Why I commend Tony Blair and George Bush's actions
Discussion
In the last few months i've heard so many pro and anti war stories I've decided to propose my theory. I'm sure its been said before but the essay im working on for my War Studies degree is boring me so i thought i'd share my ideas.
Basically, the current situation of Blair and a few MPs, Bush and a few members of Congress being pro-war is actually a very good thing for overall peace. You may be thinking, "but they want to CREATE war"... True. But thats not the be all and end all.
Bush and Blair are claiming whatever happens with the UNSC (United Nations Security Council) decision they will go to war anyway. Sure its not real democracy but i believe its the right thing people in their position should do.
If Bush and Blair gave in to the million or so anti-war protestors in each of their countries, Saddam and his evil regime win. Simple as that. With no threat of war, he can do whatever the h£ll he likes. And that is definitely not good for peace in the region.
By 'ignoring' (note the 's) these calls for peace and threating Saddam with war whatever happens, then Saddam has still got to believe war is a possibility. Thus he is hopefully complying with the weapons inspectors a lot more so than if he had no threat of war.
Blair and Bush are out on their own in their respective governments. That's a position i do not envy. They're just doing what they believe is best.
They're not ignoring the peace calls, they're just using their power as a means of scaring a dictator into disarming. The people in Iraq are arguably less anti-war than these demonstrators in London. See the sporadic reports from people who have actually been to Iraq for details.
Summary:
I believe the fact that Blair and Bush are threatening force without a care for the protestors is a good thing. They are presurising Saddam into disarming more than ever.
Disclaimer:
I'm 19. I'm a student in war studies, in central london. I'm neither pro nor anti war. I believe it has a place in the modern world system, but dropping bombs without justification is wrong. I'm just trying to come to some conclusion, something that the more extreme pro and anti supporters fail to do in my oppinion. Theres a lot of single minded people in this world....
What's everyone else think on my 'theory'?
Back to essay....
Basically, the current situation of Blair and a few MPs, Bush and a few members of Congress being pro-war is actually a very good thing for overall peace. You may be thinking, "but they want to CREATE war"... True. But thats not the be all and end all.
Bush and Blair are claiming whatever happens with the UNSC (United Nations Security Council) decision they will go to war anyway. Sure its not real democracy but i believe its the right thing people in their position should do.
If Bush and Blair gave in to the million or so anti-war protestors in each of their countries, Saddam and his evil regime win. Simple as that. With no threat of war, he can do whatever the h£ll he likes. And that is definitely not good for peace in the region.
By 'ignoring' (note the 's) these calls for peace and threating Saddam with war whatever happens, then Saddam has still got to believe war is a possibility. Thus he is hopefully complying with the weapons inspectors a lot more so than if he had no threat of war.
Blair and Bush are out on their own in their respective governments. That's a position i do not envy. They're just doing what they believe is best.
They're not ignoring the peace calls, they're just using their power as a means of scaring a dictator into disarming. The people in Iraq are arguably less anti-war than these demonstrators in London. See the sporadic reports from people who have actually been to Iraq for details.
Summary:
I believe the fact that Blair and Bush are threatening force without a care for the protestors is a good thing. They are presurising Saddam into disarming more than ever.
Disclaimer:
I'm 19. I'm a student in war studies, in central london. I'm neither pro nor anti war. I believe it has a place in the modern world system, but dropping bombs without justification is wrong. I'm just trying to come to some conclusion, something that the more extreme pro and anti supporters fail to do in my oppinion. Theres a lot of single minded people in this world....
What's everyone else think on my 'theory'?
Back to essay....
Saw Tony Benn at East Croydon an hour ago - how I wanted to tell him what an appeasing fool he is (albeit one admirable for sticking to his beliefs) but I left him to his pipe in peace.
I agree- it's full of holes but we have to see this policy through to the end and ensure Saddam ends up preferably in a cold, unmarked grave with a 9mm sleeping pill.
Cheers
James - a War Studies graduate (1997)
PS Funny coincidence - saw Micheal Dockerill today - Professor (retd) - Saki Dockerill's husband - he was the best - an enlightened lecturer as well as the hardiest drinker in the Waterfront ever - every lunchtime almost without fail!!!
I agree- it's full of holes but we have to see this policy through to the end and ensure Saddam ends up preferably in a cold, unmarked grave with a 9mm sleeping pill.
Cheers
James - a War Studies graduate (1997)
PS Funny coincidence - saw Micheal Dockerill today - Professor (retd) - Saki Dockerill's husband - he was the best - an enlightened lecturer as well as the hardiest drinker in the Waterfront ever - every lunchtime almost without fail!!!
What's everyone else think on my 'theory'?
Yup everytime someone has started pontificating on the radio about it recently I have been prone to jump up and shout that, without any threat, Sad Hussie will carry on sticking fingers up at the West. Nothing has, can or will happen without a big stick or the threat of a big stick.
I think that's the simple bit though! I for one would not be happy if the Bush Babies do decide to go much further than their current forays at pushing the boundaries, and it'll get a whole lot more complicated before anything's resolved.
Mind you I keep resolving not to get excitable about the whole mess. Here - let someone else have the
Good luck with that essay!
sadoksevoli said: Saw Tony Benn at East Croydon an hour ago - how I wanted to tell him what an appeasing fool he is (albeit one admirable for sticking to his beliefs) but I left him to his pipe in peace.
I agree- it's full of holes but we have to see this policy through to the end and ensure Saddam ends up preferably in a cold, unmarked grave with a 9mm sleeping pill.
Cheers
James - a War Studies graduate (1997)
PS Funny coincidence - saw Micheal Dockerill today - Professor (retd) - Saki Dockerill's husband - he was the best - an enlightened lecturer as well as the hardiest drinker in the Waterfront ever - every lunchtime almost without fail!!!
Hey James,
I'm yet to have a lecture by Saki, heard she's very good though.
I went to a lecture by Tony Benn in the Strand campus the other day. He was asked:
"whats your oppinion on the fact that over 12 million signed a petition to stop the second world war in 1939, yet that war is seen as justified nowadays?"
He went totally off the subject, never even mentioning. The guy who asked just stood there amazed at his answer. Pathetic.
1)democracy. Bush was elected by Florida and the dodgy votes.In the U.K. we dont even get to vote for our leader. Bush is a goon, and a right wing one at that which may explain his gung-ho attitude. Blair is brave and gambling that it'll bring him the Falklands Factor (he studied Maggie) cos otherwise the backbenchers will get him. The U.N. is a gas shop with no democracy at all and is well past it's sell by date. Why is it a big deal for so many to get the second resolution? Does that make Saddam more/less evil? IMHO world opinion is not worth bothering about. Anyone remember Bosnia/Kosovo and the U.N. machinations over them. Either Saddam is evil and we have an opportunity to get him or he is a much maligned bunnyhugger. Occaisionally we have to do a bit of world policing or the place will go to pot. Remember that he invaded Kuwait cos he was $10billion in the red developing (mainly) nuclear weapons, having spent the revenue from owning 5% of world oil reserves. So hes an evil dude and first in the firing line. Next up Mugabe and Kim Il whatever. After that it gets a little tough cos you cant really invade China or Pakistan or India - the last two of which are the ones most likely to start chucking nukes about.
Now I'm fuming - there are distrubing stories coming from the Gulf just reported on BBC breakfast that our troops are beginning to really suffer from poor food. That useless lying tw@t Lewis Mooney claims they are getting two square meals a day and a "ration pack" lunch while quite a few have emailed home saying they're drastically losing weight. Is this the first sign that our military hasd been neglected for so long that Bliar's diktat to help the Americans will backfire badly?
Other posts on PH stated that it's always better to buy the more mundane kit when you need it and not keep it stored forever - that's all very well if you've got a logistic supply chain that can get the kit out there - I think we don't.
Other posts on PH stated that it's always better to buy the more mundane kit when you need it and not keep it stored forever - that's all very well if you've got a logistic supply chain that can get the kit out there - I think we don't.
I've one of the few in this forum who support New Labour and what they're trying to achieve - but Tony Blair's approach to Iraq is starting to really concern me.
He's now saying that he will ignore a UN Security Council veto if he thinks the country is acting 'unreasonably'. WTF is that all about?
Basically what that means is that the UK doesn't agree with any country that veto's, it will ignore that veto. How would we like it if other countries did that to us, bearing in mind we've exercised our right to a veto many times in the last 30 years?
He's basically saying 'If you don't agree with me I'll ignore you'.
Keeping the pressure on Saddam is fine, threatening to ignore the views of the UN Security Council is not.
The whole Iraq issues confues the hell out of me. Why now? Why Iraq? What about Burma, North Korea? Even Yemen, Saudi Arabia? There are many countries that harbour terrorists and have weapons of mass destruction, why are we picking on Iraq?
And as for the war being justified to counter-act world terrorism - the one thing war is guaranteed to do is dramatically increase the risk of terror attacks.
It all makes no sense to me.
He's now saying that he will ignore a UN Security Council veto if he thinks the country is acting 'unreasonably'. WTF is that all about?
Basically what that means is that the UK doesn't agree with any country that veto's, it will ignore that veto. How would we like it if other countries did that to us, bearing in mind we've exercised our right to a veto many times in the last 30 years?
He's basically saying 'If you don't agree with me I'll ignore you'.
Keeping the pressure on Saddam is fine, threatening to ignore the views of the UN Security Council is not.
The whole Iraq issues confues the hell out of me. Why now? Why Iraq? What about Burma, North Korea? Even Yemen, Saudi Arabia? There are many countries that harbour terrorists and have weapons of mass destruction, why are we picking on Iraq?
And as for the war being justified to counter-act world terrorism - the one thing war is guaranteed to do is dramatically increase the risk of terror attacks.
It all makes no sense to me.
The theory I liked from the news was as follows:
France and Russia are threatening to veto because they want to preserve oil interests. (May or may not be true.) If US and UK say they'll invade anyway, they're calling their bluff - if they veto now and the war does go ahead, they'll have no say/influence in what happens afterwards and loose all oil interests in Iraq.
As a result, after protesting a lot it's in their interests not to veto the action (assuming it passes the main vote), as it's better to have a smaller share of something, than a whole lot of nothing.
China entering the debate has messed this theory around a bit, but they've got oil interests too so it may still hang together.
Dan
France and Russia are threatening to veto because they want to preserve oil interests. (May or may not be true.) If US and UK say they'll invade anyway, they're calling their bluff - if they veto now and the war does go ahead, they'll have no say/influence in what happens afterwards and loose all oil interests in Iraq.
As a result, after protesting a lot it's in their interests not to veto the action (assuming it passes the main vote), as it's better to have a smaller share of something, than a whole lot of nothing.
China entering the debate has messed this theory around a bit, but they've got oil interests too so it may still hang together.
Dan
2 points:-
When there is a war in any part of the world, there will be many of the people of that country fleeing and claiming to be persecuted - refugees. Where do you think the Iraqi refugees will end up? The US? Of course not. France, Germany? Nope....The UK, that's where - especially as our leader is one of the most vocal about how evil Saddam is....
The United Nations was set up in such a way that all the nations of the world have a say in world affairs, some have more say than others, such as the permanent members of the security council, of which we are one. if the US and UK ignore vetos from fellow security council members they set a dangerous precedent. What happens when the UK wants to veto an unreasonable request from another member? Why should they respect our veto when we didn't respect theirs, and down the UN goes.....
Saddam is a bad man. No doubt about it. But so is Mugabe and so are a dozen other despotic leaders around the world, many of whom already own WMDs and have shown they are prepared to use them. Blair himself stood up in the commons less than 2 years ago to say how well sanctions were keeping Saddam contained - what's changed? An if something has, why can no-one say what it is?
>> Edited by Mark Benson on Friday 7th March 11:18
When there is a war in any part of the world, there will be many of the people of that country fleeing and claiming to be persecuted - refugees. Where do you think the Iraqi refugees will end up? The US? Of course not. France, Germany? Nope....The UK, that's where - especially as our leader is one of the most vocal about how evil Saddam is....
The United Nations was set up in such a way that all the nations of the world have a say in world affairs, some have more say than others, such as the permanent members of the security council, of which we are one. if the US and UK ignore vetos from fellow security council members they set a dangerous precedent. What happens when the UK wants to veto an unreasonable request from another member? Why should they respect our veto when we didn't respect theirs, and down the UN goes.....
Saddam is a bad man. No doubt about it. But so is Mugabe and so are a dozen other despotic leaders around the world, many of whom already own WMDs and have shown they are prepared to use them. Blair himself stood up in the commons less than 2 years ago to say how well sanctions were keeping Saddam contained - what's changed? An if something has, why can no-one say what it is?
>> Edited by Mark Benson on Friday 7th March 11:18
I find myself agreeing again with SPNracing.
Its all hot air anyway as Bush and Bliar are sending the boys in, regardless. They are all just scrabbling to assume a position where they can justify their actions.
Debate is 'nominal' only and to act like this in the name of democracy is ludicrous.
Its all hot air anyway as Bush and Bliar are sending the boys in, regardless. They are all just scrabbling to assume a position where they can justify their actions.
Debate is 'nominal' only and to act like this in the name of democracy is ludicrous.
The oil issue may be a bit spurious cos when Saddam gets the chop then a government will be installed PDQ, as in afganistan, and the first thing they'll do is make sure of their oil revenues cos they have no other source of income. The days of staying incountry are over cos weve had our fingers badly burnt recently- it looks like the only benefit will be from rebuilding which will probably go our way as reward. France and Russia will get the yar-boo-sucks and further distance themselves from the real power centre. These days it seems being a U.S. poodle is the only way forward untill EU gets some teeth.
The more I listen the more the splinters from the fence that I sit on hurt! I am still presently undecided on this and this isnt a particularily good situation.
However, I would say that one thing is certain - WE DONT KNOW THE FULL STORY.
As posted originally - there are a few people that are commited to this course of action - something that they dont take likely! Get it wrong and they will go down in history as morons (and get themselves out of office at the same time!). So there has to be something that we are not being told.... This is the thing that annoys me the most. We are the public and we do deserve to know as much as practically possible. It is pretty plain to see that there are facts and situations that we just dont know and as a result we cant make educated judgements. Maybe I am assuming that the electorate is sufficiently well versed in world wide politics to understand - but hey, I think we deserve to know...
Anyway, time to get of the soap box and back to work. I just hope that something happens to resolve the situation either way - sooner rather than later.
Cheers,
Paul
However, I would say that one thing is certain - WE DONT KNOW THE FULL STORY.
As posted originally - there are a few people that are commited to this course of action - something that they dont take likely! Get it wrong and they will go down in history as morons (and get themselves out of office at the same time!). So there has to be something that we are not being told.... This is the thing that annoys me the most. We are the public and we do deserve to know as much as practically possible. It is pretty plain to see that there are facts and situations that we just dont know and as a result we cant make educated judgements. Maybe I am assuming that the electorate is sufficiently well versed in world wide politics to understand - but hey, I think we deserve to know...
Anyway, time to get of the soap box and back to work. I just hope that something happens to resolve the situation either way - sooner rather than later.
Cheers,
Paul
wholeheartedly agree.Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff