Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I think it's clear all along that Bush felt for the strategic good of the US, he needed a strong ally producing a lot of oil cheaply, to keep world and hence US prices down over the next decade. Saudi is wobbly, and could topple at any moment, Iran is impossible because of recent history, which leaves Iraq.

    Iraq is good, there are outstanding UN violations, the regime is nasty, unpopular in the region, and worth removing, and best of all there is a huge supply of oil in the country that's not flowing onto the world market. Bush didn't really care about the morals of the story, he clearly just wanted the oil flowing.

    Blair is in a worse position, he staked his reputation on the bogus claims of weapons of mass destruction. He dragged his own party against it better judgement, and eventually the whole country towards a messy war. Unlike the US, our armed forced are totally under strength and under equipped, and we have taken needless losses as a result. It's wrecked our reputation within Europe, and most recently destroyed good men in the BBC that supported journalist that tried to show people, the lies that Blair was spinning.

    -- "It's not magic, it's work..."
    • This begs the question of what Blair expected to get out of this. Once he turned into Bush's loyal sidekick, I don't think he could back down, but I am hard-pressed to come up with any convincing reason why he would stake his political reputation on a pre-emptive attack. I suppose if he thought that Iraq actually had those weapons, he might have looked like a hero, but Britain was busy cribbing notes from students and overruling their own intel, so I'd be suprised if Blair was doing more than betting (unl

      • Personally I think Blair has his own short (hidden) personal agenda. Normally on most issues he bends to public opinion, saying one thing to one group and the oposite to another. In many ways he is the charismatic "president" not unlike Clinton, who ends up doing nothing...

        I think it's quite clear that British military intelligence, like that of the US thought that Iraq posed no threat, though there was always the outide chance of somthing fishy going on. Blair either directly over emphasised, or indirect

        -- "It's not magic, it's work..."