GameBanshee Forums

Originally posted by Minerva
If there's anyone interested in Blair vs backbenchers, you can listen to the Commons' debate online on BBC Radio Five Live at this moment.

Hi Minerva...

Interested...yes...
BBC Radio Five...no...

Originally posted by at99

The french apparantly agreed with Powell to military conflict if Iraq did not comply with 1441(before 1441 was passed) .

Would you care to prove this?

They stabbed the US in the back...this is beyond contempt at this level of human affairs and France IMO should be punished.

The French aren't against a war as an option. They are against a war as an option at this time .

Which means they'd rather let the UN inspectors decide wether Iraq is complying or not instead of taking Bush's ol' blue eyes for it. It's the US not taking resolutions seriously here.

The debate is over C Elegans, cant you see that action is about to take place. Again arguing the rights and wrongs should not have taken place. The argument should have been how can we change the action the US/UK threatened by a logical alternative and the French could not see this ( and a lot of Europe) and just became objectional and encouraged a war. The US was legally in the right to want to use conflict as a last resort.

The French did give a logical alternative. It just didn't include war at this time.
"Legally"? Accoording to the UN charter the US signed they are not. Anyways...I study law, and sort of a running gag that my roommate throws at me in discussion is that I'm legally right. Meaning that I'm morally wrong.

For your leasure, from the charter of the UN;

"Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations."

Take note to the part where it sais Security Council. Meaning not a solo action by the US. I've made this point before, but I'll make it again. If the US doesn't feel bound by it's obligations to the UN, they shouldn't use UN resolutions as a basis of going to war. The US is legally wrong.

I still believe that with a administration actually interested in good international relations, the US would have gotten UN backing. Just not this month. But Bush never was interested in an international solution. He practically declared war on Iraq, and then went to the UN to justify it when it became clear he had the worlds opinion against him. I'm not a pacifist. And I'm cynical enough to believe it is worth a few thousand civilians in Iraq(I'm afraid it'll be a lot more then a few thousand though) to get rid of Saddam, especially when considering how many people die each month because of his regime.

I am however against this unilateral war. It will hurt the US more then they can imagine, and it rapes the international law order. The long-term consequences are going to be severe, there will be no stabilty in the region, and we will see a rise in terrorism. Why? Just because there is no international backing.

The diplomacy that had taken place as well as anti-war movement failed and should have done better

It hasn't failed, it was ignored, and buried under anti-French sentiments, and emotional arguments.

Hello, Karembeu.

No? I'm listening it online with RealOne Player. I'm not sure how it works from abroad, but it should be possible.

Anyone interested might also want to check out Robin Cook's resignation speech, it can be found on the BBC here

edit: Well Fable already posted something similar, I only just checked back through it all.

You can also watch the Commons debate live online. Go to the frontpage of BBC News Front Page, then click Live Now in the middle of the page.

Originally posted by Karembeu
Hi Minerva...

Interested...yes...
BBC Radio Five...no...

You can listen to any BBC station right here. Just click on listen. The BBC provides the audio player.

Originally posted by at99
Time will tell about this. I think that Blair is safe and the last vote was actually a success given Blair is a labor leader.
I will just have to wait and see.

If you're looking to see whether Blair will "survive" the war vote in Parliament tonight, don't bother. It's a foregone conclusion; never was considered, otherwise. Blair doesn't even need the majority of his party, since the Conservatives will be voting for war with Iraq.

However, the last vote on this gave Blair the greatest defection from the Labour party that has yet occurred in his six-year administration. Again, in a Parliamentary system that prides itself upon party loyalty, losing a large number of members on an important issue like this seriously weakens the government. If the Labour vote tonight is as bad as, or worth than, that which Blair achieved earlier on Iraq, that vote will be counted an administration failure.

Originally posted by Karembeu
True....and why on earth was there no intervention in Rwanda just ten years ago?!? The "genocide" that took place there was far worse then what Saddam has done.

The only thing IMO that can justify a war is when defending your country, your home and your family and friends.
What does Bush expect?!? That if no action is taken Iraq will secretly build up a huge army and invade the U.S.A?!? That's certainly what it sounded like in his speech. Also the fact that there are no proven ties between Saddam Hussein's regime and Al-Qaida makes this reason even more strange.
Sure something has to be done about Saddam. But as far as I know resolution 1441 stated nothing about a "regime change" merely a disarmament. Weapon inspections were making progressive, (even though it was slow it was still progress). And thus were getting closer a "break-through". Why spoil this?!?

You might be interested in this, which is part of the transcript from last night's news in Canada.

"Long before September 11th, a small influential group of neo-Conservatives here in Washington had wanted to see the United States transformed into a sort of benevolent ruler, unchallenged, astride the world. And long before George W. Bush was elected, they sat down and wrote down a manifesto.

JAY BOOKMAN (Deputy Editorial Page Editor, The Atlanta Journal Constitution): It basically saying the United States has to take responsibility to enforce peace around the world and enforce what they call American principles and American interests.

MACDONALD: The document was effectively a charter of the project for a new American century, a neo-Conservative think tank in Washington.

BOOKMAN: The founding members included Donald Rumsfeld, **** Cheney, Wolfowitz, Paul Wolfowitz of the Defence Department, Richard Pearl, head of Defence Advisory Board, Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, John Bolton under Secretary of State for arms control, Eliot Cohen who's on the defence policy board.

MACDONALD: Much of what these men wanted is coming true. They urged U.S. abandon the anti-ballistic missile treaty. It has. They wanted establishment of more permanent U.S. military bases abroad. That is happening in the Philippines and in Georgia and will likely happen in Iraq. They urge regime change as a goal of foreign wars, not just in Iraq. They wanted the U.S. as a global constabulary - their word - unburdened by the UN or world opinion preventing any challenge to U.S. dominance. But, they wrote, a year before September 11th, such aspirations are unlikely to be realized without a catastrophic and catalyzing event, like in Pearl Harbour. William Crystal, a leading neo-Conservative and director of the project for a new American century believes such goals are good and right and he's delighted with all the success but he says there's more to do. "


The rest of this transcript can be found at:
http://www.cbc.ca/national/
Click on transcripts for March 17. The title of the story to look for is "Confrontation Scripted Years Ago"

Worrying indeed....

Originally posted by fable
If the Labour vote tonight is as bad as, or worth than, that which Blair achieved earlier on Iraq, that vote will be counted an administration failure.

What are the odds of a "no confidence" vote to oust his government?

Not going to happen. The Conservative's have shown support for Blair, and backed his stance.

Right. Blair's problem is his already wobbly support on the issue from Labour. If it gets worse tonight, then that will effectively serve him notice that his position in the party depends upon a quick in-out war. The voters can't oust him at this point, but his own party can (and will) replace him.

EDIT: And I just read there were a few more resignations from Blair's cabinet. This from the BBC website:

Home Office Minister John Denham and Health Minister Lord Hunt quit the government on Tuesday along with two ministerial aides.

I was wondering to myself. What would I do if I were Saddam Hussein? I think it would be interesting to tell all my troops to offer no resistance and throw down their guns. I would open the gates to the city and announce that Iraq will not respond to the violence of the US forces. I would do everything short of surrender. Then everyone hit by a US bomb will be innocent, and the world courts can try GWB as a war criminal….

Originally posted by Gwalchmai
I was wondering to myself. What would I do if I were Saddam Hussein? I think it would be interesting to tell all my troops to offer no resistance and throw down their guns. I would open the gates to the city and announce that Iraq will not respond to the violence of the US forces. I would do everything short of surrender. Then everyone hit by a US bomb will be innocent, and the world courts can try GWB as a war criminal….

I think that would be a brilliant manoeuvre on the part of Saddam.... As it is Bush and Blair are, in world opinion, largely percieved as a pair of immoral bullies... Such a move would further cement that perception.

The World Court of Justice will no more try Dubya for the deaths that occur in this invasion than they've tried China for its invasion and destruction of the culture of Tibet, or Russia for the horror of Chechnya. Sad, but true: power buys immunity. The important thing, it seems to me, is to remember these crimes, even if the courts of men are not capable of facing down the rich and powerful.

Hussein won't do it for a couple of reasons: First, he stands to lose everything. Iraq is his personal fiefdom and he won't just hand it over to the US. Second, the United States will not allow him to remain in power, even if he surrenders; the stated goal of this war is "regime change". Third, he knows if the US takes him into custody, we'll drag him to the Hague and try him as a war criminal, for ethnic clensing, mass murder, torture and crimes against humanity (using chemical weapons on the Kurds and the Iranians).

His soldiers may not want to fight, but Hussein himself will either flee or try to go out in a blaze of glory.

Originally posted by fable
The important thing, it seems to me, is to remember these crimes, even if the courts of men are not capable of facing down the rich and powerful.

And thus the perennial question. What to do? How can we as a people --as a global community-- resist and overcome those forces? If it were even possible... I don't think it could be achieved without considerable violence and bloodshed... And as has been discussed in other threads... the complete overthrow of a regime --in other words, revolution-- ,no matter how idealistically motivated, almost invariably contains its own seeds of immorality.

Originally posted by fable
The World Court of Justice will no more try Dubya for the deaths that occur in this invasion than they've tried China for its invasion and destruction of the culture of Tibet, or Russia for the horror of Chechnya. Sad, but true: power buys immunity. The important thing, it seems to me, is to remember these crimes, even if the courts of men are not capable of facing down the rich and powerful.

Yes. The World Court of Public Opinion can be very powerful.

Well, today's Commons' debate was interesting. The behaviour of many of Tory bench towards Charles Kennedy was disgrace, though, as if shouting at him loud silly was the only way to make him change his stance. One of frontbenchers was ordered to stand up and retract what she said by the Speaker.

Denmark joins US in war with Iraq.


PM is then given a gift.




And then the Foreign Minister