I think Axworthy is wrong. Ignatieff is putting his money where his mouth is: human rights, even at the cost of war. EVEN if it means supporting (the devil) Bush.

A flower will not bend a bullet.

[ 20 June 2003: Message edited by: wei-chi ]

Chief amoung them is the assumption that there is automatically going to be an end to tyranny with the ouster of Hussien.

It remains to be seen.

And, it's moving the goal posts. The impetous for the war was that Saddam had WMD, and posed and iminent danger to the U.S., if not the world.

As many suspected, this is at extreme odds with the evidence.

If, as Ignateiff asserts, that there was real fear of Saddam on the part of the U.S. administration, why did they-- do they-- have a different policy for enemies where there is REAL evidence of WMD?

That's the tip off to knowing that Bush Inc. fabricated the whole enchelada.

Harvard boy should have spent more time around a poker table so he'd have grown up to know the difference between his ass and a hole in the ground.

[ 20 June 2003: Message edited by: TommyPaineatWork ]

Just as British imperialism, and French imperialism too, had some advantages, so too does American imperialism. But in the final analysis it is the use of force to impose one's own values on others. Ignatieff may think that the big-corporate American election fraud makes this imposition "democratic", but I think it is deeply wrong, unjust, and autocratic.

quote:

---

One only has to read his Isaih Berlin biography to see that he thinks it's fine to take money from the CIA and claim to be an independent intellectual. From that, much else follows.

---

quote:

---

I never trusted him, though. One only has to read his Isaiah Berlin biography to see that he thinks it's fine to take money from the CIA and claim to be an independent intellectual. From that, much else follows.

---