is the us and britians gov alliances on shaky grounds?

[BobbieDog]

I remember Europeans hating us when Clinton was bombing Kosovo and Iraq. Hmm... I smell some jealously myself.

This was very much a Nato action: with the USA a primary player; but not the isolated player that the USA became under GWB as it invaded Iraq.
The main debate was not about going in/not going in: but about whether we should put boots on the ground; or bomb the country from the air.
Probably US force protection priorities led to the bombing: and this choice of startegy was regretted by many, who saw the bombing as folly; but that never led to a vociferous anti-Americanism.
Under GWB, almost everyhting done by the USA, has led to widspread anti-Americanism.
Even now, European anti-Americanism has not become hate fot the USA or Americans.
All these distinctions are very important.
In the absence of hate for America: we are only talking regime change; policy change. Small potatoes.
Where we really do tip to hate, then its a long hellish road to come back from.

 

[heathen chemistry]

It's because Europe has been taken over by liberals, that's why!

actually, ultraconservative movements have been slowly gaining ground again with nationalistic overtones a la facism, which is the far right.

 

[Glaz]

Our alliance is in good standing, there are issues with one another but not enough to sever our friendship. At least I hope so, because I greatly admire the British nation and people. I would hope our friendship is deeper than the turnstyle-like changing of our leaders every few years.

 

[lucid42day]

Thats good becuase kerry the wierdo says I will make new alliances ok that would be kool but most of the countries do not want anything to do with us so kerry just needs to give it up.

Why don't most countries want anything to do with us? Is it something we said, or did?

 

[MadeInOz]

I know this isn't entirely related, but I sure hope that the next generation of leaders in Australia and America have a rethink of our ANZUS treaty, because I don't think it's good that we are obligated to enter any war that the US gets itself into.

 

[albez]

Right now I think the alliance is not as strong as it was but thats only cause of your election and the fact that (apparently) the major operations in Iraq ended 18 months ago. If you got yourselves into another war, I am sure Blair would follow you anyway (sadly).

 

[Glaz]

Whens the next election for PM in Britain by the way? Just curious.

 

[BobbieDog]

actually, ultraconservative movements have been slowly gaining ground again with nationalistic overtones a la facism, which is the far right.

In the UK, while an underlying deep dissatisfaction with Tony Blair has grown, the Conservatives have lanquished.
The big change in UK would come if the LIberal Democrats could challenge to topple New Labour: maybe not for another five years.
That would really break the mould of British politics, and bear on alliance with the USA.
The Liberal Democrats would take the UK far from anyhting associated with GWB.
Personally, I hope it happens. I voted LD at the last election opportunity, and for the first time.

 

[BobbieDog]

Whens the next election for PM in Britain by the way? Just curious.

We do not have fixed term elections: its at the discretion of the Prime Minister, to call an election; within a five year period from the last general election.
So we possibly have a maximum of another two years, before we hit the five: so any time between now and then.

 

[lucid42day]

It's because Europe has been taken over by liberals, that's why!

Was that revolution televised?

 

[gop_ryan]

Blair will remain in power because nobody is willing to elect the LD or Tories even though Blair is more in line with the Tories then major segements of his own party. Blair is Labour in name only.

 

[BobbieDog]

Blair will remain in power because nobody is willing to elect the LD or Tories even though Blair is more in line with the Tories then major segements of his own party. Blair is Labour in name only.

You're a very insightful American: I didn't even know very much about the nearest big town, when I was 18.
Blair is Labour in name only: and that is storing up major problems for the UK for decades ahead. There is this paradox to Blair: that while he sincerely presents himself as unusually ethical, for a politician; he actually practices a devious duplicity, perhaps unparalleled in modern British history.
What people are frightened of, is losing the social and ecenomic stability we seem to have achieved under New Labour. How real or illusory, or sustainable is that: becomes the real question, remaining to be answered as any third term unfolds. There is argument that all that is stability in what New Labour has done, stems from Gordon Brown: and all that is Leninist centralisation under a new meritocratic, system implementing elite, stems from Tony Blair.
Either LD or Tories could become electable, if and when any intrinsic undeliverability in the NL social reformation project, starts to unwind and manifest. It is this manoeuering to be in position for this, that is the real story in current British party politics: where you are talking maybe 2010-2012 for D-day; so still a long haul.

 

[albez]

We do not have fixed term elections: its at the discretion of the Prime Minister, to call an election; within a five year period from the last general election.
So we possibly have a maximum of another two years, before we hit the five: so any time between now and then.

Indeed but people reckon it'll be June-ish 2005.

 

[jgarden]

Personally, I like Blair but the Iraq war is even more unpopular in Britain than it is here. If a popular leader of another party fails to emerge, and the British can withdraw from Iraq, Blair may have a chance. If they get "bogged down" and continue to take casualities, many Labor voters will go shopping for another leader. []

 

[aragorn]

The problem is that the British population is, as far as I know, growing more anti-Bush.

yeah but that doesn't matter, because the politicians don't take any notice of what we think, and Blair fixed it so that the only way we can throw him out is elect the conservatives.

It's called democracy.

 

[aragorn]

Whens the next election for PM in Britain by the way? Just curious.

We don't have elections for Prime Minister, members get elected to parliament, and the leader of the largest party forms a government and is appointed prime minister by the Queen.

The prime minister calls the election when he chooses within five years of the last one, the next one will be on May 5th 2005, I guess.

 

[mindlight]

I like to take the longer term view here.

There are things that bind America to Britain and Britain to America and will do so for generations to come.

We share a common history including the building of the first American colonies and then post independence we built considerable commercial links with each other which exist to this day. In the last century we have fought two world wars, a cold war and two gulf wars together not to mention numerous smaller actions. We have spilt blood together and that does not fade over night.

We share a common language and even to some extent culture. The Beetles were big in the USA and the Spice Girls and American bands have been big in Britain.

The big difference between Britain and America right now is a religious one. Christians are an increasingly harrassed minority in my country. There is growth in some sectors of the church including the church I belong to but that is against a backdrop of an increasingly secularised and pagan culture. In Christian terms we are no longer the missionary superpower that evangelised the world of the C19 we are a mission field. I believe and trust that God will revive my nation and I hope to see this soon

Britain is by nature a pragmatist on the world stage. Having lost an empire and being humiliated by the Suez crisis in 1956 we adapted to a new world in which America ruled. The french moved in precisly the opposite direction after Suez. We have forged closer commercial links with Europe but America remains crucial to our trade and economy. The fact is that you are the strongest power of this age and spend more than half the worlds defence budget. We need a strong ally and share many close interests with America. We need an ally against the French in Europe because their alliance with the Germans makes them stronger there.

Tony Blair is a rare breed of politician able to transcend his party and see things from a global and historical perspective. In terms of his international vision I think he has made a lot of good calls and for that reason he should be Americas favourite candidate to remain prime minister. I do not even vote for his party but I can recognise him as one of the reasons why the Tories have done so badly in the last few elections. He holds a economic view that most Americans would not actually agree with and is a strong Leftist centraliser. Domestically he would not be popular in America : He has banned firearms and hunting and is part of a party that has traditionally been a strong advocate of abortion rights and which is implacably opposed to the death penalty.

George Bush is a phenomeon in Europe. He is more popular in Britain than in any other country in Europe although some people dislike him here also. Men are more favourable towards him than women generally. There is considerable snobbery towards him amongst many of the ruling classes in Britain - which is part informed by what i would call aggravated jealousy of American power. George Bush has not simply accepted allies as implictly on his side he has asked them to prove it. Out of all the European countries only Britain and Spain and Italy did. Spain has since recanted and Italy only did so because Belusconi knew what was best for his nation. His only serious remaining ally in Europe is the UK. I would argue that the reason for this is that the other countries that used to call themselves allies were only so when it was convenient for them to be so and the moment America made it difficult for them by actually asking for help they abandoned ship.

There are also other reasons for george Bushes unpopularity in Europe. France and Germany no longer need America to defend them as they have no serious enemies at present so they no longer feel they wish to be dictated to. the french Communst party and German Greens were opposed to the USA through most of the Cold war anyway. The french had economic ties to the regime that Bush and Blair deposed in Bagdad and they had an interest in making America look bad because they hoped that this would strengthen their own goal of a European superpower that is a counterweight to American world dominance. the british do not want to be in a French dominated European superstate and see the future in a European North American alliance.

the media are owned by people who represent and who articulate the various interests I have expressed. So don't believe everything you read in the papers. I get more info on Americans from sites like this than by reading the local rags.

Personally I love America and George Bush has strengthened my conviction that it is alright. America has its faults to be sure but so do we in Britain and I would say that the lack of faith in Europe is one major reason for its desire to pursue the comfortable life rather than grand scale heroic causes in the modern age. I think that great leaders always bring out the best and the worst in people. Just because people cannot accept decisions made in the short term does not mean they will not when they have the benefit of historical hindsight. Those who spit hatred at America today may yet end up its closest friends just give them a little more time to adjust to the new world that we live in, threatened by terrorism on a scale that puts even the barberous IRA to shame.

 

[xXLurkerXx]

I can´t leave mindlights post uncommented, but it is pretty long so I will only pick the paragraphs which are about Europe, France and Germany.

George Bush is a phenomeon in Europe. He is more popular in Britain than in any other country in Europe although some people dislike him here also.

I have a question here.
Do you think he could win an election in any country in Europe? In Britain?
I have doubts that only some people in Britain dislike him. But you are the one from Great Britain, maybe I am wrong.

George Bush has not simply accepted allies as implictly on his side he has asked them to prove it. Out of all the European countries only Britain and Spain and Italy did.

How do you define allies? Countries that have send troops to Iraq?
If so you forgot A LOT of other european countries here.
What about Poland for example? The Netherlands for their size have a decent amount of troops there, too. The list could go on...

My personal guess is that all prove George ever wanted is absence of objections. Agreeing with him and sending 50 soldiers to a safe area in Iraq would have been enough.
Believe me, we germans were experts in it during the cold war. S T F U and pay. That´s a good ally.
The pentagon´s ally list going around a year ago was really strange anyway. Some of those countries don´t even have an army.

...Italy only did so because Belusconi knew what was best for his nation.

Only? If this were true then I have to say clever Italians.
Are you there against your own interests and better knowledge? Poor Brits...

I would argue that the reason for this is that the other countries that used to call themselves allies were only so when it was convenient for them to be so and the moment America made it difficult for them by actually asking for help they abandoned ship.

We signed the NATO treaty. When america was attacked 9/11 NATO declared to help america. This was the first defence case declared by NATO ever. IT IS ONE OF THE REASONs WHY NATO TROOPS ARE CURRENTLY IN AFGHANISTAN.
I could understand if the americans would complain that we are not helping enough there. Imho we should do more in Afghanistan to be successfull but it has NOTHING to do with Iraq. (Imho this way we will fail in Afghanistan too, it is half-hearted).
Anyway it is not convenient for our soldiers to sit in Afghanistan and play target, even if the most dangerous things are done by other nations. Some already have died.

BUT we never sighned a treaty where we will help america to attack any freaking country in the world.
When did Iraq attack america? We just do not see the link. I at least do not want to sacrifice our soldiers in dubois wars.

There are also other reasons for george Bushes unpopularity in Europe. France and Germany no longer need America to defend them as they have no serious enemies at present so they no longer feel they wish to be dictated to.

Yes, this is an important reason why some european countries utter their opinion more openly.
But Bill Clinton was never hated this much (actually we liked him), so there must be additional reasons rooted in the personality of George Bush or in his policy.

 

[BobbieDog]

Currently the USA / UK alliance is characterised by the personalities and politics of GWB and TB.

It is likely that both GWB and TB will, in the not too distant future, be unseated by a groundswell of opinion in their respective societies: each has engendered such social division in their societies of origin; that their eventually being cast aside democratically is a foregone conclusion.

It is unlikely that either leader will leave a lasting political legacy. They will have crucially marked their time, and their own and other societies: but there is so much that is merely opportunistic about each; that there is simply too little in their guiding philosophies and perspectives, to give substance to any legacy.

It is then likely, that any alliance between the UK and the USA, will be grounded in what expels their current respective leaders.

The kings are dead, long live the kings.

 

[mindlight]

Hallo Lurker - Danke für Ihre Eintragung.

I can´t leave mindlights post uncommented, but it is pretty long so I will only pick the paragraphs which are about Europe, France and Germany.

I have a question here.
Do you think he could win an election in any country in Europe? In Britain?
I have doubts that only some people in Britain dislike him. But you are the one from Great Britain, maybe I am wrong.

Actually I am not sure if Bush would do too bad in our unique election system and a lot would depend on his timing. Bear in mind you can win a general election with only 40% of votes cast. After Afghanistan he was extremely popular for instance. If he wins the election in America and Iraq stabilisies as its new democratic government takes charge he might well be very popular in 3 years time.

How do you define allies? Countries that have send troops to Iraq?
If so you forgot A LOT of other european countries here.
What about Poland for example? The Netherlands for their size have a decent amount of troops there, too. The list could go on....

Agreed there were other nations such as Holland and Poland and eastern Europe as a whole are far more positively pro American than Western Europe and more grateful also for the part they played in the cold war and the eventual liberation of eastern Europe. While German Red terrorists were blowing Americans up and German Greens were trying to disarm the West of its nuclear deterrant Eastern Europeans were suffering under the Communist yoke of tyranny.

My personal guess is that all prove George ever wanted is absence of objections. Agreeing with him and sending 50 soldiers to a safe area in Iraq would have been enough..

America could have done it alone but I think that the 40,000 troops we sent made a difference and the 10,000 + troops we have there now continue to contribute to the cause of a liberated AND DEMOCRATIC Iraq.

Only? If this were true then I have to say clever Italians.
Are you there against your own interests and better knowledge? Poor Brits....

I think you misread me there. the Italian people opposed the war but thankfully for them they had a leader who knew what was best for his nation. We are also in Iraq out of national self interest. If we can make Iraq a peaceful and stable democracy like we did Germany in 1945 by first liberating it from its existing government and then putting a structure in place so that that nation can grow into a prosperous and free land then that is a good thing isn't it! For one thing it should mean that we create an ally out of a former enemy against those who live for power and hatred.

We signed the NATO treaty. When america was attacked 9/11 NATO declared to help america. This was the first defence case declared by NATO ever. IT IS ONE OF THE REASONs WHY NATO TROOPS ARE CURRENTLY IN AFGHANISTAN.
I could understand if the americans would complain that we are not helping enough there. Imho we should do more in Afghanistan to be successfull but it has NOTHING to do with Iraq. (Imho this way we will fail in Afghanistan too, it is half-hearted).
Anyway it is not convenient for our soldiers to sit in Afghanistan and play target, even if the most dangerous things are done by other nations. Some already have died..

Germanys contribution is a I agree often missed by commentators and underappreciated. I think it is a valuable sign of the deep change that has happened in germany in the last 50 years. A once Militaristic racist nation is now sending peacekeepers to far away lands for no better reason than to help out its friends and to help a fragile democracy grow strong.

BUT we never sighned a treaty where we will help america to attack any freaking country in the world.
When did Iraq attack america? We just do not see the link. I at least do not want to sacrifice our soldiers in dubois wars..

That is the key question of our age and one voiced by Blair in his speech at the Labour party conference here in Britain this week. If the kinds of terrorists violence we have seen in recent years in Beslan, bali, 9/11 and Iraq and Spain are isolaed incidents and much the same as what has gone before then what is the big fuss about. On the other had if they are the symptoms of a form of organised terrorism that is global and more deadly than ever before in its reach and effectiveness then that is an entirely different matter. A new world i which terrorists with resource s may end with suitcase nuclear devices and the like is a war that must be fought proactively. Such is thr nature of globalisation - a terrorist flaps his tongue in one part of the world and a hurricane of violence brews in another.

Yes, this is an important reason why some european countries utter their opinion more openly.
But Bill Clinton was never hated this much (actually we liked him), so there must be additional reasons rooted in the personality of George Bush or in his policy.

Clinton never really confronted Europe to support him in any cause that they had not first already been involved in. Europe had to persuade him to intervene in the Balkans. In the post cold war world Clinton never disturbed the balance that will still in some sense a hand me down from the Reagan- Bush era that preceded him. Europe was grateful that America with help from nations like Britain especially won the cold war and grateful for the ten years of peace that then followed and as long as America did not ask any too challenging questions then Europeans were happy to accept American seniority in NATO and world affairs. George Bush challenged where Clinton only tiptoed and in the mean time the world has changed. neither side feel that they actually need each other any more. personally I believe this is a mistake as a European - North American alliance is crucial both for world stability and prosperity and also for world freedom.