Monday, May 24, 2004


I've read a lot of stuff like this over the past 18 months:
No matter how exalted the aims of the US in that war, in the final analysis it was a colonial war very similar to the wars conducted by the ex-colonial powers when they went out to conquer the rest of the world, either in the name of Christianity or bringing civilisation to undeveloped countries or bringing the rule of law to uncivilised populations.

They use exalted aspirations for their purposes, but the Irish people know this as they suffered 700 years of colonialism.

What we have heard from American sources [is that] they were there to remove the weapons of mass destruction which Saddam Hussein was supposed to have acquired.

What we read and hear from our commentators in America and sometimes congressional sources, if you remember going back a year ago, there was the issue of the oil reserves in Iraq and that in a year or two they would be producing so much oil in Iraq that, as it were, the war would pay for itself.

[This] indicated that there were those in America who were thinking in those terms of acquiring the natural resources of Iraq for America.
It's a colonial war and we're only after the oil. Nothing surprising here, except for the fact that this is from Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Britain and Ireland, nephew of the Saudi king. These are the people Michael Moore is saying George Bush has a close relationship with? With friends like these . . .