The Scottish Socialist Party is totally opposed to Bush and Blair's war drive against the people of Iraq. However, we do not support the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.
But, the US and British governments are obviously not motivated by interests of democracy nor of any threat from weapons that Iraq may have. The US and British governments have an atrocious record of supporting brutal dictatorships worldwide.
It is nothing short of hypocrisy for Bush and Blair to point to the alleged dangers of future Iraqi weapons of mass destruction whilst the American government enthusiastically arms the vicious Israeli state. Israel already has nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them. Israel is also viciously attacking the Palestinian people and denying the Palestinians the right to an independent state.
But the SSP believes that the real motive for the US government is to further consolidate the military and economic dominance of US business interests. In particular they are seeking to reassert control of the oil supplies in Iraq and the middle east.
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. We say 'No blood for oil'. We say the government should wage on poverty not the poor people of Iraq or elsewhere.
The SSP is also opposed to the racism and jingoism that the government has whipped up in their so-called 'war against terrorism'. We will be active fighting racism at home.
We will continue to campaign for a better world, for socialism. But we will also work alongside all those who want to oppose the war on Iraq. The Scottish Socialist Party is proud to have been a founder member of the Scottish Coalition for Justice Not War. We pledge to make anti-war activity a priority for our activities.
Allan Green
National Secretary
Demonstrate February 15th Glasgow!
See also the Stop the War website
For more detailed information and articles see the Scottish Socialist Voice Website. http://www.scottishsocialistvoice.net/
We reproduce one of the articles from the Voice below.
"What exactly is it that the 'Peace Party' does not understand about September 11?" asked Andrew Neil in Scotland on Sunday.
Neil runs Scotland on Sunday and The Scotsman from his home in the South of France. As one of the chief spin doctors of the 'War Party', he invariably drools at the mouth whenever there is the scent of war in the air. But what exactly is it that Andrew Neil does not understand about September 11? Let's put a few questions to the 'War Party'.
Don't you understand why the September 11 atrocities took place?
Did a group of evil men decided to kill thousands of people just for fun? Or was September 11 the start of a terrible backlash by desperate people after decades of vicious humiliation? Andrew Neil and his War Party seem to believe terrorism can be eradicated by military might. What they can't get their heads around is that terrorism is a response to the use of military might. The brutal racist subjugation of the Palestinian people by a state armed to the teeth by America is one reason for the rise of Islamic terrorism. The bombing, poisoning and starving of hundreds of thousands Iraqi children is another. Andrew Neil asked in his article: "Where are these 10,000 Osama bin Ladens that the bombing of Afghanistan was supposed to create?" The answer is that they are in Karachi. They are in Kabul. They are in Cairo. They are in the Afghan refugee camps that line the Pakistan border. They are in the shattered mountain villages of Afghanistan. They might not yet be ready to launch a counter-offensive against America and Britain, but in the months and years to come, they will.
Don't you understand that Saddam Hussein poses as much as of a military threat to the United States as the Isle of Man poses to Britain?
After a decade and more of punitive sanctions, Iraq is on its knees. Scott Ritter, former UN chief weapons inspector in Iraq, categorically refutes any suggestion that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. "But we have to act now before he does acquire weapons of mass destruction," Bush and Blair insist. These are the same two leaders who tell us that Britain and America need weapons of mass destruction as a deterrent. For decades, we have been told that we needed Polaris, we needed Cruise missiles, we need Trident - because if we don't have nuclear weapons, we'll be invaded. Based on that logic, would it not make sense for Saddam Hussein to try to get hold of weapons of mass destruction? Not because he wants to invade America or Britain - but because Iraq is itself under constant threat of invasion. Or does the deterrence theory only apply to America and Britain?
Don't you understand that the War Against Terror has been a disastrous failure by any standards?
"We will bring back Bin Laden on a platter," US vice president, Dick Cheney, promised as the American bombers set off for Afghanistan. Last week, on the first anniversary of September 11, the same Dick Cheney was forced into hiding in a secret underground bunker in his own country for fear that he would be killed in a terrorist attack. Osama bin Laden has yet to be delivered on a platter. Meanwhile, according to US intelligence, his al Qaeda organisation is now active in 95 countries and is potentially more dangerous than ever before. Sure, the US did manage to overthrow the Taliban. Yes, the most powerful military machine on the planet managed to defeat a country which had two aeroplanes, a handful of paved roads and no telephone system. Not exactly the modern equivalent of David defeating Goliath. In the course of overthrowing the Taliban, US bombers slaughtered more Afghan civilians than were killed in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. They then brought to power a consortium of warlords, psychopaths and drug dealers. Not that that's any big deal, of course. Over the years, the US and Britain have backed a rogues gallery of murderous tyrants from Pinochet to Pol Pot, from Suharto to Kabila and from the Taliban to Saddam Hussein.
Don't you understand that Iraq played no part in September 11?
Don't you remember that the US and Britain armed Saddam as a bulwark against the spread of Islamic fundamentalism?
Don't you realise that Iraq is one of the few countries in the Middle East where al Qaeda have never been able to operate because Saddam Hussein represses Islamic fundamentalist movements every bit as ruthlessly as he represses Shias and Kurds?
Of course, Tony Blair's promised dossier will claim to have "incontrovertible evidence" that Saddam has secretly been in league with al Qaeda and possibly even orchestrated September 11. But for "security reasons" it won't be possible to publish the details of that evidence. That's because no such evidence exists. Saddam Hussein has carried out many atrocities in his time. But blaming him for September 11 would be like blaming the IRA for suicide bombings in Israel.
Don't you understand that all the bluster from Bush, Rumsfield and Cheney about the threat of terrorism and the building of weapons of mass destruction is only an excuse?
This war against Iraq was planned long before September 11 and months before George W Bush even came to power. According to a newly-leaked US secret plan, a clique around Donald Rumsfield, Dick Cheney and George Bush's younger brother, Geb, were planning an attack on Iraq to bring about "regime change". The secret document argues for total US military domination of the oil rich Gulf by the US and says that conflict with Iraq would provide the "immediate justification" for an invasion. The aim of the US is absolute control over the world's resources - especially the oil wealth of the Middle East and Central Asia. If thousands, tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands have to die, then so be it. And then it will be the turn of Iran and North Korea, the other two states named in George Bush's "axis of evil" speech. That's providing Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the other Arab states back the war on Iraq. Because if they don't back the war on Iraq, they'll be next. And they know it.