Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rumsfeld: We don't need the UK

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rumsfeld: We don't need the UK

    US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has suggested that America would be prepared to take military action against Iraq - with or without Britain.
    He told a press briefing that the US had alternative plans if the UK decides not to go to war with Iraq.

    But Downing Street has expressed surprise at his remarks, insisting that if Saddam Hussein made the wrong moves, then Britain would be in at the front.

    In fact, it was made clear that rather than scaling down the UK's involvement in the conflict, the opposite was happening.

    In recent days military planners have been talking about Britain's "military contribution being greater than we thought".

    But Mr Rumsfeld said: "To the extent that they are able to participate - in the event that the President decides to use force - that would obviously be welcomed.

    "To the extent they are not, there are work arounds and they would not be involved, at least in that phase of it."

    Asked if that meant the US would go to war without its "closest ally", he added: "That is an issue that the president will be addressing in the days ahead, one would assume."

    The comments will come as a blow to Tony Blair who says he is willing to work "night and day" to secure enough common ground among UN security council members for a second resolution.

    UN deadlock

    He warned that Saddam Hussein will be "let off the hook" if France or Russia uses a veto over a further UN resolution.

    UK diplomats at the UN have proposed a series of tests they say Baghdad should fulfil within a set time to prove that it is ready to hand over its weapons.

    The proposals are part of an attempt to win wider support for a new UN resolution that gives the Iraqi leader a deadline to disarm before war.

    Mr Blair hopes the plan will break the UN deadlock and ease mounting political pressure at home following an attack on his strategy by Clare Short, the international development secretary.

    The prime minister's official spokesman insisted: "We want to ensure that the United Nations does not crumble into irrelevance."

    Big test

    But on Tuesday, six undecided UN members - Cameroon, Angola, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan - suggested a 45-day deadline for Iraq to disarm.

    This will be seen as a non-starter by America, which has rejected calls to extend the deadline beyond 17 March, insisting that a UN vote on war against Iraq will happen this week.

    Former culture secretary Chris Smith criticised some opponents of war for suggesting the Iraq crisis could cost Mr Blair his job.

    But he added: "I hope that even at this last stage he could have the courage and the statesmanship to say 'no, we are not going to go ahead with this', even if the Americans decide to do so."

    Veteran Labour MP Tam Dalyell, a long-standing critic of Mr Blair's stance, forecast moves would be made to call a special party conference to challenge Mr Blair's authority.

    But Labour Chairman John Reid told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the prime minister enjoyed widespread support in his party and across the UK although he acknowledged Iraq was a "big test" for Mr Blair.

    Deadline

    On Monday, the prime minister telephoned Security Council members to discuss the benchmarks against which Iraqi compliance can be judged.

    That paved the way for Britain's new proposals, which were drawn up and circulated by Britain's ambassador to the UN, Jeremy Greenstock.
    On Tuesday, Mr Blair held talks in Downing Street with Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso who was supportive of his British counterpart's stance.

    According to the Guardian newspaper, security sources at the UN suggest the new deadline could be pushed back "a few days" beyond the March 17 deadline in the draft resolution.

    Downing Street seemed to indicate a degree of flexibility over the date.

    France and Russia have warned that they would veto any new UN resolution, while UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has said the legitimacy of any military action without a new UN mandate would be "seriously impaired".

    ----------------------------------

    Is this further proof of a US out of control? Will the US eventually lose even it's UK ally? And if so, will it go ahead with the invasion of Iraq as stated?
    http://monkspider.blogspot.com/

  • #2
    I read it as us giving Blair an out.

    -Arrian
    grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

    The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

    Comment


    • #3
      In this whole thing, Rumsfeld is my only disappointment.

      A botched lobotomy, I do believe.
      Get him out of the way, let Bush or Powell speak; but listen not to Rumsfeld.
      Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
      "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
      He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

      Comment


      • #4
        The diplomatic genius strikes again!

        Comment


        • #5
          "To the extent that they are able to participate - in the event that the President decides to use force - that would obviously be welcomed.

          "To the extent they are not, there are work arounds and they would not be involved, at least in that phase of it."

          Asked if that meant the US would go to war without its "closest ally", he added: "That is an issue that the president will be addressing in the days ahead, one would assume."
          What, exactly, did he do wrong here?

          I'm no fan of Rummy, but I fail to see the problem. He said we'd love to have the Brits along, but if they can't, so be it.

          -Arrian
          grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

          The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

          Comment


          • #6
            Rumsfeld?

            More like DUMBsfeld.

            Monkey!!!

            Comment


            • #7
              The man doesn't need to be insulting to the Brits.
              From day one, they've been shoulder-to-shoulder.
              Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
              "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
              He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Arrian


                What, exactly, did he do wrong here?

                I'm no fan of Rummy, but I fail to see the problem. He said we'd love to have the Brits along, but if they can't, so be it.

                -Arrian
                He implied they may not "be able" to operate with us. IF it becomes an issue, it doesn't have to be talked about in advance, to create ammo for the press, or potential political embarassment or tension at the Bush and Blair level. Rumsfeld should shut the **** up, and realize that there are issues that are beyond his pay grade.
                When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Ok, fair enough.

                  -Arrian
                  grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

                  The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I agree this is mostly to give Blair a graceful way to step aside, if he feels he needs to.
                    You don't remain at the highest levels of government and business for 25 years, as Rumsfeld has done, without being very skillful politically, notwithstanding his occasional "non-diplomatic" statements.
                    In a backhanded way, this also may be an attempt to stiffen support for British participation.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Rummy does talk waaaaaaaaaaay toooooooo much, reminds me of the Canadian guy; Cretin....hehe
                      Monkey!!!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        "To the extent that they are able to participate"

                        Hey we've only got ~50k troops in the M.East, obviously that's an insignificant number and we shouldn't bother fighting for all the good we can do.

                        Thanks a bunch Rumsfeld - first you insult your loose allies and then you start popping off at the close ones.

                        We've been there from the start and this is the reward we get?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Demerzel,

                          I think it's pretty clear he was talking about political considerations, not combat ability.

                          Even so, as MtG pointed out, we would have been better served if he'd kept his mouth shut.

                          -Arrian
                          grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

                          The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Rumsfield has the political skills of a jabbering monkey. For good or ill he has only hurt Bush's attempts to get the UN on board. Insulting your allies is generally not seen as a succesful tactic to be used in international politics.
                            When one is someone, why should one want to be something?
                            ~Gustave Flaubert

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Match his achievements, and then your criticism of his political skills will have more weight.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X