Little Miss Piggy of Mabrouk...

On her blog "Miss Mabrouk of Egypt", the self-proclaimed "news jockey", fashion aficionado, lover of all things pink and near full time shopper, sets about congratulating the West for removing Saddam Hussein, in a nauseatingly badly written, confused and dazed piece called "Iraq - was it Worth it?"

I hope part of her mission statement "Without really knowing how, she has created a comprehensive news resource to Egypt" is meant to be ironic, otherwise God (well, Allah, mainly) help the Egyptians in their quest for serious news.

I would have simply posted a comment on her post but on Miss Piggy's blog the comment page opens in a new window and cut and paste is not possible.

"Ritzy's" ramblings are so inconsistent and thrown together from a far distance that a simple rebuttal would seem like a lazy attempt to defuse her misguided "views", thus she leaves me no choice but to refute her scribblings more or less blow by blow, so here goes...

Removing Saddam was a moral obligation; the way he abused his subjects is difficult to match in the history of dictators

There is no moral obligation to invade a sovereign nation, except in very, very exceptional circumstances. What if tomorrow the Chimp in the White House starts disliking Mubarak, should the "Coalition of the Killing" also invade Egypt? Oh but, the US are our allies Miss Piggy might say? For how long, my dear...

Of course Saddam Hussein was a butcher and a bully but it is very easy to find dictators that more than match his brutality. Saddam was a dictator but he was Bush Sr's dictator, until the Madman decided to invade Kuwait. The US did nothing when Iraq invaded Iran, except offer assistance toward the end of that little publicised 8-year long war which cost an estimated 1 million lives. Conspiracy theory? Sure [sic]...

For the coalition, there was also the issue of global security. It is easy to cry failure when a bomb blow in London, but don’t forget the attacks that have been hindered; the terrorists that never made it to our countries because their networks were smashed and the fanatic warriors imprisoned

Now you're claiming non-existent attacks that have been "hindered" because their "networks have been smashed". If their networks had been smashed then they would have been paraded on every news network in the world as the best coalition photo-op ever. Does the News Jockey actually watch any news at all?

Nothing has been found relating to al-Qaeda at all and more attacks on the West are still to come, trust me on that. 7/7 was committed by practically school kids, imagine what a hardened and determined attacker could do to our refineries, chemical manufacturing etc.

Were you having a threesome with Cheney and Rummy whilst dictating the above part of your "piece" (of piss)?

Unfortunately for the Iraqi’s, that’s where the Jihadists are gathering these days. The advantage for the anti-terrorist fighters is that the Jihadists are forced into a war and it isn’t as easy for them to meet fully equipped troops as to sneak explosives into a shopping mall with unsuspecting civilians

The "anti-terrorist" fighters are actually at a serious disadvantage when it comes to fighting insurgents, Jihadis and terrorists. Last night's reporting on how a small angry mob, armed with nothing but stones and primitive petrol bombs turned a British armoured vehicle into a burning torch, with it's crew (of "Warriors") fleeing in humiliation and fearful of their lives and one of them on fire, is nothing but one of many examples. Western armies were never designed to combat determined individuals; they were designed to fight "grand old enemies" like the former Soviet Union.

WMD was never a crucial issue. It become an important argument in the effort to convince the U.N., but it was enough that the possibility of WMD’s in Iraq existed, the threat of it and Iraq’s resistance to account for what it had done with the recorded stacks of for example biological agents were enough to motivate intervention;

You're simply sustaining that the Gangs of Four on both side of the Atlantic used the WMD as a convenient lie to try and convince the UN to endorse this umpteenth crusade in the Middle East. Nice try, Bush and Blair.

There is of course one country in the Middle East that has massive stacks of true WMD (nuclear war heads): Eretz Israel. Should we send in the boys? But, oops, that's an American and Egyptian ally... To Egypt my advice is: don't dissent too much with the Butcher in Tel-Aviv, magic mushrooms are waiting for you...

Let us not forget that the only people who have the right to say if it was worth it or not is the Iraqi people. The rest of us are simply standing on the side and our discussion is academic at best.

"The rest of us" are also comprised of the many people who've lost friends and relatives in a conflict for which Mr Blair only obtained the narrowest of a majority through the most manipulating effort of gathering support for this doomed attempt to undo the wrongs of the past, so no, our discussion here isn't academic (to an airhead like you anything is academic anyway), it's legitimate and part of our internal democratic process, one that you feel in the light of your version of the "greater good" can be trampled on perhaps, but not in my world.

Most intellectuals who had heard about the evils and should know better, chose not to believe it; blamed it on the conspiracy or simply ignored it.

Here we go: "intellectuals ahoy!" Anyone who in this whole affair doesn't jump up with glee at the sad results of this latest Western military sortie, is an "intellectual", "a liberal", "a conspiracy theorist", "a terrorist apologist", "a socialist or even a communist", "anti-Israel", "anti-Semitic", "anti-Zionist", un-patriotic","a pacifist" etc etc, ad nauseam. Well I strongly disagree with the West's bogus "War on Terrorism", yet don't fit any of these labels...

And I suppose that in your pink littered world, the West's sustained support for pre-Kuwait Baghdad, the overthrowing of Iranian Nationalists in 1953 with an Anglo-American sponsored coup and installation of the Shah puppet and the massive and practically unconditional support for Israel's plans for a Greater Israel are also all part of conspiracy theory? And that's just a few examples from the catalogue of Western self-serving misdemeanours in the Mid East region...

As for what the Iraqi people think, the answer was given in the last elections and will be stated again next time they’re off to the polling stations.

The sad truth is that the Iraqi's are hopelessly divided amongst themselves and have been for decades and more. This in itself shows that there was no exit strategy: a simply study of the violent internal history of Iraq, something the British at least have had plenty of first hand experience with, would have revealed the difficulty in bringing together such an ethnically diverse country under one acceptable umbrella government and constitution. That is something only Saddam achieved, unfortunately only by means of brutal repression.

Ritzy, stick to wearing silly, pink, fluffy hats and too much eye make up and stop your feeble blitz of disinformation: it doesn't suit you...

Keywords: Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Bush, Blair, Terrorism, Saddam, Hussein, Middle East