So government minister Clare Short is against a war in Iraq. That makes the following remarks all the most interesting:
The truth is this is a war. Wars are vile… It’s against an evil, monstrous regime that has caused a terrible war and displacement, raping and killing people. Now it is doing it again. This evil will be reversed. We will succeed, the sooner the better… But we will do what is necessary. It will be done and we will look after people and get them home…Please everyone think what is at stake here… This is a challenge for our generation. We must do what is right otherwise evil will triumph, Europe will have fascism back in it and all the instabilities that will lead to increasing conflict… Please be steady everyone. We’ve got to do what is right and we will do it.
– Clare Short, May 23, 1999, on the need for war against the Serbs (not OK’d by the UN).
So please will someone tell me… why is she opposed to a war to depose Ba’athist Socialism in Iraq? It seem that her claims that the UN must sign off on a war against tyranny did not matter when it came to Slobodan Milosevic, so what makes Saddam Hussain different?
Wars instigated by lefties (with or without UN blessing) = good.
Wars instigated by righties (with or without UN blessing) = evil.
Life becomes so simple when you abdicate logic in favor of a list of rules.
I wonder when people will become aware of the hypocrisy that lefties seem to live and feed on…
There are differences between the bombing of Slobo and Iraq:
a. Solobo did not present a threat to other nations (like the US) he did not engage in international terrorism and did not develop WMD.
b. There were no other interests threatened, such as a disruption of the oil supply.
c. – while Slobo was no angel – neither were his Kosovar (Muslim) adversaries – they did engage in terrorism (before and after the NATO intervention – i.e. – despite the NATO protectorate).
The reason the lefties did not oppose the war on Slobo is: a. he was really weak – no risk, no danger of lengthy involvement. b. there are no great Serb minorities in other countries like there are muslim ones. There are no half a billion Serbs in 20 odd countries worldwide as there are muslims.
Of course – the main reason was the one pointed by S. Weasel – it is _who_ did the war. If it is one of “our” guys (Cilnton) then it’s ok, he is level headed, smart, sophisticated, well informed, well intentioned and trustworthy, while “they” – are moron cowboys, acting irresposibly under uncotrolable impulses, and also have hidden and sinister agendas (Oiiil!).
jacob: but of the points you raise, a. and b. actually make Clare Short’s differing position on the two issues LESS defensible and even MORE inexplicable!
I’m not at all surprised. The hypocrisy of both liberals and conservatives has been pretty obvious, since Clinton was so fond of attacking other countries. The liberals were fine with it then, and the conservatives were objecting. It was even one of Bush’s campaign promises to stop doing it.
It goes beyond just individuals, though. Anyone remember the fuss the French and Germans _didn’t_ put up when NATO attacked Serbia?
One Word “BUSH”.
OK two Words, or “America”.
In America it’s
Bad bombs have an (R) on them for Republican party.
Good bombs have a (D) on them for Democrats and are dropped just before hearings into which woman is sucking Clinton’s cock this week.
Oh… I’m terribly sorry… I didn’t use the new word in the American English language “Lewinsky” to describe oral sex with your intern, legally defined as sexual harassment of your employee, from that hero to America’s feminists… Bill “drop my pants” Clinton who was disbarred for perjury.
Oh and you forgot that the Serbs, the Branch Davidian Cultists, the residents of Ruby Ridge were all “White Christians” and therefore bombing the Serbs, burning the Cultists and their children and putting a sniper round through the head of a 2 year-old child and it’s mother was entirely justified and consistent with Dummocrit party policy.
You think that’s bad? Look at this one:
This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.
I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.
The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government — a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.
The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm’s way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq’s military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.
Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.
Good ole slick Willy said that back in ’98. Odd that he thought Saddam was a threat back then but four years of no inspectors have suddenly evaporated that threat for most lefties now.
Perry: Of course !
Court: Clinton had a wonderful sense of timing – he knows what to say when, acording to public mood. He never says what he beleives, as there is no such thing.
Court: And another thing – Clinton could say what he said, as he had no intention to _do_ anything, to implement what he said. He said it just for the nice feel of saying beautiful things, for the nice sound of the words and sentiments expressed.
Jacob: So are you saying that Clinton was a Frenchman?
Sachem:
No, the French are more discreet, expert and refined in matters of sex.
LOL
A FAIRY TALE
Once upon a time in a nice little forest, there lived an orphaned bunny and an orphaned snake. By a surprising coincidence, both were blind from birth.
One day, the bunny was hopping through the forest, and the snake was slithering through the forest, when the bunny tripped over the snake and fell down. This, of course, knocked the snake about quite a bit.
“Oh, my,” said the bunny, “I’m terribly sorry. I didn’t mean to hurt you. I’ve been blind since birth, so, I can’t see where I’m going. In fact, since I’m also an orphan, I don’t even know what I am.”
“It’s quite OK,” replied the snake. “Actually, my story is much the same as yours. I, too, have been blind since birth, and also never knew my mother.
“Tell you what, maybe I could slither all over you, and work out what you are, so at least you’ll have that going for you.”
“Oh, that would be wonderful” replied the bunny. So the snake slithered all over the bunny, and said, “Well, you’re covered with soft fur; you
have really long ears; your nose twitches; and you have a soft cottony tail. I’d say that you must be a bunny rabbit.”
“Oh, thank you! Thank you,” cried the bunny, in obvious excitement. The bunny suggested to the snake, “Maybe I could feel you all over
with my paw, and help you the same way that you’ve helped me.”
So the bunny felt the snake all over, and remarked, “Well, you’re smooth and slippery, and you have a forked tongue, no backbone and no balls.”
“I’d say you must be French.”
Very interesting post