Still Plugging Humanitarian Interventionism even after Apocalypse Iraq.

It seems that despite the apocalypse that america and britain have visited upon iraq, david aaronovitch is still plugging the notion of western ‘humanitarian interventionism’. In a recent article he declares. "And we in the West can take from that experience (of iraq) the lesson of being careful in the way we intervene, of course. But not - not - that you shouldn’t do it." (David Aaronovitch ‘Moral relativism should not guide our foreign policy’ http://timesonline.typepad.com/david_aaronovitch/2007/03/slavery_what_a_.html March 01, 2007). In the context of the current foreign policy debate what he is implying is support for an attack on iran either an invasion or aerial bombardment to bring about regime change and establish democracy (sic) in that country.

It was pointed out above that aaronovitch had failed to appreciate the disaster that would unfold as a consequence of america’s invasion of iraq. He was utterly convinced the west would create a "new Iraq". Why is it that commentators who have turned out to be so catastrophically wrong in their judgment about the invasion of iraq continue to recommend similar medicine for iran? Even more to the point is why the western media continues to take any notice of their hard-line, extremist opinions despite their disastrous failures. Why is the western media continuing to reward these failures? Why are they still being employed? If a tradesman was hired to fix someone’s plumbing and they ended up flooding out the entire house, or if a financial consultant gave investment advice which turned out to be ruinous, wouldn’t there be laws to stop these people from continuing in that profession? And yet it seems commentators can make the most calamitous mistakes and the media will continue give them respect and pay them for promoting even more catastrophes. It seems as if our western zionist dominated media upholds the principle of ‘zionist commentators right or wrong’.

The answer to this conundrum, of course, is that zionist commentators remain invaluable to the likudnik dominated media’s for continuing to churn out likudnik propaganda. Aaronovitch is perpetuating the likudnik myth that america invaded iraq to bring democracy to the iraqi people. This is nonsense if not historical denialism. It is true that the likudnik dominated bush regime wanted to topple the saddam dictatorship but this did not mean it wanted to replace it with a democracy. On the contrary, the likudniks were intent on installing their own dictator, ahmed chalabi. It was only al-sistani who forced the americans into accepting national elections. If the bush regime had been intent on establishing democracy in iraq it would have drawn up plans to for elections and democratic institutions immediately after the invasion. And yet, although bush had made up his mind to invade iraq in 2002 he ordered no such preparations. Although the state department had drawn up detailed plans for the occupation it had not included any plans for the creation of a democracy. But even if it had the state department’s plans were quickly pushed aside by the likudniks intent on setting up ahmed chalabi. Zionist commentators are trying to cover up the american induced catastrophe in iraq by saying they invaded for only the best, most noble, of intentions when the evidence suggests the war was based on nothing other than a series of lies, fabrications and manipulation. In other words, a proxy zionist invasion.

Aaronovitch won’t blame himself for the catastrophe in iraq let alone blair and bush. It’s the iraqis’ fault. "Hating the occupiers I could cope with, but I didn’t remotely foresee the insanity — the bloody aimlessness — of blowing up students or day-labourers, with Allah knows what long-term objective in mind." The west’s barbaric violence against ordinary iraqis has generated so much hatred that people are doing mad things. What a shocker. Of course, we all know that if aaronovitch was an iraqi facing appalling levels of american brutality then he’d remain unaffected - utterly rational and civilized.

Aaronovitch is encouraging humanitarian intervention in iran by pointing out the flaws in iranian society. Iran is ruled by "an unelected supreme council"; "there is no Iranian John Humphrys"; women have no right to education, or to treatment by female doctors, or to enjoy a public life. So, for these reasons the west must intervene and destroy the country as it did iraq?

The implication of aaronovitch’s view is that western democracies are superior to iran’s system of government. But is western politics really so superior to iran? There are now appalling levels of venality in western politics – primarily caused by enormously wealthy jewish lobbies dangling large sums of money in front of western politicians. Western democracies are allowing lawless free markets to cause huge damage to families and the environment. They are allowing a holocaust against livestock (sic) Animals and Wildlife.

The corollary of aaronovitch’s view is that western leaders are superior to their iraqi/iranian counterparts. And yet, in reality, bush and blair have done far more damage to iraq than saddam ever did. They are far bigger war criminals and mass murderers than saddam. To pick up on an arronovitch’s view about the position of women in iraqi society: does he really believe they are currently better off under american occupation than they were during the days of saddam?

Another implication of aaronovitch’s view is that western civilization is so vastly superior to iran that this entitles the west to invade the country. To believe that the west is more civilized than iran could be deemed to be an innocuous example of a western superiority complex. However, to believe that the west is so much more civilized than iran that it legitimizes the invasion of iran is western supremacism. This supremacist attitude is reaching levels of utter ridiculousness: a country with a monarchy, an un-elected second chamber, and political parties funded by wealthy the jewish lobby, seriously believes it’s democratic credentials are so substantial it is entitled to invade iran in order to introduce it to democracy.

But there are other important implications of david ‘sorry I couldn’t see that apocalpyse’ aaronotich’s humanitarian interventionism. Firstly, that the jews-only state in palestine (jos) is more of a democracy than iran. Secondly, that the jos’s democracy is so superior to iran’s that this entitles it to invade/attack iran in order to set up a proper democracy. Of course the likudniks want to establish democracy in iran – democracies allow jewish lobbies to fund political parties so that governments implement likudnik foreign policies.

It’s quite instructive to compare the jos’s civilized state with that of iran.
The jos is racist, iran is not. (Indeed, there is a far higher proportion of racists in the jos than there is in iran).
The jos is a proto-totalitarian state unlike iran (the jewish oppression of palestinians borders on total domination).
The jos does not have free elections where everyone in palestine can vote whereas there is universal suffrage in iran.
The jos is imperialist (i.e. it steals land from surrounding countries), iran is not.
The jos is a militaristic state, iran is not. (The jos is constantly provoking or initiating wars whereas iran is not. The jos is a military dictatorship with a democratic façade).
The jos is a kleptocracy, iran is not. (i.e. it steals land, property, and money, from its own inhabitants).
The jos is just as much of a theocracy as iran. (Judaism has jurisdiction over a number of civil issues. Religious political parties often hold the balance of power in the knesset).
The jos is much more of a terrorist state than iran. (The jos also supports terrorist organizations in many countries whereas iran supports freedom fighters such as hezbollah and hamas).
The jos has created stateless people, iran has not. The jos also illegally deports people from their own country whereas iran does not)
The jos is a cuckoo state dependent on america to constantly feed it, whereas iran is a proud and independent state which stands on its own two feet. In the phraseology of the zionist owned sun tabloid, the jos is state welfare benefit scrounger.
The jos deliberately stirs up animosities between sunnis and shias whereas iran goes out of its way to promote peace between them not only inside iran but in the moslem world.
The jos is a rogue state which refuses to abide by united nations’ resolutions whereas iran abides by un resolutions.

It has to be suggested that if the west’s political system hadn’t been totally corrupted by its likudnik paymasters then the west would be considering an invasion not of iran but the jos. The sooner that the militaristic, kleptocratic, apartheid regime is overthrown, and its wmds dismantled, the better for palestine, the middle east, and the rest of the world.

The west needs to liberate itself from its likudnik (pay)masters before it starts thinking about invading other countries. It needs to ask itself whether it is being manipulated into wars by jewish racists for the benefit of the jos rather than its own benefit. It needs to be careful about the devious, paranoid, psychotically belligerent, likudniks suggesting that a war with iran would be in western interests. They lied about saddam’s wmds and they’re doing it again about iran’s non-existent wmds. It is not in the national interests of any western country to attack iran. The west desperately needs to start co-operating with iran (and russia) not abusing and attacking them. The proposed war against iran is not about spreading democracy but about the ability of the west’s jewish lobbies to bribe quislings in western politics and the media into promoting global jewish racism.

If aaronovitch is so intent on the west attacking iran then he ought to go and join the jewish army and help it invade iran so that the jos is the only country to suffer the consequence for its unadulterated belligerency. Britain has no interests in undermining iran.