2007-02-25 05:26:15 · 20 answers · asked by Drop the donkey 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
UK forces are already overcommitted in Iraq and Afghanistan, so Bush is unlikely to ask Britain to go to war with Iran. It is more likely that Bush will use British facilities as part of action against Iran. Given the precedent of US support for the Israeli intervention in the Lebanon last year, it would seem highly likely that Blair would support Bush over this even though such use of Britain would probably be against the wishes of most people in the UK, going by the evidence of opinion polls.
I doubt if Brown would do any different from Blair on this issue.
Many people in the UK have strong feelings over this matter, but I hope my answer as nearly as possible simply gives the factual situation.
2007-02-25 07:05:54 · answer #1 · answered by Philosophical Fred 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What I will never understand is why everyone keeps talking war with Iran when everyone is waiting for Iran to come back for talks at the United Nations. The UK and everyone else wants and has done nothing but talk about 'peaceful negotiations' with Iran.
Blair isn't going to war with Iran and neither are we. Where you people keep getting these notions is well beyond anything I can comprehend. Your persistence in trying to make the current administration look worse than what is is getting way out of hand.
If you want to know about Blair, write to him on their web site and ask. BUSH HAS STATED 20 TIMES NOW WE ARE NOT AND WILL NOT GO TO WAR WITH IRAN. SO THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN ASK OR SAY THAT WILL CHANGE THAT. WHAT PART OF 'NO WAR WITH IRAN' DON'T YOU GET? GET A GRIP!
2007-02-25 05:56:14 · answer #2 · answered by chole_24 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If you just watched the news some Democrat says he believes it when Condi Rice says we are not going to war with Iran. And if Bush thought it was in our best interest I believe he'd go. A little news flash, since Britain is pulling out troops the terrorists have secured a good strong hold within the borders of England so we'll see if they go down like France and Spain did.
2007-02-25 05:31:49 · answer #3 · answered by Mercadies2000 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I dont think that the British public would stand for Tony Blair ( or any other leader for that matter) involving the UK in military action against anyone else right now. I think that with the armed forces that we have available we are already heavily committed (rightly or wrongly??) in Iraq & Afghanstan. Having said that though I dont think that we can turn a blind eye to any volatile nation developing such an arsenal, but we certainly dont want to go steaming into somwhere without 100%+ certainty of what is going on there........unlike the so called 'weapons of mass destruction' that were supposed to be in Iraq & now 4 years after the invasion none have been found.
2007-02-25 05:44:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I sincerely hope ,in the name of freedom,middle east security and defence against global terror,that Britain will stand by our great friend and ally.
Unfortunately,Blair isnt made of the same stuff as george bush and he will dump his principles in favour of a positive legacy.
I want USA to know that not everyone in Britain is an ignorant ,misinformed cowardly leftist.I support fully action against Iran ,as I did action in Iraq.The middle east will be a safer place when crazed fundamentalists have thier wings clipped.
I am certain that Blair will not assist in Iran in the same way that he is doing a U-turn in iraq.It embarrasses me ,demonstrating the same cowardice as france and then Spain.Surrender strengthens the hand of the enemy.
Blair does not represent all British.
2007-02-25 05:44:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
specific he could i'm no longer anti war yet i'm against the invasion of Iraq based on the Lies that Tony Blair &Co informed. uk /u . s . a . allegedly have the acceptable intelligence amassing interior the international MI5/MI6/CIA/SIS/FBI so if the Iraqi's had WMD why have been they no longer in a position to pinpoint the places and direct those inspectors right this moment to them. could the u . s . a . enable a russian delegation of inspectors into all their websites of WMD i doubt it. How could the u . s . a . and Britain experience if the troops of distant places government pulled down the statues of their leaders. The BBC gave Tony's spin on Saddam's crack royal look after the place are they if the existed there could desire to have been an excellent sort of folk killed that the united kingdom u . s . a . have not admitted to killing became into it ideal to search out his sons execute them and parade their bodies could blair like this to take place to his kinfolk he became into basically as enormous a tyrant as Saddam in his very own way
2016-10-01 23:18:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think Blair is alot smarter the Bush, Blair sees the Iraq problem as unsolveable, Bush On the other hand is just plain Stupid!!
As for Iran, No. Iran is not a threat to the USA, just to Isreal, So if push comes to shove, Let Isreal deal with it.
Iran calims there nuclar tecnolgy is only for electricty/power.. I beleave it. We here in the USA have it, so why cant Iran have it?
2007-02-25 05:41:34 · answer #7 · answered by Mike E 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Tony Blair has nothing to do but follow Bush or hide in the bush.
2007-02-25 05:33:16 · answer #8 · answered by Difi 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
As I see it, Iran is taking us to war. Not the other way around. I suggest you show a little more patriotism. The terrorists will kill you just as they will the rest of us. We must remain united to defeat these horrible human beings.
2007-02-25 06:53:53 · answer #9 · answered by quarterback 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Blair will stand up to protect freedom when the time comes. Iran cannot be allowed to get nukes.
2007-02-25 05:29:00 · answer #10 · answered by x 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋