Galloway: Blair's Death Would Be Justified

OK, maybe "comments to GQ magazine" doesn't really count as "modern political dialogue". Still, Galloway comes off as childish and a little psychotic.

The problem here which people in the usa would have in understanding this, is that they don't understand the context of the British culture. It's a much more gentle society. So an offhanded comment in a magazine, doesn't carry the kind of impact such a comment would in the usa.

Still, this kind of thing can seed discontent in a way which could provoke someone in some country in the world to go after their own president.

Although I understand what you mean when you characterize this as "eye-for-an-eye crap", there's at least one reason for this: pour encourager les autres.

As I see it, the C-in-C of a country's military needs some kind of check on his power; and Dubya has shown his disregard for the checks his own Constitution placed on his power. The eye-for-an-eye crap, as repulsive as it may seem, can't be so easily disregarded.

Although I understand what you mean when you characterize this as "eye-for-an-eye crap", there's at least one reason for this: pour encourager les autres.

Then by the same logic you support the takedown of Saddam pour encourager les autres? Because that seems to be one justification for the war that some have used.

Red herring, AdipicAcid? My original point was about sniping the C-in-C (or an ally) waging an illegal war, not taking down a dictator without any justification.

Not a red herring at all. I don't think anyone in their right mind would claim that Saddam was a nice guy or particularly moral, so taking him down might just encourage some of the others (Assad for instance) to keep on the straight and narrow. I personally find this to be unconvincing in either the case of Saddam or Bush/Blair.

I might have misunderstood you. I'll try to rephrase it; please, tell me what you think.

My point was that a credible possibility of death, as a result of an illegal act (like invading Iraq) might be a sufficient deterrent.

You point out that Saddam wasn't exactly nice. While I do agree, I don't think it justifies an unsanctioned invasion.

You also point out that taking out Saddam would encourage Assad to keep on the straight and narrow. Although it might, I'm not sure of my own opinion on this; my original idea was to discourage an illegal act (eg. Iraq's invasion) by an external actor.

My apologies if I'm misreading you, but I think you're trying to discourage a third actor (Assad) by killing the first actor (Saddam), which hadn't committed an illegal act against the assassinating actor (the U.S.). This is why I yelled "red herring!".

I'm not sure of my own opinion on this; my original idea was to discourage an illegal act (eg. Iraq's invasion) by an external actor.

Or an illegal act like allowing Katyusas and other weapons to reach a known terrorist organization on foreign soil, as Assad has done? There are far more similiarities here than you want to admit.

Both of you really need to check out celestina.newsvine. There's a series on logic going on there.

Have you ever seen the house of commons debate? It's occasionally aired on cspan cable television. They're free to be more vocal and more vigorous in their passionate debate, because their society as a whole in britain has a high standard of social propriety. Usa groups glory in "The right to keep and bear arms" - where this sort of attitude would be frowned upon in Britain. Indeed, most ethnically european countries are more gentle than the usa is.

Things are never simple, rockman. In real life, often things contradict what would seem to be common sense, by most people of that culture in that day and age. Killing a president, for instance, would not stop a war, in fact, it might accentuate that war. Wearing a scarf on a cold winter's day can put dust into your mouth and nose, and lead to more sniffling and sneezing. Spanking a child is not going to make him behave, in fact he'll become more wild, because of that threat. Making a war on the middle east does not spread democracy - it spreads chaos. These are just a few examples of contrasting what large numbers of people have believed to be true, with what actually occurs.

I guess Blair isn't going to give them that chance; I read he plans to get out on his own.

Bear in mind that Georgie is regarded as a complete and utter nutcase by a good proportion of the population of the UK, notwithstanding that he went down well with the US liberal left when he went to the States a while back.

I can back that second part. He had rockstar like posters advertising his speaking engagements hanging all over the People's Republic of Takoma Park.

Sounds like a British version of the Russian Zherenovsky...

Obviously you use straw man arguments, flymeoutofhere. Ahem... I think it would behoove us ALL to talk a bit more rationally about the things which occur in our world, and the people who live there.

The only way you can take this man seriously is if you are in denial, looking for the myths for a sense of false security.

Please research his background and make the decision. Here in the UK, he is known to be an absolute fool, and so not many people tend to take him seriously.

I have a serious problem with gansters, flymeoutofhere. I am a writer myself... and in a different world have chosen to be a public speaker. I'm not nearly as outspoken as this gentleman is... but he deserves at least your token respect. Critique him... offer a different vision than him... but don't slander him. This is a big reason why english speaking civilization is having a real dearth of people who are willing to step up and teach and lead and write and speak.

This is an odd place for me to say this, perhaps... because James Galloway is certainly a firebrand... - but what you do - you have to answer for. Your words have power, too, flymeoutofhere. And this is becoming a very dirty custom in the usa and elsewhere in the ethnically european world - where people will make sport out of denigrating and demonizing public figures - Kofi Annan has received this kind of treatment, as has Bill Clinton.. as have singers, actors. It's absurd.

This world is on a course towards disaster and no one is willing to step up and offer a new course for it. Do you know why? It's too dangerous with people like you playing those kinds of games with words - where you create straw men.