Why War Is The Right Choice by Tony Blair

[nicky g]

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,898137,00.html

Blair silent on Iraq democracy

Matthew Tempest, political correspondent
Tuesday February 18, 2003

Tony Blair today refused to specify what sort of regime might follow Saddam Hussein's in Iraq - despite making the "moral case" for overthrowing the Iraqi dictator by military action.
The prime minister avoided committing to a democratic regime at least three times under questioning from reporters at today's monthly press conference.

And although the Downing Street press office handed reporters emails from the Iraqi Exiles in the UK group, Mr Blair merely said Iraq should be put on the path to democracy, but that discussions about what may happen after any military action were still continuing.

Jon Snow of Channel 4 news asked the prime minister if the Shia majority in the south of Iraq will be allowed to vote for a non-secular government.

"The future governance of Iraq is something to discuss with the UN. There are a lot of difficult issues to be resolved without speculating about that," Mr Blair replied.

The prime minister did repeat his line that the "territorial integrity of Iraq" would remain, but specifically refused to answer a question from a journalist on the presence of 40,000 Turkish troops in northern Iraq, saying that was a matter for governments.

Asked if Britain would support breakaway elements which wanted to create a Kurdish state in what is now northern Iraq or a Shi'ite Islamic state in the south, Mr Blair insisted that his commitment to Iraq's territorial integrity was "absolute".

Later, Mr Blair would only say that "we have to be committed to the humanitarian consequences of renewing Iraq", when asked to guarantee Iraqi exiles' request for a democracy post-Saddam.

"Before Saddam came to power, Iraq was a thriving country" Mr Blair reminded reporters. He pointed out that northern Iraq currently has greater autonomy due to the policing of the US/UK no-fly zone, compared with central and southern Iraq.

The prime minister also said that one sixth of the Iraqi population had gone into exile in the last 20 years - the equivalent of 10 million Britons leaving the UK.

But pressed on exactly what would follow President Saddam's regime, Mr Blair would merely repeat that "lots of discussions are underway".

He said that he hoped that democracy could be restored in Iraq if President Saddam was overthrown.

"This something that has to be discussed not just with allies but with the UN and with people inside Iraq. But the more that we can at least set ourselves on a path towards on greater democracy the better," Mr Blair added.

He told journalists to look at the example of Hamid Karzai in Afgahanistan, who he revealed would be visiting the UK shortly.

Despite his recent comments on the "moral case for removing Saddam", Mr Blair stressed that "regime change" was not government policy, and that the argument for removing President Saddam rested on the dangers of his weapons.

He called on what he dismissed as "thousands" of anti-war protesters to listen to the testimony of Iraqi exiles about the horror of President Saddam's regime, and their wish for him to be removed from power.

Mr Blair added: "There was a huge emphasis by people on the march about the consequences of war, their fear about that. I think it is important we address that better."

He suggested that many of those marching did not fully understand the nature of President Saddam's regime.

"A poll indicated that a large proportion of people disagreed with the statement 'Saddam is a cruel tyrant'," he said.

"There is a failure of communication, which I take responsibility for, if that is the case."

He said he accepted that the marchers were "sincerely motivated and convinced" in their opposition to the use of military force, but called on them to accept that it was possible to be equally sincere and convinced that it might be needed.

Mr Blair told Jon Smith, political editor of the Press Association, that he had no doubt that they could work with any new administration in Iraq and "locate this stuff and deal with it".

He was referring to nerve gas and other material which has not so far been found.

At the start of the press conference, the prime minister published a letter written to him by a group calling itself Iraqi Exiles in the UK - which urges him to stand firm against President Saddam.

Mr Blair told his monthly news conference: "These are voices that deserve to be heard."

The group, based in Manchester, said in their letter: "We are praying that you will stick to your resolve to liberate our country from a dictatorial tyranny which over the past 30 years has caused the deaths of nearly two million men, women, sons and daughters.

"We have suffered enough."

The letter goes on: "Today, in the face of so much opposition, we look to you to remain steadfast for all that is decent and honourable, as you already have done.

"The anti-war coalition ignores the terror we have lived under for so long, offers no alternative to our nightmare, can only be construed as supporting Saddam Hussein and helping to maintain his regime indefinitely."

The letter also urges the West not to impose a military leader on Iraq saying: "The people of Iraq should be given a chance to form their own democratic government after the liberation of Iraq and in the future."

[nicky g]

Surely those administering theaid would know what was happening to it - if monies were being misspent wholesale etc? And yet they resigned not in protest at what Saddam was doing but in protest at the effects of the sanctions.

[nicky g]

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...002/07indy.htm


"Because it can only legally import goods under the oil-for-food program established in 1996, Iraq is unable to meet the needs of its 22 million people. In theory, the program allows for unlimited oil exports. But because of Iraq's decaying infrastructure, which has been further hobbled by the blocking of spare parts, it can produce at best 75 percent of its pre-sanctions output of 3.5 million barrels of oil a day.

Iraq never sees a penny of this money; it's controlled by the U.N. Of that, only 70 percent is allocated for goods. The rest goes toward administrative costs and reparations. So, according to VITW, while Iraq sold more than $37 billion worth of oil from 1997 through 2000, only $9 billion of goods actually arrived in Iraq. For the average Iraqi, this means less than 40 cents a day is allocated to meet all her humanitarian needs. "

" Iraq never sees a penny of this money; it's controlled by the UN ". The goods are bought directly by the UN and shipped to Iraq, and often blocked under spurious "dual use" regulations. So again, how is Iraq misspending actual goods under the oil-for-food programme? Selling it on the black market?

Where is the evidence for your claims?

[MMMMMM]

Sorry nicky but I don't bookmark every article I've read in forming my opinions. I think Bush also mentioned that Saddam has surreptitiously misused the oil-for-food program to enhance his military, and I think we will see more evidence of thit forthcoming after he is deposed.

What's more, you still haven't addressed the simple fact that he somehow had on balance PLENTY of money to spend--as evidenced by his massive military and WMD expenditures--and his choice was to let his people suffer. Not that that's anything new for him--the man is a cold-blooded sadist from long ago--and so is his son.

Free the Iraqi people--why aren't you for freeing the Iraqi people? Would YOU want to live under his terror and tyranny, or would you rather a foreign power steps in to relieve you and your people of the suffering and slavery you would have living under Saddam?

Why people aren't for saving the Iraqi people from the tyranny of this monster is almost beyond me--the horrors of war are NOT necessarily worse than than the horrors of despotism, and personally, I would MUCH rather live free or die than live in constant fear of my family being tortured and executed by a monster such as Saddam. I guess some folks think slow death by tyranny isn't worse than fast death by war, followed by freedom.

Resist tyranny--depose Saddam. We should do it for the Iraqi people even if no other reasons existed.

[nicky g]

"What's more, you still haven't addressed the simple fact that he had on balance PLENTY of money to spend somehow--as evidenced by his massive military and WMD expenditures"

But those were prior to the sanctions. No doubt money is still spent on the military, and there may be a smaller WMD programme, though noone's found any evidence for it, but the times when he was spending vast fortunes on these things was before the period we're arguing about, and when the Iraqi standard of living was comparatively high (in economic terms; obviously not in human rights terms). I bleive I have in fact made this point in response to your point previously.

"I think we will see more evidence of that forthcoming after he is deposed."

Maybe but that's not a legitimate argument to go to war; bomb first, produce evidence later. I don't doubt he's a monster but I think it's clear that the sanctions have a terrible effect on the people of Iraq regardless of Saddam's machinations.

[MMMMMM]

Well after we get rid of Saddam there won't be any more sanctions;-)

[Chris Alger]

"Basically all of the "players" are in agreement that Saddam has to be disarmed just not how."

I'm not sure who the "players" are but this is definitely not the position of those with power that oppose the war. According to UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter, Saddam is already 90-95% disarmed of WMD, and certain toxins that he allegedly failed to account for have a shelf life of only af few years. More importanly, the means of producing these materials in Iraq have been abolished or severely curtailed. There is also no reason to believe that Saddam can regenerate a large inventory of WMD without foreign assistance that has not been forthcoming in years and under the noses of not just UNSCOM but U-2's, satellites, electronic evesdropping and spooks. The reality of Saddam's power is perhaps most evident in optimistic Pentagon predictions of US forces being able to invade, topple and withdraw within as little as 90 days. Such regimes are rationally referred to as defenseless rather than serious threats to the world.

According, despite the pro-war template argument of "if he can't show that he's 100% disarmed, the US and UK should be allowed to invade," I think most of those presently opposed to the war would not demand an accounting of every toxic grain to justify remaining opposed.

[MMMMMM]

"every toxic grain"??? Didn't the UN team say there are thousands of tons of chemical/biological weapons unaccounted for? Who cares if that's 5% or 50%--it's more than enough to wreak havoc and commit genocide.

Let's not forget about the countless Iraqis who will die and suffer if Saddam is left in power, too. Who speaks for them??? Who hears their cries and pleas, the countless thousands of Iraqis who Saddam has mutilated, raped, tortured and executed---some mere children. Is there any reason to believe he won't go on doing this?

As Blair said, to leave Saddam in power is the truly inhumane choice.

Sometimes it's best to just do away with evil wholesale.

[adios]

Good post M.

Headline

Annan says Iraq has to move fast to cooperate with inspectors

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...y_iraq_annan_5

Some quotes from Annan in the article:

---------------------------------------------------------
Annan, who received the Vatican's thanks for his "constant personal commitment for peace" around the world, warned Baghdad on Monday that its failure to disarm under U.N. resolutions could lead to war.


"If they were to continue their defiance ... the members of the (U.N.) Security Council may have to make a grim choice, a grim choice of whether to declare them in material breach and the serious consequences that should follow," Annan told reporters in Brussels after an EU summit on the Iraqi crisis.


He repeated the message Tuesday in Rome.


"I think everybody is determined that Iraq should disarm and the message has gone out very strongly to the Iraqi leadership not just from the U.N. but from the Arab League and its neighbors. And I hope they heed that call and cooperate, and cooperate fully, with the inspectors.

----------------------------------------------------------

Even Annan states that Iraq has to disarm. The obvious conclusion is that Annan believes Iraq is in possession of WMD's. Maybe he, Annan, actually meant remove water pistols when he said disarm. Maybe pigs can fly too.

[Chris Alger]

"Who cares if that's 5% or 50%"

Because substantial progress over time toward eliminating Iraq's WMD is compelling evidence that inspections can work and that war is unecessary for this reason.

"Let's not forget about the countless Iraqis who will die and suffer if Saddam is left in power, too. Who speaks for them??? Who hears their cries and pleas, the countless thousands of Iraqis who Saddam has mutilated, raped, tortured and executed---some mere children."

The major enemy of Iraqi children during the last ten years has been the U.S., so I doubt the U.S. speaks for them. As for the U.S.-backed alternatifve to Saddam being better, you no basis to believe that this will be so. Your purported compassion for the people of Iraq rings hollow, as you could care less about people being murdered and oppressed by regimes backed by the U.S., which could much more easily reverse their plight than it can in the case of Iraq. Further, war will mean guaranteed suffering for thousands and probably hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Whether Saddam will start up the terror campaigns that ended 10 years ago is pure speculation.

"Didn't the UN team say there are thousands of tons of chemical/biological weapons unaccounted for?"

No. Do your homework.