The moral case for the Iraq war...

... as touted by Mr Blair last night is all well and good, but when he allows other dictators and authoritarian regimes - Zimbabwe and Uzebekistan just two examples that immediately spring to mind - to get away with atrocities, it all rings hollow in my mind. It's the one question no one has yet asked him about this: if there was a moral case for war in Iraq, why aren't you now liberating other oppressed people around the world?

Like all foreign policy, Iraq was considered for less noble reasons:
1. Iraq is awash with oil - the fact the US want to drill in Alaska isn't just because of national security, but because the oil is starting to disappear. The period we live in now will become known as The Age of Oil, and history - if anyone's around to read it - will record that from the 1970s the human race buried its head in the sand when it started to discover the true side effects of excessive oil consumption.
2. Bush wanted revenge for 1991. The fact he wanted to invade Iraq as a response to 9/11 says it all - Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and Saddam and Bin Laden actively hated each other.
3. Israel claims Iraq is a threat, which it is - but then Israel's a threat to most Arab nations with its unchecked progress. Tell me why the US and UK haven't invade Israel for repeatedly ignoring UN resolutions? You cannot make a moral case for war when you're clearly selectively picking arguments when it suits you.

None of this will matter come 5th May, as Blair will - once again - enjoyed an obscene majority of seats (some 70 per cent) on a minority of the vote (as little as 39%). Until people in this country wake up and start learning that the world doesn't revolve around their petty little concerns nothing will change. Until circumstances forces people to take their head out of the sand and discover they're five feet below sea level...