I think this is what samarm was referring to, and, sinful he got it right. I would not characterize his (samarm’s) example as crude given the following:
From the transcript (bolding mine, related to OP)
Q: They’re not Western allies. Why not?
THE PRESIDENT: We have plenty of Western allies. We’ve got – I mean, we can give you the list. Ally after ally after ally has stood with us and continues to stand with us. And we are extremely proud of their participation.
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Can I – in relation to our soldiers, the reason I used the language I did was because of the circumstances that we know.
And the reason why I think it is important to recognize the strength of our alliance – yes, there are countries that disagree with what we are doing. I mean, there’s no point in hiding it; there’s been a division. And you obviously have to take and go and ask those other countries why they’re not with us, and they will give you the reasons why they disagree. But I think what is important is to bear in mind two things. First of all, there are an immense number of countries that do agree with us. I mean, I hear people constantly say to me, Europe is against what you’re doing. That is not true. There is a part of Europe that is against what we are doing. There are many existing members of the European Union, and virtually all the new members of the European Union, that strongly support what we are doing. So there is a division, but we have many allies.
And the second point I’d make is this, that I understand why people hesitate before committing to conflict and to war. War is a brutal and a bloody business. But we are faced with the situation where Saddam Hussein has been given 12 years to disarm voluntarily of weapons of mass destruction, that the whole of the international community accepts is a threat, and he has not done so. Instead, what we have had is 12 years in which he has remained in power with these weapons intact and brutalized his own people.
Now, we felt we had come to the point where if we wanted to take a stand against what I believe to be the dominant security threat of our time – which is the combination of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of unstable, repressive states and terrorist groups – if we wanted to take a stand, then we had to act. And we went through the diplomatic process. We tried to make the diplomatic process work, but we weren’t able to do so.
And the other reason why I think it is important that we act, and why, indeed, we have many, many allies, is because people do know that this is a brutal regime. That is not the reason for us initiating this action – that is in relation to weapons of mass destruction. But it is a reason why, if we do so, as we are doing, we do so in the full knowledge that we are, indeed, going to bring a better future for the Iraqi people.
And if you just want one statistic – although statistics I’m afraid never have the same emotional appeal as pictures, but we don’t see these pictures of what has happened in Iraq in the past – but just one statistic: Over the past five years, 400,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died of malnutrition and disease, preventively, but died because of the nature of the regime under which they are living. Now, that is why we’re acting.
And, yes, there are divisions in the international community. There are many people on our side, there are those that oppose us. But that is for us, I’m afraid –
