Once again, Mr Blair puts America first [Anti-American editorial alert.]

The Telegraph (London) ^ | 28MAY06 | The Telegraph (London)

[familyop]

...contempt for Prime Minister Blair, because he sent British troops to help us in the first small step in the War on Terror. Such sentiment has been evident (even in many Conservatives) since before the September Attack. What will Britain do when Iran's missiles can reach London? I'm concerned.

[nathanbedford]

Beyond warm words, what has Britain received from Mr Bush in return for the Prime Minister's unconditional and uncritical support? If there is an answer to that question other than "Nothing", it is extremely difficult to see what it is.

The world's only superpower as your very own bodyguard? Priceless.

[kinoxi]

i typed this previously concerning Blair, he is an excellent orator.

[Canard]

This is more anti-Blair than anti-American I would have said. The broad thrust of the article is that the Prime Minister of the UK should make decisions based on the national interest of the country. I wouldn't disagree with that.

[wildcatf4f3]

yes but without the USA there isn't going to be any UK to defend

[Darkwolf377]

The "international community" has proved to be largely a figment of Mr Blair's imagination

I have to agree with that, though not in the way the writer may have intended. The "international community" leftists are always squawking about boils down to UN representatives making iseless gestures when they're not raping, ignoring genocide or filling their pockets.

When people talk about One World governments and breaking down national boundaries, what they seem to be talking about is taking all the mountains of money the US and a few Saudi princes have socked away, distributing it equally to everyone in the world, and then we'll all dance and sing together in the streets, everyone will have plenty, and wheeeee! won't it be just great?!

They never seem to consider that the world community can't get together on ANYTHING. As Ann Coulter said, what's legal in this world is what the US and the UK say is legal.

[Canard]

No-one is advocating that though? In the vast majority of cases our national interest tends to coincide with yours.

[Canard]

"I have to agree with that, though not in the way the writer may have intended. The "international community" leftists are always squawking about boils down to UN representatives making iseless gestures when they're not raping, ignoring genocide or filling their pockets."

That's exactly the way the writer intended it. Blair is one of the leftists squawking about the 'international community'.

[familyop]

"This is more anti-Blair than anti-American I would have said."

I thought the same thing, because it did appear that way after the first reading. Then I realized that had Blair not been so seemingly pro-American, his constituents would have loved him. And by his military efforts, he has really been defending Britain's security. Quite a few terrorists left their British homes to fight against and be terminated by British and American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Also, radical Islamist forces must be defeated worldwide in order for Britain to be secure from the unthinkable.

Iran is the next step. Should we continue to ask for help from countries in western Europe, or should we concentrate solely on further building our own defenses (especially anti-ballistic missile defenses) and further building friendships with newer, more dedicated allies?

[MadIvan]

IN THE NAME OF GOD. Over 100 British soldiers lie dead and you and others fly right off the handle at an editorial, to suggest that you ought to ally yourself with some other country.

By acting in this way, you make all the weirdo leftist dreams in this country come true - you make their assertion that we are a friend to America but America is not a friend to us come real. Blood should matter more to you than what a newspaper says. The fact that it doesn't either paints you as an idiot or a bigot.

And let's not forget, you see more vile things about yourselves in the anti-American press in the United States. Yet this does not make you abandon your own country. Blatherings in the British press should not lead to this nonsensical thought process from you lot.

Shame on you.

Ivan

[familyop]

"In the vast majority of cases our national interest tends to coincide with yours."

...very much agreed. And yes, regarding your other comment, we in the USA should remember that PM Blair is a Labour Party man. It is sad, though, that much of the opinion against him has to do with participation in the War on Terror and arguments about "hegemony," "empire" and the like. We are exceedingly grateful for what Britain is doing to help us in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is also understandable that no more Royal forces can be spared for a possible effort in Iran. A country can only afford to do so much.

[nathanbedford]

Good on you.

[familyop]

"Over 100 British soldiers lie dead and you and others fly right off the handle at an editorial, to suggest that you ought to ally yourself with some other country."

I only suggest that we work with what we have, should British support be withdrawn after Prime Minister Blair's leaving office. It's a matter of practicality--not emotion.

Have a look at my comment #11, which I posted before reading your reply.

[MadIvan]

I read what you posted before that. It's not practicality - you do have a history of posting articles like this and doing "drive by shootings" suggesting that the traditional alliance between Britain and America should be "reconsidered" on the basis of newspaper articles, as if newsprint is thicker than blood.

Anyone who seriously believes that the meanderings of some idiots in Canary Wharf is more important than the daily sacrifice of our troops, is very misguided. Anyone who seriously believes that Britain is going to abandon America is just as misguided: people thought that when Blair came to office in this first place, and many people on here thought Blair was "too weak, too socialist" to stand with America when it counted. They were wrong. They are wrong about what will follow. I just wonder what it will take for them to admit they are wrong.

Ivan

[familyop]

What newspaper in Britain has been more conservative (meaning to have older traditional moral values) while pro-American than the Telegraph? Conrad Black made it as pro-American as it was.

[MadIvan]

Conrad Black hasn't been in charge of the Telgraph since 2003. Editorially, the Telegraph hasn't been as good since.

It's still the best, but it has bad moments. I look for individual columnists such as Michael Gove of the Times as well.

Ivan

[familyop]

"I read what you posted before that. It's not practicality..."

If Britain withdraws all forces from helping us in the War on Terror after Prime Minister Blair leaves office, it would be most practical for us to continue working with other allies. There was no more meaning than that intended.

[Liberty Valance]

[familyop]

"Anyone who seriously believes that Britain is going to abandon America is just as misguided: people thought that when Blair came to office in this first place, and many people on here thought Blair was "too weak, too socialist" to stand with America when it counted. They were wrong. They are wrong about what will follow. I just wonder what it will take for them to admit they are wrong."

...continued support after PM Blair leaves office.

[MadIvan]

If you have been observing British politics with any depth whatsoever, you know that isn't going to happen. Gordon Brown is not about to make himself look weak as a matter of foreign policy. He also hates the Europeans - he's the reason why we had no Euro referendum.

As for the Tories:

UK: Welcome to Cameron's Europe-hating and Pentagon-loving party

I trust that will end this discussion.

Ivan