...put out the lights on the Age of Reason

[mrph]

That's that, then. Perhaps I'm being pessimistic, but I've just read the reports on Blair's latest speech -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2652033.stm

So, if any country applies an "unreasonable or unilateral" block at the UN, the UK will carry on and join the USA taking action against Iraq. To me that sounds very much like "if we lose the vote, or if any of the permanent members use their veto, we'll carry on regardless...". Also see the quote from Richard Perle, basically saying that the Weapons Inspectors don't matter - we know they won't find anything (because the weapons are hidden, of course), so the results of their search are irrelevant.

It's not much consolation that Blair will potentially lose his job if he takes that route, is it?

Comments

[zarbi.livejournal.com]

I'm terribly indecisive about this. I really don't believe Blair is, at heart, a 'Bad Guy'. To define 'Bad', consider Thatcher - inviting her good friend Pinochet to tea. At least Blair is considering doing nasty things to highly nasty people, and Saddam is a very, very nasty person indeed, who has no hesitation in gassing and murdering his own people (even members of his own family) in order to retain power. There is lots of suffering in Iraq, but it could be stopped instantly by a change of policy by the Iraq government - after all, its an oil-rich government, and there is no shortage of money.

On the other hand, I disagree with (so far) everything that George Bush Jr has said and done: I think his government is dangerously right-wing and corrupt.

So, I don't know what to think. This kind of dilemma makes me want to fulfil my long-term ambition to emigrate to France - a highly rebellious country that hates almost everyone else, especially the USA.