Blair facing revolt over Iraq

Saint Marcus · March 9, 2002, 20:02

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_...00/1861971.stm

Seems likely that not even Britain is going to aid the US in a strike against Iraq.

So much for "we'll rally the world". Nobody is listening, and nobody wants to help the US. Sure, I doubt the US needs the help, but it does show how "pro-American" the rest of the world is. In the end, it will only hurt the US when it finds itself alone and isolated without any allies to call on. Great going Shrubya!

Drake Tungsten · March 9, 2002, 20:06

Is it the fault of the US that our "allies" don't want to attack Iraq, or the fault of our allies for not seeing the need for it.

Drake Tungsten · March 9, 2002, 20:06

How did I manage a triple post when I've never had a double before?

Drake Tungsten · March 9, 2002, 20:08

Sorry about all that...

*End Is Forever* · March 9, 2002, 20:11

A rag-tag of Labour backbenchers isn't going to change Blair's mind.

Just shows your ignorance of British politics, Mark.

Ming · March 9, 2002, 20:18

Quote:

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
Just shows your ignorance of British politics, Mark.

He's never let ignorance on a given subject stop him before

*End Is Forever* · March 9, 2002, 20:31

DanS · March 9, 2002, 20:38

Personally, I found this story a little bizarre when I read it yesterday. In order to make any kind of large-scale attack, the American public would have to be consulted and at least a small discussion would ensue in the congress.

So this seems mainly like something to embarras Blair. Or whatever.

Velociryx · March 9, 2002, 20:41

Do my eyes deceive me, or does that Salter guy look a bit like....Droopy?

-=Vel=-

*End Is Forever* · March 9, 2002, 20:43

Scarily, that's a good picture of Martin Salter.

Besides, he's the MP for Reading.

Whatever good ever came out of Reading?

Lonestar · March 9, 2002, 20:45

Quote:

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
Scarily, that's a good picture of Martin Salter.

Besides, he's the MP for Reading.

Whatever good ever came out of Reading?

History, Mathematics....

Hold it...Reading's a Town??

Bereta_Eder · March 9, 2002, 20:47

HA! If you wait from EIF to learn about politics in his own country you are in for a dissapointment

He's a fascistoid torry

MINISTERS threatened to QUIT if Blair keeps up his licking of the US arse (to use the british english).

MINISTERS are not backbenchers

*End Is Forever* · March 9, 2002, 20:47

Yup.

Pronounced "Redding".

Comrade Tribune · March 9, 2002, 20:49

It´s not just the back bench; there´s resistance in the government itself. Blair may be the only person in Europe who is still behind Bush.

The American yahoos happily waving their little flags might soon find out they are becoming a bit isolated.

Seneca · March 9, 2002, 21:02

Bloody hell, Tony looks old in that picture...

He's not the fresh-faced reformer I voted for in '97

Lonestar · March 9, 2002, 21:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Seneca
Bloody hell, Tony looks old in that picture...

He's not the fresh-faced reformer I voted for in '97

He's suffering from "The Clinton effect".

Take a look at Clinton in '92, then in '00.

Man, those heads of state get old fast.

Shi Huangdi · March 9, 2002, 21:28

Blair's support in Britain and majority in the House of Commons will allow him to do as he pleases on these issues.

Interesting to see these America-haters get so upset about the potential overthrow of Saddam Hussein, a murdering dictator. These people blindly oppose America whatever it does.

Bereta_Eder · March 9, 2002, 21:31

And with good reason.

Drake Tungsten · March 9, 2002, 21:38

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
And with good reason.

Give us one...

el freako · March 9, 2002, 22:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Give us one...

Here's a reason.

The US want's to use it's millitary might to topple a regime it doesn't like with no provocation other than that dislike.

Agreed the said regime is probably one of the most brutal and dangerous in the world but the US has both toppled far less dangerous regimes before (Grenada) and propped up some pretty brutal ones itself (South Vietnam).

Most of the time the US claims to be 'fighting for democracy' and yet it in the past it has helped dictatorial regimes (most of Latin America in the 1960's and 1970's, most of the Middle East and Pakistan today) that serve it's interests and undermined democratic ones (Chile) that don't.

With a track record like that is it any wonder that the rest of the world feels nervous about letting the US topple any regime it dislikes?

If the US does topple's Saddam's regime they could regain a lot of the world's trust by installing a proper democratic system in the country.

However this would probably involve:

1. Actually occuping Iraq for several years - and accepting the US casualties this would inevitably produce - whilst the social and political infrastructure was developed (as was done with Germany and Japan after WW2).
2. Ignoring the complaints of US-freindly regimes like Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Kuwait that would dislike seeing a true democracy in their region - even if it means losing their friendship (much like the falling out of the USA and USSR afer 1945).
3. Pouring large amounts of aid into Iraq (probably around $10-$20billion a year for 5 years) so that a strong economy can help protect the new democracy (rather like Marshall Aid).

And I don't see the US being as alturistic as this.

Drake Tungsten · March 9, 2002, 22:42

Quote:

Originally posted by el freako
The US want's to use it's millitary might to topple a regime it doesn't like with no provocation other than that dislike.

I believe that the US has plenty of reasons to topple Saddam beyond merely disliking his regime. The most obvious is Iraq's refusal to allow weapons inspectors into the country, a direct violation of the agreement that ended the Gulf War. If Iraq violates that agreement, the US has every right in the world to depose Saddam.

I do agree with you, however, about the US being hypocritical about "fighting for democracy". I dislike when the US uses this sort of rhetoric as it is dishonest and limiting. We should just admit that we are acting in our own interests, just like every other nation on earth. We need to take out Saddam because he threatens the US and our interests, not because of some moral obligation to bring democracy to Iraq. That would be a nice byproduct, however, if it is possible.

Comrade Tribune · March 9, 2002, 22:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I believe that the US has plenty of reasons to topple Saddam beyond merely disliking his regime. The most obvious is Iraq's refusal to allow weapons inspectors into the country, a direct violation of the agreement that ended the Gulf War. If Iraq violates that agreement, the US has every right in the world to depose Saddam.

Did the agreement mention CIA and Mossad agents or weapons inspectors?

Kyle · March 9, 2002, 23:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_...00/1861971.stm

Seems likely that not even Britain is going to aid the US in a strike against Iraq.

So much for "we'll rally the world". Nobody is listening, and nobody wants to help the US. Sure, I doubt the US needs the help, but it does show how "pro-American" the rest of the world is. In the end, it will only hurt the US when it finds itself alone and isolated without any allies to call on. Great going Shrubya!

And as soon as Saddam is removed, everyone will come crawling to the US to try and get a say as to whom will be leading the new government and will be sure to let us know that they really were behind us all along. They had to appease their constituancy's short sighted and hate filled anti-Americanism, after all.

It's okay though, we'll remember who was siding with Saddam the whole time.

Bereta_Eder · March 9, 2002, 23:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Kyle
They had to appease their constituancy's short sighted and hate filled anti-Americanism, after all.

Oh stop it you bring warm tears of unbearable sorrow to my delicate eyes

Quote:

It's okay though, we'll remember who was siding with Saddam the whole time.

oooh, I'm shivering in my boots

faded glory · March 9, 2002, 23:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

Did the agreement mention CIA and Mossad agents or weapons inspectors?

Irrelevant. Baghdad has violated the terms of a Cease-Fire. Which means, hostilies can resume at any given moment. And, wait, the best part is: International law allows it.

As for britian....They will come along. And we have 'a' coalition 'on paper' anyway, without them if all else failed.....So without a doubt we are coming.

Oh and.....

Quote:

Britain Denies Cabinet Dissension

Britain Denies Cabinet Dissension

By ED JOHNSON
.c The Associated Press

LONDON (AP) - A senior minister denied media reports Saturday that Prime Minister Tony Blair's government was divided over whether to back possible U.S. military action against Iraq.

Britain has stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States in the war on terrorism, but news reports have said Blair's increasingly hardline stance on Iraq has split the Cabinet and prompted senior ministers to threaten to resign.

``Reports of a Cabinet split on this are in fact completely wrong,'' Labor Party chairman Charles Clarke told the British Broadcasting Corp. on Saturday.

More than 60 legislators have signed a motion expressing worry about British involvement in any military conflict with Iraq, and lawmaker David Chaytor said Friday he feared the Labor Party could be split over the issue.

The Financial Times quoted an unidentified government source Friday as saying that there was talk of low-level resignations, and adding that members of Blair's Cabinet might also quit.

But asked whether ministers had voiced support during a Cabinet meeting Thursday for an attack on Iraq, if it was called for by President Bush, Clarke said the question had not arisen.

``That wasn't the nature of the discussion. We were not having a hypothetical discussion of that type,'' he said.

Clarke said the prime minister wanted to ensure international support for the war on terrorism.

``His position is that ... the U.S. must internationalize what they are doing, work with other people in the world community, to achieve the goals that we have, for example, on terrorism and other areas,'' Clarke told the BBC.

He said Blair would ``urge caution'' and took the position that ``any action in these fields is only likely to succeed if you have got the world community united in dealing with it.''

During his visit to Australia for the Commonwealth summit earlier this week, Blair gave his strongest backing yet for Bush's stance against the ``axis of evil'' supporting terrorism - Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

``We have got to act on it because if we don't act we may find out too late the potential for destruction,'' Blair said in an interview with Australia's Nine Network television.

The United States has demanded the return of U.N. weapons inspectors to Iraq and has hinted that it might expand its war on terrorism to the oil-rich Mideast nation.

The Emperor Fabulous · March 9, 2002, 23:34

Well, the US must ask...

Do we really want guys like this going for us?

Makeo · March 9, 2002, 23:37

GP smooshes Sacher torte into CT's head...

Bereta_Eder · March 9, 2002, 23:38

Quote:

Well, the US must ask...

Do we really want guys like this going for us?

Comrade Tribune · March 10, 2002, 00:01

Quote:

Originally posted by faded glory
Irrelevant. Baghdad has violated the terms of a Cease-Fire.

Nah; if they sent the Mafia instead of weapons inspectors, he was not bound to let them inspect anything. So he violated nothing at all.

faded glory · March 10, 2002, 00:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

Nah; if they sent the Mafia instead of weapons inspectors, he was not bound to let them inspect anything. So he violated nothing at all.

Thats an opinion. Amazing how you can rationalize a madman's paranoia... A spy was found, true. But Spy's were of course needed to point out some of these more hidden sites

Umm.....and actually he did

Technically, he hasnt allowed inspectors back in. Technically, the cease fire is over. Technically ; we have theright to bomb him back to the stone age.