There are a few things I very much disagree with here...

[kitchen_kink]

...such as the time-worn ridiculous idea that terrorists attack us because they hate our democracy and freedom.

However. I'd be interested to hear what y'all think of this, in which it is proven at least that Tony Blair has a great speechwriter.

Comments

[sol3.livejournal.com]

I have to wonder. If britain had been the spearhead of the diplomatic path on this, instead of the US, would things have turned out differently? (For the record, i'm not absolutely opposed to military action here. I am opposed to unilateral military action. And a number of the nations in bush's 'coalition of the willing' are nations that are looking to improve their favor with the us, or actually get various bits of financial assistance from the US. Which brings this back, in my head, to being the US/UK show).

With the US going there and saying "Approve what we want, or we're going to do it anyway", is it any wonder so many dug in their heals? With the US government taking a number of steps to make this look like its a financial windfall to many US companies (including, say, Haliburton), are you surprised our motives get questioned? And when the US government demonizes anyone who disagrees with us (and American citizens have been just as bad, with various media outlets referring to france as 'former' allies - ironic given that france has indicated, even though they disagree, that they would support us under certain circumstances, as well as allow us use of their airspace), it reeks even more of "my way or the highway".

We'll ignore the manufactured or bullshit information the US threw around trying to support a claim of WMD development (or, maybe not. It weakens our case, which is a shame, because people won't remember the real proof that's out there, or if they do, they'll start questioning the validity of that, since, hey, this other stuff was BS). We'll ignore the failed attempt to tie in al-qaeda and iraq, even though al-qaeda has no love for the iraqi government, and
has even provided support to various anti-saddam factions in the north. (Of course, the flip side of that is Saddam trying to idiotically call jihad to support his cause - when his government is staunchly secular).

In the end, it's very possible this action is justified. It's a shame that any of those justifications are mired and lost and questioned in a sea of bullshit.

(Of course, on the anti-terrorism front, i'm equally disappointed that there's been no real dialog into -why- we are the target of terrorist attacks, and whether or not we need to re-examine the way we throw our weight around in the world)

Anyway... i should go back to work :)

my 2 cents worth . . .

[water-childe.livejournal.com]

Sol3 said:

"(Of course, on the anti-terrorism front, i'm equally disappointed that there's been no real dialog into -why- we are the target of terrorist attacks, and whether or not we need to re-examine the way we throw our weight around in the world)"

I honestly seem to recall this being brought up by several media outlets in the wake of the Sept 11th attacks and then again (on a much smaller scale) on the aniversary of the the attacks.

There was dialog, but it never seemed to go anywhere.
Not surprising considering who's currently in power in this country. Can I just state how nervous and sick at heart I am about all of this?

Re: my 2 cents worth . . .

[sol3.livejournal.com]

Brought up by media outlets, yes - but it seemed like our government itself never really talked about it, and never really approached it. And a lot of people seemed to react with "how dare you say that we deserved this?" type of reaction.

--Dg, fearing for the general sanity of the worlds and his own rights and freedoms here

Robin Cook's speech

[cos]

The reply, in sense, had already come in advance. Robin Cook's resignation speech, which got a standing ovation from Labor backbenchers, is here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2859431.stm

It's worth watching the video if you can.

Blair's speech

[cos]

Blair's speech contains the seeds if its own rebuttal. He's right, the world is interdependent now, and the threat is chaos. We depend on international institutions, and to assert the right to unilateral war is one of the greatest threats.

His characterization of the UN's refusal, and more specifically France's veto threat, is disingenuous. I agree that military threat was necessary to get Saddam to listen, and that an ultimatum from the UN would have been effective. However, the Bush administration was deliberately trying to undermine chances of that happening, because they wanted to act without UN constraint - so the only option left to the UN was to agree to the US course of action.

Specifically:
- The policies and ultimatums were all laid out by Bush (& sometimes Blair) and then taken to the UN. We did not consult with the UN to collaborate with other countries on a plan.
- Bush was seen as rushing to war no matter what. He appeared to be treating the inspections and the UN in general as merely a bureacratic hurdle he had to go through. In this atmosphere, there was no point in presenting Saddam with a stick and no carrot, only in trying to restrain Bush.
- The final "compromise" Blair tried to work out was a deadline far shorter than the rest of the world wanted, and the list of conditions was unrealistic. Asking Saddam to go on Iraqi TV declaring in Arabic that he had prohibited weapons, lied to the UN, and apologize, was essentially asking him to commit suicide. It was not necessary and not realistic, so the compromise was a non-starter.

If Bush had wanted to build an international coalition to disarm Saddam, with UN support, and back it up with the threat of force, he could have done it. That would have been the right thing to do. I expect Tony Blair would have supported such a plan, and would have preferred it. Now he's stuck supporting Bush anyway.

I wrote a lot more about this here: http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=pro_war_liberal&itemid=2397
(including in some of the comment threads)

Re: Blair's speech

[marlowe1.livejournal.com]

?Asking Saddam to go on Iraqi TV declaring in Arabic that he had prohibited weapons, lied to the UN, and apologize, was essentially asking him to commit suicide.

Then why would we want Saddam in power? If admission of wrongdoing is tantamount to suicide then let him commit suicide.

Re: Blair's speech

[cos]

That's a silly rebuttal. Who wants Saddam in power? I'm sure we'd all be happy if he killed himself, pro-war and anti-war alike. However, that doesn't mean we expect that he'd actually do it if we demand it of him. Blair's resolution was not a legitimate attempt to let the UN work, it was merely an excuse to show that everyone is against us and we need to go alone.

Re: Blair's speech

[dda.livejournal.com]

Then why would we want Saddam in power? If admission of wrongdoing is tantamount to suicide then let him commit suicide.

And why on earth would he consent to doing this? If we say, "Commit suicide by going on TV and admitting you lied or we will invade your country and kill you", frankly there is no motive for him to assent. He would be better off taking his chances with war.

The fact is that Bush (and Blair) wanted war from the beginning. Colin Powell convinced him to try the U.N., but it was always "my way or the highway." And his way is "finishing what his Daddy started" by getting rid of Saddam. So there was no incentive for the inspections to work and I'm guessing this is why they made such unreasonable demands. Like going on TV.

here's what i think

[sanghasong.livejournal.com]

i saw much of blair's speech on the telly, and am grateful you linked to it so i could have the whole thing.

in my mind there is no doubt that blair's speech (which he wrote himself, as is usual with prime ministers when addressing the house) played a large part in persuading members of the Labour backbench who had intended to vote for the motion, to vote with him against it. his having persuaded clare short to stay on also played a large part in stemming the rebellion.

as for the content of the speech and my own take, i reckon it was the most extensive attempt at persuasion i have so far heard in support of current policy. but i remain opposed, even after it all has now started.

as regards blair's contentions about iraq and saddam's obstructive habits, he is no doubt speaking accurately. but it is not a case for war. for me, it is as simple as this: a democracy should only enter into armed conflict to defend it's own territory, prevent genocide, or stop a nuclear confrontation between other nations. regime change is not only against the UN charter, but we invite the same happening to ourselves by legitimising it.

this is particularly true at this time. i have heard from both american and brit commentators on the news tonight what is shaping up to be 'the official line': "targeting saddam hussein does not break the charter, as he is a member of their military as commander in chief, and therefore a legitimate target". they even used the term commander-in-chief, without seeming to realise that that makes bush a legitimate target.

i keep getting away from that speech....

his blame of the french is inexcusible. britain and france share so much history, a good metaphor would be separated siamese twins, and their futures are intricately bound together. chirac will not be easy to placate, and neither will blair, so i think the remarks are not only wrong, but very ill judged.

i also think that blair, and in other remarks recently by jack straw, implicitly regards america (under the current administration) to be a potential threat, and so it is better to be inside than outside. when he says 'other nations might be forced into a unilateralist position', that is (in my opinion) a coded way of saying 'the only way to steer the tiger is to ride it, in the hope it will tire or be tamed'.

one last thought on the speech, and tony blair in particular. i believe he is sincere in his convictions on this issue. i do. i do not believe bush even understands the problem in the same depth. it is inconceivable to me that bush could have delivered such a reasoned argument with such passion and dare i say, pinache.

and another thing.....

[sanghasong.livejournal.com]

i agree most emphatically that our democracy and freedom has nothing to do with why we are targets for terrorism.

rather, i believe osama, when he said that the presence of US troops in 'the holy land of mecca and medina' is an insult to saudi dignity.

why should they care about our political structure? why should they care about our liberty? what they care about is that swuccessive US governments have increased american hegemony at their expense. this does not, in my view, justify terrorism, but it explains it a lot better than the tired old anti-commie rhetoric which has been employed by the political classes ever since 9/11.