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?
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?
no subject
Date: 2003-01-13 08:30 am (UTC)Anyway he won't, because in wartime martial law can be enforced, and silly things like elections are suspended.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-13 08:35 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-13 08:47 am (UTC)Blair: first against the wall when the revolution comes
no subject
Date: 2003-01-13 10:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-01-13 11:58 am (UTC)