Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steeny who wrote (22852)	3/18/2003 7:08:27 PM
From: Bald Eagle	Respond to of 25898

British PM Blair Wins Legislative Votes on Iraq Tuesday, March 18, 2003 LONDON — Britain's House of Commons backed Prime Minister Tony Blair's policy on Iraq on Tuesday, voting in favor of using "all means necessary" to disarm Saddam Hussein. In an earlier vote, lawmakers also supported Blair, rejecting a motion to oppose a U.S.-led war with Iraq. Yet many rebel legislators in Blair's Labor Party voted against his hard-line stance on Baghdad -- which prompted three ministers to resign this week -- showing that opposition to his pro-war position remains strong. With a U.S.-led war appearing inevitable, legislators voted 396 to 217 to defeat a parliamentary amendment by Labor Party rebels that declared the case for war "has not yet been established." The 217 votes included about 135 Labor Party backbenchers, TV reports said. Last month, a similar parliamentary showdown regarding Iraq and its weapons saw 122 Labor lawmakers vote against the government, the biggest revolt since the party came to power in 1997. On Tuesday's second motion, legislators voted 412 to 149 to use "all means necessary" for disarmament. "Back away from this confrontation now and future conflicts will be infinitely worse and more devastating in their effects," Blair said during hours of Commons debate before the votes. In Britain, where public and legislative opposition to a war without U.N. approval is strong, an invasion could present Blair's government with serious risks, especially if U.S. and British troops in the Gulf aren't successful. During the debate before the votes, Blair said the Iraq crisis would determine the shape of international politics for a generation. "It will determine the way Britain and the world confront the central security threat of the 21st century; the development of the United Nations; the relationship between Europe and the United States; the relations within the European Union; and the way that the United States engages with the rest of the world," he said. "So it could hardly be more important. It will determine the pattern of international politics for the next generation." Many disaffected Labor legislators have ignored party discipline and opposed Blair's handling of the crisis. Already, senior Cabinet minister Robin Cook, junior Health Minister Lord Hunt and Home Office Minister John Denham have quit over Iraq. Yet Blair had been expected to win Tuesday's votes because he has the support of the opposition Conservative Party as well as many Labor lawmakers. There also have been signs of growing nationalism in Britain in support of the British troops massed in the Persian Gulf. Labor lawmaker Peter Kilfoyle joined many other members of his party in arguing that military action against Saddam would be "illegal, immoral and illogical." But Blair said backing away from conflict now "would put at hazard all that we hold dearest, turn the U.N. back into a talking shop, stifle the first steps of progress in the Middle East, leave the Iraqi people to the mercy of events on which we would have relinquished all power to influence for the better. "I would not be party to such a course," he said. Blair's defenders in the debate included an old foe, former Conservative Party leader William Hague. In his speech, Hague said a war was in Britain's national interest, and he praised the prime minister for sustaining the country's close ties with Washington. "The reason why the United States takes on so many responsibilities in the world is because others shirk those responsibilities," Hague said. "Those who will not venture out when there is a criminal coming down the street should not complain when somebody else acts as the policeman." Hague said Europe must differ with the United States from time to time but never forget the important roles it has played on the world stage, especially in saving Europe from Naziism and communism. Hitting out at France, Hague said that during the U.N. Security Council debate about Iraq there was "a hint of appeasement" similar to that of World War II among countries who oppose fighting Saddam. Fox News

To: Steeny who wrote (22852)	3/18/2003 8:15:19 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Hawkmoon, you are kidding yourself if you don't think another President could have sold this war. Sorry Steeny.. So long as France and Russia were being "bought off" by Saddam, there was no chance of a "use of force" resolution coming out of the UN.. Go back and research how France has done just about everything possible to prevent any UN resolution authorizing use of force... They almost abstained on the resolutions authorizing "all means necessary" to remove Saddam from Kuwait in 1991, trying to push their own version of a peace treaty that would have left Iraqi forces in place. And as I mentioned previously, France was the only nation to actually have the gall to state that Saddam had been disarmed... No one else agreed (except maybe the Russians) and they shut up... And France HAS BEEN ISOLATED. We got them on the record as stating they would oppose any use of force resolution against Saddam. And now we have them on the record stating they will "support" US troops if Saddam uses weapons he isn't even suppose to have, let alone deploy.. And Villepin is trying to horn in on post-Saddam rebuilding, claiming the UN has a role to play there... It may not seem like France is isolated, but let Saddam attempt to use chemical weapons (unsuccessfully, I pray), and France and Russia will look like incredible schmucks.... And the post-Saddam "debriefings" with media from around the world describing the horrendous fear they constantly lived in, the atrocities, and the corruption, all will build up to the point where the world recognizes that the US did what was required. We'll see which one of our scenarios will come to pass... Hawk