Why War Is The Right Choice by Tony Blair

[MMMMMM]

No, I believe Saddam manipulated the sanctions to kill those children and did nothing to alleviate their suffering when much was in his power to do so had he chosen.

It's IDIOTIC to think that a replacement for Saddam will not be better, as nobody could be worse. The chances of one being better than Saddam are close to 100%.

Past actions by the US in supporting bad regimes taken out of the Cold War context, and without considering the alternatives, are an intellectually dishonest way of condemning the US far too severely and broadly--and my arguing that you have to take into account the larger picture in no way implies that I don't care about people being murdered and tortured: this is not the first time you have wrongly criticized my compassion or my motives, based on your own flawed assumption which seems to be that to disagree with your analysis is somehow evidence of a non-compassionate outlook.

Your position that Iraq has little of significance in the way of WMD will be clearly proven to be completely off-base after the war commences. Indeed, given the facts now present as well as the testimonials of ex-Iraqi scientists, etc. I would say that anyone who believes this is either very naive, or deliberately taking such a position to attempt to thwart the USA or to aid Saddam.

Whatever the U.N. team said, it's obvious that even Blix doesn't believe Saddam is free of WMD. The other Arab states don't and are calling for him to step down or to reach for the suicide revolver, and some will be supporting the US invasion materially.

I guess Chris Alger is more pro-Saddam/anti-US than are even the Arabs.

[IrishHand]

I guess Chris Alger is more pro-Saddam/anti-US than are even the Arabs.

I just love how a rational criticism of a nation's policies somehow means a love for the victims of that nation's policies.

You might want to consider the possibility that he considers Iraqi lives just as significant as American lives. You might then consider that he considers the continued propagation of our economic imperialism to be a bad thing for the Iraqi people.

Chris has condemned Hussein in many posts. The only reason you get all worked up about his posts is that he's equally critical of US policies.

[MMMMMM]

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

Chris Alger: "No. Do your homework."


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=31117


(excerpt)
"But chief inspector Hans Blix reported to Security Council members that Iraq had failed to account for 1,000 tons of chemical agent, 6,500 chemical bombs, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard gas and VX nerve agent and 380 rocket engines useful in the delivery of biological and chemical agents."(end excerpt)

[brad]

'"One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded," he said. '

from your link. but the reason he says that is because all the stuff destroyed in gulf war '91 is 'unaccounted for'.

and US knows he had them prior to gulf war because US sold/gave him all those chem/bio stuff!

but i really salute you for supporting your argument with a fact. but the main benefit may be that others can branch off of your supporting facts and attack and/or support them and more info comes into play and makes for better arguments.

p.s. note i didnt give any support for my statements but i think its common knowledge. heh

[MMMMMM]

brad: "from your link. but the reason he says that is because all the stuff destroyed in gulf war '91 is 'unaccounted for'."

No, that's not accurate. Blix is not referring to "all the stuff (actually) destroyed in the gulf war" here.

Iraq claimed it destroyed a lot of WMD unilaterally--which was in direct violation of resolutions supervised destruction--and offered absolutely no evidence that it actually destroyed many of these WMD. In other words Iraq carted off these WMD then claimed it had destroyed them.

Blix here is simply stating the fact that there remain huge quantities of WMD unaccounted for--for which Iraq has offered no documentation nor evidence of their destruction, and Iraq chose to not even address the question of unaccounted for WMD in its 12,000 page report recently, although it was required to do so by Resolution 1441.

By the way, don't salute me for presenting what should be a well-known fact--I did it for one reason only.

[adios]

M no matter what you say or I say or Annan says or Blix says about the necessity to disarm Iraq, many will just ignore the obvious.

[Chris Alger]

"1,000 tons of chemical agent" used in bombs that Iraq has not produced since 1988 and who's facilities for producing them have been destroyed is not the same as "thousands of ton of chemical/biological weapons" capable, as you said, of "genocide." The issue concerns approximately 6,500 chemical bombs that represent the difference between how many Iraq said it produced and how many it used in the 1980's. Although Blix claims that UNSCOM must "presume" they are not accounted for, the only evidence for their existence amounts to a discrepency of numbers.

[Jimbo]

Although Blix claims that UNSCOM must "presume" they are not accounted for, the only evidence for their existence amounts to a discrepency of numbers. Try using that logic with the IRS Chris and see how well you do during your next audit.

[Chris Alger]

"It's IDIOTIC to think that a replacement for Saddam will not be better, as nobody could be worse. The chances of one being better than Saddam are close to 100%."

It could get quite a bit worse. 60% of Iraq's population is Shiite and likely to want better relations with Iran, but any Iraqi government supported by the US will undoubtedly be hostile to this notion. Nobody has any idea what the consequences could be. What do you suppose is going to happen to the Kurds, when they start demanding and agitating for independence, both for themselves and their Kurdish brothers and sisters in Turkey? Do you think it's "idiotic" that Saddam's replacement will treat them much better than Saddam did when he was killing them with US and British support? Or that they'll be treated much better than Kurds are treated in Turkey? What happens if the pro-US Baghdad regime places them under "curfew" like the Palestinians or locks up their dissidents and political leaders like Turkey? Given that the Bush administration refuses to acknowledge human rights abuses in Turkey and Israel, what makes you think they'll acknowledge them when they're committed by a pro-US regime in Iraq?

"Past actions by the US in supporting bad regimes taken out of the Cold War context...."

There isn't any "cold war context" for Indonesia's US-supported carnage in Timor, Israel's illegal occupation or Turkey's treatment of the Kurds, and the latter two are ongoing, not "in the past."

[nicky g]

I do think whoever replaces Saddam is very likely to be much better than him, given the terrible things he's done. I just don't think that outweighs the likely human costs of the war, and I don't think Saddam is in a position any more to repeat his past outrages (given for example Kurdish de facto autonomy, wich will be ended with the war and looks likely to turn into a fight with the pretty brutal Turks). Noone have any comments on the link I posted about Blair refusing to say that the post-Saddam regime will be democratic? I say that if the US wanted a democratic regime in the Middle East it could stop propping up Egypt and co rather than dropping bombs.

MMMMMM regarding your cold war comments, if you look at Chile for example, that was a country which was regarded as a model of democracy in which all the main parties were opposed to US intervention to topple Allende, as was the army chief; the US had him assasinated. I don't think that squares with your defence of US policy.