...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

[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.