One of the most moving things I have seen on television recently was on Sky news. It was just a short item, and a simple one – but it touched on what is best in people and the sacrifices they are sometimes prepared to make for what they believe is right.

A small group of protestors from different parts of Europe and the United States had arrived in Baghdad, to take on the role of ‘human shields’ in the city that will be the first target of bombing by the US, if the war on Iraq being planned by George Bush’s government goes ahead.

Among then was a retired senior British civil servant, Godfrey Meynell. At the age of 68, Mr. Meynell – a man who had done the State some service – had undertaken the difficult and draining journey to the Iraqi capital on his own. He was there in an effort to make those who have been pressing the case for war, most notably Tony Blair, to think again.

If the first bomb was dropped tomorrow, Mr. Meynell would be in the firing line. But he was prepared to face the dangers inherent in that possibility because of his conviction that, in the present circumstances, there is no justification for war and for the scale of casualties and damage that would flow from it. He seemed like a thoroughly dignified and decent man, who was prepared to put his own life directly at risk in the cause of peace. I stand in awe of that kind of bravery and commitment.

On the basis of what they have been saying over the past week, Mary Harney and Brian Cowen would probably dismiss Godfrey Meynell as anti-American. Colin Powell would have him down as a coward. This is the kind of vitriol and abuse that are being dealt out at the moment. If you oppose the War On Iraq at all, you are likely to be targeted.

There is something deeply disturbing about the way in which the Bush government and their fellow travellers have turned logic is turned on its head in their pronouncements. That they are then taken seriously by what normally seem like intelligent people makes it much worse. This was highlighted during the past week with the revelation that the U.S. is considering the use of a new calibre of weaponry in its attack on Iraq.

The first of these is known as an E-Bomb, which is designed to incapacitate electrical connections, crash computers and generally play havoc with any machinery that uses electricity. The E-Bomb would of course hit hospitals and put emergency services out of action. And, by the way, it would probably kill anyone with a pacemaker where their heart used to be.

More sinister still is the suggestion that the Pentagon is considering the use of a new generation of mini-nuclear weapons in Iraq. Already, the under secretary of defence Pete Aldridge has requested that nuclear laboratories examine the benefits of low-yield nuclear testing – a direct challenge to the existing Nuclear Test Ban Treaty to which the U.S. is a signatory. Now, reports suggest that the use of nuclear capability in Iraq is being seen as an option.

So who is developing new weapons of mass destruction? Who has used them before? And who seems to be prepared to use them again? The answer in all cases is the United States. And yet this issue is the pretext for an attack on Iraq – despite the fact that the UN inspectors have so far failed to come up with any hard evidence against Saddam Hussein in this regard.

There is of course the most reprehensible kind of cynicism in the justifications that are being trotted out by those who are pro-War. Tony Blair tried to present the unseating of Saddam as the moral choice. But why him of all the tinpot dictators and bully-boys who are in power all over the world. Why begin in the Middle East, rather than Africa?

As it happens, this is the only argument that carries any force – the old ‘can we stand idly by?’ chestnut. But the truth is inconvenient. The regime in Iraq is no more brutal than those in effect in dozens of other countries, in some of which there is a far greater level of State violence right now.

Who does not really see in their heart of hearts that this is really about power and about oil. It is about the establishment of US hegemony. It is about strategic interests. It is about the US and them – including the old Europeans who are currently opposed to the war.

It is about a government that sees its role as being the biggest bully boy of the lot, operating the logic of the school yard on the international stage.

The United States is a wonderful and complex country that has delivered to the world much of what is finest and most engaging in contemporary culture. In New York it has one of the greatest if not the greatest city of them all. Its contribution to our world, and our civilisation has been and continues to be immense.

It is not anti-American to say that the administration of George Bush is betraying that legacy in a way that the world is unlikely to forgive or forget.

Anti-American? On the contrary, I am for the America that opposes the war. It is a far bigger country – in every sense – than Mary Harney and Brian Cowen seem to think.

Come on, rise up…