the war...
Mar. 27th, 2003 09:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
aumentousomeone said that there seemed to be hostility to the war but little actual expression of the reasons. Or words to that effect.
So heres an expression.
I disagree with the war because the politicians have lied to us and insulted us. They gave a set of reasons for war, and those reasons werent even remotely believable. The lie was so obvious that to fall for it we would have to be stupid. Then they assumed we would fall for it, so they assumed we are stupid. Hence its also an insult.
I wouldnt mind as much if blair had said: we're going in because we get X, Y and Z out of it. He didnt, and he couldnt, because britain gains nothing from this war. I might actually have been in favour if he had said "we're going to war to help our lovely american allies because its the only way to get them to sign the kyoto protocols", but he didnt and couldnt because his sale of the war was a moral crusade and he's too much of a wimp to actually get anything out of the US administration. There was a moment there when we were the only ones on the USA's side and we werent actually committed to war. If blair had any spine and sense, he couldve handed washington a list of demands: No steel subsidies. No pushing GM through the WTO. USA to stop opposing the creation of a joint european strike force, and of course the aforementioned kyoto signing. Hell, maybe even a share in all those oil reserves we are helping to steal *ahem* I mean liberate, of course. Granted, he wouldnt have got all of them, but if he had got anything at all then there would be a point in britain going to war. Right now the only british person who gains from britains war is blair - as the war goes on, public opinion drops in behind him.
'Coalition forces' sounds so much better and legitimate than 'US invaders' doesnt it?
anyway, for a list of those stupid reasons and why they werent believable, just go and look at the onion. Search for north korea. Or the brains trust, searching for pakistan.
*note* I have no idea what happened to the formatting.
So heres an expression.
I disagree with the war because the politicians have lied to us and insulted us. They gave a set of reasons for war, and those reasons werent even remotely believable. The lie was so obvious that to fall for it we would have to be stupid. Then they assumed we would fall for it, so they assumed we are stupid. Hence its also an insult.
I wouldnt mind as much if blair had said: we're going in because we get X, Y and Z out of it. He didnt, and he couldnt, because britain gains nothing from this war. I might actually have been in favour if he had said "we're going to war to help our lovely american allies because its the only way to get them to sign the kyoto protocols", but he didnt and couldnt because his sale of the war was a moral crusade and he's too much of a wimp to actually get anything out of the US administration. There was a moment there when we were the only ones on the USA's side and we werent actually committed to war. If blair had any spine and sense, he couldve handed washington a list of demands: No steel subsidies. No pushing GM through the WTO. USA to stop opposing the creation of a joint european strike force, and of course the aforementioned kyoto signing. Hell, maybe even a share in all those oil reserves we are helping to steal *ahem* I mean liberate, of course. Granted, he wouldnt have got all of them, but if he had got anything at all then there would be a point in britain going to war. Right now the only british person who gains from britains war is blair - as the war goes on, public opinion drops in behind him.
'Coalition forces' sounds so much better and legitimate than 'US invaders' doesnt it?
anyway, for a list of those stupid reasons and why they werent believable, just go and look at the onion. Search for north korea. Or the brains trust, searching for pakistan.
*note* I have no idea what happened to the formatting.
