Downing Street has denied claims there is a rift between the UK and US over how to deal with Saddam Hussein.
The rebuttal comes after a former US ambassador said senior advisers to Tony Blair felt there were getting nothing back for their support to Washington over Iraq.
We are 100% agreed with the United States that the issue of weapons of mass destruction has to be dealt with
Downing Street
Mr Blair’s official spokesman said the UK and America were “100% agreed” that Iraq’s alleged build-up of weapons of mass destruction had to be dealt with.
Those comments will not, however, stop the perception that there is clear water between American talk of forcing an Iraqi “regime change” and British emphasis on restarting weapons inspections.
Cheney’s war talk
The spokesman said that Mr Blair has made it clear in the past the world would be a better place without Saddam Hussein, but that the “primary concern” must be weapons of mass destruction.
He added: "We have to press for weapons inspectors but bear in mind that Saddam Hussein has played games with that before and think through what happens if he does not comply.
“It is wrong to heighten expectation that decisions have been taken when they have not.”
Labour MP Donald Anderson, chairman of the Commons foreign affairs select committee, has pointed to a “fundamental” divide between the US and UK positions.
Are two of the worlds leading terrorists at odds with each other over killing more Muslims in Iraq?
Is America finding it difficult to rally up support to bomb Iraq?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Kosser_M: *
Are two of the worlds leading terrorists at odds with each other over killing more Muslims in Iraq?
Is America finding it difficult to rally up support to bomb Iraq?
[/QUOTE]
Wishful thinking on your part I think. What you're seeing is just a different spin and marketing approach on the justification focused upon by the two terrorist leaders to kill more Muslims in Iraq. Some people don't find it to be politically correct or palatable to say they will use military force to achieve the objective of changing a regime. However, if a regime change is the byproduct of a military operation designed to contain the proliferation and use of WMD, that's OK.
Bush says "potayto" and Blair says "potahto." It doesn't matter how they say it, they'll act together and the result will be the same.
BTW, since you think the objective is to kill more Muslims in Iraq, do you think it would make any difference if they all converted to christianity or judaism in the next 30 days? Think of it!!! Saddam could end sanctions and keep his WMD if he'd only conduct a mass religious conversion of the Iraqi people!!!! Better get this post to Bagdad quick.
Are two of the worlds leading terrorists at odds with each other over killing more Muslims in Iraq?
Is America finding it difficult to rally up support to bomb Iraq?
[/QUOTE]
Isn't Iraq's Vice President a Christian?
Be it Muslim or Christian, those who are a threat to the U.S. and it's interests will be delt with. Bin Ladens attempt to start a Muslim vs U.S war failed.
As far as a rift between the U.S. and it's greatest ally, The U.K. I would hope that there is a healthy debate about what to do with Saddam. What's good for the U.S. is good for the U.K. and vice-versa, both sides know that.
Re: Re: Two of the biggest terrorists in the world!!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Isn't Iraq's Vice President a Christian?
Be it Muslim or Christian, those who are a threat to the U.S. and it's interests will be delt with. Bin Ladens attempt to start a Muslim vs U.S war failed.
As far as a rift between the U.S. and it's greatest ally, The U.K. I would hope that there is a healthy debate about what to do with Saddam. What's good for the U.S. is good for the U.K. and vice-versa, both sides know that.
[/QUOTE]
Even a hawk like Lawrence Eagelburger says Saddam is not threat to the US.
Use your common sense and stop being so gullible- Saddam has never attacked America in his approx 25 years in power and he is now weaker than he has EVER been! Wake up!
Re: Re: Re: Two of the biggest terrorists in the world!!
[QUOTE] Originally posted by The_Real_Deal: *
Use your common sense and stop being so gullible- Saddam has never attacked America in his approx 25 years in power and he is now weaker than he has **EVER* been! Wake up!
[/QUOTE]
You cannot make the same claim if you expand your statement to include American allies and/or American interests. He has directly attacked both and directly supports others who do so. Assuming he is weaker than he ever has been, now is the time to get rid of him. Not wait until he gets strong again by virtue of his manufacture and stockpile of WMD.
There is a premise within your statement that the US somehow needs to be directly attacked on its soil by Saddam before we do something. That's hogwash.
Re: Re: Re: Two of the biggest terrorists in the world!!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by The_Real_Deal: *
Even a hawk like Lawrence Eagelburger says Saddam is not threat to the US.
Use your common sense and stop being so gullible- Saddam has never attacked America in his approx 25 years in power and he is now weaker than he has EVER been! Wake up!
[/QUOTE]
Am I gullible because I don't take Saddams word that he is not producing WMD? Let Inspectors in unconditionally and let them go anywhere they want to in search of WMD which was agreed to by Iraq. It is up to Saddam to prove his innocents until such is done he will be seen as a threat to the U.S. and it's interests.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Two of the biggest terrorists in the world!!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Am I gullible because I don't take Saddams word that he is not producing WMD? Let Inspectors in unconditionally and let them go anywhere they want to in search of WMD which was agreed to by Iraq. It is up to Saddam to prove his innocents until such is done he will be seen as a threat to the U.S. and it's interests.
[/QUOTE]
Inspectors? It is teh US that says they don't care if they go in, they will bomb them anyways.
Bush, blair the biggest terrorists in the world hmmmm yes i agree facts speak louder than words and facts are bush is a terrorist inflicting cruel bombings on innocent civilians and his lapdog blair is just as bad.
Dick cheney cry of lets got to war just proove that his first name suits him to the core!
It will come down to some very simple trade offs. Is Saddam interested in WMD aquisition in the future? Would he put these in inventory for use in applications other than a declared war or large offensive? Would he pass these on to individual actors to be used clandestinely? Who would trust Saddam with any WMD?
Conversely, Saddam used gas against the Iranian human wave attacks in the '80's. The Kurds were allied with the Iranians against Iraq. The US knew Iraq had to offset the human wave attacks, especially in a key area in the southeastern portion of Iraq. The US also saw this need. The Iraqis chose gas for a repellant. The US would rather they had not, but it worked and saved a crucial Iraqi corner of their country. The use of poison against the Kurds was done indescriminately, killing civilians in their villages as well as combatants nearby.
The US policy vis-a-vis Iran and Iraq has always been about oil. Any national shift in allegience by either country was balanced on this fulcrum. The superpower influences came into play here. One positve aspect is that the territorial integrity of each nation was preserved.
It is of note that some official Israeli voices have made some cautionary statements like "is it worth it"? Also, some apparently felt that they can handle any threat to them, themselves.
It may boil down to this; does the US go in and risk high casualties and civilian loss to secure the future against a possible menace that may be thwarted otherwise? What will US technical capability be like in the years to come to counter these threats?
This yip yapping of america is getting boring IRaq is no threat you had UN inspectors in there for a decade and more who found nothing.
The women in iraq even mocked the UN inspectors by offering to open there purses thats how desperate the UN team where to find something they found nothing scott ritter the most pro american memeber of the UN team said thers nothing there!
This imaginary threat is pathetic america knows what weapons iraq has because they supplied the weapons to them in the first place.
And this talk of future threat oh man please people been watching too many movies like Minority report where tom cruise can predict future crimes yeah right its not real people its a movie. America has nothing no eveidence nothing!
Its same as this nonsense about al qaida every where on planet earth and the moon its complete scare tactics and no evidence!
AK47, that is rich, the UN inspectors have stated they found and destroyed 95% of Iraq's WMD by the mid-90's. Saddam had a quite extensive inventory of bio and chem weapons, with the fervent desire to get the bomb. I am no fan of these weapons at all, but I see his strategic argument for keeping par. I would seriously like someone to give the reasons for the UN decision to strip him of his capabilty. Why and when was this decision made? He did not use them in Kuwait, against Israel or coalition forces. Conversely, past action is no guaranteur of future action. Iraq poses one of the greatest conundrums the US faces in the world.
America is the only country to have used weapons of mass distruction in Hiroshima and nakazaki, also on Iraq it is a fact that the Americans droped bombs containing depleated urainium which led to children being born with two heads etc.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by TOMASSO: *
Iraq poses one of the greatest conundrums the US faces in the world.
[/QUOTE]
Whats that a regime that they(USA) dont control or dick cheneys real motives as he said it "the oil fields of iraq"
America is the only threat to this world if u care to take a look at recent history people have already mentioned the nuclear genocide in japan the killing of hundreds of thousands in the chemical gassing using agent orange in veitnam the 1 million babies killed due to the American sponsored sanctions on iraq. Even the combatting of aids in africa and asia the American are preventng by suing companies saying they have patents for every medicine therefore you third world contries don;t even try to cure your sick people before paying us! this is the real terror the american greed machine!
Well, the American Greed Machine does exist and has a great many tools to employ in it's pursuit of profit. I may agree with you on other points, as well. However, I also wish to seek truth. Agent Orange was not initially intended to poison the people of Viet Nam, but it had the after effect of that on troops and later generations. It was used to remove the vegetaion from the countryside for easier methods of fighting the enemy forces. The Ho Chi Minh Trail was not one trail, it was an entire arterial system. It was very much a plural thing, not one but a great many. Agent Orange was also used in other areas where fighting took place. The patent aspect of Aids drugs does severly hamper the treatment of many people. The generic cost of drugs that do exist is still too high for the people to afford or others to provide. The very composure of these countries affects the ability to allow medicinal flows to do their work. By this, I mean the economic conditions. The typical wage earning capabilty is too low. The US did not drop bombs containing depleted uranium, it used shells from the barrels of tanks to penetrate Iraqi armor. These shells contained depleted uranium. Children play on the battlefields where these munitions are left. The leadership of Iraq apparently does not see fit to discourage this activity. Many countrie's military have these weapons and it is something to think about. If a serious conventional war ever broke out between India and Pakistan, these things would be expended in the region. America is not the sole posessor of them! It could be argued that the US did not have to drop atomic bombs in Japan in 1945, but the other contingency was to blockade the Islands and starve them to surrender. This may have taken time to accompolish. The result of this more humane tactic may have been less severe, but it seems the Japanese well might have held out, delaying a ceasation of war. Instead of military action to force Saddam to change course, these sanctions are in place. So far, they have only succeded in providing suffering and a diminished threat from the country of Iraq outwards.