But hold the medal, please. Peter Stothard IHT Wednesday, July 16, 2003 Blair in Washington LONDON Tony Blair comes to Washington this week, and if there were any justice in politics, he would be allowed to enjoy a few days soaking up praise for his role in the Iraq. He would give a speech to Congress, receive his Congressional Gold Medal. Instead, the British prime minister is still fighting the same enemies at home that almost brought him down back in March. A mere speech to Americans cannot do him too much political harm. But an American medal - even one whose last British recipient was Winston Churchill - might look like a lowly soldier's reward from the officers in command. So it will be the message alone this week, and a swift departure. Blair will say that Western values justified the removal of Saddam Hussein; that the values of democracy, human rights, market economics and the rule of law are universal; that armed force may be justified to promote them but that America must work harder, much harder, on other ways to promote those values too. For 30 days, before and during the Iraq war, I was with Blair in Downing Street, with Blair and President George W. Bush at Camp David, and in the queen's castle in Northern Ireland, recording what went on for a daily diary about the life of a prime minister under extraordinary pressure. On one of the many difficult mornings before the war vote in Parliament, Blair came out of his office, almost shouting: "What amazes me is how many people are happy for Saddam to stay. They ask why we don't get rid of Mugabe, why not the Burmese lot. Yes, let's get rid of them all. I don't because I can't but when you can you should." That shift from "can" to "should" will, Blair concedes, be most often an American shift. He will tell Congress this week that, of course, if America wants to promote its values by force on its own, it will do so. But, he believes, it will be massively to the harm of the world and its universal values if American unilateralism becomes the pattern. He wants a muscular response, not the lazy approach of backing tyrants as long as they are "our tyrants" or looking aside at failed states until they become terrorist states. But he wants a "muscular multilateralism," a partnership between the United States and Europe and beyond. Despite all the pre-war setbacks at the UN, Blair still wants the Washington hawks to see the long-term gains in getting maximum diplomatic support. That will be part of his message to Congress. He is unlikely to be soft on what he sees as American failings. Grotesque U.S. subsidies to farmers, just like grotesque European subsidies, destroy livelihoods and democratic hopes throughout the world. But beyond Kyoto, he argues, there has to be a new battle cry against pollution of air and sea, one around which that other global struggle can be fought. President Bush has won his greatest praise among Blair's critics for his commitment to the Middle East road map. His determination to remove one of the worst sources of anti-American suspicion in Europe won votes for Blair in the Iraq debate and will be needed, ever more so, in the months ahead. Blair spoke often while I was with him about the shared challenge to their generation of world leaders that he and Bush saw. Blair believes, much more than in Britain it is fashionable to believe, that the present threat is a genuine "test of history" for those elected to fight it. The medal can come later. The writer is editor of The Times Literary Supplement, former editor of The Times of London and author of "Thirty Days, Tony Blair and the Test of History." http://www.iht.com/articles/102828.html
Well there you have it. It doesn't matter that we manipulated intelligence. It doesn't matter if we were wrong about WMD. It doesn't matter that 90% of the world was against the war. How do you argue with that?
Dr. Faustus was a moron (IMO) because he made a deal with the devil and expected to get away without getting screwed.
I think some of you will soon come to realize that "might is right." I don't condone it. Sometimes I wish it wasn't so, but it is. When the two biggest powers of the world defiantly stand up against the world, against reason, and against truth and say: It doesn't matter that we manipulated intelligence, the we were wrong about the WMD, and that the rest of the world was strongly against us... we still did it and glad we did it. There's nothing that we can say towards that, because they're up there and we're down here. They have the power and no matter what we say, thats all that matters. What justified this war you ask? Free the Iraqi people? Even that is being shown as yet another lie. They don't even want to be "liberated." Power legitimized this war and power was the justification. When you realize that power is the only "Truth" out there, then you will understand that democracy, natural rights etc.. are all lies. In fact we are surrounded by lies, some of them good some of them bad. You might be asking, why am I telling you this? Simply to open up your mind. Some of you follow democracy so blindly that you didn't see the lies G.W. was spitting. The faith in democracy that some of you have, was put into Bush's hands and it led to this castrophe: 200 American soldiers dead, over 2,000 Iraqi citizens and more causalties to come... So what has been accomplished? Fairly nothing. Saddam is out of power, but he is still around planning on coming back... not much accomplished there. So how is it that this war happened? This is a democracy isn't it? The system of reason! Isn't it democracy that allows us to talk things over, use reason in order to decide the best course of action... But as we all remember, there were no such discussion. I remember Bush wanted a war, we asked what evidence he had... he said it was classified... finally he gives us a little evidence (which was hardly enough to justify a war) and it turns out to be a LIE anyways. How did this happen? Democracy failed to be the voice of reason that it is supposed to be because there were no reasons for this war and still aren't any to this day. Furthermore, we pretend that we are so high and mighty since we are a democracy, and we ought to spread our great system to every country we can... but we are hypocrites. Someone told me that we have natural rights in this country... certain rights that can never be trampled on since we are citizens of this great country. Don't look now but my rights were just thrown out the window. As you read this, there are people who are being held without trial, without a lawyer... without due process! How can we strut around as freedom loving people when we are detaining prisoners like the British once did to us. We are not freedom loving people... that is yet, another lie. Now I could go on and on about the many lies that surround us but you can figure them out for yourselves once you understand that Power is all there is. Once you do that, you won't have that blind faith that was so easily abused by our President. Furthermore, you wont feel the need to press your own values of democracy upon other countries. There's so much to learn about the world but first we must let go of the "lies" that we are told is "truth."
Completely legitimate argument. Morally unsound, but pragmatically accurate. However, ph, history shows us that eventually the worm turns, and in this day of technilogical powers, the possibility of someone gaining an upper hand over us merely through discoverig something we haven't is even more possible. If/when that happens, do we want to have been the nation that stood against Might is Right that we originally purported to be, or what we are becoming? I wouldn't support Might is Right...for several reasons...but I would have a lot more respect for Bush and co. if they cut the Defenders of Freedom crap and just admitted that they did what they wanted because they could. That's pretty much what the rest of the worldf has already taken from this anyways, it's only really at home where people are still buying what he's selling.
The president curriculums I put my fist in 'em Eurocentric every last one of 'em See right through the red, white and blue disguise With lecture, I puncture the structure of lies Installed in our minds and attempting To hold us back We've got to take it back 'Cause holes in our spirits causin' tears and fears One - sided stories for years and years and years I'm inferior? Who's inferior? Yea, we needa check the interior Of the system who cares about only one culture And that is why We gotta take the power back ----------------------- Don’t mean to be flippant hp, but you made me put this on.
Blair makes significant tone change By Nick Assinder BBC News Online political correspondent Tony Blair's speech to Congress may have been a powerful restatement of his personal belief that he did the right thing by going to war on Iraq. But it also contained another subtle but significant shift of tack in the justification for the war. He declared that, even if no link between weapons of mass destruction and terrorism was proved, it was still right to have removed a brutal and murderous dictator from power. Just as significantly, in a wide ranging speech which brought numerous standing ovations, he did not repeat his previous confidence that he would find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He did not even use his new formula, that weapons "programmes" and "products" of those programmes would be found. And his comments came only days after a senior Whitehall source, claimed by some to have been Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, told the BBC weapons of mass destruction may never be found. So, as the Washington speech again demonstrated, Mr Blair is preparing the ground for a fresh justification for war in the event WMD never turn up. In that event he will state that removing Saddam Hussein was justification enough. <b>This is all a million miles away in tone from the pre-war hype. </B> Regime change At that time, the prime minister regularly warned of the inevitability of WMD finding their way into terrorists' hands. <b>But his overwhelming justification for war was the immediacy of the threat from Saddam Hussein. Indeed, it was pretty clear at the time that regime change was not only not a reason for war, but that it may even have been illegal. </b> And, while many of his own MPs and the public may have agreed Saddam should have been removed, it is far from certain they would have backed war on that basis. And it is still certain that, if he does not turn up those weapons, his leadership will be in crisis. In the meantime, Mr Blair will hope his powerful speech in which he urged the US to accept its destiny, work with others and listen more, will pay dividends at home. He lavished praise on the US for its principles of liberty and freedom but he went on to insist it must act on crucial global issues including a Middle East peace, protecting the environment and resisting any moves towards isolationism. It was clearly intended to be a keynote speech which would help redefine the relationship between Britain, the US and Europe. He clearly wanted to move beyond the detail of the recent troubles buffeting both his leadership and the presidency and look forward to historic challenges and opportunities. Whether it helps bolster his position at home remains to be seen. What remains certain is that, if he fails to win the peace in Iraq, the rest of his vision will quickly evaporate. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3076267.stm
LOL. You need to read the fine print in those contracts, especially the ones you sign in blood. I read the fine print and said to he11 with that and look where it got me. Branded a liberal. A conservative searching and only finding the Libertarians. Sigh.
So, let's say we are the nation that stands against Might is Right. Then let's say a totalitarian dictatorship from China rises up, cares little or not at all about giving human rights to its people, and begins to control the nations around it. What good will our principled stand do then? What good will it do when they decide to destroy America? You may not like the "Defenders of Freedom" stuff but it absolutely is a part of the thinking. They are saying: yes we do support democratic values at home and abroad (for the most part), and we are the most powerful on nation on earth. But while our values may last, our power most certainly will not. Why not shape the world into what is right while we have the chance? Why not use our influence to turn the ugliest parts of the world around? But it isn't even that simple. The fact is this Iraqi war started a long time ago, before the first Gulf War. There was never peace with Iraq throughout the 1990's. Security almost always play a big role in a nation's decision to go to war, and this was no different. Strategically, getting rid of Saddam helps the US tremendously in dealing with the Middle East and it's many problems.
Thanks, I'm suprised you think it was good writing because I was just ranting and I thought everyone was going to grill me for what I said. Sometimes I get so angry about this war because I find it morally disgusting and distasteful that I just feel the need to get it off my chest and just rant about it. They are my own words but not my own ideas. I did not take this from any book or article; it was a culmination of many books and beliefs that I have studied. I read a lot of philosophy books from authors long dead. I took their philosophies, made them my own and applied it to the war. Let me try to explain a few of my views without ranting so that you can better understand me: What I find most disgusting about the war is the lack of responsibility this administration is willing to take. We were led to believe that whoever died during this war had died for the cause of making this world safer from weapons of mass destruction. Finding weapons of mass destruction, after all, was the sole reason we went to war. 200 American soldiers died for this cause... now we are told that it was a hunch. 200 soldiers died because of a hunch?! Now you have to ask yourself... why did 2,000 innocent Iraqis have to die? No Reason at All! The reason was WMD but now that we know it was a hunch, there is no reason left for this war. Thousands died for no reason and this administration is trying to play it off with more lies. They must answer for the blood that they spilt or they are just as horrible and just as vile as Saddam was. I just hate the lies: Since no WMD were found this turned into a "liberation" campaign, except that the Iraqis don't seem to like "liberation." We claim that Saddam and the Iraqi government has committed horrible attrocities. Yes, they have. But look at yourself Bush, over thousands are dead simply due to your whim. He obviously didn't think this through very much (which is an insult to the American soldiers he sent to be placed in the line of fire,) because if he did think it through he would have realized that he had no evidence or reason for this war. Bush has shown himself to be a child wielding a gun... he is not responsible enough to hold such a power, and when something bad happens he isn't there to claim responsibility. If we realize that these are real people we are affecting, people with families, caring mothers, kids that simply want to go outside to play... if we realized that they are not fictional characters, then we would never have accepted this war. I know its hard to envision these people as real since we do not know them personally but please try. When a president is trying to rile us up with anger, and scare us with "terror" so that we follow him into war, we at least have the responsibility to check ourselves at the door and ask ourselves the repercussions of our decision and whether this decision was the right one. Bush never allowed us to do this. He got us angry at Saddam, he got us scared of Saddam; so scared and angry that we accepted his "evidence" by faith and now all of a sudden the blood is on our hands! (because it sure isn't on Bush's hands) I find this whole war appalling: its very essence is disgusting and so too are the leaders of this war. I hope you find it appalling as well or else I'd check your pulse. A war of aggression, covered in beautiful LIES so that the voters can swallow it better: its like a sweet symphony is being played in order to drown out a crying child who just caught bomb shrapnel in his chest. What a slap in the face, the day he declared the war to be over. The cowboy arrived on his personal fighter jet! How clever it was for him to do that. AWOL National Guard fighter pilot lands a jet for the media so that he can declare the war to be over! No president has ever politicized a war so much. What little respect for those who have died.... what a lack of responsibility for his actions! But it gets worse. The sad part is that Bush will go to his deathbed feeling good about what he has done, and the American people will forget about this war because it hardly affected our lives, and those who turned the Iraqi soil red with their own blood will become a footnote in our history books. They are just a number to us. Am I being overdramatic? You wouldn't think so if you had known just one of those Iraqis... Please think about what I've said. I'm not trying to win a debate, or further some liberal propaganda. I'm simply here to discuss and open up new ideas that might go against the intuitions that we were all taught to believe in. Its about time that we give dignity to those innocents who are dead because our leader has refused to recognize them as human beings.
I'm going out of town for the weekend so since I won't be around to answer any of your questions or challenges that may arise, I thought I'd leave you with a game I made up to keep you occupied: it's called, "Who killed the kid?" It goes like this: "WHO KILLED THE KID?" An Iraqi kid is walking down the street carrying goods from the market for his sick mother. His father is dead and being that he is the only child, he is the only one who can take care of her. Just then an unmanned American drone drops a bomb near the kid sending shrapnel into his face. The kid never knew that he had taken his last breath. The kid never knew he had said goodbye to his mother for the last time. The kid died instantly. So who will clean the shrapnel and blood from his face so that his mother can see the child one last time before he's buried into the ground? The one who is responsible for this murder ought to! It's only right! Anyone who kills a child ought to stare into the face of innocence and realize what he has done! But who did this? Who was responsible for his death? Ah, now here's where the game begins! Who's responsible for murdering this kid? Well the obvious answer is, "Whoever dropped the bomb is responsible." But who dropped the bomb? Well it came from a American drone, so the American soldier who controlled the drone is responsible for killing this kid: its his hands that have the kid's blood on it! But that can't be, the soldier is just operating the machine from a computer, it might as well be a video game to him. And anyways, he was just following orders! Orders from who you ask? From his superior, the general! But the general was just following orders too. He was obeying the Commander-in-Chief: President George W. Bush! Ok, so we found out who's responsible... Not so fast! You didn't think the game was that easy did you? George W. Bush says he's not responsible: he may be the one who decided to go to war, but he did so based on faulty evidence from the CIA. So it isn't Bush's fault after all! Thank god, cause he's our leader and represents our country, it would be horrible if he had been responsible for killing that 10 year old kid! Its the CIA's fault, namely Tenet's fault! He's the one responsible for the intelligence, that led to this war, that led to the bomb, that killed the innocent kid! Wait, that can't be... the CIA were the ones who excessively warned the Bush Administration that the evidence was not credible. In fact, the CIA may have been the biggest opponents of the war, always trying to keep the Bush Administration from including faulty evidence in speeches. Ah, the Bush Administration! Finally, we found out who is responsible. It was the Bush Administration who killed the kid! But how is that possible? Think about it. I've never heard of an Administration killing anyone. An administration is an entity, not a person: its not capable of killing a person. Alright, so the leader of the Bush Admistration killed the Iraqi kid... wait a second... that's George W. Bush again! But he just denied responsibility! Oops! Now we're back to square one! Interesting game. Whoever plays just keeps on going around in circles until you realize that NOBODY is responsible for killing the kid. But that doesn't make sense... this kid can't die from NOTHING, somebody HAD to have done it to him, but apparently everyone's hands are clean of the matter... so the game has a sad ending. Well kid, you could have had a happy life. You could have raised your own family some day, but somehow you just sorta died all of a sudden.... its rather a pathetic way to die don't you think? Dying at the hands of NOBODY? Dying from NOTHING? I know that I would never want this to happen to me: to be murdered without a murderer. There is only one possible answer to this game: *I* will take responsiblity for the kid's death. I will bear the burden of the murder, because after all *I* pay taxes and I paid for the bomb that killed the kid instantly. I did not oppose the war enough. You did not die for nothing kid: you died because of a grave injustice. MY injustice. And I bear the punishment for your murder every time I'm reminded of you, whether it be seeing your people on TV or seeing your childhood innocence in the eyes of my own son. SOMEBODY has to claim responsiblity for this... SOMEBODY has to stand up for this kid and restore his dignity... It might as well be me. I will roll up my sleeves and plunge my arms into the blood and filth. I will bear the responsibility of a war that I wanted no part of. I will redeem your human dignity.
That's already happened, and is the current state in regards to China. Not that they decided to destroy America, but they are totalitarian, they do have many human rights abuses, they do try and control their neighbors, and what has the U.S. done about even with their current ideas on projecting U.S. models of democracy around the world? The reason why some are skeptical of the claimed motive of fighting tyrrany and spreading our belief in freedom, is that it's so selectively applied.
nice quote. you could pull out all sort of RATM quotes on debates like these. of course you'd come off as a very angry person, but hey, some of us are.
