Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Originally posted by Brian in Mesa More power to Blair for sticking to his guns, so to say.
If the British don't want him, he can always come to America.
We'll welcome him here.
I'm sure he appreciates the offer.
So, if he doesn't survive a no confidence vote, will the next British PM be so unwavering in his support of the US and our policies (read - our troops on the ground in the middle east)?
Blair wins Parliament vote on Iraq war
Tuesday, March 18, 2003 Posted: 5:57 PM EST (2257 GMT)
LONDON, England -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair, facing one of his toughest challenges as party leader Tuesday, won a controversial vote in the House of Commons supporting his nation's military participation in a possible U.S.-led war on Iraq.
In a 412 to 149 vote, Blair staved off a major revolt by members of Parliament unhappy about British involvement in Iraq without backing from a second United Nations resolution.
Blair does not need parliamentary approval to take Britain into war. But observers said another rebellion in his ranks would be a major political embarrassment. Polls show a majority of Britons oppose a war without a second U.N. resolution.
During a speech before the vote, Blair said Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had failed to comply with previous U.N. resolutions, and he said he believed dictators and international terrorists come together to wreak havoc.
He said he was concerned a dirty bomb might be set off in London or another major UK city.
Blair told a packed House of Commons: "Our fault has not been impatience, the truth is, our patience should have been exhausted weeks and months and even years ago."
Iraq was not the only threat to the rest of the world, but "it is the test of whether we take this threat seriously," he said.
Failure to deal with Saddam would lead other nations to believe they could develop weapons of mass destruction with impunity, he said.
The U.N.'s credibility would be destroyed if no action was taken, he said: "To continue with strong language and weak intentions is the worst course imaginable."
Blair called for a new U.N. resolution covering humanitarian assistance as well as the administration and governance of Iraq.
Iain Duncan Smith, leader of the main opposition party, the Conservatives, said he would back the government line because it was "in the British interest."
In a vote on a possible war last month, 122 members of Blair's own Labour Party in Parliament voted against the government.
Blair suffered early setbacks with the resignation Monday of senior Cabinet minister Robin Cook, the House leader.
Cook told a packed parliament he could not support a war without international agreement or domestic support. (Speech in full)
Lord Hunt, a junior health minister in the House of Lords, the upper chamber, and Home Office Minister John Denham announced their resignations Tuesday.
Duncan Smith suffered three resignations from his front bench, including shadow environment minister Jonathan Sayeed, shadow home affairs minister Humfrey Malins, and shadow health minister John Baron.
But Labour's International Development Secretary Claire Short, who had threatened to resign if military action went ahead without U.N. backing, announced she will not leave her post.
"I know I will be heavily criticized for my decision and many people will feel I have let them down. But I am doing what I think is right in the circumstances which we are now in," she said.
Wiz, who pissed in your corn flakes? These conversations were going so well...
Wizard:
Actually, the post by waywardfan that I quoted said nothing about morale. His post said that the opinion of entertainers "is not that important".
Sean:
Well, quoting me correctly in this instance is about the only thing you got right. And, their opinion ISN'T that important, certainly not as important as they think it is.
Wizard:
Obviously, my point was that waywardfan really does paint himself into a corner with such a myopic point of view. Of course Bob Hope did a lot of good thing for many, many years. But, in the end, he is an entertainer and his opinion that he was voicing, in this case, was the support of US Troops around the world.
Sean:
I have a hell of a lot of paint and much more room to maneuver than you, big guy. Bob was an entertainer. You know what he did? He entertained. Now, you might have a problem with service men being entertained while fighting for freedom but I certainly don't. He didn't go over there to say good or bad things about America's politicians. He went over there to make soldiers laugh and feel at home for a few hours. He might have cracked a joke or two at the enemy's expense, but that is a far cry from taking your celebrity status and insulting over half the country and its leaders.
Wizard:
No he isn't.
Sean:
Yes I am.
Wizard:
It is irresponsible for waywardfan to say something like "all entertainers are this or that". Martin Sheen and Bob Hope are both entertainers but I would submit that is where the comparison ends.
Sean:
Thanks to Brian for totally destroying this rediculous thing to say. Man, he got you.
Now, on to the supposedly horribly important topic of this thread. So, bloody what? If some self-righteous liberals want to resign over doing what's right, who gives a ****? So, a handful of people resign. He's got far more support than even last week and that is growing by the day. When we go in there and Bush and Blair are proven right, when they begin wheeling out TONS of WOMD, are they going to feel as morally superior?
Please.
__________________
Fell deeds awake... Now for Wrath... Now for Ruin... and the Red Dawn...
Originally posted by AZCB34 I can only assume that had it been a Democratic President in office and a Republican senator bashed him in this way that it would be ok huh?
UM ... NO.
If Bill Clinton himself was President and we were finally going after Saddam, I'd be all for it. And I'm sure the Republican Senators would be too. I know where you were going with that type of comment, but in a case of war it doesn't work vice versa.
Daschle is a hypocrite. I think it was bratwurst that posted his previous "support" of action against Iraq, yet since Bush is at the head of all this, suddenly Daschle must rip him and this action. Daschle is an idiot who has taken more than enough rope to hang himself politically in recent days.
__________________
"If Chuck is Solo, Larkin is his Fett!" - Morgan
If Bill Clinton himself was President and we were finally going after Saddam, I'd be all for it. And I'm sure the Republican Senators would be too. I know where you were going with that type of comment, but in a case of war it doesn't work vice versa.
Daschle is a hypocrite. I think it was bratwurst that posted his previous "support" of action against Iraq, yet since Bush is at the head of all this, suddenly Daschle must rip him and this action. Daschle is an idiot who has taken more than enough rope to hang himself politically in recent days.
Brian, peel yourself off the ceiling, I actually wasn't going anywhere with my comment other than I simply believe if the shoes were reversed, there would be a certain Rep. contingent who would be anti-war SIMPLY because a Dem. president was running the show....and you know that is true (not saying you would be anti-war but there would be Rep. against it for that reason).
__________________
Dream like you'll live forever, live like you will die today. -James Dean
Tetris Champion!
Linear Mode
