Well, well, well..

[misscam]

Change of tone from Blair

So now suddenly the emphasis is on how utterly horrid Saddam was and that itself was justificasion for war... I gather they are not expecting to find evidence of WMD (at least not substancial enough) any more, then. So we are to forget that the pre-war case was all about how big a threat Saddam was and his WMDs then?

My problems with this are plenty, among them:

1) Saddam has been a horrid ass for decades, and the West has known and done nothing. In fact, the US supported him, even when he gassed the Kurds. So suddenly *now* we all got a conscience?

2) There are plenty of horrid asses out there ruling countries. North Korea, Burma, Zimambwe, to name three. So, since Saddam was a horrid ass and he was disposed of for being an horrid ass, then the aforementioned three countries should be having a regiment change too. Otherwise, it's being a big fat hypocrit.

3) Where do you draw the line? Shall we invade all countries who have asses in power, or just the really bad ones? How do one know which ass is being the most horrid? What if the people of a country elect an ass to power - does the world really have a right to step in?

4) If the US and UK cannot prove that Saddam had WMD, there goes any lingering trust. The Arab world will think this was about oil, because the US very conviniently overlooks what to them is a much worse ass (Israel - I'm not saying Israel is, I'm just pointing out that to the Arab world they are, due to the Palestinian situation)

Either way, I'm feeling a great deal of dread over it.

Blair said he believes history will justify the war on Iraq. I fear the world can't really afford for him to be wrong. If the cap between the West and the Arab world widens, terrorism is only likely to get worse. There's always someone willing to die for a cause. There's always fundamentalists - be it Osama bin Laden or George W. Bush. Sometimes I wonder if not good intentions create just as much harm as those who has only bad things as their purpose. What does that then say about me, who like to think of myself as having good intentions?

I guess if the world was easy, it would come with a manual. Blair could use one, if he wants to smooth things over with Europe, his own party and his own voters. When I was last in the UK, people had started nicknaming him 'Dictator Blair'. I liked Blair once. (Note the past tense, please) Now, I don't know.

In other news, writing desire seems to return slightly, so I've scribbled a bit. Huzzah. There's a heatwave over Norway nowadays, so it's hard to not just stay outside and laze days away in the hot sun. We had a very dramatic thunderstorm today, though. Also found Discworld Noir among my old stuff, so have been playing it. Ah, Pratchett. I worship thee.

It seems to me that the more dire the world gets, the more important humour is. But then, I am from Northern Norway, where humour has always been a way to deal with the world's shittiness. There's not much else you have, when even good intentions sometimes do more harm than good.

Comments

[kumbunny.livejournal.com]

The only reason history will justify the war is the fact it cannot be changed.

The great thing about propaganda and deciet, is that it only has to work for a short period of time. After the fact, complaining of the fact is pointless.

You mention that Saddam was a badass. That may be true. But despite this, I can see no evidence to suggest Umerika is any way:

- more civilized
- less aggressive
- less a badass.

Saddam was just more "obvious" and "honest" with his havoc and aggression. Capitalists just lie and blame others.

mwah
kumbuniko

[missjean.livejournal.com]

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.

Heh. I watched a joint press conference with Blair and Bush held a little later at the White House. Someone questioned them about whether or not they still think/believe/whatever that they will uncover WMD in Iraq. Both said that they still firmly believe that they are there and that they will be found. They said that we should all let the people over there finish their jobs before getting all in a tizzy about it. Blair also pointed out that he never said that it was faulty information, as the person questioning them had said he had done.

(Quote from Blair's address: "Can we be sure that terrorism and weapons of mass destruction will join together? Let us say one thing: If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat that at its least is responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering. That is something I am confident history will forgive.

But if our critics are wrong, if we are right, as I believe with every fiber of instinct and conviction I have that we are, and we do not act, then we will have hesitated in the face of this menace when we should have given leadership. That is something history will not forgive." Good point, that, IMO.)

To be fair (which no one seems to want to be), on Bush's part, the WMD were only a part of his reasons for going into Iraq. Not the whole reason. The reasons were also that he (Saddam) posed a threat to America and other nations just by being in power. Another was that he was brutal to his people. To quote Tony Blair:
"And how risible would be the claims that these were wars on Muslims if the world could see these Muslim nations still Muslim, but with some hope for the future, not shackled by brutal regimes whose principal victims were the very Muslims they pretended to protect?"

And, just a side note: There's always fundamentalists - be it Osama bin Laden or George W. Bush.

I find it offensive that you placed Bush and bin Laden on the same level there.

And how did the US support the gassing of the Kurds?

Anyway, all political talk aside, I'm glad to hear that you seem to be having nice weather over your way. :) I hope you thoroughly enjoy it! Am also glad to hear that you're feeling like writing again. Lovely. :)

[misscam.livejournal.com]

All right

you and I don't agree. We're widely, widely different, and not just on Iraq. Hence, discussion can be rather pointless at times. But to adress your points...

There has been in Britain a great deal of fire on Mr Blair for inclduing in his famous dossier not only forgeries, but included information that even if some WMDs are found, remains questionable. (There's been inquires at the UK parliament saying so, you can probably look it up) While Blair still defends it, his now strengthening 'bad bad Saddam' argument does amount to a change of tone. He cannot back away from his claims without a great deal of embarrassement and probably his job, so I don't expect him to, nor do I think he will. He is known to stand by what he says despite heavy critisism. He is a man of conviction in this case. But that he has started putting more emphasis on other arguments than the WMDs is very interesting indeed.

He also commented that he got a far more enthusiastic welcome at Congress than he normally does at home, which ought to give you an idea how things stand in the UK at the moment.

Because even if WMDs are found, this still amounts to a great failure on the part of UK Intellegence Agencies. Hundreds of places declared 'sites of biological or chemical weapons programs' have turned out to be normal factories with no trace of weapon programs at all. The problem I have with this is that so much information being wrong, how can I trust the UK or the US the next time they claim so-and-so is a threat? Even if weapons are found, a hell of a lot of information that were given to us before the war has turned out to be not substansiated. If no WMDs are found, then Iraq did not violate the UN resolution, either, hence, there goes that possible argument.

Another problem is that if Blair is wrong, he's gone to war by misleading the public, plus potentially making it an illegal war by international standards and maybe even fuel more terrorism. This was sold as a part of the war on terror. The UK and US again and again stressed that Iraq was a threat and had WMDs.

If it turns out not to be, then yes, we've removed a horrid dictator. But how can we look the people of Burma or North Korea in the eyes? 'Yeah, we removed one horrid ass, but we don't really feel like removing yours. Sorry about that. Have a nice suffering life.'

I'm not advocating that we invade every country with an ass in power (because frankly, it would be a fricking mess), I'm just saying that declaring wars *only* on the basis of the leader being an horrid ass sets a very dangerous precedent, especially because it was done without the UN. The US does not rule the world and has no right to remove dictators on a whim unless there is a genuine threat to American security. This Blair told the British there were, his exact words as I recall were 'a significant threat to the British way of life.'

If no WMDs are found, then murky, murky waters are ahead.

As for Bush and Osama bin Laden - one is a Christian fundamentalist, one is a muslim fundamentalist. I didn't say both were terrorists, I didn't say both were evil, I said both were fundametalists. I stand by that. You can disagree, of course, but that's my opinion. Despite the 'bad' associations of the word, 'fundamentalist' in itself means 'strict adherence to traditional religious beliefs' (Oxford dictionary).

Futhermore, I did not say the US supported the gassing of the Kurds, I said the US supported him 'even when he gassed the Kurds'. This was in the 80s, during the Iran-Iraq war. Donald Rumsfelt famously shook hands with Saddam at a meeting in this era. The reason being that the US saw Iran as worse than Iraq, of course, but it doesn't change the fact. Many of the WMDs Saddam had in the 90s, were developed in the 80s and some even with slight US assistance.
(to be continued)

Continued...

[misscam.livejournal.com]

As a side note - if you wonder why the Iraqs don't trust the US - in 1991 the Shi'ite muslims rose up against Saddam (on the urging of Bush senior, I might add). It looked like Saddam would be toppled, he was weak after the Kuwait war. But in an agreement with the American troops, the Iraqi military were allowed to fly in armoured helicopters (they asked spesifically) in the rioting areas.

The result was massacre, and the American military stood some kilometres away and did nothing (they had signed a siezefire). Imagine how that looked to the Shi'ite. Even if you think the US could have done nothing else - imagine how the Shi'ite felt.

The US supported the groups bin Laden hung in during the 80s with weapons and training during the Afghani war in the 80s (against the Soviet invaders). The US has a very long and very murky history of making deals with horrid asses. This is historical fact.

To be fair, yes, the WMDs were only part of the Iraq war argument, but it was *the essential one*. Because without it, there's a whole shitload of troubles stacked up. As I said, the US cannot just go removing dictators on a whim, even when they're horrid. To start off, there's too many. Secondly, the US doesn't have the authority. Thirdly, history has shown that the US is willing to ignore some horrid asses while taking others out, which is not fair or decent at all. (It is however more realistic, because let's face it, the world is a rotten place and everyone has skeletons in the closet) Fourthly, the US has a very spesific worldview and would naturally want to recreate the freed countries in that image - but this may not be what is best for the country itself (Iraq may turn out to be a case of this - we'll see). Fifthly, a morally justified war is murky waters at any time, given morals vary widly from people to people. Whose morals do we apply when going to war? The human rights charter? But the US violates the human rights charter, as does the UK, China, Iran, Russia... Hell, Norway has too.

And as you might remember, the UN weapons inspectors were given a few weeks to inspect Iraqi sites and the US made a big fuss over them finding nothing. It's been months now, and with bigger resources and more acess, the US has found nothing.

Gah, this is turning into a rant.

Look, you think the war in Iraq was justified as it was. I disagree. We both agree Saddam was a horrid ass. You may think your country can morally *only* justify a war, I disagree. I find Bush and Blair's arguments deeply troublesome, you disagree. I'm not Christian, you are. I'm Norwegian, you are American. All these adds up to us never going to disagree, because fundementally, we view the world very differently. I think Bush is an ass, you don't. You probably think someone I like is an ass, and so on and on and on.

But you know, I have made my stand based on quite a lot of research aside from my personal convictions, and when my Globalisation lecturer (who was pro-war) could not make a dent in my conviction, I don't think there's anything that will. Even with WMDs found in thousands, I would still want the UN to be the force behind such a war. I'm Norwegian, we are strong UN supporters. I gather you are not, I know Bush is not.

And who can say who is right? Probably not even history, because a lot of this lingers on personal beliefs and worldviews.

But you know, if history is indeed written by the victors, than Blair's history argument is rather redundant. History has favoured the victors. It remains to be seen if it will favour Mr Blair - or Mr Bush.

Re: Continued...

[missjean.livejournal.com]

Yes, we don't agree on many points when it comes to politics and war and the like. You are right to assume that I don't like the UN. In fact, I have a few rather crude suggestions as to what exactly the UN can go and do to itself, but I'll be polite and not voice them. I cannot speak for President Bush on the matter. Only he can. But from what I've seen, both of us have a problem with the wishy-washy ways the UN seem to have taken up. The UN, IMO, is not the great and mighty thing that so many think it is, and I have a very good feeling that rather than helping the world, it will help to destroy it one day. Believe what you will about it, but that is what I believe.

I wanted to reply to all of your comments from both posts (stupid character limit :P), but I've been taught that less is more, so I think I'll try and apply that here since I don't do it very often. I'll probably fail at it again here. ;)

That, said, I'd like to say that know what happened with the Shi'ites. I've addressed the subject in my own journal before. I wish we had done something to help. I wish we hadn't allowed it to happen.

But we had signed a cease fire agreement, as you yourself pointed out.

The way I see it is this: The US, in the eyes of other countries and some of our own fellow countrymen, is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. It's been that way for a long time, and it will continue to be that way. We didn't help, and it's well known that we are (still) criticized for that today. If we had helped, however, would not the critics still complained? Would they not have said, "You signed a cease fire agreement! You went back on your word by helping the Shi'ites!" Thus we have another Evil!America argument. We can't win.

But that's where being a true leader comes into play. Doing things that are just and morally sound (Q: According to whose morals? A: According to the absolute moral truths, which are -- or should be -- universal.) despite what anyone else says is what really shows a leader to be worthy of being called such.

Yes, we can't invade every country that has an Evil!Dictator or some other such "leader" in power. Nor do I believe that we can sit idly by and watch the world and other nations go down the tubes. As Tony Blair pointed out, any country with freedom (such as America and Britain have) that does not help other countries to become free does not deserve the freedom that they themselves possess. I firmly agree with that thought.

I know we differ on spiritual/religious fronts as well as political, but in my own opinion, America enjoys the success she does because she is a nation "under God." We are not -- and I hope we never will -- thinking of ourselves as the all-mighty country to be feared and reckoned with, and that even God Himself can do nothing about it. Quite the opposite. My America thinks of herself as powerful and mighty, certainly to be feared and reckoned with with such power and might, but acknowledging at the same time that all good things are given to us and others by God, who can very easily take it all away. Why, by the end of today, once great America can be laid to waste if God so chooses it should be. I pray that it doesn't happen, but realize that it could. It keeps us humble and helps us to remember to walk the line that we all must walk.
(continued...)

Re: Continued...

[missjean.livejournal.com]

(Again, stupid character limit. :P)

Yes, there was handshaking done in that meeting with Saddam. What I don't understand is why that is such a major deal. I have shaken hands with people I dislike, and will do so again, I'm sure. I have shaken hands with people that I disagree with, and will probably do so again. You don't have to be making some big deal with someone or supporting them to be polite. And shaking the hand of someone else -- especially in the case of another country's leader, be he a bad one or not -- is the proper thing to do when you meet them.

So they shook hands. So what?

But you know, I have made my stand based on quite a lot of research aside from my personal convictions, and when my Globalisation lecturer (who was pro-war) could not make a dent in my conviction, I don't think there's anything that will.

I could say the same thing, only switching "Globalisation lecturer" to something else as I don't have a GL.

Concerning anti-American/anti-Western sentiments held in Iraq and other Middle-eastern countries, it was always there and it will always be there. Not doing things because you think someone won't like you is no reason to refuse to do it. That's a weak argument itself. If something is a given, as this anti-anything-that-isn't-Muslim notion that many in the Middle-East have is, then that's just the way it is. I will not be cowardly and back down simply because a few people don't like me. I'm sure that someone may read what I'm typing right now and dislike me. Perhaps even you will feel that way. But will that stop me? Absolutely not. I'm very thankful that I can be a woman of conviction, and I'm glad that at least some of our world leaders can be people of conviction as well. I pray that we never get "too big for our britches" and that we always look upwards for divine direction. I pray that we would help in any way possible to make the world a better place. I also pray that we do all of this no matter what the nay-sayers say or do.

In the end, it's actions that count rather than words. Simply saying that you wish things were this way or you want things the other way is not enough. Getting off your rump and actually doing something about it is what will count in the end.

But like you said, we don't agree on this matter. We probably never will. That's no reason not to discuss it as civilized human beings, but there's no reason to beat a dead horse, as it were, either. So that's my take on it all. Well, on some of it, anyway. ;)

Re: Continued...

[maureenlycaon.livejournal.com]

I just have to comment on two things here: this bit about "(Q: According to whose morals? A: According to the absolute moral truths, which are -- or should be -- universal.)", and: "but in my own opinion, America enjoys the success she does because she is a nation 'under God.'" Both of these remarks scare the hell out of me.

I'm always suspicious of (not to mention afraid of) people who claim to have the One Right True and Only Universal Moral Truth. The Nazis and the Inquisition thought they had a monopoly on Absolute Truth, too. So does Osama Bin Laden and all the other terrorists who believe so strongly they know what's Right and Wrong that they're willing to blow up buildings and fly jet planes full of helpless civilians through crowded skyscrapers in its name. Why is your Truth any better than mine? What gives you the right to try to force it upon me?

The burden of proof is on such people as you to prove that your morals are correct, not on the rest of us to disprove it. I think uncertainty, self-doubt, self-questioning and ambivalence should be celebrated as positive virtues, and that conviction and certainty should be regarded as suspicious, at best.

And let's get one thing straight, right here: America is NOT, nor has it ever been, a nation "under God". This is NOT a theocracy. Iran is a theocracy. To quote the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797 (often misattributed to George Washington):

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

(Check this page for some details. And yes, that was a treaty made with a largely Muslim nation.)

And Thomas Jefferson: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government."

And the notion that "being under God made this country great" -- I consider this magical thinking, just as much as when the shaman of some primitive tribe claims the drought struck the crops because some spirit or diety wasn't properly sacrificed to, or the pathetic Ghost Dances that the Plains tribes resorted to in an attempt to make the invading whites disappear.

We'll improve our students' education when we spend more money on schools, not by legislating school prayer. We'll lower crime when we eliminate our massive social inequality and the remnants of racism, not by calling on the laws and precepts of a desert tribe from millenia ago in an Old Testament. We'll have true economic prosperity when we learn how to live within the Earth's means, stop rewarding greed and ruthlessness and find a sustainable, stable-state economy, not by flying the flag everywhere. And so on. This point in history is a time to rely on our brains, our common sense, whatever basic human decency we have and our own efforts, not on symbolism and mysticism. If we don't, the U.S. will crumble, much as many other nations now found only in the pages of history have done, and the world will go on, and other nations will take its place.

Re: Continued...

[crystalraven28.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with this. US is not screwed up by anything religious. And morals do have a certain knack for being nonexistent these days. I do understand that in order to make a difference we must look in ourselves first, but I see no need to blame it on religion. People that, like the Ancient Mayas, base their entire culture on religious beliefs may be faced with disappointment and they will crumble, pulling the nation down with them. Yes, we have problems, every nation does. But in time, we shall resolve them or lose it all. I have faith in God, because he guides me and makes me strong, because he loves me. Hopefully, more people around the world will know God soon, too, so we may live in a better place.
Lee

I can't believe I rambled this long...

[misscam.livejournal.com]

Too long for LJ.

See me ramble

But I think now the horse is well end truly deader than dead.

Re: I can't believe I rambled this long...

[missjean.livejournal.com]

And that is why I never comment in your LJ on anything political or religious, even when I feel you’re being snide, unfair or plain wrong. I would just make you annoyed and there would be absolutely no point whatsoever. Perhaps you might consider that for yourself, although you are free to do as you like.

As I'm not a daft or thick person, I shall take that as a rather blunt "hint" and not respond on the subjects again.

So, as much as it frustrates part of me to follow through on this, I will not respond to the rest of your post, although I will tell you that I did read it. And that's all I'll say on it.

I'll personally be chalking it up to a disagreement -- albeit a slightly monsterous one -- and leave it there.

*bows out of the conversation gracefully/ungracefully -- take your pick*

BTW--

[missjean.livejournal.com]

I forgot to add this in my last response, and *keep* forgetting to say this, so I'll say it now because I *think* you may have gotten the wrong impression from one of my own journal entries.

I didn't think you were ignoring my responses. I know that RL gets chaotic and all. No worries there. The entry about people ignoring me didn't refer to this conversation. Just thought I should say that since I forgot to and didn't want you to think that that was about this.

Clearing it up, y'know... I was just gonna let it go, but it kept nagging at me, so... *shrug*

Re: Continued...

[crystalraven28.livejournal.com]

I was seeing this and there are a few things I have to argument about. But first, allow me to introduce myself. I am Puerto Rican, and thus are not governed by Bush even though this island is legally a U.S. possession. I am Presbyerian, but have many friends of different religions and beliefs. That is why I have learned to respect different points of view. However, I am a person with firm beliefs that are based on information that allows me to pass a judgement and let me know where I stand. The reason I'm saying this is that the reasons Saddam Hussein was the one attacked were:
1- He threatened the U.S.
2- Bush has got a vendetta because S.H. tried to kill his father
3- Saddam was a heartless creature.

In what do I base my third reason? In the fact that his troops knew that US would not attack women or children and therefore he used them as shields that he could blow up to his will. He used innocent people for his selfish purposes and that is that. So yes, there's a possibility Bush is an ass, too... I lost a very dear friend in the war. But I stand firm in the fact that, however late, Bush's reaction was necessary. God only knows what he could've done if he hadn't been stopped, and even know after so many lives have been lost it is not certain that he is gone. So next time we're gonna start condemning other people's actions, we should look in ourselves and see what we would've done in their place. Why? Because we, too, are human, and mistakes happen. Maybe he made a mistake. Maybe he planned it like that. It is truly none of my business because what is done is done. And I do believe in the UN, I long to someday be a delegate there. But sometimes, however rough, action must be taken. If you have any comments about my post, feel free to email me or reply in my journal. I can take someone else's opinion over mine. Lee