is the us and britians gov alliances on shaky grounds?

[mindlight]

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.

The US - UK Special relationship has been around a long time we have fought on the same side in two world wars, a cold war and two gulf wars. we share the same language and deep commercial ties. Our history has the same root and will not be overthrown by the persnalities of passing leaders. Personally I think Labour could very possibly win the next election though I hope to see them beaten in the one after that. If Labour did not win I do not think that Iraq will be the main issue more likely would be growing taxes and increasing violations of the civil liberties of groups it disagrees with and with a poor show by the opposition parties. The main opposition party also supported the war in Iraq and Tories are historically more pro American. So a vote against Blair is not necessarily about Iraq and protest votes would be mainly wasted in our system which does not reward small parties to any degree.

Also i believe Bush should win your election because of a whole raft of other issues on which I believe he is a better candidate than Mr Kerry. Iraq is a Bush Success which will become apparent as time passes but the economy and various moral issues is probably what will win him the actual election.

color=black]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.[/color]

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.

I think that Bush and Blair have changed the world. They have removed two extremely unpleasant regimes from power and they have struggled with perhaps the main international issue of our age - building lasting peace and stability in the Middle east and tackling head on a perverse interpretation of Islam which is propelling Islamic terrorists around the world right now.

 

[xXLurkerXx]

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.

At the moment I really think it is hopeless for him. Of course things can always change.
Here is a poll from 35 countries:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/PressRelease09_08_04.pdf
In the UK Kerry was leading by more then 30 points. Bush would get 16%, Kerry 47%.

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.

Pro american are probably all european nations. The only things some nations really hate is Bush and his foreign policy.

I think we should not confuse nations and their people with governments.
Yes, some european governments are supporting Bush, but that is without the support of the majority of their people.
The only nation where a majority of the people supports Bush in eastern europe is probably Poland.

No way a majority of the east germans is supporting him or the Iraq war.
Or take a look at the Czech Republik: 42% Kerry, 18% Bush.
The Netherlands: 63% Kerry, 6% Bush.
Italy: 58% Kerry, 14% Bush.

Even if some countries have send troops there is no real support in the population for Bush or the Iraq war.

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.

Germany 1945 and Iraq today are really not the best pair for a comparison. But we would need a new thread for this. We hijacked this one already .

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.

Ok, but we just do not see the link between Iraq and fighting terrorism.
Some people even argue that now that the US troops are bound in Iraq the US has less capabilities to do something about Iran´s nuclear weapons for example.
With a dwindling credibility it is also even more difficult to take the lead and motivate others.
I don´t mind fighting terrorists with suitcase nuclear devices, but Iraq was clearly the wrong target.

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.

Yeah, it goes both ways.
The neocons openly declared this in their new strategy. Finding allies for each seperate crisis even at the cost of long term alliances.
But I think both sides already realized that in the future they will need each other again.

Bill was also more european in issues like global warming or the Israel Palestine conflict.
Would Bill have ever tried to get a gay marriage ban in the constitution?
His medical health care initiative...
...

Bush is really much to conservative and religious for most europeans. By european standards Bill was more likeable .

 

[mindlight]

Pro american are probably all european nations. The only things some nations really hate is Bush and his foreign policy.

I think we should not confuse nations and their people with governments.
Yes, some european governments are supporting Bush, but that is without the support of the majority of their people.
The only nation where a majority of the people supports Bush in eastern europe is probably Poland.

In the short term the people do not always see where their true long term interest lies e.g. in 1940 after the collapse of France the germans loved Hitler. This is where the checks and balances to popularism of a fully formed long term democratic system become vital. Shall I forever mourn the german people for their poor judgment then or shall I rather say more positively that they are wiser now with hindsight about that particular circumstance than they were then. Now they see what then they did not want to see. However I sometimes think that the german people are so blinded by the lessons from their past militaristic history now they are incapable of fighting for what is right today. The germans have become too peaceloving for their own good and for the good of the world. I do not know if this is the way that the german mind is trained by its educational institutions or what. It seems to inflexible - too incapable of paradigm shifts when the times have changed and the old models no longer apply. They seem to be stuck in a certain post war groove and incapable of adapting to the new world and this is reflected in the inability of the german people to reform their welfare state there or to adapt to new economic realities either e.g. the rise of eastern European and Chinese manufacturing.

European opposition might merely reflect poor education and media systems and poor judgment concerning the real issues of the age - this in turn is most probably a symptom of religious decline and of a continent in transit. (I am not talking about well resourced education and media systems I am talking about a growing lack of evidence of true wisdom and discernment in these institutions). If Bush wins and Iraq works the Europeans will grow to respect him once again. He just needs to stay the course and then let them make up their minds annew at a later date when the circumstances have changed again.

I seriously doubt the UK Numbers you quoted. Maybe many of the British people I know just never talk to Pollsters and the pollsters have proven embarrasingly wrong in the past e.g. 1992 election. As I said timing is crucial here. The people should give Bush the benefit of the doubt on this one as he is the best man to see the Iraq policy through to its conclusion and to a free and more peaceful nation in the Middle of the Middle east.

At the moment I really think it is hopeless for him. Of course things can always change.
Here is a poll from 35 countries:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/PressRelease09_08_04.pdf
In the UK Kerry was leading by more then 30 points. Bush would get 16%, Kerry 47%. .............
No way a majority of the east germans is supporting him or the Iraq war.
Or take a look at the Czech Republik: 42% Kerry, 18% Bush.
The Netherlands: 63% Kerry, 6% Bush.
Italy: 58% Kerry, 14% Bush.

Even if some countries have send troops there is no real support in the population for Bush or the Iraq war..

Again the people of Europe are fickle, misled in this case by foolish opinion formers and I pray will be wiser with hindsight in few years time when the real work in Iraq starts to bear fruit and the wisdom of courageous decisions made for them by the Americans and paid for by American and some british blood will be evident in a free and newly prospering Iraq. The question then will be how can anyone respect European leaders who were so deeply wrong about the key conflict of our post cold war age.

Germany 1945 and Iraq today are really not the best pair for a comparison. But we would need a new thread for this. We hijacked this one already ..

Um we do seem to be the last guys standing at present and since we are and this seems to be a relevant discussion are you sure the situations are so different.

Similiarities between Iraq and germany in 1945 include:
1) Both previously dominated by an all controlling dictator who put many of his own people to death in camps and now policed by foreign troops.
2) Both ruined by the actions of the previous regime

The differences are the Muslim background of most Iraqi as opposed to the "Christian" background of germans in 1945. Were you really that Christian? The Iraqis today are not that far behind the german scientific and technological level of 1945 e.g. they developed or stole the equivalent of the short range V2s and were advancing in the development of WMD. And like the Germans of 1945 their experience of freedom is limited and immature and needs support at this crucial time. Would you deny to others what your selves are living proof of?

Ok, but we just do not see the link between Iraq and fighting terrorism.
Some people even argue that now that the US troops are bound in Iraq the US has less capabilities to do something about Iran´s nuclear weapons for example.
With a dwindling credibility it is also even more difficult to take the lead and motivate others.
I don´t mind fighting terrorists with suitcase nuclear devices, but Iraq was clearly the wrong target..

Al Qaeda are in Iraq and are dying there in large numbers as are many of the worst kinds of Islamic terrorist groups. In the meantime the Iraqi army is growing and is now a heavy participator in the recent operations against Troublespots. They will be ready in time to be the tool of a free and democratic Iraq dedicated to wiping out those who would ruin the chances of the many for the sake of the delusions and power hunger of the few.

Yeah, it goes both ways.
The neocons openly declared this in their new strategy. Finding allies for each seperate crisis even at the cost of long term alliances.
But I think both sides already realized that in the future they will need each other again. .

Neocons by themselves have shown a number of big errors of judgment but I think the Republican agenda of george Bush is a broader one than the selfishness and materialism of the neocons it includes a Christian conscience and a Pragmatists global feel also. Britain and Poland are genuine American allies while France and germany clearly are false ones. They are only allies at their convenience and they have no discernment of the importance of the American cause in this particular fight.

Bill was also more european in issues like global warming or the Israel Palestine conflict.
Would Bill have ever tried to get a gay marriage ban in the constitution?
His medical health care initiative...
...

Bush is really much to conservative and religious for most europeans. By european standards Bill was more likeable .

I would like to see responsible environmental policies but so also I understand the reluctance of Americans to get sucked into some international arrangements with all the compromises that involves on so many different fronts. America needs to wise up to what it is doing to the environment and its car culture particularly needs reforming. A Higher tax on petrol would go a long way to reducing the trade deficit and budget deficit of America.

Arafat sabotaged the peace process in 2000 when he walked away from the table even when the israelis had offered him perhaps the best possible deal that could have been expected from them. He has told too many lies. 9/11 sabotaged the peace process when palestinians danced on the streets at the news. Yet I agree it is right to pray for the peace of Jerusalem. Sadam was a public sponsor of palestinian suicide bombers.

I agree with Bush's policy of defining marriage in the constitution as being hetrosexual. However I think you misunderstand the policy if you think that this definition bars the notion of allowing free adults to form gay civil unions according to whichever state legistlature the gay couple live. In a free country people may form these kinds of unions but the state should no call a homosexual relationship a marriage - it is a misuse of language.

Bushs religion is a plus point to me. That those who are most critical of him are mainly irreligious or Liberal to the point of absurdity is also a point in his favour in my view.

Bill Clinton tried diplomacy to its maximum but when he left power the taliban were entrenched and sadam was still laughing at America and the West from his palaces and mass murder camps. Also Clinton failed to deal with the emerging Muslim terrorist threat and did not have to deal with the main revelation of 9/11 - that America was once more vulnerable for the first time since the end of the Cold war to hostile enemy attack.