Seat 17,
No, he was wrong -
We haven't become involved in Zimbabwe because we would be setting ourselves against black people
With the support of a lot of black people at the same time. And why has blair agreeed with UN mandates involving us in other African nations?
You might have issues with Blair, but the reason we aren't in Zimbabwe isn't race. Zim simply isn't a geopolitical pivot as it has no energy resources we need. In simple terms, it's about oil.
Blair is so terrified of being accused of [.....] - being a 'Racist'
That'll be why he is quite happy to back up anti-terror legislation that will overwhelmingly target non-whites?
I suspect he is a little concerned of being labelled racist, as it is one of the few things that maybe discriminates him from the tories.
Despite the fact that the oppressed minority in that country are white,
And black aren't being oppressed? Having ther homes bulldozed?
refusing to even grant refugee status to these poor beleaugered white folk.
...and sending black failed refugees back to Zim to be harrassed by Mugabe's mob.
Zimbabwe is just one of many countries we could be involved in, but aren't.
Thus the reason for our involvement in Iraq (and given the civilian casualty counts quite obviously!) is not for altruistic reasons. It is about securing a slice of the pie.
In that sense it is an invasion to secure resources that belong to others and in my books morally and legally wrong. It is quite right for this doctor to be indignant about being sent to participate in this.
If it was an ethically based war of liberation, we might have done well to count civilian casualties as we saved them. Or is this a case of destroying the village to save the village?
The legal standing of his case is of course open to question, but morally, thumbs up the guy. He's showing more balls by standing up to the govt and the military by refusing to go than by following the herd.