THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

McTag

I think Blair would say...in a one to one chat by the fire, on condition that it went no further

1. He sees it as an article of faith to support America.
2. We have not had a fully independent foreign policy since WW2 and certainly not since Suez.
3. Saddam really was a bad man.
4. The Yanks were set on invading Iraq. Siding with the French or Germans would not have stopped it. Doing so would have caused an immensely difficult breech to mend with the US, but as Europeans our relations with Europe would heal in time.
5. We have a vested interest in being inside the tent pissing out than being outside the tent being pissed on.
6. We are prepared to take the increased risk of terrorism against us because
7. We too will benefit long term from the establishment of the American global empire.
8. And dont forget the oil is running out. Saddam/Baathist Iraq with nuclear missiles, and influencing control over Persian Gulf and Caspian oil hydrocarbons is alarming.
9. Someone has to take these tough decisions, the public would run away given half a chance.
10. As a Christian, Blair feels he has authority from Jesus to behave in a totally amoral manner, determined solely by real-politic. [Its a broad church]

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

I think Blair would say...in a one to one chat by the fire, on condition that it went no further
[...]

But only, if you had closed the blinds resp. curtains before as well!

0 Replies

#10 is a bit of an over-reach, I would say.

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

And what filtering prism would that be? I think the main aspoect is the fact that Chalabi is a known embezzler, and swindler, and is determined to be the next ruler of Iraq. Do you doubt that by this time next year he will be the US installed "prime minister?"

Chalabi poop

0 Replies

Quote:

10 is a bit of an over-reach, I would say.

absolutely correct, Sumac. I hope Very Happy

0 Replies

Steve
I think I understand Realpolitik.

But still, I cannot stomach the hypocrisy. We cannot at the same time claim to be a society based on law, and pull illegal stunts like this.

We cannot assume the moral high ground, and then launch bombers against innocent people who have done us no harm.

It doesn't matter how they dress this up. It is a crime.

0 Replies

McTag, Gotta agree with you on that!

0 Replies

McTag

Not suggesting you dont understand real politik

I spend half my time on a2k trying to find logical explanations for Blair's behaviour...its running pretty thin if truth be told.

I dont know what the ***** going on anymore. I thought I could live with New Labour, they seemed my sort of people, but these days I feel forever doomed to be on the cusp of cynicism and rejection or one further leap of faith.

0 Replies

Steve

I sympathise. I don't think the problem is necessarily New Labour...I voted for them, too, and I don't see myself voting for Michael Howard or Charles Kennedy's lot.

I think the problem is Tony Blair. And, for me, when he goes he can take Jack Straw with him.

I'm off to watch the News.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Steve
I think I understand Realpolitik.

But still, I cannot stomach the hypocrisy. We cannot at the same time claim to be a society based on law, and pull illegal stunts like this.

We cannot assume the moral high ground, and then launch bombers against innocent people who have done us no harm.

It doesn't matter how they dress this up. It is a crime.

Which one of these guys would you describe as "innocent people"?

Hitting someone over the head with a bat is illegal in most places.

However; if that someone is in the process of committing a crime; hitting him with the bat becomes a noble act, protected by the "Good Samaritan Laws" where I live.

The two sides to this issue are not nearly as black and white as some of you like to pretend. Who among you would turn your back while a stranger was being raped in front of you?

You can see most of the world from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave so, to some extent, everything that happens is "in front of you".

0 Replies

Feeling a bit like Alice in Wonderland.

0 Replies

Well done Bill. The presentation of a poorly forged document as a means of influencing opinion is apt in the context of the discussion. It demonstrates, better than our words, how absurd it was to accept the flimsy evidence for wmd. Further, your choice of those strange bedfellows highlights the logical inconsistencies with which we were presented and the tenuous link with reality of the official positions on Iraq.

0 Replies

Well then, I guess that settles it. Since there was apparently no certain immediate threat to the US or Britan, Bush and Blair committed a crime in advocating the removal and acting to remove Saddam Hussein's regime on the grounds they merely thought Saddam's regime was probably an immediate threat.

Clearly, they should have waited until they could prove to a certainty that Saddam's regime was an immediate threat. No problem with that approach except for that very small percentage (say 100% x 3,000/200,000,000) of folks that per chance in future might get murdered with Saddam's help.

That's what past presidents did! They waited! What's wrong with that?

0 Replies

Ican wrote
Well then, I guess that settles it. Since there was apparently no certain immediate threat to the US or Britan,

my comments in red

Blair only said the threat was "serious and current". He was very careful not to use the word immediate, although he allowed newspaper headlines such as 45 MINUTES FROM DOOMSDAY

Bush and Blair committed a crime in advocating the removal and acting to remove Saddam Hussein's regime on the grounds they merely thought Saddam's regime was probably an immediate threat.

I dont know if they committed a crime. There was no resolution at the security council specifically outlawing an attack. But neither was there one making it legal. Most lawyers seem to agree that without the second resolution, the attack is very difficult to defend under international law. That's why Blair had to get specific ruling from his Attorney General that it was legal under British law, otherwise it could not have gone ahead. And as Britain is a signatory to the International Criminal Court, Blair risked a war crimes charge without it.

Clearly, they should have waited until they could prove to a certainty that Saddam's regime was an immediate threat. No problem with that approach except for that very small percentage (say 100% x 3,000/200,000,000) of folks that per chance in future might get murdered with Saddam's help.

I have no idea what this means

That's what past presidents did! They waited! What's wrong with that?

We could certainly have waited until the UN weapons inspectors had finished. They were asking for a couple of months. We now know that there are no wmd in Iraq and were none when Bush launched the war. If he had allowed the inspectors time to do their job, the war could have been avoided. The difficulty for the warmongers was that delay meant fighting in hot weather. Also they probably knew that the inspectors were likely to conclude that there were no wmd in Iraq, and that would have destroyed the case for war. So invade now and don't ask questions later seems to have been the rule.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Which one of these guys would you describe as "innocent people"?

The innocent people I was referring to are the Iraqi civilians who did not vote for Saddam, who were in fact terrorised by Saddam, and who had suffered under years of sanctions and other deprivations, but who were nevertheless smashed by military might in the hunt for Saddam; as if they were of no consequence.

Quote:

Hitting someone over the head with a bat is illegal in most places.
However; if that someone is in the process of committing a crime; hitting him with the bat becomes a noble act, protected by the "Good Samaritan Laws" where I live.

Bill, you may be surprised to learn that in this country, and in most of the developed western world I know about, that act would land you in jail.

0 Replies

Quote, "However; if that someone is in the process of committing a crime; hitting him with the bat becomes a noble act, protected by the "Good Samaritan Laws" where I live."
I'm glad I don't live in your neighborhood. whew!

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Clearly, they should have waited until they could prove to a certainty that Saddam's regime was an immediate threat. No problem with that approach except for that very small percentage (say 100% x 3,000/200,000,000) of folks that per chance in future might get murdered with Saddam's help.

Steve wrote: I have no idea what this means

That's what past presidents did! They waited! What's wrong with that?

I shall explain.

If we wait until we are certain that a threat of evil action against us is certain to materialize in actual evil action, we probably will suffer the full consequences of that evil action. Furthermore, while we wait to be certain, innocent people other than us will pay the price for our waiting and unwillingness to act until the evidence is conclusive.

What's wrong with that? I'll tell you what I think is wrong with that! I think that's indifferent, irresponsible and even cowardly. It's like a paraphrase of that quote of Reagan's: Some folks think that if they keep feeding others to the alligators, they will be the last to be eaten.

Life is a gamble whether I or you like it or not. To decide not to make judgments is as much a judgment as deciding to make a judgment.

Second guessing what should have been done or thought after the event requires far less courage than acting before the event to preclude the event. Besides, one may not survive the event to second guess it.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote, "However; if that someone is in the process of committing a crime; hitting him with the bat becomes a noble act, protected by the "Good Samaritan Laws" where I live."
I'm glad I don't live in your neighborhood. whew!

I think you misunderstood Bill. I hope so.

What he's saying is that if you witness someone in the process of hitting someone else with a bat, it is noble to intercede and attempt to end the commission of that crime. In other words, come to the rescue of the victim before he expires; not after.

0 Replies

Then I'm misunderstanding what he means by, "hitting him with the bat becomes a noble act."

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Then I'm misunderstanding what he means by, "hitting him with the bat becomes a noble act."

Yes! The "him" in that instance is the perpetrator not the victim.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know