Call The Hague! Make room in Milosevic's cell!

November 19, 2003 8:24 PM

Perle speaks (the truth)! International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal. I can't decide if this is really stupid or really shrewd. And can legal action be taken?
posted by amberglow (64 comments total)

I believe this is the first public pronouncement by someone involved that they knowingly waged an illegal war (so i won't apologize for iraqfilter).
posted by amberglow at 8:27 PM on November 19, 2003

feel the sneer. international law stood in the way of what was "morally right". good thing these fucks have a T3 direct to jesus.
posted by quonsar at 8:39 PM on November 19, 2003

*reads article*

*twitches*

*head explodes*
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:39 PM on November 19, 2003

Well, the way they've framed it, they broke the law because they had to do what was right. It's not like he said "we're war criminals." I think this will make no difference at all (except to put the nail into the coffin of the future of American involvement in the ICC- if there wasn't one in there already).
posted by crazy finger at 8:40 PM on November 19, 2003

...and did I mention that might makes right?
posted by crazy finger at 8:40 PM on November 19, 2003

ah, the helplessness washes over me.
posted by Hackworth at 8:53 PM on November 19, 2003

this...this can't be real.

it can't be.

i mean, seriously: i'm pretty sharp-eyed, and i like to think i would have noticed the sign above the door that said "the twilight zone" when i walked through it.

thing is, i can't wait to see the contortions and twistings from the conservatives on metafilter, fark, and elsewhere as they try to justify and rationalize this.

based on perle's logic, i think i'm going to go take out some embezzlers and tax cheats and other white collar criminals. if i let the law run its course, nothing will happen to them: so the law is standing in the way of doing what's right....
posted by lord_wolf at 9:05 PM on November 19, 2003

I think the saddest and funniest thing is that now that the war is started and the Bush Administration knows that they're completely untouchable right now. So, they don't care what they say anymore, "Fuck it. We knew it was illegal. Try and get us. Go ahead. We dare ya."

And the thing is: nothing will happen. Nobody will lose their job, Bush will get re-elected and this shit will continue for 5 more years.
posted by graventy at 9:11 PM on November 19, 2003

I saw this at Atrios and was, and still am, slackjawed. It's all a test, right? There has to be some line, some level of egregiousness that will eventually spur widespread moral outrage and, well, open-eyed consciousness among the American public - and when they find that point, they'll pull back a little. Trouble is, they still haven't reached it... let's see the play this gets tomorrow vs. Michael Jackson.
posted by soyjoy at 9:15 PM on November 19, 2003

The war was obviously illegal, but nothing has been done up to now; Perle admitting what everyone already knows doesn't make anything likely to happen.

I have to wonder what could be done. Is anyone going to sanction or blockade the U.S., the way we do with other countries? Somehow I doubt it.
posted by RylandDotNet at 9:35 PM on November 19, 2003

One may want to consider the possibility that Mr. Perle was talking right out of his ass. It is not an entirely unheard-of activity for him.

The Mefi Left been calling Perle a lying sack of shit for the last three years - but NOW he's spilling gospel? Twisty rationalization, perhaps, is not the sole purview of we conservatives :)
posted by UncleFes at 9:37 PM on November 19, 2003

so he's lying now, fes? for what purpose? please tell--honestly. I think pride goes before a fall (or something like that).
posted by amberglow at 9:42 PM on November 19, 2003

Huh, I don't see what the big deal is here. Sometimes the law is an impediment to doing what's right. I don't even see why one would want to take the law into consideration when making a moral decision.

I mean is it wrong to give a suffering old person Marijuana because it's against national law?
posted by delmoi at 9:47 PM on November 19, 2003

C'mon, where's ParisParamus? I need a good laugh. Waiting for your GOP talking points memo?
Any other ignorant shitheels want to explain how the rule of law is trumped by the moral authority of the ruling junta?
posted by 2sheets at 9:50 PM on November 19, 2003

So... I want the pro-unilateralism folks here to tell me what we are going to do when the 800 pound gorilla decides that the Taiwanese (Japanese, whomever) need to be liberated from the oppression that is democracy and free market capitalism?

(And don't tell me that they're embracing capitalism. Just answer the damn question.)
posted by coolgeek at 9:58 PM on November 19, 2003

I'm not saying he's lying now, or that the Guardian printed a little dab of wishful thinking, or what. Honestly, this incident is one little turd in a river of shit, and instead of staying in the boat, we have as usual reached out and picked this turd out of the river and indignantly exclaimed "This turd pisses me off! I'm going to get riled up about this turd!" It just seems unseemly to upbrade the man as a liar for years, then suddenly assume he's telling the truth (or even the truth as he sees it, which may be wildly divergent from the actual law in this case) because it happens to coincide with what I believe. And THEN challenge my philosophical opposites to come up with their contorted, twisting justifications and rationalizations.

Unseemly, but all too common. Have any ignorant shitheels on either side looked at the actual law in this case, or have we all simply assumed, in our ignorant shithell fashion, that the law must certainly favor our side?
posted by UncleFes at 10:02 PM on November 19, 2003

I want the pro-unilateralism folks here to tell me what we are going to do when the 800 pound gorilla decides that the Taiwanese (Japanese, whomever) need to be liberated from the oppression that is democracy and free market capitalism?

I'm not sure I speak for the pro-unilateralism crowd, but most likely, we'll go to war with China. IIRC, all presidents since Reagan have reaffirmed American support for Taiwan.
posted by UncleFes at 10:05 PM on November 19, 2003

sooner or later, everyone finds that special turd, the one that reeks sooo badly, that they can longer stand by idly sniffing shit river.
posted by quonsar at 11:08 PM on November 19, 2003

Unseemly, but all too common. Have any ignorant shitheels on either side looked at the actual law in this case, or have we all simply assumed, in our ignorant shithell fashion, that the law must certainly favor our side?

No, I'd say it's pretty damn certain this war violated international law.

Perle declaring this is far, far more than just one of the turds that pass us by every day. At least, in my opinion, this is notable. And damning.
posted by jbrjake at 12:55 AM on November 20, 2003

Unclefes, I'm not sure I understand fully what you are going on about. You seem to be saying that having an opinion about something, that isn't simply a manifestation of indifference, is hypocritical. But that can't be your argument. Can it? If it is, well, what can I say? I disagree.

Anyway, the fact that Perle has lied in the past doesn't mean that this statement doesn't reflect what he really thinks. A liar doesn't necessarily lie all the time. Bush has lied many times during the past three years and yet he still manages to says truthful things, sometimes. I think this is more a case of hubris than "crafty thinking". The same thing happened months ago when I believe Wolfowitz admitted that Iraq was targeted (over other "world threats") because it sits upon a sea of oil! Pearle, like Wolfowitz in his moment, assumes that the war of propaganda has been won in the US (and he's probably right) so it doesn't matter if he stops the doublespeak. However, he's sorely mistaken if he thinks the war of propaganda has been won in Europe and the rest of the world. His statement may further hurt the US' hopes of drawing other countries into the quagmire of Iraq.

In my opinion.
posted by sic at 1:02 AM on November 20, 2003

" but most likely, we'll go to war with China"

Um.. I doubt it.

The official line since 1979 has been that the USA does not support Taiwanese independence.
posted by cell at 2:25 AM on November 20, 2003

Honestly, this incident is one little turd in a river of shit, and instead of staying in the boat, we have as usual reached out and picked this turd out of the river and indignantly exclaimed "This turd pisses me off! I'm going to get riled up about this turd!"

I get riled up about all the turds.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:35 AM on November 20, 2003

"International law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

Bleeding hearts, ain't they? Christ on a goddamn stick. Kant would be so proud, eh?
posted by boneybaloney at 3:42 AM on November 20, 2003

This is good electoral strategy for the Republicans.

The NATO war to stop the massacres in Bosnia was against international law, too. France's military intervention in the Ivory Coast a year ago was probably illegal as well.

Arguing that the US has a moral obligation to follow international law is a great way to rally the conservatives. Even if you believe that the current UN system has the weight of moral force, you have to recognize that Bush gains when the left boxes itself into a corner defending a system that has never established its legitimacy in the minds of most Americans. Why give Bush the chance to run against the idea of dictatorship?
posted by fuzz at 4:02 AM on November 20, 2003

Meanwhile Bliar is still making speeches about how the US-UK Alliance is defending "the rule of law."

Maybe he hasn't heard the news.
posted by Blue Stone at 4:24 AM on November 20, 2003

I'm not sure I speak for the pro-unilateralism crowd, but most likely, we'll go to war with China.

Never, ever happen. Ever.
posted by rushmc at 5:10 AM on November 20, 2003

UncleFes:

put simply, Perle had good reason to lie when he was "in" with the PNAC crowd. I mean, we've only been following the 'Perle doctrine' verbatim these past two years, so back then he had every reason to protect his baby.

He's most certainly "out" these days, and so has no longer has a reason to lie - he's not going to benefit anymore from toeing the propaganda line of the PNAC kiddies, so why bother?
posted by Ryvar at 5:29 AM on November 20, 2003

I can't see a war with China happening either--we see it more as an gigantic, emerging market than as a rival (at least so far). A war with China would probably end the world anyway--we'd have to make it a cold war (a bamboo curtain?).

Back to Perle's admission: Why does one illegal international military action (say, Bosnia or something like that) make another right? Isn't the President supposed to uphold the rule of law? Aren't we bound by international agreements? Doesn't allowing for this illegal war just set the stage for many many more (including an invasion of here or anywhere sometime in the future)?
posted by amberglow at 5:32 AM on November 20, 2003

Politics on Metafilter: Getting riled over one little turd in a river of shit!

seriously, UncleFes - I disagree, but I laughed my ass off: "...we have as usual reached out and picked this turd out of the river and indignantly exclaimed "This turd pisses me off! I'm going to get riled up about this turd!" "

But is the turd Perle's statement, or is the turd Perle?


I don't see Perle's admission - that the U.S, invasion of Iraq was in violation of international law - as a much of a political problem for the Bush Administration or the prowar US right, except in certain liberal circles and here on Metafilter. Most Americans would not see any problem with going against international law to do "the right thing" - the US is just too much of a huge, culturally insular country, which has become thoroughly relaxed into it's military and economic preeminence, to care much about world opinion. Americans are mostly unaccustomed to the notion that getting along with others - whether on the playground or in the sphere of world geopolitics - involves playing by mutually agreed upon rules.

At a personal level we believe in playing fair, sure. We're just not quite sure of what this entails at the international level and, in this, we can be likened somewhat to teenagers with a social deficit disorder - a mild sort of autism such as Ausberger's Syndrome, say. But this is not congenital. No, we just don't get out much, see. It's very comfortable in here, and the world's a scary place. Take 9-11. That was really, really scary. It was so scary, in fact, that Americans were too afraid to even drive across the border into Canada - I went on a two week B&B vacation in Nova Scotia in the fall immediately post - September 11, 2001 and the Americans were nowhere to be seen. The Canadians were all scratching their heads and wondering aloud about it. The exchange rate was very, very favorable to Americans, but where were the usual Yanks? I loved it - the B&B's were all available and their owners very, very accommodating, and the beaches were all deserted. But enough of my little vacation....... Graham Green's "Ugly American" profile still rings as true know as it did decades ago, for we really, really do mean well. But we just don't quite get it and, worse still, we don't get that we don't get it and so we scratch our heads and watch and wonder, in gaping astonishment, as world fury at all things Bush and most things American grows and grows.

It's a shame, because we really mean well. I even - as much as I dislike the man's policies - suspect that GW Bush means well (in his own way). But we just don't get it - why can't we just do the right thing, kick out the bloody dictator, and install a democracy in Iraq? Why is much of the rest of the world so upset at us? Why all the fuss over silly things like international law, anyway? Saddam killed an awful lot of people, and now he's gone. The world's a better place, right?

Really now. Americans wouldn't care much (except for the prurient angle) if Perle dressed up as a giant penis and waltzed around in front of the White House shouting over and over "We fucked International Law, and we don't care! Iraq was illegal and so fucking what?" [ Fox would run a humor piece on it at 3 AM a few days later. CBS would ignore it altogether. Josh marshall would cluck disapprovingly over at TPM. Life would roll on by. ]

Yanks are in the habit of doing whatever they want on the world stage and making up their own rules as they go along to justify their unilateralist behaviors ( to themselves, anyway, if not to anyone else ) - while the rest of the world rolls it's eyes, or just watches aghast and weeps.

The Bush clan represents the quintessence of this tendency. It is clear that their unspoken family culture holds that rules are for chumps, and - though George W. Bush might be quite sincere in his born-again Christianity - he seems to nonetheless operate very much in the family tradition : rules are for fools. No petty human rules constrain GW , for he has a personal line to God.

Meanwhile......Matteo confirms that Richard Perle is a reptilian alien crocodile.
posted by troutfishing at 5:50 AM on November 20, 2003

Funny thing, this concept of "international law". While it may fill the transnationalist's heart with visions of baby blue world maps and happy little doves, in reality, it exists only at the whim of those who would follow it, to use as a large bludgeon against those who won't. There is no higher authority, no social contract you enter by the mere act of being created, beyond that to which nations who generally agree willingly consent. Perhaps a more appropriate name for this concept would be "international mob rule."

In the past, we have been willing to follow this mob rule, as it has usually helped us approach our ends. In this case, however, it arguably did not, and we arguably did not follow it. And my response is... so what?

I challenge anyone here who is getting so hellfire worked up about this to make a convincing legal argument that anyone in the administration should be held, by US courts, to be a war criminal. The only point in the US Constitution -- the very framework of US law -- that anything even resembling a mention of this latter-day concept of "international law" exists is in Article VI, where it states that "this Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

What, then, is the foundation of US law? The US Constitution, laws made under it, and treaties made under US authority. The only possibly argument you could make that the administration acted criminally would be to say that it violated a treaty -- and yet, as a treaty exists only at the mutual consent of the nations involved, does a desire to break a treaty not invalidate the treaty itself?

You can whine and fuss about "international law" all you want. The president had the one and only thing that, under US law, is a necessary and sufficient condition for waging war -- consent of Congress. The war, therefore, as far as anyone in the US is concerned, was completely legal, and all the congregations of past empires in denial about their decline and third-world dictators using international bodies as their little playground where they can pretend to matter on the international stage, all the diplomats ruminating in New York or Zurich or whereever... none of it matters.

You may not like what the president has done. You may wish that he did follow international law. But that doesn't mean that he has comitted any crimes. It means, only, that you disagree with the president, and want a different one. But then, we know that the prevailing MeFi zeitgeist is about as radically anti-Bush as you can get, so where's the big surprise there?

Sincerely,
Ignorant Shitheel
posted by jammer at 6:12 AM on November 20, 2003

Dear ignorant shitheel,
Didn't we use Saddam's violations of international law and UN resolutions as a justification for going to war?
posted by amberglow at 6:31 AM on November 20, 2003

I know what you Republicans are thinking, "Why? Why didn't I take the blue pill?"
posted by ZachsMind at 6:38 AM on November 20, 2003

Ignorant shitheel: if the US government signs an international treaty and if the Congress of the US ratifies it, that treaty should have the force of law, domestically. Therefore breaking the treaty is in essence breaking a law. The fact that the US continues partcipating in (I hesitate to say "using") the United Nations, illustrates that it still believes itself to be beholden to treaties that they have signed there.

The president had the one and only thing that, under US law, is a necessary and sufficient condition for waging war -- consent of Congress.

Now lying to Congress is another crime. Bush obviously used falsfied evidence to convince Congress to go to war, if he did so knowingly, he is a criminal. If he did so unknowingly, well he is just a dangerously incompetent boob.

By the way the "prevailing mefi anti-bush zeitgeist" defense is as weak as they come. Please try harder.
posted by sic at 6:46 AM on November 20, 2003

Gee jammer, that was really impassioned. But I re-read through the discussion here and no one has called for the prosecution of Bush administration officials, under existing international laws, as war criminals. However - lying to the US Congress might be, as sic just noted, grounds for prosecution under US law.

Obviously - since international law is a young and still evolving body of work which is far from being universally accepted by the nations of the world - it's force is currently weak, at least in this province. In another realm - economics - international law already has considerable force such that the US has already, on more than one occasion, been ruled in violation of international treade agreements under the auspices of the WTO.

The US government has accepted, in principle, right of WTO rulings to trump the US constitution, the authority of the US federal government, and laws passed by state legislatures. So - in the economic realm at least - the US has already ceded much of it's sovereignty authority to the WTO and it's underlying and evolving body of international trade rules and agreements.

As I said, the body of international law governing war is still in an early stage of development. But the Bush Administration has set itself up for condemnation, if not actual prosecution (the Valerie Plame scandal is much more likely to bring federal prosecutors knocking on the White House door), for it's claims that Operation Iraqi Freedom™ was justified in terms of international law - a claim Perle now admits to be bogus.


The ongoing development of international law can amount to a sort of international democracy - most credible if it is not forcibly imposed on unwilling signatory nations, sure - which you could characterize as "mob rule", if you wish:

Some of the American Founding Fathers were also afraid that the new democracy they worked to craft could eventually devolve into mob rule (Franklin thought it inevitable) - they structured US government, to an extent, to temper (or thwart, if you wish) the unruly passions of the masses. But is democracy then a thing to be feared or is it the best of a number of bad solutions to government?
posted by troutfishing at 6:57 AM on November 20, 2003

trout,
I don't know about aliens, but I had the same kind of "he really looks like a crocodile, hope he doesn't jump on me and bites my head off" impression in person. he has a very menacing kind of stillness indeed
posted by matteo at 6:58 AM on November 20, 2003

matteo - the alien comparison is my hyperbole. But Perle's reptilian air.......you summed it up perfectly. He gives me the sense of having a powerful, cold intellect which is chained to a strong will and running complex machiavellian calculations in the background while he is - in the foreground - chatting away as a talking head on national TV. And I also get the sense that he is fantastically well connected to agencies, and individuals, both in D.C. and beyond it, who work a lot of the behind-the-scene levers of power.

He strikes me as a man who - were he to deem it necessary - would, while being clinically polite to your face (even vaguely charming in a sinister sort of way), file away a little post-it note on his mental list of tasks - "neutralize X". And he would do it in his own time - methodically, dispassionately, and in a manner which would never be traced back to himself, he would somehow engineer your ruin or complete disappearance.

Ergo - reptile.

But I'm probably waxing fanciful here. He's probably a very nice man who would never think of kicking small dogs or mugging old ladies for subway fare.

"I'm not really a sinister man. I just play one on TV!"
posted by troutfishing at 7:24 AM on November 20, 2003

Although, you say that he's sinister in the flesh as well.........

Pwah ha ha ! Perlah ha ha ha ha !


"Escuse me sir, but will you be having any Prince of Darkness™ with your reptile tea?"
posted by troutfishing at 7:32 AM on November 20, 2003

it exists only at the whim of those who would follow it, to use as a large bludgeon against those who won't.

The same could be said of any law.
posted by rushmc at 7:56 AM on November 20, 2003

Yes, the great sociologist Max Weber, when theorizing about why masses of people allowed themselves to be dominated by smaller groups, once defined the State as having a monopoly on legal violence.

Isn't that special?
posted by sic at 8:09 AM on November 20, 2003

River of shit
River of shit
Flow on, flow on, river of shit

Right from my toes
On up to my nose
Flow on, flow on, river of shit
I've been swimming
In this river of shit
More than 20 years
And I'm getting tired of it
Don't like swimming
Hope it'll run dry
Got to go on swimming
Cause I don't want to die

This is an excellent, extremely hummable songs, for anyone not familiar with it. The "picking out a single turd" defense is classic, if very originally phrased. It says, "don't look at this - it's just part of something much bigger and much worse! So instead of indicting the whole shmear, just look away and whistle quietly to yourself! There, that's better..."

I knew this would be fun to watch.
posted by soyjoy at 8:27 AM on November 20, 2003

Actually, it's just one hummable song. Didn't want to get your hopes up.
posted by soyjoy at 8:30 AM on November 20, 2003

if very originally phrased.

alas, I cannot take credit for it. I lifted, then paraphrased the theme from a short scene in the movie Off Limits, where Willem Dafoe and Gregory Hines are being lectured by their superior. It seemed apropos, but credit should go where it's due.
posted by UncleFes at 8:40 AM on November 20, 2003

no, it is not special, it is specious at best. Examine the "British" policy and intervention in Iraq between 1914 to 1924 and you will see the culmination of complete failure and illegality.

1915, brits take Basra (hmm, surprise, surprise that they now control that sector). Brits advance to Baghdad, get they hell beat outta them, retreat to Kut. 10,000 Brits dead, 23,000 wounded. 1922, churchill concludes the versailles negations by sticking to the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement which splits most of the middle east between France and England. The 'deportation' of Sayyid Talib in favor of Fasil.

Yes, the great sociologist Max Weber, when theorizing about why masses of people allowed themselves to be dominated by smaller groups, once defined the State as having a monopoly on legal violence

Right, perhaps this is why the British wanted to have Iraq, as a nation, comprised of Shiite, Sunni, and Kurds. I do not think it was for some concept of humanity. (the local british rulers thought this idea ludicrous, namely A. Wilson.) This action led to the July, 1920 uprising, the worst in Iraqi history to date or least to that date.
Gertrude bell was told by one Iraqi leader, "Since you took Baghdad, you have been talking about an Arab government but three years or more have elapsed and nothing has materialized".

Some of the American Founding Fathers were also afraid that the new democracy they worked to craft could eventually devolve into mob rule

and it did, the whiskey rebellion to name one. of course, consent british meddling into our foreign affairs did not help.

Also, a nod of agreement to jammer.

(ever notice how Wolfowitz and Perle have soothing voices. A timbre for childrens stories)
posted by clavdivs at 8:56 AM on November 20, 2003

MetaFilter: One little turd in a big sea of shit.

Best.
Tagline.
Ever.
posted by wendell at 9:05 AM on November 20, 2003

wendell - wouldn't that amount to Metafeces™ ?

clavdivs - "ever notice how Wolfowitz and Perle have soothing voices" this, also, is true. It's true! (but I still think Perle's a reptile)

"Some of the American Founding Fathers were also afraid that the new democracy they worked to craft could eventually devolve into mob rule"

"....and it did, the whiskey rebellion to name one." - and it's still devolving! But now, the model has changed a bit and I think of it as "oligarchic/corporate rule via engineered demagogic mobocracy"

I take it you don't think well of the US' little 'White man's Burden' project in Iraq? Thanks for the bit 'o history, BTW

UncleFes - Oh well, you get points (in my book) for honesty and even more points for deft use of appropriate imagery.

But isn't all life a river of shit and can't shit be turned to advantage, as fertilizer? Hey - the chinese do it, and 1 billion chinese can't be wrong, eh?

Further, Buddhism teaches that at the psychological level one's shit is fertilizer for enlightenment.

"River of shit
River of shit
Flow on, flow on, river of shit"

And - even as all comes round in the end, Richard Perle will one day reenter that river of shit from which ever springs new life, as long as the sun shines and the sky is blue. Miraculous life, like lichens, and fruiting slime molds
posted by troutfishing at 9:12 AM on November 20, 2003

perle (the closest the the defense policy board has too a terrorist) has got his hands in more than one cookie jar.
posted by specialk420 at 9:20 AM on November 20, 2003

Buddhism teaches that at the psychological level one's shit is fertilizer for enlightenment.

A man cannot step twice in the same river of shit, for the second time, he is a different man, and the river is full of different shit.

*assumes Lotus, gently levitates, changes aura to a nice turdy tan*
posted by UncleFes at 9:25 AM on November 20, 2003

also trout, historically, The chinese have made the flow of rivers a major priority. Im not sure about the fertilizer but silt is a major problem. I don't no what white mans burden means, i think i do...I do think about it. Um, we seem to be learning some lessons from history others still seem to be neglected. What i do not like is british citizens vilifying my country while ignoring their own culpability to the problem.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN and praises for the brave PM.
posted by clavdivs at 9:29 AM on November 20, 2003

Clavdivs - The Chinese have been messing with their rivers for thousands of years under the principles of Feng Shui, I've read. In the past, they've rechanneled whole rivers for greater harmoniousness. Now it's about irrigation mostly. But they're having terrible problems with topsoil loss, so I bet the silting is due to that. Also, I've heard that straightening rivers tends to exacerbate silting. Meanwhile, Did you hear about the quip the queen made to George W Bush? - Something on the order of "We know how to do monarchy properly here - we don't have any of your sorts of problems with 2 and 4 year term limits." My jaw nearly hit the floor. Also - yes, credit and blame where it's due - the British and later the US have messed with Iraq all through the 20th century - and they're still at it! The Brits set the stage onto which, later, the US helped to propel Saddam to power. I hope they can figure out how to fix Iraq this time, but they'd better do some serious reassessment of their darker motives (so that the more enlightened and altruistic reasons for the invasion can eventually be validated. Otherwise there will be hell to pay).

About the White man's Burden quip - see Rudyard Kipling's famous poem "White man's Burden" ( "This famous poem, written by Britain's imperial poet, was a response to the American take over of the Philippines after the Spanish-American War. " )

"...Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead......" (excerpt)

Holy Crap, specialk420 ! The Wikkipedia has sure come a long way. Wow. All the dirt I ever wanted on Perle's little....umm...activities, and more.
posted by troutfishing at 9:47 AM on November 20, 2003

What i do not like is british citizens vilifying my country while ignoring their own culpability to the problem.
Clav, they're not vilifying America; they're vilifying Bush--there's a big difference...the Brits are paying with blood in Iraq too, and many of them are not happy with Bush's war, and Blair's follow-the-leader thing.

meanwhile--a trafalgar sq. webcam
posted by amberglow at 10:08 AM on November 20, 2003

Kipling...nice and fitting. Good take on the silt. The queen said that? Hmmm, well perhaps all the more for her to be saved. (though I'm sure gdubs "come to jesus' philosophy won't cut the mustard in The Royal household concerning redemption)

I'm sorry amber, though an isolated incident, some woman placing Our flag upside down, on a gate, is not an attack on Bush. The symbol is one of a country or whatever that flag flys upon, in severe distress and a call to rescue. I do not see that happening, though some may see it.
I realize the difference, i was referring to some brit mefis by and large. (oh, the fountain of blood also, bad analogy, river of blood would have been better IMO, but perhaps the protest committee could only get enough red Dye for a fountain)
posted by clavdivs at 10:21 AM on November 20, 2003

a river of blood would have been better (but bad for the fishes) : >

When you protest another country's actions you use the symbols of that country. The flag is a symbol--American protestors are allowed to burn it, deface it and do what they wish with it too--it's not an attack on the country, but on its actions. 9/11 was an attack on the country, not a protestor with a upsidedown flag. Like it or not, many hundreds of millions of people around the world (and back here at home) are mad at us for pre-emptively invading Iraq. They love our culture and us as a whole--they detest what Bush did. They remember us being an international partner and player all during the Clinton years.
posted by amberglow at 10:33 AM on November 20, 2003

LA: Arrest him!

TM: For What?

LA: He's dangerous.

WR: For libel: He's a spy.

Meg: Father, that man's bad!

TM: There's no law against that.

WR: There is: God's law.

TM: Then God can arrest him.

LA: While you talk, he's gone!

TM: And go he should if he were the Devil himself until he broke the law.

WR: So, now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

TM: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

WR: Yes! I'd cut down every law in England to do that.

TM: Oh? And when the last law was down and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to caost, Man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think you could stand upright in the wind that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.

(-a man for all seasons)
posted by kaibutsu at 10:37 AM on November 20, 2003

"We know how to do monarchy properly here - we don't have any of your sorts of problems with 2 and 4 year term limits."

Things that make George go "hmm."
posted by rushmc at 12:18 PM on November 20, 2003

kaibutsu - that's a choice quote.
posted by troutfishing at 2:11 PM on November 20, 2003

This action led to the July, 1920 uprising, the worst in Iraqi history to date or least to that date.

Clavdis: Although I'm not sure exactly what the point of it was, your Hiistory lesson is mostly correct, except that you seem to imply that Iraq, the nation, even existed before 1920. It was a post WWI British invention.

Anyway that period of middle eastern history- specifically the secret Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, during WWI, where the UK and France basically divied up the middle east in zones of influence despite having promised the arabs in 1915, independence after the war for helping them defeat the Turks (British Colonel TE Lawrence, yes, Lawrence of Arabia, protested this underhanded deal breaking) - is pretty scummy and helps one understand the problematic relationship the arabs have with Europe.

Of course, to continue the history lesson, in the 80s there is a new kid on the Iraqi block.

I especially like the part where the US is simultaneously selling arms Hussein and the Iranians (to fund the Contra coup of Nicaragua). Nothing illegal there. Oh wait, except for the 9 members of the Reagan administration that went to jail.
posted by sic at 2:31 PM on November 20, 2003

sic, do not paraphrase me then go "DUH, whata mean". I mean what i said, British policies during the period i stated were lies, typical of english diplomacy. What relevance?, go back and read the thread sunshine.

IT WAS A BRITISH INVENTION.

do the world a favour and stop inventing diplomatic situations. Ya, I like how the British Government has committed GENOCIDE against the Irish people, THAT WAS NEATO.
You got anything else to say except NOTHING?

HMMM
HMMM
I fucking thought not.
posted by clavdivs at 8:01 AM on November 21, 2003

clavdivs - when you're done, go over to Plep's lichen thread. It's very soothing. ( I'm really not being condescending. I'm quite serious. )
posted by troutfishing at 7:38 PM on November 21, 2003

ya, well seriously fuck off
second rate troll
posted by clavdivs at 6:35 PM on November 22, 2003

er, that was a bit harsh sic, esp. the troll part.
{runs under bridge, forgots capturing Howitzer}
so, PUPPY!...
posted by clavdivs at 7:19 PM on November 23, 2003

clavdivs - I kind of saw that coming, but I'll still say....I troll-baited you with Lichens? No, actually what I meant was : when humans and their ways are becoming most upsetting, lichens are indeed soothing. They're so unlike us, almost extraterrestrials, and they don't give a flying fuck. That's refreshing.

Puppies can grow up into big, menacing dogs. But lichens..... They'll probably be the last thing living on Earth.
posted by troutfishing at 8:14 PM on November 23, 2003

And thank God we didn't follow international law. THANK GOD!
posted by ParisParamus at 8:20 PM on November 23, 2003

ParisParamus - which god?
posted by troutfishing at 9:27 PM on November 23, 2003

The God for whom militant Islam, barabarism, and the absence of love are not explained away or legitimated by dellusional people; that one.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:16 AM on November 27, 2003