Tony is not stupid, just that he didn't have the class of a first rate world leader. Of course we can't entirely blame him. The glory days of British empire was long over. The leader from that tiny island appears to be vulgarer and vulgarer.
If Blair was the puppet that everyone claims, then the war on Iran would be a lot more advanced than now. To a large degree he painted himself into a corner with that "standing with you shoulder to shoulder" bit after 9/11, but it does seem a strange thing that any leader who backs the coallition is a "puppet", while any who oppose it is an "ungrateful spineless coward". If anything this will harden the resolve to stay in Iraq, just as with Northern Ireland, the IRA's bombs gave the people a determination not to let the IRA win which overrode any thoughts about the actual issues themselves. to pull out now would be to justify the murders committed on Thursday.
The reason that there has been little threat of a war against Iran is because first of all not even the US is too keen on it right now. Secondly Blair lost a hell of a lot of popularity over the Iraq war and many of those who went with him say they were fooled into it. Thirdly, don't forget that making a case against Iran will be far tougher and the British public who were cynicla in the war against Iraq will not be easily pursuaded to go with another unnecessary war. I wouldn't use the word puppet but Blair in agreeing with Bush on so much in the last term with little benefit for Britain would not fall much short of Blair being Bushe's puppet.
Of course we'll pull out - as and when we were always going to anyway. If there's one thing that all parts of the debate on Iraq here in the UK (outside of the fringe elements like Gorgeous George et al) can agree on, then it's that we have no right/reason to leg it before the job is done. A more intelligent question would be "will the general perception of what the job is that needs to be done change now?".
they aren't going to pull out. zero chance. i would like to see them more involved, since they are experts in urban combat from their long history in northern ireland.
The London bombings further penetrated the anger of the citizens of the UK. I expect the government to take advantage of this and get more people signing up to fight the endless battle in the middle east. In other words, no, they're not pulling out.
Sure, good post. Just wondering... What would you consider 'the job done'? And when do you expect that to happen?
you are talking probably couple of thousands terrorists, so there is no chance you will win against them unless you bomb the whole place.
Well, which place do you have in mind? Sounds like one of the main suspects behind the 7/7 attack has lived in London for a long time, so we should really bomb London... oops has already happened. So what do you suggest? Flatten Iraq, and then Saudi Arabia, followed by Iran, Jordan, Egypt, Lybia and France (who might have got rather upset at this point?).
If you are saying Britain shouldn't have supported the USA in the war against Iraq, I agree with you. About minding your own business... this has become quite complicated hasn't it. Can we agree on 'worrying about atrocities in other countries but staying true to the democratic principles of the UN, which might need some reforms?.'
Insurgency quelled, infrastructure up and running (with the profits from oil and other natural resources going to Iraqis and not foreign multinationals like Halliburton), strong institutions that can operate without all-too-visible, all-too-dependency-forming US/UK help, Iraqi police and armed forces trained, equipped and positioned to maintain internal security in a manner befitting the apparent "ideals" of the people who brought us this occupation. Well read the above. Ten years? Twenty? That's why it will never happen. We'll pull out when it becomes too expensive politically to do anything else.
English people tend to discuss thing analytically instead of rushing in head first because of their anger (kinda like what the American public did in their support for the war in Iraq and even the US PATRIOT Act). So no, the government will not be allowed to take advantage of this atrocity for their own political purpose. I assume that you are implying this "battle in the middle east" will involve other countries such as Iran or Syria too, which quite simply will not happen with UK support!
No one is planning to leave, not the British nor the Americans. Other countries will leave as their paid contracts will be finished and the Bush/Blair PR machine can not find any use for them. Keep in mind that the Americans have already built or are in the process of completing 14 permanent bases in Iraq. These are not your run of the mill bases; they are some of the most sophisticated and modern American bases you can find anywhere in the world. And someone thinks that once they built these, they are just going to get up and leave? Why do you think that the we (the Americans) are closing all those bases in the States? Last time I checked, we were closing over 30 of them in the States. So, the answer is NO; neither the Brits nor the Americans are leaving Iraq (or at least they have no plans to leave Iraq any time soon, maybe 20~25 years from now, they will rethink this ).
You are assuming that the US will be able to stay as long as the current administration and their plans would prefer. Not an unreasonable assumption, but there is a lot more to the equation than just what some neocons had in mind. The battle for Iraq has so far been a battle focused mainly on the sunni insurgents. But the minute it becomes clear that the US wants to establish permanent bases in Iraq, that battle will expand. No doubt about it, as the overwhelming majority of Iraqis (shia and sunni) have no interest in allowing permanent American bases in Iraq. And there are a good many Americans who have no such interest either.
So when do we end our occupation of Germany? I think we have more than a few bases there and they are obviously the tools of the neocons used to maintain control of the vital German beer supply.
The justification for America's bases used to be the cold war. What is the justification now? The US started out as a decent country when it entered WWII, with a huge blemish when it came to its history on race relations. As it went along the path of winning that war, and then becoming a superpower locked in battle with another one, it also picked up some nasty imperialistic habits. The kind it used to only reserve for its own hemisphere. Recently, American imperialism has begun to even wear thin in Europe, as it has sometimes been used to put the EUropeans in their place as well. While there is an extensive network of interdependencies created between Europe and America, and a host of factors that make it difficult for any individual European country to stand up to the US in any serious fashion, the time will come when the Europeans will become more assertive. And will begin asking, politiely, and then not so politely, that perhaps its time for the US to leave. And for Europe to have its independent foreign policy. When that time comes, I am curious how the "leader of the free world" will react? At least, the "leader of the free world" has not yet decided to call itself the "Supreme Leader of the Free World", because then we would know we are in real trouble
I have officially stopped reading Iranian Monitor posts. He has worn me down with his tripe. Congratulations, you win.
I think this characterises the current mood in Germany, France and Belgium rather well, but many other countries like Britain and Holland are still very pro American (although I don't think this is very stable in either of these countries). Europe is far too inhomogeneous to make such a general statement. Also, it looks like the conservatives will be ruling in Germany from September which will make us a toothless subservient ally of the US again, at least for 4 years.