Tony Blair: The Case for War

February 17, 2003 1:56 AM

"But if the threat cannot be removed peacefully, please let us not fall for the delusion that it can be safely ignored." Speech by Prime Minister Tony Blair at Labour's local government, women's and youth conferences, SECC, Glasgow.
posted by hama7 (69 comments total)

Tony Blair is in deep trouble. His arguments have failed, the people say No and there seems no way out. He may well fall.
posted by grahamwell at 2:29 AM on February 17, 2003

If the United States is, or soon will be, at war with Iraq, Americans should understand that a compelling strategic rationale is absent. This war would be one the Bush administration chose to fight but did not have to fight. Even if such a war goes well and has positive long-range consequences, it will still have been unnecessary. And if it goes badly—whether in the form of high U.S. casualties, significant civilian deaths, a heightened risk of terrorism, or increased hatred of the United States in the Arab and Islamic world—then its architects will have even more to answer for.

An Unnecessary War
By John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt
Foreign Policy
posted by y2karl at 2:35 AM on February 17, 2003

An American who knows how to spell Labour. Rejoice! Will you now tell the American media, hama7? Thanks.

The link? Blair's finished. Good riddance. So much potential, so many bad decisions. I wonder how things would have gone had Labour had a smaller majority.
posted by Summer at 3:48 AM on February 17, 2003

If Iraq is such a "threat" to civilization, to the point where it takes precedence over North Korea, Iran, Osama bin Laden/Mullah Mohammed Omar and all the other immediate dangers facing the west, I don't understand why it was such a non-issue for so many years. After the Gulf War no one gave a frog's fat ass about Iraq for ten years -- now it's priority number one? The first Bush administration didn't think he was worth risking lives for -- now he's Cthulhu incarnate and has to be annihilated yesterday, at the cost of American lives and to the detriment of America's global alliances. It's just odd. If Iraq is such a titanic menace, why wasn't Blair calling for war earlier?
posted by Ljubljana at 3:53 AM on February 17, 2003

Oh you're just making noise Ljub.

Keep making it.
posted by crasspastor at 3:56 AM on February 17, 2003

Tony Blair is magnificent. He will go down in history as the one European leader with a backbone.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:58 AM on February 17, 2003

Yes, he is, and those who say he's in trouble are engaging in wishful thinking. His party dominates Britain, and a majority of that party support the liberation of Iraq, as do the Tories. The only party in opposition to Iraq are the Liberal Democrats, a fringe group with less support than the Tories even. Idiots in the streets make a striking spectacle, but they don't outnumber, or represent, the voters.
posted by BubbaDude at 4:12 AM on February 17, 2003

While reading this speech earlier today I felt that I was reading possibly the most important words uttered in my lifetime. I'd vote for Blair as president of the entire world.
posted by RevGreg at 4:14 AM on February 17, 2003

Yes, the Labour party is very strong but you're fooling yourselves if you think the majority within the party support attacking Iraq. They don't. I remember when Blair addressed the Commons about this issue. Beforehand, he had to take a few cabinet ministers 'aside' to make sure they were on message. There is much unease in the party about this issue, and make no mistake, if this war goes wrong in any way, Blair will be sacrificed.
posted by Summer at 4:19 AM on February 17, 2003

blair's morality...... well, where shall we start?

so are we going to war because it is more humane than sanctions? if so, are we going to launch a blitzkrieg against North Korea and Zimbabwe, two other nations with despots and sanctions? of course not, the Reverend Blair's morality is highly selective and it appears to be selected by Bush.

and to throw one of his quotes back at him:

If there are 200,000 people on the march, that is more than the entire membership of the Labour party......

that's 200,000 and falling rapidly.
posted by quarsan at 4:27 AM on February 17, 2003

Since we're talking body parts. . .

Tony Blair is magnificent. He will go down in history as the one European leader with a backbone.

Bill Clinton will go down in history as the one American President with a penis.
posted by crasspastor at 4:29 AM on February 17, 2003

Predictions:

--The war to liberate Iraq will be successful, and be slightly more difficult than the one to liberate Kuwait. Blair will win his next election easily. And the Metafilter demographic, representing 4% of the Western World's demographic, will transcend college, evolve, and realize that some wars are necessary, most people with religious convictions are not stupid, Republicans are not all, or even mostly evil, and that marching in the street is more fun than it is meaningful.

Believe me: I know, I used to be one of you.

Oh: another prediction: the French will remain a shameful, spineless culture.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:39 AM on February 17, 2003

Beautiful.
posted by hama7 at 4:44 AM on February 17, 2003

the Metafilter demographic, representing 4% of the Western World's demographic

This is meaningless Paris - 1. because there's no such thing as the Metafilter demographic and 2. because you pulled that statistic out of your arse.

some wars are necessary

Yes, just not this one.

marching in the street is more fun than it is meaningful

Fun? FUN? Taking one hour to walk 100 metres in freezing weather is fun?
posted by Summer at 4:57 AM on February 17, 2003

Blair will win his next election easily

If Blair remains, I also predict that he will win the next election easily. However, only around 30 per cent of people will bother to vote.
posted by Summer at 4:58 AM on February 17, 2003

These discussions seem to degenerate faster and faster.
posted by cx at 4:59 AM on February 17, 2003

There's a noticeable bait-and-switch going on from Blair. It was 'weapons of mass destruction' and the risible 'links to Al-Qaeda' argument until that became untenable, now it's 'those poor poor Iraqis that we can free from suffering with our bombs of liberation'. Which just undermines his position further, because no-one buys the idea that the moral position, even if Tony believes it with all his sporadically Gladstonian heart, is shared by the Bush administration and its long-term 'install another general with a moustache' strategy.

His party dominates Britain, and a majority of that party support the liberation of Iraq, as do the Tories.

Majority of his party? No. Especially not without an explicit UN say-so. And if Blair has to rely on the Tories, then he's finished. He'll be the Ramsay MacDonald of his generation.

I'd vote for Blair as president of the entire world.

I'd vote for him as president of the rest of the entire world. Just not Britain. Someone needs to tell him that we don't have a presidential system.

And finally, I predict that Pee-Pee will remain a twat.
posted by riviera at 5:07 AM on February 17, 2003

Sorry PP and co, but I think you are in denial. Friday and Saturday were a very significant victory for France and corresponding defeat for Bush and Blair. On Friday The UN spoke, it spoke credibly and clearly in a way that will be very hard to ignore. On Saturday the people spoke and the message was the same. You can proceed if you wish as if nothing had happened but this looks foolish and dangerous. It will be hard to argue that you are fighting for democracy when your own people are against you. It will be even harder to argue that you are freeing Iraqis from one prison, only to land them in another, where international law and morality have no play.

This is Blairs problem. Right now he's like a teenager who has promised his friends the use of the car without actually asking Mum first - and Mum knows. This isn't wishful thinking, he's the best PM we've had for a long time. What he needs now is the humility to backtrack, something he has not yet shown.
posted by grahamwell at 5:10 AM on February 17, 2003

Perhaps it's time for a moratorium on war-related threads here. With all respect to everyone on both sides of the issue, there doesn't seem to be much discussion in any of these posts -- just a repetition of the same points, with people talking past each other (and increasingly, shouting past each other). The level of strident rhetoric is going through the roof, and the "discussion" is getting to be more and more ad hominem.
posted by Zonker at 5:40 AM on February 17, 2003

BubbaDude: With respect, what do you know about British politics?

PP: I agree that there will be a war. I further agree that the US and the UK will win quickly. Blair will be re-elected, but only because of a lack of credible alternatives. The Tories are even further out of step with publib opinion, and it wouls take a seismic shift in British politics for the LibDems to end up in power.

I agree with riviera. "Bait and switch" is an excellent way to describe Blair's argument for war. WMD didn't fly. Links to terrorism didn't fly. The "humanitarian" case seems like the last desperate throw of the dice. We don't buy it, because it wasn't Blair's argument before.
posted by salmacis at 5:51 AM on February 17, 2003

i agree that blair is in deep trouble, but the question of HOW deep depends on whether he has any credible competitors. i don't currently believe he has, which is a bit of a shame.

if he carries on down the road he's on, is anyone interesting in staging a civilian coup with me?
posted by nylon at 6:09 AM on February 17, 2003

On Friday The UN spoke, it spoke credibly and clearly in a way that will be very hard to ignore.

What did it say?

"Err, ahem, yes, we did say disarm or else, but what we meant was disarm, please, if it isn't too much trouble, Mr. Saddam, or we may be forced to have another discussion."

Friday was a disaster for the UNSC. Showing no inclination to support its own resolutions, it has demonstrated that it is useless to the most powerful actor in the international system.

The US loses a meaningless fig leaf (they will still call themselves "coalition forces") and the UNSC loses its relevance. With it, France and the non-perms are all taken down a notch. Bad for balance in the international system. If you think US unilateral tendencies have been curbed, think again. They have been reinforced.
posted by ednopantz at 6:11 AM on February 17, 2003

I predict that when his number comes up, the national health will remove the stick from riviera's ass and the world will be a safer place.

On another point, are you disputing my claims salmacis, or just my right as a UK spouse to make them?
posted by BubbaDude at 6:14 AM on February 17, 2003

After the Gulf War no one gave a frog's fat ass about Iraq for ten years -- now it's priority number one?
well, the real menace to world security during that decade was the horrible, evil Hillary Clinton with her communistic health care ideas, and don't forget the need to eradicate the plague of blowjobs in the Oval Office. Now that honor has been restored and Raytheon is happy, the world can finally get back to business


Believe me: I know, I used to be one of you.
Yeah, you wish
posted by matteo at 6:15 AM on February 17, 2003

Tony Blair rates a post on the front page?! Why? He just parrots what Bush says. Why waste the space?
(IMHO, this is definitely one of the Iraq posts that should get the axe.)
posted by Shane at 6:18 AM on February 17, 2003

And finally, I predict that Pee-Pee will remain a twat.

Thank you for revealing yourself. In the past, I actually overestimated your IQ.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:19 AM on February 17, 2003

The US is controlling Blair from afar with it's secret, nefarious Tesla mind-control technology.

Prediction: the US will "succesfully" invade Iraq, and be stuck with a decade of garrison duty - with a steadily rising wave of suicde bombings against US troops - while the consequent rise of radical Islam destabilizes Pakistan and leads to new waves of terrorism around the globe....rogue elements of the Pakistani army supply terrorists with the material for the bomb which devastates London in early '04.....the North Korean crisis escalates - perhaps into outright war, with the consequent devastation of Seoul, as Japan, adopting the US' preemption policy, launches a strike against NK's nuclear facilities...or the aquisition by North Korea of a half dozen nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them leads Japan to start it's own nuclear weapons program with consequent regional nuclear arms race....after a biological weapons attack, Israel launches ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and Gaza while the world is otherwise distracted....record breaking heat and drought on ther Indian subcontinent lead to starvation and escalation to the brink of war with Pakistan....
posted by troutfishing at 6:20 AM on February 17, 2003

Has anyone done an editorial cartoon with Blair bending over for Bush yet? Because it's high time...
posted by Shane at 6:23 AM on February 17, 2003

Idiots in the streets make a striking spectacle, but they don't outnumber, or represent, the voters.

Pssst BubbaDude ... its the voters...

And PP, it's not just your invented MeFi demographic:
Polls show European public opposed to Iraq war.
Gallup International World Survey [PDF].
Nine Turks out of 10 oppose war against Iraq: poll.
Nearly two-thirds of Japanese oppose US attack on Iraq: poll.
...less than a third of respondents believed Australia should commit troops to a United States-led offensive...

That's the way things are. Sorry.
Me, I was here somewhere on Saturday, with another 300,000... [text in Greek, many photos, might take a while to fully load]
posted by talos at 6:24 AM on February 17, 2003

He just parrots what Bush says.

Trouble is, he doesn't. Where Bush ham-handedly expresses the need to oust Saddam in national security terms, Blair makes the case in ethical terms.

For Bush, ousting is Saddam is in America's interests.
For Blair, it is the right thing to do.

There is a huge difference between their positions. I feel a lot better about war with Blair on board. He may be a slippery politician some of the time. But right now he hanging tough in the face of enormous pressure, because he thinks it is the right thing to do.

And matteo, you will grow up. You will discover that you never get a choice between good and evil. You only get one between bad and worse.

I was out demonstrating against the war in 1991; and I was wrong. There were hundreds of thousands of us then, and we were wrong. I just wish papa Bush had finished the job then and avoided the events of the last 12 years.
posted by ednopantz at 6:32 AM on February 17, 2003

... its the voters...

We just had our elections in America in November, and the liberation party won in a landslide. BTW, are you voting for your government in Greece these days, or are you still ruled by the Army? Democracy is a great system, and you folks really should give it a try some day.
posted by BubbaDude at 6:34 AM on February 17, 2003

In the past, I actually overestimated your IQ.

Funny how that was never an issue with yours.

We just had our elections in America in November, and the liberation party won in a landslide.

Had 20,000 votes gone the other way, you'd have a Democratic senate. If that's your definition of 'landslide', you're even stupider than you first appeared.
posted by riviera at 6:37 AM on February 17, 2003

Now many more months until it's extracted, riv?
posted by BubbaDude at 6:46 AM on February 17, 2003

BTW, that figure on the 20,000 votes isn't correct.
posted by BubbaDude at 6:53 AM on February 17, 2003

Jesus, someone get Miss Manners in here.

BubbaDude: That comment about Greece was obnoxious. For someone so deeply concerned with the welfare of foreigners, particularly Iraqis, you don't strike me as particularly sympathetic or even nominally polite. Just haughty.

Riviera: WTF?

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
posted by Ljubljana at 7:05 AM on February 17, 2003

Hey ednopantz, I was politically active during the 80s and the horror stories I had heard from dissident Iraqi Kurdish and Iranian political refugees about Saddam were enough to make me think at the time that the first Gulf war was not a bad idea. Guess what? I was wrong.
BubbaDude: your comment was refferring to Blair. I posted opinion polls in the UK refuting your claim that he has the backing of the Brittish people (or even his party). There were no elections in the UK this November.
The rest of your comments don't really belong in MeFi. If you want to learn about modern Greek history buy a book. Also, check out the origins of the word democracy, travel more and stop trolling: this isn't LGF.
posted by talos at 7:11 AM on February 17, 2003

Someone please kill this one...

I think it's infectious...
posted by jammer at 7:13 AM on February 17, 2003

Iraqfilter
posted by Beholder at 7:24 AM on February 17, 2003

liberation party

**koff** **hack** **choke**

Is that what they're calling it these days?
posted by ook at 7:27 AM on February 17, 2003

talos> to make me think at the time that the first Gulf war was not a bad idea. Guess what? I was wrong.

Are you saying that Saddam oppressing Iraq and Kuwait (and with greater resources) would have have been better than Saddam oppressing Iraq?

Why exactly were you wrong? I don't think I have heard anyone argue that what the world has needed of late is a more powerful Saddam.

That Bush cut the war off too late to save many lives and too early to do any real good is another matter entirely. I would definitely agree that he botched the job.
posted by ednopantz at 7:30 AM on February 17, 2003

I honestly believe Blair has been a moderating influence behind the scenes in all this mess. He's been more of a "Yes, but ..." man to Bush than a simple yes-man, is my take, even if he has parroted a lot of the regurgitated "evidence" against Iraq. Hearing his concession to at least the possibility of a peaceful resolution gives me a glimmer of hope. Saddam is a psycho dictator in violation of a U.N. resolution, and gunpoint may well be the only way to neuter the bastard, but it's unconscionable to actually pull the trigger and unleash unholy blitzkrieg on those poor, shoeless conscript bastards who have to live and die under the boot of his Ba'athist thugs without exhausting every means of ensuring compliance short of a massacre that will only reinforce the ugly stereotypes of cold American brutality and self-righteousness. Until I see photos of Iraqis pour jars labeled "anthrax" into Scud warheads and aiming them at someone else, I'm not going to be convinced that rewards outweigh the risks and that the pistol aimed in Saddam's face isn't a sufficient deterrent in the meantime.
posted by hairyeyeball at 7:37 AM on February 17, 2003

I just wish papa Bush had finished the job then and avoided the events of the last 12 years.

Well, actually, Bush (41) and Powell decided to leave him wounded but in power, turned their backs on the uprising in Basra--the US could and would have interpeted the no fly agreement to blast his helicopters out of the sky, had Bush and Powell chosen so: the winners make the rules.

We did the Shiites like Eisenhower did Hungary, looked the other way and whistled tunelessly until it was over, then said shame, shame, shame because Bush and Powell thought the Shiites might fall under Iran's sway and they wanted an intact Iraq..
posted by y2karl at 7:51 AM on February 17, 2003

No kidding, what a callous disaster.

Apparently, the grad students who helped write the early draft of Baker's memoirs titled the draft chapter on the post Gulf War period "Fuck the Kurds."
posted by ednopantz at 8:07 AM on February 17, 2003

y2karl: an Independent Kurdistan was also out of the question.
Look ednopantz, some of the criticisms against the first gulf war are discussed in this post.
Simply stated my argument is that the destruction of an entire country with reasonably high living standards while there was a real possibility of a negotiated withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait wasn't worth it. A defeated Hussein under Arab and Iranian supervision would be a dictator that wouldn't last long. The fact that he remained in power (that he was allowed to remain in power) after GW1 and allowed to crush the rebellions, sent a signal to the people of Iraq that he is unmovable.
No one even tried to preserve Iraq's industrial base and infrastructure because Iraq under any (non-puppet) leadership was considered a potential threat to US domination of the region. As a result the only people affected (and horrendously at that) by this war were common Iraqis and not SH and his cronies.
Of course all of this rests on the knowledge that
- Iraq during the height of its power and with everybody selling them arms, was effectively defeated by an impoverished and embargoed Iran,
- that the only neighboring country that Iraq could ever successfully invade was a country like Kuwait, with no army worth mentioning,
- that its defenses at the height of its power were so weak as to allow Israeli airplanes to enter its airspace and bomb a "nuclear factory" without even thinking of retaliating,
- that the only reason SH invaded Kuwait was because he was under the (wrongful) impression that the US okayed it.
In other words he was a threat to very few even then.
Nowadays I don't think he could invade Bahrain even if nobody intervened. Ever wonder why his neighbors for chrissake, weren't worried about him lately?
posted by talos at 8:32 AM on February 17, 2003

Nowadays I don't think he could invade Bahrain even if nobody intervened.

Bahrain? Bahrain is one big US military base/playground. It has been since long before the current troop buildup.
posted by Shane at 8:47 AM on February 17, 2003

If the Bushites in the US cared as much about poor inner city children in their very own country as they claim to now care about Iraqi civilians then the US might be on its way to a much higher (or at least, less shameful) standard of living.

It wouldn't cost so much, either.
posted by Space Coyote at 9:34 AM on February 17, 2003

i like blair, nevertheless he and bush are out the door.

they should have put the case together ... if there is one... made it to the world. then taken out saddam.

instead the similarities to the OJ trial are mounting by the day.

perhaps tony and dubya can will work as cnn commentators like marcia clark someday? and rumsfeld can move to northern idaho and stew like mark furman.
posted by specialk420 at 9:43 AM on February 17, 2003

Blair could be "thatcherised" any time from now on.
posted by ugly_n_sticky at 9:52 AM on February 17, 2003

BTW, that figure on the 20,000 votes isn't correct.

You're right: it's 20,702. I stand corrected. Still, some 'landslide'. And I'll remove the stick from my ass, as you so politely put it, when you remove the sawdust from your head, Bubba.
posted by riviera at 11:24 AM on February 17, 2003

"But if the thread cannot be removed peacefully, please let us not fall for the delusion that it can be safely ignored." Speech by Prime Minister Tony Blair

Wow...even Tony Blair's talking about all the Iraq posts on Metafilter!

"threat", you say?.....I'd swear it looked like "thread"....
posted by troutfishing at 12:31 PM on February 17, 2003

We don't aggregate votes, riv, we have a firewall around each state. So 20,000 Californians could have voted differently, and it wouldn't have made any difference. The point is that the Republicans made gains in an off-year election, and that almost never happens.

Incidentally, a 20,000 vote margin in New Hampshire really is a landslide.
posted by BubbaDude at 12:38 PM on February 17, 2003

It's telling that American's only enjoy the words of a British Prime Minister when they fall in line with the American President.

Tony Blair's future is not looking rosy at the moment. When he became leader of the Labour Party he was tolerated rather than liked. And he was tolerated because he was popular with the public.

Now he is striving to be unpopular the reason for his existence seems much more uncertain. If he goes to war without the UN (pretty unlikely I guess) then his career is as good as over as his own party moves in for the kill.

For someone who loves Margaret Thatcher so much it would seem appropriate for his career to end at the hands of his own party after a huge and popular protest.
posted by dodgygeezer at 12:53 PM on February 17, 2003

If he goes to war without the UN (pretty unlikely I guess) then his career is as good as over as his own party moves in for the kill.

That's what Saddam Hussein is counting on, anyway.
posted by BubbaDude at 1:02 PM on February 17, 2003

It's amazing how some many here assume Blair is that stupid. I can see him supporting President Bush mildly, but to go as far as he has very strongly suggests he is privy to information we are not. Blair's strong support for the upcoming war is, probably the single most compelling sign that this is not some deranged initiative on the part of the Bush Administration.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:17 PM on February 17, 2003

Well, actually, Bush (41) and Powell decided to leave him wounded but in power, turned their backs on the uprising in Basra

Yeah! What the hell were they thinking obeying world opinion and accepting the UN ceasefire agreement? y2karl is right, they should have acted unilaterally and ignored the UNSC because it was the right thing to do.
posted by RevGreg at 1:36 PM on February 17, 2003

All the more reason to ignore the UN today.
posted by BubbaDude at 1:39 PM on February 17, 2003

Bubba, I'm finding it fascinating how according to you 20,000 votes in New Hampshire is a landslide and mandate of public opinion while, according to your most recent FPP, 400,000 protestors in New York City is a marginalized trend. To each his own "the real point is," I guess.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 1:54 PM on February 17, 2003

I can see him supporting President Bush mildly, but to go as far as he has very strongly suggests he is privy to information we are not.

PP this is exactly the WRONG reason to go to war.

If there is critical information which suggests we should go to war with Iraq then the President and the Administration is duty bound to share that with the public.

To leave the public in ignorance about a topic as important and war is to try and lead us into the most unthinkable totalitarian kind of nightmare.

And you wonder why so many of us question the administration's authenticity...You yourself suggest they are deceiving us.
posted by aaronscool at 2:22 PM on February 17, 2003

Bubba, I'm finding it fascinating how according to you 20,000 votes in New Hampshire is a landslide and mandate of public opinion while, according to your most recent FPP, 400,000 protestors in New York City is a marginalized trend.

Not speaking for Bubba, but to me making your voices heard by voting is a heck of a lot more powerful than protesting, although I wouldn't categorize the peace protests as marginal.
posted by gyc at 2:41 PM on February 17, 2003

but to go as far as he has very strongly suggests he is privy to information we are not

This is one of the central debates about this war. Do we just vote every four to five years and then trust whatever our leaders say and do in between or do we mistrust all they do until the facts are on the table.

It seems the story I'm hearing from America is that people feel they must trust the president to do the right thing. Personally I feel this view, while it may be comforting to some in the interim, is dreadful for democracy.

Democracy (amongst other things) is the distrust of those in power. That's why you have freedom of information and that's why you have the power to chuck them out if you don't like what they're doing.
posted by dodgygeezer at 2:45 PM on February 17, 2003

We don't aggregate votes, riv, we have a firewall around each state.

I'm well aware of this, Bub. It's beside the point. (Nice try, though.) Had 20,702 people voted differently, the Democrats would control the Senate. This is indisputable. Where, then, is your 'landslide'?

Blair's strong support for the upcoming war is, probably the single most compelling sign that this is not some deranged initiative on the part of the Bush Administration.

Wow, that's a piece of dubious induction to take the cake:

a. Blair is good;
b. Blair supports war:
c. War is good.

Fine if you're a lawyer, though don't expect to be head-hunted by a philosophy department. If Tony Blair jumped off a cliff, would you be next in line?
posted by riviera at 2:47 PM on February 17, 2003

Do we just vote every four to five years and then trust whatever our leaders say and do in between

That's why we in America have that handy little thing called the First Amendment. Despite what people like Steve@Linnwood suggest, we don't have to shut up just because our leaders have decided to be dicks...
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:51 PM on February 17, 2003

If someone in the past had tried justifying a war based on it being more ethical to bomb people rather than starve them, I would have said "Only in America..."

Welcome to the 51st state of the USA. (Iraq will be #52...)
posted by insomnia_lj at 5:03 PM on February 17, 2003

"Bombing people" is a sad spin of an invasion and coup, dude; I have to say you're reaching.
posted by BubbaDude at 5:48 PM on February 17, 2003

Oh, you're right. Mia culpa. We're going to shoot them and shell them too... and hopefully get them food and clean water before we starve them or they die of disease.

Then again, they're not victims of war, they're just collateral damage.

By the way, you have you're using non-DoD approved terminology. It's not "invasion and coup", it's "liberation and democracy"...
posted by insomnia_lj at 8:39 PM on February 17, 2003

But at least we won't intentionally infect or poison them, because we're not barbarians....
posted by insomnia_lj at 8:41 PM on February 17, 2003

When Saddam Hussein disappears 100,000 dissidents, is that intentional or accidental, insomnia?

Moral purity can be sooooo complicated
posted by BubbaDude at 11:00 PM on February 17, 2003

Moral purity can be sooooo complicated

Not that you're speaking from personal knowledge of such things, of course.
posted by riviera at 10:22 AM on February 18, 2003

There's some interesting polling data out today suggesting that Mr. Blair isn't out-of-touch with Britons at all. The key question:

Taking everything into account, do you think Saddam Hussein is sufficiently dangerous to justify the UN taking military action against Iraq ?

Yes - 44
No - 26
Don't know - 31

Essentially twice as many Brits feel that there should be military action against Saddam as don't, and this has been Mr. Blair's point all along.

See the Chicago Boyz blog.
posted by BubbaDude at 6:02 PM on February 18, 2003