On the 9th of April I received an email from a US colleague. He is the first person I have had contact with who has supported the unilateral declaration of war against the government in Iraq. Here are some of his views.

“...[I]t would seem even-handed to me if [you] also listed the estimated number of persons murdered, both in and out of Iraq, by command of, and those in collusion with, Saddam Hussein. I should think that Lord Chamberlain's concessions to one A. Hitler should cast some doubt on the viability of negotiating with demonic megalomaniacs that endanger both their own people and the entire world. You should take comfort in the fact that Messieurs Bush and Blair are in charge of the incursion into Iraq. If I and others of my political persuasion were at the helm, the war would have lasted about 30 minutes, or however long it would take for twenty 2-megaton atomic missiles to destroy Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, after which many Shell Oil stations measuring twenty square-miles would be erected amidst the rubble.”

I replied as follows.

I regret I will have to agree to differ with your implied evaluation of what constitutes even-handedness with regard to Bush and S Hussein. True, I've yet to meet anyone who is a fan of either, but when you consider the military-industrial might of the USA (everything from the likes of Microsoft and Coca Cola, including what they have been responsible for outside the USA, plus the fact that the USA spends as much on arms as all other countries in the world put together), then equating Hussein with Bush as equally evil and in equal need of censure, it's a bit like equating a destructive mouse with a destructive elephant. Of course, that doesn't make Hussein's murder of Kurds and his repression of Shiite Muslims any better: it is merely a question of proportion. And where, pray, are all those weapons of mass destruction if not in the hands of the US and British armed forces? What gives us the exclusive right to threaten with them, or, God forbid, to use them?

The British Empire made the arrogant mistake of believing that we Brits were superior just because we had a weird variant of Christianity and the Thompson gun. If we had gun technology advanced enought to let us mow down Africans, then God had wanted it to be thus, the argument went. The US Empire is, in my view, now making the same cardinal error of arrogance and hypocrisy. Its troops are so brainwashed that they cannot believe that anyone would want to resist occupation.

Hitler of course had considerably greater military and corporate power in relation to the allies in the second world war than does S Hussein in relation to the US troops and their allies. So, there again, I think it is false to imply that the two can be equated. I'm sorry, but, as freedom of speech is currently threatened in the USA (there are horrendous examples in your nation of teachers being sacked for allowing pupils to express views for and against the unilaterally and illegally declared war), I think that the German cabinet minister's comparison of the Bush regime with that of Hitler is no less apt than the comparison of Hussein with Hitler. Books are already being burnt and not only Michael Moore, but also the Dixie Chicks and the Beastie Boys have had their lives threatened by groups of thugs who, quite frankly, seem no better to me than Hitlerjugend thugs in post-Reichstagsbrand Germany.

I appreciate your concern, but, believe me, I take absolutely no comfort whatsoever in the fact that Messieurs Bush and Blair are in charge of the incursion into Iraq. Sticking, for purposes of brevity, to Blair (for problems with Bush, see Michael Moore's website), I have to say that, having lived under his regime in the UK, I have yet to experience first-hand a more arrogant and hypocritical head-of-state than him (with the possible exception of Mrs Thatcher). Despite the fact that 93% of the British population (including 68% of conservative voters!) think that the railways and health service (not to mention education) should be publicly funded services, he went ahead with his corporate cronies in an orgy of privatisation schemes. He obviously doesn't give a flying fig either for the fact that 85% of UK citizens are against his stand on the war in Iraq. It is this sort of arrogance that makes a mockery out of Blair's (and Bush's) notions of 'democracy' and 'freedom' and which is responsible for the widespread contempt in which politics and politicians are often held in nations like the UK and the USA.

I will not waste much time responding to your gung-ho 'nuke the bloody Eh-rabs' statement: if it was a joke, I think it was in bad taste. If you meant it seriously, there is little else to say to each other. I just wish that the US and UK governments would join the rest of the world in helping save the planet ecologically (that means, among other things, less, not more, gas stations) and to eradicate the causes of poverty, which, incidentally, gives rise to the extreme resentment and anger that the vast majority of the world's population understandably feel against us.

As Michael Moore said to Bush, "if you've got the pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, then you've had it!"

I agree. Bush and Blair have lost the plot. They're totally out of touch with what the majority of their own population think and believe, let alone with what the majority of the rest of the world think, not to mention the thousands that will die as a result of this action and the many thousands that will die as a consequence of their unilaterally and illegally declared war. We have no God-given right to enforce the 'freedom' of the Holy Market on to the rest of the world.