I probably dont have all the facts, and I dont keep up with current events as well as I probably should, but from the bits and pieces I do get, it would appear that Blair is following Bush straight into the frying pan.

Why is he so blindly supporting our obviously megalomaniacal leader?
Does the US have some dirt on him?
Does he really believe what Bush is telling him? Based on Bush's track record so far I cant believe that he can be *that* persuasive.

What does Blair stand to gain? Weekends at the ranch in Texas? Free rides in Marine One? The undying love and support of his fellow countrymen? I dont think so.
It just doesnt jibe.

And today on MSNBC I read that his own political party would like him to consider resigning if Britain goes to war without a U.N. mandate and a prior vote by the House of Commons.
I mean, is he willing to blow his whole political career over this?
Apparently so. But why?
I just cant figure it out.
I know Bush is a nitwit and he has ulterior motives in all this, but I cant figure out where Blair is coming from. I thought he had more common sense.

Maybe some of you nice folks across the pond, or those who get their news from sources other than Comedy Central can help enlighten me.

I don't understand what Howard is up to. Australia has no real interests in the region. we'll all be rooned

Your guess is as good as mine, and I think most of Britain is in the dark. Just the other night he got the slow hand clap on the television.

I know of no-one who argues that Hussein is an evil man, who needs removing for the sake of Iraq and the world, but we have been given no more concrete evidence of these weapons by Blair, than you have by Bush.

To go in to Iraq without UN sanction, completely negates the purpose of the UN, as much as Hitler negated the League of Nations. But I feel that the real truth is that that organisation was already as ineffectual when it had to face Germany, as the UN is now.

Blair is just an ego, he would like to think he is a Statesman of the order of Churchill, or an American style president of Britain. He thinks he walks large upon the world stage – he doesn’t, he’s just a blatant self publicist.

Unfortunately he’s got himself into an almost untenable position: If he proceeds against the wishes of his cabinet, probably of both houses of parliament – although that has not been established yet, his political party and, if you believe that the polls are correct, the vast majority of the British people, what has he achieved?

Well I think that he will have negated the value of our democratic system, often described as the mother of parliaments, as surely as the value of the UN.

I don’t think that the world needs this war, anymore than any other war, all wars destabilize, they have an action and a reaction, you reap what you sew. I can’t imagine where that leads you in the middle east, with different factions, religions and interests at play – and I don’t think Bush and Blair have the slightest concept of this.

Maybe some of you nice folks across the pond, or those who get their news from sources other than Comedy Central can help enlighten me.

Well, I get most of my news from news.bbc.co.uk (my favourite quote being "The government, which takes 80% of the price of petrol in taxation, says it sees no way of reducing petrol prices in the short term") except on Northern Ireland where us.cnn.com is more impartial.

And as boxer says, no-one in Britain knows what Blair's game is either. Up until now his image has been that of a leader who is utterly focused on populism rather than on any large-scale political convictions -- his, nominally socialist, Labour Party has literally swept all before it as it has wandered, under his leadership, from left to centre-left to centre to centre-right. The other major parties are now all huddled to the right of him, while in the wasteland to the left there's nothing but Tony Benn, Michael Foot, and the Communist Party -- in other words, nothing remotely electable.

And then came Iraq. And suddenly Mr Focus Group became Mr Lonely Responsibility Of Command. No-one can figure out why he adopted or is persisting with policy more unpopular even than the Poll Tax (a scheme over which public opposition scared even Margaret Thatcher into a rapid U-turn).

As I said over on some other discussion board: Turkey, a relatively poor country, was offered twenty billion dollars to be America's bitch, and turned it down. What was Blair offered?

Peter

And as boxer says

You're devilishly more eloquent than I, which is frustrating as I write advertising copy for a living!

Anyway, I figured it out in the meantime, it's not a cash deal, we're going to be the 5x state, instead of that wretched EU we've been manacled to all these years, Buck House, Windsor, Sandringham and Balmoral given to Disney for a peppercorn rent, the government can do plenty about the price of petrol and the "Irish question" goes away overnight.

Vote for Blair!!!

Turkey, a relatively poor country, was offered twenty billion dollars to be America's bitch, and turned it down.

Be America's bitch? Care to explain?

Be America's bitch? Care to explain?

It's a US expression, roughly meaning "to cleave to a perceivedly more powerful other, to the detriment of one's own safety, in the hope that the other's favours may make up for the loss of independence and dignity".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2815869.stm if you missed the whole story.

Peter

Edit: The $20B figure was from the Plastic writeup; the numbers in that BBC report aren't as large.

Unless I'm all at sea here, I think he was referring to Turkey's strategic positioning in any possible war for launching strikes off Turkish soil onto Iraq.

During the last war, Turkey allowed us (NATO) to use their country as a base for attacking Iraq. This time round, if what Peter says is correct, it ain't gonna happen no matter how much cash is on offer!.

hence - America's bitch = paid helper

Apologies if I'm teaching you to suck eggs and you were asking an altogether different question.

No, I understand the colloquialism, I use it all the time. I was trying to figure out where I missed the story where America was paying Turkey billions of dollars to assume the position. Having read your link, I don't see how Turkey accomodating U.S. troops equates to them "being our bitch." I think it's more than appropriate to provide an economic package to an ally who provides a place for our troops to work from. I don't support any U.S. action against Iraq unless the U.N. security council approves it, but I sure don't see a problem with asking another country for a more convenient base of operations. Of course, I also respect Turkey's right to say no, and in so doing, to say no thanks to the economic package that accompanied the request.

I'm still not sure where the "bitch" part comes in.

I'm still not sure where the "bitch" part comes in

anti-USism. It's somewhat normal around here.

I think it's more than appropriate to provide an economic package to an ally who provides a place for our troops to work from.

Compensation seems appropriate. Sums of money much larger than compensation start to look like bribery. I think many people in this country wish Britain had Turkey's moral fibre when it comes to refusing bribes to act against one's conscience.

Peter

anti-USism

Assuming you mean opposition to the current Middle-East policy of the current administration of the US, then yes.

Peter

anti-USism. It's somewhat normal around here.

Yeah, even from many of the Americans on the board. I can understand people being critical. I think Bush is a terrible leader, with about as much charisma as Pepe Le Pew. But there are some pretty ridiculous conspiracy theories being thrown around here, and I think it's become quite popular to buy into each and every one of them without considering other possibilities.

For the record, I am very much against going to war without U.N. support, and even with that support, I would hope for a peaceful disarmament of Iraq, and hopefully, an end to Saddam's reign of terror. But if it weren't for the U.S. taking a lead in this, the U.N. inspectors would have no support, and would have left the country a long time ago, with the same story... "well, we couldn't find anything, because they wouldn't show us anything." Does the U.N. matter if 15 countries can unanimously pass a resolution but not enforce it?

Compensation seems appropriate. Sums of money much larger than compensation start to look like bribery. I think many people in this country wish Britain had Turkey's moral fibre when it comes to refusing bribes to act against one's conscience.

It takes two parties for a bribe to take place. One to fill up the envelope, and another to take the envelope.

If you want to talk about moral fib(er|re) as it relates to money, then you need to also address the economic links between Iraq and the dissenting countries.

Assuming you mean opposition to the current Middle-East policy of the current administration of the US, then yes.

You can assume I mean that the US is the only country on this board that gets lambasted on a regular basis by both it's own citizens and those abroad, for whatever reason is convenient at the time. Yes, we have our problems, along with every other country, but noone else gets their dirty laundry aired quite like we do.

I can certainly see getting riled up over the current situation with Iraq. While I am in favor of deposing Sadaam, I don't think that the goverment has done a good job in convicing the people of our own country, let alone the world at large as to the reasons immediate action needs to be taken. If they would take steps to prove that our citizens were in imminent danger, it would be a much easier pill to swallow.

If you want to talk about moral fib(er|re) as it relates to money, then you need to also address the economic links between Iraq and the dissenting countries.

Indeed, I think it's quite possible that the French government, and maybe the Russian government, are opposing war for reasons of self-interest, among their other reasons. But it seems unlikely to me that 1,000,000 people would demonstrate on the streets of London over a diminishing of the flow of money into the French treasury.

Peter

Indeed, I think it's quite possible that the French government, and maybe the Russian government, are opposing war for reasons of self-interest, among their other reasons. But it seems unlikely to me that 1,000,000 people would demonstrate on the streets of London over a diminishing of the flow of money into the French treasury.

Of course there are going to be anti-war demonstrators, and they've got a very valid point -- we probably shouldn't be going to war without U.N. buy-in. But for Iraq to do ANYTHING to live up to their obligations as outlined in 1441, the threat of force needs to be there. Compare and contrast Iraq's "compliance" before and after the deployment of fighting forces to the region.

I suppose those million protesters don't see any long-term problems with the current situation in Iraq? Were they then protesting the adoption of Resolution 1441 which states that "serious consequences" would arise if Iraq didn't comply? What did they think those serious consequences would be?

Yep, the trouble with this crisis is,... the more you hear and the further we get into it the less sense it all makes. In the beginning it seemed as if we were taking the high moral ground. Now we are branded as warmongers. Iraq on the other hand has gone from being the "evil empire with the maniacal dictator" to the naughty school-child refusing to do as they are told until the very last minute (thus avoiding the punishment and having the last laugh) - They really are taking the piss, (IMHO). But do they deserve to die for it, errrrrr…… NO.

Working in the defence sector I can tell you there are a lot of people willing this war to happen, it is the "cash cow" that reverses all those spending cuts on defence. But when all is said and done the war is a business and will be treated accordingly.

We already know the outcome, surely it's just a matter of time. There has been way, way toooooo much cash spent on this for a U-turn to be an option.

I hope I'm wrong.

Oh, and getting back on topic - I haven't got a fookin' clue what Blair's up to either

Oh, and getting back on topic - I haven't got a fookin' clue what Blair's up to either

*sigh*
Doesnt appear that anybody does.
I thought for sure that I was just missing some vital piece of information, but apparently this runs deeper then my own ignorance.

1,000,000 people ... demonstrate on the streets of London

I had many reasons for joining the protestors in Hyde Park.

1. To protest the fact that Blair is completely ignoring popular opinion (as Peter says, a complete change from the Mr Focus Group who got elected), and flouting the democratic process of this country. Not only is he ignoring popular opinion, but he's ignoring his own party, and parliament as a whole.

At the time of the march, MPs were calling for parliament to be reconvened (it was in recess at the time) so that they could question/ Blair about his reasons for going to war. He refused to recall parliament. I wanted (and still want) Blair to fully explain in parliament his reasons. Ignoring this call to reconvene smacks to me of a complete lack of respect for the democratic process -- we elected these MPs to represent us in parliament, and Blair was preventing them from representing us in this matter.

Admittedly, Blair's grasp of "the democratic process" has been shaky at best, ever since the landslide that elected his party, and the last election that still guarantees him an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons.

2. The lack of compelling evidence for a war against Iraq.

I don't think that anybody would disagree that Saddam Hussein is an evil, manipulative man. This, in itself, is not sufficient reason to invade. There have been (and still are) plenty of other leaders with less than exemplary records on Human Rights. We didn't invade Cambodia when the Khmer Rouge were killing millions of people. Why is Iraq different?

There is no compelling evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. For a start, Bin Laden, a radical islamic, hates Hussein, a secular leader of a secular ruling party. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. We're not invading them, though. If there is compelling evidence of this link, why can we, the public, not be trusted with it?

There is no compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps the reason that the UN inspectors have so far found almost nothing is because there's nothing there. Admittedly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but still.

If the CIA, as they claim, has evidence of WMD in Iraq, why don't they just give this information to the UN inspectors? Again, why can the public not be trusted with more compelling evidence than the vague handwaving we've seen so far?

Or is the evidence that unconvincing and flaky that it has to be carefully massaged through the press and even augmented with plagiarised graduate papers and faked paperwork?

Hell, given the softly-softly approach being taken with North Korea and Iran at the moment (both of whom have pretty advanced nuclear programs), if I was Saddam, I'd get some nukes a.s.a.p. just to stop myself from being invaded.

3. I don't believe that invading Iraq will do anything to stabilise the Middle East, and it's pretty [censored] up right now. At best, we'll be replacing the Iraqi regime with a puppet government that'll collapse after we lose interest, and we'll end up with another theocracy, like Iran. At worst, we'll kill a bunch of innocent civilians, their relatives will vow revenge, and we'll have hundreds of ready recruits for the suicide bomb squads for the next decade or so.

Few people in the Middle East like America, mainly because of their support for Israel. I believe that the best way to guarantee peace in the Middle East would be to occupy Israel with UN peace-keeping troops and knock the Israeli and Palestinian heads together until they both get some sense knocked into them. At the very least, Israel needs to be told to knock that [censored] off. You don't counter suicide bombing by driving [censored] tanks into someone's village and shooting a bunch of people. All that does is antagonise them. Just arrest their asses. Hey, maybe if you stopped treating them like [censored] and stopped stealing their land, they'd chill out and stop climbing onto buses with Semtex strapped to them. When you leave people with only one option, that's generally the option that they take.

4. The current US administration's continual habit of sticking two fingers up at the rest of the world. The ABM treaty. The Kyoto treaty. The current threat to ignore the UN if they don't get their own way. Need I go on?

5. The current US administration's resemblence to a box of weasels. Those people couldn't even pretend to be sincere and trustworthy. These days, they don't even try. They bought the election, appointed a bunch of cronies from big business and are now currently running the country on behalf of the corporations with the deepest pockets.

It's pretty simple, really. He's a d******s a******* who has no policies other than to follow others, and is retreating into a fantasy world where somewhere else has to make the decisions for him. Moron.

I bet that's just done in my MOD clearance.

French ... are opposing war for reasons of self-interest

A large part of why the French (and the Germans) are opposing war in the Middle East could be down to the fact that they both have very large Muslim populations -- the French from North Africa, and the Germans have a lot of migrant Turkish workers. Perhaps they're trying not to piss them off?

A large part of why the French (and the Germans) are opposing war in the Middle East could be down to the fact that they both have very large Muslim populations -- the French from North Africa, and the Germans have a lot of migrant Turkish workers. Perhaps they're trying not to piss them off?

Interesting theory... So I looked up some statistics. Just for the record, the U.S. has a higher Muslim population than both those countries. 3.5% as opposed to Germany's 3.4% and France's 3% (source). Pakistan (97%), Cameroon (55%), Guinea (95%), Bulgaria (13%), and Angola (25%) are among the countries that are supporting the proposal to set a deadline on Iraq's compliance. I guess the Muslims in those countries are less likely to be "pissed off" than the ones in Germany and France?

The problem is his big ears and narrow head.

Think about it. Look at a picture of him, and you 'll see what I mean. The effect is one of a sort of expanding, non-releasable clip of some sort, so when he stuck his [censored] smarmy grinning head up Bush's arse a few years ago, his ears popped out and now it couldn't be removed with explosives. God I hate that bastard. Both of them.

Sorry. I'm better now.

pca

Well put, well put. And thank you for realizing that it's the current US administration, and not necessarily all of it's citizens!

I don't get why you guys all rip on Bush so much. This is his first term as president... do you think he'd really do this (go to war) if it wasn't the best option? He doesn't want to send our men over there, and obviously this is not something that's going to get him re-elected (unless of course it turns out to have been the best thing).

If any of you listen to Phil Hendrie on the radio, he made a great point the other day. Remember the Sudentland when Chamberlien came back saying "peace in our time"? Boy was that a flop. It's somewhat of a similar situation. I can guarantee that if we set the clocks back to September 12th, we'd be going to war with Iraq in a heartbeat, and no one would disagree.

I can guarantee that if we set the clocks back to September 12th, we'd be going to war with Iraq in a heartbeat, and no one would disagree.

Umm.. No, not really...

Deep insight...

Deep insight...

Well, I just wanted to state that I disagree with your statement. And since you didn't provide any real logical basis for (a) why the US would have attacked Iraq on September 12th or (b) why the world would support the US in this endeavor, I didn't see any point in elaborating on my disagreement. But if you'd care to further explain your point, I'd be happy to engage in a friendly debate... Providing you can lose the Comic Book Store Guy-esque sarcasm.

To answer your questions:

a) I personally do not know why the US waited until now following Sept 11th (let alone the rest of the 12 years of Iraq not disarming...). We should have done what we're doing a long time ago.

b) A lot of people have forgotten about the magnitude of September 11th. Just as a lame example, I don't see 10% of the American flag bumper stickers that I did during the first few months after the WTC disaster. I think the American community would have been pro-anything that the government said was anti-terror following the events. This is not necessarily a good thing for obvious reasons, but the Iraq situation is something different.

What do you suggest President Bush be doing instead? Iraq has violated resolution 1441, you can't disagree with that, can you? And did not resolution 1441 claim to give Iraq "serious consequences" if violated? What do you suggest these serious consequences should be.... more time?

By the way, I wasn't suggesting that the "world" support us at any time. I'm sure most countries would rather practice isolationism than to get involved. That's how it's been in the past.