Hey guys...Perc has licence to poke at me...we go back a bit.
PDiddie and Tartarin
Thanks for the 'we weren't lying' piece, and the Rumsfeld mangling of language (I gather the detailed medical exam which revealed them to be teenagers hinged on the observation they didn't have pubic hair yet). These guys are not good guys, and they are not to be trusted.
Thanks for the article on Blair Kara----I would like to reiterate his feeling about Iraq which appeared more than once in the article:
Talking about the war in Iraq he said: "This is the right thing to do"
You seem to respect and admire the man as I do----don't these words make a impact on your thinking about the war?
Frank Rich may have lost his place on the op-ed page of the NYTimes, but he's doing the right thing elsewhere:
Quote:
And Now: 'Operation Iraqi Looting'
By FRANK RICH
Which reminded me of how utterly horrible the US, led by the Bush and the Rumsfeld, has been. But we are also, now, fatally ridiculous:
Quote:[...]
He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
[...]
I respect Blair because he is a man of principle. If I disagree with him on one point or another -- in this case, war on Iraq -- it has no effect on how I see the man in toto. He is unmanipulated. He is a thinking man. It might be over the top to speak of him as a philosopher-king, but he is of that ilk. His world view is that of a uniter, a one-worlder. The last idea in his mind is that the US will dominate the world. His vision is much larger than that. In fact, his comments today (that I still cannot find in print) show that he is once again trying to pull Europe and the US back into a united view.
Why did Frank Rich lose his job on the Op-Ed page of the NYTimes-------wasn't he far enough left?
he wasn't far enough left to create a balance against Saffire so they are looking for a liberal for the sake of equal treatment.
I don't know, Perception. I emailed him several months back and congratulated him for an op-ed piece and he emailed back that he was hanging by a thread. He's been replaced by righties. The NYTmes is far from being a left-wing rag.
Gee maybe they have gotten in touch with America----that they have had enough liberalism to last a lifetime such as with Paul Krugman, the liberal economist with no answers on economics ---- just more Bush bashing, and Maureen Dowd the gossipy wicked witch of the left.
Just a note about the O'Reilly show tonight----He had the UN administrator of the "Food for Oil" program on tonight (Sevan). When OReilly asked him about where the money went he became very defensive and even more so when OReilly asked him to tell Anan that he wanted to see the books. OReilly is the most powerful media figure in the world today and I am extremely happy he is on my side------in those rare instances when he is wrong----whew---he stinks.
As I've said before, I wish Tony Blair was our president, and GWBush was UK's PM. Just think; it that was true, I'd been happy the past three years.
c.i.
"
In 1991 we were liberating Kuwait. In the Falklands we relieved the Falkland islanders. I would have some difficulty saying the same thing for Iraq. If you are an Iraqi person, is that how you see it? We do not want to seem arrogant or patronising about the Iraqi people." Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, the Chief of the Defence Staff, UK, as quoted in 'The Telegraph'.
Forces chief questioned war legality
cicerone imposter wrote:As I've said before, I wish Tony Blair was our president, and GWBush was UK's PM.
Gosh ci, did not know you hated UK so much !! Was it something I said ?
Kara wrote:
Has anyone heard Tony Blair's talk, today? I 'm not sure if it was in the House of Commons or in another forum. He was compelling and absolutely spot-on, as usual. But, more than that, he was global in his thinking. I realized, while hearing excerpts on the radio, what is the difference between him and GWB. Blair is not just a politician, he is a statesman. His perspective is the whole world, not just his own country or the UK's own alliances. As much as I have always admired him, this speech today was a surprise. In fact, he continues to surprise and goes from strength to strength. Perhaps crises bring out the best in him.
Different people, over here, have different opinions of our Mr Blair.
In The Spectator this week, there is an article entitled "Is Blair just an empty, vainglorious, narcissistic creep?"
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue=2003-04-26&id=3037
I could share that. I also believe he is a war criminal.
McT
McTag, thank you for the Spectator article. I was interested in the viewpoint and it added a dimension of Blair that I had not seen. The vainglorious bit does not surprise me; he has shown that in the past. I find vanity a minor sin, if that is what he is guilty of. A small touch of vainglory is embarrassing to the watchers -- and can result in looking tacky, as this writer points out. What he is not guilty of is arrogance and overwhelming pride. He does not think he is God's assistant.
I am in total agreement with the writer about the war, of course. As has been pointed out many times, the war was a bad enough idea, without the perhaps impossible goal of creating our colony in the Middle East while hoping that everyone in the area will jump up and clap hands.
I do not think Tony Blair would qualify as a war criminal. He believed utterly that he would make the world safer by taking out a rogue and a despot. He did not keep changing his reasons for going to war, as the US administration continued to do.
War crime ..... MOI???
Report: Tommy Franks could face war crimes charges
28/04/2003 - 9:17:51 am
Iraqi civilians are preparing to take Allied commander Gen Tommy Franks to court in Belgium, accusing him and other US military officials of war crimes in Iraq, it was reported today.
The complaint will say coalition forces are responsible for the indiscriminate killing of Iraqi civilians, the bombing of a Baghdad market, the shooting of an ambulance and the failure to stop hospitals being looted, said Jan Fermon, a Brussels-based lawyer.
He is representing about 10 Iraqis who say they were victims of or eyewitnesses to atrocities committed during Operation Iraqi Freedom, The Washington Times said.
Fermon said the complaint will ask an investigative magistrate to look into whether indictments should be issued against Gen Franks. If an indictment is filed against the general and other US officials, they could be convicted and sentenced by a Belgian court.
"Belgium could issue international arrest warrants, but I don't think we will get to that point," he told the newspaper.
If arrest warrants were issued, American officials could be arrested upon entering Belgium.
The Bush administration has reacted angrily to the complaint.
A senior US official warned that "there will be diplomatic consequences for Belgium" if the complaint is taken up by a court there and Belgian authorities issue indictments against Gen Franks and other US officials.
"The complaint will be filed stating that unknown American personnel are directly responsible for committing war crimes in Iraq," Fermon said.
"On some of these questions there is an issue of command responsibility for atrocities committed on the ground, and that responsibility ends with Gen Franks and those who are under him in the US military line of command," he said.
The administration official said the complaint highlights US concerns that laws regarding war crimes and institutions such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) can be used to initiate politically motivated prosecutions against American officials.
"This is obviously not a political case with the ICC, but it is typical of what we can expect in the future," he said.
Fermon said that because under international law President George Bush and US Secretary of State Colin Powell cannot be prosecuted for war crimes while they are in office, the complaint will target Gen Franks and other US military officials.
"US military officials had the authority but did nothing to stop these war crimes from occurring," he said. "A military commander is responsible for war crimes even if he did not commit or order them, but also if he fails to take all the necessary steps to prevent the atrocities from happening."
Fermon said the complaint against US officials is based on a 1993 Belgian law that gives a Belgian court authority to judge war crimes committed by non-citizens anywhere in the world.
Fermon said the complaint against US officials is based on a 1993 Belgian law that gives a Belgian court authority to judge war crimes committed by non-citizens anywhere in the world.
Is this a joke or what?
This calls for an immediate removal of NATO headquarters from Brussels to one of the Eastern Block countries
Well just hold on there, it's just a lttle day in court ...... what's to worry .....
Blair is interesting, but not great enough to either be a statesman or tragic. He seized on the Bush plan because he wanted greatness and thought that was the way to get it. Not even a tragic flaw -- just a damn silly and dangerous one.
McTag
Blair would be a war criminal had the war been illegal. It was illegal before it started but now we've won its all legal and Blair is a war hero not a criminal. No I don't understand either.
We went to war to disarm Saddam. Now my question is where is Saddam, and why have we not disarmed Iraq?
Perc, Where would you relocate NATO hq to? Moscow?
