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.



page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 10:28 AM
Cabnet Memer Cook of England resigns in protest to Blairs support for the war with Iraq

posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 10:30 AM
Jst heard that on Sky News!!

Damn, your pretty quick with the details!!

Anymore ideas who else will resign?


posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 10:37 AM
Clare Short is the other main candidate expected to resign

posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 10:38 AM
I just heard on the news that the international secretary, dont know her name, is going to be the next one to resign.


posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 10:43 AM
Can one of our friends in the UK please explain how signifigant this will be? Will Blair take away his support for action in Iraq? Or will Blair continue on, regardless of who resigns?


posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 10:43 AM
About 35 parliamentary secrataries (MP's who aren't in the cabinet, but work at an official level within the cabinet's departments) are also expected to step down.

Duck Blair, here comes the sh!t.

AF1 - this was expected. Clair Short has already said she will resign if Blair goes to war without a resolution. She's also publicly called him reckless (it was a BIG story over here last week). I'd be interested to see if Geoff Hoon goes too, he's apparently in Blair's bad books after giving Rumsfield the impression that we were going to pull out if we didn't get UN backing. (That's allegedly what caused Rumsfields comments the other day when he talked about the UK doing peacekeeping post-war but not being directly involved)

Basically this is where the going gets tough for mr blair...

[Edited on 17-3-2003 by dom]

posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 10:44 AM
link that is britain.

Is anyone in America thinking of resigning or is all the senate agreed on this course of action?

If so...Presidency is better than Parliment!!!

posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 10:52 AM
Surprised Clare Short did n`t beat Robin Cook to it.

Well done to him for standing up for what he believes in.

" Is anyone in America thinking of resigning or is all the senate agreed on this course of action?

If so...Presidency is better than Parliment!!!

thats a bit unfair on the conservatives who seem to be doing a better job of supporting Tony blair than the labour party.

posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 10:57 AM
That maybe...

But at least Blair has taken the chance to help rid the world of sick a$$holes who use humans as bombs!!!

He is also willing to take the blame for his actions...can't see the other leaders in the goverment doing that?


posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 11:10 AM
Ravenstar - there is no proof that Saddam is paying for explosives for Palestinian suicide bombers, or that there is any link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Do some reading into the matter before posting unverifiable comments like that.

Blair is not doing this because he wants to, he's been backed into a corner by trying to reign Bush in, and now he's got no choice but to make the most of a bad situation. And with any luck, this situation will be very bad indeed for my blair.

posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 11:24 AM
"But at least Blair has taken the chance to help rid the world of sick a$$holes who use humans as bombs"

He has stuck to his guns and well done to him.

"He is also willing to take the blame for his actions...can't see the other leaders in the goverment doing that?"

No I can`t but I am a lover of history and appreciate that sometimes extraordinary circumstances breed extraordinary people and more than one of these will come out of the woodwork before the end of this.

"Blair is not doing this because he wants to,"

this my friend is not true please do some reading before posting unverifable comments like that. He has had a choice every step of the way and I challenge you to prove different.

posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 11:28 AM
Eh..excuse me dom!!

I apologise if i hurt your feelings there but i think you mistook my reply!!

Nowhere in my last reply did i mention Saddam or Bin Laden, i just mentioned sick A-holes who use humans as bombs!!

I am also aware that Blair doesn't wish to do this?
I can't blame him there...i'm pretty damn sure that Bush or the Spanish don't want to do this either but due to the 9/11 attacks and other events..they decided enough is enough and are going to kick so major #ing ass!!!

I'm stuck at work by the way, dealing with the lab reports from the first case of the killer flu and have to go and attend a meeting tonight at the base hospital and thats after a 20 hour shift that doesn't finish until 7pm!!!

I'm getting cranky at the moment and to just let you know...i'm scottish so i'm aware that Blair doesn't want to do this!!

I don't want him to do send three of my friends to war, including my boyfriend. I know that there is going to be a war..i just hope it doesn't last too long?

[Edited on 17-3-2003 by RavenStar]

posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 11:36 AM
Ravenstar and Dom you both seem very sure Blair does not want this. I`m of a different opinion but very interested why you seem so sure he does.


posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 11:39 AM
So who were you refering to? I don't entirely understand still. :/ Apologies if I pounced on a comment I misunderstood.

cassini - Personally I think Blair wanted Bush to move forwards multilaterally, he tried to get Bush within the UN framework, Bush went that way. But, Bush has now decided war is the way forwards. Perhaps you're right, maybe Blair really does want this war. The thing that surprises me is that he isn't usually horrendously right wing, and I don't understand his motivations.

It's definitely the case that Blair will be aware that there isn't a huge amount of evidence for this war, but he's backed Bush, and for him to turn away now would be extremely politically damaging. I think if it was Blair's decision he would move forwards with diplomacy, but he knows that Bush won't wait...

[Edited on 17-3-2003 by dom]

posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 11:47 AM
The way i'm thinking of things is this:

Blair and Bush both want peace, they will use any humane and resonable means to do this. Many of the other countries agree with this but due to politics and other things, they won't help us!!!!

It is a massive pressure on both Blair and Bush, and i can't blame them if they seem edgy at the moment and ontop of that, they have to deal with the internal matters of people resigning.

Dom, want to apologise for getting hacked off at you..very tired and ready for a fight!!

Lets just hope that the other countries manage to get their heads out of their butts and help us..even if it is just supplies!!

cassini, what is your point of view?

posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 11:53 AM
If they wanted peace, they would disarm Iraq peacefully....

They want war, they're the evil doers along with Saddam.


posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 11:55 AM
ravenstar, I think we *are* actually on entirely different sides of this argument. Don't worry about getting hacked off with me, we're just debating the issue.

I firmly hope that all contintental European countries will deny the US rights to overfly their countries, and I hope Turkey stands firm, and I hope the UK/US remain isolated in the world community until they see sense.

Diplomacy has not been allowed to run it's course, the only reason we're going to war today is because Bush is an impatient stupid twit.

Incidentally, I still don't get which exploding humans you're talking about.

BTW, Do you still think the virus is influenza?

posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 12:03 PM
To your question about exploding humans?

The country that is having suicide attacks!!
(Think its Israel? Gaza strip!)

And to your question about the influenza?

I've got a feeling that it is either a mutated form of the flu that has been released to weaken our remaining troops and civilians at home or...

That the Spanish Lady has returned?
Either that it is the Chicken Flu that hit China a couple of weeks ago?

Not quite sure but when i get more news i'll post!!

BTW, do agree with you on one matter...

diplomacy should have had another go?
Now we'll never know what alternatives there could have been?


posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 12:12 PM
Yeah, suicide attacks are commited by Palestinians on Israeli's, but there is no evidence that Saddam pays for the explosives involved here. There is very good evidence that Saddam pays money to the relatives of suicide bombers as compensation, which is a pretty sick thing to do, but Noraid did the same to families of IRA terrorists killed in the troubles, so the US is guilty of the same thing...

I'm not trying to say that Saddam is not doing something wrong here, but he's not involved in causing the explosions themselves. I'm pretty sure the suicide bombers don't do it for money...

Blair/Bush have done nothing against Palestinians recently other than to give Israel carte blanche to do whatever it feels necessary.

Oh well, as you say, we're agreed on one thing. Diplomacy might have resolved this in a different way, either full international backing (after Saddam was proven to be in breach with WMD's), or peaceful disarmament.

posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 12:18 PM
This is a very big resignation. As leader of the House of Commons and former Foreign Secretary, Cook was one of the highest profile members of the government. If nothing else it gives out a resounding signal that all is not well in the British Government. I personally do not agree with it, although I am against the war, as this will benefit no-one but our enemies and detractors. It is not a good idea to send out this type of signal when the country is at war, even if you agree with the cause or not. He could have made his point and stayed in cabinet. Instead he has added another layer of trouble onto an already overloaded Prime Minister. The repercussions from this will not be good.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in