Blair: Saddam Will Be Disarmed Whatever It Takes.

by Englishman 53 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Englishman

  As reported on Sky News, this from the PM's news conference some 45 minutes ago:

  BLAIR FIRM ON IRAQ

  The Prime Minister says he passionately believes Saddam Hussein must be disarmed of weapons of mass destruction.

  He said Britain must show rogue states "that when we say we intend to deal with the issue of weapons of mass destruction, we mean it".

  Mr Blair, giving his monthly Downing Street news conference, said there was still time for the Iraqi dictator to give up his weapons programmes.

  But if he did not, he would have to be disarmed by force.

  "I know and understand the concerns that people have," Mr Blair said. "The threat seems to some people to be remote but I passionately believe that we must disarm Iraq.

  "There is a direct threat to British national security in the trade of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons," he went on, saying he feared being sucked into a conflict.

  Mr Blair said Saddam was "almost certainly" not telling the truth in his weapons dossier given to the UN last month.

  However, he stressed he wanted to walk "the UN route" in tackling Iraq and there would be further discussion there if Iraq was in breach of the UN resolution.

  "But I want to make it quite clear - and I believe this to be the position of all the main security council members - if there is a breach we would expect the United Nations to honour the undertakings that were given and make sure that the will of the UN is upheld," he said.

  "I have no doubt at all they will do so."

  The Prime Minister added: "If there is a breach of the existing UN resolution I have no doubt at all that the right thing to do in those circumstances is disarm Saddam by force."

  Englishman.
• 

  LB

  We love Blair. He's the finest American politician I've ever known
• 

  JH

  Why can't the inspectors find Weapons of Mass Destruction anywhere in Iraq?

  Why is the US and GB so sure that there are WMD in Iraq?
• 

  Englishman

  He says that he's sending out 20,000 troops to the Middle East just in case.

  He also said that he rates this threat much more seriously than the one posed by North Korea.

  Englishman.
• 

  LB

  Why can't the inspectors find Weapons of Mass Destruction anywhere in Iraq?

  Are you under the mistaken impression that inspectors are allowed to go anywhere they want in Iraq? Trust me, the madman has them. When the troops invade later this year plenty will be found. Many will be used in the war against the allies also. Methinks the brothers Bush/Blair will have all the proof you need, at the cost of thousands of lives.
• 

  JH

  Are you under the mistaken impression that inspectors are allowed to go anywhere they want in Iraq?

  I heard in the news that if the inspectors are not admitted in a specific place, then that would constitute a reason to attack instantly.
• 

  Francois

  JH - Cause they haven't looked EVERYWHERE yet. Iraq is a big, big place. C'mon, you're smarter than that. I've seen other of your posts. Your question in this context is nonsensical.

  francois

  PS - Ain't it amazing? When Clinton was is office, I couldn't stand Blair. Now he's one of my favorite guys. Of course, as far as I'm concerned Winnie was the best, followed by Maggie. I wish they were still here.

  Edited by - francois on 13 January 2003 11:21:35
• 

  Englishman

  The Iraqi regime are not being pro-active in their weapons declarations. Instead they are adopting a "if you think we've got 'em, you find 'em" attitude, and their so-called weapon summary of 12, 000 pages is full of holes.

  Basically, because of Saddams horrendous history, he can not expect to be thought innocent until he's proven guilty. The onus of proof is on him to prove his innocence. Also, as Blair said, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and terrorism generally are inextricably linked.

  Methinks Saddam will opt for a life in exile soon, with the Brits and Yanks pushing for a democratic process to be placed in Iraq ASAP.

  Englishman.
• 

  LB

  he can not expect to be thought innocent until he's proven guilty

  If I'm not mistaken maybe he should be judged exactly as his judicial system judges. That is guilty until proven innocent.
• 

  JH

  Francois

  I got up this morning thinking that, maybe a war can be avoided if the inspectors do their job right. Like you said, it is a big country, so there should be 10 times the amount of inspectors in there.

  I just want to give peace a chance.

  When Iraq occupied kuwait in 1990, the whole world was on the side of the coalition. But now it seems different. Even the allies are not convinced.

  I know that most probably there are weapons out there in Iraq, but If hope they find them.

  Even if a war occurs, I'm not sure that they will find all of the WMD. They could be in other countries.

  They tried to find Bin Ladden, and didn't find him. How can they find WMD that fit in a suitcase?

  OIL is another factor here

  Edited by - jh on 13 January 2003 11:30:49