weapons of mass destruction - who doesn't? And anyway, we can't really be that bothered about those weapons - we sold them to him. "Ahh, see, he does have weapons of mass destruction" the idiot might say. And? What's your point? He hasn't used them on anyone if he does have them, unlike the leaders of a country whose abbreviation is U.S.A.

Oh, but we're fighting a tyrant now. Yep, damn right! We put him there and that's exactly what we wanted when we (I use 'we' loosely, mainly to mean the Western leaders) chose Saddam to lead Iraq (oh yes, 'we' really did put him in power!) So why do we need to get rid of him now? Hmm, doesn't make sense to me. Oops, actually, of course it does. It all comes back to this question of oil. Ha! Of course we have to get rid of him - he's gotten a bit too greedy with that there oil we asked him to look after. Can't possibly allow that! Ugh, the leaders of the West are OK with you as long as you give them good, cheap oil. Simple. But that don't make it just.

But I'll tell you one thing that I personally find sickening. The fact that Iraq is now going to have to pay for the damage reaped on it by the 'coalition'. Yep, not only are we gonna bomb the crap out of em, we're also gonna make em pay, by supplying us with millions of tonnes of (when Saddam's gone) cut-price oil. Hooray! So the yanks win again. Nah, its all in the name of humanity and liberation really. Ha!

And who else wants this war? Hmm, America has announced a list of 30 countries that are 'for' the 'war'. But how do you think they got half of those? I'll tell you - by threatening cut all aid and support they give them if they don't agree with the invasion. Sounds to me like shaky 'international support' if you ask me. Oh yeah, Vive La France for its opposition.

Finally, there has been one thing I have not been able to stomach since the invasion started. I read on BBC News Teletext service today that 30 British troops had been killed since the beginning of the invasion (28 of which, by the way, were killed by so-called friendly fire from the Americans). Right at the end of the story it mentioned that the 'coalition forces' had killed around 300 Iraqi troops in the past two days. Excuse me for being antagonistic but doesn't that seem to be totally unbalanced? Doesn't sound to me like this invasion is proportional. And that in itself is illegal.

This anti-Muslim war (I used this phraseology advisedly) must stop now.

steven

"Stop the Invasion"