Replies

Blair told Parliament last week he would not go to war without going back to Parliament. Unless the UN gives approval, his Labor Party will not authorize Britain's participation. I just don't believe there will be any such UN approval. This means he will have to kowtow to his party or be replaced. That would mean withdrawal of Brit support. While we could continue without such support immense pressure will be on the US to give more time. If we agree to this request, we will have to withdraw. We simply cannot affort to keep these troops in the desert until October. Both the financial cost and the cost in morale would be prohibitive. If we do withdraw, I believe our Kuwaiti and Quatari allies will desert us and try to make up with the Iraqis and Iranians believing that the West has no will. Better for them to make peace with the evil that they will have to live with.

Bush must go NOW and if a quick victory we might be able to save Blair, otherwise he is toast in Britain. When it appears that the US is doing well, Parliament may well give him permission to use British Forces. I think he will covertly use those forces in the early phases of the war w/o going to parliament. But we cannot continue to delay this matter, for every day the power of the left in Britain and Australia grows. Not to mention the power of the left in the US.

Blair told Parliament last week he would not go to war without going back to Parliament.

Do you have a ref for this? I listen pretty consistently to the BBC and they've been saying just the opposite, that Blair will not go for another vote. Of course, he said he would "inform" Parliament....

Blair does not need approval of Parliament to make war. War making power is vested in the monarch. Blair is the Queen's first minister. In relation to war, he operates under what is known as "the royal perogative." Yes, I suppose his party could throw him out as Labor leader, but that is probably unlikely.