Log in

No account? Create an account
What I say? Who knows me? What I said? What I am? disturbing.org.uk Previous Previous Next Next
Corrosive Shame
Therapy for Life
Double Standards
Sometimes I worry that I can't keep up with the changing world. I seem to remember not so long ago dear old General, sorry President Musharraf was being treated as a pariah for having conducted a military coup in Pakistan. Now he's off to tea with Dubya at Camp David and last week visited Tony in Downing Street.

However, to counter any implied cynicism and to stop me getting too annoyed about things that I can have very little personal influence over - I'll end with a joke - "Ethical Foreign Policy".


Current Mood: cranky cranky
Current Music: Wayne G featuring Stewart Who - Twisted

17 lies or Lie to me
(Deleted comment)
kneeshooter From: kneeshooter Date: June 24th, 2003 01:10 am (UTC) (Link)


I think I'm with the cynical...
sixtine From: sixtine Date: June 24th, 2003 01:52 am (UTC) (Link)


S'funny. People are interested in seeing perceived ethics as perhaps opposed to real ones; you don't get too far in politics with strong beliefs. Lots of people from different political vents supported John Smith as they felt he had strong moral and ethical principles. To me it seems only skin deep. I can't help but feel that if Robin Cook was even slightly better looking that he would have a stronger following and would already have ousted the duplicitous Blair. He appears to have some strong political principles but is crippled in the public eye by the ugly factor.
kneeshooter From: kneeshooter Date: June 24th, 2003 01:57 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: EVE]

Isn't it just - political parties are supposed to represent different approaches and philosophies, but in the end they all become the same bland lowest common denominator.

Mind you the same can be said of the most of life where there is any volume appeal.

As to John Smith et al. it's of course a lot easier to have principles in opposition than in practice - and the Civil Service does have a lot to answer for in guiding/developing policy in practice.
sixtine From: sixtine Date: June 24th, 2003 07:15 am (UTC) (Link)


All true.
oldnick From: oldnick Date: June 24th, 2003 01:53 am (UTC) (Link)
Spot the "subtle" bit of news management yesterday?

1: A raid the Americans carried out near the Syrian border in Iraq last week may have killed Saddam and or/his family

2: Later reports - it may also have killed or injured some Syrians

3: Quietly mentioned on later reports - the raid was actually into Syria.

Hmmm - so much for ethical.
kneeshooter From: kneeshooter Date: June 24th, 2003 01:59 am (UTC) (Link)
The US has never claimed that it is ethical mind... insular maybe...
yapman From: yapman Date: June 24th, 2003 04:08 am (UTC) (Link)
I'm not sure what reports you've been reading, but there is a distinct lack of knowledge that the raid was into Syria, although it might have been.

Yes, Syrian border guards were injured, yes, the US military picked them up from Syrian territory to give them medical treatment some time after the raid, and yes, it may well have encroached into Syrian territory, but that is unclear right now. Anybody claiming categorical knowledge of this is most likely bullshitting you.

Not to mention the fact that exactly where the border is in the desert is a fairly vague concept ...
deeteeuk From: deeteeuk Date: June 24th, 2003 05:40 am (UTC) (Link)
Colin Powell admitted it on the news. But he may have been wrong. I'm not suggesting that a member of the US administration has the faintest idea what the fuck their forces are up to.
oldnick From: oldnick Date: June 24th, 2003 06:58 am (UTC) (Link)
BBC news reports, quoting US military spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Gary Keck. Of course, both / either the BBC or the Pentagon could be lying.

As to where the border is, nonsense. It may be an arbitary straight line to the West of Abu Kemal / Al Qaim, and an arbitary, rather more wavy line to the North-East, but it is still fully defined. Not only that, it is not all desert.
kneeshooter From: kneeshooter Date: June 24th, 2003 07:21 am (UTC) (Link)
This talk of boundaries reminds me of something I heard on the Radio the other week about the "Longest Straight line in the world" - the eastern boundary of Western Australia. The 'net then jumped to my rescue...

Western Australia - South Australia - Northern Territory Border
A glance at most maps of Australia will tell you something that isn't quite true. The border that runs along the eastern edge of Western Australia is not actually one continuous straight line.

The survey of the W.A. border was first discussed in 1911, but it wasn't until 1922 that an agreement was signed between then Prime Minister W.M. Hughes, and Acting Premier for South Australia, Mr. Bice, and the Premier of Western Australia, Sir James Mitchell. The agreement set out the border as being a line determined by the 129th meridian east longtitude. However, the agreement required that the boundary be defined by lines running north and south from independantly fixed points at Deakin and Argyle. When survey work began on the South Australia - Northern Territory border in 1963, it was quickly realised that the earlier agreement precluded the possibility of these lines meeting exactly.

Precise survey methods confirmed this, and in June 1968, two monuments - approximately 127 metres apart - were erected at the junction of the boundaries. This ceremony was attended by the respective Surveyor Generals, H.Comm from Western Australia, H.A. Bailey from South Australia, and P.J. Wells from the Northern Territory. The monuments common to all three territories was named Surveyor General's Corner at the suggestion of the Director of National Mapping. One interesting piece of trivia is that fewer people have visited this site than have been to the South Pole.
oldnick From: oldnick Date: June 24th, 2003 07:44 am (UTC) (Link)

Being a bit ofg a map geek I immediately grabbed my atlas to look at this, and tried to find Deakin and Argyle.

The frightening discovery was trhat they were respectively 80 & 60 miles inland - and still almost looked to be on the coast on my map. It's a long straight-ish line.
deeteeuk From: deeteeuk Date: June 24th, 2003 05:38 am (UTC) (Link)
I'm waiting for 4: They were aiming at something else.
caddyman From: caddyman Date: June 24th, 2003 02:29 am (UTC) (Link)

Have to adjust and adapt policies to fit circumstances, because the world won't do as it's told.
kneeshooter From: kneeshooter Date: June 24th, 2003 02:39 am (UTC) (Link)
I know that's true - as like you I see it every day, in different spheres - but at the same time it's possible to derive amusement from it - and also some disappointment as if we don't have ideals and aspirations what are we? Mindless drones?

I think I already know the answer to that mind!
yapman From: yapman Date: June 24th, 2003 04:10 am (UTC) (Link)

Well, alright, that's not true, it does disappoint me, but my deep cynicism prevents most of it from surprising me.
(Deleted comment)
littleonions From: littleonions Date: June 24th, 2003 07:49 am (UTC) (Link)
We just have to remember all this when it comes round to putting the X in the box.
kneeshooter From: kneeshooter Date: June 24th, 2003 07:53 am (UTC) (Link)


"If marginal keep Tories out"
17 lies or Lie to me