Genie 0 #1 March 18, 2003 Im wondering if people here realise that the UK may have a lot of soldiers in kuwait etc, but they havent actually committed to going to war? The UK govt works differently to the US, Tony Blair doesnt have final say on this and the vote i think will be tomorrow. After Robin Cooks resignation (the foreign secretary) for which he received a standing ovation in the House of Commons, Tony Blair may not get the result he wants. The British public dont seem to be pro this war, the Prime Minister is fighting a battle in his own political party to get assent never mind the oppositions point of view! What will happen then? I know the US is going to go in anyway, but so far it seems to be the US, turkey and 200 men from Poland and 'assistance' from the Australians whatever that means... Just something I was wondering about... Genie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #2 March 18, 2003 The opposition is actually giving him more support than his own party... He is sort of the equivelent of a democrat, the opposition "the republicans" fully support the action. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC208B 0 #3 March 18, 2003 It would be nice to have the Brits on board, but not necessary. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #4 March 18, 2003 I'll be watching that tomorrow but I think there will be enough votes for Tony so that the soldiers are seen to be supported. Still we'll see what happens. I thought Robin Cook's speech was damn good myself. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyhawk 2 #5 March 18, 2003 Quote 'assistance' from the Australians whatever that means... A total of about 2000 Australian troops are expected to join US forces in the Persian Gulf, including 150 Australian SAS soldiers. The deployment consists of: 14 RAAF F/A-18 Hornet aircraft Three transport planes: C-130 Three navy ships: HMAS Kanimbla; HMAS Anzac; HMAS Darwin prob more now Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #6 March 18, 2003 QuoteThe UK govt works differently to the US, Tony Blair doesnt have final say on this and the vote i think will be tomorrow. Technically, neither does Bush. He's supposed to get approval from congress. He contends that was given to him after 9/11 to do whatever the hell he wants. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Genie 0 #7 March 18, 2003 QuoteQuoteThe UK govt works differently to the US, Tony Blair doesnt have final say on this and the vote i think will be tomorrow. QuoteTechnically, neither does Bush. He's supposed to get approval from congress. He contends that was given to him after 9/11 to do whatever the hell he wants. Ah, i was wondering about that- just assumed i had missed the congress vote.. is there anyone in the congress or senate ( im really not that familiar with the american system and dont know which house would be responsible) who is not going with the flow? Is there any elected official standing out against in the states? Genie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #8 March 18, 2003 QuoteIm wondering if people here realise that the UK may have a lot of soldiers in kuwait etc, but they havent actually committed to going to war? The UK govt works differently to the US, Tony Blair doesnt have final say on this and the vote i think will be tomorrow. After Robin Cooks resignation (the foreign secretary) for which he received a standing ovation in the House of Commons, Tony Blair may not get the result he wants. The British public dont seem to be pro this war, the Prime Minister is fighting a battle in his own political party to get assent never mind the oppositions point of view! What will happen then? I know the US is going to go in anyway, but so far it seems to be the US, turkey and 200 men from Poland and 'assistance' from the Australians whatever that means... Just something I was wondering about... Yes, I realize that.. But the fact that they sent them and that they are backing the US makes them kick ass in my book.. I have nothing but respect for the UK.. Tony is a hell of a leader.. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #9 March 18, 2003 Quoteis there anyone in the congress or senate ( im really not that familiar with the american system and dont know which house would be responsible) Yes, there are some. Including some Republicans. FYI...Congress is comprised of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Don't worry though...I'm willing to bet at least half of those on here in favor of the war didn't know that. And more than that don't even know who the representatives for their districts are, and more than that don't know what district they live in, and more than that don't vote anyway. It's ok though...they're thoroughly in favor of bombing anyone who threatens their ability to be apathetic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #10 March 18, 2003 QuoteDon't worry though...I'm willing to bet at least half of those on here in favor of the war didn't know that. And more than that don't even know who the representatives for their districts are, and more than that don't know what district they live in, and more than that don't vote anyway. It's ok though...they're thoroughly in favor of bombing anyone who threatens their ability to be apathetic. American conservatives are generally more interested in, and better informed about current politics than liberals. This why conservative talk radio flourishes, while liberal talk radio doesn't exist in the national market without government subsidy. This is why Fox News is thriving while CNN suffers a long, slow ratings death. The people you've described above are liberals, not "pro-bombing" conservatives. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #11 March 18, 2003 Interesting theory. But I doubt the veracity of it. Did you hear that on Rush Limbaugh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerry81 10 #12 March 18, 2003 Anyone care to bet how long it will take for jokes about the UK to start popping up if by some strange turn of events it decides not to support this war? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iflyme 0 #13 March 18, 2003 QuoteTechnically, neither does Bush. He's supposed to get approval from congress. He contends that was given to him after 9/11 to do whatever the hell he wants. ... ya, he think's he's the King... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #14 March 18, 2003 QuoteInteresting theory. But I doubt the veracity of it. Did you hear that on Rush Limbaugh? American business doesn't survive on theory. It's a logical progression judging who is more caring and better informed about politics in the US by the businesses that survive. If you want to doubt that logic, fine. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #15 March 18, 2003 QuoteHe contends that was given to him after 9/11 to do whatever the hell he wants. Don't have a ton of time, but this is Jim Moran's website... http://moran.house.gov/display2.cfm?id=4447&type=News (Jim Moran is in the 8th Congressional Disctrict of Virginia, and Moran is quite opposed to the Iraq war.). Very interesting reading...including the following comment... "On October 10, 2002, the House of Representatives granted the president authorization for the use of military force in Iraq, which passed by a vote of 296-133. I strongly opposed this resolution because it granted the president authority to attack Iraq unilaterally without further congressional approval." Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #16 March 18, 2003 I stand corrected....however, prior to that his attitude was such that he didn't need approval from congress. I distinctly remember his cabinet stating in press conferences that he didn't need to seek congressional approval prior to action in Iraq. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tasadin 0 #17 March 18, 2003 I could stand corrected but being british i was under the distinct impression Tony didnt have to put war to a house of commons vote but he is doing so because of the flak he will take if he doesn't. For any US doubters up there in the posts, the UK WILL stand shoulder to shoulder with the US as we always have and very probably always will continue to do so. BTW u should have seen tony in the debate this afternoon he kicked ultimate ass and so did the opposition leader who was soooo totally on his side with it all!! As for not comitting to war and tropp deployment, you would be too naiave an American to think that the US special forces were the first in Iraq, I can tell you now the SAS were "If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #18 March 18, 2003 Quote As for not comitting to war and tropp deployment, you would be too naiave an American to think that the US special forces were the first in Iraq, I can tell you now the SAS were Up the Regiment!BTW - What color is the boathouse in Hereford?"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyhi 24 #19 March 18, 2003 Quoteyou would be too naiave an American to think that the US special forces were the first in Iraq, I can tell you now the SAS were Special Forces or Special Ops? They use to be different. Special Forces were Army Green Berets. Special Ops were from whatever services supporting other ops. I believe Task Force 160 was SpecOps, but not Special Forces. Oh yeah, and Bob Hope was Special Services.Shit happens. And it usually happens because of physics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #20 March 18, 2003 QuoteI distinctly remember his cabinet stating in press conferences that he didn't need to seek congressional approval prior to action in Iraq. Irrespective of a position taken a while ago (which I, as well, distinctly recall him taking...) he brought it to Congress and it was approved on October 10, 2002. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #21 March 18, 2003 yeah...that's why I put the "I stand corrected" comment there. You don't have to rub it in Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tasadin 0 #22 March 18, 2003 hehehe heard that lots of times, dunno never been there - only worked with the others "If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #23 March 19, 2003 QuoteIm wondering if people here realise that the UK may have a lot of soldiers in kuwait etc, but they havent actually committed to going to war? They have now. By a landslide. Stop wondering. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #24 March 19, 2003 QuoteDon't worry though...I'm willing to bet at least half of those on here in favor of the war didn't know that. And more than that don't even know who the representatives for their districts are, and more than that don't know what district they live in, and more than that don't vote anyway. It's ok though...they're thoroughly in favor of bombing anyone who threatens their ability to be apathetic. That is the comment I was obliquely referring to, Kev... QuoteAmerican conservatives are generally more interested And independently confirming this comment, as well. While I am not affiliated with one or the other party, I do consider myself more to the middle of the spectrum than to either fringe. Actually, I joke around and call myself a republicrat, or a demoblican...I have issues with both parties.... What I find interesting is your posting today has carried some heavy rhetoric, and yet you didn't bother to verify something which took me about 20 seconds to locate. Granted, I knew it was there from previous research and following the decisions of the people I vote for (as a collective whole; I obviously cannot vote in Virginia), so I knew how to locate it rapidly. Please also note that the link I provided was not from someone who supported it, and who obviously voted against it. I "trust but verify" for the most part. All I was doing was correcting a false comment, and if you thought that I was rubbing it in, that is your opinion and you are welcome to it. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #25 March 19, 2003 >American conservatives are generally more interested in, and better > informed about current politics than liberals. This why conservative > talk radio flourishes, while liberal talk radio doesn't exist in the > national market without government subsidy. Not sure you can use that data point to prove your point. I could as easily claim that conservatives prefer a single news source that fits their prejudices, while liberals prefer a wider range of news sources. That would suggest that liberals have a broader base of knowledge, and is supported by the same evidence you use above. Or it could be that liberal talk show hosts are simply not as entertaining as Rush. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
