> Sometimes, a politician must rise to the level of statesman and, even if
> it involves personal political sacrifice, pursue a domestically unpopular
> and politically costly yet strategically required, correct and beneficial
> course. It's called having integrity. It's called being a leader and not
> follower. The potential nuclear stakes a few years out are too high for
> Blair to play politics with this one, and he 'bloody well' knows it.
The USA already has enough military might to bomb Iraq from it current
mediaeval state back to the stone age, without any help from Britain.
Why stop at Iraq? There must be other vicious despots that *might* be
working on nuclear weapons that we can bomb. North Korea perhaps?
Not much oil in North Korea though.
An aside - why did Bush snr stop Desert Storm from going all the way and
overthrowing Saddam? Was it simply due to fear at the public response to
pictures of the slaughter of Iraqi troops?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:19 MDT