2007-05-21
Blair vs Carter
This is what Carter had to say about Blair:
"When asked to characterise the close relationship between the US and British leaders, the former Democratic president said: "Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient.""
Right. As unbelievable as it sounds, we kicked over stones the world over, and we actually managed to find one single decent left-wing politician who cared enough about Saddam's torture chambers and rape rooms to put an end to them. I'm not exactly sure why I've never mentioned him before. I've been focussing on Bush for so long that I never thought to stop and thank Blair. Sorry Tony! I love you! Believe it or not, I probably have as many differences with Bush as I do with Tony. Their foreign policy is basically identical so I've never had to choose one. And I am mainly concerned with foreign, not domestic policy. Because the people who are in grave danger are all foreign. They're the people I'm trying to get to. Everyone in our countries just needs to dial 000 or 911 or or 999 or 112 to get their human rights protected.
There was one disturbing thing I heard from the British government, which was talk about how they're not they're not going to repeat Iraq in Iran. I'm not sure who that came from so may not be Tony's final opinion. Regardless, it was said so long ago that it doesn't matter. We need a fresh statement from them to see what they think about a December strike.
However, one thing I did hear from Tony, or the British (can't remember) was someone saying that the murder rate in Iraq was higher now than it was under Saddam, and Tony/British replying "the difference is that the murders are not state-sanctioned anymore". This is the absolute heart of the matter. The Iraqi government will eventually get a grip on crime. It has been empowered to do that. But there wasn't a damn thing the Iraqi people could do about Saddam's crimes. A criminal had taken over an entire country and held it hostage, and no-one could do anything about it. And that is the worst sort of murder. Murder which you can't report to the police, because it's the police doing the murder. Having someone you know murder is bad enough already, without finding out that it isn't even illegal and there's no-one interested in helping you obtain justice. Living like that is not living. In other words, Tony gets it. He's on my side. On the side of justice.
Speaking of justice, let's look what Carter has come up with:
"Mr Carter was US president from 1977 to 1981. He won the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize for what presenters cited as decades of work towards peace and economic justice."
Economic justice, eh? Would taking away Saddam's access to the entire Iraqi nation's oil revenue and putting it in the hands of the Iraqi people count towards "economic justice"? If so, when will Bush get his Nobel Peace Prize? If you want people to have improved standard of living, we have working models already in South Korea and Taiwan. What has Carter done to install sensible economic policies (ie capitalism) across the world? Has he been telling the African dictators that if they don't copy Taiwan immediately, he's going to ask the US President to topple them? That would actually make a difference.
But in keeping with tradition for the Peace Prize, ie giving it to terrorists like Arafat and Mandela, the Nobel goons have given it to Carter, someone who supports Palestinian terrorism against Israel, at least while he's sucking from the Saudi teat.
How do the Americans vote people like this into office? Next they'll be nominating a Soviet agent like John Kerry as President without batting an eyelid. Oops.
|
"When asked to characterise the close relationship between the US and British leaders, the former Democratic president said: "Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient.""
Right. As unbelievable as it sounds, we kicked over stones the world over, and we actually managed to find one single decent left-wing politician who cared enough about Saddam's torture chambers and rape rooms to put an end to them. I'm not exactly sure why I've never mentioned him before. I've been focussing on Bush for so long that I never thought to stop and thank Blair. Sorry Tony! I love you! Believe it or not, I probably have as many differences with Bush as I do with Tony. Their foreign policy is basically identical so I've never had to choose one. And I am mainly concerned with foreign, not domestic policy. Because the people who are in grave danger are all foreign. They're the people I'm trying to get to. Everyone in our countries just needs to dial 000 or 911 or or 999 or 112 to get their human rights protected.
There was one disturbing thing I heard from the British government, which was talk about how they're not they're not going to repeat Iraq in Iran. I'm not sure who that came from so may not be Tony's final opinion. Regardless, it was said so long ago that it doesn't matter. We need a fresh statement from them to see what they think about a December strike.
However, one thing I did hear from Tony, or the British (can't remember) was someone saying that the murder rate in Iraq was higher now than it was under Saddam, and Tony/British replying "the difference is that the murders are not state-sanctioned anymore". This is the absolute heart of the matter. The Iraqi government will eventually get a grip on crime. It has been empowered to do that. But there wasn't a damn thing the Iraqi people could do about Saddam's crimes. A criminal had taken over an entire country and held it hostage, and no-one could do anything about it. And that is the worst sort of murder. Murder which you can't report to the police, because it's the police doing the murder. Having someone you know murder is bad enough already, without finding out that it isn't even illegal and there's no-one interested in helping you obtain justice. Living like that is not living. In other words, Tony gets it. He's on my side. On the side of justice.
Speaking of justice, let's look what Carter has come up with:
"Mr Carter was US president from 1977 to 1981. He won the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize for what presenters cited as decades of work towards peace and economic justice."
Economic justice, eh? Would taking away Saddam's access to the entire Iraqi nation's oil revenue and putting it in the hands of the Iraqi people count towards "economic justice"? If so, when will Bush get his Nobel Peace Prize? If you want people to have improved standard of living, we have working models already in South Korea and Taiwan. What has Carter done to install sensible economic policies (ie capitalism) across the world? Has he been telling the African dictators that if they don't copy Taiwan immediately, he's going to ask the US President to topple them? That would actually make a difference.
But in keeping with tradition for the Peace Prize, ie giving it to terrorists like Arafat and Mandela, the Nobel goons have given it to Carter, someone who supports Palestinian terrorism against Israel, at least while he's sucking from the Saudi teat.
How do the Americans vote people like this into office? Next they'll be nominating a Soviet agent like John Kerry as President without batting an eyelid. Oops.
# posted by Paul Edwards @ 22:59 
