Why War Is The Right Choice by Tony Blair

[MMMMMM]

(excerpt)
The following is the text of a speech delivered by Prime Minister Tony Blair at Labour's local government, women's and youth conferences, SECC, Glasgow, on Saturday, February 15, 2003. (end excerpt)

I won't butcher Mr Blair's speech by cutting and pasting excerpts.

In his speech, in addition to presenting his own thoughts and some facts/statistics, he quotes a letter from a member of a family of an Iraqi exile, and includes a quote from Dr Safa Hashim.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=6181

[brad]

does he mention babies being thrown out of incubators? (remember that propaganda thing which was totally false)

[MMMMMM]

If you'd read it you'd know whether he mentions it or not.

C'mon brad, why do you so often try to be obtuse?

[brad]

just mentioning a well known propaganda stunt right before gulf war.

if you cant see the parallel dont blame me. heh

[MMMMMM]

I saw the parallel, but it's an out-of-place comment given that you hadn't read the text of Blair's speech when you made it.

If Blair's speech contains something worth picking on, then go ahead if you like. But to cynically suggest that his speech contains propaganda lies before you even read it is unworthy of a serious discussion.

[adios]

Thanks for the link, very well done by Blair. It's fairly obvious to me that people who oppose imposing a deadline (which he has had plenty of time to meet) on Iraq disarmerment with military action as the consequence for not meeting the deadline simply don't feel that Saddam is a an immnenent nor serious threat. One poster stated that you can't prove a negative i.e. if Saddam doesn't have WMD's he can't very well remove them. This is a belief I don't even think Blix has. Basically all of the "players" are in agreement that Saddam has to be disarmed just not how.

BTW Blix's report on Friday IMO was a disgrace. I saw an interview with Democratic House Representative Alcee Hastings by Geraldo last nigtht. Hastings stated that there was no way that 200 inspectors or even 600 inspectors in an area the size of California are going to find WMD's that Hussein wants to hide. I certainly wouldn't call Congressman Hastings politically aligned with Bush either. It clued me in that the Congressional Democrats know what the score is regarding Saddam and WMD's. How many Congressional leaders were out there protesting this weekend against using military force to disarm Hussein? There must have been a few.

[Clarkmeister]

"....simply don't feel that Saddam is a an immnenent nor serious threat"

This certainly sums up a large portion of my view on the subject.

[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.