Politicians in 15 nations take stand against Bush’s Iran Plans
Campaign Iran | 11.01.2007 17:01 | Anti-militarism

MP's in 15 UN Security Council Nations called on to stop Bush's from attacking Iran

I think this kind of action is welcome. It fails ,however, to analye what we are faced with when we talk about resisting Bush and his Anglo-American plans for Iraq.


Structurally speaking, there are at least three aspects of the present war that needs attention: one is its Papal and Christian nature, two is its world-wide side effects, and three is the unforntunate make-up of the American constitution.

Taking Three First: The American Constitution

The US took over a British Eighteenth Century view of the world --and with it they took over an eighteenth century view of the role played by a constitution. It now appears that while the American people have voted agasint the War in Iraq -- a little like the Spanish people, their voice iss only listened to in a type of irrelevant way. In other words, the people don't really matter in the war-prone scheme of things.

Even the American institutions that go to make up American Democracy don't quite matter when it comes to war. The American constituion is so conceived that even if the people and their institutions are against the war, their opinions are set at nought by virtue of the leader's rights to govern. In this the Americans are close to the Divine Right of Kings -- a theory propogated inthe middle ages by the Roman Church , whose leader -- now more like a Pharaoh than a follower of Jesu -- claims , amongst other things, infallibility. Moreover , Pope Benedict XVI has been far too ative in condemning Islam ( see the Regensburg Lecture), while remaining suitably silent at the invasions and the mass death of innocents, including the capital punishmet of Saddam Hussein. To many of us , what we see in Anglo-American aggression -- as well as the treatmetn of captivess in Guantanimo Bay -- is precisely what we have historically come to expect from Christianity. The Christian's conquering view of the world is exactly what we get both in the ambivablence of the American Constitution and the Papacy's diplomatic blow-cold, blow-hot ,when it comes to the Christian Jihad.

That Congress should make the side-show statements that they are forced to, while President Bush furthers his terrorist campaign on Islamd is precisely what we get from a contry that wants to teach the world about the wonders of eighteenth cetury Parliamentary democracy.

The fact of the matter is that one man governs America -- and before him, one man governed America: the difference was that Clinton was a man of peace and had no Christian crusade to preach agasint Islam.

The Universal Fall-Out.

If it was simply an Anglo-American-IRAQ event , one still could not tolerate it. But perhaps your readers have realised that on one special count we are all indebted to George Bush. Not only did he put Tony Blair and Britian in their place, with respect to the historical view of the Christian Conquest, but he intimated to every country in the world that we were all either with him or against him. From Sweden to the Phillipines every nation on earth was put on notice by George Bush that they are either friends or foes. If friends, then they must assume the role of Governors of the American interest, without having an American vote. In such circumstances, all of us across the world, whatever our personal views, are the liege people of the US. And there is really nothing that we can do about it.

For those countries oppose or remain neutral, they have bee notified of the consequences of their moral standing.

This second element, the Americanisation of world-states without the voting choices of the world's people, is a new condition ,and when added to the Anglo-American Christian drive, makes for a totalitarian scenario that most people do not want to contemplate.

Which brings us to the third aspect of the war.


The Christian Nature of the War

Because of the nature of the war --- agasint Islam; the focus of Christian aggression thrusts the concern of the war and the structural dimensions of Christianity in Anglo-American sparely upon the thinking atheists and pacifists. In such an arrangement, well-meanig chirstians are lost as to their individual preferences. Protestantism , once a progressive force for change against Papal aggression, has now become wet and irrelevant: its national specific qualities have been sidelined by Vatican- Amerian ambitions, quickened since the destrcution of Russian Communism. So, in effect , there is no possible resistence of a moral order possible agasint the present stance of the American President or the suitable vacillation of the Religious Orders, especially the Vatican, which, up to the outrage agasint the Regensbur Lecture, was squarely behind the war.


Is it not time for atheists and social scientists to look at the evil produced by the entrenched Christian interests?

Seamus Breathnach
Barrister-At-Law,
Dublin

Former Director of Crimiology,
College of Commerce,
Rathmines,
Dublin
www.irishcriminology.com