| Submit your comments on this article | |||
| Britain | |||
| House of Commons might revolt | |||
| 2003-03-03 | |||
| Tony Blair was warned again yesterday that he would need Tory backing in any Commons vote if he went to war against Saddam Hussein without UN support. Fortunately, the Tories will stand for their country. As Mr Blair sought to rally support at the start of the most important fortnight since he became prime minister, his ex-cabinet colleague Chris Smith, one of the leaders of last week's rebellion, signalled that if the next two weeks failed to achieve a majority in the UN for action, there could be worse to come. "There will be a lot more than 199 members of parliament very unhappy about that happening, and prepared to voice their
He's right, Tony will back us. "I worry that what seems to be emerging from the leaderships of both countries, America and Britain, is an attitude that — almost — Saddam Hussein can do nothing to demonstrate that he's actually complying with the world's wish to see disarmament," he said. Because he hasn't done anything to date. Tam Dalyell, the longest-serving MP in the Commons and an opponent of war, wrote to Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, to ask him when he would judge that President Saddam was cooperating. He asked: "How can you say Saddam must disarm and, when he does, you dismiss it as a cynical trick and playing games? Simple, Tam, Saddam has yet to disarm. Do you ... wake up at night asking yourself, have we tried everything? Is it necessary? Is inspection working?"' Yes, yes, and no. But Peter Hain, the Welsh secretary, acknowledging that he wanted a second resolution, denied that any decisions had been made. In a Sky TV interview, he said it was "quite clear that military action would only follow if Saddam is seen to be defying the United Nations as he is already doing". As day follows night. He said that if there was a "gratuitous" veto in the face of overwhelming evidence that President Saddam was out of compliance with the UN resolutions, "we'll have to face that situation because the worst thing to me ... would then be to back off entirely".
But that's ok, stay calm, guys. There is more evidence today that the crisis has cut Mr Blair's popularity rating, with only three
This time it's Saddam getting ready to make and use WMD's, and the appeasers are not willing to challenge him. "The last time that Saddam Hussein invaded a sovereign state, Kuwait, we as a party, and the country as a whole, supported the international action that was taken." Which is why it's a shame he won't see what's happening now. | |||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #5 Well.. I said 1940. And my point is that Britain and France could not have counted on the U.S. had they led a "pre-emptive strike" against Germany in 1938. Appeasement was certainly wrong then but understandable. It's a lot easier to rally your own people behind you if you are attacked. Without 9/11 its highly unlikely that the U.S. public would approve a full scaled invasion of Iraq now, even if Saddam had broken some more UN resolutions. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-03-03 19:11:34 |
| #4 America would not have joined (remember the U.S. had to be attacked by Japan and declared war by Germany to join the war). In 1940 the U.S. (while helping Britain) still did trade with Germany and would not be dragged into the war. Well... not quite accurate. By Dec. 7th 1941 the US was doing everything but firing the gun. The notion that they had to be dragged into it isn't true. Military cooperation between Britain and the US began as early as Jan. 1941, which included discussions on how to "handle" Germany and the agreement that Germany was to be defeated first. In Jul. '41 troops from General Marston's 1st Marine Brigade landed in Iceland relieving the British forces stationed there. At the same time USN aircraft started regular antisubmarine patrols from bases in Newfoundland. Not to mention Lend-Lease and all that other stuff they were sharing with Britain. |
| Posted by: RW 2003-03-03 17:37:34 |
| #3 I don't think that Blair's comparison with appeasement of Munich 1938 is accurate. At this time Britain and France were already facing a very powerful adversary. A war against Germany would have been extremely risky and would already have caused WWII and millions of deaths. You don't "appease" an enemy because he is weak but may become stronger, you appease him because he is already too strong and you hope he might just spare you if you let him have his way with others. The situation now is closer to 1933-35, when Hitler (illegally) pushed the militarization of Germany, entered demilitarized Rhineland. At this time he broke the Versailles Treaty (unjust as it may have been but a treaty Germany signed), so the allies would have had a legal cause to invade Germany and disarm it. A pre-emptive strike in 1935 would have made a difference (probably not considered because Britain and France were still war weary). In 1938 a pre emptive strike would not have had a wide backing in France and Britain (people desperately wanted to keep the peace). America would not have joined (remember the U.S. had to be attacked by Japan and declared war by Germany to join the war). In 1940 the U.S. (while helping Britain) still did trade with Germany and would not be dragged into the war. If we believe that Saddam will regain his power and be a real danger in a few years then acting time is now, not later. It's 1934, not 1938. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-03-03 14:24:53 |
| #2 The result of the US pre-emtive strategy is that Saddam must go not primarily for what he has done in the past or present (which is reason enough in itself) but what he might do in the future. This theoretical and probable threat to America's security is paramount. Not only must Iraq be destroyed, but the message of Iraq must be a clear warning to any other state (Iran, or PDRK if they are capable of paying attention) that the USA has a zero tolerance for terrorism and WMD. The irony is that as the anti-war movement grows and becomes more vocal, it can only reinforce the will of the United States to make Saddam's regime a sentinel example. The rigidity in position that this creates results in the diplomatic turmoil that we see within the UN, EU, and NATO, as nations struggle to adjust to the new world order: Conclusion of the Gulf War is simply not negotiable. Denial is not an option. "You are with us or with the terrorists". Bye bye Saddam. Who wants to be next? |
| Posted by: john 2003-03-03 06:26:01 |
| #1 Kennedy is full of it. At the time of the Munich conference in 1938, Hitler had only invaded Austria, and that operation wasn't much of an invasion as the Austrians didn't mount any resistance. In 1939, when Hitler actually started invading countries, appeasement was no longer the official policy, at least not in Britain, which started to rearm. The French are a different matter entirely, but they like foul smelling dictators as much as they like stinking cheese. |
| Posted by: Peter 2003-03-03 05:03:17 |