Features

Brandon · #1

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comme...189906,00.html

Why we must never abandon this historic struggle in Iraq

Tony Blair
Sunday April 11, 2004
The Observer

We are locked in a historic struggle in Iraq. On its outcome hangs more than the fate of the Iraqi people. Were we to fail, which we will not, it is more than 'the power of America' that would be defeated. The hope of freedom and religious tolerance in Iraq would be snuffed out. Dictators would rejoice; fanatics and terrorists would be triumphant. Every nascent strand of moderate Arab opinion, knowing full well that the future should not belong to fundamentalist religion, would be set back in bitter disappointment.

If we succeed - if Iraq becomes a sovereign state, governed democratically by the Iraqi people; the wealth of that potentially rich country, their wealth; the oil, their oil; the police state replaced by the rule of law and respect for human rights - imagine the blow dealt to the poisonous propaganda of the extremists. Imagine the propulsion toward change it would inaugurate all over the Middle East.

In every country, including our own, the fanatics are preaching their gospel of hate, basing their doctrine on a wilful perversion of the true religion of Islam. At their fringe are groups of young men prepared to conduct terrorist attacks however and whenever they can. Thousands of victims the world over have now died, but the impact is worse than the death of innocent people.

The terrorists prey on ethnic or religious discord. From Kashmir to Chechnya, to Palestine and Israel, they foment hatred, they deter reconciliation. In Europe, they conducted the massacre in Madrid. They threaten France. They forced the cancellation of the President of Germany's visit to Djibouti. They have been foiled in Britain, but only for now.

Of course they use Iraq. It is vital to them. As each attack brings about American attempts to restore order, so they then characterise it as American brutality. As each piece of chaos menaces the very path toward peace and democracy along which most Iraqis want to travel, they use it to try to make the coalition lose heart, and bring about the retreat that is the fanatics' victory.

They know it is a historic struggle. They know their victory would do far more than defeat America or Britain. It would defeat civilisation and democracy everywhere. They know it, but do we? The truth is, faced with this struggle, on which our own fate hangs, a significant part of Western opinion is sitting back, if not half-hoping we fail, certainly replete with schadenfreude at the difficulty we find.

So what exactly is the nature of the battle inside Iraq itself? This is not a 'civil war', though the purpose of the terrorism is undoubtedly to try to provoke one. The current upsurge in violence has not spread throughout Iraq. Much of Iraq is unaffected and most Iraqis reject it. The insurgents are former Saddam sympathisers, angry that their status as 'boss' has been removed, terrorist groups linked to al-Qaeda and, most recently, followers of the Shia cleric, Muqtada-al-Sadr.

The latter is not in any shape or form representative of majority Shia opinion. He is a fundamentalist, an extremist, an advocate of violence. He is wanted in connection with the murder of the moderate and much more senior cleric, Ayatollah al Khoei last year. The prosecutor, an Iraqi judge, who issued a warrant for his arrest, is the personification of how appallingly one-sided some of the Western reporting has become. Dismissed as an American stooge, he has braved assassination attempts and extraordinary intimidation in order to follow proper judicial process and has insisted on issuing the warrant despite direct threats to his life in doing so.

There you have it. On the one side, outside terrorists, an extremist who has created his own militia, and remnants of a brutal dictatorship which murdered hundreds of thousands of its own people and enslaved the rest. On the other side, people of immense courage and humanity who dare to believe that basic human rights and liberty are not alien to Arab and Middle Eastern culture, but are their salvation.

Over the past few weeks, I have met several people from the Iraqi government, the first genuine cross-community government Iraq had seen. People like Mrs Barwari, the Minister of Public Works, who has just survived a second assassination attempt that killed her bodyguard; people like Mr Zebari, the Foreign Minister. They are intelligent, forward-looking, tolerant, dedicated to their country. They know that 'the occupation' can be used to stir up anti-coalition feeling; they, too, want their country governed by its people and no one else. But they also know that if we cut and run, their country would be at the mercy of warring groups which are united only in their distaste for democracy.

The tragedy is that outside of the violence which dominated the coverage of Iraq, there are incredible possibilities of progress. There is a huge amount of reconstruction going on; the legacy of decades of neglect is slowly being repaired.

By 1 June, electricity will be 6,000MW, 50 per cent more than prewar, but short of the 7,500MW they now need because of the massive opening up of the economy, set to grow by 60 per cent this year and 25 per cent the next.

The first private banks are being opened. A new currency is in circulation. Those in work have seen their salaries trebled or quadrupled and unemployment is falling. One million cars have been imported. Thirty per cent now have satellite TV, once banned, where they can watch al-Jazeera, the radical Arab TV station, telling them how awful the Americans are.

The internet is no longer forbidden. Shrines are no longer shut. Groups of women and lawyers meet to discuss how they can make sure the new constitution genuinely promotes equality. The universities eagerly visit Western counterparts to see how a modern, higher-education system, free to study as it pleases, would help the new Iraq.

People in the West ask: why don't they speak up, these standard-bearers of the new Iraq? Why don't the Shia clerics denounce al-Sadr more strongly? I understand why the question is asked. But the answer is simple: they are worried. They remember 1991, when the West left them to their fate. They know their own street, unused to democratic debate, rife with every rumour, and know its volatility. They read the Western papers and hear its media. And they ask, as the terrorists do: have we the stomach to see it through?

I believe we do. And the rest of the world must hope that we do. None of this is to say we do not have to learn and listen. There is an agenda that could unite the majority of the world. It would be about pursuing terrorism and rogue states on the one hand and actively remedying the causes around which they flourish on the other: the Palestinian issue; poverty and development; democracy in the Middle East; dialogue between main religions.

I have come firmly to believe the only ultimate security lies in our values. The more people are free, the more tolerant they are of others; the more prosperous, the less inclined they are to squander that prosperity on pointless feuding and war.

But our greatest threat, apart from the immediate one of terrorism, is our complacency. When some ascribe, as they do, the upsurge in Islamic extremism to Iraq, do they really forget who killed whom on 11 September 2001? When they call on us to bring the troops home, do they seriously think that this would slake the thirst of these extremists, to say nothing of what it would do to the Iraqis?

Or if we scorned our American allies and told them to go and fight on their own, that somehow we would be spared? If we withdraw from Iraq, they will tell us to withdraw from Afghanistan and, after that, to withdraw from the Middle East completely and, after that, who knows? But one thing is for sure: they have faith in our weakness just as they have faith in their own religious fanaticism. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us.

It is not easy to persuade people of all this; to say that terrorism and unstable states with WMD are just two sides of the same coin; to tell people what they don't want to hear; that, in a world in which we in the West enjoy all the pleasures, profound and trivial, of modern existence, we are in grave danger.

There is a battle we have to fight, a struggle we have to win and it is happening now in Iraq.

mburbank · #2

We are locked in a historic struggle over my staying PM. On its outcome hangs more than the fate of the Iraqi people, but also my political future. Were we to fail, which we will not, because the British have never failed in Iraq before and also because I'm psychic, it is more than 'the power of America' that would be defeated. It would also be me. The hope of freedom and religious tolerance in Iraq would be snuffed out as would the hope of Monkeys falling out of my ass when I bend over, and cows giving choclate milk. Dictators would rejoice; fanatics and terrorists would be triumphant, as ever they are when you don't obey my every command without question. Every nascent strand of moderate Arab opinion, which we have up to now scorned and have not now or ever before contacted in any way, since we prefer dictatorships and monarchical dynasties as allies... I'm sorry, I lost my train of thought. What was I saying? Oh, yes:

If we succeed, and yes, now I say if even though I just promised we would - if Iraq becomes a sovereign state, governed democratically by the Iraqi people and the majority don't vote for a religous theocracy and there isn't a devastating civil war and the monkeys falling out my ass drink deeply of the chocolate milk; the wealth of that potentially rich country, their wealth; the oil, their oil, are controlled by our largest corporate behemoths; the police state replaced by the rule of law and respect for human rights reinforced by the closure of newspapers and detention without charge by our armed forces... - imagine the blow dealt to the poisonous propaganda of the extremists and the reinforcement of our own, marginally less poisoness propoganda. Imagine the propulsion toward change it would inaugurate all over the Middle East. Go on, imagine it. Now Clap! CLAP IF YOU WANT TINKERBELL TO LIVE, YOU BASTARDS!

In every country, including our own, the fanatics are preaching their gospel of hate, basing their doctrine on a wilful perversion of the true religion of Islam. Thankfully, good Christians know nothing of this woggish, nearly Irish distortion of God's will. At their fringe are groups of dusky young men prepared to conduct terrorist attacks however and whenever they can. Thousands of victims the world over have now died, but the impact is worse than the death of innocent people. It has actually called the policies of empire, economic hedgemony, and cultural superiorty into question. Plus it's cut into my practice of lying whenever I choose and this is intolerable. It almost made my friend George Bush cancel one of his vacations. I'm kidding, of course.

The terrorists prey on ethnic or religious discord. If only we could teach them the tolerance to play on class. From Kashmir to Chechnya, to Palestine and Israel, and in fact everywhere but Old Blighty, they foment hatred, they deter reconciliation. In Europe, they conducted the massacre in Madrid. They threaten France, but that's not enough to make up for Madrid. I'm kidding, that was just a joke, relax you crossiant eating street urinators. They forced the cancellation of the President of Germany's visit to Djibouti, where, I am told there is excellent golf. They have been foiled in Britain, but only for now, and only thanks to me. Vote for anyone else, and you will surely be blown to smithereens.

Of course they use Iraq. It is vital to them. If I had it to do over agin, perhaps I wouldn't have helped hand them the whole damn country on a chaffing dish. It may have been a mistake. As each attack brings about American attempts to restore order, so they then characterise it as American brutality. And in the event of actual brutality, thankfully, we can characterize it an attempt to restore order. As each piece of chaos menaces the very path toward peace and democracy along which most Iraqis want to travel, I think most anyway, we haven't asked, but believe you me, Iraqis love us the way they way you yanks ate up Davey Jones and the Beatles; I'm sorry, I'm off again. Anyone? Oh yes, yes, the battle inside Iraq itself.

So what exactly is the nature of the battle inside Iraq itself? Seriosuly, because I'm very confused, what with the Sunistas and the Shitites and Free Turdistan. Can't tell one damn camel jockey from the next, really. Best to let on they're just one unanimous democracy loving blob and a few bad apples. Bad as India.

This is not a 'civil war', though undoubtedly they to try to provoke one. So if they do provoke a civil war, it won't ever actually be a real one, which is good for us, becaause civil war in raq would be a fucking disaster. The current upsurge in violence has not spread throughout Iraq. Just a good bit of it. It won't spread any further though. Trust me. I mean, why would it? Much of Iraq is unaffected STOP THAT SNICKERING! The insurgents are former Saddam sympathisers, angry that their status as 'boss' has been removed, terrorist groups linked to al-Qaeda and, most recently, followers of the Shia cleric, Muqtada-al-Sadr. But that's it! No more groups coming in, this is all we're fighting, high hosey dibseys, no more on your side. No fingers crossed, no go back, teams are final.... NOW!

The latter is a fundamentalist, an extremist, an advocate of violence. He is wanted in connection with the murder of the moderate and much more senior cleric, Ayatollah al Khoei last year. We meant to arrest him earlier, but we were busy. The prosecutor, an Iraqi judge, who issued a warrant for his arrest, is the personification of how appallingly one-sided some of the Western reporting has become. Most Iraqis are just like this man, who has a kissing poster of Paul Bremmer over his bed. The woggies all love us. Except for the terrorit, dead enders, baathist hold outs, followers of Mocha Chock Sadar, and all the people who are mad becuase we killed people they loved, or bombed their houses, or occupy their country.

There you have it. On the one side, outside terrorists, an extremist who has created his own militia, and remnants of a brutal dictatorship which murdered hundreds of thousands of its own people and enslaved the rest. On the other side, people who love us unconditionally and want nothing more than paler skin, video games and Beyonce. Thank Christ it's that simple, otherwise we might be well and truly fucked.

Over the past few weeks, I have met several people from the Iraqi government, the first genuine cross-community government Iraq had seen. They are three of the sweetest people you'll ever meet, they speak unaccented English and thank god wear odor free modern dress. If you squint, you can almost pretend they're English, until one of them lets loose with a stream of that Ja-ja-ja they call a language. Oh, well, not the potter but the potters clay and all that.

The tragedy is the coverage of Iraq which our absurd 'freedom of the press' makes it very difficult to control. Luckily we've given them no such rights over there, so it's not a complete bollox. There is a huge amount of reconstruction going on; Our own offices look splendid, so a big thanks to the Yanks at Halliburton and we'll be going over the bill with a fine tooth comb. the legacy of decades of neglect and a month or so of intense bombing is slowly being repaired. Very slowly. So don't call us because we know and we'll get to it. Don't you trust us?

By 1 June, electricity will be 6,000MW, 50 per cent more than prewar, but short of the 7,500MW they now need because of the massive opening up of the economy, set to grow by 60 per cent this year and 25 per cent the next. My Ass Monkeys will make sure of it, and chocolate milk all 'round for afters.

The first private banks are being opened. Those in work have seen their salaries trebled or quadrupled and unemployment is falling. One million cars have been imported.And that's just in America, so vote Bush! In Iraq, Thirty per cent now have satellite TV, once banned, where they can watch al-Jazeera, the radical Arab TV station, telling them how awful the Americans are. but I'm sure we'll do something about that soon. Many of them are now watching "The Apprentice", "The Simple Life" and "East Enders" re-runs, so soon they should be as malleable and indifferent as our own voters

The internet is no longer forbidden, which is good, as porography is wonderfully distracting, and not just for me. Groups of women and lawyers meet to discuss how they can make sure the new constitution genuinely promotes equality. Sometimes the women even pull down the eye slitsa bit which while alarmingly provovative, does allows them to see the lawyers better. It's a vacation paradise, and I'm not going to make the whole 'ass monkey' allusion again, but honestly, it's fucking heaven, just one constant orgasm. Did I mention they have the internet?

People in the West ask: why don't they speak up, these standard-bearers of the new Iraq? Why don't the Shia clerics denounce al-Sadr more strongly? I understand why the question is asked. But the answer is simple: they are Arabs. They remember 1991, when the West left them to their fate. They know their own street, unused to democratic debate, rife with every rumour, and know its volatility, despite the 'forget our past betrayal' gas M5 cooked up and swore would work. They read the Western papers and hear its media, and know as I do that they are the cause of all the violence. And they ask, as the terrorists do: How can reasonable decent people not unquestiningly obey the will of Tony Blair?

I believe they should. And the rest of the world must put a sock in it. I mean, take a lesson, France. How do you say 'shock and awe' in French, you simple froggy bastards? Give me an excuse that's all I'm saying, cheese eaters. And if the Jerry thinks I'm not talking to him as well, I'll hack his fucking legs out from under him. None of this is to say we do not have to learn and listen. But we don't. There is an agenda that could unite the majority of the world. It would be about pursuing terrorism and rogue states on the one hand and allowing me to deffine who the terrorists and rouge states are without question on the other: the Palestinian issue; poverty and development; democracy in the Middle East; dialogue between main religions, can wait. Right now it's a bit of the old ultra-violence.

Our greatest threat, apart from the immediate one of terrorism, is questioning me. When some ascribe, as they do, the upsurge in Islamic extremism to Me, do they really forget who killed whom on 11 September 2001? When they call on us to bring the troops home, do they seriously think that this would slake the thirst of these extremists, to say nothing of what it would do to my staying PM? Did the crusaders just say "All right, I'm taking my ball and going home."?

Or if we scorned our American allies and told them to go and fight on their own, that somehow we would be spared? I mean, maybe if we'd never gone along with the war in the first place like most of you wanted, sure, but now? If we withdraw from Iraq, they will tell us to withdraw from Afghanistan and, after that, to withdraw from the Middle East completely and, after that, who knows? Why, one day, the sun might actually set on our shores. But one thing is for sure: they have faith in our weakness just as they have faith in their own religious fanaticism. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us. Thank God it's that simple. And thank God doubly I'm in charge and way too old to be cannon fodder.

It is not easy to persuade people of all this; They keep asking impertenant questions. I'm all for spreading democracy, but it's possible we spread it on a little too thick here. Don't think I won't change that if need be. To say that terrorism and unstable states with WMD are just two sides of the same coin; Even when the WMD side of the coin turns out to be blank, to tell people what they don't want to hear; that, in a world in which we in the West enjoy all the pleasures, profound and trivial, of modern existence, the vast majority of dusky, woggy bastards who crawl this mudball and refuse to recognize our ownership want to wear our guts for garters, the jealous bastards.

There is a battle we have to fight, a struggle we have to win and it is happening now in Iraq. I wish I had a stronger ending. I really should have put more effort into this. I mean, I know it's no 'fight you on the beaches' but Jesus. Sometimes I'm so disapointed in myself. "There is a battle we have to fight...' Yeah, Tony, that's going on the base of a fucking monument, i'n it? Fuck.

Brandon · #3

It's good that I didn't have to listen to Blair's arguments or anything because, as Max pointed out, he's racist, fascist, and just plain stupid for not agreeing with the America-hating leftists surrounding him!

mburbank · #4

It's good that I didn't have to listen to Max's parody or anything because, as Brandon pointed out, satire is content free and rarely if ever based on anything at all. Jokes aren't based on subtext, and political humor rarely has any point at all. That's why political satire is just about body noises and cursing and none of the humor is derived from the pomposity and lies of it's subjects. Oh, and PS I'm being sarcastic in case you ddin't notice so when I say 'good' I really mean 'bad'.

-Brandon

AChimp · #5

Max, I must put that on my site.

Brandon · #6

Quote:

Originally Posted by mburbank

It's good that I didn't have to listen to Max's parody or anything because, as Brandon pointed out, satire is content free and rarely if ever based on anything at all. Jokes aren't based on subtext, and political humor rarely has any point at all. That's why political satire is just about body noises and cursing and none of the humor is derived from the pomposity and lies of it's subjects. Oh, and PS I'm being sarcastic in case you ddin't notice so when I say 'good' I really mean 'bad'.

-Brandon

It's funny but it's just the same jokes people have been using against Bush and Blair for some time now.

"THE U.S. AND U.K. ARE FASCISTS!"

"BUSH AND BLAIR ARE RACISTS WHO THINK MUSLIMS ARE INFERIOR!"

"WE ONLY CARE ABOUT OIL!"

Big Papa Goat · #7

Are you the new OAO yet?

Brandon · #8

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Papa Goat

Are you the new OAO yet?

Who the hell are you again?

KevinTheOmnivore · #9

Someone who I think has been around a lot longer than you, if I'm not mistaken.

Why do we post/read/bother with these pieces written by the government officials?? I mean, I posted the one Rumsfeld wrote a few weeks ago mainly for a lark, but does it come as any surprise that Tony Blair would (gasp) write up a piece rationalizing his decisions? I'll give him credit, one eloquent editorial by Blair is more convincing for me than 10 speeches by President Bush. That doesn't change the fact that I think they're both wrong, and seeing Blair restate the same things he stated before, during, and after the war has little sway on me. I'm just as much a sucker for pretty words and feel good liberalism as the next guy, but that doesn't change the substance of things for me.....

mburbank · #10

"THE U.S. AND U.K. ARE FASCISTS!"

"BUSH AND BLAIR ARE RACISTS WHO THINK MUSLIMS ARE INFERIOR!"

"WE ONLY CARE ABOUT OIL!"

See, now, those aren't jokes. Statements re way different than jokes and make their point or don't in a far different way.

You might as well say "A Modest Proposal" is just

"POVERTY IS BAD! LET'S BE MORE COMPASSIONATE!"

Although I'm certainly no Swift. I think you will find though, that every joke in my version was given an opening by what Blair actually said. This is precisely how satire works. The jokes are only funny if they play off of the reality. You may not agree, which is fine, but as I say at the end, I don't think this article is Winston Churchill. He put more craft and effort into his utilitarian political speech.

The_Rorschach · #11

I thought Artificial Brandon had been around at the EZbourd site under a different name Kevin. . .But I could be mistaken.

In any case, I think Blair is at an impasse and has a conflict of interest. Whether he is right or wrong in the stance he has taken, and I would believe he erred greatly, he is left in the position of defending it. A good orator can bend reason, facts and philosophy to suit their whims of the moment, and I think the above was an attempt from Blair towards similar aims.

"The World Would Be A Better Place" is not an argument which holds water. Probabilities to not determine realities. Objectively, one must admit that we are not furthering any manner of absolutes through our military actions in the Middle East, but rather forcing our philsophical ideals upon an unwilling nation with-holding conflicting views which has already embraced its own manifest destiny.

Protoclown · #12

Max, that was absolutely beautiful

Brandon · #13

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Rorschach

"The World Would Be A Better Place" is not an argument which holds water. Probabilities to not determine realities. Objectively, one must admit that we are not furthering any manner of absolutes through our military actions in the Middle East, but rather forcing our philsophical ideals upon an unwilling nation with-holding conflicting views which has already embraced its own manifest destiny.

How beautifully nihilistic of you. The problem is that our values are better values than those of dictators and theocrats; and I wager that they're more or less universal human values. You can't seriously argue that people under a dictator ENJOY it.

mburbank · #14

People are fickle. Dictatorship is no longer their problem. Occupation is their problem now.

As for values, everyone think theirs are universal. No matter how much better our values may be, forcing values is a contradiction in terms.

Brandon · #15

Quote:

Originally Posted by mburbank

People are fickle. Dictatorship is no longer their problem. Occupation is their problem now.

Yeah, we're working on that.

Quote:

As for values, everyone think theirs are universal. No matter how much better our values may be, forcing values is a contradiction in terms.

Heaven forbid we force things like free speech and equal rights for the sexes.

davinxtk · #16

Heaven forbid a nation that consists almost entirely of a single religion be a theocracy.

AChimp · #17

Brandon, you are full of crap. You can't make people accept things that they don't want. We're ignoring the most important right of all: the right to not have rights.

If they want a dictatorship for government, I say let them have one.

The_Rorschach · #18

Thought is Free, Speech is restricted. A Navy kid I served with got billed eight hundred for having a Swatstika bumper sticker on his Benz not too long ago. The charges had something to do with Hate Speech or some such. I afraid I didn't take notes because I wasn't overly interested by it, but the point isn't any less valid for the stupidty of the parties involved.

You speak of equality for the sexes, but really, how equal are they? Maybe its my Existentialist inclination showing, but the equality is superficial at best. What is the measuring stick? Physical expectations? Cerebral capacity? Pay checks and occupations?

These are all very nice ideas, I suppose, but the rights you are championing aren't even held dear in the country which inititially espoused them. They are used and abused by individuals in order to further selfish aims.

If you want to turn Iraq into a beaurocratic bedlam of litigation and materialism, power to you, but I fancy we'd be doing far more harm than leaving them be.

Brandon · #19

Quote:

Originally Posted by davinxtk

Heaven forbid a nation that consists almost entirely of a single religion be a theocracy.

Yeah, heaven forbid! Are you familiar with Sharia law, davin? Well, I'll give you a taste.

In Saudi Arabia, they can execute adulteresses by stoning and homosexuals by hurling them off rooftops.

Oh, another Saudi example? In a school with a capacity of 200, roughly 800 girls were in class (they're women, just cram em in!) when a fire broke out. The girls, who ran to the fire exit without covering themselves according to muslim law, were met with police officers outside, who clubbed them back into the flames. Plenty died, all were horribly burned.

So yeah, theocracy would be just swell, eh?

Oh, by the way, I could easily make the argument that since America is predominantly Christian, WE should be a theocracy.

Brandon · #20

Quote:

Originally Posted by AChimp

Brandon, you are full of crap. You can't make people accept things that they don't want. We're ignoring the most important right of all: the right to not have rights.

If they want a dictatorship for government, I say let them have one.

The problem is: they don't want one.

The_Rorschach · #21

"In Saudi Arabia, they can execute adulteresses by stoning and homosexuals by hurling them off rooftops. "

Thats like saying in America ******s can be dragged by a truck for eight miles. Honour Killings are outlawed in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and most Middle Eastern nations. Simply because it is still practised is no reflection on the nation itself.

Unless you want to use the Appalachians as a control group for the American Model.

AChimp · #22

Oh really? So why didn't they overthrow him themselves? Have you ever wondered WHY Saddam ruled such a fractured country the way he did, other than the typical kneejerk reaction "He was a dictator! Bad!"

Iraq is made up of a whole bunch of different ethnic groups that all hate each other. You either have to make them get along with force or let them fight each other.

Brandon · #23

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Rorschach

Thought is Free, Speech is restricted. A Navy kid I served with got billed eight hundred for having a Swatstika bumper sticker on his Benz not too long ago. The charges had something to do with Hate Speech or some such. I afraid I didn't take notes because I wasn't overly interested by it, but the point isn't any less valid for the stupidty of the parties involved.

You speak of equality for the sexes, but really, how equal are they? Maybe its my Existentialist inclination showing, but the equality is superficial at best. What is the measuring stick? Physical expectations? Cerebral capacity? Pay checks and occupations?

Equality under the law.

Quote:

These are all very nice ideas, I suppose, but the rights you are championing aren't even held dear in the country which inititially espoused them. They are used and abused by individuals in order to further selfish aims.

So anything less than perfection is crap? You're really not giving the U.S. enough credit.

Quote:

If you want to turn Iraq into a beaurocratic bedlam of litigation and materialism, power to you, but I fancy we'd be doing far more harm than leaving them be.

Because abject poverty is much more preferable than facing the HORRORS of CAPITALISM and DEMOCRACY!