is one of the biggest world political arguments of our time. Why
Iraq and not Mr Mugabe? Is it because of the economics? Iraq has
oil, Mugabe hasn't! Mugabe has hurt his own people every bit as much as
Saddam Hussein did. It is all
well and good to protest at what has happened in Iraq but,
what if this had been done in 1938 in Germany? The removal of Hitler
would have kept the head count much lower than the 7 or 8
actually died. German politicians would have been scrambling for power,
there might have been a civil war. This usually happens when the vacuum
left by the removal of a dictator needs to be filled. Yes, there will
be casualties but it is better contained in a small area than left to
grow into a world wide conflict.
We now live in the nuclear age. This has
serious responsibility on the world's major powers to effectively
contain any potential problems. That is the legacy left by the bomb!
Any nation in the grip of a potentially wayward dictator or extremist
faction bring upon themselves a possible action from the rest of the
world, in the greater good of general security.
With this in mind, the world powers must
be particularly responsible and sure before they take action against
any potential problem causer. This was seemingly not the case with
Iraq. Now, just next door, we have a much richer nation who are
developing nuclear capabilities. They have a president who talks like a
terrorist and speaks of the total anihilation of one of it's near
neighbours. This is potentially much
worse than Iraq ever was! However, America has already played
most of his cards in Iraq. Now where do we go? Any moves to disarm a
potential nuclear capable country might draw less criticism than the
move on Iraq but would surely further divide the broken ties between
the Islamic world and the west. It is to be hoped that internal
politics will remove the terrorist faction from power and, thus, save
the people of that country from an Iraq type future.