Tony Blair

[Tuco]

One of the best reasons to get a satellite dish is the BBC. Best news broadcasts bar none.

This morning the BBC broadcast the debate in the English house of commons.

Let me say in advance that I don't agree with what the US and UK are doing. The UN is certainly flawed, but it is still very important to keeping a a world order. It seems illogical to wave resolution 1441 around with one hand as a pre-text for war, while giving the UN the finger with the other hand. IMO, inspections and diplomacy have not been exhausted. Capitulating to France and others in the UN, by giving another month or two to exhaust all avenues is the reasonable answer. Iraq and Saddam will still be there in 60 days.

Blairs' speach was impassioned, intelligent and made me re-consider my positon on several occasions. In short, he did everything that GWB didn't. It's a shame that George doesn't give his people credit for being as intelligent as they are, or at least I hope they are. Blair didn't use the old cliches and double talk that George always uses. It was an appeal to the intelligence of his people, in contrast to Bushs' appeal to the "nationalism" of his people.

I'll be watching the war on BBC this time mostly cause I don't want to be subjected to another patriot missle commercial by the american networks.

Tuco.

[Jimbo]

The UN is certainly flawed, but it is still very important to keeping a a world order. Yes it is doing a great job of keeping a world order now!

[Tuco]

You disappoint me Jimbo. Any insight on why world order is in turmoil?

Could it have anything to do with past and present American foreign policy?

Tuco.

[Jimbo]

Tuco if you are disappointed in me you should surely be disappointed by the UN. Could it have anything to do with past and present American foreign policy? Only insofar as when we have relied on the UN to enforce world order. When we reluctantly take matters into our own hands and suffer poor public relations in order to do what is necessary then the world benefits at the expense of our image. Some things (like popularity) are worth sacrificing for others of greater importance.

[MMMMMM]

It's doubly ironic that the U.N., when called upon to enforce it's resolutions, either: 1) can't or won't enforce them, or 2) enforces them by having the U.S. military do virtually all the work, with a few token troops of other nationalities for show.

In short: the U.N. can't enforce anything unless it uses the U.S. military to do it.

Maybe the U.N. in its current form has long outlived its usefulness.

[John Cole]

Best part is that others get to stand up, ask questions, offer comments, and sometimes engage in general looniness when the speech is finished.

[Dynasty]

The UN is certainly flawed, but it is still very important to keeping a a world order.

Statements like these always bother me.

I don't want the world order which U.N. seeks to build. In the U.N.'s world order, Libya and Khadafy are given the lead on human rights issues.

[MMMMMM]

"I don't want the world order which U.N. seeks to build. In the U.N.'s world order, Libya and Khadafy are given the lead on human rights issues."

This is a very important concept. If we are going to have any kind international body which assumes responsibility for building some kind of world order, let it from the outset be comprised of governments which derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Apparently in Tuco's world view, the governments of the prior USSR, and today's China, Libya and Iraq, have a place in building some kind of super-governing body. They certainly don't in mine.

Further, the concept of a super-governing international body is also fraught with potential peril. Right now, if one finds one's self in some country the government of which one cannot stomach, there is (for many) the chance to emigrate or to simply flee to another country. If instead there were one "world government" that chance might no longer exist.

So let's tread carefully when considering just what the U.N. is, and what it might become.

[Stu Pidasso]

IMO, inspections and diplomacy have not been exhausted. Capitulating to France and others in the UN, by giving another month or two to exhaust all avenues is the reasonable answer. Iraq and Saddam will still be there in 60 days.

I would agree with you 100% If it were 300,000 French troops sitting on the Kuwait boarder and German tax payors footing the multi billion dollar bill. What do I care if French troops have to fight in 110 degree heat wearing chem suits. Its more important for the UN to give a 1.2% extension of the total time Iraq has already recieved in the interest of finding a peaceful solution.

Stu

[andyfox]

M posted a speech by Blair a while back. While I too am in disagreement with Blair's thought on the issue, I agree that he is much better speaker than Bush, and a much less fuzzy thinker.

I don't think it's that Bush doesn't give people enough credit. I think he's policy-challenged. Just not a terribly thoughtful, well-spoken, or intelligent person.