Blair is on his own

[Segnosaur]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blair is on his own

That is dead simple. Doing it with UN backing preserves the authority of the UN and is legal. Doing it without UN backing dumps the UN into the dustbin of history, is illegal, and basically sets a precedent which places the White House as a higher authority than the UN security council.

Actually, the UN already deserves to be in the dustbin of history. Its failure to enforse resolutions IT ALREADY PASSED ensures that. Well, that and the UN failure to actually do anyting useful in the past few years. Remember, the UN stood by while people were killed in Kosovo. And remember, the head of human rights in the UN is Libya. The UN is based on a voting system, where many (of not most) of the member countries deny that vote to their own people.

Let me explain that to you in simple terms....

The security council passed a resolution that said "Iraq, you will disarm, and cooperate". Iraq said "No". If the security council says "Ok, we won't do anything" then what is the point of even having a UN?

Nobody believes that is a good idea except the chimp in Washington and a large proportion of the American population. Quite frankly, if the US (with Blair in tow) attacks Iraq against the wishes of the security council then my own view would be that AMERICA MUST BE STOPPED, BY ANY MEANS. No less. I do not believe the American public, or the people in the White House actually understand the level of anti-Americanism that will follow an illegal invasion of Iraq against the wishes of the UN. What they have seen so far is peanuts by comparison.

American foreign policy should not be made in Europe or any other country. It is the president's job to make decisions to ensure the well being of the American people, even if those decisions are not supported in other countries (or even in America). If he makes the wrong decision, then he will be voted out of office. Simple as that.

And remember, the president has intelligence reports that all those protestors do not have.

And quite saying that it is only the US which supports the war. More European governments support American efforts than oppose them. And even in contries where there have been protests, there are still large numbers of people who support American military action.

The problem is, people keep calling this a 'unilateral' action... its not. Its multinational. It just doesn't have the backing of an organization filled with dictatorships and other undesirables.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blair is on his own

The problem is, people keep calling this a 'unilateral' action... its not. Its multinational. It just doesn't have the backing of an organization filled with dictatorships and other undesirables.

Not correct. From the information I've seen, not only is that "multinational" support NOT sending any troops (as they did in Gulf War Take 1), they are NOT going to be reimbursing us for part of the costs (last time Allies picked up $50 of the $60 billion cost).

If this is "multinational support", that and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee.

 

[rikzilla]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blair is on his own

That is dead simple. Doing it with UN backing preserves the authority of the UN and is legal. Doing it without UN backing dumps the UN into the dustbin of history, is illegal, and basically sets a precedent which places the White House as a higher authority than the UN security council. Nobody believes that is a good idea except the chimp in Washington and a large proportion of the American population. Quite frankly, if the US (with Blair in tow) attacks Iraq against the wishes of the security council then my own view would be that AMERICA MUST BE STOPPED, BY ANY MEANS. No less. I do not believe the American public, or the people in the White House actually understand the level of anti-Americanism that will follow an illegal invasion of Iraq against the wishes of the UN. What they have seen so far is peanuts by comparison.

The UN can only blame itself for being a useless and irrelevant debating society. Perhaps that is simply the limit of the UN's ability? The UN seems to be able to handle 3rd world problems fairly well...but will never be able to reign in a determined superpower. Hell, they haven't even been able to reign in a determined Saddam!

Calling US actions against Iraq "illegal" is pretty funny. What should have been "illegal" is the willful flauting of UN resolutions. 17 of them at last count. The fact we can learn from this situation is that unless you have force to back up your paper...then all you have is paper. Paper is not law. Law is what is first agreed upon on paper...next stage is implementation and enforcement.

Your idea of UN "international law" is an empty shell. Saddam defys it's implementation...the US ignores it as unenforceable. International law as you have defined it is of no real use to anyone, unless you mean the protesters who get to shout "illegal" at the top of their lungs.

You say the US must be stopped....truth is the US wouldn't have gotten started down this road if not for 9/11. Then you will say that US policy is why 9/11 happened in the first place...but we all know that no nation can allow terrorism to dictate it's policy. There are channels for such complaints....the UN for instance. Yet another failure of that body. Next you will say that our actions will incite more terrorism....I and many other Americans are willing to take that risk. The only way to deal with terrorists is to hunt them down and kill them. Iraq is the next step on that journey. Since we as Americans are damned if we do or damned if we don't, we're ready to DO. If we must be stopped...then by all means stop us. The simple fact is that the only nations on this planet with the cajones to actually do such a thing lack the means to. They will merely resort to killing more civilians, which will merely serve to put them on GWB's to-do list.

Eventually states will stop sponsoring terrorism, or they will face forceable regime change. This is our brave new world. Foisted upon us by the 9/11 terrorists. Blame the US all you want, but the fact remains that we did not start this war...but we will finish it. With or without the ridiculous UN. When the US is determined we are unstoppable. Another attack on us will merely serve to galvanize public opinion here, and perhaps speed up the terrorist extinction/regime change program. The US military is composed of people who live for this kind of conflict, it's time to let them do what they do so well.

-zilla

 

[Jon_in_london]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blair is on his own

Not correct. From the information I've seen, not only is that "multinational" support NOT sending any troops (as they did in Gulf War Take 1), they are NOT going to be reimbursing us for part of the costs (last time Allies picked up $50 of the $60 billion cost).

If this is "multinational support", that and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee.

Good points sundog. Also worth pointing out is that public opinion in those countries that are supporting Bush is massively against war. So its only the governments of those countries in favour-prolly because they are licking their lips at the bribes they will receive in return.

Zilla: I have to agree that the UN has a poor-track record (starting with Isreal and Palestine and going on from there). However, it is vital that we have some international law- although Americans might not think so because they are powerfull enough at the moment to be a law unto themselves. All of that might soon change after Bush ruins America though.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Blair is on his own

As of Monday, the United States and Britain were only guaranteed two other votes, those of Spain and Bulgaria, but Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan are expected to be won over by a series of motivating factors offered by the United States.

Translation: The US government will be buying their support, as they always do.

 

[rikzilla]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blair is on his own

Zilla: I have to agree that the UN has a poor-track record (starting with Isreal and Palestine and going on from there). However, it is vital that we have some international law- although Americans might not think so because they are powerfull enough at the moment to be a law unto themselves. All of that might soon change after Bush ruins America though.

Well Jon....that's the gamble. Life's just one big ole game of chance ain't it? You pays your money...you takes your chance.
I know where my money is riding.

Anyhow,...you are right...there must be law. This whole thing is becoming a referendum on UN relevance. The debating society has it's chance to prove it's viability....if it's not then some other body is going to have to write and enforce international law. My guess would be a completely reformed UN.

-zilla

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blair is on his own

Translation: The US government will be buying their support, as they always do.

Ahhh...diplomacy and statecraft...

 

[Jon_in_london]

By the way, the whole problem that Blair has is that no-one trusts him anymore. And thats his own fault. He rode into power on a wave of optimism and promises for a new Britain.

All of the flagship policies that he used to gain power and votes have come to nothing. Transport is probably the most galringly obvious. Labour's ten-year transport plan is in absolute tatters- to the point of there being nothing left of it at all. The British people are tired of spin and of being lied to. Of corruption and sleaze assocaited with Labours PFI deal- most of which have ended up costing the taxpayer more for less in return.

Now, at the time when Blair really needs the Publics trust and support- he is finding that he has already exhausted it. The cut&paste UN dossier presented by Colin Powell was prolly hte last straw.

I think Blair has already done himself so much damage that he will not get elected again- provided we get some reasonable alternative in the near future.

 

[Kodiak]

By the way, the whole problem that Blair has is that no-one trusts him anymore. And thats his own fault. He rode into power on a wave of optimism and promises for a new Britain.

All of the flagship policies that he used to gain power and votes have come to nothing. Transport is probably the most galringly obvious. Labour's ten-year transport plan is in absolute tatters- to the point of there being nothing left of it at all. The British people are tired of spin and of being lied to. Of corruption and sleaze assocaited with Labours PFI deal- most of which have ended up costing the taxpayer more for less in return.

Now, at the time when Blair really needs the Publics trust and support- he is finding that he has already exhausted it. The cut&paste UN dossier presented by Colin Powell was prolly hte last straw.

I think Blair has already done himself so much damage that he will not get elected again- provided we get some reasonable alternative in the near future.

I think all this will change if the invasion of Iraq is successful in accomplishing a regime change.

 

[shanek]

I think all this will change if the invasion of Iraq is successful in accomplishing a regime change.

I think that this is almost certain; what I'm not convinced of is whether or not the leader(s) of the new regime will be any better than Saddam.

 

[Jon_in_london]

*conspiracy theory alert* Has it occured to anyone else that the reason Spain is so sweet with Blair is because Blair has promised to give Gib to the dagoes in return?

 

[Dazza]

Dazza,

possibly this is the poll you had in mind??

http://www.mori.com/polls/2003/iraq.shtml

Whichever poll you look at on this page it 'ain't 90%of the British public......

No.

This is the one I was thinking of



BBC poll

 

[Dazza]

Re: Re: Blair is on his own

Hmm.

Just to put that in context, the Labour party currently has 410 seats in Parliament. 122 Labour MPs voted for the amendment (i.e. against the Government). While that might be unprecedented, it does mean that 298 Labour MPs voted Against the amendment - in favour of the Government. That's more than twice as many.

As for your second point, you are assuming that the second resolution will not be forthcoming.

I'd like to know why it is that a war on Iraq is a dreadful concept if done without UN backing, but magically becomes Okay if a second resolution is passed?

I take your point that a majority of Labour MPs were prepared to support the Government on the motion put forward (which was very carefully worded). The figure isn't as high as you suggest though because of the number of abstentions, and UCE is right that you have to take account of the 'payroll vote' which gurantees the government a large number of votes. This vote was on a three line whip and so the size of the rebellion is hugely significant.

I also agree with your last point. Personally I think the way in which the US and the UK have sought to manipulate the UN to endorse a plan that they are already settled on completely devalues any mandate the UN may now give. However the perception of UN backing is important in terms of public opinion, so the passing of that second resolution is vital for Blair's political future.

 

[Troll]

Re: Re: Re: Blair is on his own

Yes, I call France, Germany, RUSSIA, CHINA and just about everywhere else except for spain "international opinion".

YOU ARE A MORON.

spain isn't international opinion? The 18 other countries in NATO are not international opinion? So we can say that you are not intetrnational opinion since you are someone I don't personally consider to be part of international opinion?

 

[Guest]

Troll :

Of course Spain is part of international opinion. But if you think the majority of world opinion (at any level from top to bottom) is backing America then you have been duped by the propaganda. Very few people outside the US back military action without a 2nd resolution. That is why I said Blair is on his own.

Bush said "Either you're with us or against us." Well, one hell of a lot of people are being forced into a position of "against the US". I feel like I am being herded into a position where I have to support Bin Laden because America is so out of order.

 

[Troll]

Troll :

Of course Spain is part of international opinion. But if you think the majority of world opinion (at any level from top to bottom) is backing America then you have been duped by the propaganda. Very few people outside the US back military action without a 2nd resolution. That is why I said Blair is on his own.

Bush said "Either you're with us or against us." Well, one hell of a lot of people are being forced into a position of "against the US". I feel like I am being herded into a position where I have to support Bin Laden because America is so out of order.

No no no. You said, and I quoted "Yes, I call France, Germany, RUSSIA, CHINA and just about everywhere else except for spain "international opinion".

YOU ARE A MORON. "

You state there. very clearly, that you do not believe \spain to be of international opinion.

and as I stated, only two nations that are part of NATO are against action, those being france and Germany. And yet you fail to mention the number of countries that have offered support. Support in one way or another. we're talking about some 40 plus countries. But since they disagree with France, Germany, china, and Russia, I suppose they don't count either?

 

[Guest]

Troll

You state there. very clearly, that you do not believe \spain to be of international opinion.

No, that's not what I meant. Spain may be part of international opinion, it just isn't in the anti-Bush majority.

How can Spain not be part of international opinion?

and as I stated, only two nations that are part of NATO are against action, those being france and Germany. And yet you fail to mention the number of countries that have offered support.

You mean they think they might have something to gain by supporting the US?

 

[Troll]

Troll



No, that's not what I meant. Spain may be part of international opinion, it just isn't in the anti-Bush majority.

How can Spain not be part of international opinion?



You mean they think they might have something to gain by supporting the US?

You're kidding me, right? I mean do I need to even be sober to counter this?

Prove that there is an anti-Bush majority. List the countries that are pro and con so that we may all see you are correct via the numbers.

You don't think France and Russia have nothing to gain with Hussein in control of Iraq do you? Or that other nations may not have something to gain by arguing against the US point of view and perhaps getting their own way about things?

Is this seriously the best you could come up with as a reply?

 

[Troll]

oh, and just to add to the yucks here. why is there a second resolution being offered and sent to the UN? To do what? appease the world? Well there's a second resolution. Be appeased already or admit your true feelings.

 

[Guest]

Prove that there is an anti-Bush majority.

This is scary, and surreal. From where I am sitting, not exposed to US propaganda, it looks to me like nearly the entire world is opposed to Bush. Apparently within America people think that the situation is such that not only is it neccesary to prove there is a majority opposed to Bush, but you don't even need to be sober to demonstrate there is no anti-Bush majority. Scary times. America, and Americans, appear to have completely lost the plot.