1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Looks like the UK is waffling on Iraq

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Advocat, Jan 26, 2003.

  1. Advocat

    Advocat Viral Memes a Speciality Staff Member

    Looks like the UK is waffling a bit on Iraq

    Blair says inspectors need more time

    UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said this morning that UN inspectors should have more time and, though he's still prepared to aid the US, he wants a UN resolution before attacking. Seems he's trying to appease the large segment of UK citizens who aren't happy about Blair's stand: "I have always said the inspectors should have the time to do their job," he told the BBC. "But what is important is that their job is not to repeat what happened in the 1990s."

    Asked whether they should have weeks or months, he replied "Well, I don't believe it will take them months to find out whether he is cooperating or not, but they should have whatever time they need."

    The prime minister downplayed the significance of the report inspectors are to deliver to the Security Council Monday, saying it was "just the first full report, there'll be other reports."

    He said that if the weapons inspectors eventually determine Iraq is in breach of the United Nations resolution demanding it disarm, Britain believed it was very important to secure a second resolution authorizing the use of force.

    "There is only one set of circumstances in which I've said we'd move without one," he said. "That is the circumstance where the U.N. inspectors say he's not cooperating and he's in breach of the resolution ... but the U.N., because someone, say, unreasonably uses their veto, blocks a resolution."
  2. bruzzes

    bruzzes Truthslayer

    If that story is true, and I don't doubt it, another key ally has fallen to world opinion.

    Whether this is a good or a bad development I cannot say.

    The situation is rapidly evolving and the stand-up to the "New Rome" policy of the United States is reaching critical mass.

    I have no doubt that the US is prepared to act without consent of the UN. President Bush seems focused in that direction. Is this backlash of world opinion enough to change his approach? Unlikely. It is my opinion, that Bush's disdain for the inept UN, will color his judgment. He seems like a man who has set his goal, by following his heart in a straight "good against evil concept" and will not be detoured. His belief that Iraq is in material breach already, and has been for 11 years is fact enough for him.

    I do believe he was deeply affected by 9/11 and has moved this country in a direction or should I even say, a crusade, to eliminate terrorism wherever it is found. While I admire his steadfastness, perhaps it is time to pause and reflect the best method to attain this goal.

    Public admin sound bites, that castigate world opinions, further isolate the US, and such bellicose statements do not help but rather create more hard feelings down the road.

    I still fully support my president but what is alarming to me is this is the first time I question his stubbornness. It is almost like a horse with blinders on. No peripheral vision, and the only sighted way is straight ahead. "Damm the consequences, full speed ahead" can be valor or stupidity.

    I hope someone comes to their senses soon.
  3. midranger4

    midranger4 Banned

    It's US against the world...or is that U.S.?

    I fear Bush may wind up with a bit more egg on his face before this is all said and done.

    With each passing day opposition to a first strike attack is mounting.

    Credit has to be given to Sadaam for playing the UN and the global community at large like a well tuned violin once again.

    Maybe it's time for another terrorist attack so the unbridled emotions of the United States citizens can once again be used as a catalyst for a first strike.
  4. bruzzes

    bruzzes Truthslayer

    Your points are well stated Mid...

    I too feel that the 9/11 aftermath and the Patriotic emotions that it engendered is slowly fading away from the public consciousness. At that time, both Democrats and Republicans, stood side by side and world opinion stood united as well.

    The united front was against the Al Queda network, whereas the War against Terrorism and the countries that harbor them was more a separate doctrine tacked on by the president.

    It is the latter doctrine that has the world at odds with the US.
    We started first with Afghanistan and subsequently, we moved to our next objective. Iraq seemed like the logical next step at the time. Was it a wise move? Time will tell. But one cannot willy-nilly pick a country and attack without justification.

    Saddam plays the game well and presently we seem stymied. I still believe that some data will come forth at the last moment to re-galvanize this action. Bush may be blinded in the pursuit of his goal, but he is not stupid. Rhetoric will not do it. Physical evidence must be found and I am sure that at the proper moment it will be revealed.
  5. muddly

    muddly Guest

    As part of the global community you speak of, I'd say it's more a failure on Bush's part to play the world than a success on Saddam's.

    Maybe the "with us or with the terrrorists" thing still "plays" with some, but it's possible to oppose a war without having been played by anyone.
  6. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    Then again, maybe the global community is part of the problem rather than part of the solution. The international response seems to be one of "let's make this about Bush rather than Saddam."

    I guess it comes down to whether or not one believes the following:

    1. Saddam has bad toys.
    2. He has shown no compunction about using them in the past
    3. Hans 'Mr. Magoo' Blix isn't going to find them
    4. The U.S. and the U.K. should not have to play the perpetual game of containing Saddam ad nauseum.
  7. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    I'd go along with that. It's not as if Saddam had a lot to play with.
  8. Omar

    Omar Registered User

    Ladies and Gentlemen

    Back in Jordan, everyone has been glued to the tv or papers to find out what is going on with America. People are very impatient here, but this issue has been dragging on so long that everyone wants a closure already.

    Mr. Bush needs to do something drastic in order to gain the momentum.
  9. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    I think Bush was outmaneuvered in his attempts to get other countries on board by their own self interest. He underestimated his ability to sell to them and their recognition of their self interest. They have every right to their own self interest. He was in a bad game. Get support or be labeled a bullying cowboy. Now his dilemma is go without support or be labeled a bullying cowboy. The irony is that if we don't act by ourselves who do you think Germany, France, et al will be blaming when Saddam pulls the coup he is planning, the act that will make 9/11 look like a bump in the road?
  10. mikepd

    mikepd Veteran Member

    Pres. Bush has the problem of proving a negative without revealing any classified information that could get sources killed. Saadam has used WMDs in the past on his own people but has not used them recently. So does this mean he has none? Everyone who is against Bush wants to believe the best in Saadam who has gasses his own people but at the same time they'll believe the worst motives for Bush. Rose colored glasses anyone?
  11. midranger4

    midranger4 Banned

    Re: Ladies and Gentlemen

    Ain't that the truth Omar.

    Now I guess we wait for the drastic part.

  12. cdw

    cdw Ahhhh...the good life.

    Bush himself has come out and said we should give the inspectors more time...
    I'll tell ya, if we do nothing, after all this talk for all this time, I'm gonna be one pissed off little country bumpkin.
  13. Advocat

    Advocat Viral Memes a Speciality Staff Member

    His major problem is that, from the outside, the above looks exactly the same as having no evidence and trying to bluff.
  14. midranger4

    midranger4 Banned


    Our bark is worse than our bite? ;)
  15. martissimo

    martissimo Veteran Member

    I believe that Mr. Blair has just finally started to realize how unpopular he will likely end up in his own country if he goes ahead and backs an attack before the inspectors find something very substantial. From what i have read the public opinion in the U.K. is very strongly against attacking at this point, and while the Brits are certainly our closest ally it's hard to ask their leader to committ political suicide really.
  16. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    In all honesty, I am tired of the US asking other countries for help. I really am.

    Unpopular with their citizens? That's fine.

    Don't want to risk leadership in your home country? That's fine.

    Don't want to look at your domestic problems and instead focus on anti-Americanism? That's fine.

    I say America needs to become more isolated from the other countries as well. Why should we give a flying #@#@ what happens in THEIR countries when they don't care what happens in ours?

    Legitimate logic, me thinks.
  17. midranger4

    midranger4 Banned

    Perfectly legitimate logic Ethics.

    Unfortunately I don't think isolating ourselves is an option although we could simply become less *helpful* when other countries come rattling their tin cups at the White House doors.
  18. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Well, that's a start. Perhaps kicking UN out of the US, and pulling out of it altogether would be a nice, clear message.
  19. muddly

    muddly Guest

    To me, that argument is close to an admission that the evidence he has presented so far is not enough. Not to mention I'm not sure how the safety of sources will be assured by carpet-bombing the place to smithereens.

    The negative Bush has to prove, for global support, is that his reasons for attacking Iraq go beyond personal and economic, since it would be arrogant to expect support on that basis alone. He needs to do a better job proving the positives; that Iraq poses an imminent, credible threat to other countries, that Iraq was responsible for any of the recent terrorist attacks against the U.S. and other countries, and/or that Iraq plans an attack on the U.S. in circumstances other than self-defense against a first strike by the U.S.

    That is not asking for too much, when you are asking people to send soldiers to die in war as well as accept a share of not only financial burdens but the weight of conscience for the large number of innocent civilians who are going to die. It needs to be justifiable beyond what Bush has been able to communicate.

    I think what he has accomplished is transferring a nation's anger from Osama to Saddam and however well that works domestically, it doesn't have enough legs to carry the whole world.

    Defiance of UN security resolutions, possession and use of certain types of weapons and being a meglomaniac dictator are qualities that are and have been practised in many countries; if this particular case is different to the point of requiring a global coalition of nations to launch an immediate attack, Bush has done a dismal job of proving it. Frankly I'm surprised he has the support of the UK and Canada (which despite mumblings by Blair and Chretien, I believe he still does.)
  20. mikepd

    mikepd Veteran Member

    I imagine something similar being said back in 1939 about Hitler. 'Peace in our time', it was called then. It did not quite work out as envisioned an when the final bill was presented to pay the band the dance was rather expensive. Appeasement never works in the long term when dealing with non-rational leaders. MAD worked during the Cold War, for with all their posturing, the Soviets were rational and realized that a full nuclear exchange would be the end of Communism. To allow Saadam further time to weaponize biological and chemical weapons, to allow him time to either home grow or acquire nuclear grade material from N. Korea is suicidal. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It does not say wait until you are attacked and then respond because you have high ideals. If Europe has it's collective head in the sand because of its past history over the centuries due to infighting and wars that could have either been prevented or fought with far fewer casualties if they had acted sooner to stop the madness then so be it. This is one American who is not willing to risk suicide by proxy due to Europe's blindness, arrogance and downright stupidity. They can also turn around and say the same to you stupid American. To which I reply 'You're absolutely right. My opinion. So do something about it. Get your damn beloved EU together or singly in concert and refuse to trade with us, better yet, announce that if we go into Iraq, you will get your panties in a bunch and shut down your airspace to American airplanes, declare everything short of war, hell do that even. Do something instead of just whining. Boot the UN out of New York, we can save the money.

Share This Page