Sailing close to the flame

March 18, 2003 4:41 AM

At what point does a government have to stop and wonder if it's judged the mood correctly?

The UK government manages to bribe a rebel with a cushy job, but not one, not two, but three other MPs walk away from the government in one day. Are things going wrong in the UK?
posted by twine42 (63 comments total)

she's toast. if blair doesn't sack her in the next few days she'll be gone in the may reshuffle.
posted by quarsan at 4:43 AM on March 18, 2003

I am watching Blairs address to the HoP right now...I think I'm gonna fall asleep...
posted by stew560 at 4:45 AM on March 18, 2003

I know this will fall into a war based flamefest, but before that happens, can we concentrate on the question of government and when a government should back down and listen to people around them?

The latest figures suggest 44% of people are against war. But only 37% are for war. Is nopt listening to the people going to come back and bite Blair in the arse?
posted by twine42 at 4:45 AM on March 18, 2003

Contrast and compare the honesty of Cook with the arrogance, duplicity and hubris of Blair and his pathetic cronies.

The Liar Blair believes that when this war has been won, those who previously voted for him, since shafted, will return - Never forget.
posted by niceness at 4:48 AM on March 18, 2003

stew: agreed... he's sounding dull. And tired. And very slightly desperate...

I think this link will work if anyone is bored enough to listen...
posted by twine42 at 4:49 AM on March 18, 2003

You see the advantage that Labour have is that the opposition isn't opposing. The "not in my name" element of the Parliamentary Labour Party are effectively presenting the opposition to the Labour Government. Politically, this means that there's little real political pressure on Labour itself, though the Blair premiership looks wobbly...
As for the resignations, Cook was fantastic last night, Short can't possibly be credible but Blair's too wounded to get rid of her and make her a martyr, and even John Prescott on Today said he hadn't heard of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and didn't realise he was a minister.
posted by brettski at 4:55 AM on March 18, 2003

Anyone else noticed how often he's ignoring the point, and having to say 'in a minute' to people heckling that he's not answering the question? ;)

[channel four news has just flashed up that Saddam has refused the ultimatum to leave]
posted by twine42 at 4:56 AM on March 18, 2003

The fact that Tony Blair accepts the pygmy advice and support of the Prescotts and Becketts of this world whilst ignoring Cook speaks volumes for his judgment.
posted by niceness at 4:59 AM on March 18, 2003

Are things going wrong in the UK?
Or right, depending on your point of view.
posted by arf at 5:01 AM on March 18, 2003

Ooo, hello... another two resigned I didn't know about...

Still, one of them is my local MP and I've never heard of her.

[arf: or right. I meant for Blair, but point taken.]
posted by twine42 at 5:03 AM on March 18, 2003

Serious moral objections to a war in Iraq. They voted with their feet. Kudos
posted by derbs at 5:05 AM on March 18, 2003

The motion they're debating is here.

exerpt:

Regrets that despite sustained diplomatic effort by Her Majesty's Government it has not proved possible to secure a second Resolution in the UN because one Permanent Member of the Security Council made plain in public its intention to use its veto whatever the circumstances

Oh and the small matter of not being able to muster a majority either!
posted by brettski at 5:06 AM on March 18, 2003

seems like blair is getting his act together ,maybe it always was, i thought it was a pretty good performance.
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:08 AM on March 18, 2003

Not just with their feet - Robin Cook has forfeited £70,000 a year. His Minister's salary is £120,000 but now as a backbench MP he'll get £50,000. Clare Short will, of course, be comfortable still.

Using the French as an excuse is as small-minded, jingoistic and pathetic as I've seen a British Govt.
posted by niceness at 5:09 AM on March 18, 2003

Wow. He put his money where his mouth is as well :)
posted by derbs at 5:10 AM on March 18, 2003

*rofl*

"doesn't the prime minister agree that the nations responsible for providing Iraq with toxins and anthrax be named and condemmed by the prime minister"

"A great deal of Anthrax is created in Iraq" [quick change of subject]

Oh lordie...
posted by twine42 at 5:12 AM on March 18, 2003

yes twine, even his own side laughed at that one. but short is sitting there stony faced wishing she could be anywhere else.
posted by quarsan at 5:23 AM on March 18, 2003

The FPP raises a good point: do we want leaders or pollsters? Blair is doing what he is doing because he thinks he is right and the public is wrong. You gotta admire at least his courage if not his wisdom.
posted by ednopantz at 5:52 AM on March 18, 2003

Short has taken her pieces of silver and will swing from the nearest tree. Not to be overdramatic or anything.
posted by Summer at 5:56 AM on March 18, 2003

You gotta admire at least his courage if not his wisdom.

I'm fed up with this admiration nonsense. He was voted in on a vaguely leftish platform, since then he's compromised, twisted and backtracked on just about every stated policy. Now for the first time he's found some moral fibre, which is in direct opposition to the vast majority of those who have continuously supported, trusted and voted for him. Add in a broken commitment to not go to war without a second resolution and at best he's flaky, at worst he's a liar.

If it all goes wrong then he'll lose everything and take many with him, so you could suggest that is courage, but when you ignore all public, military and moral advice including from people who you have trusted and relied on in the past, that's not courage, it's reckless (as somebody equally flaky remarked).
posted by niceness at 6:03 AM on March 18, 2003

In a democratically elected state, does the representative have the duty to continuously abide public opinion, or is the very act of being elected a signal from the public that "we like you, we will accept whatever choices you make until the next election"?
posted by blue_beetle at 6:05 AM on March 18, 2003

Democracy is old news, blue. Get with the times.
posted by degnarra at 6:06 AM on March 18, 2003

Far from things going wrong in the UK, I am starting to have my belief in our democracy reconfirmed. ednopantz: you can't survive if you ignore the opinions of the majority in a democracy. Not for more than one term in a row, anyway. I might admire Blair if I didn't think he was acting out of desperation, having got himself in an untenable position. Not so Robin Cook. I think Summer has the right take on Clare Short. People don't like a hypocrite over here.
posted by walrus at 6:07 AM on March 18, 2003

In a democratically elected state, does the representative have the duty to continuously abide public opinion, or is the very act of being elected a signal from the public that "we like you, we will accept whatever choices you make until the next election"?

I think the latter, within reason. There are plenty of issues (asylum, capital punishment, fox hunting, benefits for the disabled) where the government of the day opposes the popular will of the people. We vote for a party to uphold its manifesto pledges and to govern on our behalf. These people spend days on end listening to the issues, a large percentage of Jo Public relies on the Sun for their opinions. This is why we have elected government, accountable to parliament, and MPs accountable to their constituents - not continual government by referendum.
On preview: Most voters will have stronger opinions on other issues by the time the elections come around agian, and besides which the only "credible" alternative is the Tories who are more pro-war than Tony anyway!
posted by brettski at 6:18 AM on March 18, 2003

I must say that IMHO the idea of a "strong leader" is maximally antithetical to the concept of democracy. Leaders are for herds. In democracies people are supposed to be represented through intermediates so that they can have the defining role in governance. They are not supposed to just elect unrecallable "leaders" who then act as if they got a personal license to do what ever they feel like, ignore the platforms on which they were elected and claim that people's opinion doesn't matter. Thus in a democracy it is very problematic when those heading the government ignore the will of a smaller (as in the case of Britain) or larger (as in the case of Spain and Italy) majority.
posted by talos at 6:24 AM on March 18, 2003

Precisely what talos just said. Democracy is defined primarily as "government by the people". Everything else is just trimmings. What you crave, brettski, sounds like some form of dictatorship.
posted by walrus at 6:28 AM on March 18, 2003

when you ignore all public, military and moral advice including from people who you have trusted and relied on in the past, that's not courage, it's reckless

Unless of course, their advice is wrong.

If, in ten days, Iraqis are dancing in the streets after a short war and a short settling of scores, the cassandras will look a bit foolish. If a democratizing Iraq takes the wind out of fundie sails, so much the better. His former allies will be considered fools and cowards for their failure to dream big.

If things go badly, Blair will be blamed. I maintain that is courage.
posted by ednopantz at 6:29 AM on March 18, 2003

The FPP raises a good point: do we want leaders or pollsters? Blair is doing what he is doing because he thinks he is right and the public is wrong

The problem is that he's got it all arse backwards. On issues that people care about like education, health care, transport and pensions he shows all the backbone of a jelly fish. He was elected to sort these things out, they were in their pre-election manifesto. Has he made any difference? Not a damn thing.

Bombing Iraq was certainly not in the manifesto, and people didn't vote for it in the last election yet he thinks he can use his majority in Parliament as authorisation for war. Crazy. At least in the USA Bush can claim the support of the majority (I know there's a whole argument in that statement alone but it's not relevant here).
posted by dodgygeezer at 6:30 AM on March 18, 2003

walrus - far from wanting a dictatorship, what I was trying to point out is that in this country the government should be accountable to parliament, which is elected. The government has to (at times) make hard decisions, in spite of popular opinion. We get the opportunity every 4-5 years to change the parliament - parliament could get rid of Tony Blair tomorrow if it chose to. People complain that New Labour is ruled by focus groups and only does what's popular, now it's being criticised for doing the opposite.
posted by brettski at 6:37 AM on March 18, 2003

What annoys me most about the position of so many of the MPs, is the "end justifies the means" meme that they seem to be accepting.

Yeah, SH removed from power is probably a good thing for the Iraqi people, but the method for doing it, the precedent set by a preemptive attack, is amazingly scary.

I thought...hoped that the days of creating regimes to administer countries was long gone. Its never worked.

I've got that vague butterflies in the stomach feeling of standing at the top of a really slippery slope...
posted by couch at 6:47 AM on March 18, 2003

Ok couch, what are the means that are acceptable to ensure the departure of this fascist dictator with nuclear ambitions?

Economic sanctions? - 12 years of crushing sanctions have killed tens of thousands of innocents and strengthened the regime.

Assasination? Aside from ethical issues (slippery slope indeed!), everyone and their brother has tried for 25 years without success.

Wait for a revolution by a terrorized, half starved population?

Wait for a coup by a deeply politicized army fully penetrated by Saddam's intelligence services and led by his relatives?

Ask nicely?

So which is it? It is easy to say "No war, no Saddam" but how do you do it? No one makes the case that war is anything but the best of a bad lot of options.
posted by ednopantz at 7:01 AM on March 18, 2003

If, in ten days, Iraqis are dancing in the streets after a short war and a short settling of scores, the cassandras will look a bit foolish.

A refresher on the label Cassandra might be in order.
posted by rory at 7:03 AM on March 18, 2003

You have a point brettski, but I think we see the political process from very different perspectives. What you accept as necessary, I perceive to be a scaling problem in our currently inefficient implementation of democracy.

On preview: ednopantz, you are presenting a false dichotomy of "war or do nothing". Not true. Shame on your bipolarisation of a complex problem.
posted by walrus at 7:03 AM on March 18, 2003

If, in ten days, Iraqis are dancing in the streets after a short war and a short settling of scores, the cassandras will look a bit foolish.

I'd give it a bit longer, say till the next election.
posted by niceness at 8:06 AM on March 18, 2003

ednopantz - Saddam is 68 years old. How long do you think he will survive, if he gets to live out his years naturally?
America put Saddam in power, now they want him out of power. Why should anyone trust the US policy today, any more than the policy that consolidated Hussein's power base when he took the presidency?

If you don't see Saddam Hussein as a threat, then there is not impetus to oust him.
posted by asok at 8:11 AM on March 18, 2003

asok- BP Oil.
just chew on that before you point fingers.

If you don't see Saddam Hussein as a threat, then there is not impetus to oust him.

ostrich diplomacy 101.
posted by clavdivs at 8:18 AM on March 18, 2003

Short was apparently lobbied to stay by humanitarian groups, and had some of her criticisms assuaged by Blair, such as the publication of the Middle East roadmap, and the insistence of UN involvement in the rebuilding of Iraq.

She's in a tough position, because her job was basically created for her. The International Development portfolio wasn't in the Cabinet under the Tories, and Short earned its place at the table in 1997. Without her, it's hard to find anyone who'd justify the department's place outside the remit of the Foreign Office. Doesn't mean that she hasn't completely messed up, and destroyed her credibility; Cook's subtlety and discretion turned out to be far more devastating.

William Hague, though, got it right in a pretty good little speech: there were mutterings that Blair planned to punish Clare Short, and by keeping her in the Cabinet, he's exacted his revenge.
posted by riviera at 8:31 AM on March 18, 2003

The point is that there are plenty of other worryingly visious and authoritarian dictators around (even in SH's back yard) why the special need to dethrone him?

I don't see a need to "ensure the departure" of SH. If we had been given a coherent reason for wanting to then I may have been swayed, but the "Its WMD!", "Its Human Rights!", "Its terrorist connections!" self contradicting hysteria from the Blair/Bush/Aznar Axis hasn't given any reason to ensure his departure.

There are other very repressive regimes in the area that have a track record of supporting terrorism. Why don't we look at their weapons programs? There are other countries in the area with WMD why don't we ensure their leaders depart? There are other countries in the region that have terrible human rights records - again why not call them to account?

A blood bath is a blood bath, and the ends NEVER justify the means.

The containment process was stopping any aggressive tendances that he had. The weapons inspectors were causing disarmament to occur. Why do we need to light the powder keg now?
posted by couch at 8:35 AM on March 18, 2003

ostrich diplomacy 101.

As opposed to Chickenhawk Diplomacy 101?

Robin Cook had it right: if Saddam were a true threat in terms of regional security or the proliferation of weapons (see: Korea, North) war wouldn't be on the table. The US likes its military enemies disarmed and enfeebled, because the appearance of strength has replaced actual strength as the basis foreign relations, even while the US government cuckolded by the genuine rogue states of the world.
posted by riviera at 8:39 AM on March 18, 2003

and Blair likes to join in:

US gets "Let's roll" we get "Let's rollover" - boom boom!
posted by niceness at 9:15 AM on March 18, 2003

just wondering when the invasion to remove general franco took place.............
posted by sgt.serenity at 9:25 AM on March 18, 2003

Being Spanish, anti-war (allow me this simplifying term for once) and having José Maria Aznar as a primer minister I just can say.. I wish I were british citizen !!!!!

Blair can be wrong (very wrong if you ask me, but hey, North Sea oil has just peaked so I don't blame him), but at least has the cojones to try to convince its people. What we have here in Spain is just the old "shutup you commies" discourse. Aznar is on the congress right now, and it's pathetic...
posted by samelborp at 10:21 AM on March 18, 2003

clavdivs - what about BP oil? Are you saying that they specifically were involved in the enpowerment of Saddam 'The Godfather' Hussein? BP were expelled from Iraq in 1974 when the oil industry was nationalised.
I am chewing on it, and not getting much...
Unless you are talking about the undefined future?
Ostrich diplomacy? I base my judgement of threat on the likelyhood of attack. As Iraq has never indulged in an international terrorist spree, hasn't invaded it's neighbours (unless it had the backing of the US) since Hussein gained power, I don't see a threat. With or without WMD.
posted by asok at 10:37 AM on March 18, 2003

If, in ten days, Iraqis are dancing in the streets after a short war and a short settling of scores, the cassandras will look a bit foolish
posted by ednopantz at 2:29 PM GMT on March 18

- The consequences for the region will be measured in months, years & decades, methinks, not days.

Assasination? Aside from ethical issues (slippery slope indeed!), everyone and their brother has tried for 25 years without success.
posted by ednopantz at 3:01 PM GMT on March 18

- So, were we actually trying to kill him when we were selling him arms, chemicals & anthrax in the '80s then? We being the UK, the US and every other anti-Iranian western government.

Get real.
posted by dash_slot- at 11:16 AM on March 18, 2003

Endopantz: Economic sanctions? - 12 years of crushing sanctions have killed tens of thousands of innocents and strengthened the regime.

Looks like you've found the solution right there. How about instead of sanctions and war which only hurt the Iraqi people, we instead encourage economic development of the country like France and Russia?

Now, we're probably way to far into this mess to reverse the path that we're on, but just imagine if the last 12 years instead of starving the Iraqi people we helped them become part of the international community?

I've pulled this example dozens of times, but compare the strategies of the western world with both Cuba and China. China is no sparkling example of freedom, but they have made improvements. The Chinese people are beginning to realize that there are better ways to govern themselves.

Eastern Germany fell simply because everyday the citizens were reminded of the better life on the other side of the wall.

Change only can come from within. Period.
posted by betaray at 12:36 PM on March 18, 2003

Of course that's economic development with continued disarmament.

The thought just occurred to me, what if we took the billions that we are going to spend on this war, and just invested it in Iraq in exchange for disarmament and the creation of military bases in Iraq?

Do you think that Saddam really wants to be the dictator of a shit-hole that's constantly at war, or do you think he wants to be dictator of a wealthy country?

We all know how much he hates to be bullied by the West, how about if we gave him a real offer for peace?
posted by betaray at 12:43 PM on March 18, 2003

The full text of Blairs speech is here - and it's magnificent.

Betaray, that's sweet. Perhaps we could help him buy some more shredding machines.
posted by grahamwell at 1:06 PM on March 18, 2003

BP were expelled from Iraq in 1974 when the oil industry was nationalized.
further back, when youz guyz ran the show.

As Iraq has never indulged in an international terrorist spree, hasn't invaded it's neighbours

some say otherwise.

The larger picture is not in Hussein but the way power has been brokered in the Middle East for about 80 years. My point is about shared responsibility for what has been done. I cannot just view Iraq from Hussein on.
posted by clavdivs at 1:08 PM on March 18, 2003

grahemwell: Oh, you didn't tell me that Saddam was a mean guy! Obviously that means that regime changes and sanctions work and that killing Iraqis is the only way to stop killing Iraqis.

In the US we electrocute and inject poisons into people, but it's cool because we're the good guys.
posted by betaray at 1:25 PM on March 18, 2003

Kind of off-topic, but does anyone know what's up with the Japanese supporting the war? Last I checked, they had hard-line pacifism written into their constitution, and their people were stacked something like 90-10 against the war.
posted by kaibutsu at 1:28 PM on March 18, 2003

On a less sarcastic note, are you aware as to what goes on in China? You ready to attack them as well?

I gotta stop these shotgun posts
posted by betaray at 1:28 PM on March 18, 2003

That's exactly the reason why this invasion is such a bad idea, Betaray.
The whole purpose of the international law is to try to create some stability. To that end the security council needs to approve the attack of any country.

If it weren't like that, then any country who didn't like another could invade them on a whim, perhaps because they're "evil" or have a bad human rights record, or the invading country simply says they are a threat (without any evidence,) and the only defence a country could have against that sort of thing, is having more might: either a larger and better equipped army than the invading force (tough if the invading force is the US) or they have nukes.

This invasion is the best excuse for small coountries the US doesn't like to develop nukes, especially as Rumsfeld has declared that this is just the beginning of the American campaign to liberate many countries from tyranny and dictatorship.

The W in George W Bush stands for Warmonger.
posted by Blue Stone at 3:44 PM on March 18, 2003

Of course a real war where you use ground troops and force a - quite frankly crap - army into surrender then confront the real enemy might be quite welcome.

Instead the Iraqi people get to face this and 3,000 other bombs. An attack on the general population so disproportionate to the risk to American soldiers that it's an outrage to call it a war.
posted by dodgygeezer at 3:45 PM on March 18, 2003

we instead encourage economic development of the country

Iraq was plenty developed and integrated into the global economy in 1979. It was less developed, but still integrated into the global economy in July 1990.

Still the regime did things that were arrogant, foolhardy, poorly thought out, and ultimately not in the interests of the nation itself. The twin invasions strengthened Saddam's ego but devastated his country.

If you want a way to stop this butcher or his psychopathic sons, try again.
posted by ednopantz at 4:13 PM on March 18, 2003

>>when you ignore all public, military and moral advice including from people who you have trusted and relied on in the past, that's not courage, it's reckless

>Unless of course, their advice is wrong.

Allow me to rant a bit on democracy...

See, the reason we didn't stick with the monarchy is that, oftentimes, we find that when the decisions are made by one man (or small group of men), the decisions they make are, if not wrong, guided by their own self interest. Which isn't neccesarily bad, except for when the nation's people or the world suffer as a result. What is the purpose of a government? To protect and serve its civilian population? If that is your opinion, then it is best to put the control of power in the hands of that civilian population, which will then work for its own self-interest. Because of low rates of data transfer back in the early days of democracy, certain people decided that our form of republican democracy would work out better than direct democracy. The leaders we elect are REPRESENTATIVES of their constituents. When a leader decides to act roguishly because the population "is wrong," he is betraying the trust of the population that has elected him, and we maight as well be back in the monarchy.
posted by kaibutsu at 4:22 PM on March 18, 2003

Just to get back to the original posting

At what point does a government have to stop and wonder if it's judged the mood correctly?

I hope never. Government is elected to spend it's time with more information than we have, debate the facts as they see them and come to a conclusion.

I think they've got it wrong on this (I'm with Cook), but that's the system. If they start worrying about popular mood all the time then we have (as people often say we already do) government by focus group.

And if you really want to govern by the public mood then we'd have the death penalty the day after the next child murder.
posted by ciderwoman at 4:25 PM on March 18, 2003

Government is elected to spend its time with more information than we have, debate the facts as they see them and come to a conclusion.

You have more faith in the informed status of MPs than I do. Particularly from listening to the repeated half-truths during the day's debate, but from a general appreciation that most MPs, sadly, are pretty thick, and wouldn't do well in a proper job. Though remember, the government security dossier on Iraq was partly plagiarised from an out-of-date graduate thesis. If that's what constitutes 'more information', then I fear for representative democracy.

What's interesting, though. is how it relates to the foundation of American democracy, and the notion of competing but overlapping minorities. Meaning that you may have substantial, vocal minorities of foxhunters or paedo-lynchers, but that they're limited in their influence. But when the foxhunters and the hunt saboteurs march together on a different issue, then you have to start paying attention.
posted by riviera at 6:58 PM on March 18, 2003

I do have a degree of faith in politicians. I spent a number of years working in the factual media, and had to interview quite a few MPs. What impressed me with the majority of them was not only a half decent intellect (hey, long words impress me), but also the passion that they brought to their debates. I even found myself admiring those whose views I could never agree with just for the fact that they honestly believed in their point, and had arrived at it through much thought.

One of the sad things to come out of this period, however, was the fact that these same MPs became nothing more than dull soundbite machines when on camera. I asked one why this appeared to be the case and he replied that he just couldn't take the risk of being off the cuff on camera. One slip and the media would jump on it and that would be the end of his career.

So it's my fault I guess.
posted by ciderwoman at 7:33 PM on March 18, 2003

Yesterdays debate is here in full. It's as impressive a debate as I can remember with powerful arguments advanced on both sides.

It's worth pointing out (to the discussion above) that many of the rebel MPs were acting on the orders of their constituency parties. Some had committed themselves in advance to those parties to oppose any war in absence of a second resolution and their hands were tied. Pressure from the streets through constituency parties is an effective and immediate way of influencing MPs.

The problem with judging the mood of the country is that the mood changes. It's changing now, falling behind the PM. Bouncing along following every national mood swing would arguably make worse policy than ploughing ahead regardless. It's always a tough call.
posted by grahamwell at 2:56 AM on March 19, 2003

The problem with judging the mood of the country is that the mood changes. It's changing now, falling behind the PM.

The mood has been consistently against war for over a year, to rally behind troops now that war has effectively been declared does not mean the majority of the country agrees with it. After all, if you disagree with the war now you would be practically guilty of treason.
posted by niceness at 3:30 AM on March 19, 2003

There has been an eight and a half point swing towards support for war in the past month. Disapproval has dropped eight points to 44% and support has risen by nine points to 38%.

From ICM/Guardian

That's a very small anti-war mood from a poll conducted before this weeks events - and it's swinging, quite quickly. Polling results have been much confused by the "will there/won't there be a second resolution" fiasco. As a result it's really hard to say what the mood is.
posted by grahamwell at 3:49 AM on March 19, 2003

"Just get on with it and bomb them," seems to be the mood in my office.
posted by Summer at 5:32 AM on March 19, 2003

clavdivs - 'some say otherwise'

Some may well say the moon is made of cheese, does this mean that the empirical evidence to the contrary need be ignored?

'My point is about shared responsibility for what has been done. I cannot just view Iraq from Hussein on.'

Granted, the British had their turn at fuxxoring the area before the US. Now they are both back to subjugate the population once more, sharing that negative karma and responsibility.

ednopantz - 'If you want a way to stop this butcher or his psychopathic sons, try again.'

You do realise that this kind of rhetoric is exactly the same language used to describe the Bush family?

As regards the thread subject, I am a proportional representation kind-a-guy. Democracy has been twisted as far as possible away from it's ideological roots, toward totalitarian government. Under Blair, even the cabinet are not consulted on important issues.
Time for a change.

Summer - 'Just get on with it..' could only be the opinion of those who do not understand war, a warzone, or any aspect of the realities of war. If I were religious I'd be praying for us, as well as them.
posted by asok at 10:44 AM on March 19, 2003