Insurgentjg

Since the War on terror has begun, critics have restricted their comments regarding the surge to disarmament, deterrence, and links to terrorism. They hardly referred it to liberation, democratization of the Middle East, and other matters that would prove the weapons inspection irrelevant and the actions rendered by the Security Council or within governmental domains an obnoxious dramatization of the whole issue.
Critics of the war on Iraq restricted their comments regarding the attack to the administration arguments relating the whole process to; disarmament, deterrence, and links to terrorism.
Nor anything has been said about how the critics previously supported Saddam Hussein or others like him, still continuing) nor have they shown any signs of contrition for having helped him develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when he really was a serious danger. They do no mention the fact that why and when they let go off the view about Iraqi junta and Saddam Hussein in 1990, when they overlooked his British-backed crimes. Their names are noteworthy by their absence from the parliamentary record of protests against these crimes, including Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Geoff Hoon, and other leading figures of New Labour.
Jack Straw backed Iraq judiciary system when in 2001, being a home secretary denied asylum to Iraqi refugees. Explaining that Straw “is aware that Iraq, and in particular the Iraqi security forces, would only convict and sentence a person in the courts with the provision of proper jurisdiction,” so that “you could expect to receive a fair trial under an independent and properly constituted judiciary.”
It is not only Iraq; other countries also enjoy support for the violation of human rights. Straws conversion is quiet similar to President Clinton’s discovery in 1999, about Indonesian violence in East Timor for past twenty to twenty five years when it enjoyed incessant support from the US and Britain.
Fall of 2002, clarified the attitude towards democracy when it became necessary to deal somehow with the overwhelming popular opposition. British government maintained its stance as “junior partner” of a US lead war on terror, overseeing the opinion of more than fifty percent of the population.
Two major European countries who supported the views of the large majority of their populations were Germany and France. This lead to the bitter condemnation by Washington and many commentators. Donald Rumsfeld categorised Europe in to old and new in which old Europe was harshly criticised for it was not inline with Washington. Italy symbolised New Europe, whose Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, rejected the overwhelming opposition to the war. Categorisation of old & new Europe is done on simple criterion:”a government joined Old Europe in its iniquity if and only if it took the same position as the vast majority of its population and refused to follow orders from Washington.”
US and the allies for war declared that intend to carry out their war whether or not the United Nations or anyone else agrees with it. Old Europe, did not backed the idea of the war neither did the New Europe, at least if people are part of their countries.
Gallop international and other local poll results shows that in most of Europe support for the war did not rise above 11 percent in of the countries. Support for a war if mandated by the UN ranged from 13 percent (Spain) to 51 percent (Netherlands).Polls reveal interesting results about the New Europe’s opposition for US led war, Results state that opposition in most parts & particularly in Italy and Spain it was higher than France and Germany.
New Europe was joined by the former communist countries. Their partnership with new Europe and US was explained by Powel as the “coalition of the willing” without UN’s authorisation. Countries who were collating for war were doing so because of fear of their survival, for example; Latvia’s former foreign minister explained that we have to “salute and shout, ‘Yes sir.’ . . . We have to please America no matter what the cost.”
Journals which proclaimed that democracy has a significant value, head lines should have been publicizing the vast majority of people in Old Europe and that new Europe is constituted of few leaders who decided to line up with Washington disregarding the opinion of their population. Rather media played quiet an opposite role, actual reporting was mostly scattered and oblique, depicting opposition to the war as a marketing problem for Washington.