These remarks of Tony Blair’s were quoted by Sullivan, but I want to save them so here you are:
Yes, there are consequences of war. If we remove Saddam by force, people will die and some will be innocent. And we must live with the consequences of our actions, even the unintended ones.
But there are also consequences of “stop the war”.
If I took that advice, and did not insist on disarmament, yes, there would be no war. But there would still be Saddam. Many of the people marching will say they hate Saddam. But the consequences of taking their advice is that he stays in charge of Iraq, ruling the Iraqi people. A country that in 1978, the year before he seized power, was richer than Malaysia or Portugal. A country where today, 135 out of every 1000 Iraqi children die before the age of five – 70% of these deaths are from diarrhoea and respiratory infections that are easily preventable. Where almost a third of children born in the centre and south of Iraq have chronic malnutrition.
Where 60% of the people depend on Food Aid.
Where half the population of rural areas have no safe water.Where every year and now, as we speak, tens of thousands of political prisoners languish in appalling conditions in Saddam’s jails and are routinely executed.
Where in the past 15 years over 150,000 Shia Moslems in Southern Iraq and Moslem Kurds in Northern Iraq have been butchered; with up to four million Iraqis in exile round the world, including 350,000 now in Britain.
This isn’t a regime with Weapons of Mass Destruction that is otherwise benign. This is a regime that contravenes every single principle or value anyone of our politics believes in.
There will be no march for the victims of Saddam, no protests about the thousands of children that die needlessly every year under his rule, no righteous anger over the torture chambers which if he is left in power, will be left in being.
I rejoice that we live in a country where peaceful protest is a natural part of our democratic process.
But I ask the marchers to understand this.
I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honour. But sometimes it is the price of leadership. And the cost of conviction.
But as you watch your TV pictures of the march, ponder this:
If there are 500,000 on that march, that is still less than the number of people whose deaths Saddam has been responsible for.
If there are one million, that is still less than the number of people who died in the wars he started.
I don’t sense that these facts even register with the demonstrators, who seem to be fighting an anti-Bush battle instead of a legitimate anti-war battle; you can see this from the signs they carry and their reports of the demonstrations at Stand Down and elsewhere.
There are consequences of inactivity, and there are consequences of joining a movement predicated on hate (in this case, for Bush) instead of a genuine concern for The People — and they aren’t good.
Tony Blair is thae same as always. Yes is got a point, but before trying to rule over other countries he should learn how to rule his own country!! his got his own problems in Britain that are far more urgent than bombing some innocent people. let’s give more time to Blix and his team. To finish i would like to say to Tony Blair: don’t go to war, save some money, and with that money help the higher education in your country.
How much money will it take to wash the blood of a million Iraqis butchered by Saddam from your hands, Bennett?
Don’t waste your time,to people like Bennet “the People” whether Iraqi or the marxist prolateriat,are merely an abstract concept.They are a vehicle for his own ambition and a stage prop for his ego.Bennet,like others,revels in moral exihibitonism,they state trite platitudes as deep perception or profound moral philosophy,then calmly expect a standing ovation for a shallow performance.These people will not learn,to do so would require them to examine those beliefs and accept the moral consequences of their actions,and this they will never do.
Not to mention the twit can’t type.Must be an intellectual,huh?
@Bennett(the one in red type): I’d say there’s much blood on many hands right now.
The Reaganites’ for example, who supported Saddam right through his worst atrocities, or Bush senior’s, whose first gulf war caused the shiites to rise up against Saddam and be killed when US troops left after securing the kuwait oil ressources.
So better be careful when you make such accusations. Because dropping bombs on iraq might not be the best way to prevent bloodshed.
Blair forgets that the Iraqi people actually had much better health and economic conditions up to the 1991 war. I can’t believe that part about the water, we bombed their water treatment facilities and wouldn’t let them rebuild! fantastic.
Blair is an idiot for bringing this up and you’re crazy for leaving it like a bullseye on your blog. Discuss the humanitarian plight of Iraq if you want, it’s a losing battle for your side.
Just guessing, but: (how much cash Saddam has on hand + how much he unnecessary has spent on palaces)/(the number of starving children of Iraq) = enough to make Sally Struthers cream her jeans.
Are u accusing me of having blood on my hands????
Well let me tell u something Bennett (tho one with the red ink) First of all should we remind you that most of the weapons that Saddam has were given by the US during the Iran-Irak war, the countries that the US supported!! The first one,Iran, was the best ally of the US, after some political problems it changed its relations with the US. The US having lost their ally turned to Saddam and gave him some weapons to fight Iran. I am sure that Saddam has still got some off those weapons”. SO i guess you are right, let’s go kill some innocent people and destroy all proofs of american weapons in Irak. Let’s put another puppy government and wait for all arabs country to go mad! Their must be another way to save the innocent people of Irak, and I strongly belive that dropping some bombs on them will not help them. War must be avoided.
Hmm, I see that “Bennett John” spells “Iraq” with a “k” — I guess he must be French! 😉
no, not french, but swiss.
Still cheesy, but full of holes.
much ado about nothing. all in a sudden nobody talks about these weapons anymore saddam was supposed to have. tony avoids the subject because he know that we know he was not telling the truth and mr. bush jr., the ol’ christian fundamentalist [aren’t we lucky christian fundamentalists don’t have to have long beards], well, i don’t think he ever believed in those weapons.
let’s face it: who would not go to war for a booty as big as the iraqi oil fields.