War within weeks, it seems...

[mrph]

Guardian story here.

So, anyone in the UK feel like doing their bit towards bringing down the government? It's possible that Bush & co will reveal some crucial evidence that'll change everything - but if they don't then I'd really like to see Blair pay for this with his job.

After all, a lot of other people are going to pay for it with their lives.

Comments

[lougarry.livejournal.com]

Good, maybe it'll teach him to ask us what we think instead of telling us what we want :)
Unless all along he's been using the Royal we.
'Excuse me, need a hand digging that hole...?'
;)

[ghoti.livejournal.com]

I'm thinking he's looking for a reaction similar to the one Thatcher got after the Falklands. I wouldn;t be at all surprised if it works. Remember the Falklands? And everyone saying it was a pointless waste of time? And so on...

[lougarry.livejournal.com]

well, I dont know about that. That was slightly different, and before my time really, though the way I understand it is that there were british people on the Falklands, who wanted to stay british, and sending in the troops was fairly justified.
This whole IRaqi thing isn't about British people being threatened in Iraq (in the same context)despite being constantly told about the threats they pose to us etc etc - I feel that it is mostly scare mongering to keep Joe public under Blair's tag line of 'Threat to the World'
Though it doesn't matter which way, war is a horrible thing and many innocents are going to get hurt, some in more ways than others.
:/

[mrph.livejournal.com]

Agreeed. However much the Falklands was "other side fo the world" and "a few mad farmers", it was British people and British territory. And it was clear what was meant by victory - "kick Argentina out, resume life as normal".

There were no worries about whether the people of Port Stanley would greet troops with cheers or with sullen resentment, no real likelihood that they'd have lost friends and family to British bombing, or that the soldiers we'd killed were their sons. There was no need for a long-term military presence within the communities, no risk of terrorism or agitators. No need to restructure the local government, or install a new leader chosen by the army. Invading the Falklands swiftly returned it to "normal", whereas Iraq is a long-term commitment.

The other factor, of course, is that Maggie (bless 'er) did her best war leader act and told us we had to 'rescue our own'. The buck stopped with her. Time for plucky little Britain to save the day, by jingo! Whereas Blair is just following Bush and has told us that he can 'see no circumstances' in which we wouldn't join America in a war. We're not even needed, as a military force - we're there solely to show that they're not acting alone, that their allies agree with them.

[ghoti.livejournal.com]

you're probably right. I was, um, 4 or 5 at the time of the Falklands, and my dad was in the army - the lasting impression I got was that it was a useless excersize in vote-building, and Everyone was *very* annoyed at the whole thing, was the main impression I got (along, of with relief that my daddy was considered unfit for active service, but that's another story) I tend to forget about the British people there. Hmm.

I still think he's hoping for some voter support over the war, because otherwise, what's the point?

[lougarry.livejournal.com]

Tony Blair = Brain...a mad mouse hell bent on taking over the world, one way or another...even if it means being lapdog to GWB. Well, at least we know what to get him for christmas this year .... a collar ;)