Why War is the Right Choice by Tony Blair

Though I'm typically thought to be right-leaning, I've been on the fence over this war.....mostly leaning towards against it.

That being said, Blair's speech made a strong argument and came across as quite honorable ....made even more so by the stark contrast of the sliminess of the John le Carré editorial.

 

ROXRAN:

For once, I'll agree with you and say that Blair probably is being earnest...

...but the counterargument, that Britain opposes the Franco-German faction in the EU and is using the situation to increase its ties w/America is quite compelling. I'm not wholly persuaded... but there's a history of struggle in the EU, much of it concerning the UK's opposition to "deepening" of the union. This presents the UK with a perfect opportunity to counter the trend towards such.

 

Is there anything that the US/Britian could show you to convince you? Anything? You are so far gone it is scary....

I suppose if a dirty bomb from Iraq delivered via Al-Qaida to somewhere in the US went off, you still wouldn't believe that Iraq/Saddam is bad? Would you need to see a "made in Iraq" sticker on the bomb?

rimrocker: didn't you already post that "great" article before...

 

I dare to believe otherwise.

 

Here is the equation:

Saddam refuses to step down
+
US hammering the Iraqi people and economy with embargo
=
Iraqi deaths including their children

We are in the equation whenever you like it or not. You can say its mostly Saddam's fault (versus a failed US foreign policy initiative with a historically poor track record, see Cuba), but in the equation we remain.

 

Do you mean a radiological dispersion device?

 

Umm I guess? Your point?

 

So what? The US is not MORALLY at fault.


That's like saying:

Me driving with my brother
+
Drunk driver
=
death to my brother.

I am in the equation whether I like it or not!

 

A leader serves his people. Saddam acts out of abject self-interest. We cannot be held responsible for that. In fact, that's why we want to get rid of him.

As Mango pointed out before in another thread, your syllogism leading to our being responsible for those deaths is not so clear-cut.

 

Just another fun phrase made up by the Bush administration. Death tax, tax relief, affirmative access, and now radiological dispersion device.

BTW, I'm pretty sure he knows Saddam is "bad" but there is this guy named Kim Jong-Il (maybe you've heard of him?) who has actual nukes who's threatening war with the US and gets no attention from this administration. I suppose if a radiological dispersion device or even a straight nuke from North Korea delivered via Al-Qaeda to somehwere in the US went off, Bush would still believe Iraq is a bigger threat?

 

Timing,

What do you suggest we do with North Korea? Threaten them with war? The problem is that it would be incredibly stupid. Iraq doesn't have nuclear weapons YET. Do we really want 2 tyrannical dictators with so much world influence?

 

Wow, thanks for the info.

I am aware of North Korea. They are very dangerous and MUST be addressed also. Currently we are trying to handle them quietly, so it isn't really easy to see how much attention we are paying to them.

BTW, I am sure that N. Korea knows that they are toast if they were to sell a WMD and it got used against the US.

Why do you always have to be a smarta$$ when I wasn't even talking to you???

 

Do we really want 2 tyrannical dictators with so much world influence?

I had no idea that N. Korea had so much "world influence. In fact before Bush blundered with his infamous "axis of evil" speech who had heard anything about them except that they were starving and were beginning to make peace with their neighbor S. Korea.

S. Korea has been incensed at Dubya since his blunder. They fired the speechwriter afterwards, but Bush has still stuck to the tune of the speech.

 

They're already threatening us with war. Do you suggest we ignore them until they start one? North Korea might seem crazy but they're playing their game very intelligently and they're certainly more of a threat than Iraq, yet all of our attention is on Iraq. And you wonder why the Bush administration has so little credibility with so many people?

 

Don't you think that a N. Korea with nuclear weapons capable of hitting a region with over 2 billion people is a world influence?

 

Guess what, they are a nuclear power. Yes, they now have a good amount of world influence. The real blunder was letting them get nuclear weapons in the first place not what Bush said in some freaking speach!!

 

I don't know what to suggest with North Korea. But the lesson is to stop Iraq from becoming the next North Korea. Again, do you want another tyrannical dictator (hellbent on invading other countries judging from history) to acquire nuclear weapon capability?

 

Originally posted by Sonny
BTW, I am sure that N. Korea knows that they are toast if they were to sell a WMD and it got used against the US.


And Iraq doesn't know that? Following that logic why do we have to inspect anyone or deal with anyone since they all know they're toast if were to sell WMD and it got used against the US? Hell, bring home our troops if that's the case.

Why do you always have to be a smarta$$ when I wasn't even talking to you???


This is a message board, nobody here just talks to any one person. C'mon Sonny!

 

I am not trying to make this a black and white point.

I am not saying that the US is 100% at fault for those deaths.

I am not saying that Saddam is 100% at fault.

Ask yourself this question. Did the US have a choice when it made its decision to apply economic sanctions (i.e. embargo)? The repercussions of that choice was that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis including their children died. In hindsight, a unilateral invansion to force regime change versus imposing an embargo (which no one thought had a high probability for success) would have cost fewer innocent Iraqis their lives.