BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

WELL DONE CHIRAC!

  
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
yawn - thing's buddy
08:03 / 10.03.03
And I DO think it's the responsibility of the war mongers to convince the rest of us as to the necessity of war.

The problem is, they already have. They've made their case and it's pretty clear cut. As far as reasons for War go, this one is as good as most others over the centuries.

What I don't understand is that this WAR game that Bush plays is definitely the more expensive option in securing American Control over the region.

Coca Cola sponsored text books and Nike-bedecked gym halls in Kirkuk would cost buttons compared.

That's the bit I don't get.
 
 
Nematode
08:45 / 10.03.03
'this war debacle makes me fucking proud to be a Kiwi and ashamed of the British heritage in me. Like I didn't already have enough colnial guilt!'
If this helps Britain is, with the small [and unfortunate] exception of the guys that actually run the show, solidly anti and one to two million of us demonstrated against it the other week. There's enormous resistance to this war in the long tradition of British libertarian political activities eg formation of trade unions and the labour movement, the suffragettes, the abolition of slavery resisting the poll tax, a reason amongst many for pride, I would have thought
 
 
Jack Rock-a-Pops
12:47 / 10.03.03
Well said yawn.

Nematode, you are correct as well. I'm every bit as much a hypocrite for clinging to this knee-jerk pride for a geographical region of interest, yet otherwise standing against the borders that divide them.


And I'm every bit a hypocrite for calling myself a hypocrite when I perceive hypocrisy to be an artificial cultural construct that does not acknowledge the existence of human beings as rational individuals in time and space.


In fact this question about sides…….it’s wrong isn’t it?
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
13:47 / 10.03.03
Nematode, I think it's a slight exageration to say that Britain is solidly against the war as the huge numbers that marched make up only a small amount of the total population, though I think it's wrong for either side to claim the disinterested masses as supporting either opinion.

Did anyone see the two Iraq programs on BBC4 last night (Sunday)? Interesting subtle 'let's get rid of Saddam- oh how lucky the US and UK want to do it' vibes.
 
 
Ganesh
20:24 / 10.03.03
Yawn, I don't agree. It's not clear-cut at all; it's sleight-of-hand, and not particularly good sleight-of-hand, at that. I suspect Blair has underestimated the ability of people to engage with the subject, though, and has attempted to spin the global situation, with only limited success. Yes it's a Good Thing that we have re-engaged; Yes it's a Bad Thing that it's going ahead anyway.
 
 
yawn - thing's buddy
21:41 / 10.03.03
I beginning to think it's pretty much impossible to justify war - whatever the circumstances. If you believe this, then it follows that for those who think war is an acceptable way to solve differences it becomes easier for them to justify why it is necessary to go to such means to make a point.

Therefore, America and co feel they need not justify their reasons any more than they have.

To put it in a different context: probably less than 1% if any?) of all wars ever fought were justly started. That puts this one (if it eventually kicks of) in the majority.

Look, its a dumb argument I know, but then there's no fair logic to these conflicts.

In that respect, I think the hawks need not explain themsleves any further. We know where they stand.

And as far as war logic goes, they have a point.

anyway....

the war's not gonna happen.
 
 
Ganesh
21:59 / 10.03.03
Historical majority rule, eh?
 
 
Ganesh
22:00 / 10.03.03
Did you see Blair get slow-handclapped by a group of women unimpressed by his answers? That was quite amusing...
 
 
yawn - thing's buddy
10:19 / 11.03.03
I did see it.

I feel so sorry for Blair.

He's fucked up so badly and there really is no way back now.
 
 
Ganesh
13:11 / 11.03.03
I don't know enough about his motives to feel sorry for him; he's played his cards sooo close to his chest on this one that it's impossible to do other than speculate. Initially, I was waiting for him to produce the rabbit from the hat, some piece of reliable evidence (either linking 9/11 to Iraq or proving that Iraq possesses weapons posing a significant global threat) that would allow me to go on believing that he's a rational, reasonable leader with his country's interests at heart. That rabbit's never arrived, and I think it's desperately sad that this is how he'll be remembered.

I think he deserved the slow handclap, though...
 
 
Lurid Archive
14:44 / 11.03.03
I don't know enough about his motives to feel sorry for him; he's played his cards sooo close to his chest on this one that it's impossible to do other than speculate.

Really? I may have misread the situation, but I think Blair is fairly clear about where he stands. Theres some smokescreen, sure, but its not too hard to penetrate.

He believes in this war. He believes in a world order that doesn't tolerate dictators and tyrants. Democracy and international law are meaningless in the face of moral choices.

The fact that there are other dictators and that the position of the US and the UK is not blameless doesn't bother him unduly. There are tough, pragmatic choices to make in politics, but Saddam is most definitely a bad guy who it is now possible to get rid of.

The fact that people will die is regrettable, but he calculates that it will be less than if sanctions are drawn out and Saddam remains in power.

I think some of this analysis is not entirely unreasonable, but I think he has a strange mix of moral purpose (that won't flinch from an unpleasant war) and pragmatism (that won't challenge the politically constrained choices between war and status quo in Iraq).
 
 
Ganesh
14:58 / 11.03.03
If that's truly the case, then I guess I'm guilty of having overestimated Blair's analytical abilities in the past. The argument that 'Saddam's a bad guy and we've got the opportunity to get rid of him' is a non-argument: fuzzy, illogical and inconsistent. I've always credited Blair with a little more intellectual flexibility than that, a little more imagination. In a world full of dictators and tyrants with whom we happily do business on a daily basis, suddenly targetting Iraq makes no moral sense.

With Bush, the less-than-'moral' benefits are obvious. With Blair, it's difficult to see why someone possessed of an ability to negotiate the complex hypocrasies of international relations would willingly ally themselves so irreversibly to so morally dubious a venture.
 
 
Lurid Archive
15:12 / 11.03.03
I think he takes the view that you do what you can and that worrying about inconsitency can lead to inaction - which is worse. I believe the idea is to try to engage with dictators where possible and bring them into the fold that way, improving things by interaction. Where that isn't possible and when it is politically feasible, as with Saddam, one regrettably goes to war.

The world is full of dictators, but you don't use your inability to deal with one as a reason not to deal with another.

I think he also feels that this is a clear cut case - few dictators have worse human rights records, are beyond any hope of "redemption", are so overwhelmingly condemned by the international community and are so easy to defeat. Also, going to war with Iraq opens up the possibility of morally driven military actions or threat of action in the future. He has pretty much said that in the past.
 
 
Mourne Kransky
21:47 / 11.03.03
Was heading off to bed early, looking forward to relaxing with my book and drifting gently off, when I happened across this article of George Monbiot's in The Guardian, which wound me up a bit. I hadn't known all of this stuff.

"Immediately after [9/11] the U.S. government began stablishing "forward bases" in Asia. As the assistant secretary of state, Elizabeth Jones, noted: "When the Afghan conflict is over we will not leave Central Asia. We have long-term plans and interests in this region." The US now has bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan and Georgia.

In January, the US moved into Djibouti, ostensibly to widen its war against terror, while accidentally gaining strategic control over the Bab al-Mandab - one of the world's two most important oil shipping lanes. It already controls the other one, the straits of Hormuz. Two weeks ago, under the same pretext, it sent 3,000 soldiers to the Philippines. Last year it began negotiations to establish a military base in Sao Tome and Principe, from which it can, if it chooses, dominate West Africa's principal oilfields. By pure good fortune, the US government now exercises strategic control over almost all the world's major oil producing regions and oil transport corridors.

It has also used its national tragedy as an excuse for developing new nuclear and biological weapons, while ripping up the global treaties designed to contain them. All this is as the project prescribed. Among other policies, it has called for the development of a new generation of biological agents, which will attack people with particular genetic characteristics."

Then I climbed into bed and on the radio I heard about this, so looked up some links.
The Business of Rebuilding Iraq

"Development agency USAid has shortlisted five US companies for a $900m contract to rebuild Iraq - so is post-war reconstruction an American stitch-up?

...the US Government is handing out contracts for rebuilding post-war Iraq - to American companies - before the first shots have even been fired.

But at a total of $900m, the current batch of controversial deals represent a tiny fraction of what promises to be an unprecedented reconstruction bonanza.

...hackles were raised in boardrooms around the world when the US Army Corps of Engineers blithely handed out all rebuilding contracts to American firms in advance of the 1991 Gulf War."

What piqued my interest particularly on the BBC was this fact, which I had to source elsewhere.

So Bush has had to pour money into U.S. arms suppliers to kit up for war and it looks like American business will earn a few more bucks, at the other end of the process, in these difficult financial times.

Of particular interest:

"To speed the project, USAID invoked special authority to solicit bids from selected companies, which include the Louis Berger Group Inc., a significant U. S. contractor in Afghanistan. The move bypassed the usual rules that would have permitted a wider array of companies to seek the contract.

Vice President Dick Cheney spent five years as chief executive of one competitor, Houston energy services company Halliburton. The Pentagon said Thursday that Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root is developing a plan under an existing contract to fight Iraqi oil well fires."

Why does any of this take an old cynic like me off guard? If nothing else, more people do seem to be informing themselves in order to carry on having the same arguments about next Monday's war, all in vain of course.
 
 
Ganesh
22:20 / 11.03.03
Lurid, I'm afraid I don't see that particular line of (rather specious) reasoning as particularly consistent with Blair's previous approach to dictators, tyrants, etc. The question is, of course, exactly how one chooses to define "you do what you can" (why couldn't UN directives have been proposed/enforced with regard to those other dictators?), "bring them into the fold" (sell them weapons?), etc., etc. I'm not convinced that Iraq has been targetted opportunistically simply because there's a general "inability to deal with" the world's other tyrants, and I don't believe this is a particularly clear-cut case - unless, of course, one turns a blind eye to the murky factors motivating the Bush administration and the likely destabilising effect on the Middle East.

I'd say also that if Blair is trumpeting the war option in terms of 'morality', then "worrying about inconsistency" is more important than you suggest. Resolution 242 has been around for, what, 35-odd years? Israel's chock-full of weaponry, and isn't afraid to use it. Why aren't we rushing to enforce this one? "Inability"?
 
 
eye landed
07:52 / 12.03.03
So what if Bush is right and Hussein really is a threat? What if his weapons of mass destruction are not nuclear or biological, but something entirely new? Maybe intelligence on this weapon, whatever it is, is what has Bush needing immediate containment. Of course, that's paranoid absurdity, right? Just forget I said it.

The world situation is building to a climax far greater than any previous time in my short life. If it doesn't peak with an attack on Iraq, it will have to peak with something else, whether that be a huge attack on the USA, a restructuring of the world media or government, or something entirely new (that you don't want to hear about in this forum). I know "real life" doesn't deal in plot curves, but the few egos in charge right now aren't going to let this situation fade away. The only thing that can avert disaster is another ego strong enough to make everybody stop and listen. I doubt it's Chirac (hinting back at the OP), but at least he's giving it a shot. Even if he is friendly with Iraq, that's still a voice that should be heard, and I, for one, haven't heard much of it. Let's get Hussein in on these negotiations rather than dictating terms and hoping he responds; I bet he would have something interesting to say. I bet he is laughing his ass off at all the rich Christians arguing over who gets to kill his people. He's been doing it for years and nobody cared.

I think it's just anti-republicanism. Iraq is the only Arab nation without a monarch, and I think King Shrub resents that. Men need kings, after all (patriarchal language intentional).
 
 
Ganesh
09:35 / 12.03.03
I guess there is the possibility that Iraq has reawakened Cthulhu (or whatever). I think that's infinitely more possible than Bush possessing hitherto-undeclared "intelligence"...
 
 
Lurid Archive
10:27 / 12.03.03
Ganesh. I think that to understand Blair, you have to accept that he has some odd beliefs. For instance, I'm sure that he believes that despite some problems, US foreign policy is a force for good.

I'm afraid I don't see that particular line of (rather specious) reasoning as particularly consistent with Blair's previous approach to dictators, tyrants, etc

No? Wasn't Blair the one who has essentiallty taken Iran out of the "Axis of Evil"? Hasn't he been all for trade with dodgy countries (thereby undermining Cook's stillborn ethical foreign policy)? You probably think that selling a dictator weapons is immoral. I reckon Blair sees it as a good bargaining position with some problems but a net positive effect.

why couldn't UN directives have been proposed/enforced with regard to those other dictators?...Resolution 242 has been around for, what, 35-odd years? Israel's chock-full of weaponry, and isn't afraid to use it. Why aren't we rushing to enforce this one? "Inability"?

Absolutely. Given the way Blair sees the US approach (the only game in town) and given the way that Israel is essential to US interests in the Middle East I am sure that Blair would see a strong stand on resolution 242 as futile. Worse than that, it would sour relations with the US thereby making other more worthy goals (like deposing Milosevich) more difficult.

On top of that, I doubt that Blair sees the Israel Palestinian conflict as clear cut. Certainly not as clear cut as evil Saddam. And lets be fair, Saddam is a nasty piece of work who is almost unanimously hated. Hell, there are plenty of Iraqis who are pro-war.

I think it is clear (from the current situation and Kosovo, for instance) that Blair sees international law as a worthy ideal that shouldn't stand in the way of realpolitik. The US is the world's policeman and you either join in or whinge from the sidelines.
 
 
illmatic
10:32 / 12.03.03
Lurid/Ganesh _ I recently finished reading a fascinating little book called The Rise of New Labour by Robin Ramsey. A lot of the book is devoted to debunking the idea that Labour has sole responsibility for the economic downturn of the late 70’s (he blames Heath and the “dash for growth”) but another point he advances is that there ahs always been pro-Atlanticist groups within the Labour party, from Hugh Gaitskell in the 50’s through to the centre-left unit that broke away to form the SDP in the 80’s. In the late 90’s, he shows that New Labour was bequeathed a lot of these links and connections. I’m not saying this is the sole reason behind Blair backing Bush, but reading this I got a feel for the complex web of lobbying and diplomacy that Blair must have been surrounded by throughout his career, the pro-US, pro-NATO links which from a backdrop to politics in this country and exists in the parlimentary Labour party. It certainly makes it easier to understand why he can’t break with the US on a major policy issue like this. Ramsey really knows he’s stuff, he’s been a Left historian for a long time (30 years I think) and everything is thoroughly researched, not just conspiracy hearsay.

There’s a lot of other factors at play here obviously – without 9/11 and the Bush administration coming to power, Blair might not be hogtied to this current course. He might have been hoping the inspectors would uncover evidence of a serious breach, or that it would have been easier to get a resolution authorising the use of force.
 
 
Ganesh
10:49 / 12.03.03
Lurid, I'd say it depends on the specific dictator, and how wide one throws open the definition of 'dictatorship'. It is hypocritical, however - as is inconsistency in applying/enforcing UN resolutions, if one then plays up the supposed 'moral' element. This is what sticks in my throat. If, as you say, Blair is motivated by a sort of 'moral pragmatism', then IMHO it's a mistake to attempt to flog the 'moral' over the 'pragmatist' element as the primary reason for going to war. As you say, he's doing it primarily because the US (for its own reasons) wants to do it - his ability (or lack of it) to deal with "evil" tyrants is, for the large part, dictated by the US agenda - which is what makes Israel's Resolution-trashing untouchable. It's his dishonesty about this, and his attempt to graft on an independent 'morality' to justify the one-sided US/UK alliance, which irritate me.
 
 
Lurid Archive
11:11 / 12.03.03
Illmatic. Yeah, thats a good point. Its probably also worth remembering that Blair isn't really a Labour man, in that the traditional party does not hold his loyalties. So he tends to make unexpected friends and allies.

Ganesh: I agree with you, but I think there is a strong moral element to Blair's thinking (at least in his mind) that isn't as dishonest as you suggest. US dominance is something to be accepted and worked with in order to achieve anything - one decides how to exert influence on moral grounds against that immutable backdrop.

He is willing to sway US policy where possible (in Kosovo and arguably Afghanistan) and I think it is fair to say that there is a strong moral case for doing something about Saddam.

Given that this is concurrent with US interests it is also practical to go ahead. Its a murky moral argument, but it does have a moral dimension to it.

I don't agree with it, but I think it makes sense of how he acts and what he says.
 
 
Ganesh
11:56 / 12.03.03
Lurid, okay, 'dishonest' should probably be abandoned in favour of 'self-justifying' or, perhaps, 'wilfully self-deluded' (if Blair truly believes Bush's foreign policy is a "force for good"). There is a moral dimension to the Iraq situation - as there's a moral dimension to almost all foreign policy - but I'd say it's utterly secondary to the more corrupt motives of the Bush administration (some of which have been linked to by Xoc). Those factors have pushed a false 'playground bully' dichotomy ('do nothing' versus 'liberate by force') and, with US troops massing and contracts already being tendered for 'rebuilding Iraq after the war', alternative avenues have been allowed little or no room for serious discussion.

I see your argument, Lurid, but if you're right about Blair's reasoning, then I guess I'm guilty of having previously overidentified, envisaged him far too much in my own idealogical image. I always knew he was a pragmatist but I liked to think he'd credit the population with sufficient intelligence to discuss that pragmatism openly with them, rather than resorting to mealy-mouthed (and, as I've said, glaringly inconsistent) platitudes. I thought the D&D-style 'Good versus Evil' crap was the province of the chimp in the White House; I reckoned our own PM knew when to chance the moral high ground and when to leave well alone. I guess my reaction is being coloured by a degree of disappointment: if he doesn't believe this 'moral' shit, he's being dishonest and patronising'; if he does, he's a self-deluding halfwit who's lost his intuitive sense of what the public will and will not swallow. Either way, he's a diminished figure.

Another factor in my overall pissed-offness here is that it feels broadly analogous, in some ways to working within the NHS. As doctors, we're largely independent practitioners governed by a set of hard & fast financial and political strictures - and we cater for an increasingly literate, information-aware population. If someone comes to me requesting Treatment X (which is undoubtedly effective but which I cannot offer because the NHS hasn't authorised it) I can either tell them honestly why they can't have it (which they might not like, but which credits them with the wit to handle the reality of the situation), or I can elaborate a false but satisfyingly 'medical' - or even 'moral' - line of reasoning. In an age of 'transparency', which is the better option?
 
 
Lurid Archive
12:56 / 12.03.03
A disillusioned Blairite? You poor boy.

Personally I go for the

self-deluding halfwit who's lost his intuitive sense of what the public will and will not swallow

option, though I wouldn't put it so harshly. Also, it isn't yet clear to me how the public will respond to a war, without UN support, that is quick and relatively painless. That perhaps ends with Iraqis celebrating in the streets and Saddam dead or in chains.

Also, I think it is hard for us to know what kind of people Blair surrounds himself with. They seem to be people who would not countenance a significant change to the status quo. It can be hard to see beyond what everyone immediately around you takes for granted.

As for honesty. I think there is a case to be made that if you are going to fight a war, you need to fight to win both militarily and in propoganda terms. Otherwise, you cause a lot more suffering. If that means spin, deceit and hiding the complexities of your decision then so be it. (Actually, I think that Blair is pretty open, once you take a certain amount of obfuscation and simplification for the masses as read.)

I think your analogy is an interesting one. A sincerely moral but more paternalistic person would argue that it is better to lie. I don't, but I almost see the other side.

My point, I suppose, is this. I don't see Blair as evil or a poodle. He is wrong and I think you are right that he wilfully ignores the ramifications of his actions and those that he supports. But perhaps this is just his nature. Perhaps someone who worried about consistency and hypocrisy just wouldn't have made it as far as he has.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:06 / 12.03.03
I don't think Blair's evil. Rather, I think he's horribly misguided, dangerous and must be stopped.

The irony is- we (well, I) have whinged for years about him being a slave to focus groups, putting populism about policy... now he actually has the balls to express an opinion that's actually in conflict with anyone, he's become a warmongering wanker. Strangely, my respect for the man has increased at a roughly similar rate to my hatred of the fucker.
 
 
Ganesh
13:24 / 12.03.03
My point, Lurid, is that it's less possible to take the "sincerely moral but more paternalistic" position and simply lie. People have more access to information, and are better equipped to see through spin. Bullshit is less likely to work, and I'm surprised Blair didn't, couldn't or wouldn't see this.

Stoatie, that's interesting. I, by way of contrast, previously held Blair in at least a modicum of regard (didn't agree with all his decisions by any means, but admired his ability to tackle seemingly insoluble problems) but find my respect for him draining away by the day...
 
 
Lurid Archive
13:59 / 12.03.03
Yep, and thats a pragmatic argument that must be worrying Blair at the moment. Did you read that the US are considering going to war without UK military support due to the difficult situation Blair finds himself in? That said, Blair does seem to exhibit genuine incomprehension that people don't see Saddam as evil and worth going to war over.

I get the feeling that he might have had an easier time of it if he had tried to convince his own party, if not the population at large. I think lots of people in Labour have been mentally waiting for a line that cannot be crossed. Without a UN resolution, this may be it.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
07:19 / 13.03.03
I mean, I don't think he's a bad guy- he just shouldn't be allowed near the weapons cabinet, and he's been mixing with the wrong crowd.

Strangely enough, I even gained a grudging respect for Peter "fucking" Hitchens a while back when he said, while changing to an anti-war stance, that he'd previously been in favour of war because we need oil and can't trust the Saudis. At least that was someone expressing an honest opinion, however abhorrent.

I think Blair's pretty much painted himself into a corner now, whatever he says. If war goes ahead, he faces further party revolts, and if it doesn't, he's backed down on what has become the defining issue of his term. I guess from a "political credibility" point of view, all he can do is go ahead and press on with the Americans. I'd like to believe that he has been trying to act as a restraining influence, but if that is indeed the case, he's failed, and now finds himself trapped in one path.

Much as I don't like him, I do feel sorry for the guy- he has done some reasonably good things. And he doesn't look well recently, bless him- remember how Thatcher's famed "lack of need for sleep" was roughly proportional to her aggression and paranoia?

Of course, Blair's political future is way down on my list of priorities over this issue, but I think he's bitten off more than he can chew. All he has left now is his matiness with the US- which is why their indications yesterday that they'd go ahead without him if he couldn't sort his shit out quicker were so damaging, and have been so hastily retracted.
 
 
illmatic
07:39 / 13.03.03
I wonder if he has bittenoff more than he can chew though, Chairman? If - and I hate myself for even contemplating this - the war is over quickly, what then? I mean where's the opposition - who is seriously able to challenge Blair's position? That's the crux of the whole problem in a way - he's had no parlimentary opposition, and only small challenges from his backbenches. The only person I can see lurking in the wings is Gordon Brown and I don't think he's going to launch a leadership challenge on any kind of war issue. I think it's a mistake to start writing his political obituary now.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
08:48 / 13.03.03
Well yeah... but he's definitely gambling his premiership on this whole thing. And I don't think that was what he originally intended to do. If the war is over quickly, if the rebuilding all goes okay, and if he can justify it as humanitarian intervention after the fact, and we are all proved wrong- then he'll be fine. He'll go down in histiry as a hero.

Otherwise he's fucked. And I really don't think he intended it to come to this. More naivete than arrogance, maybe...

(To be honest, if the war is indeed inevitable, I think the above are the best any of us can hope for.)
 
 
Ganesh
09:57 / 13.03.03
Yeah, but the 'success' or otherwise of initiating war in Iraq will be judged not merely by its effect on the Iraqi people (and, judging from the US line on independent reporters, I'm sure we won't be short of heavily-spun footage of grateful Iraqi children, etc.) but its destabilising effect on the Middle East generally...
 
 
Lurid Archive
10:33 / 13.03.03
True, but in immediate political (propoganda) terms - which are what matter to Blair and a lesser extent Bush - in will be the grateful children or the piles of dead bodies that will be decisive. I think the war will inevitably destabilise the region, but might bring some benefits to Iraqis.

Also, I wonder if the widespread opposition to the war in the UK will give UK journalists greater scope for filming or reporting on some of the horrors of the war.

BTW - did people notice that today Blair has pledged military support regardless of the situation in the UN? Didn't want to be left out of the loop, I suppose.
 
 
Lullaboozler
11:41 / 13.03.03
Also, I wonder if the widespread opposition to the war in the UK will give UK journalists greater scope for filming or reporting on some of the horrors of the war.

I would guess not. As the US/UK would be in complete control of the theatre, the press would ony be granted access to areas that were going to put the right message to the folks back home.

BTW - did people notice that today Blair has pledged military support regardless of the situation in the UN? Didn't want to be left out of the loop, I suppose.

In that case TB had better not plan any holidays to Bordeaux in the near future - Kofi Annan has stated that any aggression against Iraq without a 2nd resolution would be agains the UN charter and therefore illegal. Blair is leaving himself open of committing a war crime here, and as a member, France would be within its rights to want to prosecute him.

Also, what about the situation if the US/UK do go in without a second resolution? Iraq would be able to call on the UN under Article 5 (the one the US used to build a coalition against Afghanistan) that states that an attacked member may call on the rest of the UN for assistance in the event of them being attacked.

That could be an interesting situation, and I wouldn't put it past SH to have it in the back of his mind when the inevitable happens next week...
 
 
GreenMann
12:12 / 13.03.03
Thank you thank you thank you again Chirac, this time for using your UN veto against the US-UK warmongers! I now want to learn French, eat French food (not a problem!) and crunch up copies of The Sun in defence of France!

Peace-luvers the world over will salute the courageous stand of France in the UN against the US and UK who are now hell-bent on bombing the 26m population of Iraq, 50% of whom are under 16. The US-UK alliance, keenly supported of course by ever war-hungry Israel, are determined to mass murder tens of thousands of innocent women and children in their immoral, and soon illegal war against the Iraqi people.

The people of world are clearly against this war for oil and greater US and Israeli power in the region. The warmongers claim the war is for "human rights" for the Iraqi people. Since when has the US been a champion for human rights? It is well known (at least in societies where there is free-speech) that the US is notorious for crushing democracies all over the world, from Latin America to Asia.

France is leading Europe and the world by vetoing US-UK attempts to start bombing via the UN. The US hypocritically criticises France for using its veto against this proposed mass-murder, yet Washington has used it's own veto on numerous occasions to block criticism of Israel for breaking 69 UN resolutions since 1948. Is their any lengths to which US hypocrisy will not stoop? I mean...don't they ever feel shame?

Thank you so much again Chirac for standing up for us peace-luvers who refuse to be dragged kicking and screaming into World War III. Unlike US ass-licker Blair, you have stood up to the bullying, bribing tactics of the Bush gang and you may yet save the world from disaster.
 
 
Ganesh
12:57 / 13.03.03
Let's not get too carried away with Chirac's 'peace-loving' credentials. He's working to his own political agenda too.

I'd heard that Blair's been sourcing a fairly wide range of legal opinion on going ahead without a UN resolution - but has been strangely silent about this. Mysterious, no?
 
 
Lurid Archive
13:04 / 13.03.03
It is possible that some minority will try to bring Blair to trial. (Though I do remember reading somewhere that Blair has consulted lawyers and found that he is safe). But really, it isn't a legal issue (though it should be). Blair is unlikely to be prosecuted and will never be found guilty. If they can't get Pinochet, Blair is certainly safe.
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply