THE phrase "caught between a rock and a hard place" could have been invented for the situation Prime Minister Tony Blair finds himself in.
On one side he has the very real concerns about the loss of life and injuries to our troops and the innocent people of Iraq if war is declared.
On the other side, he must carry the can if Saddam Hussein indulges in further massacres of his own people and those further afield.
The debate on Iraq in the House of Commons earlier this week demonstrated what democracy is all about. If only all debates in Parliament were conducted in such a civilised manner, with all sides able to make their point without being heckled, jeered and ridiculed by juvenile rantings based on party lines.
Before coming to a conclusion on whether to support the Prime Minister's stance it is first necessary to clear some of the fog that has recently enveloped the debate.
I do not believe Tony Blair is a lapdog of George Bush or that he views the march to war as an ego trip. The people of Britain are not fools and what would it say of our judgement if we elected such a shallow figure to be our leader?
The United States has long been a valued ally of Britain. They have demonstrated that friendship in many ways, not least by their support in the darkest hours of World War II.
But that does not mean we must give blind support to the States and Tony Blair will have thought long and hard before standing shoulder to shoulder with them.
The easiest option of all is to do nothing. To ignore the fact that for 12 years Saddam has breached UN regulations, has used chemical weapons on his own people, gives succour to terrorist groups and has maintained his dictatorship through ruthless brutality, extending even to his own family members.
September 11 is the starkest reminder of the havoc that a well-organised and funded maniac can wreak. How much greater would that damage have been if al Qaida had had access to a nuclear weapon?
Further UN backing for an attack on Iraq would be welcome, but it is not for the UN to 'justify' Britain's participation in a war. The only justification for war can be an honestly-held belief by Tony Blair that the lives of people in this country and those of our allies are at risk if nothing is done about Saddam.
I do feel some opponents of a strike on Iraq do so from the position of a hatred of all things American. OK, America has its faults, but I don't recall America threatening to bomb Britain or using chemical genocide to quell unpopularity amongst its own people.
I'm also unclear about what credible alternative the opponents of war are putting forward as a way of dealing with the threat Saddam poses, not only to us but to his own people. Sanctions and resolutions have clearly failed.
An invasion of Iraq will not only deal with Saddam and offer a chance to rebuild Iraq, it will also send a message to others that the rest of the world will not sit idly by as power-mad dictators threaten global stability. Tony Blair was elected by an overwhelming majority and we must trust him now to act in the best interests of Britain and the rest of the world.
Published: 28/02/2003
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article