UN inspectors provide Bush with fresh trigger for war

An invasion of Iraq by the US and Britain could come even sooner than expected, as United Nations weapons inspectors threw down a double challenge to Saddam Hussein, and President Bush issued his sternest warning yet to the UN to fall into line or face irrelevance.

The new pressure on Baghdad comes as Tony Blair risks a huge Commons rebellion this week when Labour MPs are ordered by the whips to support the threat of military force against Iraq.

Last night, war appeared closer than ever as the UN's top nuclear weapons inspector warned that Iraq was still stalling. Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Iraq was not fully co-operating with weapons inspectors. Another trigger for war could be the unexpected deadline issued by his colleague, Hans Blix, that Iraq should start destroying dozens of missiles with a range which exceeds UN limits. Baghdad complained that this would be "tantamount to suicide".

And from his ranch at Crawford Texas, where he met Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar of Spain, Mr Bush warned: "Time is short." Accusing Saddam of continuing to cheat and dissemble, he insisted that this was a last chance "for the Security Council to show its relevance". The two leaders discussed the final draft of the "clear and simple" second resolution the US and Britain will introduce at the Security Council tomorrow, declaring that Iraq is in breach of its UN obligations and therefore faces "serious consequences" diplomatic code for war.

But opposition to war is mounting around the world and particularly in Britain, where Mr Blair desperately needs the political cover of a new UN resolution. Yesterday's summit of 114 non-aligned nations joined the African leaders who met last week in Paris in backing France's call for the inspectors to be given more time.

The Prime Minister, who had a private meeting with the Pope in which they set out their conflicting views on the impending war, will try to keep most MPs on his side by announcing what he will call his "last push for peace".

The political stakes will be raised yet higher this morning when one of the most popular members of the Cabinet, Clare Short, sets out the terms on which she is prepared to support a military strike against Iraq.

In an interview for GMTV's Sunday programme, the International Development Secretary revealed that "most of my family and most of the people I know" took part in last weekend's huge anti-war demonstration. But she went on: "There are some people who say 'no force at any price' and I understand that emotionally, but I can't claim to be a responsible member of the UK government if we're willing to see the UN endlessly humiliated and the people of Iraq endlessly suffer."

Mr Blair is hoping that for as long as the "UN route" to a possible war is adhered to, he can avoid a split in his own Cabinet and the consequent risk of Parliamentary defeat. This month, 120 MPs, 84 of them Labour. signed a Commons motions opposing war unless a series of conditions had been met.

Commons business managers now have the task of writing a "substantive motion" on which MPs will vote on Wednesday.

Downing Street yesterday released a detailed list of the illegal weapons which Iraq is still suspected of concealing from UN inspectors, including 360 tons of bulk chemical warfare agents and other materials for producing deadly toxins such as VX nerve gas and anthrax.

But opposition to war is mounting around the world and particularly in Britain

This is of course... a lie.
"fluctuating" would be more accurate. As events unfold support goes up and down based on the perceived "winners" and "losers" in the political and financial risks deparment.
Support here in the USA is rather high.
Support in Britain will go up, when the UK wins, or is known to be the winner in this necessary and just war.
The ability of law and order loving, english speaking peoples, to carry out a measure of justice and decency, as well as respect of human rights enforcement... MUST be established.
Had Britain backed down in the Falklands war... it would have been disastrous for all liberty loving "english speakers" worldwide. It seems that former slaves of the soviet union's tyranny, are rather smitten with principled stands that support liberty and human rights, whereas the world's dictatorships, tyrannical regimes and those who support them... are smitten with something else.... abject horror.
The thought is: "What if the 'jig' is up for OUR agenda as well?"
The truth is, if we have our way... it will be. God grant us the hope of a future where oppressors are themselves in chains the world over.

You might like this article - lots of food for thought - on the stakes of this showdown.

Dennis Prager

February 18, 2003

When have millions of Europeans ever been wrong?

With millions of Europeans demonstrating against America, many Americans, raised to regard Europe as an ally, must be wondering what is happening. Some Americans even may be wondering if Europe may be right: after all, when have millions of Europeans ever been wrong?

It is therefore essential that Americans understand the nature of the rift between America and Western Europe (not Eastern Europe, which thanks to its suffering under Communist evil, understands evil and values America) -- a rift that will only widen unless one adopts the values of the other. For at this moment, there are two civilizational wars taking place: Islamist hostility to Western liberty and European hostility to American values.

Why this European hostility?

First, Europe believes in socialism, while America believes in capitalism. This difference can hardly be overstated. Most Western Europeans believe in socialism as fervently as religious Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in their respective religions. To many Americans, socialism is only an economic system, but for Western Europeans it has largely replaced Christianity as their faith.

The United States not only rejects socialism; it is the chief obstacle to its spread -- because of its military and cultural might, and especially because of its economic success. Indeed, America is the chief impediment to the spread of both Islam and socialism. This explains the unity of leftist and Muslim activists. Though theoretically they have nothing in common, as Osama bin Laden just announced, "in the current circumstances, the interests of Muslims coincide with the interests of the socialists" -- opposing America.

Second, as a result of the massive bloodshed of the nationalism-based World Wars, Western Europeans concluded that the abolition of national identities is a moral necessity. Europe's elite decided to believe in Europe and the United Nations rather than in their individual nations. An English protester, quoted in the Los Angeles Times, explained his protest in terms of support of the United Nations, not Britain: British Prime Minister Tony Blair "has totally misjudged . how destabilizing this (support for America) has been to the United Nations. And we believe in the United Nations."

Just as Europeans were losing faith in their national identities, the United States came to believe even more strongly in its distinct national identity. While Europeans and the American Left have more faith in the moral judgment of the United Nations, where Libya chairs the Human Rights Commission and Syria and China vote in the Security Council, most Americans have more faith in America.

Third, pacifist ideas dominate European society. Another major ideological consequence of the World Wars was the belief that wars are wrong, that any evil -- from Communism to Saddam Hussein or North Korea owning weapons of mass destruction -- is better than fighting. America, on the other hand, believes that it is sometimes better to fight evil. The last time many Europeans demonstrated against America was when President Ronald Reagan put Pershing missiles in Europe. Europeans thought that confronting the Soviets was provocative and wrong.

Fourth, Europe passionately affirms secularism, while America remains the most religious among the industrialized democracies. In this sphere, too, either America or Europe is right. And the predominance of America, a religious country -- one, no less, that affirms the religion the European elites have rejected -- infuriates the Europeans.

Positing no transcendent or religious basis for an objective and universal standard of good and evil, Europe disdains moral absolutes and moral judgments. Whether it was President Reagan calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire" or President Bush labeling North Korea, Iran and Iraq an "axis of evil," Europeans (and the American Left, whose values are identical) found such moral labeling contemptible.

Indeed our president personifies all that Europe dislikes in America. He comes from the business world, wears an Americans flag on his lapel, is ready to go to war against an evil regime, and believes deeply in God, in Christianity and America's Judeo-Christian identity. He even wears cowboy boots.

Thomas Jefferson suggested that the Great Seal of the United States depict the Israelites' exodus from Egypt. He and the other Founders knew that America's future was and must be based on leaving Europe. It is truer now than ever.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.