Does destruction of missiles mean war is not needed?

[jack merchant]

Even though I am a member of the one Dutch political party that is fervently in favour of referenda, I must take issue with this. The people elect a government at the polls to look after their interests for a predetermined period. If the people don't like it, that government will no doubt be booted out at the next election. To take heed of opinion polls during the time of the mandate might be common sense most of the time, but not all of the time. Sometimes, difficult decisions need to be taken. My guess is that Blair and Aznar think they will be vindicated in their decisions by the time the next election rolls around, or otherwise, by history.

 

[Kentonio]

But Kentonio, the governments of Brittain and Spain are ignoring the democratic will of the majority of their constituents by siding for a war.

You may well be right although that has not been proved by a full referendum of the said populaces. Even if it is true however personally Im not really too worried about that. There is a good reason why governments are not required in modern democracies to act at all times due to popular opinion and this is to prevent national policies being governed by populist and short term trends. We elect a group of people that we supposedly trust to protect and serve our country, as it happens I did not vote for our current government but I still have confidence in them to act globally on this matter in a way designed to best serve our countries best interests and the interests of the global community in general.

And from a US perspective, it looks to me like in doing so they are playing EU politics for a bigger chunk of the pie that France and Germany control.

It is understandable that you could get that impression from events, but in actuality it is false. Britain will be irreperably hurt in terms of the EU by their stance on this. France and Germany control the mass majority of this undemocratic institution and our strength on this body will be majorly weakened by our opposition of French and German opinion oover the war.

Your list is fine, there are a lot of problem countries in the world. Realpolitik is realpolitik, Bush is free to tell it like it is and stop the pretense of "acting for the forces of good".

I agree to a degree with this but at the same time I seriously do believe that the human angle also places a part in their thinking. Politicians whilst not the most sincere members of humanity do still possess human emotions and are forced do comfront the evils of the world in a much more direct way than the man on the street. Imagine being in power and being shown by your intelligence agencies reports and pictures of the cruelty and torture that is happening in a certain place, you have the power to effect it positively and also have other practical reasons to step in, think how hard it must be to confront that knowledge without wanting to react agaist it.

Kentonio

 

[ellie]

About the polls in england.

I dont believe the public are against a UN backed war. The UN still holds a position of ultimate authority for many in the UK though. So many are uneasy about wars not authorised by the UN. During the war in kosovo, and in afghanistan there wasnt a split on anywhere near this scale.

Theres also a fair bit of sceptism regarding motives, simply because they see blair changing his main justification for war a number of times. Emphasis has been placed on terrorism, 1441, and finally humanitarian reasons at various times during the crisis.

Having said all that, once british troops are fighting i fully expect the public to support them. Respect and support for our servicemen in the UK tends to be very high and quite rightly so.

Ellie

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by Kentonio
I love the way you set aside the UK, Spain, many of the eastern European nations etc who are in favour of this war, and make out like they were coersed into supporting this. That is frankly offensive and shows the same level of arrogance as you are accusing your President of. Funnily enough America isnt the only country on earth that can make up its own mind.

Is it just me, or is Blair going against the will of the whole country? (seems someone else said this too) It's the same here in Australia. What little support John Howard had is dwindling. We have i think much more serious repercussions as in supporting Bush, John Howard is upsetting the regional security that we have, and by making a pointless gesture to Bush, he has made us #4 on the terrorist target list (last i heard). globally, bush has very little support - a few small eastern european nations aren't exactly convincing.

I happen to disagree. I am not a convensionally religious man, and I know very well that the majority of people cannot be simply labelled as good or evil. This is not always the case however, there are some people so sick and capable of such evil actions that they can indeed be branded evil and I have absolutely no problem with them being killed as a result of their actions. We are not talking about someone getting branded evil for nothing we're talking about someone commiting so many foul acts that it is simply not safe for that person to continue to be alive.

Well I might be convinced to label someone who leads an aggressive war by way of invading another sovereign nation as "evil", but that doesn't help your case at all.

And who are you to be able to designate who is good and evil anyway? What gives you the right? The UK doesn't exactly have a spotless record. A country being good or evil is merely the effect of propaganda. Also your comments about the Saudi royals stabilizing the country, couldn't the same be said of the Taliban?

 

[Kentonio]

Well I might be convinced to label someone who leads an aggressive war by way of invading another sovereign nation as "evil", but that doesn't help your case at all.

Ok, so Saddam never invaded Kuwait? Okay then...

And who are you to be able to designate who is good and evil anyway? What gives you the right?

I dont think im alone in believing that those who rape, torture and kill are generally pretty bad people. What gives you the right to suggest that the people who live under the threat of this kind of behaviour should have to put up with it?

The UK doesn't exactly have a spotless record.

Let me just stop you there. In the term of power of our leaders Britain has not to my knowledge viciously repressed its own citizens or anyone elses. I am not suggesting we invade Iraq based on stuff that happened a century or two (or five) ago so why does this apply to Britain?

A country being good or evil is merely the effect of propaganda.

Absolute nonsense, yes propaganda can affect how a country is perceived but that doesnt alter the fact that certain actions are unacceptable and will be punished. Vis a vis your argument a country or leader could commit genocide and not be classed as evil.

Also your comments about the Saudi royals stabilizing the country, couldn't the same be said of the Taliban?

Nope, I dont think the extremism of their rulership and the their immense repression of their people (far in excess of the Saudis) could be considered stabilising.

Kentonio

 

[ellie]

quote
_____
And who are you to be able to designate who is good and evil anyway? What gives you the right? The UK doesn't exactly have a spotless record. A country being good or evil is merely the effect of propaganda.
____

well i dont believe that the atrocities accorded to saddam are just propoganda. It is to our shame that we didnt condemn his actions at the time (gassing of iranians and kurds). But it doesnt change the fact that it was an evil act. All countries have things in their past to be ashamed of btw, britain actively engaged in the slave trade for instance. I believe in australia the UN human rights comittee was critical at the treatment of aborigines.

With regards to going against the will of the people well i admit im uncomfortable at our troops going in outside the UN. Im also a bit uncomfortable that part of england will be used for the missile defence initiative, making us a bigger terrorist target.

Ellie

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Saddam invaded Kuwait after our ambassador, April Glaspie, gave him an ambiguouis sign that the US didn't care what he did with the Kuwait border.

And we removed him from Kuwait and that is that. He hasn't tried to invade anywhere these past 13 years.

 

[Kentonio]

Lmao, so that means its ok? and that everything he's done since is ok?

Kentonio