...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

[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.