< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: Friday Night Free for All

SIR HUMPHREY'S BLOG

SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Friday, June 10, 2005

Friday Night Free for All

Anyone feel like chatting about anything in particular?

Labels:

Posted by Lucia Maria | 6/10/2005 09:02:00 PM

98 Comments:

Blogger Lucyna said...

If no one says anything, I'm going to delete this post! You have 10 minutes.

6/10/2005 10:05:00 PM  
Blogger Murray said...

We could talk about armour!

6/10/2005 10:22:00 PM  
Blogger GaryH said...

I've been thinking that if Winston is to be the kingmaker, as looks likely, then winning this election might be a bit of a hospital pass to the centre-right (and Brash).

While Labour has been surfing the good economic wave, (that they had no hand in creating), all they have done is play around with social and labour law. They have done nothing to ensure our economic infrastructure can withstand the inevitable downturn that has already started. The main reason for this is that they really don't understand the wealth creating sector - it's all too mysterious to them.

So the next few years are going to be economically hard, and a Nat/NZF/ACT coalition will need time to restructure the economic infrastructure. Too much time, I think.

The instability of any coalition with Winston, coupled with an economic downturn, could make the next government quite short lived.

Maybe it would be better to let Helen go through this process with Winston, then in a short while the centre-right could convincingly bitch-slap the left into a twelve year oblivion, while we fix NZ up for our kids?

Hmmm.

6/10/2005 10:24:00 PM  
Blogger Murray said...

Boy spot Mr Serious.

6/10/2005 10:26:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

OMG. Comments! Have to read them now.

6/10/2005 10:30:00 PM  
Blogger Murray said...

Bwahahahahaha!!!

6/10/2005 10:32:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

I don't know that we'll have much choice, Gary. It'll be up to all the voters and then we'll have to hang on for the ride.

More armour talk.. fine by me. What are you modelling your armour on, Murray? Your own design or something from history?

6/10/2005 10:34:00 PM  
Blogger Murray said...

This stuff is accurate. These ones are Corbridge A style dating from the early 1st Cent.

There's a demand for better quality costumes these days and thats what i'm amking these for. Thats why i use aluminium. Light and no rust.

Corbridge was the main depot for Hadrians wall. It uses straps and bukles where later styles like the Corbridge B use hooks and eyes.

6/10/2005 10:38:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

It was aluminium! It looked like it. My Dad used to work with it - he was a toolmaker.

You do swords too, don't you?

6/10/2005 10:43:00 PM  
Blogger Murray said...

Yes, cast aluminium stunt swords and axes. Also for hire.

And Gnome Homes!

6/10/2005 10:45:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

That must be where the gnomes go at night then. They've been digging holes in my garden lately. Cats sit there and wait for them to come out.

6/10/2005 10:55:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

I would have thought that all the people that are normally too scared to comment would have come out by now.

6/10/2005 10:56:00 PM  
Blogger Murray said...

Thats why i make the Gnome Homes!
http://www.trademe.co.nz/structure/auction_detail.asp?id=28709159

6/10/2005 10:58:00 PM  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

Here I was minding my own business and you had to mention gnome homes.

This on a post discussing Winston as King Maker. I'm not so sure King Maker is the right term GaryH. Winston might be more the e in e-poxy. Sniff enough of that glue and you'll waste a few brain cells.

Murray might be on the right track, with a hire sword.

Sir Winston, with this hire-sword, I annoint you. Tap the left. Tap the right and smite over the crown. A couple of good whacks and its good knight gracie.

Which brings us back to the gnome homes. All right, I'll bite. WTF do they look like? Are they for your garden variety gnome? Do you get matching T-Shirts? "Gnomeless Homes for Homeless Gnomes"

6/10/2005 10:58:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

That's so cute, Murray!

6/10/2005 11:02:00 PM  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

Ahh, I see the link now. Tree not included? How about a cat then?

6/10/2005 11:02:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

No more cats!

6/10/2005 11:03:00 PM  
Blogger Murray said...

Follow the link. No t-shirts yet.

Last time we had Winston is this position I was driving his brother about to all the meetings and my wife was working in a money market.

Everyone where she worked was worried about him going with Labour because they'd all be working overtime dealing with the money going offshore.

We really don't want to be in that position again.

6/10/2005 11:04:00 PM  
Blogger Murray said...

Where's that David Farrar, he's lurking the blogosphere. I can smell it.

6/10/2005 11:05:00 PM  
Blogger Murray said...

And feel free to actually buy a gnome home too. Till someone does there wont be any shopping done around here.

6/10/2005 11:08:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

It seems very quiet, like everyone's off doing * something else * !

I know what it's like, Murray. Self-employed too.

6/10/2005 11:16:00 PM  
Blogger Murray said...

Do you do websites?

6/10/2005 11:17:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

No, not my thing. I'm a database programmer. Can't stand doing all the fidly things to make sites look nice. I written the background stuff before, though.

6/10/2005 11:24:00 PM  
Blogger Murray said...

Oooo database. C++ & VB?

6/10/2005 11:25:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Delphi (object pascal). The closest I've come to VB is VBA, which pretty horrible.

6/10/2005 11:29:00 PM  
Blogger Murray said...

Ah. May have a job for you.

6/10/2005 11:30:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Really? What's the database?

6/10/2005 11:38:00 PM  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

Enough about work. I'm back on the GaryH thread. My post to help Evil Overlords shows how important it is to usurp H1's power, even if it means another unholy alliance...

6/10/2005 11:51:00 PM  
Blogger Murray said...

Mail me we'll chat.

6/10/2005 11:59:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Ok then .. mailed you. Hopefully I've got your email address right.

6/11/2005 12:22:00 AM  
Blogger Richard said...

Lucyna, you claim to live near the "Paramata roundabout" but you can't spell it right!? So, how about blogger drinkies at the Sandbar sometime?

6/11/2005 12:58:00 AM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

I'm technically near it in that to visit my mother or go semi-serious shopping I have to go through it. I'm up the coast more. Where is the Sandbar anyway?

6/11/2005 01:24:00 AM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Oh yeah, 'Paramata' is wrong, it's 'Paremata' isn't it? I'm more used to Parramatta, since I lived in Sydney till a couple of years ago. Returned expat.

6/11/2005 01:35:00 AM  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

All this talk about GGnome Homes and body armour! Sound's like an ACT conference. Did you see Rollover Robbo is going to resign if he doesn't get body armour? But only if it doesn't turn up 'next financial year.' Just in time to use it to quell the chewing gum riots. He'be resigning the day after the election?

6/11/2005 04:43:00 AM  
Blogger Murray said...

Either that or be fired by the new government.

Still waiting for the police to ask for a quote.

6/11/2005 09:39:00 AM  
Blogger Roger said...

Damn. I am sorry I missed this. If I had the first shot I would have said "How 'bout we talk about "The Downing Street Memo", which shows that George wanted to invade Iraq without any evidence etc etc. I probably would have (wrongly) been called a "leftist" or "anti-American" (whatever that means) or something even worse. Name-calling seems to be fun to some people. Oh well.
Here's my favorite part:
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
Ouch!

6/11/2005 10:29:00 AM  
Blogger Roger said...

Here's a link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

6/11/2005 10:29:00 AM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Now that I'm awake and have coffee, no name calling from me, Roger. I'm really not shocked or anything that GW Bush wanted to invade Iraq with no "justification", so to speak. The justification, I've realised, is the strategic nature of Iraq - it was too dangerous to leave it as it was with Saddam in charge.

6/11/2005 10:55:00 AM  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Roger, you sound like a shrivelled up used foreskin from a muelsed Australian merino. Why don't you quote all the other documentation which puts one meo in it's true context of a small preliminary part in a major discussion. Better still, why don't you go and blog somewhere about your plan for the middle east? What would you have done if you were Blair, Bush and all the other heads of state who considered carefully all the evidence, including the real eveidence of the UN having been bought off by the serial resolution abuser? Your comments really are quite pathetic.

6/11/2005 10:56:00 AM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Well, there you go, Roger. Got your insult.

6/11/2005 11:08:00 AM  
Blogger Roger said...

Thanks for being so honest, Adolf, I expected nothing less. Are you saying that unless I have a "plan for the middle east" I am not allowed to voice my opinion or question our leaders? Would you prefer that everyone was silent on this issue, or only people who do not kowtow to Washington like yourself? Now that would be pathetic in my opinion.
And what are you talking about "all the other documentation which puts one meo (memo?) in it's (its?) true context"? The context is clear, a plan to go to war and stuff the consequences.

6/11/2005 11:42:00 AM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

I think the thing is that in the questioning there is this assumption as part of the questioning that all war is bad, therefore it is to be avoided at any cost. I don't know if that is your assumption, Roger, but I would guess that's why you got the reaction you did from Adolf.

6/11/2005 12:07:00 PM  
Blogger Roger said...

I can't help what assumptions Adolf has for whatever reasons. His assumptions are his own problems, and how anyone could assume what you said might be assumed from my original post is beyond me. I assume.

6/11/2005 12:22:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Well, here's a question then. Do you think that beyond a full out attack on the US by Iraq, that the US had no right to invade Iraq?

6/11/2005 12:27:00 PM  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Roger you are wrong. I have no problems at all with my assumptions. You do.

You are being disengenous when you ask if you are not permitted to question our leaders. Of course you are able to do so but you are required to bring some balance to the table. So lets hear it. Do you think Dubbya cooked the whole thing up and then went out and convinced the heads of state and cabinets of how many nations to walk into Iraq and beat up poor old innocent Saddam? And yes, I'd like to hear from you what you would have done in his place. If you are not a leftie then you have put on a very convincing imitation of one.

6/11/2005 01:01:00 PM  
Blogger Roger said...

Lucyna, to answer your question: You ask if I think that beyond an attack on the United States, did the US have the right to attack Iraq? I think that something called the law is relevant here, and to answer this I will quote hawk Richard Perle: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."
What he is saying here is tht invading Iraq was "the right thing" and that "international law" stood in the way of that. Presunably because the war was illegal? Duh?

further to this he said: "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone".

and "'I think Perle's statement has the virtue of honesty,' said Michael Dorf, a law professor at Columbia University who opposed the war, arguing that it was illegal."

At least you can't accuse me of quoting communists or something.

So there you go. NO, the USA did NOT have the "right" to attack Iraq. Thanks for asking.

link to article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html

6/11/2005 06:55:00 PM  
Blogger RightWingDeathBeast said...

What you're saying, Roger, is that Saddam Hussein's sovereignty was more important than the Iraqi people. Yes?

6/11/2005 07:03:00 PM  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Roger, I'm still waiting to hear your answer. What would you have done? If you have no cogent answer then I suggest you are dealing in useless semantics. It's easy to stand on the sidelines and throw shit, isn't it. Bit harder when you are called on to actually perform.

6/11/2005 07:12:00 PM  
Blogger Roger said...

I would have obeyed international law; that is, after all, what ALL countries are expected to do.
I take it that we agree Adolf, that the invasion was illegal?

6/11/2005 08:07:00 PM  
Blogger RightWingDeathBeast said...

Again: What you're saying, Roger, is that Saddam Hussein's sovereignty was more important than the Iraqi people. Yes?

6/11/2005 08:09:00 PM  
Blogger Roger said...

How does it come down to such a simple question? Are you suggesting that that is the only question worth asking when in a situation like this? I think the Iraqi people are important - even the ones that are no longer with us because they had bombs dropped on their heads. Shame they are not here to enjoy their "freedom".

6/11/2005 08:22:00 PM  
Blogger RightWingDeathBeast said...

It's a very simple question. Which takes priority? A country's international law, or the welfare of those within it?

I'll explain it in terms even a dimwitted lefty can grasp:

Let's make two presumptions.

1: Invading Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein was "illegal."

2: Invading Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein was enormously beneficial for the Iraqi people as a whole, and indeed the entire world.

Both these are debatable, but whether they are true or not is irrelevant. You are to presume they are for the purposes of this question.

The war is yet to take place, and Dubya has called you on his red telephone and left the final call to you. Invade? Or not invade? Saddam Hussein's sovereignty? Or the welfare of the Iraqi people? Your call.

6/11/2005 08:37:00 PM  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Roger, for what it's woth, I've seen enough to satisfy me that the invasion was sufficiently legal to be kosher. In the eyes of the politically complicit it will never be leag so what's the point of arguing? I think, on balance , it was the right decision. You think different. Who gives a shit?

6/11/2005 09:00:00 PM  
Blogger Paul said...

Did you folk know that on Net Nanny protected Koru Lounge PC's your links on other sites appears as Sir #########? Weird huh? Didn't know it was a rude word ...

6/11/2005 09:05:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Oh, how funny, Paul! I take it you've been travelling?

Adolf, Roger, I actually think RWDB's question is one of the key questions to understanding the Iraq war. So, waiting for Roger's answer ... no pressure :)

6/11/2005 09:08:00 PM  
Blogger Roger said...

The pressure is starting to get to me, I am breaking out in a rash.
As I said I would obey international law. Don't people harp on about Saddam defying UN sanctions as one of the many reasons to topple him? So what if he did something "illegal" right? No one cares about the pissy little law anyway.
I would support the clearing out of the Kim regime before Saddam any day of the week.
Your callous opinion of international law is a little alarming RWDB. I get the feeling that you think it should be obeyed when it suits you and not when it doesn't.

6/11/2005 09:20:00 PM  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Paul, are you kidding? If the Bilious Bitch is censoring us then we have arrived indeed. That really is bloody funny. No doubt the decision of some junior tick trying to make a name on the ninth before the ultimate defeaat.

6/11/2005 09:23:00 PM  
Blogger RightWingDeathBeast said...

In other words you put the right of a dictator to continue to oppress above the quality of life of those he oppresses. Are you serious? If so roger I'm sorry but you really are a disgusting individual.

6/11/2005 09:27:00 PM  
Blogger Paul said...

Adolf, the slapper owns 85% of the airline so who knows, maybe she is truly "thought-policing" us travelers, DPF's blog is completely banned. Sat behind her on Tuesday morning spent the flight kicking the back of her seat ... was just delicious!

6/11/2005 09:29:00 PM  
Blogger RightWingDeathBeast said...

paul must be the "hump" bit of the word I suppose, though I didn't know netnanny was quite that sensitive.

I guess I'll have to skip my favourite whale sites next time I'm in the koru club.

6/11/2005 09:32:00 PM  
Blogger Roger said...

Tell me RWDB, are there any other regimes in the world at the moment that you would like W. to go in and clean out? Should the USA invade North Korea? Zimbabwe? Uzbekistan (oops, can't invade them, they're allies), China? Cuba? Iran? Helengrad? Where do you draw the line? How much oppression is enough to instigate military action in your view?

6/11/2005 09:33:00 PM  
Blogger Paul said...

lucyna, yes have been traveling, and missed not being able to catch up with what you guys have been talking about (our London colleagues have weird internet access rules!) and if the truth really needs to be known I was in pubs far too much. Given the topic of this post heh, this can't be off topic.

I have a very interesting article from the independent on the French (and subsequently Dutch vote) which I can't find on line which I'd like to reproduce some time. Next time you guys do an EU related post maybe I'll post a summary of it.

6/11/2005 09:43:00 PM  
Blogger RightWingDeathBeast said...

Classic leftist behaviour. When the idiocy and illogic of your argument is exposed, immediately change the subject.

Sorry Saddam's little helper, er I mean roger, but I'm not buying into it. Stay on topic.

6/11/2005 09:44:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

It's ok, Roger, it's just a conversation. Have you read about other wars over the last century, btw? If so, did the reasons for going to war seem a little more clear cut?

I think Roger's having trouble here between when we follow international law and when we don't. The "we" I'm referring to are the various countries of the world that make up the UN. Being a voluntary organisation formed during/after WW2. I personally don't have much respect for the UN.

6/11/2005 09:45:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

If you would like to write something out, Paul, I could post it on your behalf as a topic all by itself.

6/11/2005 09:47:00 PM  
Blogger Paul said...

Lucyna, I will do it tomorrow. Have a great night.

6/11/2005 09:51:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Wonderful!

6/11/2005 09:57:00 PM  
Blogger RightWingDeathBeast said...

Hey Lucyna,

Thank you for posting the link to that Gatto book a while ago. Haven't read all that much of it yet but very very interesting indeed so far.

6/11/2005 09:58:00 PM  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

International Law is so interesting (I need several beers to say that with a straight face).

I note that once huge deposits of oil were discovered off the Indonesian Coast, Australia resigned from the Maritime International Law Charters and reset its maritime boundary to encompass and own half of the oil. It made sure that the people of East Timor were free of the Indonesians, and with the utmost of gratitude from the East Timorese, have been able to work out a "fair" distribution of the oil.

A governments job is to look after its interests, and its people. This seems a fair and reasonable thing to do.

To do nothing could create bigger problems further down the track. Every-one wins in this situation, don't they?

6/11/2005 10:04:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Actually, Roger's touched on another important question - why Iraq, why not North Korea? Zimbabwe? Uzbekistan (oops, can't invade them, they're allies), China? Cuba? Iran? Helengrad?

My answer to that would be which one posed the most immediate threat? Even a country as powerful as the US could not take on the whole world, and including China in that is in essence potentially taking on a super power. Bad strategic move, and not something would do if I was GW.Bush, unless it was abosutely imperative to my survival.

What I think drove the decision was a number of things - the middle east hot bed of discontent against the US that had eventuated in an attack on the twin towers. Strategically, securing Iraq was in their best interests. Sure, it helped out the Iraqi people - but it wasn't done for the Iraqi people, it was done for strategic reasons.

6/11/2005 10:04:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Oh cool, RWDB! I still haven't read the whole thing either (just most of it). I'm thinking of buying a copy at some point so I don't have to read it online.

6/11/2005 10:05:00 PM  
Blogger Roger said...

Yes, RWDB makes out like Bush did it out of the kindness of his heart for the poor Iraqi people. Lucyna is more honest and says it was done for strategic reasons, which I tend to believe over the "helping the poor Iraqi people" angle as advanced by RWDB.

6/12/2005 09:38:00 AM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Yes, but why Bush did it didn't doesn't change the fact that Saddam is gone and that now the Iraqi people will have a chance. I think that's what RWDB was asking you. Forget everything else for the moment, could you support the war because it is actually going to make Iraq a better place?

6/12/2005 10:31:00 AM  
Blogger RightWingDeathBeast said...

"RWDB makes out like Bush did it out of the kindness of his heart for the poor Iraqi people."

I didn't say this roger. But I must note that someone like you who values a dictator's right to stay in power over the lives of 25 million oppressed people must find it very difficult indeed to understand concepts like "kindness of the heart."

Another question for you Roger.

You are driving in a car with somebody when they have some sort of life-threatening fit/seizure. You realize the best option is to drive straight to the hospital for treatment, and that the sooner you get there, the sooner their chances of survival. Would you, at any stage of the drive to the hospital, break the 50 kmh legal speed limit? If so, why?

6/12/2005 10:59:00 AM  
Blogger Roger said...

That question is good RWDB, but to make it an analogy of the Iraqi invasion is the height of stupidity. It would be closer if on the way to the hopsital I ran over several thousand people and killed them.
I got my friend to the hospital but at what cost?
And I also note that you still haven't actually attacked the Downing Street memo itself, prefering to beat up the messenger instead of the message. Typical right-wing behaviour.

6/12/2005 11:59:00 AM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

There's nothing to attack in the Downing Street memo, Roger.

What we've got to now is a difference of opinion as to whether or not the Iraq was was valid.

It sounds like you are against the Iraq war because 1. Doing so was "illegal" and 2. People died as a result.

The thing with wars is that they are all illegal. That's why they are wars. The US kept Saddam contained for .. was it 10 years? before attacking him. During that time Saddam's regime killed more people than the current Iraq war has. If the US had no attacked, most likely more people would have died in Iraq due to Saddam's regime than have died in the war. Doing nothing ensured people died.

6/12/2005 12:11:00 PM  
Blogger Roger said...

All wars are illegal? Not in the case of self-defence, which the Iraq invasion clearly was not. The memo states that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq and fit the evidence around that. I would have thought that would have been a bad thing for a leader in a democracy to do. Oh well. Maybe I am wrong.
One standard for America and another for everyone else here at SirHumphreys.

6/12/2005 12:57:00 PM  
Blogger RightWingDeathBeast said...

roger.

This is like pulling teeth. Why do I bother?

You have told us that you would oppose war EVEN IF it was certain in advance that the benefits far outweighed the costs.

The speeding car question is not an analogy to the Iraq invasion but to your idiotic and immoral "I'd never break even the stupidest law even if doing so would save lives" philosophy.

6/12/2005 01:05:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Roger... *sigh*.

The memo states that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq and fit the evidence around that. I would have thought that would have been a bad thing for a leader in a democracy to do.

This was when Bush was trying to work within the UN framework. Eventually they decided they couldn't work within that framework and did it themselves. It was a defensive war. Do you remember the planes flying into the twin towers by any chance? It could be that prior to that happening they were expecting an escalation in hostilities and had already been planning to go into Iraq again .. remember the first Iraq war? Saddam had proved he could continue to attack countries around him.

This whole thing of, oh we can't attack anyone unless they are standing right in front of us with a gun is silly. If the threat is credible, it's silly to wait for them to come to you.

6/12/2005 01:44:00 PM  
Blogger Roger said...

you believe that Iraq was a threat to the United States? Are you joking?
And are you saying there was a link between the planes flying into the buildings on 911 and Iraq? Are you joking?
Those planes were not hijacked by Iraqis - mainly by Saudis.
Your points are spiralling futher and further from reality.

6/12/2005 02:10:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Yes, exactly. And what would have happened if America had gone after Saudi Arabia with Iraq and Saddam at their back, huh? They knew Iraq was already a problem. They also knew that the attack on the twin towers originated from the middle east.

6/12/2005 02:32:00 PM  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Roger, off you go and find a few hundred mercenaries to help you invade Saudi Arabia. I'm going to go and have a beer. Good byyyyyeeeeeeee.

6/12/2005 02:32:00 PM  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

If I could just throw in a tangent here. What might have happened when the U.N. lifted sanctions off Iraq? Germany and France had already lined up deals (France had already been accused of supplying weapons and trading outside the terms of the Embargo).

I think people's undestanding of leaving Iraq for "business as usual" was not only a case of allowing Saddam to continue his evil ways, but that the balance of power in the middle east would take a very bad turn once France had unfettered access to Saddam .

To flip the argument around for a moment; if Iraq is simply about money for a few US companies, then why are the US still there, burning money and lives, under intense pressure to simply pull out and walk off?

Why do you think so much money was poured into Afghanistan in the early days, when Russia was in there? Why do you think they are there still? If American actions can be explained solely by the profit margin theory of foreign policy, then Afghanistan must confuse the lefties no end. Best to ignore it.

The plus side of all of this Roger is that there is more ability to hold America accountable for its actions than Saddam under Iraq.

What was your plan to stop Saddam?

The best the UN could do was rip off millions of innocent Iraqi by corrupting the oil for food program.

Amnesty suggested emails to Saddam's government urging them to cut out torture.

France and Russia simply wanted to sell more weapons, for a supply of 23% of Iraqi oil.

On balance, I'm siding with America. You can allow yourself the luxury of not taking sides, but I dont agree doing nothing (or continuing with more of the same) is morally defensible, especially with other less scrupulous countries (yes, there are many countries less scrupulous) ready to move in and destabilise the situation even further.

6/12/2005 03:06:00 PM  
Blogger Roger said...

"What was your plan to stop Saddam?" Stop him from doing what? From going where? He was contained, he was going nowhere, he was a threat to no other country in the region, that is the point.

"They also knew that the attack on the twin towers originated from the middle east." That was a rather broad statement! They must be geniuses.

6/12/2005 03:22:00 PM  
Blogger Theprophet said...

Could it be that the fox (America ) attacked the chicken with the broken wing ( Iraq after ten years of sanctions) to show the rest of the chickens in the coop ( Syria, Iran etc ) that you do not mess with the fox ?.
Staying in there under severe pressure from Islamic fighters from all over the world is the price they have had to pay but backdown and withdrawl would be suicide.
Is it just me or does the number of foreign fighters in Iraq and Afganistan seem to be ignored by the world media?.

Allah protect us.

6/12/2005 03:30:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

I think that was part of it, Prophet. Plus the chicken was working very hard to try and be a fox again. I agree with you on the foreign fighers. I think I posted something on that a while back too, on how one of the countries caught some of them before they got to Iraq and gave them back to Saudi Arabia, I think.

Yes, Roger, Iraq was contained. But it was active, on-going containment. Not, as you imply, containment that had been done and no more worries.

6/12/2005 03:41:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Prophet: The western media doesn't talk about foreign terrorists because they rely on immediate US military summaries of engagements, which are unlikely to mention country of origin.

If you want to read about them then best try the Iraqi blogs.

6/12/2005 03:51:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

See what happens while you're away, AL?

6/12/2005 03:57:00 PM  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

Roger: You ask "stop him from doing what?" Like he hasn't ever done anything?

6/12/2005 04:56:00 PM  
Blogger Paul said...

The following item is from The Independent. It illustrates why the EU will probably never progress beyond what it is today, or indeed, regress following the French and Dutch “no” votes to the Constitution. As the article says, Europe is at an historic crossroads. Given the diversity that is Europe, I have formed the view that the EU will probably mean little more than a common currency (the UK excepted) and freer borders, but that is about all.

So, which way for Europe?

Constitutional Europe:
Builds on the status quo with reforms to make the EU work better. Drawn up after more than two-and-a-half years under the chairmanship of the former French president, it is the result of compromises and trade-offs. It combines existing treaties into one text and changes EU decision making structures to help an enlarged EU operate more efficiently. It includes a voting system linked to population size. Nations in favour: Spain, Italy, Greece.

United States of Europe:
It describes a division of responsibility between a central authority and states, regions or provinces. But is usually coupled with the term “superstate” in Britain, or shorthand for closer European integration, for example on the economy, taxation, agriculture and the environment. Nations in favour: Luxembourg, Belgium.

Free Trade Europe:
This is the British model under which European co-operation is limited or kept at an inter-governmental level. The cornerstone is seen as the single market, allowing free movement of goods and eliminating trade barriers. Britain has won new allies with the accession of Eastern European nations which tend to be more Atlanticist in instinct and put greater onus on free markets and competition that social protection. Nations in favour: UK, Poland, Estonia.

Multi-speed Europe:
An idea debated much over the past decade which would allow an inner core of countries, probably based on France, Germany and the Benelux, to forge ahead with closer integration, leaving Britain in the slow lane. It already exists with the single currency and the passport free zone. If France and Germany could agree on common objectives they might use the mechanism to boost economic co-operation in the eurozone. Nations in favour: France, Germany.

60 years ago, who would have thought of a Franco-Germanic alliance? It does explain the “no” vote and clearly Britain is on the outer in Europe. It certainly calls into question the direction of the EU, and from that I think we can expect to see stronger ties between Britain and the USA.

What does this mean for NZ? Well, no matter which way Europe goes, trade will not become any easier for us. A free trade deal with the US is unlikely to happen in my lifetime and just maybe we are right to turn our attentions to Asia. One thing is absolutely for certain, the Commonwealth really means nothing to our traditional partners.

And yes, we will continue to queue in the “Aliens” aisle at Heathrow while Germans et el breeze through passport and visa free – my grandfather will be spinning.

6/12/2005 06:48:00 PM  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

Interesting times Paul.

6/12/2005 07:09:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

What happened to Roger?

6/12/2005 09:35:00 PM  
Blogger Roger said...

He's studying for an exam first thing tomorrow morning.
And then he's off to invade Saudi Arabia - because they supplied most of the September 11 hijackers - with his band of merry men. But he probably wouldn't get very far due to being stopped by Saudi ally and supporter-of-fascists-when-it-suits-them, the United States of America.
I will now ban myself from this blog. Ciao.

6/12/2005 09:55:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Roger, good luck for your exam.

6/12/2005 10:01:00 PM  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

Roger, bad doesn't mean worse. Also, whatever the Saudis do or don't do does not exonerate Saddam.

I wouldn't advise going off to invade Saudi Arabia. Bad idea.

Hope we haven't distracted you from your exam study. Good luck.

6/12/2005 10:18:00 PM  
Blogger Theprophet said...

Rodger must be studying Early Childhood Education and he will pass his exam. Anyone that can throw their toys out of the cot like that has got to do well.

Allah protect us.

6/13/2005 12:39:00 PM  
Blogger Roger said...

Prophet, I never threw my toys out of the cot, and Allah cannot protect you, or us.

6/13/2005 01:51:00 PM  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

"the force is strong in this one"

6/13/2005 10:16:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home