Are you comfortably numb?

Friday, May 26, 2006

Blair and Bush on Iraq and the Un

So, Blair and Bush are gonna face the music today and admit that they made "mistakes" over Iraq. What mistakes does Bush admit he made?

President Bush regretted his early challenge to the insurgents in July 2003: "Bring 'em on."

He described it as "kind of tough talk ... that sent the wrong signal to people."

"I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner (sic), you know. 'Wanted, dead or alive' - that kind of talk. I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted. And so I learned from that."


Given another Washington hawk stated that America had a 'list of countries that owed them a blood debt' they wanted to attack a couple of years ago, I don't really think we misinterpreted George's words or got the wrong signal. As for expressing yourself in a "little more sophisticated" manner, I'm not sure that's going to happen any time soon.

Also, Bush stated that 'I want him [Tony Blair] to be here as long as I'm the president'. For all his love of democracy, it appears Mr President wants to make the decision on when Blair should leave, rather than leave it to our (semi)democratically elected representatives.

The UN reform that Blair is proposing could also be quite scary.

Mr Blair will put forward the case for "values based interventionism" in the name of democracy and human rights...


That's basically code for: 'Mr Blair will put forward the defense for his invasion of Iraq in order to justify future similar wars, for financial gain in the name of democracy and human rights'. Which I think is revealed by the next quote:

"The prime minister would present the US-British invasion and occupation of Iraq, another source said, not as an aberration but as "the natural core of a values-based interventionist foreign policy."


More UN reforms proposed include adding Brazil, Germany, India and Japan as permanent members of the security council, although the US only want 1 or 2 added. If they still want unanimity that could be complicated, especially with Germany in the mix, although the fact that they aren't yet a permanent member is a hangover from the World Wars if ever I saw one.

Blair will also propose that the powers of the General Secretary are expanded, which developing countries oppose. The GS would also not rotate around the continents but be chosen from a 'global pool' of candidates. No prizes for guessing who'd have the impetus in choosing them. It could be a very scary situation if a pro-America hawk gets elected General Secretary and can then influence the budgets of hundred UN agencies.

This 'radical reform' could lead to the UN becoming just another puppet of the IMF and World Bank, aside from already being America's bitch. Great solution though... don't get something ratified by the UN, so what do you do? Change the UN!

4 Comments:

  • Just out of curiosity... If Blair and or Bush were to actually get something right, as unlikely as that may seem, would you sing their praises? or do you think that it's too little too late, and that they are beyond forgiveness?

    By Blogger mrjohnfernandez, at 12:37 pm  

  • 'the natural core of a values-based interventionist foreign policy'.

    AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!
    GONNA SAVE... ANOTHER FUCKIN' DAY NOW! AMERICA! FUCK YEAH! GONNA SAVE ANOTHER FUCKIN' DAY NOW!

    So we're 'World Police' along with the US, kicking the shit out of countries that don't share our values? What ARE our values?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:24 am  

  • "Also, Bush stated that 'I want him [Tony Blair] to be here as long as I'm the president'. For all his love of democracy, it appears Mr President wants to make the decision on when Blair should leave, rather than leave it to our (semi)democratically elected representatives."

    What's wrong with stating a preference? and also... "here"? Meaning around? In power?

    Also... "Mr Blair will put forward the case for "values based interventionism" in the name of democracy and human rights...

    That's basically code for: 'Mr Blair will put forward the defense for his invasion of Iraq in order to justify future similar wars, for financial gain in the name of democracy and human rights'. Which I think is revealed by the next quote:

    "The prime minister would present the US-British invasion and occupation of Iraq, another source said, not as an aberration but as "the natural core of a values-based interventionist foreign policy."

    More UN reforms proposed include adding Brazil, Germany, India and Japan as permanent members of the security council, although the US only want 1 or 2 added. If they still want unanimity that could be complicated, especially with Germany in the mix, although the fact that they aren't yet a permanent member is a hangover from the World Wars if ever I saw one."

    Careful with reading into what people are saying here... "That's basically code for..?"

    Furthermore... "the fact that they aren't yet a permanent member is a hangover from the World Wars if [you] ever saw one." Could it not be something to do with differences in both foreign and economic policy as well as other key issues of difference between the parties? Things are rarely as black and white as I fear you often see them.

    Now you're the editor of a newspaper as well, you have to remember that your job should be one of unbiased objectivity, allowing parties to state each and every case prior to throwing them to the dogs.

    It would be refreshing to hear or read, "I can see their point" rather then, they're wrong and that's that...

    Whats with the anon comment as well... don't you edit your comments prior to posting... I occassionally delete comments... it's my own form of censorship...! Go Big Brother!

    By Blogger mrjohnfernandez, at 11:46 am  

  • I didn't mean for the above to sound anywhere near as harsh as it does... I'm sorry.

    By Blogger mrjohnfernandez, at 3:40 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home