You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq
Blair faces resignations over Iraq
2003-03-09
A number of ministerial aides are threatening to resign if British troops go to war against Iraq without a fresh mandate from the United Nations. In other statements against the government's position, the former solicitor general said it would be "flagrantly unlawful" to go to war without a further UN resolution. And former armed forces minister Doug Henderson warned that the Labour party was facing "one of the most critical periods" he could remember over the issue.
In other words, they're going to keep trying until they can dent Tony...
Downing Street insists it is confident the Security Council will back the draft resolution in a vote proposed to take place on Tuesday. Tony Blair, spending Sunday at his Chequers official country residence, is thought to be engaged in an intensive round of telephone diplomacy over the deadline idea.
I don't think it's going to work, but he's trying...
In the UK, an opinion poll in a Sunday newspaper suggests increasing public support for military action against Iraq. The survey — by ICM in the News of the World - indicates 69% back the use of force to confront Saddam Hussein.
Good, a welcome statistic...
But only 15% would support a war without a second UN Security Council resolution.
Apalling that so many are happy to exercise opinion by foreign proxy. What, pray tell, do they think France, China and Russia can impart in the way of moral authority? Depressing...
The British and American publics have both been fed the pap for 50 years that the UN counts for something. It's a mystical thing, kind of like getting the Pope's blessing was in the Middle Ages...
Five parliamentary private secretaries — MPs who work as assistants to ministers — would step down if action was taken without UN backing, says the Sunday Telegraph.
Nice when the dead wood drops throws itself off the tree...
Former Solicitor General Lord Archer of Sandwell said military action could only be justified in self-defence, or where the Security Council deemed it necessary to preserve international peace.
Or if we were invaded by demons...
Not worthy of comment
Neither case applied in the current situation, the Labour peer told GMTV. He urged Prime Minister Tony Blair to do all he could to get a resolution passed — but if he could not, to accept defeat to stop history remembering him "as the person who went to war unlawfully". Mr Henderson said Mr Blair had failed to convince the British population, key members of the UN, many MPs and probably some Cabinet members of the case for war.
Many of whom remain resulutely opposed to being convinced...
"Upwards of 150" Labour MPs could rebel if a second resolution was not secured, he told GMTV. And he estimated about 95% of local Labour members opposed war without explicit UN authorisation.
Goes to show how astounding it is that Tony nominally represents such a bunch of pacifist imbeciles.
Public protests against the war continue, with tens of thousands taking to Britain's streets on Saturday.
International Womens' Day. Shame more Iraqi women couldn't come along. Suppose those being raped in Saddam's cells would have appreciated it. No doubt some have been shown the pictures.
Posted by:Bulldog

#11  God Bless England! From an admiring American...
Posted by: R. McLeod   2003-03-09 15:17:33  

#10  Guess everyone knows where the V-sign originated.... Maybe Straw did a bit of that under the table at the UNSC session.

True, the Labour party would wtill be languishing as unelectables without Blair, but do they realise that? Blair's tugged the party to the middle ground (the Lib Dems are now the most left wing of the three main parties), and has wrenched it away from its natural roots in doing so. He's drifting rightwards, but there has to be a whiplash effect, and it could be violent. Time will tell...
Posted by: Bulldog   2003-03-09 14:06:22  

#9  The British Labour Party is a motley crew of communists, rigid trade union leaders, and animal rights weirdos. Until Tony Blair dragged them kicking and screaming into the 20th century, they were just another bunch of hooligans at a soccer game. If Tony goes, they disintergrate. Sort of like the Dems without Clinton.

Every vote on Iraq in Parliament he has won with a super majority. He does not have to call an election until 2006. A number of his party are planning to resign to join what, the World Workers Party?

As long as the Tories stand behind Blair, he should survive. When was the last time an Englishman surrendered to a Frenchman?
Posted by: john   2003-03-09 13:47:18  

#8  Of course, we love our traditions. But for variety, this time the opposition are supportive, and his side are muttering mutiny. But then Wellington didn't become (a Tory) PM till 1828, 13 years after Waterloo.

Churchill - booted after the war, but returned to office next time round when the electorate had their first taste of Labour.

Maggie - at her popularity prime when the Argies nabbed the Falklands. Not ejected for another nine years.

The difference this time is that Tony's doing the traditionally Tory leader's role but acting as the head of a confused, governing, Labour beast...
Posted by: Bulldog   2003-03-09 11:15:26  

#7  When Wellington was in Portugal, the opposition and the British public called for his head on a regular basis. Is this a British tradition?
Posted by: Fred   2003-03-09 10:51:17  

#6  Dave, "Britain's men in uniform have the right stuff; does its citizenry?" - some of us do, but too few. Things are moving faster at the moment than most people can keep up with, unfortunately, at least that's what I tell myself. The fact that 54% support conflict, albeit only with the UN's blesing shows that they have fighting spirit, but their uncritical belief in the UN needs readjustment. A speedy, decsive war followed by visible evidence of Saddam's crimes and an appreciative population would save Blair's neck. But this March 17th deadline cannot be extended.

Fred - Tony will be feted for that for sure one day, but I wonder how his own reality-challenged party will look at it. It's the best France-related epitaph a PM could have since Wellington's...
Posted by: Bulldog   2003-03-09 10:21:01  

#5  If I was Blair, and I stood the chance of being buried someday with "Took Britain to War without France's Permission" as my epitaph, I'd jump at it.
Posted by: Fred   2003-03-09 10:07:54  

#4  Lord Archer wants Blair 'to accept defeat to stop history remembering him "as the person who went to war unlawfully"'.

Has His Lordship given any thought to how history will remember Blair- and all of Britain as well- if they back out now?

I suspect Blair would much, MUCH rather be remembered as the PM who took Britain to war without France's permission, than be remembered as "The Cowardly Lion."

Britain's men in uniform have the right stuff; does its citizenry?
Posted by: Dave D.   2003-03-09 08:17:44  

#3  We got very lucky with Blair. As the above article indicates, he's not your typical Labourite.
Posted by: Patrick Phillips   2003-03-09 08:13:05  

#2  Remember that the UK television media views the UN as some sort of saintly body: Kofi Anand is usually depicted as if he already had wings and a halo.

If nobody points out the facts about the UN, then these are the results you get.
Posted by: A   2003-03-09 07:50:19  

#1  Yes, please tell me anyone...how France, China and Russia are now the moral giants in deciding these issues of war with Iraq. To think that people in America and Great Britain, want these pillars of freedom and tolerance, to decide if we have the right to protect ourselves...obscene I say!

Brien
Posted by: Brien   2003-03-09 07:15:04  

00:00