Bush/Blair - Roll Reversal?

[Joann Raytar]

A few days after President Bush's State of the Union Address, Prime Minister Blair spoke to the House of Commons today. I was surprised by what sounded like a roll reversal; Prime Minister Blair sounded more forceful than President Bush did. While Blair didn't exactly provide a full list of reasons why Hussein should be overthrown, he did provide more information about the UN inspections than Bush did.

Is all of this just a prelude to Colin Powell's visit to the UN for a call to military confrontation?

Blair and Bush speeches on C-Span:
http://www.c-span.org/

While I hope war is avoidable, I do agree with Prime Minister Blair; we need to enforce the UN resolutions. If they are broken, we must take action. If we fail to enforce these resolutions this time, we will never be taken seriously by any threatening nation.

How do our UK OptiBoarders feel about all of this?

[John R]

Jo said:
While I hope war is avoidable, I do agree with Prime Minister Blair; we need to enforce the UN resolutions. If they are broken, we must take action. If we fail to enforce these resolutions this time, we will never be taken seriously by any threatening nation.

How do our UK OptiBoarders feel about all of this?

Well Jo, War must be avoided...
There are other ways of solving this little spat in the world other than lobbing a few billon $$ at iraq, not forgetting all the friendly fire as well.....
Mr Blair is fast becoming a lone voice in the UK...We all seen the Uncle Sam vest and pants he wears.......
Let the people of iraq provide the power to owst Sadam if they want... If not total excile for Iraq leaders...

[yzf-r1]

Jo said: we need to enforce the UN resolutions. If they are broken, we must take action. If we fail to enforce these resolutions this time, we will never be taken seriously by any threatening nation.

i propose to add the word "all" before the word UN resolutions in your above statement. You seem to say enforce them when it suits you but actively ensure that any attempt to make resolutions against Israel be implemented are blocked by use of the veto. why this hypocricy?

I say enforce all or none, and if you choose none, then you might as well not have the UN

[optispares]

:hammer: why do we need to go to all the expense of a war to remove sadman insane . surely we can manage to send a small team of special forces or SAS and shoot him.
job done and no expense. saves killing all the "innocent " masses. won't provke any bad feeling amongst other arab nations (nobody will no who did it ).
or is this just to simple ?:idea:

[Joann Raytar]

yzf-r1 said:
i propose to add the word "all" before the word UN resolutions in your above statement. You seem to say enforce them when it suits you but actively ensure that any attempt to make resolutions against Israel be implemented are blocked by use of the veto. why this hypocricy?

I say enforce all or none, and if you choose none, then you might as well not have the UN

I don't see the UN as being anything near effective right now so not having it doesn't make too much of a difference in my mind. I do agree with you; it isn't right for the Security Council to propose resolutions in a pick and choose manner. That is why I don't put a ton of stock in the UN - it is a political vehicle for the Security Council.

However, by drawing up resolutions against corrupt governments and not acting when those governments are blatantly disregarding those reolutions they are reinforcing the fact that they are nothing more than a stage show.