Blair, leader of Europe

[glennjridge]

I could excuse an over-reaction to 9/11, if there was even the slightest bit of evidence that Hussein was connected to the atrocity. But there was nada. This war was engineered against Iraq for reasons we may never completely understand, and I find that unforgivable.

well as I always say, if it was so obvious , then it was the duty of the nations to stop a rougue US about to smack down an innocent country.file a lawsuit,sanctions anything. nothing. because in the end despite the outcry from the usual crowd, nobody REALLY cared about Iraq or any other middle east country the US could have invaded.

[Danny C]

What was anyone else supposed to do? The US was pretty much full steam ahead, and once the UK was on board, that was that. I think you're being very naive in thinking that there was something opponents of the war could have done to stop it.

[gregf]

Oh, are we on ?

I heard an interview with a Bush insider recently who said a significant
factor was that the Republicans were expecting to do badly in the mid term
elections of 2002. So a decision to go war was made then to rally political
support. It was thought that the war would be “short and sharp with no problems”.

My biggest concern was that it undermined international law. Since 1945
war is only legal under international agreements if it is sanctioned by the U.N.
That is the very good reason for the first Gulf War, Iraq's illegal invasion of
another U.N. member, Kuwait.

Logically if the US can invade Iraq, ignoring the U.N., then Iraq's invasion
of Kuwait, is okay. But the Republicans haven't been too keen on international
law for some time.

I think if George and Tony make speeches about W.M.D., when we all knew
at the time they are making bare faced lies, then Western democracy is made
a laughing stock. Is no one accountable for that ?

If oil was the reason, then here's the test. Allow the French and Russian oil
companies to now operate the legally signed agreement they had with Iraq for
exploration and production of oil. No, I don't think it will happen either.

Access to oil has never been for the benefit of the American people. U.S. Foreign
policy has all ways been for the benefit of the US oil industry. If gas is more
expensive now, who wins ?

But worst of all it only allows for further postponement of the big problem.
That the U.S. dicking with middle Eastern countries, to get access to oil only
causes a longer term build up of resentment. Which causes event like 9/11.

Tony Blair could have been the leader the world needed, to get America to
stop and think rationally. Instead he joined the ugly mob. That is why the
world is so disappointed with him.

So on we go with anything to stop the American people thinking logically about
the last half century of history.

We love you Big Brother.

[Danny C]

My biggest concern was that it undermined international law. Since 1945
war is only legal under international agreements if it is sanctioned by the U.N.

The US (and UK) argument was that previous UN resolutions against Iraq that had allegedly been breached meant that military action was legal, and that no new resolution was required. I thought at the time it was a desperate clutching of straws.

Having said that, I'm not 100% ok with the idea that democracies can only go to war with a dictatorship (Iraq) if they get the okay from an organisation that includes a load of other dictatorships (the UN). It seems kinds ridiculous that the likes of China could stop the US and UK from taking military action whenever they felt like it.

[gregf]

I agree Danny. But for those who say that's a justification, I say fix the problems
with the UN, rather than junking what's left of international law and the U.N.

I saw tonight that Byelorus is going for chair of the UN human rights committee.*
(rolly eyes here, got to have rolly eyes here). Apparently the little countries
support these motions, just because the Western democracies tell them not to.

Perhaps if the U.N. had not been abused by the Western powers, we would not
have this immaturity.

* Byelorus has a terrible human right record.

[Danny C]

I agree Danny. But for those who say that's a justification, I say fix the problems with the UN, rather than junking what's left of international law and the U.N.

The thing is, once you accept that the United Nations is just that - a confederation of all nations - you know you're gonna have to rub shoulders with a lot of really nasty people. But then, if you don't, you run the risk of cutting your nose off to spite your face. There's no easy solutions where international politics is concerned. That's why people who say we should have done this, this and this need to start living in the real world sometime.

I saw tonight that Byelorus is going for chair of the UN human rights committee.*

The Human Rights Committee or Human Rights Council?

I do know that the composition of the Human Rights Council is one of the sickest jokes in international politics. It includes such "luminaries" as Algeria, China, Cuba, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia. We could have a debate about which was worst out of these but that is for another day.

Oh, and in their 12 months of existence, they've only formally criticised a single country (8 times). I'll give you three guesses, although you'll probably only need two.

[diana]

Mr Blair told the US Network NBC: "I believe our country should be a strong ally of America, and I've never had any problem with that.

"I think it will be a very dark day for my country when we do have a problem with it,'" Mr Blair said.

"The biggest danger is if America disengages, if it decides to pull up the drawbridge and say to the rest of the world, 'Well you go and sort it out.' We need America engaged."

Asked about President Bush he added: "I've found him immensely straightforward to deal with, someone always true to his word and someone who's a very strong leader.

"Obviously my relationship with President Bush has been of a different order and a different nature, because it's September 11-governed.

"The insurgency in Iraq and enduring threat from the Taliban in Afghanistan formed part of a "broader global struggle," Mr Blair added.

"And if we back away, if we give up on it, if we show any signs of retreat at all, then the enemy we face worldwide will be strengthened."

[glennjridge]

What was anyone else supposed to do? The US was pretty much full steam ahead, and once the UK was on board, that was that. I think you're being very naive in thinking that there was something opponents of the war could have done to stop it.

well for one, how about sanction the US? you know,realistically economically it would have meant jack to the united states,but for the psychological reasons at least some of the oh so moral global crowd would have shown they actually cared about what was happening. nothin says outlaw like being sanctioned.

what they became was not unlike a crowd who watches a woman get raped and just sort of mills around grumbling instead of doin something.hence why I never believe the morality of the crowd who condemns the US for this or that.its just words.

[Danny C]

well for one, how about sanction the US? you know,realistically economically it would have meant jack to the united states,but for the psychological reasons at least some of the oh so moral global crowd would have shown they actually cared about what was happening. nothin says outlaw like being sanctioned.

What a ridiculous notion. Sanctions against the US? Even the French wouldn't go that far.

Sanctions are a last resort against a gross regime. They are not a device to try and exert political pressure on your key allies if they make a decision you don't like.

what they became was not unlike a crowd who watches a woman get raped and just sort of mills around grumbling instead of doin something.hence why I never believe the morality of the crowd who condemns the US for this or that.its just words.

This is a piss poor effort at trolling even by your standards. Even if a country thought sanctions against the USA would be a good idea, the implications alone make it an impossibility. What would happen with NATO? With the UN Security Council? The USA is just too powerful to shut it out in the cold just to make a cheap and futile political point. And our fortunes are too intertwined for us to even be able to take such a step. Our role as America's friends and allies is to point out when we think she is making a mistake, not to excommunicate her for them.

Jesus, the more I think about this, the more nutty it gets... just, absolutely mental. Glenn, you will never be a politican.

[Deschanel]

It was sickening to hear Blair still sucking up to Bush, casting him in Churchillian terms.
I had had high hopes for Blair, but he is indeed the slick and insincere enabler of disaster many have accused him of being.

So, since Blair's resigning, Wolfowitz has been pried like a parasite from the World Bank,
rotten Gonzales hanging on for dear life as Attorney Gen. of the US..

When can we have a vote to permanently remove the homophobic drunken troll named Glenn J. Ridge, who just accused anyone with doubts about Iraq as cheering on rapists?

You know, that boring homophobe that has to comment twenty times on every thread?
Gets his kicks here. LOTS of free time.

[gregf]

...or Human Rights Council?

Correct. Sorry mind fog on my part.

BBC just announced Byelorus was defeated but Egypt got in.
Apparently the Africans voted as a block to support the CIA's
primary sub-contractor for torture. Pathetic.

But wait, here I am criticising the UN, Glenn is calling for sanctions against the US,
and Danny is debating against that.

I am getting really confused here.
Everyone back in there own corner now.

[glennjridge]

I'm not callin for sanctions against the US at all.

I'm sayin the countrys(plural) against the Iraq war didnt even want to do the minimum ... even rebuke or sanction a country from doing what it wanted they felt was wrong.

so if they lack the moral fiber to take the next step from meaningless worlds like "illegal war" than they obviously dont have the strength of their convictions and can be discarded.

the way danny words things essencially the whole world would shut down if it showed some balls and sanctiond the US.

meaningles or not. thats what the UN is there for. its not about stopping it from happening, its about at least going on record as doing what is possible within the boundries of their powers.

[gregf]

Ahh, everything back to normal.

Sorry for misunderstanding.

[glennjridge]

it would have been a bit too good to be true.

[alig]

people never tire of the same old shtick: the US went to war for oil! fact is that not a single us oil company is involved in the oil trade! get your facts straight. the us companies have plenty of other oil to draw from. they don't need the iraqi oil. if they wanted it they could have made arrangements just like the french and russians ans other backstabbers.
fact is that intelligence services from all nations and the UN and the democrats in congress
believed saddam had WMD! hillary clinton herself said that she had reviewed the data herself and found that saddam was indeed a threat. there were 17 UN resolutions and weapon inpsections and yet people suddenly started disseminating the bold-faced lie about bush having lied about WMD. this is what pisses me off more than anything else.
and people say that the outcome of the war was not worth the effort. brilliant defetist attitude from the weak-kneed europeans and liberals! this is exactly what goads the terrorists on and makes them blow even more people up. because they know that they sidekicks from the liberal media and other useful idiots are gonna give bush more and more flack for daring liberate a country. liberals to me are the most blinkered, hate-filled people in the world. they still cannot get over the loss of the 2000 election and all they want is bush's skin. it'S ridiculous. imagine if we all stood united behind the war: it would be a display of unity and it would intimidate the terrorists and not encourage them to commit more atrocities. it's funny how many of those bush haters have the same talking points as the terrorists.
so now in iraq they have had free elctions for the first time ever and a democratically elected government and yet people only focus on terrorism as if the bombings delegitimised the invasion and the democracy. no, blame the terrorists and not bush. but in a world where nitwits such as paris hilton and justin timberlake are worshipped, i'm not surprised that the world is full of shit. and history proved this over and over again. and hopefully history is gonna judge all those people who played into the hands of those fascists.