UK getting cold feet?

[MGKrebs]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/iraq/main541815.shtml

(CBS)_Sources tell CBS News that Great Britain – America's closest ally – may find it politically impossible to commit its military to a U.S.-led attack on Saddam Hussein. And that could force the United States to go it alone in Iraq.

The U.S. has the support of Britain, Spain and Bulgaria, with Cameroon and Mexico reportedly leaning toward the U.S. position. But with Germany, Syria and Pakistan preparing abstentions or "no" votes, Washington is trying to appeal to Chile, Angola and Guinea.

 

[SmallTown]

This is what happens when your approval ratings drop to the 30s

 

[vraiblonde]

Maynard, I already understand that you'd like nothing more than for the US to have a series of 9-11s - the bigger the better. And lots of people killed, please. Because then you can gloat and go, "SEE! Bush is a stupid who can't even speak English!"

But if the UN members bail, Bush will go it alone - mark my words. And if he does, the rest of the countries will fall in behind the US, just like they've always done.

Because you better believe that if we go over there and start digging through Saddam's bag of goodies, we're going to find out that Iraq paid a large sum of money to France and Russia to buy those vetos (remember, you heard that here first). And F&R definitely don't want that to happen.

So get a seat - the circus is in town.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Because you better believe that if we go over there and start digging through Saddam's bag of goodies, we're going to find out that Iraq paid a large sum of money to France and Russia to buy those vetos (remember, you heard that here first). And F&R definitely don't want that to happen.

So get a seat - the circus is in town.

Kinda like Iran-Contra, but I'm not sure which way we'll go with that. Sure, the arms for hostages issue was good for us and maybe for Iran, but the monetary penalties and jail times might leave a sour taste in their mouths concerning Iran. But, this could be a reason we didn't go after Iran first, that would have been called revenge for the embarassing issues we had back in the day. So when it is Iran's turn, it will be interesting to see what comes up and how we proceed.

I still say level the middle east and build condos.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by SmallTown
But, this could be a reason we didn't go after Iran first, that would have been called revenge for the embarassing issues we had back in the day. So when it is Iran's turn, it will be interesting to see what comes up and how we proceed.

Wake up, dude. The 80's are over. We're on our third President since Reagan.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Wake up, dude. The 80's are over. We're on our third President since Reagan.

I'm just say we better watch where we point fingers.

I honestly think Iran will be at the back of the list. With the growing disapproval over an attack against Iraq, I'm sure Bush has wondered about the PR problems he'll encounter when Iran is up to bat. He would be best to hold off just a bit. The problems over the current war talk could have an impact on his re-election campaign, he doesn't need more dust stirred up. His base case scenario for re-election is a quick victory in Iraq and as LITTLE US occupation and political influence as possible, and the capture or killing of Bin Laden, and pray that there are no more terror attacks on americans in the next year. if this happens and he gets re-elected, focus on iran and korea. Focusing on the economy wouldn't hurt, either.

 

[sleuth]

Originally posted by SmallTown
I honestly think Iran will be at the back of the list.

To occupy Iran, it'd simply increase the hostilitities against America in that region. A growing number of people in the Middle East are seeing this as America against Islam. And everytime we go into a Muslim country it unnerves nearly all of our allies over there.

Bush doesn't want this to turn into a Holy War. Even though it'd be more expensive, I would bet North Korea is next on the list, and that Bush will save Iran for after his re-election.

 

[MGKrebs]

Originally posted by sleuth14
Bush doesn't want this to turn into a Holy War.

I'm not so sure about that. He has repeatedly used the word "crusade" when referring to the war, and he is also saying lately that 'democracy is God's gift to mankind", presumably implying that it is his job to bestow that gift by whatever means necessary.

 

[Cheerios]

Why are we so obsessed with Iraq - he has been there 35 years - other countries have treated their own miserably - re; Beijing - Weren't 11 of the terroists from Saudi Arabia - but do you think we would fight them??? - a former Ambassador said that if we invaded Iraq and they lost - that would be the worse thing that could happen to Saudi Arabia - as attempts would be to make it a democracy where as Saudi Arabia has their own "realm" or I believe autocracy. Why doesn't Bush go talk to Europe - while North Korea is blasting bombs on one side for attention at our back door, we are pursing war at our front door - we are getting spread too thin - someone said that the administration is ot that concerned with North Korea as they have no oil - I wonder would would actually be going on, if we received NO OIL from the mid-east - either from Russia, South America or our own country -