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.

Non-Tech : Blair House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (4)	3/18/2003 9:00:58 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Respond to of 15

story.news.yahoo.com Blair Wins Legislative Votes on Iraq By THOMAS WAGNER, Associated Press Writer LONDON - Britain's House of Commons backed Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites)'s policy on Iraq (news - web sites) on Tuesday, voting in favor of using "all means necessary" to disarm Saddam Hussein (news - web sites). 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 (news - web sites); the relationship between Europe and the United States; the relations within the European Union (news - web sites); 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.

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (4)	3/20/2003 10:08:26 AM
From: Solon	Respond to of 15

One can be sure that Britain has a finer grasp than many others of all the various winds that blow to serve motives both fair and foul. It was Blair's constancy in the midst of the natural anxiety of the public which convinced me of the necessity of this course. In my mind, there is no doubt that there was some opportunism involved in the American desire to install a regime friendly to their economic interests rather than allow France and Iraq, and then others...to slowly develop an economic leverage which would eventually castrate American ambitions and American control. That, however, is part and parcel of the need to defend against interests so hostile that to do nothing would be an act of National Suicide. The value of hindsight is the value of counting bodies, and the writing of best selling history books. The value of foresight is the continuance of life and liberty...and that oft-ignored pursuit. Although, it was to be hoped that the Free World (it may sound trite, but there is such a thing) would muster a more formidable unanimity in favor of a common, necessary, and inevitable initiative; unfortunately, the confliction of diverse economic interests and strivings for power...effectively sabotaged the goal. Is the American action connected to issues of economics and power as well as to the defense against terrorism? Of course. But power is the goal of all life: the power to breathe, the power to act, the power to grow, the power to love, and the power to survive. At some point in life--at those cusps of unresolvable conflict--the question is a simple one: Whose side are you on? Some would answer: "the side of Truth and Justice". As to which side THAT is...one need only turn the pages of history for 5000 years of evidence.