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
<glenn@kcnl.globalnet.co.uk> 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
>urgently.
>
>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.'
BUT
- 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.'
BUT
- 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.'
BUT
- 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

--
Cathy Aitchison

_______________________________________________
Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk


[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]