...put out the lights on the Age of Reason

[mrph]

That's that, then. Perhaps I'm being pessimistic, but I've just read the reports on Blair's latest speech -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2652033.stm

So, if any country applies an "unreasonable or unilateral" block at the UN, the UK will carry on and join the USA taking action against Iraq. To me that sounds very much like "if we lose the vote, or if any of the permanent members use their veto, we'll carry on regardless...". Also see the quote from Richard Perle, basically saying that the Weapons Inspectors don't matter - we know they won't find anything (because the weapons are hidden, of course), so the results of their search are irrelevant.

It's not much consolation that Blair will potentially lose his job if he takes that route, is it?

Comments

[tawdryfilth.livejournal.com]

Oh joy. Mind you, it was fairly obvious that he'd do whatever Bush wanted. I'm not entirely happy about the idea of war even if it's through the UN, but I'm really worried about the way that Bush and Blair seem to be determined to follow through whether the UN agree or not. Humph. Tony Blair is Satan in disguise!

[kiaransalyn.livejournal.com]

There's another way of looking at it, and that is that they know something ELSE that they can't reveal. Personally speaking though, I don't believe that. I disapprove of bombing people who are living in Stone Age conditions and then having our leaders crow about how civilised we are.

[tawdryfilth.livejournal.com]

It's entirely possible that they are aware of stuff that they don't want to be made public yet,
but I can only form views on the information that is available. Morally though, I absolutely detest the idea of any kind of violence, and war is essentially justified murder. When I rule the world, I'll just shoot any country leaders that piss me off, rather than starting a war where innocents are killed! Or maybe do some kind of celebrity deathmatch thing, so it's just the politicians who get hurt!

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

Last time i checked he was going to lose his job anyway, this being a democracy and all.
Anyway he won't, because in wartime martial law can be enforced, and silly things like elections are suspended.

[mrph.livejournal.com]

I don't think they could get away with that, though. Can you imagine the outcry if he tried?

Bombing people halfway across the world is one thing (especially when they speak a different language and have a very different culture), trying to change day-to-day life here would be rather different.

[lougarry.livejournal.com]

coup d'état anyone ?

Blair: first against the wall when the revolution comes

[mrph.livejournal.com]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Where do I sign up?

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

Yes he would. He'd come on TV doing that big "I'm a family man and nothing's ever my fault" grin, and say it was for the good of the people, christen it the People's Martial Law, play the Cheeky Girls and hand out the miraculously yellow sweets and suddenly everybody wouldn't mind a bit, in fact hey, while you're at it Mr Blair, have my daughter for the People's Military Brothel.

[diffrentcolours]

Why would he lose his job? He's saving British lives by stopping Saddam, fighting the Axis of Evil and furthering the causes of freedom, justice and democracy... or at least, that's how Joe Public will see it. People may be a little wary of war right now, but when they're parading Saddam's head on a spike and have suddenly found shiteloads of nuclear weapons in the desert that the UN inspectors must have "missed", we'll be bending over for him to ass-rape us...

[snow-leopard.livejournal.com]

The country is officially going to the dogs. Also in the paper today was the police no longer have to even turn up to burglaries as these are no longer classed as "serious crime" and police will not have to make any effort to investigate crimes not classed as serious unless there is a "reasonable chance" the culprit will be caught and convicted. Serious crimes are murder, rape, assault and race-hate crimes apparently.
So heres to a vigilante society!

[giolla.livejournal.com]

You forgot:
a) inconveniencing friends of tony
b) protesting

[lougarry.livejournal.com]

Maybe thats because Officers are getting hurt or killed in not-so serious crimes - like the nottingham policeman who was dragged by a car, he died on the weekend
:(
Stupid anyway. So...these new guns laws...designed to stop the vigilantes?

[giolla.livejournal.com]

They'll be banning pointy sticks next, and logan berries.

[lougarry.livejournal.com]

and just about everythign else. What is the world coming to...?!

[mrph.livejournal.com]

...and I see that garden centres are now withdrawing castor beans from sale. Just in case.

[mr-tom.livejournal.com]

It's not much consolation that Blair will potentially lose his job

You forget that Blair is only in his current job as a stop-gap before taking a seat at a senior level in the UN. How good is he going to look if he can 'bring together' the US and the RoTW over Iraq? Instant Director-General.

'course that's a bit cynical. Although I did note with interest that on the Today program this morning, the govmt spokesman-of-the-day did let slip that ousting Saddam Hussein was an objective. Which is a shift towards 'regime change' from 'disarmament'

Mind, I'll be right behind 'call me' Tony, as soon as Euan Blair joins the army and hits the front lines. Only then would he have my full support.

[lougarry.livejournal.com]

yeah, but I'll put money on the fact that they will arrange some sort of exemption for him - due to being the future brains of britian or something.
Or mummy will get upset and start blurting things to the press agian which she shouldn't.
Of course, they will probably find some way around sending Euan to the front lines - a nice office job in the depths of headquarters somewhere, under the title 'code breaker' etc.

[zarbi.livejournal.com]

I'm terribly indecisive about this. I really don't believe Blair is, at heart, a 'Bad Guy'. To define 'Bad', consider Thatcher - inviting her good friend Pinochet to tea. At least Blair is considering doing nasty things to highly nasty people, and Saddam is a very, very nasty person indeed, who has no hesitation in gassing and murdering his own people (even members of his own family) in order to retain power. There is lots of suffering in Iraq, but it could be stopped instantly by a change of policy by the Iraq government - after all, its an oil-rich government, and there is no shortage of money.

On the other hand, I disagree with (so far) everything that George Bush Jr has said and done: I think his government is dangerously right-wing and corrupt.

So, I don't know what to think. This kind of dilemma makes me want to fulfil my long-term ambition to emigrate to France - a highly rebellious country that hates almost everyone else, especially the USA.

[inulro.livejournal.com]

Before getting all smug and threatening to leave the country, I checked out the Canadian position. (see http://www.cbc.ca/news/features/iraq/canada_iraq.html)

The short version: Canadian forces will definitely go in if there is UN/NATO backing. If there is not, Prime Minister Chretien is likely to cave to US pressure and send in the troops even though there's not a huge amount of support amongst the population. (If the US has a problem with Canada, they can make things quite unpleasant for us)

The most interesting figure is that 38% of Canadians think that George W Bush, not Saddam Hussein, is the bigger threat to the world.

So, less gung-ho than the Tony Blair approach, but probably with the same end result.