Jeneral2885
(598 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-22-11 04:25 AM
Original message |
What if Blair was never under the spell of Bush |
|
and did not join him in invading Iraq? How would the UK hqave turned out then? Would that have ended the special relationship?
|
Hopeless Romantic
(495 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-22-11 06:20 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Would he still be in office? |
miscsoc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-22-11 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. I tend to think he would be. |
|
I wonder how much damage the recession would have done him, though.
|
demo_6725
(3 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-28-11 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
LeftishBrit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-22-11 07:58 AM
Response to Original message |
2. It would have created tensions, but no, I don't think so |
|
Of course, such things are a matter of degree. Harold Wilson didn't join Johnson and Nixon in the Vietnam War, and it didn't end the 'special relationship'. But he did not oppose the war, either; if he had, it might have caused more problems in the relationship.
The French opposed the war, and patriotic Americans started eating Freedom Fries; but they seem to be back on good terms now.
At any rate, fewer people would have been killed.
|
Jeneral2885
(598 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-22-11 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
So if Blair dint sign the pact with Bush i wonder what names they would have conjured for a UK icon?
|
LeftishBrit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-22-11 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. Texas Pudding instead of Yorkshire Pudding? |
|
Freedom Muffins?
Freedom 'n Chips?
|
demo_6725
(3 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-28-11 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
Nihil
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-31-11 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #10 |
12. That third post must have been a beauty! |
|
Tombstoned with 3 posts and two of them consisted of "+1" in this thread! :rofl:
|
T_i_B
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-25-11 07:25 AM
Response to Original message |
6. We might still have gone into Afghanistan |
|
but we wouldn't have got involved in Iraq. Blair might still have resigned in time to avoid the effect of the credit crunch on his reputation though. And also, David Miliband might not have had quite so much baggage from his time at the foreign office and might have been able to become Labour leader as a result.
Another thing is that without throwing money at military action in Iraq, we might not be facing quite such harsh cuts.
All hypothetical though.
|
dipsydoodle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-26-11 06:15 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. All hypothetical though... |
|
Sound reasoning just the same.
|
LSdemocrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-28-11 07:12 PM
Response to Original message |
8. Can we stop pretending that this was all a one-way thing? |
|
If anything Blair was and always has been fairly eager to use military force to "solve" problems. Bush and Blair egged each other on.
Remember Kosovo? Clinton was the one holding Blair back from sending in ground troops, not the other way around.
|
Jeneral2885
(598 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-29-11 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
|
I thought Clinton was all out into using force in Kosovo--or was that NATO Commander Clark
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 03rd 2024, 10:30 AM
Response to Original message |