T. Blair on CBC National

[myata]

I wasn't quite sure where to put this topic: Federal, International, but here's as good as anywhere.

Tony Blair has been quite a bit on the waves of late, publicity wise, culminating in serious interview on this country's public news program, CBC The National: "http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/indepthanalysis/story/2010/09/01/national-tonyblair.html

And so, and once again of countless and bored previous examples, an instigator of unnecessary, pointless and illegal war is busy travelling the world and writing memoirs while more obscure perpetrators of far lesser deeds (from more obscure regions of Africa or East Europe) are being questioned in Haage. This is the travesty we call "justice" these days.

Here's a simple thought experiment:

1. A bad criminal could perhaps take ten lives and spend the rest of their live in jail - if not worse, depending on locality

2. A one of a kind sycho a la Picton could perhaps take a hundred. Such cases will be on the news for years and merit designations like "psychopath" or "monster".

3. Then we have dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Chmer Rouge and so on, who are responsible for millions of lives lost.

And finally, there're T.Blair, G.Bush and such, whose fully conscious and deliberate act has cost more modest, perhaps in tens, in other counts, hundred thousands toll of human life.

And now, the question that really bugs me in the way of understanding the society we live in (and many of us think being a model way of life for others): by what strange, no, bizzare turn of logic we count Cases 1,2,3 as utterly unhuman and in some cases abysmal, worthy of the worst punishment, while #4 should merit well provided retirement and wide publicity events broadcasting the merits of the deed, without slightest possibility to face even the faintest ghosts of "justice"?

I'm lost here and maybe hopelessly. I see a long long road ahead of us before we even start approaching the notions of justice or morality, we so like to teach to (and on occasion, impose on) others.

Edited September 3, 2010 by myata

[August1991]

3. Then we have dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Chmer Rouge and so on, who are responsible for millions of lives lost.

I note, Myata, that you didn't include Winston Churchill's name in that list.

Why not?

Surely Churchill is also guilty of ordering the deaths of many thousands or even hundreds of thousands.

Edited September 3, 2010 by August1991

[eyeball]

Churchill's failing was in siding with a monster to defeat another and we can thank the likes of the Blairs and Bushes for keeping us on this long dreary road.

[M.Dancer]

Churchill's failing was in siding with a monster to defeat another and we can thank the likes of the Blairs and Bushes for keeping us on this long dreary road.

As opposed to not siding with a monster and being defeated by one.

You have the crippled logic of the damned

[myata]

I note, Myata, that you didn't include Winston Churchill's name in that list.

There was no intention to make the list exhaustive.. or even representative. It would probably run pages long if it could ever be defined.

Actually the event was probably the best insight we'll get in a while into how these (and those, in Germany, Kambodia, Rwanda, etc, yada) things may have transpired; have come to be.

Two polite men talking serious, even moral matters, smiling and chatting; while one is directly complicit in inititiating and executing unnecessary and illegal war that took thousands of lives; and nobody cares; or could do anything about it.

All is a matter of abstraction; the right terminology. With that, everything is possible. No limits, or boundaries and who cares about talk. Thanks CBC for illustrating, and affirming it yet again with this remarkable interview.

No, we didn't leave anywhere... it was all an illusion of movement. If we cannot stop a gratuitous, illegar war; even duped into supporting it; and executing it with hired hands, we're still there in the same old place where might is the equivalent and synonim of the right. Does it really make slightest difference what we came up with a new and better word to call it?

Edited September 3, 2010 by myata

[Guest American Woman]

I note, Myata, that you didn't include Winston Churchill's name in that list.

Why not?

Surely Churchill is also guilty of ordering the deaths of many thousands or even hundreds of thousands.

I note, too, that no Canadian PM's made the list.

Canada has been involved in these conflicts/wars, too, out of choice.

[dre]

I note, Myata, that you didn't include Winston Churchill's name in that list.

Why not?

Surely Churchill is also guilty of ordering the deaths of many thousands or even hundreds of thousands.

Churchills war wasnt an act of aggression though... kinda different.

[eyeball]

As opposed to not siding with a monster and being defeated by one.

Or letting two monsters cancel each other out.

You have the crippled logic of the damned

You have the cement headedness of the faithful.

[bloodyminded]

You have the cement headedness of the faithful.

Ain't that the truth. How does one argue with what is at bottom unwavering religious Faith?

Edited September 4, 2010 by bloodyminded

[eyeball]

How does one argue with what is at bottom unwavering religious Faith?

Principled conviction.

[M.Dancer]

Or letting two monsters cancel each other out.

It is apparent that History and Eyeball are strangers. Either that or Eyeball would have been fine with allowing the Nazis to dominate europe, extermeninate the jews and attack and defeat the friendless Soviet Union while Imperial Japan conducted scientific experiments of chinese peasants and turned korean women into whores.

[August1991]

There was no intention to make the list exhaustive.. or even representative. It would probably run pages long if it could ever be defined.

blah, blah, blah...

So, does Churchill have blood on his hands?

I note, too, that no Canadian PM's made the list.

Canada has been involved in these conflicts/wars, too, out of choice.

Whatever. Edited September 5, 2010 by August1991

[Sir Bandelot]

Churchill reminds us of the ugly truth of what is called "necessary evil". But Tony Blair needs to know there is a special place in hell for people like him. No doubt, that's why he converted to catholicism...

[bush_cheney2004]

Whatever.

Whatever? As in no, Canada didn't have a role in killing "millions" ? Or yes, as in Canada is assumed to have killed with great vigor for God and King?

[eyeball]

It is apparent that History and Eyeball are strangers. Either that or Eyeball would have been fine with allowing the Nazis to dominate europe, extermeninate the jews and attack and defeat the friendless Soviet Union while Imperial Japan conducted scientific experiments of chinese peasants and turned korean women into whores.

Please. The freedom-loving democracies have done more than their fair share of harm and were certainly no stranger to domination, rape or slavery either, some even gave extermination a shot too. If you've seen one rogue nation you've seen them all.

As for your poor friendless people of the Soviet Union, cry them a river why don't you. We happily abandoned them to Stalin long before anyone had even heard of Hitler. If you've heard one chicken-shit lame-assed argument for appeasement you've heard them all. What's your's?

Edited September 5, 2010 by eyeball

[bloodyminded]

So, does Churchill have blood on his hands?

Whatever.

BACKGROUND: In 1917, following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the British occupied Iraq and established a colonial government. The Arab and Kurdish people of Iraq resisted the British occupation, and by 1920 this had developed into a full scale national revolt, which cost the British dearly. As the Iraqi resistance gained strength, the British resorted to increasingly repressive measures, including the use of posion gas.] NB: Because of formatting problems, quotation marks will appear as stars * All quotes in the excerpt are properly footnoted in the original book, with full references to British archives and papers. Excerpt from pages 179-181 of Simons, Geoff. *IRAQ: FROM SUMER TO SUDAN*. London: St. Martins Press, 1994:

Winston Churchill, as colonial secretary, was sensitive to the cost of policing the Empire; and was in consequence keen to exploit the potential of modern technology. This strategy had particular relevance to operations in Iraq. On 19 February, 1920, before the start of the Arab uprising, Churchill (then Secretary for War and Air) wrote to Sir Hugh Trenchard, the pioneer of air warfare. Would it be possible for Trenchard to take control of Iraq? This would entail *the provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs calculated to cause disablement of some kind but not death...for use in preliminary operations against turbulent tribes.*

Churchill was in no doubt that gas could be profitably employed against the Kurds and Iraqis (as well as against other peoples in the Empire): *I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.* Henry Wilson shared Churchills enthusiasm for gas as an instrument of colonial control but the British cabinet was reluctant to sanction the use of a weapon that had caused such misery and revulsion in the First World War. Churchill himself was keen to argue that gas, fired from ground-based guns or dropped from aircraft, would cause *only discomfort or illness, but not death* to dissident tribespeople; but his optimistic view of the effects of gas were mistaken. It was likely that the suggested gas would permanently damage eyesight and *kill children and sickly persons, more especially as the people against whom we intend to use it have no medical knowledge with which to supply antidotes.*

Churchill remained unimpressed by such considerations, arguing that the use of gas, a *scientific expedient,* should not be prevented *by the prejudices of those who do not think clearly*. In the event, gas was used against the Iraqi rebels with excellent moral effect* though gas shells were not dropped from aircraft because of practical difficulties [.....]

Today in 1993 there are still Iraqis and Kurds who remember being bombed and machine-gunned by the RAF in the 1920s. A Kurd from the Korak mountains commented, seventy years after the event: *They were bombing here in the Kaniya Khoran...Sometimes they raided three times a day.* Wing Commander Lewis, then of 30 Squadron (RAF), Iraq, recalls how quite often *one would get a signal that a certain Kurdish village would have to be bombed...*, the RAF pilots being ordered to bomb any Kurd who looked hostile. In the same vein, Squadron-Leader Kendal of 30 Squadron recalls that if the tribespeople were doing something they ought not be doing then you shot them.*

Similarly, Wing-Commander Gale, also of 30 Squadron: *If the Kurds hadn't learned by our example to behave themselves in a civilised way then we had to spank their bottoms. This was done by bombs and guns.

Wing-Commander Sir Arthur Harris (later Bomber Harris, head of wartime Bomber Command) was happy to emphasise that *The Arab and Kurd now know what real bombing means in casualties and damage. Within forty-five minutes a full-size village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured.* It was an easy matter to bomb and machine-gun the tribespeople, because they had no means of defence or retalitation. Iraq and Kurdistan were also useful laboratories for new weapons; devices specifically developed by the Air Ministry for use against tribal villages. The ministry drew up a list of possible weapons, some of them the forerunners of napalm and air-to-ground missiles:

Phosphorus bombs, war rockets, metal crowsfeet [to maim livestock] man-killing shrapnel, liquid fire, delay-action bombs. Many of these weapons were first used in Kurdistan.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHU407A.html

[eyeball]

I note, too, that no Canadian PM's made the list.

Canada has been involved in these conflicts/wars, too, out of choice.

Feel free to note them. Speaking for myself, when I mention 'the West' in these sorts of discussions, please take it as a given that I'm including Canada.

The minute we sign a treaty with an ally, all of that ally's baggage becomes our's. All of it.

[bloodyminded]

Feel free to note them. Speaking for myself, when I mention 'the West' in these sorts of discussions, please take it as a given that I'm including Canada.

Me too.

What's interesting, in another way, is that when one says "the West," many people immediately assume one means "America."

Which says somehting about their foci and obssessions, not mine. "The West" means "America," evidently.

Similarly, when people say something like "the international community agrees," they don't mean 190+ countries: they usually mean between three and six.

[Sir Bandelot]

Me too.

What's interesting, in another way, is that when one says "the West," many people immediately assume one means "America."

Which says somehting about their foci and obssessions, not mine. "The West" means "America," evidently.

Similarly, when people say something like "the international community agrees," they don't mean 190+ countries: they usually mean between three and six.

Ditto that. Its quite clear. I don't believe its fair to place guilt on all the people of a nation, so that if we were to say "Canada is also to blame for the death of millions", it does not mean that all Canadians are to blame.

[bloodyminded]

Ditto that. Its quite clear. I don't believe its fair to place guilt on all the people of a nation, so that if we were to say "Canada is also to blame for the death of millions", it does not mean that all Canadians are to blame.

Agreed.

Some people get very sensitive over the geopolitical entities we call "countries."

[bush_cheney2004]

Ditto that. Its quite clear. I don't believe its fair to place guilt on all the people of a nation, so that if we were to say "Canada is also to blame for the death of millions", it does not mean that all Canadians are to blame.

...but you...ditto....never actually say it much. The "West" flows far more easily and avoids having to make the direct references to "Canada". That's where I come in...

[Guest American Woman]

What's interesting, in another way, is that when one says "the West," many people immediately assume one means "America."

Which says somehting about their foci and obssessions, not mine. "The West" means "America," evidently.

I find it's usually the other way around, people refer to the U.S. when it's really the West; and when it's pointed out that it's the west, not the U.S., the comeback is usually something along the lines of 'well, the U.S. led the other nations, or 'it's the U.S.'s influence' or some such thing.

So I'm really curious as to who the "many people who immediately assume the West means America" are.

Also, I've found that most people refer to "the West" when including Canada. Rarely do I see "Canada" singled out. That's why I noted the lack of any Canadian PM's mentioned by name in this thread, while American presidents did make the cut.

[bloodyminded]

I find it's usually the other way around, people refer to the U.S. when it's really the West; and when it's pointed out that it's the west, not the U.S., the comeback is usually something along the lines of 'well, the U.S. led the other nations, or 'it's the U.S.'s influence' or some such thing.

So I'm really curious as to who the "many people who immediately assume the West means America" are.

We already had this conversation...today.

Frequently when I talk about "the West," the two moral rtelativists I mentioned earlier will scorn me for my "anti-Americanism."

That's on them, not me; that tells us something about their view of the world, not mine.

Also, I've found that most people refer to "the West" when including Canada. Rarely do I see "Canada" singled out. That's why I noted the lack of any Canadian PM's mentioned by name in this thread, while American presidents did make the cut.

But this has nothing to do with me.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Also, I've found that most people refer to "the West" when including Canada. Rarely do I see "Canada" singled out. That's why I noted the lack of any Canadian PM's mentioned by name in this thread, while American presidents did make the cut.

No way...they just don't like to do it. They will admit to Canadian roles and partnership, but only reluctantly. So American voters are held accountable for their government's choices, but not Canada's. Even when dragged kicking and screaming to the reality of Canadian foreign policy and economic complicity, they shrug it off as less in magnitude.

[Sir Bandelot]

No way...they just don't like to do it. They will admit to Canadian roles and partnership, but only reluctantly. So American voters are held accountable for their government's choices, but not Canada's. Even when dragged kicking and screaming to the reality of Canadian foreign policy and economic complicity, they shrug it off as less in magnitude.

No, we blame our leaders for being "pro-American".