John Mace: My interpretation of that first statement is different than yours. I read it as saying that at least we took down Saddam Hussein the war criminal for his past crimes, rather then as a prophylactic measure against future actions (which would be a no-no without UN authorization).
Just another standard rhetorical tactic, this time an attempt to invalidate the opposing argument without granting it: “Even if you were, somehow, right about this detail, you would still be supporting the overall issue.” Which, of course, is just more spin from an expert.
I did like Blair’s exhortation about America and Europe uniting against the common world threat (assuming it exists in the form they say). Would that be New Europe or Old Europe with which America must unite?
What the hell happened with the guy? I never used to think of him as an ideologue, willing to look for facts to support his unshakeable, unconsidered understanding of The Truth. Is he thinking that he doesn’t dare grasp the nettle and admit he might have been wrong (or, worse for him, fooled). Is he taking the only approach that he thinks has a chance to keep him in office, even depending as it does on the mere hope of having some evidence turn up later?
Well, since the US and Britain will probably be writing the history books, I’d guess this is probably a fairly accurate prediction. Kind of a non-starter IMHO.
Far more troubling to me was the interview with Bush/Blair where Bush said
The first bit, the piece which has been uber widely quoted, looks like shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the war-makers to prove their justification BEFORE they fire bullets. Then the trial balloon about “programs” as opposed to actual weapons. Still, he’s still saying that real, tangible evidence will be found and presented. If he means evidence of “programs” I’ll be pretty pissed.
I’m ready to see real weapons. I’m not sure how long I’ll be willing to wait though. I was never convinced Iraq was an iminent threat, although the state may have been in enough chaos, or surely would have been if Saddam had died and his sons tried to take over, that terrorists may have been able to nick WMD components from them. I don’t believe they would have had the co-operation of Saddam’s Regime in doing this though. Quite frankly the former Soviet Union is a far larger source of these components and I’m far more concerned about terrorists nicking some of those than I was about them being supplied from Iraq. Saddam, IMHO and assuming he had any left at all, was keeping what tiny bit of his former arsenal may have remained under extremely tight control.
Still, the fact remains, it is Iraq we attacked and occupied. Hopefully there will be conclusive evidence soon that there was a good reason. I had hoped for a reason beforehand and hadn’t seen a reason which held up when placed in the opposite side of the balance from the lives of the human beings which would assuredly be ended by the war.
Enjoy,
Steven
I agree.
That’s the question. This wasn’t what UN Resolution 1441 said. The burden was on Saddam to prove that he didn’t have WMDs or WMD programs.
And, it goes against practical common sense IMHO. We were reminded on 9/11 that unthinkable things can really occur. A preventive war should be based on more than a vague suspicion. However, a *likelihood *that Saddam was still trying to develop nukes seems like adquate justification to me.
Well, it does to me. Sorry that offends you. I guess I’m just an old sentimental fool, but it kind of changed the world I live in.
Of course, but at this stage I think politicians are using our feelings to their own ends.
Assuming the facts to be as you have presented them (and I have no reason not to do so), Tony Martin does not belong in jail IMHO. It sure sounds to me like an open and shut case of self defense. Now I don’t know the relative laws and interpretations thereof in the UK vs. the US, so perhaps things are different there. And I’m not a lawyer, and am well aware that there are different laws and interpretations thereof from state to state here. And there may be other circumstances that you didn’t have room to explain. With all those caveats, it’s hard for me to imagine a jury that would convict a person who was defending himself. It’s my understanding that if you have a valid reason for believing your life to be in danger, you are justified in taking any measure, including lethal ones, to protect yourself. At least that’s how I’d vote if I were on the jury. So, yes, I think there’s a good chance he would be found not guilty here.
MLS I cried looking at the TV on 9/11 but that’s not the point. This guy is linking remembering 9/11 to Blair giving a speech which was mainly about the reasons for a war with a country that had fuck all to do with 9/11.
Using 9/11 is offensive.
MLS Tony Martin shot the kid(burglar) in the back while he was running away.
Basically, he is lying in this sentence. The suffering and carnage are real. However, the gross violations of warfare, (as opposed to secret police activity, the kind supported by the U.S. in IUran and the U.K. in Malaysia), the use of chemical weapons, the mass executions, etc., have, so far, been tied to activities that were over ten years old. This does not constitute a threat (future action). It particularly does not indicate a threat against two powerful, distant nations when Hussein’s hostilities have all been delivered against opponents that he perceived as weaker in neighboring countries.
And however, grudgingly and with whatever backing and filling, Hussein was permitting the UN inspection teams to return to provide that evidence. It is pretty much the epitome of dishonest bullying to claim that he failed to do something, the compliance with which was interrupted by the extra-legal invasion of his country.
Will Blair and Bush be “forgiven” by history? Possibly–if Bush and Blair actually take legitimate steps to bring peace to the region instead of the rather hack job they have so far demonstrated in Afghanistan and show few signs of bettering in Iraq.
I heard excerpts of PM Blair’s speech to Congress, including those selected by December. The PM has an ability and skill not shared by our President or by very many American politicians. He is a compelling and articulate speaker. That is a skill that is required of any British politician because of the nature of political debate in that parliamentary system. A person can not succeed in the British system unless he can put a complete and coherent sentence together. That is to the Prime Minister’s credit.
His speech, however, did not address the question of the moment, which is not why Tony Blair, and by extension Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld, thought going to war against Iraq was a good idea or the only valid option available, but rather is why the American people should think that it was a good idea/only option in view of the revelations about the weakness of the factual basis for the argument for the war. Instead the Prime Minister broke out the Boogie Man argument.
The Boogie Man argument is this: There may not be a Boogie Man under my bed. You have looked under the bed and you did not see one. But if there is a Boogie Man down there and if he comes out during the night and eats me, you sure will feel sorry in the morning. That sort of argument may be rational coming from a five year old, but it is unbecoming from the mouth of a head of state.
As far as 9/11 is concerned, it is well and good to invoke 9/11 for government policy but sooner or later it will start to wear thin. You can only waive the bloody shirt for so long. I am still waiting for a demonstrated, as opposed to speculative and conjectural, connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
It was a delight listening to a man who knows his way around the language. When the Brits throw him out maybe President Rumsfeld can hire him as a speech writer.
And the burden was on the UN to determine if he was in breech or not. And the burden was on the UN to punish him if he was in breech.
I agree that a nation-state can take action to protect itself if the UN processes break down. States are still autonomous, the UN is a facilitator, not a sovereign. Bush didn’t prove that the UN had broken down. Nor did he prove the threat to the US was so imminent as to justify unilateral action. As of now he’s finding it hard to show that a threat has ever existed at all.
Enjoy,
Steven
yo,
Glad I added all the disclaimers to my comments on the Tony Martin issue. If the burglars were running away, that’s a whole different story. IMHO that makes it less comparable to the current middle east situation, though. We will doubtless continue to disagree on that issue, which of course I respect your right to do.
Hey, december, I believe you’re a goat-fleching monkey-raping collector of child pornography. The burden of proof is now on YOU to prove you don’t flech goats, rape monkeys, and stock up on kiddie porn. Can you produce the proof, or shall we inform the authorities?
december puts French arrows on goats?
How did you find out? :eek:
The difference is that I haven’t raped any monkeys in the past (At least, I wasn’t caught!) Saddam did acquire an arsenal of WMDs, did seek nuclear weapons, did use WMDs, invade Iran and Kuwait, did kill millions of people, did lose a war of aggression that he started. As conditions of being left in power, he did agree to stop doing all those bad things, and he did agree to prove that he had stopped.
He never specified “gross violations of warfare”. He said “responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering”. That means he is also including all the women raped and executed by his regime, as well as the people that ‘disappeared’, he means the children that were imprisoned, etc.
And just because a crime was 10 years old doesn’t mean you’re suddenly exonerated for them, ESPECIALLY for crimes of that extent. And I feel that being a threat to humanity is as good of a reason for removing someone from power as anything else.
I take it, december, that you then do not disagree with the content of my post:)
Well, you admitted it. :evil:
Enjoy,
Steven
The plot thickens (maybe):
Anyone want to place bets on whether this poor guy’s apparent murder was related to his former role as a weapons inspector? I always thought the level of gun-related violence in the UK was pretty darn low in general…