Why did Tony Blair join the war on Iraq?

[truthspeaker]

We it's not about terrorism or WMDs. So why did Blair go along with Smirky's war?

[rogerashton]

1. Other:

He just likes to wag his tail a lot.

[Spentastic]

2. I voted for the first option

The fact he believed it is even worse.

He's deluusional

[Walt Starr]

7. I don';t think he was delusional and I voted the same way

Duped, but not delusional.

[el_gato]

3. other

he's delusional neocon scum

[GreenArrow]

4. None of the above

and I'm stunned that four people so far actually believe that Blair believed he was supporting for security reasons. He supported it for the same reasons such things are always supported: power, control, and wealth. Tony Blair is a monster in human form.

[Cat Atomic]

5. Blair had to choose whether Britain would be

in the U.S. club or the Europe club. He chose the U.S.

The invasion of Iraq was ultimately a power grab. Iraq is strategically valuable, and control of it's resources gives the "ruler" alot of influence.

So here's Tony Blair. He sees the US gearing up for it's power grab, and he sees Europe standing against it. He asks himself, "is this Bush bastard actually going to invade? And if so, is the US powerful enough to actually dominate the region?". Apparently he answered yes to both, and volunteered Britain for the position of waterboy to the US in the the Global Domination Playoffs.

[sangh0]

8. My take is a little different

Blair wanted the UK to remain a central influence within the EU, and that can only be done if it can leverage it's "special relationship" with the US, which puts it in between the US and the rest of Europe. Without the perception that the UK can influence the US (by way of it's "special relationship") the UK is nothing special to the EU. It's just another European nation. So Blair went along in order to maintain this special relationship.

[LittleApple81]

10. I agree with you. He also seemed to think he could influence the

way the war would be conducted. In this he is dellusional. And Bush has no love to spare on Blair. Blair is a "liberal" so if sinks it is no skin off Bush's nose. He would only try to help Blair if he thinks it is good for Bush.
If he really wanted to help Blair, he would have cancelled his visit to England.

[Cat Atomic]

11. That's an interesting thought.

I suppose it could work both ways, too. Britain is only one small country among many if it's with the EU. But if it's the US's only reliable buddy in Europe, it's influence is increased with the US as well.

[sangh0]

17. Exactly

Blair's job is to pursue the UK's interests. Maintaining a close relationship with the world's only superpower is important, even without the EU. With the EU, there's too much at stake for Blair to spurn the US.

[AP]

16. More likely that the other EU countries said, Tony...

...if we support the US, we're going to have chaos at home. You know that we all like the EU and want the EU to work, and all the gov'ts in place in EU today are pro-EU. But if we go witht he US, you're going to see Europhobe-gov'ts take our place. So, for political reasons, we cannot go into Iraq. However, we need some European country to go in there and keep an eye on what the US is doing and make sure that the ME -- which fuels our economic growth, and is, therfore, vital for our future development, and crucial to our ability to establish a counterbalance to current US gegemony -- doesn't become chaotic. Tony, you are four years from your next general election, and you enjoy the widest margin of support. Tony, could you please carry Europes's flag in Iraq. We will look after you and we will work with you if you do that for all of Europe. And Tony said OK.

By the way, don't you all ask yourself whey Tony Blair called an early election as soon as Bush was elected. Blair knows that Bush would like to see Blair gone, so Blair called an election early, before Bush could do anything that would ruin his chance for reelection, and he would ensure that he didn't have to run again until after a Democrat (hopefully) was elected president.

[sangh0]

18. I would not be surprised if you're right

It make sense. However, I don't think Blair did it just because the other EU nations asked him to. If it didn't promote the UK's interests Blair would have said no.

[AP]

19. The UK's interests are with a strong EU which has, at its doorsteps,

a stable, democratic, developed ME which can both provide the fuel for European development in a way that doesn't result in internal instability, and which has a large, wealthy middle class which can serve as consumers for European goods and services. They would also like the countries on their borders to be the sorts of countries which could some day be EU members. This is why Europe wants a stable, democratic Turkey.

The US (of the Bush administration) doesn't want a powerful, stable, liberal Europe. That's a big reason for what's going on today, and it's why Rumsfield was actually DISAPPOINTED that the UK participated in Iraq.

[Loonman]

6. He's got no spine

n/t

[ret5hd]

9. OTHER: Blackmailed by Bush*...

google operation landslide

google +bush +landslide +blair

why would bush* nickname blair "landslide"?

[Holly]

12. I voted for #2

I think that Blair chose to stay close to the US, however I believe that he thought the UN and Old Europe would cave to Bush's demands and join their Iraq adventure in the end. He seemed to see himself as the man who would united old Europe and Bush....well that didn't work. On a positive note...we've all never been more united (against Bush and Blair):crazy:

[glarius]

13. He thinks he and Bush are the Blues Brothers

and they're "on a mission from God!".....LOL

[brainshrub]

14. Interesting

Why do I beleive that Tony Blair thought Saddams had WMDs...yet I think that Bu$h lied?

[Neoplatonist]

15. I'll tell you why...

because the chimp bought Blair new kneepads and a tube of lipstick. LMAO!

[newyawker99]

23. Hi Neoplatonist!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[jpgray]

20. I love that the "lovers" option has five votes (nt)

[jpgray]

21. If you voted #1, Blair's phony perspicacity has fooled you (nt)

[MissMarple]

22. He obviously felt obligated, but by what?

I've been wondering about this a lot. Was it something he was supporting or something he was afraid of? We know that Perle and Wolfowitz, et al. supported going in during Desert Storm. How much does that have to do with Israel, with oil, or with something else Sadam had that none of them wanted known? Could it have just been WMD, or something about how they got the WMD.

We know that the failing Soviet Union lost control of a lot of its biologic capability. Where did it go, to bin Ladin or somewhere else?

Richard Perle said an interesting thing on the Washington Journal yesterday. He said we had not given Sadam the where with all to make chemical weapons. Really?

Curiouser and curiouser. This gives the phrase "what did they know and when did they know it?" a new dimension.

[Tatiana]

24. He was promised an advisory role at Halliburton/Carlyle/Bechtel. N/T