It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


will blair do it

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 01:21 PM
since there is loads of talk about Iran or syria being the next target of the US of A

if this does happen will blair take britain to war with the USA
on a wild goose chase?

posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 01:27 PM
Blah, I mean Blair, is nothing more than US's puppet. However, I can see the revolt by the people of UK and US already. We, the people, will not be supporting this war.

posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 02:29 PM
The people of the UK have already been tricked into allowing Blair to commit Britsh forces to the immoral war on Iraq. I doubt very much that he will dare to try it again. Much as I think ill of him, he is not an idiot and should realise that if he goes further down the road of war, he's signing the death warrents of not only British troops, but his own political career.

posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 02:33 PM
I agree Pisky. The only worrying thing is that he has already announced he will only serve one more term as Prime Minister if re-elected.

So I am not sure his career is something he will be concerned about. It will be interesting to see if Iran is attacked after the next UK elections.

posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 02:36 PM
Blair wont follow america again. To fight a war you need to have the majority of the country on your side. Or who will they get to fight?

The British people wont stand for another war, we have all seen too violence and death to start anther stupid futile war which ends up with more death than if there wasnt war.

posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 02:44 PM
I agree with Pisky that entering another war would be Blair's funeral. Going to Iraq almost cost him his job and has put the his party in a very awkward position, so going it again would just be a rather painful way to commit political suicide.

That said though, I don't know which way he'd go on it. Whatever his decision, he would have to choose between America and Europe. The Brit people, in the wake of Iraq and America's conservative shift, seem to be moving closer to the EU in what I've read, although there still is considderable pro-American feelings and followers.

Regardless, even if Blair went along with it, the UK's troops would not be there long as I'd bet one of the first acts of the PM that took over for Blair would probably pull out.


posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 03:36 PM
we where not tricked as it went to a goverment vote did you not see halfe off london on the march when bush came to town

posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 05:52 PM
If Blair does then the UK will be finacially screwed. As it is the only reason why we are not in economic ression at the moment is because of Brown's

posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 06:47 PM
He better not !...........or i'll find the biggest most dangerous and frightening pebble you've ever seen.......and throw it at him........hard........and call him the devil..........then get arrested

Seriously though, he'd not only be signing the troops death warrant, ours maybe, his political carreer........but his own death warrant aswell, someones bound to have a pop !

posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 09:31 PM
Iran has a good reason to be anxous because I read in a news article that Israel may strike Iran before they obtain nuclear weapons. If the American Reich doesn't strike, Israel will.

The American flag might as well drop the 50 stars and slap on a Star of David in their place. Ariel Sharon said America does whatever Israel tells it to do anyway. The world would be better off if Israel would have never been created, the whole world hates that country but the Jew controlled Republic of America loves Irsael and promotes Zionism.

The American Reich will crush all the Arab countries under the banner of Zionism and Jewry.

posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 09:34 PM

Much as I think ill of him, he is not an idiot and should realise that if he goes further down the road of war, he's signing the death warrents of not only British troops, but his own political career.

I can only hope a certain jumped up, sucky, bushy eyebrowed little Australian leader is as smart about it!

posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 12:28 AM
Australia has been a good little ally. Commited its token force. Did it's job. Got the US/Aust Free trade Agreement in place. Won it's Liberal election. Refused more troops after said election, when called on by the US.

We can only hope.

posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 01:50 AM
No. It would be politically suicidal to him as a politician, and to his party to go to war with Iran... Even if he wanted to follow the trend of being America's poodle, the British pubic and Parliament would vote overwhelmingly against a possible war, and such a war would only further help tarnish Britain’s reputation around the world.

posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 04:57 AM
I think it would take some convincing of the British public to agree with going to war with Iran. The only thing i could see which might change their minds would be a terrorist attack in the UK followed by a lot of propaganda. Without something like this then im sure Bush would be on his own.

posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 05:58 AM

I am new here, but I'd thought I'd just pass a thought or two on the subject, seen as I am from the UK myself.

I was thinking, wouldn't it be easier if Bush simply allowed the UK more responsability in Iraq, which would free up more of his own troops. These troops could then be used in an offensive against Iran. This may not go down too well with the public, but it seems like the better alternative for both leaders.

What do you think? If Bush did declare war on Iran, do you think he'll simply ask the UK for help in Iraq to allow him to free up more of his own troops, and do you think the UK people will look any kindly on it?

Sorry for my poor grammar. Had a few too many to drink last night, and today I have gotten up way too early, lol.

[edit on 23/1/05 by NoobCommando]

posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 06:20 AM
The UK media is completely manipulated by the secret services' deceptive technics. I am very positive that the UK will support the war on Iran.

Recently the US has provided 500 bunker busters to Israel in preparation of the next attack on Iran. Israel will be the one attacking Iran, the US will follow to protect the poor people of Israel and the UK will inevitably follow, as the UK goes where the US goes.


posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 06:37 AM
I don't doubt for one second that, should Bush put the pressure on, Blair would be right next to him. Even if the consequences were that Blair be forced to step down and live the rest of his days in the US I think it would be a price he considers affordable.

I have no idea how far Bush would have to go before Blair would refuse him such help.


posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 06:55 AM
hmmm...tricky question

Blair has two choices.

Help invade Iran and keep Bush happy


Don't invade Iran and keep Europe happy......

I personally hate Blairs politics, but i don't think he's stupid enough to help invade Iran, if he did help Bush the Labour party would tear itself in two and the Blair half would not be electable for a very...very...very long time.

posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 07:17 AM

Originally posted by bodrul
since there is loads of talk about Iran or syria being the next target of the US of A

if this does happen will blair take britain to war with the USA
on a wild goose chase?

This is far from a wild goose chase - Iran poses a greater threat than Iraq did prior to Gulf War 1. Hopefully id like to see Blair along with the rest of Europe backing Bush this time. Alot of the rhetoric coming of Europe along the line of "whats in the past has past" suggests Europe might support US on Iran.

The reasons for the present war in Iraq are not as simple as just Oil - there was a conicendence of a nunber of factors which made the case for war. For many of these

Firstly were the ones which affect the publics opinion.

1) the Humanitarian Issues of a Dictator
2) the threat - if you were were aware at the time the sole focus was the protection of allied troops in Turkey and in the longer term greater Europe. This was the threat of medium range ballistic missiles which the UN inspectors were keeping a close eye on. The so called 45 minute claim was refering to tactical artilery weapons which were under the discretion of local commanders. Much like how Russian generals in Cuba had tactical nuclear anti ship missiles at the height of the crisis. Either way Saddam has used Chemical weapons in the past and desired to develop both their delivery and deployment in the future.

Secondly are the clinchers which enabled the confict to reap some return in the long run.
1) Oil - as much as it was to secure future reserves it was to deny it to China -
2) The credibility of future threats of military force. At the time there were three countries under the spot light - Iran, Iraq and North Korea - People will also recognise China in the longer term (Along with India - the main reason for not signing the Kyoto Aggreement on emissions). Invading Iraq was the cheaper alternative in every sense of the word. While the US pumbled Iraq the US had its eyes fixed on Iran and North Korea.

The conflict with Iran will be totally different to Iraq. While maintaining the threat of invasion i feel the US will resort to more "decapitation" sorties. Firstly focusing on their nuclear and deployment facilities followed by the leadership.

North Korea is significantly more complex. They are dug in pretty deep with their thousands upon thousands of artilery positions targeted at Soule. In addition is the likely hood of a Tiawan-China-Japan escalation.

posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 07:36 AM
Just found a story about this at The AU Daily Telegraph: Britain 'argues against Iran attack'

If I find anything else on this, I will be sure to post it here

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in