Announcement

**Imran Siddiqui** · May 31, 2003, 19:25

DanS: Good summary. There are two strains of thought in the administration: The realist perspective (which I'd put Cheney in as well, btw) and the neo-con perspective (hard Wilsonians like Wolfowitz). There are those who seem to be in the middle (Rice). They all mesh together in the end, but the neo-cons have an upper hand because everyone's boss (Bush) is a neo-con as well.

**Agathon** · May 31, 2003, 19:26

Originally posted by Lord Merciless

Proof? Source? Or does Blair only have 0 credibility among your like-minded?

Don't you read the news? He said it was all about WMD's; that Iraq was a major threat. Now it's coming out that they doctored the reports and that what was presented in cabinet had little relation to what was presented in public. I also get the feeling that there are many in the British intelligence community who are extremely annoyed about the whole thing and are looking to see that blame is apportioned where it is due.

The only person who's come out of this squeaky clean is Robin Cook, who has been pretty smart in refusing to pander to the radicals on either side.

**Whaleboy** · May 31, 2003, 19:28

"Or does Blair only have 0 credibility among your like-minded"

< Parody >

There are others??? Those folks must be destroyed!!!!

< / Parody >

Lots of people in Britain dont trust Blair, regardless of the war, they are seeing through the style, and seeing a lack of substance. He has pretty well failed on public services, and there is some growing constination (that I am doing my best to encourage) about the private finance initiative. The anti-war movement, and growing environmental and anti-globalisation movements will knock off a lot of his potential votes. Lots of labour people, partly due to the war, partly due to failure and hypocracy, are moving towards Lib Dem. Hopefully, soon they will be the new second party!

**Lord Merciless** · May 31, 2003, 19:32

Originally posted by Agathon

Don't you read the news? He said it was all about WMD's; that Iraq was a major threat. Now it's coming out that they doctored the reports and that what was presented in cabinet had little relation to what was presented in public. I also get the feeling that there are many in the British intelligence community who are extremely annoyed about the whole thing and are looking to see that blame is apportioned where it is due.

The only person who's come out of this squeaky clean is Robin Cook, who has been pretty smart in refusing to pander to the radicals on either side.

The question is whether people care. My feeling is that Blair will get re-elected next time. He has a certain teflon property like Clinton.

**Whaleboy** · May 31, 2003, 19:36

"The only person who's come out of this squeaky clean is Robin Cook"

And probably George Galloway.

I very much doubt he was in the pocket of Saddam, he is a libertarian, and must surely know that such a proposition would run against that nature, and completely destroy him if they found out.

His implication also has the effect of making it seem that people who were anti-war were somehow pro-saddam, as were the people opposed to the war on humanitarian grounds. Galloway has always been a persistent thorn in the side of the Bliar government. Its too convenient for the British government imo. Also the journalist that found the reports was working for the pro-war Telegraph, and was named David Blair

.

Its too convenient, he will probably be vindicated, which will do more damage to New Labour.

**Lord Merciless** · May 31, 2003, 19:36

Originally posted by elijah

Lots of people in Britain dont trust Blair, regardless of the war, they are seeing through the style, and seeing a lack of substance. He has pretty well failed on public services, and there is some growing constination (that I am doing my best to encourage) about the private finance initiative. The anti-war movement, and growing environmental and anti-globalisation movements will knock off a lot of his potential votes. Lots of labour people, partly due to the war, partly due to failure and hypocracy, are moving towards Lib Dem. Hopefully, soon they will be the new second party!

So it still comes down to domestic policies. I guess Blair wasn't as successful as Clinton, this might well be his downfall.

**HershOstropoler** · May 31, 2003, 19:39

Blair will be in deep **** if it turns out that he was participating in the neocon lie campaign, or even worse, was fooled by said campaign.

Unlike the US, Britain is still a functioning democracy. Burn the crazy poodle at the stake!

**Kirnwaffen** · May 31, 2003, 19:42

We only view him as such because our culture and our arguments are based on certain assumptions that are specific to our culture.

We view him for what he is. Saddam Hussein is viewed with wide contempt in all circles, Arab world included. Why? Because his decisions have caused his people to suffer and his country to fall. Your friends base their view of America strictly on the basis of the Anti-American sentiment that has been instilled in them since they were children. I mean, honestly, who has ever been considered a good leader simply because they share a single trait with those that they lead?

As for the initial question posed in this thread, I believe there are two basic philosophies that are involved:

1) People who wish to secure Iraqi oil as a hedge against possible retaliation for further military action in the gulf and other regions. These people are in it strictly for the freer hand it will offer the US in its foreign policy.

2) People who are overly optimistic and think that, after the US establishes democracy in Iraq, the rest of the Middle East will turn on a dime, stop hating us, and instantly decide that their countries should be democratic too.

Most people fall somewhere in between, but these, I think, are the bases for most of the reasons for war in Iraq.

**Imran Siddiqui** · May 31, 2003, 19:42

Unlike the US, Britain is still a functioning democracy.

2/10

Weak, Roland, weak

.

**Agathon** · May 31, 2003, 19:42

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Blair will be in deep **** if it turns out that he was participating in the neocon lie campaign, or even worse, was fooled by said campaign.

It's not so much the voters as the other members of his own party that may well be his downfall.

If polls start showing that people are happy with the Labour Party but dissatisfied with Blair, he will be out on his ear. The only thing he's got going for him is the perception that he is solely responsible for Labour being and staying in power. Of course this is false, the poor Tory governments had at least as much to do with it.

**Whaleboy** · May 31, 2003, 19:46

"Burn the crazy poodle at the stake!"

The Europe issue will also hurt Blair. If he gives a referendum, unfortunately, most people will vote NO to the euro, although I think it is in our best interest to go in.

If he doesnt give a referendum, he will be viewed as even more presidential and dictatorial than he currently is.

He is indeed in a mighty pickle!

His only option really is to give a referendum at the beginning of the next parliament assuming he wins the next election. However, this has a further problem, as the opposition could say that he is intending to deny the British people the vote, or harm his government early on (so it can be repaired), which can backfire against Blair.

British Intelligence had wind of the shinanigins of Iraq's weapons long ago, it must have surely been aware that the US intelligence had simliar concerns. It begs the question of how much more lies in Pandora's Iraqi box, for both the US and UK.

Neo-con lie campaign? Neo-con + new labour.

**HershOstropoler** · May 31, 2003, 19:47

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Unlike the US, Britain is still a functioning democracy.

2/10

Weak, Roland, weak

.

I wish that were a troll of mine.

It isn't.

**HershOstropoler** · May 31, 2003, 19:50

Originally posted by elijah
The Europe issue will also hurt Blair.

Blair is, unfortunetaly, an idiot of monumental proportions. He pissed away his political capital to support a bunch of braindead yankee wannabe fascists, for which he is rewarded by being ****ed in the arse by Rumsfeld. Brilliant.

Maybe with the next Bushist war, he'll see the error of his ways.

**Imran Siddiqui** · May 31, 2003, 19:51

I wish that were a troll of mine.

It isn't.

Ok, that's a little better... but ONLY a little

3/10

You still have much farther to climb.

**Agathon** · May 31, 2003, 19:52

Originally posted by elijah

If he doesnt give a referendum, he will be viewed as even more presidential and dictatorial than he currently is.

This comment cuts right to the point. Blair is trying to be a president when he isn't one. You simply cannot act presidentially if you aren't a president because, as Prime Minister, you are in a much more vulnerable position.

I don't know how much Americans know about the Westminster system, but you have to keep your caucus onside or you're out (it is slightly more complicated, but that's the essence of it). What makes it worse is that half of your own members probably want your job.

The Labour Party made a lot of headway against the conservatives by using only the term "sleaze". That term became such a catch all for the failings of the Major government that it only had to be mentioned to get people onside. If Blair comes to be pigeonholed by the opposition and the press with terms like "arrogance" or "deceit" (I'm sure someone else can invent a better one), his days are numbered.

Announcement

Finally the reason for the war on Iraq

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment