thanks for asking for my opinion. i picked this phrase to highlight that the liberal media in the uk is as bad as the liberal media in the us. when tony does as the media wants, he is probably viewed as a man of iron. but when the media disagrees, do everything to spread a derogatory view of the man and situation. i might add, that although i find tony blair to be very personable and a great communicator, his views are often not aligned with mine. nonetheless, he does (unlike our ex-pres) seem to be a man of honor and is standing tall on this issue. i know that he will do what he views as the right thing and not be dogged by polls.
sadam has to go. he is a terrorist. he has paid large sums of money to suicide bombers (he has admitted to this). he and his regime supported at least one of the 911 (or is it 119 in the uk?) bombers -- mohammad atta. he has weapons of mass destruction and he has used them on people living within the borders of iraq. israel, with perhaps the greatest intelligence in the world, bombed a nuclear reactor because they had information that the reactor's primary function was to furnish the radioactive isotopes for a nuclear bomb.
saddam is desparately trying to get a nuclear bomb. defectors from the project have so stated. dick cheney has gone on record as stating he believe saddam will have them in 3 years.
this man has no respect for international law. he has not allowed weapons inspectors into his country for many years as dictated as part of the peace plan with the united nations. this issue alone is, per international law, reason to go to war with iraq. yet, as a peace loving western world, we look for every reason to not go to war.
the next question we have to ask, is, "if saddam has wmd, will he use them?" the answer is "of course." he will do anything to save his own hide. during the gulf war, when america and the united nations were liberating kuwait, he lobbed scud missiles at israel. there was strategic reason to do this to win the war, other than to hope that israel would retaliate and bring on an islam/arab war against the united nations. his past actions strongly dictate that he will use wmd in an instant.
given all of this, should the western world, led by the united states and the uk, go to war with iraq? a resounding yes is the only answer i can give. i learned a long time ago that the only way to stop the bully on the playground is to challenge him when he strikes. bullies back down. they get their joy from terrorizing their prey. history teaches us the same lesson: hitler and czechoslovakia, germany and the balkans, stalin and the eastern block, poland and their resistance to the soviet union. even those damn colonies across the pond in 1776 were the result of finally saying we are not going to take it any longer (sorry about the cheap shot, chap!)
so why are we not at war right now with iraq and why does it appear that the united states is not united for a war? (you ask). good question! bush is slow to anger and quick to respond when he must -- just like the uk in the 17th and 18th centuries when its empire was being threatened and its corporate profits were being ripped off. bush is trying to gain a coalition with arab/islamic nations. he is using this battle of words as a means of determine who is for us and who is against us. woe be it to those who is against us. he is also looking for every possible way to overthrow saddam while minimizing bloodshed. while we are the greatest power on earth, we, like the uk, do not wish to use it unless absolutely possible. we value human life.
contrary to what you might read in the papers, most of the united states is united for the war. the democrats are scared for their political life. if bush gives the go ahead to fight a war, the republicans will win in 2002 and 2004. the democrats are doing everything they can to question bush in public and cast doubts on the american people. most americans do not buy this crap spewed by the mainstream socialistic press. remember who is behind the democratic propaganda: carville, clinton and mccauliffe -- perhaps the 3 biggest stooges in the us right now. clinton is trying to save his legacy and if bush beats terrorism, or even TRIES to beat terrorism, he will be a hero compared to the feeble attempts trying to defend the country.
democratic comments about trying to find a different way of dealing with saddam ring hollow. we have been trying for 8 years under clinton and the situation has gotten worse. the democrats are trying to scare america into not fighting by saying that many western folks will be killed. i did not see the iraqis fight a war 'to the death' 10 years ago when they had 3 times their current capabilities -- and most will give up shortly after the first few salvos are fired. western lives will be lost, but more will be lost if we do not stop saddam before he has weapons of mass destruction.
we have a case to go after him based on his previous behaviours. the fact that he is a threat and will be a major threat within 3 years says we must proactively stop this man.
Although the political leanings of the newspapers and other media outlets are important factors as to the accuracy of their reporting, even the supposedly politically neutral BBC often report only what they want people to know. The BBC have a stranglehold over public opinion in Britain. It is funded by a compulsory fee payable by all TV and video owners. This means it can act without any accountability, since it always has a reliable source of income. Often BBC news reporting is deliberately biased in favour of whoever the Beeb are sympathetic to.
An example of this was their behaviour after the death of the Princess of Wales. This was a very sad incident of course, but usually the BBC only reserve that kind of total coverage for wars! Their 24 hour coverage and endless speculation basically brainwashed the population into an attitude of almost national hysteria. This organisation controls the majority of the electronic news media; terrestrial and digital TV, national and local radio and also the internet. The conclusion is in order to get public support in Britain, you need the BBC on your side, Blair doesn't have that luxury.
i know that he will do what he views as the right thing and not be dogged by polls.
He probably will stand by the USA to the bitter end. I doubt most Americans realise the depth of his loyalty to your country. He is a product of the post CND/Scargill/Kinnock 1980s old Labour shambles, hence he has rejected the rampant anti-americanism of the Labour party of that era and has in fact become very pro-american. However, Gordon Brown is waiting in the wings and if there is a well planned back bench revolt Blair could be ousted, he has talked about stepping down after the next general election anyway. Brown would be more loyal to his party's political dogma and is less likely to be such a good ally to the USA.
sadam has to go. he is a terrorist. he has paid large sums of money to suicide bombers (he has admitted to this). he and his regime supported at least one of the 911 (or is it 119 in the uk?) bombers -- mohammad atta.
Reports on these things are hard to find in the British media and especially in the BBC's news reports. Have you come across any good articles about Saddam's support of terrorists etc? If so, please post links to them. One of the arguments I hear while speaking to my countrymen is that there is no proof Saddam is supporting terrorism, or al Qaeda, and the US government is just saying that to get support.
israel, with perhaps the greatest intelligence in the world, bombed a nuclear reactor because they had information that the reactor's primary function was to furnish the radioactive isotopes for a nuclear bomb.
Saddam's first nuclear reactor was supplied by the USSR. But the reactor you speak of was actually supplied and maintained by the French. Apparently, the Israelis warned the French maintenance crew to be away from the Iraqi nuclear complex on the day it was bombed!
this man has no respect for international law. he has not allowed weapons inspectors into his country for many years as dictated as part of the peace plan with the united nations. this issue alone is, per international law, reason to go to war with iraq. yet, as a peace loving western world, we look for every reason to not go to war.
If he has violated the conditions of the peace treaty signed after the Gulf War, then direct action should be taken as a matter of principle. Otherwise, he will flout the rules with impunity, just as Hitler did after he got away with breaking the conditions of the treaty of Versailles on that first occasion.
the next question we have to ask, is, "if saddam has wmd, will he use them?" the answer is "of course." he will do anything to save his own hide.
I hear people over here say that Saddam would be more likely to use WMD if he is attacked by the West, in order to hold onto power. Hence we should continue a policy of containment. However, if he is backing terrorists, it seems clear to me that should he obtain a mobile WMD capability then 'containment' can no longer work.
democratic comments about trying to find a different way of dealing with saddam ring hollow. we have been trying for 8 years under clinton and the situation has gotten worse.
How else can he be dealt with? Containment has obviously failed, so direct action is the only option. Saddam is not one to respect agreements, he has no honour and his history of brinksmanship over the past few years proves we can not negotiate with him. My favourite Saddam quote is:
"Don't tell me about the law. The law is anything I write on a scrap of paper."
He comes up with some wonderfully revealing statements.
the democrats are trying to scare america into not fighting by saying that many western folks will be killed. i did not see the iraqis fight a war 'to the death' 10 years ago when they had 3 times their current capabilities -- and most will give up shortly after the first few salvos are fired. western lives will be lost, but more will be lost if we do not stop saddam before he has weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam was amazingly outspoken about what he would do to the forces opposing him during the Gulf War. What was it he said half way through, something like: "the grandmother of all battles is still to come"?
All those years of sanctions can't have done much to help him maintain the strength of his armed forces. However, he may have the support of his people now, due to their collective suffering since 1991. Therefore, they might be more ready to resist this time around. But our superior air power should give us the edge, even if he does manage to mobilise a large force of determined troops.
we have a case to go after him based on his previous behaviours. the fact that he is a threat and will be a major threat within 3 years says we must proactively stop this man.
Saddam should be removed from power as soon as possible. He obviously despises the USA and Britain and I believe he would supply WMD to terrorists bent on attacking us. He is a threat to peace in the Middle East region, since he is using the Palestinians as pawns against Israel. I believe he is trying to escalate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to discourage the West from taking any direct action against Iraq.