What is Blair up to?

And as boxer says

Turkey, a relatively poor country, was offered twenty billion dollars to be America's bitch, and turned it down.

anti-USism. It's somewhat normal around here.

Compensation seems appropriate. Sums of money much larger than compensation start to look like bribery. I think many people in this country wish Britain had Turkey's moral fibre when it comes to refusing bribes to act against one's conscience.

If you want to talk about moral fib(er|re) as it relates to money, then you need to also address the economic links between Iraq and the dissenting countries.

Indeed, I think it's quite possible that the French government, and maybe the Russian government, are opposing war for reasons of self-interest, among their other reasons. But it seems unlikely to me that 1,000,000 people would demonstrate on the streets of London over a diminishing of the flow of money into the French treasury.

Oh, and getting back on topic - I haven't got a fookin' clue what Blair's up to either

A large part of why the French (and the Germans) are opposing war in the Middle East could be down to the fact that they both have very large Muslim populations -- the French from North Africa, and the Germans have a lot of migrant Turkish workers. Perhaps they're trying not to piss them off?

I can guarantee that if we set the clocks back to September 12th, we'd be going to war with Iraq in a heartbeat, and no one would disagree.

Deep insight...

I don't get why you guys all rip on Bush so much. This is his first term as president... do you think he'd really do this (go to war) if it wasn't the best option?

Remember the Sudentland when Chamberlien came back saying "peace in our time"? Boy was that a flop.

I can guarantee that if we set the clocks back to September 12th, we'd be going to war with Iraq in a heartbeat, and no one would disagree.

Texas death row inmates

now it may look like this war won't get him re-elected, but you know, hindsight and all. And who knows, it could still work for him

what about the fact that the Iraq regime has been known to give money to terrorists, including al Qaeda?

maybe he just wants to screw over our nation and leave office after his first term?

I've never heard or seen anything that led me to believe he has this manifest destiny attitude of which you accuse him. If you can provide it, however, I'd like to see solid evidence that what you say is true.

I think that he thinks that he's doing the right thing. I think he thinks that installing US hegemony in the Middle East would be beneficial for the US. Regardless of whether it is or not, I believe that it is wrong to impose your beliefs on someone else, which is what this action I posit he's making is. In addition, I don't believe that it's beneficial, as it's more likely to piss off more people while installing a new government, a process with which the US does not have a good track record.

If you examine those people, you'll find that many of them were in positions of power before and during that time.

We need to fricking kill the son of a bitch.

You know that if there were white chistian terrorists then nobody would hesitate to say [censored] christianity

However, this piece by John Perry Barlow talking a lot about what I believe that paper shows, before that paper came to light. He claims to have insights into Cheney's thought processes based on their work together and against each other.

their decisions have to be palatable to the American people and the International community

Phew, that's a relief! And there I was, thinking they were about to invade Iraq...

But their actual current actions (or stated intentions) demonstrably aren't. Which punches a big hole in your argument.

I would humbly suggest that getting a gobble in the Oval office is considerably less immoral than invading another nation.

getting a gobble

Please note that I’m not arguing in this post that my own understanding of morality is correct (though of course I believe that it is), only that I don’t believe morals are “personal”.

which is why hate-crime legislation is a crock

what I hear (or see) you saying is that ... there is no right or wrong when it comes to what drives those actions

hate-crime legislation is a crock

Not true. This only provides that we live in a world where we do not all adopt the morals that we should

Damn it!

*cleans water off monitor and keyboard*

Hate-crime legislation is the first step toward prosecution people based on their beliefs instead of their actions.

Everyone not believing the same thing doesn’t PROVE that we’re all not adopting it the way we should, though it is a possible explanation for how there can be an objective moral standard with people having differing opinions as to what it is. Providing a possible explanation refutes your “proof” that everyone having differing opinions means there is no objective moral standard.

It's irrelevant how many popular votes a candidate got. That is NOT how our system works. What matters is legislative votes.

Borda Count Method

you would no longer have the lesser of two evils voting

Bush defrauded the US people

I dodn't mean to say that our system is perfect, only to point out that there was no fraud, as seemed to be implied.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't hate crime prosecution still the prosecution of illegal ACTS, with stiffer penalties applied because of the nature (i.e., "hate") of the act?

If this is the first step down a slippery slope, it is a small step indeed.

I think I could suggest a standard that would come close to making the case. Suppose we defined morality as conforming to a code of ethics that caused the least amount of harm to others?

But there have been instances where a crime was committed that obviously wasn't hate-related, but hate crime legislation was applied to them solely because of the races of the parties involved. I'm not saying that any violent act is okay, but it does bother me that if I killed a black man that I could potentially be more severely punished than if a black man killed a black man.

Suppose we defined morality as conforming to a code of ethics that caused the least amount of harm to others?

I don't think UN would have complained too loudly, if at all. Methods Coalition forces employed were rather far from impeccable (remember Basra road with its 'collareral damage', fabricated news of Iraqi soldiers plundering matenity ward of Kuwait hospital leaving babies on the floor etc), but there was virtually no outcry and that was basically considered (perhaps correctly) as grim but acceptable price to be paid for liberation of Kuwait (whatever that might mean, given the regime there).

used to (who knows nowadays) use cocaine

Remember that time where he was found lying on the floor in his office and he supposedly choked on a chip and hit his head or some such bullshit?

I don't think people that used to (who knows nowadays) use cocaine as highly moral people...

Oh yeah, anyone who has tried drugs must be a horrible person. That would be a very hypocritical comment if you've smoked a cigarette or tried marijuana, but I won't get into that. I'm sure you're perfect anyway

First off, cigarettes are legal, so that doesn't make any sense.

You seem to be confusing morality with legality. Clearly many illegal things are immoral, and vice versa, but defining one in terms of the other doesn't seem like a good idea; it doesn't allow one to speak of "an unjust law", for instance.

will point out that Christianity (which is Bush's faith) teaches to follow the law unless it contradicts God's law. This makes doing drugs in the U.S. a breach of the moral code Bush has chosen to follow.