> Hey Andy,
> Did you follow the link?
No I couldn't be bothered to register, I get enough spam already.
>From my reading of the article it would seem that Blair would be a fool to
attempt to follow Bush's lead considering the following quotes from the
article I posted:
> "Menzies Campbell, foreign affairs spokesman for the opposition Liberal
Democrat Party, said Rice's arguments for removal of Saddam did not stand up
under international law.
> 'In international affairs it is not enough to claim a moral authority in
cases where the United Nations has been involved,' he said.
> 'There will be no world order if the most powerful states are entitled to
remove other governments at will. There is no doctrine of international law
which justifies regime change.'
Nobody much listens to the Liberal Democrats, unfortunately.
> Gerald Kaufman, a lawmaker from the governing Labor Party, said in an
article published today in the Spectator magazine that there was broad
opposition in Parliament to a strike against Iraq.
> '(Prime Minister) Tony Blair would find it difficult to support and
participate in a war against Iraq whose majority in the House of Commons was
provided by the (opposition) Conservatives,' Kaufman said."
Gerald Kaufman (aka 'The beast of Bolsover') is an outspoken, old-style
socialist who 'New' labour have tried to sideline as far as possible. They
sent him on holiday during the last election campaign.
> "A poll published Monday in The Daily Telegraph found that 28 percent of
Britons thought that the United States would be justified in attacking
Iraq, while 58 percent disagreed. If the United States does strike, only 19
percent thought that Britain should join in the military action."
> Both quotes originating from the LA Times article located at this link:
> To our UK friends:
> Perhaps I'm naive. But, if I were Blair I'd want to retain my post as
Prime Minister, rather than go off on a lark with the Shrub. But, perhaps
I'm too eager to credit Blair for a level of integrity and intelligence that
Shrub doesn't have. Tell me, am I wrong to think that Blair would do as his
constituents wished? Or, would he buddy up with Shrub and go off to battle
without the support of his constituents? I read a few publications from
the UK, but perhaps, I'm not seeing the "picture".
Britain and America have a 'special relationship' - i.e. Britain does what
America wants (mostly). But I think he would need to manipulate the UK
public to get a lot more support before setting off on such an adventure.
Britain's military contribution would probably be fairly negligible, but it
would provide a fig-leaf of 'international' support any US action.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:19 MDT