Blair & Bush Relationship

Is Blair too scared to stand up to bush?

With the continuing War in the middle east and pressure from MP's herein the UK, calling for the PM to call for a ceasefire, and his reluctance too is Tony Blair scared to stand up to Bush and say enough is enough call for a ceasefire.

Semms to me that Blair is going along with what ever The American Gov, says and it is becomming very annoying.

We voted Blair into Office not the Presdient of the United Staes, Whats it gonna take for Blair to finally get that message and finally start to look out for the interests of this country and not the U.S.A........

[edit on 27-7-2006 by spencerjohnstone]

Isn't he looking out for the best interests of the U.K. by teaming up with the baddest mofo of the western world? I'd rather have Blair steadying the hand of Bush, then Bush going nuts, and causing more harm then good.

Blair has answered calls for him to step down by saying it is too soon, but he has promised to give up the prime minister's post before the next national elections, expected by 2009.

ummm, by 2009? now thats answering a call to step down...pfffft

Isn't he looking out for the best interests of the U.K. by teaming up with the baddest mofo of the western world? I'd rather have Blair steadying the hand of Bush, then Bush going nuts, and causing more harm then good.

If Blair was not here Bush would have done it anyways, Does not take away the fact that Blair has jumped everytime Bush has clicked his fingers, I.E., afganistan, Iraq, Now Israel, When will this Pupptet PM Stand up to him and say no we are not helping you out in this one.

Is it a wonder why alot of the British Public think he is handling this poorley.

The worst thing is that while they are not great, we don't have a different government such as the conservatives now because a load of fools still voted for labour, just as a load of fools voted for bush again in 2004.

I almost wish we could have an uprising and get rid of him and give someone else power, particularly if that person doesn't like Bush. As long as it isn't someone like abu Hamza.

This isn't a 'black and white' situation.
Personally I am glad that TB gets on well with Bush (as he did with Clinton before).
I'd far rather things were like that than the alternative.

The Empire has gone and the idea that a British government could do anything much beyond remaining 'in there' and attempting to influence for the good is IMO laughable.

Comments that insist the UK could 'make' the US do anything much are equally ridiculous (ditto the idea 'we' can 'make' Israel do anything in particular too).

If your dislike of Bush is so deep and you would have preferred the UK to have 'done a France' then I ask you to consider just how much influence the French now holds with the US government (a government, like it or not, that will be around until Jan 2009).

......and, irrespective of the detail of how this arose, consider just how much - or should I say how little, influence France will hold with the US for decades to come.

Sticking 1 or 2 fingers up to Bush might gladden the hearts of some but then what?
Accept that the UK is now relegated to the sidelines for a couple of decades?
Or perhaps we would just have to accept the cold shoulder for a decade or 2 - cos that's what happened when Harold Wilson' Labour government refused to go along with Vietnam.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned?
That was an intervention which very few claimed wrong, certainly not at the time.
It absolutely is not something to be held out as if it were the same as Iraq.

With Iraq the situation gets muddier.
Personally I don't think the war, subsequent invasion and occupation was the right thing to do.

But the Iraq invasion is over and 'we' are there under a proper UN mandate now.
The circumstances have changed and the argument about whether to stay or not is most definitely not the same one as relates to British involvement at the start of the war.

Lastly Israel was mentioned.
This British government has worked long and hard to get people together to agree to an all-encompassing 'solution'.
But 'we' are nothing like 'central' to this issue (in fact I'd go as far as saying this was all so 'off our radar' that the original 'Oslo agreement' came as a surprise for many Britons).
To claim that the subsequent British efforts were all just pandering to anti-British US interests or anti-British Israeli interests is absurd.

(and I hope I can take it that folks aren't so consumed with taking contrary positions just on the basis of 'them' being 'for' something so we must be against?
We do accept it's perfectly ok for interests to coincide?)

The political centre of gravity in the UK, post WW1, is and has always been US leaning.
It's not about anyone blindly following anyone but at heart it does recognise that even when we disagree the fundamentals of that relationship must be preserved for the good of us all.

No doubt the same applies in the US but our relationship is and has always been a little 'love/hate'; it's not uncritical and sometimes there are deep disagreements but at the root of it all is a recognition that we are all better off with it than without. The plain truth is that no matter how much 'we' dislike Bush or the whole right-wing fundy so-called 'Christian' element or a particular policy (or even set of policies) in the USA the UK is basically a US-friendly country, 'we' do not have a genuinely anti-American majority.

On this occasion the US administration insisted they were going to act regardless, we were faced with the 'with us or against us' doctrine, which led to our concern then becoming one of trying to temper the most outrageous US instincts whilst ensuring we preserved and strengthened the UK-US link (the same as happened during the Korean war when British influence helped restrain the then US nut-jobs who would have started a nuclear war there).
This is a linkage successive British governments have, quite rightly IMO, sought to preserve and strengthen, never deliberately weaken.

It is a far more important 'geopolitical reality' than any transitory politician, whether they be a Bush or a Blair.

I'd also point out that the idea that the only plausible alternative British party for government would have acted differently is actually quite true.

The then tory leader Michael Howard described Tony Blair's (two) attempts to gather UN support for the Iraq action (one successful and the other not so) as "dithering" and said outright that he would have ordered British troops in without attempting any of that (which shows the level of political arrogance of the man).....until he decided it was opportune to start running along side (if not quite jumping on) the anti-war band-wagon.

....and you thought Tony Blair a 'lapdog'?!

Finally I'd just like to point out that neither Tony Blair nor the Labour government took the UK into the Iraq war.
Uniquely there was a free-vote in the House of Commons, Parliament decided the issue.
(a first now accepted publicly by Gordon Brown and David Cameron as precedent. You might not have liked or agreed with the answer this time but nevertheless it is actually yet another example of this PM and this Labour government expanding democracy in the UK and diminishing the power of prerogative).


[edit on 29-7-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

there was a piece on newsnight on the bbc last night where they say blair is under rubert murdocks thumb. after seeing bush he is going of to murdocks place, for more conditioning.

thought the piece was weird, almost saying it was a conspiracy.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
The Empire has gone and the idea that a British government could do anything much beyond remaining 'in there' and attempting to influence for the good is IMO laughable.

I couldn't of said it better myself.

France saw the light decades ago, that they could have influence in Europe and help build a new future, but we still live on this "dream" that we have this amount of power and an Empire. The right still live on the idea of the Empire and want us to be proud of it and keep talking about it like its still around its pathetic.

Maybe, just maybe, we will wake up and see that we can have influence (good influence) if we get our fingers out and work side by side with Europe. But according to the BNP, UKIP, Conservative party and the right, we apparently are "powerful" enough to cope on our own

With China and India booming and growing, America declining, its about time we stop acting like children and stop livining in the "Empire past".

Originally posted by andy1033
there was a piece on newsnight on the bbc last night where they say blair is under rubert murdocks thumb. after seeing bush he is going of to murdocks place, for more conditioning.

This whole country is.

Brown and Cameron are sucking up to him trying to get support for the general election.

The British government should break his monopoly, under EU law he shouldn't be able to have one within in the United Kingdom. I think they were calls for him to choose between what part of his media empire he wanted in this country, but Blair's government didn't press the issues (if i recall).

Originally posted by infinite
France saw the light decades ago, that they could have influence in Europe and help build a new future, but we still live on this "dream" that we have this amount of power and an Empire. The right still live on the idea of the Empire and want us to be proud of it and keep talking about it like its still around

its pathetic.

- I totally agree with this description of the French position (which is all rather ironic considering France too had an Empire, which also came to a very painful and messy end, but, unlike Britain, they soundly confronted their fantasists and those damaging day-dreams) and that of those deluded souls on the UK right-wing, infinite.

But I think there is room for the 'halfway house' Labour has tried to create. It merely recognises the reality of the situation.

I don't think being friendly towards one equates necessarily with hostile towards the other - and in the exceptional cases where it does there is no sound reason for that circumstance to sour the entirety of our relations.

France was not hostile to the US in this matter because it of any over-riding 'EU interests' rather there were French interests which they wished to defend (and IMO a genuine belief that Bush & Co. was planning to do was counter-productive and the wrong thing); ditto Germany and several others.
But such is life, we can all sometimes just reach honest disagreement.

Maybe, just maybe, we will wake up and see that we can have influence (good influence) if we get our fingers out and work side by side with Europe.

- Again I fully agree.
I too believe British prevarication and quibbling over dotting every 'i' and crossing every 't' in regards our complete EU relations is not healthy and creates an impression that we are less than enthusiastic equal partners - and the creation of a '2 speed Europe' should be understood to be in absolutely no-one's interest.

Im curious though, when Tony steps down (hopefully it will be soon), and say Brown takes over as PM, Wont brown be more Pro european than more pro american like what tony is right now. Brown seems to favour Europe rather than the U.S. right now. Just the impression I get from Gordon Brown.

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
Brown seems to favour Europe rather than the U.S. right now. Just the impression I get from Gordon Brown.

- I don't think it's that clear cut, sj.

GB is quite clearly and very much 'pro' the UK playing a full and engaged part in the EU because I am convinced he understands and agrees that this is to the benefit of all concerned.

I am also quite sure that he believes in excellent and strong relations between the UK and the USA, again because he believes this is a sound policy and to the benefit of all concerned.

But as for him 'favouring' one and not the other?

I don't think so.

From what I've read and seen (but bear in mind it's not like I know the guy personally) I expect him to be more than anything 'pro-Britain' and pugnaciously so.

He's an interesting character (far from the dour Scot Presbyterian 'son of the Manse' stereotype), I reckon some very interesting times are ahead for the UK and I genuinely do think he will make an excellent, if less 'flashy'. PM.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
If your dislike of Bush is so deep and you would have preferred the UK to have 'done a France' then I ask you to consider just how much influence the French now holds with the US government (a government, like it or not, that will be around until Jan 2009).

......and, irrespective of the detail of how this arose, consider just how much - or should I say how little, influence France will hold with the US for decades to come.

Sticking 1 or 2 fingers up to Bush might gladden the hearts of some but then what?
Accept that the UK is now relegated to the sidelines for a couple of decades?
Or perhaps we would just have to accept the cold shoulder for a decade or 2 - cos that's what happened when Harold Wilson' Labour government refused to go along with Vietnam.

When Britain refused to go along with Vietnam we saved both money and lives. God I'm glad we didn't go along with that war; if only Blair had been a bit more of a real leader (like your Howard Willson) then Bush might not have won his narrow election victory.

In anycase France is sidelined by the U.S partly because Britain is by America's side. But France has a lot of influence in Europe (some would say more than Britain), it also seems to be taking the moral high ground.
France may have been sidelined a little by the U.S but isn’t that more because: whatever's going on in Iraq and elsewhere isn’t really their business? How many troops have they lost? None, how much money have they spent? None, how far are they morally damned by what they’ve done? Not much.
Frankly I like the sounds of things "not being business" (it sounds kind of economical both with the lives and the cash). And yes it did make Chirac popular and rightfully so.

The way I see it Tony Blair is George Bush’s poodle; and George Bush is Ehud Olmerts rockviller (or whoever else happens to be PM of Israel).
Did you know that Britain, America and Israel (I believe now joined by Poland) are the only nations that don’t want a ceasefire in Lebanon. I’ve listened to fox and they talk of “Israel finishing the job” trouble is, over a third of the Lebanese have left Lebanon; I think Israel has got to be one the most idiotic countries in the world not to understand that many of those Lebanese abroad are going to be pissed; whilst the many more still inside are going to be even more angry (or just distraught or dead).

It’s arguably not even in Israel’s interests for it to be using the medieval type of war they are currently fighting. Yet despite Hezbollah being no threat to the U.K or any of our interests (there not Al Qaeda are they) but we are still happy to support Israel in its folly anyway.
The BBC is happy to talk to one of the Israeli governments trained liars (Oops I meant government spokesman) about how hard poor little Israel; tries really hard not to harm civilians, infrastructure...
Well ok but so far the Israeli air force has repeatedly attacked terrorist infrastructure like: airports (all 3 as a matter of fact), power stations, grain elevators, oil tanks (some of which are now causing an environmental disaster...
Source 1
news.yahoo.com...;_ylt=Ar4385rwaVoeBLXioVNlr2sUvioA;_ylu=X3o'___'BiMW 04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
2. www.breitbart.com...
3. www.ipsnews.net...

I can just imagine what taking a flight there must have been like before the airport got bombed…
“welcome ladies and gentlemen to your trip on Terrorist International, for security reasons we will run through our brief drill… if there is anything wrong with the planes engines please tell one of our staff, they will direct the plane to Israel, if there is an Israeli sitting next to you please contact a tall man with a sword; these staff are all members of the Mudjahidin.”

“Ladies and gentlemen we seem to be having a takeoff problem; the run way has just been hit by a missile built in America, and supplied through Britain using its Civilian Airports.”

Makes you proud to be British; doesn’t it?

The British involvement in the war on terror also seems a little silly so far.
We’ve lost over a hundred troops in Iraq www.guardian.co.uk...
Its actually 115 www.guardian.co.uk...

And about 13 (I think another two have died since this was written (12th July)
cnews.canoe.ca...
And an older source
www.dailymail.co.uk...

Meanwhile anyone think Iraq is a safer place? Look at the cause of deaths.
news.bbc.co.uk...

Blair’s “Victory” Management...
What’s amazing is that about 52 people died the London terrorist attacks news.bbc.co.uk...
And about 100 on 9/ll

This is 152 civilians lost to terrorism; verses 128 (and counting) troops in the war on terror. This sounds impressive; until you think of all the psychological damage to the troops, the missing limbs (not to mention another peoples civilians) (plus the cost).

This is the bill for involvement in George Bush’s war on terror; and as the London terrorists will tell you; we are more of a target now than we were before 9/11. Why is that? Is it because there’s some stand by army which will now be directed against us instead of America; or is it merely because there are more people willing to fight Britain and America? (I take the latter).

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

Lib take a little advice please.

Stop trying to hijack every thread and turn it into what is basically yet another anti-Israel rant, ok?

If you want one like that then start one up (just make sure it's placed correctly).

.....and if you're going to be consistent and honest about it and you do wish to continue to shout & rave against these policies then let's see you out on the US politics, war and WOT boards too, huh?

In any event and despite your implications to the contrary the UK is very much the junior partner in all of this so lets see you try and debate this elsewhere in the sections where it belongs too, eh?