Blair is on his own

[Guest]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2799377.stm

Watching politics is becoming a bit like watching a slow-motion car crash.

We now have a situation where, in arguably the oldest democracy in the world, Prime Minister Blair seems intent on leading his country into war without the backing of his party, the British public, or international opinion. Nothing like this has ever happened before. Even during Suez 50% of the population supported war. With a 2nd UN resolution looking increasingly unlikely Blair looks exposed like never before. 121 labour MPs voted against him, and 100 more have told him they will not support him in a future vote on war without a 2nd resolution - leaving Blair depending on the tories for support in the house of commons.

If this turns out to be a short war, and the aftermath turns out beneficial then Blair may yet survive unscathed. If it is prolonged, and if there are many casualties, and if in retrospect it turns out to have been a mistake then God help Mr Blair, because one hell of a lot of people (most of his own party, 90% of the public, the leaders of both protestant and catholic church, and three of the permanent members of the security council is quite a list) have told him he is wrong, and he has chosen not to listen. He looks like a very worried man.

 

[Guest]

I never thought the situation would hold together even this long.

 

[Jedi Knight]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2799377.stm

Watching politics is becoming a bit like watching a slow-motion car crash.

We now have a situation where, in arguably the oldest democracy in the world, Prime Minister Blair seems intent on leading his country into war without the backing of his party, the British public, or international opinion. Nothing like this has ever happened before. Even during Suez 50% of the population supported war. With a 2nd UN resolution looking increasingly unlikely Blair looks exposed like never before. 121 labour MPs voted against him, and 100 more have told him they will not support him in a future vote on war without a 2nd resolution - leaving Blair depending on the tories for support in the house of commons.

If this turns out to be a short war, and the aftermath turns out beneficial then Blair may yet survive unscathed. If it is prolonged, and if there are many casualties, and if in retrospect it turns out to have been a mistake then God help Mr Blair, because one hell of a lot of people (most of his own party, 90% of the public, the leaders of both protestant and catholic church, and three of the permanent members of the security council is quite a list) have told him he is wrong, and he has chosen not to listen. He looks like a very worried man.

You call France and Germany, "international opinion"? That is laughable.

Mr. Blair will walk away from this standing tall and looking good. What is going to be really funny is when the Iraqis rip up the French contracts after we take out Saddam.

Rip....rip...rip...rip...rip...lol

JK

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Blair is on his own

You call France and Germany, "international opinion"? That is laughable.

Yes, I call France, Germany, RUSSIA, CHINA and just about everywhere else except for spain "international opinion".

YOU ARE A MORON.

 

[Pak_43]

Undercover,

an alternative and extremely cynical and depressing appraisal of events might be:

At the next election Blair may well be gone anyway, there is no way the government is going to meet it's self-imposed targets for transportation, health or education....

The Blair government in the last 12 months has been wracked by controversy on all 3 of these issues....

This could well be a desperate gamble which if it pays off might fool the electorate into giving him a second term...

Like I said, cynical and depressing...

Although your statement :

(most of his own party, 90% of the public, the leaders of both protestant and catholic church, and three of the permanent members of the security council is quite a list)

is a bit lazy IMO, I don't think you can make either "Most of his own party" or "90% of the public" stick as assertions...

Your Suez analogy is interesting but most historians don't see the parallels....
12 Historians compare the current crisis to 1939 and Suez

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: Re: Blair is on his own

Yes, I call France, Germany, RUSSIA, CHINA and just about everywhere else except for spain "international opinion".

YOU ARE A MORON.

And you are a propagandist...

As of Monday, the United States and Britain were only guaranteed two other votes, those of Spain and Bulgaria, but Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan are expected to be won over by a series of motivating factors offered by the United States. On top of that, more than a dozen other non-voting countries have publicly either expressed their support and/or have offered their assistence.

Compare that to France, Germany, Russia and China...

 

[Dazza]

My take on this is that Blair is fed up with being PM and may not mind too much if he is ousted. I think he really believes in what he is doing and is (finally) determined to do the right thing whatever the focus groups say. If that costs him his job then I don't think he can care that much.

Shame really. I sort of admire his approach, but completely disagree with his policy. If he goes to war with Iraq then I think the Labour Party will dump him within the year.

I think UCEs figures were fair. A recent poll (sorry no source but I really did see this) said that only 11% would support war without UN backing. As for the majority of the labour party. Well as a member of that august institution I can guarantee you that opinion is overwhelmingly against war without a clear UN mandate.

Oh and that 'second resolution' is nowhere near being a clear mandate for war.

Scary times.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Blair is on his own

And you are a propagandist...

As of Monday, the United States and Britain were only guaranteed two other votes, those of Spain and Bulgaria, but Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan are expected to be won over by a series of motivating factors offered by the United States. On top of that, more than a dozen other non-voting countries have publicly either expressed their support and/or have offered their assistence.

Compare that to France, Germany, Russia and China...

And how many of those countries will be sending troops like last time, or helping pay for the operation like last time? From what I can gather, none. That's a pretty feeble sort of support.

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blair is on his own

And how many of those countries will be sending troops like last time, or helping pay for the operation like last time? From what I can gather, none. That's a pretty feeble sort of support.

I'm ready to concede to your point, but let me do some checking first...

Couldn't find anything (not to say there isn't anything to find).

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Blair is on his own

And you are a propagandist...

As of Monday, the United States and Britain were only guaranteed two other votes, those of Spain and Bulgaria, but Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan are expected to be won over by a series of motivating factors offered by the United States. On top of that, more than a dozen other non-voting countries have publicly either expressed their support and/or have offered their assistence.

Compare that to France, Germany, Russia and China...

RE Mexico :

Not the way I heard it. The way I heard it Bush had previously made a personal commitment to the President of Mexico to give an Amnesty to Mexican Immigrants into the US (or something along those lines). Anyway - apparently Bush didn't keep his word (Honour? Honesty? Of course not. This is America. They don't need honour. They have guns.) and the Mexican President has a long memory.

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blair is on his own

RE Mexico :

Not the way I heard it. The way I heard it Bush had previously made a personal commitment to the President of Mexico to give an Amnesty to Mexican Immigrants into the US (or something along those lines). Anyway - apparently Bush didn't keep his word (Honour? Honesty? Of course not. This is America. They don't need honour. They have guns.) and the Mexican President has a long memory.

The intent of my post was to respond to your "just about everywhere else except for Spain" remark. What you posted in that regard isn't true.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blair is on his own

RE Mexico :

Not the way I heard it. The way I heard it Bush had previously made a personal commitment to the President of Mexico to give an Amnesty to Mexican Immigrants into the US (or something along those lines). Anyway - apparently Bush didn't keep his word (Honour? Honesty? Of course not. This is America. They don't need honour. They have guns.) and the Mexican President has a long memory.

The way I heard it was, Fox and Bush were all set to open the borders for Mexicans to come work freely in America. 9/11 of course shot that down. No one can accuse me of being a Bush supporter but I don't see how he can be blamed for that.

Anyone who thinks opening the border is a good idea doesn't live on it.

 

[Pak_43]

Dazza,

possibly this is the poll you had in mind??

http://www.mori.com/polls/2003/iraq.shtml

Whichever poll you look at on this page it 'ain't 90%of the British public......

And your claim is now:
I can guarantee you that opinion is overwhelmingly against war without a clear UN mandate....which isn't what undercover said (or implied..)

We could argue about how clear the 2nd mandate is, and I'm sure many will but that's not the point I made....

 

[richardm]

121 labour MPs voted against him, and 100 more have told him they will not support him in a future vote on war without a 2nd resolution - leaving Blair depending on the tories for support in the house of commons.

Hmm.

Just to put that in context, the Labour party currently has 410 seats in Parliament. 122 Labour MPs voted for the amendment (i.e. against the Government). While that might be unprecedented, it does mean that 298 Labour MPs voted Against the amendment - in favour of the Government. That's more than twice as many.

As for your second point, you are assuming that the second resolution will not be forthcoming.

I'd like to know why it is that a war on Iraq is a dreadful concept if done without UN backing, but magically becomes Okay if a second resolution is passed?

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blair is on his own

I'm ready to concede to your point, but let me do some checking first...

Couldn't find anything (not to say there isn't anything to find).

I hate it when you conservatives are reasonable. Upsets all my preconceptions.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blair is on his own

Richard

Just to put that in context, the Labour party currently has 410 seats in Parliament. 122 Labour MPs voted for the amendment (i.e. against the Government). While that might be unprecedented, it does mean that 298 Labour MPs voted Against the amendment - in favour of the Government. That's more than twice as many.

150 of those had to support Blair because they are paid memebers of the government, whose careers and income depend on it. They would have been sacked for voting against him and their careers would have been over. Many others made it very clear to him that they would not support him again without a 2nd resolution.

I'd like to know why it is that a war on Iraq is a dreadful concept if done without UN backing, but magically becomes Okay if a second resolution is passed?

That is dead simple. Doing it with UN backing preserves the authority of the UN and is legal. Doing it without UN backing dumps the UN into the dustbin of history, is illegal, and basically sets a precedent which places the White House as a higher authority than the UN security council. Nobody believes that is a good idea except the chimp in Washington and a large proportion of the American population. Quite frankly, if the US (with Blair in tow) attacks Iraq against the wishes of the security council then my own view would be that AMERICA MUST BE STOPPED, BY ANY MEANS. No less. I do not believe the American public, or the people in the White House actually understand the level of anti-Americanism that will follow an illegal invasion of Iraq against the wishes of the UN. What they have seen so far is peanuts by comparison.

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blair is on his own

I hate it when you conservatives are reasonable. Upsets all my preconceptions.

It's that streak of libertarian in me...

 

[Jedi Knight]

Re: Re: Re: Blair is on his own

Yes, I call France, Germany, RUSSIA, CHINA and just about everywhere else except for spain "international opinion".

YOU ARE A MORON.

Wow, nice opinion there, huh.

JK

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blair is on his own

Doing it with UN backing preserves the authority of the UN and is legal. Doing it without UN backing dumps the UN into the dustbin of history, is illegal, and basically sets a precedent which places the White House as a higher authority than the UN security council.

Wrong, UCE...

Legality or illegality has nothing to do with whether or not a sovereign nation gets UN approval before invading another country, though you are right about preserving the legitimacy of the UN.

Whats wrong with a powerful long-time ally having more authority and influence than an, IMO, largely impotent UN?

 

[Guest]

So let's recap. Three years ago Clinton was president, the economy was cooking right along, and while we may not have been the most popular nation in the world, neither were we terribly disliked by most.

The greatest scandal we had to deal with was a President who lied about getting a BJ. (Get used to how absurd that sounds - that's the way it's going to read in the history books. We impeached a man for lying about sex.)

Now, a short three years later, we have become the most unpopular country in the world, everyone hates us, everyone thinks we're the bully of the world, our foreign policy is in tatters in a dozen directions, and we're looking at not two but a THREE-front war (I love how Rumsfeld appears to simply forget to count Afghanistan as a front any more). The economy is in ruins and, although that can't really be laid at Bush's feet, his absurd voodoo economic theory is going to bankrupt us for years and years to come. Our civil rights are trampled so fast we can't even respond to the attacks fast enough.

Far from having many friends in the world, we now snarl at anyone who doesn't toe the line. Canada. Mexico. France. Get ready for Great Britain. We have no friends left and we don't care!

Here's MY prediction. A few years from now historians will recognize Bush's election as the event that turned the tide from America being a great nation to an America that unquestionably has seen its best days and its power fade into the past.

And it will all be George Bush's fault.

To sum up:

Bill Clinton gets an illicit BJ and the Republicans are STILL chewing up the scenery about it.

George Bush will go down in history as the president who ended America's dominant role in the world.

Maybe I'm wrong... let's wait and see.