Many British politicians idolize Winston Chrurchill who perhaps Tony Blair models himself after.

However a comentator on BBC World (npr) says Blair's politcal style is much more like that of Neville Chamberlain.

Perhaps this would help explain his willingness to appease President Bush, regardless of the political consequences.

I believe Blair is haunted by the fear of being compaired to Chamberlain so much that he would do just about anything not to be seen as immitating him.

But how does the Prime Minister justify the risks of disarming him against those of containing him? Where's the evidence that containment isn't working to protect his nation and the world?

There may be serious consequences to this war. He has to show convincingly that the consequences of not disarming him are likely to be greater. Far too much is at stake to not play his hand, if he has one, before committing his troops to danger.

I'm hoping some of our British readers might be able to shed some light on this.

[ March 17, 2003, 04:31 AM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]

Two possible explanations:-

1/ British Prime Ministers go to war. Its what they do. Always have done. Always will.

2/ The national character. You know what we're like, see a brawl going off at chucking-out time and no true Englishman can resist piling in.

Labor leader Robin Cook's not piling on. On the contrary he just bailed out. Who's next?

Sportinlife, I really wasnt being flippant. I think there is just a general assumption in this country (and among politicians) that Britain will take part in any war waged in Europe or the Middle East.

Resignations so far have been 7 Labour and 4 Conservatives in protest at their party leaders' pro-war policy.

As for your original question about Blair being so adamant, I must say its a cause of genuine puzzlement both to his supporters and opponents. Some people reckon he must know something we dont about Iraqs capabilities. Others think he has just been trying to act as a restraining influence on the hawks in the US Govt behind the scenes whilst maintaining a common rhetoric in public. Others argue that America and Britain believe that the Saudi monarchy will fall (and be replaced by a fundamentalist regime) and that it is therefore imperative to "get" Iraqi oil before that happens.

[ March 18, 2003, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: jamesw ]

He's just being a good poodle.