John Galloway on Iraq

[lobelia321]

John Galloway, MP in Northern Ireland, was interviewed on the 'Today' programme this morning (BBC, Radio 4). This is from memory; it's not a verbatim account.

BBC: You must be happy now that Saddam is overthrown.

JG: I am happy.

BBC: But isn't that a contradiction as you are opposed to this war?

JG: The ends do not justify the means. The difference between me and Mr Bush and Mr Blair is that I am opposed to all dictatorships at all times, not to some dicatorships sometimes. The fact remains that the US props up most of the world's dictatorships, including those in the immediate region around Iraq.

BBC: But the people in Baghdad were celebrating. We saw jubilant crowds on TV.

JG: They were not very large jubilant crowds. They are not representative of Baghdad as a whole. They were from the Shiite districts of Baghdad. We have let the genie of Shiite fundamentalism out of the bottle.

BBC: But wasn't this war short and sharp, as Bush and Blair promised?

JG: It's not short and sharp for those who lost a loved one; it's very jagged for those. It's jagged for those lying in hospitals without proper medical aid.

***

I had my first Iraq-war dream last night. Am also haunted by that 12-year old boy who lost both his arms, both his parents and all of his brothers and sisters when his house in Baghdad was bombed by Americans. He was asking hospital nurses to help him commit suicide.

Comments

[bunnysquee.livejournal.com]

i, sadly, have only been watching cnn and all they show is the good and the positive sides of the war. i am sure that 12-year-old boy is only one of many.

i was very upset when the u.s. airforce dropped cluster bombs in, i believe, baghdad, which is a highly populated city. i think cluster bombs are banned by the u.n. - i could be wrong. but that was mass destruction without consideration for civilians and that is just plain wrong.

i wonder if iraq would have been a different country without the crippling economic sanctions for all those years. but let us not dwell on what if's.

my heart goes out to the two missing people from 'doctors without borders.'

i agree with john galloway about "some dictatorships sometimes" - i think people should remember that it was the u.s. that armed and trained saddam hussein's army in the first place, back when the u.s. declared that iran was evil and supported iraq in the iran/iraq war.

while i'm pointing fingers, it was also the u.s. who trained and armed the afghan army way back when the soviet union was the enemy and they wanted to help afghanistan break away.

speaking of seceding, do all places that want to declare independence be let go without a fight? i mean, here in canada, the province of quebec has wanted to be a sovereign state for as long as i can remember - shall canada just sit back and say, alright, then, off you go? i mean, canada supported east timor when they seceded from indonesia, but won't let one of its own provinces secede.

my point is - yeah, i do have one - where do we draw the line? who are we to draw that line? is the country that is right the one with the biggest guns? who's side should we be on, and who are we to pick a side and interfere in someone else's country and government and the way they run things in the first place. i mean, for sure, when there is mass genocide like in cambodia or rwanda or serbia, the u.n. should intervene, but …

sorry, rambling on now and starting to argue with myself.. will stop here.