The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [casi] Blair's speech -- keep the momentum going

In message <002901c2d609$4ca16310$cf18bd50@Laptop>, Glenn Bassett
<> writes
>I know everyone's knackered but...
>I've spoken to a couple of non-activist people who were quite impressed with
>Blair's rhetoric on Saturday (getting rid of Saddam would be a humanitarian
>act etc). This is the argument he has resorted to and the one that it seems
>convinces most people: he's nasty, therefore get rid of him; simple.
>That's the line I think we, as activists, need to be addressing most
>Blair seems to be trying to ignore the many complicated consequences of war
>(I think he knows he's lost those arguments now) and to reduce the issue in
>people's minds to a simple black and white choice: get rid of Saddam or
>leave him. In my view we should be responding quickly and in numbers to this
>argument by pointing out the assumptions in this line, and all the points it
>leaves unanswered.

Tony Blair and the British government are playing the moral, either/or
card, ie:
'if we don't topple Saddam, we have failed his people.'
- is it moral to intervene only in oppressed countries which are
strategically important to Britain/the West? what about all the other
dictators around the world?
- why now?  was it moral to turn a blind eye to earlier atrocities such
as Halabja when Saddam was a friend of the West?

Blair and co are also playing the 'threat to ourselves' card, ie:
'if we don't disarm Saddam, we leave ourselves under threat from his
weapons of mass destruction.'
- who is really under threat? - if it's a country in the region, eg.
Israel, be honest and just say so.

Others are playing the numbers game, ie:
'yes, some will die during a war, but Saddam is already/has already been
killing equal numbers of people in Iraq and neighbouring countries such
as Iran and Kuwait.'
- does war with one country in order to liberate its people justify the
destabilisation of a whole region, maybe even of the whole world?


Cathy Aitchison

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]