b) that the US is willing to listen to the views and consider the interests of other nations who might be affected by any such action - especially the one major ally that might support the idea of removing Saddam.
Yes, I agree that these conditions would have to be met. Britain would be more damaged by a 1973 style oil crisis than the USA, hence the US government must sweeten the Arab countries before taking any action, if it wants to get the support of the British people.
The anti-war crowd aren't persuadable IMO.
No they aren't, but they are a tiny minority.
Most of the UK isn't in that group though but rather look on war as an extension of soccer and take great pride when our 'team' wins. These folks are generally revolted by Saddam and would be quite content to go after him under most circumstances.
The majority of Britons are peaceful people who are appalled by the prospect of a bloody war. Only a small proportion, (usually those who are not at any risk from military conscription if the war spreads), see fighting a war overseas more like a patriotic game.
The average Brit, IMO is concerned because there are so many different stories leaking out of Washington, some of them quite obvious disinformation aimed at allies...
Regardless of what Washingtom says it seems clear that if Iraq is involved with Al Qaeda then it is a serious threat to the USA and Britain and should be sorted out. Have you read any of the reports on Hussein's regime by Khidir Hamza, (the Iraqi nuclear defector)? Do you think it is safe to leave Saddam Hussein running Iraq any longer?
...it looks like the US doesn't know what it's doing and is rather clumsily trying to hide the fact that the military wants a risk-free plan involving local bases (ie pesky allies) and massive heavy forces while their civilian bosses want a financially and politically cheaper approach based on air-power, special forces and local allies, that would be much riskier...
The USA is the only country in the World which can sort out Iraq. It must utilise at least as much military might as it did during Desert Storm. Relying on Iraqi rebels or other 'local allies' would be a serious mistake, since that scenario could backfire terribly.
Based on analogy with the first mainland IRA incidents, it won't be ready to hear that stuff for some years, so I don't really think that there *are* any arguments that can help with the situation we find in this morning's UK papers.
If Iraq is providing material support to Al Qaeda and is developing an Atomic bomb, then don't you think that would convince most British people to support a plan to depose Saddam? After all, the threat of an A-bomb attack on Britain or America organised by Iraq and carried out by Al Qaeda must be a distinct possibility once Iraq obtains a nuclear capability. A Biological weapons attack put together by Iraq could come before Saddam gets a nuclear capability.
I think Blair has to back away from his stance of unconditional support for the US or be scragged by his own party.
If there is evidence of Iraqi complicity in the September 11th attacks and/or an ongoing cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda, then I think the Labour party would have to give grudging support to any Military action to resolve the situation.