[chuck]

First: This is debate - not personal - not antagonistic - very much in the broad/theoretical sense - at least that's what I'm aiming for. I get told off for being to glib - so I'll try hard to make sense.

Originally Posted by cacophony

i'm saying there are many in both the american population and the international community who could easily make a logical connection between bush's agenda, his deliberately misconstrued facts, and the current conflict which has cost thousands of innocent iraqis their lives.

i'm not making MY argument. your whole response seems based on an assumption that i'm arguing my personal opinion. i'm talking in broader terms.

I get that you're talking in broader terms. Sorry - didn't state that clearly enough perhaps. I am cynical too - but I can also see the idealist position and stand by it. But fully understand the realities that Sarc states and you point out.

I'm fortunate enough to be on holiday and have the time to sit around and mull thoughts. And fortunate enough to live in a country that is insulated from having to make any real decisions.

*snort* yeah. right. quite an unrealistic perspective you have there.

Again - I wasn't clear enough. I was being sarcastic - but slightly more accepting that the population of the UK - if their representatives here are anything to go by - would have freely dumped Blair. Brown taking over merely made it easier. And no - it wouldn't have happened obviously - I just don't see as many flag waving patriots in the UK. Unless Blair suddenly became and amazing holding midfield maestro who led the team to World Cup glory. Then he might have got some support.

sure. and they can do that all they want. and they could make an airtight case and proclaim all the guilt they want. but it's going to be the minority of the population who will be willing to have an international body pass judgment on their government and leaders and invade their borders to remove the accused. don't forget, even saddam hussein had thousands of vehement supporters.

As I said - there's nothing wrong with arguing the idealist POV, and accepting the reality of the situation. I can do both. And yes - I agree the ICC is quite possibly a failed solution to a fucked up world. But we've got plenty of lawyers running around the planet - might as well give them something to do.

I see the ICC as stating a fact - and often it's a given that the stating of the fact won't bring justice, or restitution. But it's in the stating of the fact and the acceptance that new starts begin.

Too pious? Possibly.

But my case would be Australia. Where for years John Howard refused to apologise - to even say "Sorry" for what was done to Aboriginals as part of government policy. Would not in any official capacity say "Sorry".

One of Kevin Rudd's first steps was to do that - to apologise. And of course it's not going to make it all better - but it's a start. It's taking some responsibility for choices made by others in the system- as representatives of that same system - and starting again.

In NZ, we're working through a long process of restitution and making settlements with the many iwi (tribes) that were here before the Europeans arrived. We have the benefit of a formal document - the Treaty of Waitangi - and there are critics of the process. But as a country we're making the effort to settle and address long standing grievances.

I have a friend who works for the Tribunal, and in discussions with her, she's said that often the simple act of a written and/or verbal apology from the Crown to the iwi is huge. It is often part of a greater settlement, including cash, land and so forth - but the formal apology is a powerful statement. For both parties. It's an acceptance that mistakes were made, wrongs were done. It's a symbol of starting again.

And until you make a clean break, a clean start - nothing can be done really.

wrong perspective. it's not about taking responsibility for the actions of our leaders. it's that the evaluation of those actions is a subjective task and every individual makes his or her own determination of guilt, and decides whether "responsibility" is necessary. thus my point about GWB. many people would make the argument that he is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands and thousands of innocent iraqi civilians. and many people would argue that he is not. if an international court decides that GWB should be accused, that's all fine and good. but no one has any right to demand his extradition or that those who agree with his actions should roll over and accept that judgment.

Who said anything about rolling over? If your view of reality means there is no point in making a choice either way - because none of it really matters - then what is the point?

I do take responsibility for the leaders of my nation. Not everyday - and I'm not being holier than thou here - but I helped vote them in for fucks sake. I'm not in there shouting at them in parliament. But I'm considering what policies they are putting in place during the upcoming election. And - yeah - i'm being selfish and considering those policies that will directly affect me. But I'll do what I can to be part of that process. Accepting the reality - but entertaining the possibilities.

i'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here. the world is an unjust place. big revelation there. regardless of whether international accountability is tops on our wish list, it's highly unlikely that it's an attainable goal. it's an unrealistic expectation of the diverse populations of the world. sorry i'm not an idealist. i'm a realist. and that's the reality.

I'm confused again. Your reality is that unrealistic expectations should not be tolerated or held? And that makes you a realist?

Which expectations should we hold to then? In personal relationships? In international relations?

That's like me saying to my students: "I don't really think you can succeed this year - you probably won't get on with others in your class - and if some of the course work is difficult - you probably shouldn't bother."

Sarcasmo said:

"The only way to get them to trial is to have the authorities within said suspect's country give them up. Is it just me, or does that make the whole process moot, no matter how much legitimacy and support you give it? "

With the trial of Milosevic - wasn't he handed over to the ICC after the fall of his regime? I'm not saying here that Bush will be handed over by some vigilante hitsquad of Michael Moore devotees - but if the system works after the fact - maybe even years after - doesn't that give validity to it? And some meaning to the process?