Tony Blair Tells Europe to Quit Begging the U.S. for Help

originally posted by: crazyewok

Setting up defensive bases and missile defences = good

Good, unless they support Russia's nationalistic aggression then it's a bad thing. Attacking/invading Iraq was wrong, Good or bad it's all back in Iraqi hands. Russia invades and steals a piece of foreign sovereign territory, They are good guys in the eyes of an overly vocal minority.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Vocal but not majority.

Dont let the forums fool you. Most dont support Russia

Ukraine not NATO so USA has no responsibility. Its not your job really. Doesn't really matter.

But if Russia touch the actually EU trust me USA wont be hated.

When has the EU 'begged the US for help?'

Tony Blair is a firm believer in a European superstate, (I guess he imagines himself as the inaugural President), but that all relies on the continuation of the EU.
And there are real signs that disillusionment with the EU experiment is growing throughout the EU.

A united Europe with a single currency, shared economy, single military etc will enable the US to withdraw.
A traditional Europe with numerous independent nations would result in continued US involvement in European affairs.

As with most things, there's good and bad sides to both scenario's.

You don't have to be highly intuitive or informed to see what agenda's are being played out here.

originally posted by: beezzer
I would be interested to see a valid argument "FOR" US intervention in Europe.

Lately, it seems that we can't even take care of our own domestic messes. What valid reason would we have to interfere with another country's issue?

Thanks for the replies, gentlemen.

reason?????....the conservatives are calling Obama "weak on foreign policy"....what other reason could it be???......Obama needs to go bomb someone fast.

How would the shadow government(US gov) control everything if they minded their own business? How would they tilt the table in their favor when needed? The US gov, sadly, will be the world police, until the world stands up to the oppressors, that is.

Tony Blaire is just as bad as the most crooked US politician. He is a puppet(think Iraq). You'd have to ask why he's taken this stance. very fishy

a reply to: beezzer

I find it hugely ironic, that of all the British politicians who have played host to the machinations of the U.S. government, it should be the one who has been most involved in supporting and promoting U.S. agendas, who claims that Europe ought to rely less upon the U.S.

Typical Blair, speaking as if struck with amnesia over the matter of how he has dealt with past issues, and at the side of whom he stood when he dealt with them.

If more evidence were needed that the man is a cretin, then here it is!

Maybe Blair is just simply embarrassed by the idea that throughout his role as Prime Minister, he gleefully allowed himself to be bent over the oval office desk with his pants down around his ankles... and is now desperately trying to backpeddle to reverse said reputation ?

A politician changing position to save face ?

Unheard of.

a reply to: beezzer

1. Should the USA stay in NATO and the UN?

No, we put more money, military equipment, and man power in NATO than any other country.When you feel you don't need to take care of something,because someone else has you covered, you get lazy. Any country should be thinking about its defense to be their own prime defender in case of attack,not sitting on their rears waiting on another country to do it for them.

By the USA taking over defense for other countries, we feel that we have the 'right' to tell other countries what they should do. Its like being a baby sitter,you are taking care of a child and therefore need to tell that child what it can do. This is not our place. And we have over stepped the bounds of neighbor doing this. We wrap our affairs up with other countries to the point we think we own the world and have a right to tell them what to do. This builds resentment. (Case in point, back in the '70s when it looked like we were going down from the weakening of our dollar,one and only one country came to our defense during that time. It was our neighbors to the north. Canada. All our so called European friends jumped on the bandwagon laughing at us and saying the mighty had fallen. And yes I do remember that period.) Therefore it should be on each country to provide for its own defense first,then if things go south for them to fall back on another country for help.

2.We may think we like to sit on top of the world and let all those countries under us do as we say, but remember Rome in its hey day did the same. Rome stretched itself too thin and had too many territories to defend to the point that they had wars and skirmishes all over the place. It doesn't matter if it is a large war or small, if you spread out your forces all over the world you are not going to be winning,will look weak with each failed attempt and will eventually succumb to an enemy that has been building up waiting for you to misstep. We have not won a war since WW2 unless you want to consider the limited strikes on Iraq the first time a win. And that one we had to follow the rules set down by our Saudi friends of leaving Sadam's forces in place.

Korea we fought to a draw. Vietnam was a disaster and we had to pull out due to our citizens being fed up with it. Somalia I don't even want to talk about. Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan,yeah. We have the largest expenditures on our military than the next 7 countries combined and can't seem to have a decisive win to save our souls from hell. This has nothing to do with our soldiers. This has everything to do with our leadership. Now our citizens are war weary and want it all to end. The money needs to go into our own infrastructure to build us up again. We are only the greatest nation in the world on our expenses for our military and our number of prisoners. After all my tax dollars that they took, I'd much rather see us exploring space,improving our next generations education,repairing roads and fixing our electrical grid,to name but a few things. Let us withdraw some from solving the worlds problems and concentrate on our own more.

I do not believe Blair's implication that European NATO members don't pull their weight. The Europeans carry a huge defense burden, we were the frontline ffs (and it looks like we will be again).

Even when the US armed forces were at their peak in the mid 1980's, the European countries still provided 95% of the army divisions, 85% of the main battle tanks, 80% of the frontline combat aircraft and 70% of the naval strength in the NATO operating area.

There have been many attempts to shore up European defenses. The British & French have bilateral agreements on submarine technology, naval mines & countermeasures, air to air refuelling, military personnel transport, satellite communications, unmanned aerial vehicle developments, intelligence sharing, terrorism preventions, joint facilities, common equipment & munitions, nuclear weapons development/maintenance.

But for all that commonality, there's still no European Army, Navy or Air Force. And it's mainly because the British don't really want that, because the idea of a federal Europe with a common defense & foreign policy fills them with absolute horror, that plus the British see new European institutions as being a rival to existing NATO structures.

It is the British who fear the US pulling out, not continental Europeans. It is the British who want the US anchored into the continent. And it is the Europeans who consider the British the deadweight which is holding back the cause of European integration, on every level.

What did Blair do in office to aid European defenses ? Not much.

His & PM Brown's governments emasculated the Royal Navy destroyer & frigate fleets, same with their Navy Harrier airplanes & aircraft carriers, all scrapped prematurely. The air force ? They lost their Nimrod maritime surveillance airplanes, fighter & strike plane numbers reduced, air bases closed. The British Army has just about withdrawn from continental Europe, their numbers seriously diminished and many army generals complaining about the cuts. Hell, you can buy almost brand new ex-British Army vehicles on ebay and various other disposal websites.

Blair's defense legacy is genuine & current capability gaps in the UK armed forces, gaps which the US and Europeans are having to plug. Don't believe me ? The Russian Navy makes mockery of the British. The British Navy can't even defend it's own coastline let alone anywhere else.

That's Blair's contribution to European defenses, that's his legacy, he should just *shut* the hell up tbh.

originally posted by: Dimithae
a reply to: beezzer

We have not won a war since WW2

I hate to break it to you, but America didn't win WW2, that's HBO and Hollywood erasing the effort of every other country out. Of course America and its service people played a huge part in it, and paid in blood as did every other allied country (and of course the axis countries who also lost so many lives)..... when you joined (you missed the invite and came in two years late, but then Joe Kennedy was confident Germany would win).... when you could see via the Marshall plan the opportunity to make a lot of money...... like Hoover did in WW1.

So, probably not best to get on that particular high horse because it never really existed in the first place. Instead, celebrate that many countries took part in defeating fascism in WW2, but now I guess you are saying you aren't part of a global community, that looks after its neighbours? Weird kind of ideology, but there you are.

How about we throw a couple of bombs at em.

a reply to: LeBombDiggity

Now this may surprise you but I agree with a lot of what you said....however,

It is the British who fear the US pulling out,.....

Do we?
Maybe the British 'establishment' do but I get the general impression that the British people most certainly do not.
Most Brits would like to see a strong, independent and neutral Britain free from both EU and US dictates - unfortunately due to the almost treasonous policies of successive governments that's not really practical at present.

.....not continental Europeans.

I think an increasing number of continental Europeans share exactly the same sentiments I expressed above.....but I think its true that there is more of an anti-US viewpoint on the continent.

It is the British who want the US anchored into the continent.

No we don't - but we do recognise and acknowledge that its better the devil you know.

The US may not be the perfect partners, but when all's said and done they aren't the devil incarnate either and I'd much prefer them watching our back than many other nations I could mention.

And it is the Europeans who consider the British the deadweight which is holding back the cause of European integration, on every level.

And your welcome to it.
Large number of Brits want nothing to do with an EU superstate, especially in its present incarnation or the way it seems to be developing.

The truth is we feel more affinity and attachment to our Commonwealth cousins like Canada, Australia and New Zealand etc......and yes, dare I say it, the USA rather than continental Europeans.

a reply to: Freeborn

Exactly.

Id much rather the UK form closer links with USA/Australia/New Zealand and Canada than the EU.

within Reason.

fair and mutual Trade/Defence should be what we should be going for.

Not wars of aggression, political interference, one sided extradition treaty's ect