I think it all depends on why we stand shoulder to shoulder or more to the point peoples interpretation of the reasons.
If Iraq is truly perceived as a threat to world security; a scheming nest of terrorists intent on mass destruction and invasion Britain will undoubtedly gain the gratitude and respect of most nations.
If however the potential threat posed by Iraq is seen as a screen or excuse to mask am ulterior motive for war Britain will be rewarded with reprisals and mistrust that will compromise it’s standing in world affairs.
If the question were “should Britain join America in a pre-emptive strike against Iraq” my personal opinion would be a no. Even if it could be proved beyond reasonable doubt that Iraq had the capability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction my answer would still be a resounding no. To start a war based upon an opponents capability to wage war would place almost every nation on the reasonable target list, with America firmly at the top of such a list and Britain maintaining a place in the top ten. Those in favour of war offer the argument that it is not simple capability but also intent that should be taken into consideration, that any nation who has the capability and the intention to use such weapons is a threat that must be extinguished. An opposing argument could be made that all nations who produce such weapons must invariably intend to use them at some point or under some predetermined situation, otherwise the need to possess them would not exist.
It could be said that only nations that had the capability and the intention to use that capability in anything other than a defensive way should be deemed a threat. Iraq could quite easily be painted in this light, unfortunately so too could America and Britain if a pre-emptive and unprovoked attack was instigated.
Thanks for the chance to read and reply