If Blair withdraws from the shooting war...

[p_p_man]

I wonder what sort of rhetoric we'll hear coming from Bush and the pro-war mob...

ppman

 

[Sillyman]

From Bush specifically we'll hear about how Blair tried to do all he could but just couldn't help us and that we are all still friends.

The pro-war people in general will probably say something to the effect that the English are tea-drinking faggots who should have been nuked and that Monty Python was never really funny.

Cooler heads in the pro-war camp (yes, they DO exist) will sigh and shake their heads.

 

[Sillyman]

Has there been any indication he will? I heard there was strong anti-war sentiment in England.

 

[p_p_man]

Has there been any indication he will? I heard there was strong anti-war sentiment in England.

He's facing a lot of pressure both from his own Party and the people. It's beginning to show in his face and although Bush has been doing his best to help by holding off going to war before a 2nd UN Resolution he can't delay forever.

If America goes ahead without a Resolution being passed as seems likely, Blair will then have to decide whether to join in and risk the possible end of his political career.

At the moment he's 100% in favour of going in with the US, at least that's what he says, but his body language and face tell a different tale...

ppman

 

[KillerMuffin]

At this point, it doesn't matter. If he backs out, he backs out.

I do know that your RAFers will be frightfully disappointed. To quote one from the previous dust up in Iraq, "I say, mate, bloody good day for a war."

 

[killstorm2002]

He can't back out now. It's really almost impossible, he's gone way too far.

 

[Zmey]

If you brits slap him silly he'll back out

 

[p_p_man]

From today's Guardian

"US may go it alone as Blair is caught in diplomatic deadlock

Ewen MacAskill, Richard Norton-Taylor and Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday March 12, 2003
The Guardian

Washington was forced to admit for the first time last night that it might have to start the war against Iraq without British forces because of the internal political problems heaping up for Tony Blair.
The US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that Mr Blair's difficulties had caused the White House to contemplate going to war without its closest ally.

After talks with his British counterpart, Geoff Hoon, Mr Rumsfeld said that the British role in an assault was now "unclear" and that Washington was well aware that the Blair government's freedom of action might be restrained by a rebellious parliament.

"Their situation is distinctive to their country and they have a government that deals with a parliament in their distinctive way," Mr Rumsfeld said. "And what will ultimately be decided is unclear as to their role; that is to say, their role in the event a decision is made to use force."

I suppose by that last remark he means the UK is a true democracy and that our leaders listen to the voices around them, unlike some I can mention...

ppman

 

[killstorm2002]

Blair will win a parliament vote on Iraq.

 

[Gord]

The thing is what he could do if he had to would put it to the house - even on a free vote and he would get the backing from Parliament - as the Torys would back him and he would carry enough of his own backbenchers.


Our Democracy is to vote a goverment every 5 years and then let them govern. What is the point of Blair looking over his shoulder every time the Mirror posts an anti Blair story or Clair Short promises to resign ( at least somethin good might come out of this ) - He will trust his original instinct. If he backs down it will be the end of his political career anyway

For all Blair faults - and I am no fan of his - I dont think he will back down just because of pressure from parts of the press and the more vocal left wingers of his party

 

[cliffchuff]

If mr B-liar decides to go to war without a new UN resolution, there will be a vote to depose him as party leader.

This has happened if enough Mp's give a vote of no confidence he must stand down.

This is how Mrs Thatch finally left the seat of power.

The fact it takes 200 MP's to swing the vote makes it unlikely, but the mere fact it is being talked about openly does not bode well for his staying in power.

democracy, rule by national consent not corporate

 

[Lost Cause]

Were you serfs ragging on Blair when...

He was chummy with Billary?
(You'd say the same about Churchill too, only your language would now be in German)

You bunch of Turncoats don't deserve Mr. Blair, he has the American spirit! (You'd say the same about Churchill too, only your language would now be in German)

 

[bluespoke]

With more than a quarter of the British Army already on station and the infrastructure with the US troops in place it would be extremely difficult to pull out now. Apart from the loss of face there would tremendous logistical problems - not to mention the cost.

As far as the boy Blair is concerned, he has enough backing to win a commons vote and if there is a challenge to his leadership then it is not just the MPs who have a say. The trade unions have one third of the votes as do the grass roots party activists.

Whilst Blair might survive a challenge from MPs there is real doubt as to whether he could bring the unions and the grass roots on board. The one thing that might save him is that everyone knows the alternative. A dying Tory party 'led' by a political non entity.

 

[Gord]

Imagine the political fall out if Blair packed up the troops and brought them home !!

They are there and there they will stay - It will be interesting to see if they go in as a full fighting force or remain as a back up sort of border patrol/logistic force, look after prisoners , keep the supply lines free etc. I can see this happening if there is no 2nd resolution.

Blair will totter on until the election- I dont see a leadership challenge - I reckon he will stand down at the end of this parliament, and head for Europe / and or to be at the forefront of creating a new UN. The current UN/Nato is now bankrupt and there will need to be a new situation brought in. Blair will be the perfect go between US and Europe. He will leave Brown to pick up the pieces at home - and there are plenty to pick up the wasy the country is headed at the moment

 

[bluespoke]

Imagine the political fall out if Blair packed up the troops and brought them home !!

They are there and there they will stay - It will be interesting to see if they go in as a full fighting force or remain as a back up sort of border patrol/logistic force, look after prisoners , keep the supply lines free etc. I can see this happening if there is no 2nd resolution.

Blair will totter on until the election- I dont see a leadership challenge - I reckon he will stand down at the end of this parliament, and head for Europe / and or to be at the forefront of creating a new UN. The current UN/Nato is now bankrupt and there will need to be a new situation brought in. Blair will be the perfect go between US and Europe. He will leave Brown to pick up the pieces at home - and there are plenty to pick up the wasy the country is headed at the moment

Interesting assessment and all entirely plausible.

However, I still expect the malcontents on the back benches to try and mount a leadership challenge, egged on by the grass roots. But time will tell.

 

[miles]

At this point, it doesn't matter. If he backs out, he backs out.

I do know that your RAFers will be frightfully disappointed. To quote one from the previous dust up in Iraq, "I say, mate, bloody good day for a war."

Cunting war mongerers.

 

[p_p_man]

OK rest easy...the stupid arsehole has got his nerve back...

From today's Guardian...

"After days of setbacks and jitters, Blair regains his nerve

Short and Chirac upset No 10, and US rang alarm bells. But PM is now ready for war

Patrick Wintour, chief political correspondent
Thursday March 13, 2003
The Guardian

The discomfort of Labour MPs was plain on their faces in the Commons yesterday, but after wobbly Tuesday in Downing Street moral certitude has returned to the frontbenches.
At prime minister's questions, Tony Blair gave the impression that his great decision has been made. There will be war, with or without the support of the UN security council. Even if a majority of security council members fail to endorse a second resolution, British troops will go into military action alongside the US."

Blair stops his wobble

I hope he's got a good deal from Bush after all this fuss. A few of those post-war contracts coming our way would be gratefully received...

As would Billion$12 in aid per year. Well Israel has asked for it, why not the UK?

ppman

 

[]ooooo(chained)]

The weakness of the Parlimentary System is that the weak can take down the strong. At this juncture in history, those types of governments are hoping that in a 50/50 America, the same thing can be accomplished.

At this juncture, America is firmly 60/40 and the President WILL act.

Blair will be a footnote in the history of the NHRE...

 

[Hey There]

and that Monty Python was never really funny.

The late Benny Hill, was funnierrrrrrrrrrrr...............................

 

[Ham Murabi]

Re: From today's Guardian

I suppose by that last remark he means the UK is a true democracy and that our leaders listen to the voices around them, unlike some I can mention...

ppman

Here here. Praise for the rule of people rather than the rule of law.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Re: Re: From today's Guardian

Originally posted by Ham Murabi

Originally posted by p_p_man
I suppose by that last remark he means the UK is a true democracy and that our leaders listen to the voices around them, unlike some I can mention...

Here here. Praise for the rule of people rather than the rule of law.

France may have some leftover guillotines if you Britishers actually do decide to implement true democracy.

You've still got a Queen lurking in a castle somewhere around there, you know. And some silly old sods that prance about calling themselves "nobility," too, from what I understand.

 

[jodarby]

Re: Were you serfs ragging on Blair when...

He was chummy with Billary?
(You'd say the same about Churchill too, only your language would now be in German)

You bunch of Turncoats don't deserve Mr. Blair, he has the American spirit! (You'd say the same about Churchill too, only your language would now be in German)

Mentioning World War 2 is not very helpful since the United States didn't join the party until they were attacked themselves.

As for now, Blair is taking an unpopular stand and might well not survive it. The set of circumstances for this war don't quite meet the discerning eye of the Brits. However, I don't think anyone through history would call them cowards.

 

[miles]

Re: Re: From today's Guardian

Here here. Praise for the rule of people rather than the rule of law.

You betcha. Mob rule.

Can you say segregation? The majority (whites) successfully denied a minority (blacks) equal protection under the law for over a hundred years.

 

[jodarby]

The weakness of the Parlimentary System is that the weak can take down the strong. At this juncture in history, those types of governments are hoping that in a 50/50 America, the same thing can be accomplished.

At this juncture, America is firmly 60/40 and the President WILL act.

Blair will be a footnote in the history of the NHRE...

And the weakness of the U.S. system is that the President does now have to answer questions from anyone. He makes one address to the State and does not have to report thereafter.

A prime minister has to respond to questions every day that Parliament is sitting. It is very democratic and far superior to a President who faces no direct opposition.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Re: Re: Were you serfs ragging on Blair when...

Mentioning World War 2 is not very helpful since the United States didn't join the party until they were attacked themselves.

The US was not attacked by Germany, and would not have been attacked by Japan without some serious provocation by FDR, the motive for which was to get the US into the war in order to save Europe from Hitler.

Without US participation, either Britain might have and France would have ended up under control of Germany; or else Britain, France, and Germany all might have ended up as Republics of the USSR.