This guy is quite fascinating.

Ever since the initial attack on the US, Blair has been catering to the US, even at the possible cost of his career. This in itself is unusual for a British Prime Minister, but my initial impression of Blair was that he was a stout supporter of the European Union which makes this even stranger given Europe's general feelings towards the current conflict.

So what does Blair have to gain from this? In all likelyhood Britain will see little if anything at all, from supporting Bush so what drives him to continue supporting a decision that will most likely end up costing him his career?

Perhaps future considerations from the US, but for what? It can't be said that the UK and the US were ever considered close friends, and most likely if the UK where to call for a favour from the US in the future, it certainly wouldn't be "no strings attatched."

It seems as though since WW II, the relationship between the two, although civil, has certainly been stretched quite thin, with the UK usually getting the worse end of most deals, so again, what does Blair stand to gain from his strong support of Bush?

[ 03-18-2003, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: Animal ]

"It can't be said that the UK and the US were ever considered friends"

HAHAHAH... wait... HAHAHAH

Are you kidding me? What exactly do they feed you up there in Canada? It can be more then considered. Britain is a SERIOUS friend and with that help and protection if needed. I am glad people can claim to know what countries get and don't get out of relationships. Do you have the ear of the prime minister and the president? There are 30 countries supporting this war. Out of the 30 there is one country I always expected to be there and they are.

No offense but I am not sure what you read but the relationship between the UK and America while not perfect is better then most.

My mistake, it should have read "close friends." Did you have some insight into this topic, or did you just want to insult me?

To be honest when I first read it I could not believe it.

It is hard to offer any insight when I disagree with the entire post. More then that I can't find any thing in reality that back's one word of that up. When the crap hit's then fan there is only one country I think most American's feel they can depend on. I would argue that is "close friend's". Likewise I think most Americans would defend the UK in a heartbeat. I know I would.

Why is so hard to imagine that Blair is not speaking from the heart? Some people do believe Sadam does have WoMD and he is a danger to passing them off to a terrorist. If that is the case then why would he not support the war? I say again there are 30 countries supporting disarming Sadam by force. 30, despite the rhetoric trying to label it as some 3 country attack.

I think Blair is acting smartly by helping to remove a dictator and in hopes make Iraq a better place. No more sanctions, no more Sadam, no more government sanctioned torture and murder.

[ 03-18-2003, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: Mordenheim ]

I don't recall saying that Blair wasn't speaking from the heart, nor did WoMD enter into this. The shaky alliance between Britain and the US goes back some time. Look back to the days of Roosevelt and Churchill. Roosevelt was very leary of Britain, fearing that they would once again take up their imperialistic ways. Shortly after WWII, Roosevelt wanted Britain to give Hong Kong back to China as a show of goodwill, that they weren't interested in imperialism. The US did not enter into the fracus in Europe, until Germany publicly declared war on the US, even though Britain was in bad shape.

Grenada was a little bit of a sore point between the two nations, since the US invaded shortly after Britain gave Grenada their freedom.

Even though Reagan publicly announced support for the UK during the Falkland War, including sanctions, the US pretty much kept to their own there.

I think you're missing the point, here. Blair is losing public support for his actions against Iraq, and there is a good chance his government will collapse if he continues, so what could possibly drive him to support something, that the US could handle on their own, knowing that it will end his career. I highly doubt that any US president would put themselves in the same position.

[ 03-18-2003, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: Animal ]

My opinion is that he very firmly believe Saddam need to be taken care of, even if it mean hurting his career.

The US could handle Saddam with one fleet tied behind their back. Blair has basically committed political suicide for no reason.

Blair obviously feel's he is in the right. My guess is he think's when they uncover those WoMD he wan'ts to be on the side that argued he had them. Not the side that was willing to continue a slow useless easter egg hunt that would only turn up the weakest of his weapons. I doubt anyone would argue the only reason Sadam gave up ANYTHING was because of the massive troops on his border? Well obviously we could not keep them their forever.

I think Blair is looking in the future and not the now. The future where Britain was on the side that helped FREE Iraq and not the side (france) that tried everything to keep Sadam in office.

<font color=orange>I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Mordenheim. Since WWI the Uk has always been our closest Allie! I'm not sure where you get the strained relationship from. The only thing I can really think of was maybe in the 1950's, seems like we had a little disagreement over Israel with the UK, but that's it. The last three PM's of Britain, Thatcher, Major and Blair have been great friends to the US.

I do have to agree with you that it seems like Blair has really hurt his chances to get re-elected, but depending on how the war goes, that may not be a problem either.

edit: BTW, it's my understanding that Blair has always had a hard-on for Saddam. That may also explain why he is going to war at our side.

God Bless Tony Blair, the British Army and the English people too! My hat is off to you all!!!</font>

[ 03-18-2003, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Sir Taliesin ]

The USA will never forget "Mama" and being the "Good Son" we won't "cotton any worthlees Sombeeches" messing with "Mama". As Winston said we are a people seperated by a common language.

Blair has some big fuzzy ones.

He knows that in a few weeks it's all going to be laid out for the world to see. All his critics will be embarrased beyond their wildest nightmares. Only down side will be since Blair is a politician and he won't say "I told you so". Me on the other hand , well I'm just a simple country boy. :D

I thought Canada and Mexico was USA closest ally.. :D

What does Canadian food have to do with Animal's opinion, or the fact that you disagree with it? :confused:

I know it was just a tiny little jibe, and I'm sure Animal has a thick skin and doesn't mind little jibes like these, but little jibes have a habit of turning into big jibes, particularly during this tense period. The mood in this forum has been quite adversarial lately and I'd rather err on the safe side. Go a bit easy on the personal jibes, I'm sure you don't need them to put your point across, as you appeared to do so quite well afterwards anyway. Thanks, mate. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 03-19-2003, 04:47 AM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]

sleep deprivation

no problem friend

These things may not seem important to you Sir T but the largest contingent of any nationality in the British army are Scots not English.

Britain and the US have been the closest of allies since the end of WWII. It doesn't mean there haven't been disagreements, but when it comes down to it the US and UK stick together. Over the past 50 years that has been proved time and time again.

I think Blair is a stand up guy. Whether people agree with him or not, he's doing what he thinks is necessary. He's sincere, as I believe Bush is on this issue. Blair isn't blindly following Bush or riding his coat tails or any other derogatory thing I've heard about his American butt kissing. He genuinely seems to believe in the cause. Even if America could do it alone with one carrier group "tied behind our back", Blair is going because he believes it's the right thing to do. His job is to make the decision and put it to the vote.

Blair really had alot to lose yesterday. I understand if he'd lost this vote, he'd have been expected to resign. :eek:

According to the analysts, if this war is quick, with a minimum number of casualties, and afterwards the allies produce Saddam's WoMD, then Blair could come out of this smelling like a rose. If this is the case, he can say I fought long, hard, and from the minority viewpoint, but I was right because it was a job that had to be done, a job the inspectors could not do, and a job that needed to be done sooner instead of later. I hope and believe he'll get to claim just that. ;)

Go Tony Blair! :D

[ 03-19-2003, 06:48 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]