Thursday, April 28, 2005

The parties' position on the war #5: SSP

One could simply cut and paste from this, since many of the points that apply to the SNP are also salient to the SSP position. Further - while it's a strong field in which to compete, the prize for the most hypocritical use of the UN legalism argument must surely go to the SSP? Tommy Sheridan, in typically understated style, repeatedly used the legality of the war as a pretext for the promiscuous use of terms like "war criminal" and "quislings" (the former was applied to Blair; the latter to the Scottish Labour Party which supported him.)

So, if the UN had granted a second resolution, given his heartwarming conversion to international law, one would expect the SSP to have supported a regime-change in Iraq. But no, as one can see here from their statement about the war:
"We are opposed to the US and British Government waging war even if they bully the UN Security Council into passing a resolution giving the go ahead to attacking Iraq".
Instead - just like all the rest - the SSP demanded more time for the UN, despite the fact that they were aware of the effects of sanctions:
"After a decade and more of punitive sanctions, Iraq is on its knees."
And again in the same piece:
"starving of hundreds of thousands Iraqi children is another..."
...reason for the rise of Islamic militancy, that is.

So the SSP - rather than support the overthrow of a fascist tyrant - would rather demand more time for the UN, despite the fact that, by their own admission, the inspections/sanctions regime starved Iraqi children, brought the country to its knees and allowed the regime to survive with contemptuous ease.

Way to go comrades.

No comments:

Blog Archive