Cocaine Knights

OK this puts an end to the bullshit.

2006-04-23T09:01:00.000-07:00

If the US attacks Iran it will be illegal, no 'ifs', 'ands' or 'buts'. And, therefore the person who authorises it will be someone who has committed a crime against international law, involving miltary action, or, as it is known colloquially, war. In other words a war criminal.

' Foreign Office lawyers have formally advised Jack Straw that it would be illegal under international law for Britain to support any US-led military action against Iran.'

And support means: 'It is thought their advice stretched to the use of British military advisers, UK airspace and even the dangers of Tony Blair expressing support which could be taken as legitimising a US-led attack without the express authority of the United Nations. '

Thank you.

Even those who think they are free are really slaves

2006-04-21T14:29:00.000-07:00

Clive James remarked somewhere (talking, I think, of Greece after Alexander the Great) that even the Greeks who thought they were free were really slaves.

'The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill has already passed its second parliamentary reading without interest to most Labour MPs and court journalists; yet it is utterly totalitarian in scope.

Presented by the government as a simple measure for streamlining de-regulation, or "getting rid of red tape", the only red tape it will actually remove is that of parliamentary scrutiny of government legislation, including this remarkable bill. It will mean that the government can secretly change the Parliament Act and the constitution and laws can be struck down by decree from Downing Street. Blair has demonstrated his taste for absolute power in his abuse of the royal prerogative, which he has used to bypass parliament in going to war and in dismissing landmark High Court judgements, such as that which declared illegal the expulsion of the entire population of the Chagos islands, now the site of an American military base. The new bill marks the end of true parliamentary democracy; in its effect, it is as significant as the US Congress last year abandoning the bill of rights.'

But enough of that drivel! Booooooooooooooooring. Let's have some real news.

There is nothing more to say.

2006-04-21T06:51:00.000-07:00

No, but really.

'There is now no great secret about how the administration took the United States to war, and none about Blair's reason for supporting Bush. As the Labor politician Aneurin Bevan would have said, why look into the crystal ball when you can read the book? British troops are in Basra because of something Blair knew and something he believed.

He knew that Washington was going to invade in any case, and he believed that "it would be more damaging to long-term world peace and security if the Americans alone defeated Saddam Hussein than if they had international support to do so." So he told one London journalist, telling another that he was worried about an American drift toward unilateralism and that his mission was to embrace Bush so as to "keep the United States in the international system."
The harder these arguments are looked at, the more curious they seem. You don't say: "My big brother is a crazy kind of guy. On Saturday night he likes to get blind drunk and drive through town at 90. It would be more damaging to peace and security if he acted alone than if he had my support, so I'll go along with him for the ride." Either Washington was doing something wise and virtuous, in which case it should have been supported for that reason, or not, in which case should have been restrained and, if necessary, opposed. As to binding the Bush administration into the international order, judge for yourself. '

And even worse:

'But the deepest flaw of all in Blair's position was pointed out by Robin Cook three years ago. Cook was Blair's first foreign secretary from 1997 to 2001, when he was demoted, just possibly because his absolute loyalty was already suspect, and in the spring of 2003 he became the one important member of Blair's government to resign in protest at the war, not long before his sudden and untimely death. In his resignation speech in parliament, Cook made the lethal, obvious point that the invasion would not be taking place if Al Gore were in the White House. Blair's "crazy big brother" position boils down to saying, absurdly, "My policy is to stand by the American adminstration at all times. I loyally and uncritically supported the decision of President Bush to invade Iraq, just as I would have loyally and uncritically supported the decision of President Gore not to invade Iraq." '

Glenn Reynolds didn't leave the reality based community: it left him.

2006-04-20T05:20:00.000-07:00

I know it's impossible but try reading this without continually thinking about who wrote it. Oh but 9/11 changed everything......

History repeats itself

2006-04-19T03:49:00.000-07:00

The first time as farce, the second time as tragedy.

'THE American military is planning a "second liberation of Baghdad"......'

Didn't Bill Murray do a movie about this?

Hitler as Humanitarian

2006-04-17T06:00:00.000-07:00

Hitler's speeches are well worth reading (i.e. in English). Why is it that when the are given to us for our disapproval it is mainly in the original German with no subtitles? Is it because his angry, frothing at the mouth delivery is so alien to the British/American mindset that it is felt that no further comment is necessary? Or is it the German language itself (all those 'ch' sounds) that makes the speeches so unappealing?
In any case, speaking as a 21st century Brit, Hitler seems to represent such an alien, bizarre, incomprehensible figure, coming from a political culture which I could never understand, and those black and white (always black and white) untranslated newsreels rams that home.
But in a sense that's a pity, because if you actually read translations of his speeches, you begin to get a sense of why he was so popular, and why the Germans (many of whom probably thought of themselves as good Christians) voted for him in such large numbers.

This will be the first in an occasional series, to make three (I think) basic points. First the speech, then the first point.

'Since then (i.e. the invasion of Poland) five weeks have gone by. I have asked you to come here today in order to give you an account of what has passed, the necessary insight into what is happening at present and, so far as that is possible, into the future as well....I forbade the sacrifice of more human lives than was absolutely necessary. That is to say, I deliberately released the German Supreme Command from adherence to a principle still observed in the Great War demanding that for the sake of prestige certain objectives must under all circumstances be reached within a certain time limit. ...There would have been no difficulty for us in breaking the resistance of Warsaw between the 10th and 12th of September, just as we finally broke it September 25-27, only that in the first place I wanted to spare German lives and in the second place I still clung to the hope, misdirected though it was, that the Polish side might for once be guided by responsible common sense instead of by irresponsible lunacy. But in this instance we were once more confronted with the spectacle which we had witnessed before on the largest possible scale.
The attempt to convince the responsible Polish command - in so far as it existed - that it was futile and in fact insane to attempt resistance, especially in a city of more than a million inhabitants, proved entirely fruitless. A 'generalissimo,' who himself took to inglorious flight, forced upon the capital of his country a resistance which could never lead to anything but its destruction.
Since it was realized that Warsaw's fortifications alone were not likely to withstand the German attack, the entire city was converted into a fortress and barricaded in every direction. Batteries were mounted in every square and great courtyard, thousands of machine-gun posts manned and the whole population called up to take part in the fighting.
Sheer sympathy for women and children caused me to make an offer to those in command of Warsaw at least to let civilian inhabitants leave the city. I declared a temporary armistice and safeguards necessary for evacuation, with the result that we all waited for emissaries just as fruitlessly as we had waited at the end of August for a Polish negotiator. The proud Polish commander of the city did not even condescend to reply.
To make sure, I extended the time limit and ordered bombers and heavy artillery to attack only military objectives, repeating my proposal in vain. I thereupon made an offer that the whole suburb of Praga would not be bombarded at all, but should be reserved for the civilian population in order to make it possible for them to take refuge there.
This proposal, too, was treated with contempt on the part of the Poles. Twice I attempted to evacuate at least the international colony from the city. In this I finally succeeded after great difficulties, in the case of the Russian colony, actually at the last moment. I then ordered a general attack on the city for September 25. '

The basic point is this: Hitler, no less than any other invader, stressed the moral nature of his method of warfare, his concern for civilians, and (according to him) ordered the attack on Warsaw only when provoked into it by wicked Polish commanders. Therefore, according to Hitler, the civilian casualties were a direct consequence not of his own attack but of the recalcitrent nature of the Poles.

The point of this post will become clearer as we see more of Hitler's rhetoric.

Initial Posting

2006-03-21T02:40:00.000-08:00

Well, here we go again. This will NOT be a blog endorsing the use of Cocaine (heaven forbid....), but will instead be an extremely annoying and opinionated look at politics, culture and so forth from a position that would (in the States) be probably be described as 'outraged liberalism'.