""The White House is feeling more confident these days and the immunity idea appeared to have been a sop to deflect Arab and Islamic opposition to an invasion of Iraq," a diplomatic source said. "Now, the administration feels it has enough military and political support so it doesn't have to make any promises."

The source said the turning point was a U.S. assessment that both France and Russia were reducing or ending their opposition to a war against Iraq."

I saw Blair's BBC Two Newsnight programme, where he faced a panel of questioners who were against the proposed war, for various reasons. He put on a good show, good, considered arguments. He suggested that the audience should connect up the dots. Mega terrorism and rogue states with WMD developments. It is sure to happen if we leave it happen. If we bury our heads. I wish in his arguments, he said some more about the future, after all, that's what a government should do, more of the next 100 years. What sort of world will we live in? A world where access to vile nerve agents, horrible diseases, or catastrophic nuclear dirty bombs and cataclysmic explosions; all these being sold by the kind of Doctor Evil to people who believe they are doing god's good work. A hundred years of hell and fear.

He also said, "we [points to himself and the audience] have to do what's right." I wish he'd have asked, "I don't want Saddam to have WMD. Do you [points to members of audience, one by one] want Saddam to have WMD?" That is the simplest either/or yes-or-no questions. Pulling back means Saddam will continue, and having seen how vulnerable we are, he will attack, but not by his own hand. Even if Saddam doesn't, what's to stop a general, or captain, or one of his sons passing a suitcase to mad Muslims? Off their own back, either for money, glory, revenge, religion, ex torsion, whatever. There are no checks and balances there.

Over the next hundred years, my children's children will still be fighting this religious war. I don't want them to have to fight against such vile weapons. Even if that means we retaliate with vile weapons in Iraq, North Korea, Syria, where ever. Of course, we pressure them so that we don't have to. Or, as Blair would say, "negotiate with them."

These weapons must be removed from the world. We cannot contain them within boundaries where there is a junta with no law - these weapons will leak out. First, we need to get rid of others (Syria, Libya, North Korea), and ensure that there is no need for these country to develop them again. Second we get rid of the West's and Russia's and China's. And Pakistan. And India. And Israel's. And stop Egypt, Libya and Saudi Arabia developing them.

756 Also posted to: Home page . At: 11:09:40 PM  . .
Permalink  Top  Search Google  Technorati
Other title(s) for this story: U.S. Backs Off From Immunity For Saddam