Planetarion Forums

6 Mar 2003, 18:22

Blair willing to defy vetoes

Tony Blair has said he would be willing to go to war against Iraq even if more than one country vetoes a second United Nations resolution

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2824447.stm

I really really badly want to shoot this guy. He is getting on my nerves now. Both a puppy dog and in complete disrespect for his peoples wishes. He wants war and nothing else.

Zar

CrashTester · 6 Mar 2003, 18:24

He is better informed about the situation than any of us and I believe he is doing the right thing for us.

I respect him all the more for taking the stance he is alongside America.

menth0l · 6 Mar 2003, 18:27

I think he'd defy just about anything/anyone apart from Bush.

Haarken · 6 Mar 2003, 18:36

Cudos to Tony Blair for sticking to his guns. Finally it looks as though disarmament will have to be forced upon Iraq.

Dante Hicks · 6 Mar 2003, 18:40

Quote:

Originally posted by CrashTester
He is better informed about the situation than any of us and I believe he is doing the right thing for us.

How do you know he's better informed? And also, presuming he knows lots of things that I (and you by extension) don't know, how do you know he is doing the right thing? Or is it just trust?

wu_trax · 6 Mar 2003, 18:46

Quote:

Originally posted by CrashTester
He is better informed about the situation than any of us and I believe he is doing the right thing for us.

do his better information consist of a 10-year-old paper written by a student?

Cmdr_Cyrax · 6 Mar 2003, 18:46

If he knows other stuff liek the existance of concentration camps or nukes, why doesnt he say in order to proove his point?
He knows nothing and is hoping that the price reduction in petrol we'll get will make the public turn a blind eye to his war mongering.

Lets have a vote: If saddam's overthow knocks 50% off the price of petrol do we forgive Blair for the attacks?

Moi votes no.

CrashTester · 6 Mar 2003, 18:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
How do you know he's better informed? And also, presuming he knows lots of things that I (and you by extension) don't know, how do you know he is doing the right thing? Or is it just trust?

Well let me put it this way. The only way the majority of us, myself included, can make any sort of judgement on this sort of thing is through the stuff we read and see on television and newspapers, which as we all know can be biased and maybe even wrong.

But I feel that in the UK at least we are prvilaged enough to have access to many different news sources which will not all be biased with the same slant and using what I have learned in this way I believe it is time to disarm Saddam using force. So when my countries PM also decides it is the best way, I can be sure he is doing the right thing and trust he is right and so support him fully in his actions.

Dante Hicks · 6 Mar 2003, 18:57

Quote:

Originally posted by CrashTester
I believe it is time to disarm Saddam using force. So when my countries PM also decides it is the best way, I can be sure he is doing the right thing and trust he is right and so support him fully in his actions.

This is a non sequitur. You may support the PM's actions based on the evidence you've seen. That's fine. What I have more of a problem with is your huge leap to the issue of trust. Support him or not, but don't hand over your rationality over to another body.

MrL_JaKiri · 6 Mar 2003, 18:58

There is more than one anti-war argument you know.

Dante Hicks · 6 Mar 2003, 19:00

Quote:

Originally posted by WorkMonkey
I had an argument with some weiner in my Ancient History class that he was an over-opinionated westerner who wants to be a do gooder,
His main responce for the whole anti-war movement was
"Civilians are gonna die"

I once met a really stupid man who believed in Evolution. That doesn't make the theory of evolution wrong though.

Yes, the civilian's will die argument is rather simplistic and weak. But I think it can be elaborated into : the number of people who will die (in the short term) will be dramatically escalated my military action by the United States and her allies. Furthermore, the damage done in economic terms will probably lead to an erosion of living standards (already depressed by years of sanctions) which will lead to more deaths. Combine this with the fact that the war (on America's side) may be being fought for less than virtuous reasons and we are left with a conflict that some feel it's their moral imperative to resist.

CrashTester · 6 Mar 2003, 19:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
This is a non sequitur. You may support the PM's actions based on the evidence you've seen. That's fine. What I have more of a problem with is your huge leap to the issue of trust. Support him or not, but don't hand over your rationality over to another body.

Its not such a huge leap into the issue of trust. I voted for Labour with Tony Blair as PM and the way he has handled things is exactly how I would want him to. He has given me no reason at all to dis-trust him or suspect he has other motives for being brave enough to stand with America on this issue.

I also happen to believe that Tony Blair has done a great deal of good for the world in general by supporting America. After September 11th I fully expected America to find who was responsible and use considerable force in bringing that organisation down. It was clear early on that Afganistan was key and I would not have blamed America from going in there and tearing the place apart within weeks of 9/11 happening. As it was I think Tony Blair cooled this down and is providing a much more reasoned and accurate approach to the whole matter.

And I support and truct him totally.

MrL_JaKiri · 6 Mar 2003, 19:11

Labour has gone back on quite a few election pledges.

As a student, the first one that springs to mind is the U-turn on University Funding.

CrashTester · 6 Mar 2003, 19:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Combine this with the fact that the war (on America's side) may be being fought for less than virtuous reasons..

Prove that?

I dont see America doing anything more than what they said they would after 9/11. Its a war on terrorism and Iraq has shown that it either directly or indirectly supports terrorism and Saddam has shown time and time again that he has the desire and willingness to use whatever means necessary to retain power and increase his power. How much longer do people want to give him to demonstrate this further? A nuke on London or New York maybe?

Then what will we be dicsussing, why didnt Bush and Blair act sooner?

The man has had 12 years to comply with UN resolutions to disarm and he has showed no intention of doing so and defied the west. This attitude whether you like it or not aids and supports terrorism.

Like Bush said at the start of this campaign against terror: You are either with us or against us.

6 Mar 2003, 19:32

Quote:

Originally posted by CrashTester
Prove that?

I dont see America doing anything more than what they said they would after 9/11. Its a war on terrorism and Iraq has shown that it either directly or indirectly supports terrorism and Saddam has shown time and time again that he has the desire and willingness to use whatever means necessary to retain power and increase his power. How much longer do people want to give him to demonstrate this further? A nuke on London or New York maybe?

Then what will we be dicsussing, why didnt Bush and Blair act sooner?

The man has had 12 years to comply with UN resolutions to disarm and he has showed no intention of doing so and defied the west. This attitude whether you like it or not aids and supports terrorism.

Like Bush said at the start of this campaign against terror: You are either with us or against us.

If your basis for arguement is that Iraq supports indirectly or directly terrorism, then if that is the entire moive for war, so does and so did the usa support terrorism. Are we forgetting that the Americans supported the Muhajadeen (sp?) in afghanistan which murdered and killed innocent soviets ( a for of terrorism). The usa quite often and openly admits it supports despots and dictators and groups that advocate terrorism. By americas standard and words that if you support terrorists - then you are a terrorist. I have always seen the USA as a rogue nation.. a terrorist nation - and by your own words and its own words i can quite freely say that it is.

I think the whole middle east should be more worried about having a nuke in their back-garden. better yet the whole world should be worried. Above all - it is the usa and the uk throwing thei war-drums and war-cries around. And the USA has NOT ruled out using nukes on iraq - do you see this rhetoric? - in my eyes the usa is a far greater threat to world peace than iraq is.

Zar

Bloomers III · 6 Mar 2003, 19:39

A Prime Minister wouldn't be risking his Premiership and the future of his entire party just because 'he wants war'. I respect a man who will put his own morals before his 'survival'. I think he really believes that it must be done, and I think ti will probably be beneficial int he long term.

MrL_JaKiri · 6 Mar 2003, 19:48

Quote:

Originally posted by WorkMonkey
Here here.
Adolf Hitler was left in power by the League of Nations, backed by heavy public support, and need I remind you what happened there?

Bad things happen when dictators are left in power.

SADDAM

IS

NOT

HITLER

Bloomers III · 6 Mar 2003, 19:51

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
SADDAM
IS
NOT
HITLER

they don't even share any letters!

MrL_JaKiri · 6 Mar 2003, 19:52

Quote:

Originally posted by WorkMonkey
BUT THEY BOTH HAD THE SAME IDEA

BUT

SADDAM

DOESN'T

Sandsnake · 6 Mar 2003, 19:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
How do you know he's better informed?

I would figure it would be his security clearance and access to MI6, CIA, and other intelligence agency assets. But hey! we all know that all relevant and important information is always laid out in detail for the world to see, right?

The fact is, Bush and Blair are extremely confident that they will be proven right. If they're wrong, the backlash of such a war would be devestating, not just to their careers but their nations' influence in the world political scene. People are latching on to the idea that "America doesn't care what the world thinks and Blair is their lap dog!!" but they forget that international pressure DOES count even with the "most powerful nation on Earth" and Blair can be shut down by British parliament whenever they choose to do so.

The plan is going forward based on information that is being discussed in CLOSED sessions where the information is being closely guarded to hide sources. No Intelligence Agency is going to compromise their assets so they can go "SEE@! look what we know!" They're going to say what they know, and not go into details where they don't have to.

The US HAS been extremely forthcoming recently with info that they can give without getting their intelligence slaughtered or otherwise shut down. The only thing we can do is wait and see. Everyone is divided everywhere, and if they're wrong, things will be very bad for both nations.

All the available evidence points to them being right, Blixx says Iraq is NOT cooperating and is hedging wherever possible, and if Saddam still harbors many of his openly avowed plans, leaving him in power would be such a retarded act, I'd pray you'd lose tons of sleep when he carried them out.

Judge · 6 Mar 2003, 20:10

What never seems to be answered by the opponents of the War, is what vested interests they have in seeing a War not happen.

For example.

How much does the Iraqi regime owe France, Germany and Russia in trade payments?

Or perhaps the French and Russians have been supplying them with weapons and weapons technology, and it will be discovered after the US/UK coalition attack Iraq?

Dont dismiss this notion, the French were still supplying Argentina with missiles during the Falklands campaign, along with spares for the super etendard fighter/bomber.

wu_trax · 6 Mar 2003, 20:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Bloomers III
they don't even share any letters!

on a side note: Bush and saddam share the same shoe shop

wu_trax · 6 Mar 2003, 20:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Judge
What never seems to be answered by the opponents of the War, is what vested interests they have in seeing a War not happen.

For example.

How much does the Iraqi regime owe France, Germany and Russia in trade payments?

Or perhaps the French and Russians have been supplying them with weapons and weapons technology, and it will be discovered after the US/UK coalition attack Iraq?

Dont dismiss this notion, the French were still supplying Argentina with missiles during the Falklands campaign, along with spares for the super etendard fighter/bomber.

i can only speak for germany: we dont have any economical or strategical interest in iraq.ö they owe nothing to us. The public doesnt want that war and schröder had to win an elections, thats about it.

Nodrog · 6 Mar 2003, 20:21

If a country is doing the 'right' thing, then they are correct to ignore UN veto's.

wu_trax · 6 Mar 2003, 20:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
If a country is doing the 'right' thing, then they are correct to ignore UN veto's.

that depends on who defines whats right and wrong

LHC · 6 Mar 2003, 20:38

Assuming they are 'saving the world', they are doing the 'right' thing.

MrL_JaKiri · 6 Mar 2003, 20:59

Quote:

Originally posted by WorkMonkey

Stop being a moron.

Bunga · 6 Mar 2003, 21:37

By the USA's arguments, anyone or any country that either engages in terrorist acts or supports terrorism, is a terrorist.

Saddam is a terrorist because he gassed some people 10 years ago, and gives money to Palestinian suicide bomber's families.

Even though the USA have for a very long time supported the IRA (who are terrorists) by giving them money and selling weapons to them, even though the USA has at one time or other supported just about every single dictator currently in power with the exception of Castro, they are not thought of to be "supporting terrorism".
Even though the US has activly engaged in terrorist acts (ie not just sending money like in Chile) in for example the Bay of Pigs, they are not thought of as terrorists.

The USA believes that Iraq has WOMD. I know that the USA has WOMD.
Which one has demonstrated a grearer propensity to use them: USA
Which one has sent the most money to terrorist nations and groups: USA
Which one has fought in more wars: USA
Which one has demonstrated that it will go the any lenghts to protects its interests abroad, whatever they are: USA
Which one has violated the most UN resolutions: USA

To me, its prteyy clear which one should b disarmed.

iain50 · 6 Mar 2003, 21:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
How do you know he's better informed?

LMFAO

Refering to the prime minister of a country over a few blokes sat with a beer and a computer

MrL_JaKiri · 6 Mar 2003, 22:09

Quote:

Originally posted by iain50
LMFAO

Refering to the prime minister of a country over a few blokes sat with a beer and a computer

As the 'War Dossier' was proved by one of our fellows to be a collection of material including student work from the internet, that goes down as a 'valid point'.

Sandsnake · 6 Mar 2003, 22:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Bunga
*snip*

The US never has and never will support the IRA. This has been debunked repeatedly and I'm not going to even bother with it again.

The rest of your statements are so retarded I'd ban you for stupidity if it was allowed.

Bunga · 6 Mar 2003, 22:30

So... you are saying that the Bay of Pigs was not "the use of force against persons or property trying to influence a governemt agency" and therefore not terrorism?
Are you saying that the US is not in the lead when it comes to defying UN resolutions?
Are you saying they do not have the most WOMD in the world, and that they are notbreaking the nuclear non-proliferation treaty by working on new, "tactical" nukes?
Are you saying Pinochet was a good idea?

I don't understand.

MrL_JaKiri · 6 Mar 2003, 22:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandsnake
The US never has and never will support the IRA. This has been debunked repeatedly and I'm not going to even bother with it again.

Wasn't one of the aims of the war against the AXIS OF TERRORORORROROROROROROR to attack countries that harboured terrorist supporters?

Sandsnake · 6 Mar 2003, 22:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Bunga
So... you are saying that the Bay of Pigs was not "the use of force against persons or property trying to influence a governemt agency" and therefore not terrorism?

Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying. The Bay of Pigs was NOT a terrorist attack, but an invasion. The thing that's considered bad about that incident was that the promise we promised never showed up. No one seems real sure why though. Apparently Kennedy ordered the assist, but it got "lost" somewhere down the chain. I'm sure Vermillion can correct me if I'm wrong, but an uprising against a government that targets the government doesn't fall under "terrorism." It's never been considered by ANYONE to be a terrorist attack.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bunga
Are you saying that the US is not in the lead when it comes to defying UN resolutions?

Can you name one?

Quote:

Originally posted by Bunga
Are you saying they do not have the most WOMD in the world, and that they are notbreaking the nuclear non-proliferation treaty by working on new, "tactical" nukes?

We have roughly 1/5th as many as Russia. and no, we're NOT breaking the nuclear non-proliferation treaty by researching anything. We are included in the treaty as a nuclear power and therefore exempt. Read the damn treaty before you spout ****. The US is disarming under the START treaties, though the START III treaty was abandoned before it was signed. We ARE bound by the nuclear test ban treaty, and last I checked, we haven't done any surface tests recently.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bunga
Are you saying Pinochet was a good idea?

No one said Pinochet was a good idea. No one's said the guy before him was any better.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bunga
I don't understand.

This much is obvious.

Sandsnake · 6 Mar 2003, 22:54

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Wasn't one of the aims of the war against the AXIS OF TERRORORORROROROROROROR to attack countries that harboured terrorist supporters?

I don't think the UK would let us bomb Ireland.

Besides, most americans think the accent is sexy.

Texan · 6 Mar 2003, 23:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandsnake
Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying. The Bay of Pigs was NOT a terrorist attack, but an invasion. The thing that's considered bad about that incident was that the promise we promised never showed up. No one seems real sure why though. Apparently Kennedy ordered the assist, but it got "lost" somewhere down the chain. I'm sure Vermillion can correct me if I'm wrong, but an uprising against a government that targets the government doesn't fall under "terrorism." It's never been considered by ANYONE to be a terrorist attack.
snip

Before anyone else puts in their claim about Palestinian freedom fighters.

The Palestinians target civilians in an effort to overthrow the government. In the Bay of Pigs operation, Cubans were targeting the Cuban government and military, not busloads of people going to work or malls full of women and children

Mushroom · 6 Mar 2003, 23:27

doesn't surprise me.

wu_trax · 7 Mar 2003, 10:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Bunga
By the USA's arguments, anyone or any country that either engages in terrorist acts or supports terrorism, is a terrorist.

Saddam is a terrorist because he gassed some people 10 years ago, and gives money to Palestinian suicide bomber's families.

Even though the USA have for a very long time supported the IRA (who are terrorists) by giving them money and selling weapons to them, even though the USA has at one time or other supported just about every single dictator currently in power with the exception of Castro, they are not thought of to be "supporting terrorism".
Even though the US has activly engaged in terrorist acts (ie not just sending money like in Chile) in for example the Bay of Pigs, they are not thought of as terrorists.

The USA believes that Iraq has WOMD. I know that the USA has WOMD.
Which one has demonstrated a grearer propensity to use them: USA
Which one has sent the most money to terrorist nations and groups: USA
Which one has fought in more wars: USA
Which one has demonstrated that it will go the any lenghts to protects its interests abroad, whatever they are: USA
Which one has violated the most UN resolutions: USA

To me, its prteyy clear which one should b disarmed.

"Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi"

SPQR · 7 Mar 2003, 12:55

Quote:

Originally posted by CrashTester
what I have learned in this way I believe it is time to disarm Saddam using force.

Yeah, its so easy. We just march into Iraq, kill Saddam and take his weapons and Happy End ;-)

Do you actually think at the political consequences of a war in that region, which is quite instable as it is? Or the economical consequences? This war is not for free.

Get some more clue before you open your mouth again.

menth0l · 7 Mar 2003, 13:02

I'd like to know how they're planning to take Baghdad.

It'll be Vietnam all over again before they know it

CrashTester · 7 Mar 2003, 13:03

Quote:

Originally posted by SPQR
Yeah, its so easy. We just march into Iraq, kill Saddam and take his weapons and Happy End ;-)

Do you actually think at the political consequences of a war in that region, which is quite instable as it is? Or the economical consequences? This war is not for free.

Get some more clue before you open your mouth again.

It will all end happily, of that I'm confident.

There will be political and economical benefits once Saddam is removed, of that Im confident, I mean it cant get any worse can it?

SPQR · 7 Mar 2003, 13:04

Quote:

Originally posted by CrashTester
I dont see America doing anything more than what they said they would after 9/11. Its a war on terrorism and Iraq has shown that it either directly or indirectly supports terrorism

Where? Give me an example please. Have I missed something there?

Quote:

Originally posted by CrashTester
Like Bush said at the start of this campaign against terror: You are either with us or against us.

Bull****. You should start to think about politics yourself and not let other people do it for you, especially not Mr. Bush

SPQR · 7 Mar 2003, 13:06

Quote:

Originally posted by CrashTester
It will all end happily, of that I'm confident.

Oh yeah, there is absolutely no risk.

All the people being against the war must be totally paranoid

CrashTester · 7 Mar 2003, 13:10

Quote:

Originally posted by SPQR
Where? Give me an example please. Have I missed something there?

You never heard how he used chemical weapons against the Kurds? Or how people are in fear of their life for speaking out against Saddam. Is that not terror?

Quote:

Bull****. You should start to think about politics yourself and not let other people do it for you, especially not Mr. Bush

I have thought about politics which is why I believe disarming Saddam now using force is the best course of action. Either that or have him pose an even bigger threat in the future.

7 Mar 2003, 13:10

Quote:

Originally posted by wu_trax
"Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi"

However 'Festina Lente' is lost on some.

CrashTester · 7 Mar 2003, 13:10

Quote:

Originally posted by SPQR
Oh yeah, there is absolutely no risk.

All the people being against the war must be totally paranoid

No, just soft.

Dante Hicks · 7 Mar 2003, 13:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Texan
The Palestinians target civilians in an effort to overthrow the government.

Some Palestenian groups (or individuals linked to certain groups) do this, yes. But do Hamas represent the Palestenian people? When were they elected?

It's a bit like a black person saying "The Whites use terror against our civilians to try and remove us from these lands" when talking about the KKK or Combat 18. Granted, Hamas undoubtedly have more support than white-power groups do in Western countries, but I don't think you can equate their actions with the actions of all Palestenians. Some Palestenians (and some groups, etc) only carry out actions against military targets. Some are non-violent.

SPQR · 7 Mar 2003, 13:16

Quote:

Originally posted by CrashTester
You never heard how he used chemical weapons against the Kurds? Or how people are in fear of their life for speaking out against Saddam. Is that not terror?

THE ISREALIS ARE KILLING THE PALESTINIANS, IF THAT ISN'T TERROR? WE MUST MARCH INTO ISREAL AND OVERTHROW THEIR GOVERNMENT ASAP.

Honestly, if Bush soo wants to fight against terrorism, he should better attack Saudi Arabia. Or Egypt. That'S where the terrorists come from.

Quote:

Originally posted by CrashTester
I have thought about politics which is why I believe disarming Saddam now using force is the best course of action. Either that or have him pose an even bigger threat in the future.

The UN inspectors destroyed lots of weapons over the last 12 years. The Iraqi army by FAR not as much of a threat as it was 12 years ago.

On a sidenote: Have you ever asked yourself why Bush's father didn't overrun the Iraq in the last war. It was THE chance. :eek: He surely had his reasons...

CrashTester · 7 Mar 2003, 13:24

Quote:

Originally posted by SPQR
The UN inspectors destroyed lots of weapons over the last 12 years. The Iraqi army by FAR not as much of a threat as it was 12 years ago.

On a sidenote: Have you ever asked yourself why Bush's father didn't overrun the Iraq in the last war. It was THE chance. :eek: He surely had his reasons...

You simply dont understand. It is not his army that we are bothered about. The man has demonstrated a willingness to use chemical and biological weapons on his enemy. He has enough money to make new weapons and a desire to do so and use them. It is no longer about his army but whether or not he would fund another anti-west organisation, like Al Queda, who may have the means elswhere to launch a devastating attack on any non-islamic state. This is the biggest threat posed by Saddam, not his poxy Al Samoud rockets.

I'd say that Bush's father didnt finish the job simply because it would not have been supported by the international community. The Gulf War was a mission to liberate a country taken by force by Saddam's Iraq. As far as I'm aware, we did that job pretty well. Of course its a pity we didnt get the man behind the madness, but hey ho, thats what this war is for

CrashTester · 7 Mar 2003, 13:26

Quote:

Originally posted by SPQR
Honestly, if Bush soo wants to fight against terrorism, he should better attack Saudi Arabia. Or Egypt. That'S where the terrorists come from.

Simply wait and see who is next, you dont think it will stop at Iraq do you?