[Mike Irwin]

Still tabulating the votes in the Commons, but the House of Commons' vote on Britain's participation in a war has passed.

It appears that there were 139 votes against, including almost half of the Labor Party.

Looks like Tony Blair may be in the wrong party for this one.

[moa]

Blair is lucky he did not get a major revolt in his Labor Party and get voted out as as Prime Minister.

Happened to Maggie Thatcher in her party.

[Mike Irwin]

139 members of your own party voting against you, while the majority of the opposition party votes for you IS a huge revolt in your party.

Blair has one hope of not getting "Thatcherized."

A quick relatively bloodless war with lots of chemical and biological weapons found in Iraq.

Then he can grab that AdamHenry Robin Cook by the nose and say "See? See AdamHenry? You sure you're not a Chamberlain?"

[4570Rick]

The Brit's have a record of vilifying the wrong side.:(

In the earley 30's they sided with Neville rather than Winston.:scrutiny:

[Blackhawk]

139 members of your own party voting against you, while the majority of the opposition party votes for you IS a huge revolt in your party.True, but Blair seems to have had a brain transplant and grown a backbone since Bush came into office. :rolleyes:

[Destructo6]

True, but Blair seems to have had a brain transplant and grown a backbone since Bush came into office.
Or maybe like a lot of us, 9/11 changed his perspective.

[fallingblock]

is propose a universal ccw-law for the U.K.

Well, after they legalise handguns again, of course.:D

[Vladimir Berkov]

I wouldn't say that 9/11 has changed the British perspective. I believe a lot of our current Franco-British foreign relations can be traced back to Suez. The British pretty much decided that from then on, they should never go against the Americans. The French decided they should never again trust the Americans.

Great Britain also has closer cultural ties, and doesn't mind "playing Athens to America's Rome," so-to-speak. France doesn't have that option.

I think Blair is more astute than the rest of his party, and realizes that like it or not, his country can only gain by participation in an Iraqi war, and going against the current American administration, even through inaction, not actual opposition, will only hurt them.

France probably doesn't see being estranged from the Americans as any problem, as they have lived with it for years with little apparent harm. They are also trying to increase the power of the EU, at the expense of American hegemony, something the British are not trying to do.

[Sergeant Bob]

I have not ever been a Tony Blair fan, but for whatever reason he chose this path, he showed he has a pair. He really put his butt on the line for this one. I have gained alot of respect for him.

[NonServiam]

Mr Berkov is onto something here. The stances of Britain, France and Germany can very well be explained from a EU power struggle point of view.

[Destructo6]

I can certainly see Mr Berkov's angle. Especially with France's statements to eastern European countries to the effect of, "Supporting America against France in this affair makes your chances of being admitted to the EU amost nil."

[agricola]

Youse should all bear in mind that Blair implied that he would resign if he lost this vote, and that at least 130 Labour MPs thought this would be a good thing. Given Blair's known enemies in the PLP (Brown, Cook et al) he may well have risked too much on this policy, especially now Cook is on the backbenches. It also begs the question what the UK will actually gain from a closer alliance to the US, as opposed to the EU. Blair will not be able to extend cooperation with the US with regards to any proposed operations against the rest of the "axis of evil", and may not sustain this support if a lot of British casualties occur or the war causes major civilian loss of life.

I also think that the various spin doctors played this Iraq crisis very poorly - the spurious links to al-Qaeda, the leaks of intelligence estimates and so on - the buildup should have concentrated solely on supporting the removal of Saddam Hussein for crimes against the Iraqi people (which Blair sort of came around to at the end) and the flagrant and lengthy breaches of preexisting UN resolutions. For the French to go on about breaches of international law is also a blatant hypocrisy and they should have been publicly humiliated on that, which is after all the only (not counting actually invading them) the only language they understand. I would support this war if they had handled it better; as it is the way in which they've handled it makes me suspect they are hiding something, or have that little respect for people that they feel they can lie to us...


I would also remind you with regards to Neville Chamberlain, that while Munich was a mistake but it was not thought that at the time and hindsight is always 50/50. Given the state of both the French and the British armed forces in 1938, the attitude of the people and the trauma that was held by that generation against war, I dont see how Chamberlain could have played that situation any better - unless any of you possess windows into alternate historical timelines and can enlighten us. Sometimes the devil has to be exposed before people believe he is actually there.

[Vladimir Berkov]

I agree. It is too easy to say that Britain and France should have invaded Germany in 1938 (or even earlier) in order to prevent WW2, the Holocaust, etc.

When you look at the way the world actually was, and at the way people thought during the mid-to-late 30's, it is absurd to make such a statement.

It is also absurd to compare Saddam to Hitler, but that is another argument...

[Mike Irwin]

"I would also remind you with regards to Neville Chamberlain, that while Munich was a mistake but it was not thought that at the time and hindsight is always 50/50."

You're absolutely correct, but what the British and French experience in the 1930s does provide is direct, tangible evidence of the dangers of appeasing and/or ignoring a militaristic dictator.

Really only one person thought that appeasement of Germany was a mistake -- Winston Churchill.

History proved him right, and I am having fewer and fewer doubts about the correctness of the Anglo-American course of action in these events.

I do, however, have to wonder about your comment "I'd support this war if they handled it better..."

I'm not so sure that it's a case of hiding something, but a case of George Bush seeing this issue in very black and white terms. His policy has largely cast off the nuances, going instead for a Saddam = evil position. I think that directness and clarity can be seen as being an effort to gloss over the important nuances, but I really think in Bush's case it's truly a situation of "I see this man as evil incarnate, and so should you."

Six months ago I was against this action. Now I'm largely for it.

And I will admit that one of the reasons I became increasingly for it was total and complete suspicion of French motives.

I now firmly believe that once Iraq is taken, the world is going to get a very interesting accounting of the various banned items that France, Russia, and to a degree Germany, have provided to Iraq in violation of UN sanctions.




Vladimir,

Very interesting assessment regarding Britain's experience in the Suez Crisis. I have to admit that I had not considered that factor in the development of Anglo-American relations post WW II.

You will both please note, however, that I am NOT drawing direct parallels between Iraq today and Germany in 1938, nor am I saying that Hitler and Hussein are cut from the same cloth.

The situations and people share common characteristics, and along with the events of the 1930s, should be an indicator of the dangers of continuous appeasement in the dealings with such individuals.

Finally, an invasion of Germany in 1938 likely would not have been necessary -- only a strong, unified, front against Hitler. Hitler aludes to that in communication with some of his Generals after the Munich accords, which was a driving factor in his decision to advance German war plans.

Hitler felt that Anglo-French performance at Munich, and the abandonment of Czechoslovakia, meant that the English and French would also abandon their treaty commitments with Poland.

[Vladimir Berkov]

Really only one person thought that appeasement of Germany was a mistake -- Winston Churchill.

Not exactly. Also, remember that Churchill did not blame Chamberlain, even offering him the ability to be in the new government if I remember correctly.

I'm not so sure that it's a case of hiding something, but a case of George Bush seeing this issue in very black and white terms. His policy has largely cast off the nuances, going instead for a Saddam = evil position. I think that directness and clarity can be seen as being an effort to gloss over the important nuances, but I really think in Bush's case it's truly a situation of "I see this man as evil incarnate, and so should you."

That is what I find most disturbing, as the world is not black and white.


The situations and people share common characteristics, and along with the events of the 1930s, should be an indicator of the dangers of continuous appeasement in the dealings with such individuals.

But how have we appeased Saddam? Perhaps if we decided to give him Kuwait in exchange for him not invading it, perhaps. But in order for another Munich to happen, Saddam would have to actually have some threat or bargaining position that would be strong enough to scare America into caving, but weak enough not to warrent retaliation. I don't see this as possible.

Finally, an invasion of Germany in 1938 likely would not have been necessary -- only a strong, unified, front against Hitler. Hitler aludes to that in communication with some of his Generals after the Munich accords, which was a driving factor in his decision to advance German war plans.


Hitler would still have gone to war eventually, perhaps even when he was more fully prepared. He never planned to go to war in '39, remember.

I think perhaps the best possible outcome would have been a second Franco-like situation, however with the military power and ambition of Germany, that would have probably been impossible.

[Sean Smith]

Actually, looking at the numbers, Blair's "setback" has been exaggerated, at least in absolute terms. Only about 1/3 of his party voted against his war resolution. 245 Labour MPs voted for war, 139 against.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2862397.stm

The overall score was 412-149 in favor of it.