Britain can attack Iraq without a UN mandate: Hoon

Agence France-Presse ^ | 3/25/02

[T Ruth]

Monday March 25, 8:46 AM

Britain can attack Iraq without a UN mandate: Hoon

Britain can use force against Iraq without a United Nations mandate if Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is seen as a threat, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said.

The government reserves the right to order a nuclear attack against Iraq if chemical or biological weapons are targeted at British troops or the public, Hoon said in a television interview, echoing comments he made last week.

His remarks appeared to be at odds with those of Britain's International Development Secretary Clare Short, who on Friday insisted that any military action against Saddam's regime would require a specific UN mandate.

Short, said to have misgivings about the prospect of Prime Minister Tony Blair's support of US strikes against Baghdad, called for a "more sophisticated discussion" about what the options were.

Hoon's tough stance on Iraq was echoed by Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who said Saddam had "culpably failed" to comply with his country's international obligations.

The British and US governments had not taken any decisions about military action against Iraq and any move would be within international law, Straw insisted.

But he warned if Baghdad continued to refuse to allow UN weapons inspectors back into the country, then the position in international law may change.

Hoon also appeared to dismiss comments made by Short about whether the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had to be resolved before dealing with Iraq.

"I don't think it is possible to make one set of difficult international circumstances dependent on another," he said.

"I certainly don't believe that we can expect to resolve that long-running, enormously sensitive and difficult subject as a condition (for action on Iraq)."

[Husker24]

The U.S will not use nukes against Saddam. I saw an interview with George Bush Sr. a couple of years after the war. During the war the option was open to use nuclear weapons, like it is now. Bush Sr. said he wouldnt have even used them if Saddam had used Chemical weapons, it was all a bluff and it worked. The same thing is going on now, we will never use nuclear weapons unless attacked with nuclear weapons first.

[Wraith]

The same thing is going on now, we will never use nuclear weapons unless attacked with nuclear weapons first.

Or by biological or chemical weapons. Yes a very strong message to send to the opponent Sadam. I'm sure he is thinking things over very carefully. Your probably right that small nukes will not be used by the U.S./British, but can you predict what a cornered animal will do?

[Kate22]

I wouldn't get pissed off about any reasonable question. I'm not some kind of virago honest (well only in the most positive way)!

I would say that over half of the British public would be against such an attack. There are several reasons: there is a perception that it's pointless and just scapegoating Iraq for 9/11; it is seen as being an 'easy target' (after all the suicide bombers were from Saudi and Egypt - not Iraq or Afghanistan); and it seems especially harsh against Iraq where Britain and the US have been continually bombing and the population have suffered horrendously through sanctions.

Then there are some more obvious reasons such as the large Muslim population in parts of Britain (1% of all British voters). There's a major conflict because Blaaair wants to be liked by every section of the electorate and is particularly keen to 'engage' the British Muslims.

[Schweinhund]

"Having your own essentially invulnerable nuclear powered thermonuclear warhead ballistic missile submarines means never having to ask permission."

-in the same way that having your newfound enemies sneak into your cities and killing civilians only means paying the price for this attitude?

[Anamensis]

Why are the British people so against such an attack, just curious....no need to get pissed off.

From what I've seen, the average Brit is rabidly anti-Semitic, and it goes very deep and very far back. A quick re-reading of The Merchant of Venice goes a long way in explaining why the modern day bank-guarding gnomes of the Harry Potter books look like old Nazi posters of Jews. Thus they are by and large very pro-Palestinian and their sympathies extend to anyone helping finance the Palestinians. Just MHO.