Frankly this article is amazing. In the face of unprecedented opposition to this war, The Observer goes out of its way to demonstrate the way the corporate media in this country functions as a propaganda tool of the government. Many people dismiss the right-wing arguments out of hand as crazy, often not without good reason.

It is at this point the “bullshit liberals” (a term I coined and for which I do not apologise) come into play. This is the likes of The Observer and, of course, Clare Short whose role is to present the view that ‘decent’ people also support the war, though they really are concerned about the not very nice consequences – honest.

I don’t have time to come up with a proper critique of this article, though it wouldn’t be all that difficult - it doesn't mention Western support for the regime during the Eighties once, for a start. The following is a quick run through of the most easily dismissed parts of the article and the arguments against them:

“Both Bush and Blair could have emphasised more just how bad Saddam's republic of fear has been for his people and the extent to which ending it is a desirable end in itself.”
- How could they have further emphasised this? It has been central to their propaganda effort. Hardly necessarily as the fact that Saddam is a vicious tyrant is an elemental truth known by everyone anyway. But then he was no different (possibly more dangerous though) when we were supporting him.

“They could also have stressed more energetically that this dispute is not about oil.”
- Hardly, because of course it is. North Korea has openly admitted it has a nuclear weapons programme and kicked out UN inspectors. It is also ruled by a tyrant with an awful human rights record and we’re not going to war with Korea.

“For the second motive for displacing Saddam is the danger he poses to the wider world. Western governments must articulate the nature of that potential threat too.”
- Iraq is a country with a decimated military and a starved people. According to Scott Ritter UNSCOM disarmed the Ba’ath regime of 90-95% of its WMD capability, making it the most qualitatively disarmed country in the world. Even Iraq’s neighbours don’t fear Saddam particularly (hence they are generally not very keen on a war). Quite what threat he poses to “the wider world” is unclear.

“At the same time, he [Blair] has thus far managed to insist, and also to persuade the Americans, that we stick to the path of UN endorsement and the framework of international law. This is a considerable achievement.”
- This is an oft repeated refrain of the Blair apologists, but one for which no evidence is produced. Indeed many people believe it was Powell, not Blair, who encourage Bush to take the UN route in the face of considerable opposition from the Hawks.

“The world still awaits firm public evidence that Saddam has effective weapons of mass destruction. It is only when their existence is confirmed that the UN will have to decide whether to take substantive military action.”
- Firstly the world awaits ANY evidence “that Saddam has effective weapons of massive destruction”. Secondly the assertion that until this is presented the UN will not have to make a decision seems naïve. The US is unlikely to get its “smoking gun” and so will probably base its ‘case’ for war on empty rockets and the like. It is on this that a decision will be made.

“The Observer has repeatedly argued, and we continue to do so, that any such military action must have multilateral legitimacy. Not only is that right, it is the only way that military action will secure international acceptability. But this does not necessarily mean a unanimous Security Council vote on such action. It might be difficult for some to accept a sole veto from Beijing autocrats, for example, on action which might restore democracy to another nation.”
- What then does “multilateral legitimacy” mean? In the past liberals seemed perfectly happy to accept the NATO stamp of approval on wars (as in Kosovo), perhaps a nominal NATO presence will suffice? Are we to conclude that “multilateral legitimacy” simply means what the US says goes? Vague statements about how bad are fellow UN Security Members are will hardly suffice as an answer.

“Equally, there is a considerable risk that civilians could be targeted in Britain, whether we are part of a UN force or not, either by agents of Saddam or by other terrorists who choose unilaterally to take his side.”
- “Agents of Saddam or other terrorists who choose unilaterally to take his side”?!? Presumably what this is saying in a round about way is that despite killing 5,000 civillians in Afghanistan we didn’t beat Al-Qaeda. A war with Iraq will drive many angry Muslims into their arms, this will inevitably make a terrorist attack on the UK more likely. (Agents of Saddam” just reeks of the works kind of propaganda. What the hell does it mean anyway?!?).

“In London last month, Iraqi opposition groups united around a platform of a federal, democratic state.”
- This is presumably a new use of the word “united”. The various Iraqi opposition groups hate each other almost as much as they hate Saddam. Many of them are former members of the Ba’ath regime and/or the military and share his democratic legitimacy. Most of them also have no presence on the ground in Iraq and have little idea about the political situation on the ground.

“The example of Turkey proves two things. First, that establishing democracy in the Middle East is very difficult. Second, that it is possible.”
- So Turkey is the model we are to use for “democracy” in Iraq? Effective military control of the government and persecution of the Kurds – the more things change, eh?

“Nato's Kosovo campaign, with the subsequent indictment of Slobodan Milosevic.”
- The bombing of Serbia did not lead to Milosevic’s indictment. Diplomacy with the Kostunica government (who came to power, of course, after a domestic revolution which deposed Milosevic) did that.

“It is because we believe that, if Saddam does not yield, military action may eventually be the least awful necessity for Iraq, for the Middle East and for the world.”
- Can you even have a “least awful necessity”. This is an acknowledgement that war is not a necessity at all, but rather a choice from a range of options. A choice with consequences we cannot possibly foresee.

Just read the article for myself and it defies logic that The Observer following yesterdays international protests should print an article like that, knowing that it will p!ss off a lot of it's readers.

I've emailed them myself and basically told them that the Anti War movement have won the argument if they feel that finding 11 empty shells buried under a pile of pigeon crap after two months of inspections is reason enough and adequate justification to wage war against Iraq, wasting thousands of people just to get one man.

The observer is probably taking this position because of the execution of one of its journalists 13 years ago called fazoft bazoft(apologies for spelling) who was accused of spying for the west. I think the observer just wants revenge for that death which is why it is letting its heart rule its head and why it doesnt give a damm about the innocents who will die in this war. They want revenge for the death of one of their own and they want saddam!!!!