If it were up to me, Saddam would already be dead

Provactive columnist Mimi O'Sullivan tackles the Iraqi question

by Mimi O'Sullivan

My nutritionist and I were discussing the question of what to do with Saddam Hussein this week when she shocked me by complaining about President Dubya's approach to the problem and chastised Tony Blair for going along with him.

"Alma," I told her. "You can't honestly tell me that we should just leave Saddam Hussein alone." Even Alma could grasp that point but went on to talk about how we should have UN permission first. Alma is a Mirror reader, which, you may or may not be aware has been running an anti-war campaign under the guise of serious journalism.

Perhaps it is difficult for ordinary people to understand the complexities of the issue, and I am guilty of presuming that people know as much as I do about the matter. But nevertheless, it only takes only a minute of proper thought to realise that Tony Blair is right in this matter. And, while I wouldn't normally side with President Dubya — whose predilection for making decisions on some kind of homely Texas logic I find most worrying — I can tell you that this time he is correct.

We won't get anywhere with the United Nations and I'll tell you why. Among the countries that have vetoes — so they can stop any motion by disagreeing with it — are China, Russia and France. Who remembers Tianamen Square when the Chinese army killed thousands of protestors? Or Stalingrad, when the Russians murdered thousands of Germans? What about Algeria — where the French government killed thousands more? And these are the countries whose permission we are seeking to get rid of one of the biggest threats man has ever known? Madness.

I read today that Saddam Hussein has a tester for his food to make sure it isn't poisoned. That's good sense you might think. But why then does he insist on shooting the poor fellow afterwards just so the next person's "tastebuds are fresh"? This is a man you can't reason with and so he has to go. He doesn't even deserve a trial. There are times when international law should apply and times when it shouldn't. In Mr Hussein's case, he would already be dead if I had anything to do with it.

Britain and the US have a proud history of not being afraid to act in the world's interests, even when everyone else is running scared and arguing for constraint. If it wasn't for our stand against Hitler, who knows what the world would be like now? As for those that use the currently fashionable argument that Afghanistan has been a failure, I point you only to the arrest of al-Qaeda top man Ramzi Binalshibh this week. How many innocent people would he have killed by now if it wasn't for our stand against the evils of terrorism?

So, come on Britain, remember your history and get behind our brave prime minister. We need to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and the sooner the better. All the arguments and diplomatic manoevers in the world won't stop a mother's tears when her only child is fried alive in a chemical attack lauched by the mother of all dictators.

Previous insights from Mimi

Drugs and your children: What every parent must know

Why football is the answer to the world's problems

Let's reclaim the swastika in the name of love

Email an enemy

Pub-friendly printable version

‘Yeast Logic’ index page

Trawl Rockall for:

If it were up to me, Saddam would already be dead

Previous insights from Mimi