Out with the old…

by Richard on June 27, 2007

In case you hadn’t heard, Britain has a new Prime Minister. Former Labour MEP Methodist Preacher is pleased.

I think I’ll wait and see.

{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }


Kim 06.28.07 at 6:32 pm

I’ve got a great shout-and-reply for those participating in future demonstrations at Number 10, the House of Commons, etc. (and remember, the new Prime Minister is unrepentant about his support for the war in Iraq - indeed as Chancellor he’s been writing the cheques for it). When my old alma mater Wesleyan University (Middletown, Connecticut) used to play Brown University in sports, the (male) cheerleader would shout, “WHAT’S THE COLOR OF HORSE SHIT?”, and the crowd would shout back, “BROWN!”


dh 06.28.07 at 8:00 pm

What is there to be repentent for? Saddam was a terrible threat to its people and in fact murdered hundreds of thousands of people. At least now people have the freedom to think. They may have a little greater problem with physical safety but at least no one is dictating to them how to live and think. which in my opinion is much better than previously.

You Brits, not referring to you Kim because you aren’t one :), should be happy about Saddam out of power because the French were in fact violating the UN resolutions by trading with Saddam for oil when Saddam was in power. When Saddam got ousted the oil France obtained from Saddam went away. Also, when one looks at the nations who were upset about the War in Iraq, it seems more than a coincidence that those were the nations violating the UN charter by trading with Saddam and getting oil from Saddam. How convenient. However, I think the situation with France is much better with the current Sarkosy government and maybe those type of “actions” will be done away with.

Just some interesting facts I thought I would relay with the current change going on in the UK.

Gordon Brown? He seems rather bland and it will be interesting how his foreign policy will be. Will he be isolationist like some have suggested? I don’t know. If he is it may make the UK more vulnerable to attack. We will see.


Wood 06.29.07 at 12:11 pm

We *are* happy about Saddam out of power. What we are not happy about is a) the fact that our government lied in order to begin the war in the first place (and both the US and UK governments have actually admitted to the fact now, so don’t give us crap about “oh, they were right”) and b) the unholy mess that the war has become.


dh 06.29.07 at 2:33 pm

Well wasn’t the only way to get Saddam out of power after decades of UN negotiations by way of war especially if your dealing with a regime?

Before looking at the following paragraph please read this question.

Well one really must define what a WMD actually is I consider something that destroys a house a WMD and that actually was the definition in 1992 which Saddam violated in 2001. If we use YOUR defintion of something that does greater damage than that then, yes the evidence did not appear to the entire world. To me the “unholy mess” is the fact that we have Islamic Fascist’s in the first place not the fact that the war gets rid of specific people from doing the “unholy mess”.


Wood 06.29.07 at 2:38 pm

Oh, please. You’re just looking for excuses. Semantics mean nothing.

I am not even sad there was a war. I am angry that our politicians lied to start it and I am angry that it has been so comprehensively mismanaged (question: who is a better person to shoot at if you are a US soldier? a. The insurgents; b. The British. Unfortunately, most of the US soldiers seem to think it’s “B”).


dh 06.29.07 at 3:01 pm

I’m not looking for excuses. The fact is they found a bomb casing of a bomb (capable of destroying multiple houses) that was dated 2001. What is your definition of WMD? I really like to know. It seems some people are quick to dismiss this when I would definitely call something capable of destroying multiple houses as a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

It always seems to me people are quick to use the term WMD but no one is quick to give a definition of what they mean by WMD. At least in the UN Resolutions of 1992 it was defined specifically and the US and UK stuck by those definitions all along. However, the definition of the term changed in 1999 and the US and UK didn’t recognize that change at that time. Remember this was under the Clinton administration. Fact is casings of bombs that were WMD under the 1992 definition were found and that is why we acted. So I don’t consider that a lie.

I’m not looking for excuses the fact remains that multiple bomb casing dated 2001 were found in Iraq in clear violation of the UN charter dated 1992.


dh 06.29.07 at 3:04 pm

Wood, I know we disagree and that is okay. I will say that I’m glad you are happy that Saddam is out of power. At least I can at least show that I respect you and not disregard the areas we agree on
. I hope you feel the same toward me. :)

I’m glad you and I are happy that Saddam is out of power. :)


Steve 06.30.07 at 7:38 am


They. Found. No. Such. Thing. The most they could drum up was a few rusting, 15-year-old chemical weapons which were clearly not a part of any arsenal which could comprise WMD. Now, by a very strict, literal definition, yes, you could say that Saddam had violated the 1992 U.N. Resolution by failing to check every back-alley vault where old stockpiles from the Iran-Iraq war were held. However, you would have to be a true Bush administration dead-ender to believe that a few useless chemical weapon shells justified a war that has killed somewhere between 100,000 and 600,000 Iraqis, left the country a failed state, strengthened al Qaida, and destabilized the middle east for most likely the rest of any of our lifetimes.

I usually let it go when you get going on the Iraq war because well, we all know where we stand on it. But I can’t sit by and let you spout lies which have been fed to you by Faux News and the World Nut Daily. Enough is enough.


dh 06.30.07 at 11:18 pm

Steve, it wasn’t lies. They found a box of bomb casings dated 2001 in clear violation of the UN 1992 resolutions. They were not identified as “WMD” because the defintion of the term “WMD” changed in 1999 to be a weapon that did more damge then destroying just multiple homes but made the definition to be city blocks. The weapons found were not “old stockpiles but were found in 2003 unused casings dated 2001. That doesn’t seem “old” to me.

You give these high figures of Iraqi’s. How many of these people that are included in those totals are in fact insurgents and terrorists? I know good many of them are innocent but the problem I have with those who calculate such figures is that they include some who are in fact “instruments of destruction’.

What causes “higher amounts of terrorist activities” are leaders who are passive like Neville Chamberlain and the French government prior to WWII. When you are dealing with a group that desires to kill themselves to dmurder others one must act with an attitude of “kill or be killed’ or the amount of murderous activity WILL increase and another event equivilent to 9/11 will occurr. If you look at terrorist incidents they have occured when terrorists thought they would get away with it when leaders appeared to lack the resolve to “take them on”.

Al Qaida strengthened? I’m sorry I take issue with that. It is a fact that their funds are being dramtically reduced by fighting in Iraq.

Here is a book that really outlines my belief as to how terrorists should be dealt with.



Steve 07.02.07 at 2:42 am


I would be careful in saying that your views come from a book which uses the term “Final Solution” in its title.


dh 07.02.07 at 4:13 am

Steve, the author himself is Jewish by race and Christian by Faith. He was raised by an Orthodox Jewish family and in an interview said he was trying to point out how the Islamofasists are in fact similar to the Nazi’s of WWII not that the response to Islamofacism was that. So he more than clarified his position and in fact is a Jew himself.


Steve 07.02.07 at 7:27 am

As an existential threat, the so-called “Islamofascists” do not even hold a candle to the mechanized death machine of Nazi Germany or the nuclear annihilation threat posed by Soviet Russia. As a matter of fact, the incompetence of the recent attempted attacks in the U.K. underscores the fact that police action, and not military solutions, have done the most to unwind the threat of terrorism throughout the world.

The fact is that the neo-cons’ policies over the course of the past six and one half years have been a total failure. Not every two-bit dictator is Hitler, and not every situation requires an immediate military response.

But the stakes are pretty high for getting it wrong. An ill-advised attack on Iran without exhausting all of the world’s other options could cause a collapse of the global economy with the shutdown of the oil shipments from the Gulf, the loss of the entire American army in Iraq as the Shiites shut off their supply lines in Kuwait, and the radicalization of the youth of yet ANOTHER country (a group that is currently not very radical at all).

Rather than following Mr. Evans’ prescription of “shoot first, ask questions later,” perhaps we should sit back and look at more options this time around? We only need look across the border into Iraq to see what happens when you go Rambo on a country without considering the consequences of doing so.


dh 07.02.07 at 2:55 pm

Steve, I disagree. The book points out that by forcing Al Quada and other Islamofacists to focus in Iraq and Afghanistan that their funds and ability to obtain miltary weapons to do what what was equivilent to 9/11 has been dramtically reduced. They are using up money and armament fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan that they are unable to do what they truly desire. At least that is what the book shows.

I think the incidencts in Scotland point out that if the material used were plastic explosives or some other type of military armament as opposed to gasoline this incident would have been much more destructive than otherwise.

Steve, I get it let them continue to develop more and more weapons in Iran and get stronger. We forget that back in 1992 Israel bombed a supposed muclear facitlity and there were no growing incidents that followed. When we say “attack Iran” it is strategic military airstrikes not the regime change type of attack.


Steve 07.02.07 at 7:37 pm


I’m going to ignore the fact that you seem to believe that the only alternative to military action is doing nothing, as that’s just your core belief. It’s wrongheaded and has gotten us into the current mess we are in, but there’s nothing I’m going to do to change your misguided faith.

Lets just say that I think it’s a wee bit naive to 1) Think that the Bush administration would stop at anything short of regime change by conducting a massive bombing campaign to cripple Iranian infrastructure and 2) Think that Iran wouldn’t respond to ANY attack by formenting Shiite unrest and perhaps invading southern Iraq to cut off U.S. supply lines (leading to the loss of the army) and at the same time sinking enough ships and lobbing enough missles at U.S. allies to completely close the Persian Gulf to oil shipments for months or years.

That leaves us with diplomacy, which, by the way, is a heck of a lot closer to Jesus’ teachings than what you are advocating.


dh 07.02.07 at 8:12 pm

Steve, I never said we shouldn’t continue, before doing a bombing campaign, to pursue diplomacy. In fact that is what we are trying to do now. The Us supports what the UN and EU are trying to do in reference to Iran and Iran continues to spit in the face of even those who aren’t American let alone the americans.

I personally believe if we leave Iraq that Iran WOULD invade Iraq anyway. The US being there is preventing a major military offensive beyond the insurgency between Iraq and Iran. I believe the book addresses that as well.

What does one do when diplomacy doesn’t work? It seems that with Iran that is what is going on.

P.S.: To show a little more balance between us even tho the conclusions between us are different, I differ with the author in that we must find the right time to do a bombing campaign against Iran. I personally believe that diplomacy with Iran is futile but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pursue that fully. I think an attack of Iran is inevitable but I do agree with you on diplomacy with Iran like you. However, I won’t disregard the strong possibility that attacking Iran sometime in the future will be necessary. It is just impossible to negotiate with terrorists who desire to kill themselves in order to murder others. Does that mean we shouldn’t continue to pray? Absolutely not but self defense for the innocent at differnet times is necessary.

We need to pray for the ones who are innocent in Iraq and Iran who don’t support the insurgency or the Iranian regime. We need to continue to stand beside them for their freedom and safety.


dh 07.02.07 at 8:30 pm

Steve, I think you misunderstood my stance on military action. I believe fully in diplomacy it was pursued for over a decade in Iraq before action and in Iran it is currently being pursued with currently no effect. Does that mean diplomacy will not work at all? There is a chance of that but we haven’t exhausted ALL of the aspects of diplomacy with Iran. Once that has been done and no change by Iran is concluded then the West has no choice but to pursue action to prevent nuclear weapons from being used by tyranical regimes.


dh 07.02.07 at 8:32 pm

North Korea has at least agreed with 6 party talks. Iran has never agreed to discuss nuclear weapons with the West. They only want to discuss Iraq. That is not to say that N. Korea will change and get rid of their weapons however, they seem to be “on track” unlike Iran.


Steve 07.02.07 at 11:08 pm

I will agree with you on one thing - we sure do need to pray.

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>