Blair's Support for War

[diamond]

Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


No, I was actually refering to Clinton I might dislike the Republican party but I'm no fan of the Democrats either.

But once again - we're not complaining that Blair has refused to listen to a poll conducted on the issue of attacking Iraq,

Fizzing-
Exactly my pt. GW wouldnt do that

1 issue at a time..I think this shows Tony's leadership w this issue.
I cant speak for the other issues..

DB9

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Originally posted by diamond

1 issue at a time..I think this shows Tony's leadership w this issue.
I cant speak for the other issues..

DB9

But you're saying Blair's showing leadership, and yet all he's actually showing is that he's refusing to listen to his opponents. Besides, our Prime Minister isn't elected in order to be the only person who decides policy - we have a House of Commons who are expected to discuss and vote on policies/legislation.

If Blair really wants to show leadership then he should hold a debate and prove to his opponents that his preferred course of action is the correct one. He should attempt to convince the population of this country that he's right, instead of ignoring the fact that 70+% of them don't agree with him. Refusing to listen to those who disagree with you isn't a sign of a good leader - anyone can do that!

[deep]

Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


I think he'll go down in history as a leader who attempted to destroy the Labour Party, and one who worked hand-in-glove with what Gerald Kaufman MP described as "the most intellectually backward American President of my political life."

This seems to be a growing consensus.

[diamond]

Some of the MOST intellectual elected officials were the poorest of leaders.

Some of the most brillant leaders didnt have the highest IQs.-
Examples-
FDR
Truman
Reagan
Teddy Roosevelt
GW Bush.

I think its cowardly to knock the current president in office
Perhaps we dont realize how tough the postion it is, being on the outside.
Its more glamouous/romantic to throw stones

DB9

[z edge]

Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


I have no desire to start a fight, but how in the world is a WAR plane a beacon of peace? It's purpose is to drop bombs. The purpose of bombs is to kill people. How in the world is that peaceful?

Good point Fizzing,

My answer is um- simply that it is a deterrent that we have such an awesome power, albeit it's primary purpose is to destroy.

Thus on a larger scale, it's purpose is to maintain peace through deterrence.

If a nation realizes the power that can be unleashed on them should they strike other nations then maybe they will stay home and not destroy themselves and others.

I think it is important for others to realize that the US hunting season (1993-99) is now officially over. Our nation will not tolerate terrorist attacks like we did for 8 years, and we will not allow known terrorists/dictators/tyrants/murderers to refuse the world recognized conditions they agreed to when we spared them for their atrocities.

Though other nations have WMD, they are not the threat that Iraq is and will be should we allow them to continue to spit in the face of the UN and democracy.

Sometimes, peace is only achieved through war. Imagine if the world had not stopped Hitler.

[z edge]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Anthony
[B]z_edge;

I apologise for the action (or lack thereof) beforehand concerning pinkfloyd, but I was not there and it was not my call - I can't be there at all times. Other Mods are, though, and if they didn't feel the need to do something then I imagine they had their reasons.[QUOTE][B]

Thank you, it is a dead horse brought up only for refrence.

I am trying to keep this thread cool, with cooperation from both sides. I'm sorry, but I do not think I am being biased simply because I didn't punish pinkfloyd for a comment done a while ago. What I do think and know, is that a lot of people find pics of warplanes offensive, and they have made it known to me.

I am all for keeping the threads cool.

As far as the planes being offensive, they are only posted when I find something offensive (such as what I brough up for refrence from pinkfloyd, and other comments where I have been called blasphemous and murderous, or cursed at by a diferrent mod)

I know you can't be everywhere, but I do find it disturbing when I am singled out on the forums and the stuff I mentioned above in paranthesis goes overlooked or is handled in private.

Back to the planes, if people find them offensive then I find that offensive that they find my planes offensive. SO you see, it kinda works itself out

I would bet $$$$$$ money that I have had more personal attacks or offensive insults made at me in here than anyone else, so I see no problem "freeing my mind" when everyone else is allowed to as well.

The comment about Tony Blair is one of opinion concerning a political leader, and is, needless to say, different from a picture.

If you disagree with me, we can talk it over. PM me, please. I think thats preferable over hijacking the thread.

Ant.

Well I respect your opinion, and I just posted my opinion which is not hijacking your thread?

I think you are doing a fine job though and I appreciate your concern on this issue.

BTW, I don't want war either. It is my opinion that it will happen and we have no other choice.

Rather than everybody (not necessarily you) lining up to take swings at Bush or America or even Blair over this, why aren't we looking at Bill Clinton who allowed Iraq to do whatever they wanted for the last 8 years? That includes kicking out the UN weapons inspectors and funding terrorism whil committing terrorism / genocide on his own people and developing weaponry that my end all of our lives someday.

Again, thanks Anthony and I will try to be a little nicer as long as people stop calling me murderous/blasphemous and wishing I would be killed aloud here in this forum.

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Originally posted by z edge

My answer is um- simply that it is a deterrent that we have such an awesome power, albeit it's primary purpose is to destroy.

Thus on a larger scale, it's purpose is to maintain peace through deterrence.

If a nation realizes the power that can be unleashed on them should they strike other nations then maybe they will stay home and not destroy themselves and others.

So by this logic then other countries should also be able to have those sort of weapons simply to deter others from attacking them. But isn't this how the nuclear arms race began? Isn't this why we now have many more countries developing nuclear weapons? Because they want them to act as a deterrent against attack? And how on earth is the world safer when more of its countries have such devastating weapons?

What if a country which has been threatened by America were to say it only has weapons in order to stop America from attacking it? Would that be permissible or is only the US which is allowed to have weapons as deterrents? Who decides who can keep weapons to deter other from attacking, and who isn't allowed to have weapons?

b]Though other nations have WMD, they are not the threat that Iraq is and will be should we allow them to continue to spit in the face of the UN and democracy.

Sometimes, peace is only achieved through war. Imagine if the world had not stopped Hitler. [/B]

If what concerns America is that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, then why not demand the return of weapons inspectors? Of course a key problem with that is that the last time they were allowed into the country it turned out that they were spies for the United States. But seriously - if America is concerned about Iraq's weapons, then why not call for the return of weapons inspectors, so that they have some solid evidence of Iraq's weapons capability before they launch a horrific military attack on the country?

And I don't think Iraq and Saddam Hussein are in any way comparable to Hitler and Germany in the 1930s.

[Anthony]

Thank you z_edge.

I will prevent people from aiming such calumny towards you. Courteousy, as you know, goes both ways.

Ant.

[pinkfloyd]

sorry for this blair comment from me , Z edge

right , i take my words back ,



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>runs away ......................

i just feel extremely nervous , i see no allies ( real allies , with help not just the usual words ) for usa in Iraq .


and DB9 ! , do you know if Iraq has a nuclear plant, reactor or something , thank u , and please answer , and don't use my old false name okey dokey ???????!!!!!!

[TylerDurden]

Originally posted by z edge


If a nation realizes the power that can be unleashed on them should they strike other nations then maybe they will stay home and not destroy themselves and others.

Good point. Now where were we... oh yeah, should the US invade Iraq or not...

[Tarik]

[
Good point. Now where were we... oh yeah, should the US invade Iraq or not... [/B][/QUOTE]


Why should the US invade Iraq?

There is no evidence of a interconnection between Saddam and Bin Laden.

There is no evidence of plans for a war of agression.

And not to forget: There is no UNO mandate for an invasion.
There is no justification to go without UNO mandate into a country with the intention to change the government of a country.

Why is Saddam a problem for the US?

Not because he's a dictator. The reason is: He's disobeying America. That's all.

Look at other arabic countries. They have also nondemocratic systems but they will not be attacked by the US. Why? Because their leaders are doing what they are told by America, cause they know, that only with US support they can be in power (Egypt for example gets 2 billion dollars from USA annually for their interiour security).

[joyfulgirl]

Published on Thursday, September 12, 2002 in the Guardian/UK

Blair May Be First Buddy, But It's Time He Faced the Facts
Everyone but the prime minister knows the US has trashed the rules

by Martin Kettle

No one who has ever seriously believed in any cause finds it easy to criticize that same cause in public. The doubter's life can be hard, lonely and insecure. Conscience makes cowards of good people, around whom the habit of loyalty coils like a snake, difficult to shake off. In the battle between the heart and the head there is never an easy winner.

Tony Blair's belief in the importance of the US is a classic example of the perils of an undifferentiated loyalty. His own current problems need to be understood with that in mind. Some of his judgments over Iraq make sense, but are not necessarily excused by the fact that Blair is engaged in a struggle with realities which threaten one of his most enduring instincts.

Blair has long held the view that British domestic politics take place downstream from the US. He thinks Bill Clinton's election in 1992, and still more his re-election in 1996, were essential preconditions for Labour's own victory a few months later in 1997. He thought that the presence of a Democratic president in the White House made Labour appear to be cutting with the grain of history, not against it.

By the same yardstick, Blair saw George Bush's election in November 2000 as a more serious challenge to Labour than most people realize. It was one of the main reasons why he was so determined to be the first foreign visitor to Bush in early 2001. By getting to the president's shoulder at Camp David, Blair aimed to squash any pre-election attempt by William Hague to position the Conservatives as the party in touch with the new America. He is just as determined to prevent Iain Duncan Smith doing the same thing now.

Since 1997, Blair's belief in the importance of America has of course widened from domestic to international politics. He seems gradually to have formulated an approach to foreign policy which sees the US as the essential nation in the settlement of global and regional issues, and which identifies the Anglo-American relationship as the necessary catalyst ensuring American global engagement rather than isolationism.

Just how much he really believes in the mystique of the so-called "special relationship" is a hard call, especially given the more overwhelming evidence that Blair thinks of himself as a European. But he certainly acts the part of First Buddy with conviction.

No one who heard Blair speak at a White House dinner with Clinton in 1998 would be in much doubt where his heart as well as his head lay. That evening Blair quoted the biblical remarks of Harry Hopkins, Franklin Roosevelt's emissary to Churchill, at a wartime dinner in London: "Whither thou goest I will go, and whither thou lodgest I will lodge. Thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God. Even to the end."

Nearly two years into the Bush administration's term, it is easy to forget that Blair sometimes had to struggle to secure US international engagement under Clinton too, and over committing US forces in Kosovo in particular. But any problems which Blair encountered with Clinton are as nothing beside those he has faced with his successor. As Frances Fitzgerald writes in a compelling essay in the current issue of the New York Review of Books: "The Bush administration has clearly broken with the internationalist premises that have been accepted by every other administration since World War Two, with the exception of Reagan's first."

As Fitzgerald points out, George Bush has rarely defined the goals of his administration's foreign policy. In public, he has talked mainly in vague, general terms. Depending on his audience, as in his adjoining article today, there is more or less mention of allies. But in most Bush speeches, the world is a place of threats against which US-defined solutions offer the greatest security. It was summed up in Bush's election campaign comment about threats to America: "We're not so sure who the they are, but we know they're there."

One result is that no one, including America's allies and perhaps including Bush himself, has a very clear idea of the kind of world that Bush would really like to see beyond US shores. Perhaps he will rectify that omission when he addresses the UN today in New York. But the other result is that Bush's subordinates, led by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, have repeatedly set the agenda in a series of steps which amount to a wholesale repudiation of any theory based on collective action and alliances.

The extreme version of this approach is summed up by the number three man at the State Department, John Bolton, who once proclaimed: "There is no such thing as the UN. There is an international community that can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that is the US, when it suits our interests and when we can get others to go along."

A parallel approach has recently allowed the Pentagon, which has systematically opposed, abrogated and binned a series of international treaties, to abandon its long-standing "threat-based strategy" in favor of a "capabilities-based approach". According to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld this means that America needs to build up its defenses on land, sea, air and space "to defend our nation against the unknown". As Fitzgerald points out: "For the overall Defense budget, a 'capabilities-based approach' means simply that the Pentagon can ask for whatever it wants without having to justify its requests by the existence of even a potential enemy."

This is the reality which constantly subverts Blair's attempts to portray the Bush administration as a willing partner in the new moral order that the prime minister advocated at Brighton last year. He was at it again this week, claiming to the TUC that in today's world "internationalism is practical statesmanship". Everywhere but in Washington, it should be added.

It is hard not to feel some sympathy with Blair's predicament. He believes in the right things. He is trying to exert an influence that needs to be exerted in pursuit of a good strategy that would make the world a safer and better place. Yet for all his efforts he gets only grief, in Washington and at home.

He gets grief because there is a profound disjunction between what he wants to believe about this administration and what is in fact the case. But this administration has trashed the rules that Blair wants to play by. Rather than face that reality head on, he pretends, in public at least, that it does not exist. It's the mistake that other loyalists in other causes have made down the years. Like them, Blair faces a choice between heart and head, and between loyalty and truth. Like them, he risks allowing excess loyalty and insufficient clarity to make the wrong call.

[STING2]

Wake up people! Saddam Hussain SIGNED a UN ceacefire agreement with a number of conditions in 1991 that put a stop to US offensive operations towards Baghdad! Saddam has been in open violation of the UNITED NATIONS ceacefire agreement since 1998! Because of this fact, the United States under both the terms of the UN Ceacefire agreement, is obligated to resume offensive operations against Baghdad that were put on hold in March of 1991! This is automatic and does not require any new vote or decision making under the UN. That is the language of the UN Ceacefire Agreement, Signed by Saddam Hussain and approved by the UNITED NATIONS in March 1991!

[Anthony]

Joyfulgirl, wonderful article. Thank you.

Ant.

[Tarik]

Originally posted by STING2
Wake up people! Saddam Hussain SIGNED a UN ceacefire agreement with a number of conditions in 1991 that put a stop to US offensive operations towards Baghdad! Saddam has been in open violation of the UNITED NATIONS ceacefire agreement since 1998! Because of this fact, the United States under both the terms of the UN Ceacefire agreement, is obligated to resume offensive operations against Baghdad that were put on hold in March of 1991! This is automatic and does not require any new vote or decision making under the UN. That is the language of the UN Ceacefire Agreement, Signed by Saddam Hussain and approved by the UNITED NATIONS in March 1991!

Saddam is ignoring the UN resolution 687, 688 and 949.
But if ignoring of those resolutions was the reason for invading Iraq, then there should also be an invasion on Izrael, cause they never ever accepted ONE UN resolution.

What does the Bush administration really want in Iraq? To put a marionettes government in Iraq (to do what they are told by the US) and not to forget: the OIL.

[AcrobatMan]

Originally posted by Tarik




Saddam is ignoring the UN resolution 687, 688 and 949.
But if ignoring of those resolutions was the reason for invading Iraq, then there should also be an invasion on Izrael, cause they never ever accepted ONE UN resolution.

What does the Bush administration really want in Iraq? To put a marionettes government in Iraq (to do what they are told by the US) and not to forget: the OIL.

Tariq,

USA doesnot want a nuclear/mass destructive attack on itself. Israel has never used any mass-destruction weapon. Iraq has & will. Whats the proof of latter - the only proof would be when USA would be attacked by a weapon of mass destruction by Iraq.

Tariq, What makes you think that Saddam wont do that.

And I personally think USA has the right to invade Iraq for its own safety and if USA had taken actions against Al-qeida/Taliban in 1990s then we would never had seen a 9/11.

There is no point crying when damage has been done. A better option is to avoid future damage .

AcrobatMan

[AcrobatMan]

Originally posted by joyfulgirl
Published on Thursday, September 12, 2002 in the Guardian/UK

Blair May Be First Buddy, But It's Time He Faced the Facts
Everyone but the prime minister knows the US has trashed the rules

by Martin Kettle

Martin Kettle is obviously a hypocrite whose sole motto is Anti-Americanism and he knows that this article will go down well with all Anti-American british public and there are loads of such people here

[Harper]

In recent months Blair's behaviour is becoming increasingly similar to - dare I say it? - Margaret Thatcher! She was particularly noted for pushing forward with her own views and ignoring polls and advisors. New Labour is turning out to be more conservative than the conservative party.

[V Nura]

Bottom line....The UN passed the resolutions


saddam violated the UN resoutions....if you don't enforce them ..they mean nothing. And if they mean nothing in the future The US won't even bother with the courtesy of going through the UN. Europe has a horrible history of percieving global threats and in fact teh French are dealign arms to iraq right now (how stupid do you have to be?). I dont' necessarily support an invasion occupation and reconfiguration of iraq however some action must be taken.


otherwise..the UN really is the joke that some ppl think it is.

[diamond]

what arun said