The Town Hall Archives

Jared · Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2003 5:30 pm Post subject:

Forceful words from Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Great Britain. The man's a liberal, but he understands the stakes here and stands firmly behind the United States. Read and consider:

"...Yes, there are consequences of war. If we remove Saddam by force, people will die and some will be innocent. And we must live with the consequences of our actions, even the unintended ones.

But there are also consequences of 'stop the war.'

If I took that advice, and did not insist on disarmament, yes, there would be no war. But there would still be Saddam. Many of the people marching will say they hate Saddam. But the consequences of taking their advice is that he stays in charge of Iraq, ruling the Iraqi people. A country that in 1978, the year before he seized power, was richer than Malaysia or Portugal. A country where today, 135 out of every 1000 Iraqi children die before the age of five - 70% of these deaths are from diarrhoea and respiratory infections that are easily preventable. Where almost a third of children born in the centre and south of Iraq have chronic malnutrition.

Where 60% of the people depend on Food Aid.

Where half the population of rural areas have no safe water.

Where every year and now, as we speak, tens of thousands of political prisoners languish in appalling conditions in Saddam's jails and are routinely executed.

Where in the past 15 years over 150,000 Shia Moslems in Southern Iraq and Moslem Kurds in Northern Iraq have been butchered; with up to four million Iraqis in exile round the world, including 350,000 now in Britain.

This isn't a regime with Weapons of Mass Destruction that is otherwise benign. This is a regime that contravenes every single principle or value anyone of our politics believes in.

There will be no march for the victims of Saddam, no protests about the thousands of children that die needlessly every year under his rule, no righteous anger over the torture chambers which if he is left in power, will be left in being.

I rejoice that we live in a country where peaceful protest is a natural part of our democratic process.

But I ask the marchers to understand this.

I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honour. But sometimes it is the price of leadership. And the cost of conviction.

But as you watch your TV pictures of the march, ponder this:

If there are 500,000 on that march, that is still less than the number of people whose deaths Saddam has been responsible for.

If there are one million, that is still less than the number of people who died in the wars he started...."

We need to go to war -- and in the face of the evidence, it's the humane and decent thing to do!

The Top Crusader · Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2003 5:42 pm Post subject:

Figures the only semi-decent liberal is over in Britain and not here... Confused

Coralfish · Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2003 8:14 pm Post subject:

I also wanted to respond to the previous statement that the United States is soley motivated by greed and imperialism. If the US was really that greedy, invading Iraq, and middle eastern countries simply to take thier oil reseves(as some believe), would it not be easier for the US to simply buy all the oil? Saddam would be more than willing to sell it to us, and in the meantime we would spare the cost of war both financially and in loss of lives. We are also capable of purchasing Saudi Arabia's oil as well(and they have larger supplies)No...the whole theory that this is all about oil just does not make any logical sense to me.

hawkeye · Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2003 12:51 am Post subject:

In addition to Coralfish's statement, I would like to add Bush has taken the wrong route to 'fight a war for oil' The UN is not the way to go.

On the war in general, Bush (and Tony Blair) have gone to far for it to be dropped now, as antiwar protestors seem to be asking. If it were dropped, many many people would launch an attack against us, just as Osama Bin Laden is (trying to) incite an attack now, just for our stance. I have no problem thinking Saddam and his closest military leaders will take similar paths if we dropped it now. For better or worse, we are in too far. And I adamently think it is for better! Exclamation

The Top Crusader · Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2003 11:02 am Post subject:

Fox News poll I saw the other day said 69% of U.S approved military action against Iraq, with 20-some% against.

It's encouraging, in a way, but Fox News does tend to ask mostly the cool people who think like me their poll questions.

Jared · Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2003 11:05 am Post subject:

Yes, FOX News web polls go about 10 percent more conservative than the average population and CNN web polls go about 15 percent more liberal than the national average.

TIME.com polls are crazily liberal-leaning, with one recent one showing that only 5 percent of their readers supported war!

Still, I think that once we go to war, support will be strong... and when we win, everyone will remember supporting it. Reverse-Nixon... back then, even though Nixon won in a landslide, no one could "remember" voting for him after his impeachment. Once we win, no one will "remember" being against the war! Smile

smurfs · Guest

Are you guys trying to inncurege war to come? If you arent it sure sounds like it ! The last thing I need in my life is a war (some of you may agree with me I hope) hafe of my cousins would be sent off!! and I dont need to lose one more cousin of mine to a Terrorist !!!!!!! But there maybe a good reason for the war like in Vietnaim we were sent there to resuce the people there, maybe just maybe we are suppost to do the same here.!!!

Jared · Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2003 11:44 am Post subject:

I am absolutely pushing for a war... not that my opinion is going to sway minds or anything... :)

But as terrible as war is, it is absolutely necessary. To wait is foolish. To ignore is deadly.

I keep seeing anti-war protestors holding up signs reading "Peace in our Time." What irony... they're so dumb! If only they knew that the phrase they are using was coined by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in explaining that Hitler wasn't dangerous and that war could be avoided. There's a reason Chamberlain's considered a fool and his successor, Winston Churchill, a hero. Churchill understood that sometimes the only way to obtain peace is through "blood and toil, sweat and tears."

War is terrible... but sometimes, not fighting is far, far worse.

Earadith · Guest

What I wonder is... what is going to happen to Iraq after this war is won?
Who will take S.H. place? I don't think the people of Iraq are going to like the UN taking over and deciding everything for them.

Earadith

hawkeye · Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2003 2:14 am Post subject:

Earadith: The USA will stay for about 2 year to assist in building an Iraqi (peopole) controlled government, and once it is set up, we will pack out. Unless things go awry.

Il_Queen: I too am for war, for many of the reasons Jared listed. War is neccessary, and sometimes it is Godly, and this is one of those times. To be honest, I don't think we will have more than a few dozen military casualties, since most of the battle will be fought from a distance.

We also need a dose of reality, not idealisitic couch fantasy.