Bush was not concerned about having a UN Resolution of any kind. But he could see advantage in having another nation actively involved on his side. In return for the UK's support, Blair's price was that UN Resolution.
I believe that, without it, the US would have gone in unilaterally and the UN would have irreparably lost its authority. The US could not again have generated an international concensus and the ability to deal with genuinely rogue states (N Korea?) would have been terribly diminished.
I think that Blair saw the danger to the UN and decided that its survival was worth the huge cost of joining a poorly planned war that was, even then, otherwise unjustified.
2006-10-11 10:00:42 · 11 answers · asked by Math 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
when will they close the UN the do nothing organization of countries who only mission is to spread terrorism threw out the world .the USA need to step down from asking them to help in all matter concerning the united states
2006-10-11 10:05:48 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is claimed that the US and UK (Bush/Blair) had agreed over the Iraq issue even before the UN refused to support their actions.
The Blair decision was based on the fact he did not want the UK to be marginalised politically by the US and had to pay the bill for the US support in the Falklands (not their war) and any other marginal wars that may in future occur.
Neither men (due to a lack of international experience) ever realised what they had let out of the cage.
2006-10-11 21:24:25 · answer #2 · answered by ian d 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's possible but remember, Blair was in pretty hot water with Parliament while trying to convince them they should stand behind his alignment with Bush. That was a move that could have cost him his PM name tag.
I think everyone (except the American public) has always been concerned about the the UN remaining the figure head of the world (it works for the small guy).
It is possible Blair needed a reason to engage the fanatics hanging around England, lining up with the US fit the bill. We surely won't know until we read the dying memoirs of one of these politicals.
2006-10-11 10:15:25 · answer #3 · answered by ggraves1724 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think Blair joined the war to protect Great Britain. I may disagree with him on certain issues but I have never doubted his moral clarity, especially concerning the war. Blair is no agent of the UN.
2006-10-11 10:04:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
blair joined the war because he is scum. we may never know the value of his 30 peices of silver but i hope it was worth it with the 600000 dead civillians.
the war harmed the un, if america had gone it alone, they would have got anhillilated as iraq is too big a country for one army to conquour. this would have meant bush running back to the un t give the resoloution another go
2006-10-11 11:37:15 · answer #5 · answered by enigma_variation 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
specific he will ought to i'm not anti conflict whether i'm against the invasion of Iraq located on the Lies that Tony Blair &Co counseled. uk /u . s . a . allegedly have the friendly intelligence accumulating on earth MI5/MI6/CIA/SIS/FBI so if the Iraqi's had WMD why have been they unable to pinpoint the places and direct those inspectors immediately to them. could united statesa. permit a russian delegation of inspectors into all their internet websites of WMD i doubt it. How could united statesa. and Britain have faith if the troops of distant places govt pulled down the statues of their leaders. The BBC gave Tony's spin on Saddam's crack royal safeguard the place are they if the existed there ought to have been extremely some people killed that the united kingdom u . s . a . have not admitted to killing became it precise to seek for out his sons execute them and parade their bodies could blair like this to take place to his kin he became in basic terms as huge a tyrant as Saddam in his very own potential
2016-10-16 02:16:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, Blair agreed with Bush because he's nothing but a Bush lap dog, and now he's paying the price for his idiocy.
2006-10-11 10:05:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Blair joine Bush because the intelligence information they had also suggested Saddam may have had weapons of mass destruction...
You may now go back to your Doritoes.
2006-10-11 10:06:40 · answer #8 · answered by paradigm_thinker 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hmmm...might I add that I have several friends in the UK and they all think he is a puppet now.
2006-10-11 10:06:55 · answer #9 · answered by Sticky 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Blind Faith in Bad Leadership is NOT Patriotism!
2006-10-15 09:01:45 · answer #10 · answered by Jeremy© ® ™ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋