[RoadWarriorFromLP]

Originally Posted by tableland No British prime minister really has any choice in the matter as the UK is totally dependent on the American security guarantee. As for British influence over American policy, as far as we know, the last time the Americans listened to Blair it was when he convinced them to delay proceedings and go to the UN to seek the second resolution, the bid for which they ended up having to withdraw.

In the post-Cold War era, that isn't as critical factor for the UK as it was when the Soviets were the dominant threat. I wouldn't be in a hurry to undo NATO just yet, but if anyone had leverage after 9/11, it was the other western powers, not the US.

Blair could have adequately represented the UK's interests without allowing Bush to play him like a violin, as he did. If he wanted a wedge to counterbalance France and Germany in the EU, he could have allied with those countries that are offput by the Franco-German alliance such as the Netherlands, and meanwhile spoke as a voice of leadership that any involvement in the "war on terror" by the EU was conditional on its goals also being served.

I think that we have to understand that Bush's original intent was to gain control over the Iraqi economy and political system sufficiently so that US industry could benefit from the spoils. (This was discussed in the Wall Street Journal even before the war began, so this was no secret or conspiracy theory.) Bush's focus was on achieving US goals, irrespective of whether those goals benefited or harmed anyone else.

You simply can't trust or do business with those who have a strong "my way or the highway" mentality, because you can never do enough to please them, and they couldn't care less how events affect you, except if it blows back on them. Bush is simply one of those people, it's a character flaw that does not reflect on overall US policy making and is inseperable from who he is as an individual.

[gardnma]

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP I think that we have to understand that Bush's original intent

Your post was a good read.
As far as the above point goes, though, are we so sure it was nothing more than to finish an old family argument...............?

Didn't Hussein put a hit out on Bush senior??

[gruffbrown]

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP Blair could have adequately represented the UK's interests without allowing Bush to play him like a violin, as he did. If he wanted a wedge to counterbalance France and Germany in the EU, he could have allied with those countries that are offput by the Franco-German alliance such as the Netherlands, and meanwhile spoke as a voice of leadership that any involvement in the "war on terror" by the EU was conditional on its goals also being served.

France although technically part of NATO, plays it's own little game, although I'm sure NATO would get a phone call if 1940 happened again.

[RoadWarriorFromLP]

Originally Posted by gruffbrown France isn't technically part of NATO, it plays it's own little game, although I'm sure NATO would get a phone call if 1940 happened again.

True, and actually, that was a pretty smart strategy on the part of the West -- have a nuclear power among western allies that wasn't subject to treaties between NATO and the Soviets, which leaves a backup nuclear force that can defend western interests even in the face of US treaties. Two against one in favor of the west, but without making it too obvious -- not bad thinking at all.

[gardnma]

Originally Posted by gruffbrown France although technically part of NATO, plays it's own little game, although I'm sure NATO would get a phone call if 1940 happened again.

If it happens, what say we just let the krauts keep it this time?

[gruffbrown]

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP True, and actually, that was a pretty smart strategy on the part of the West -- have a nuclear power among western allies that wasn't subject to treaties between NATO and the Soviets, which leaves a backup nuclear force that can defend western interests even in the face of US treaties. Two against one in favor of the west, but without making it too obvious -- not bad thinking at all.

I had to google it, did they join recently? They weren't in the 80's.

[RoadWarriorFromLP]

Originally Posted by gardnma As far as the above point goes, though, are we so sure it was nothing more than to finish an old family argument...............?

I saw your emoticon there, so I know that you're kidding, but since that theory gets tossed around a bit by those who mean it, I'll address it.

I don't think that grudge matches played a role in this. The thing is that for decades, the US has had policy wonks within it who have believed that the US should take unilteral proactive action, including strategies that encourage a first-strike nuclear policy and the use of tactical battlefield nukes. But these hawks have generally been marginalized by administrations of both parties in favor of "containment" policies that sought to keep the Soviets and Chinese in check, rather than eliminating them entirely.

Parallel to this, the US has long had a policy that it would be willing to wage war to defend its oil interests that dates back to the Carter Doctrine. (Yes, peacenik Jimmy Carter was willing to attack for the sake of US oil.) With the industrialization of China and India, demand for oil is soaring, and the US needs to ensure that supplies are ample for all of us so that we don't end up down the road having resource wars with each other, or with the two giants in the east that have nukes and one-third of the world's population.

During the Clinton administration, containment policy was maintained but was shifted more in favor of containing the expansion of fundamentalist Islamic movements and the proliferation of WMD to terrorist groups, while trying to pull the breakaway Soviet republics such as the "Stans" away from Russian influence and toward the west. That includes the "Silk Road Strategy", that involved directing funds and security arrangements to the breakaways in the hopes that they would develop trade linkages with the west, while reducing their security engagements with the Russians. This also involved building pipelines from the Caspian area along routes that don't traverse Russian territory (something that Yeltsin was vehemently opposed to), such as the Baku pipeline and the planned gas pipeline that will travel via Afghanistan to the Indian coast.

Bush has been different -- after 9/11, the hawks who had long been marginalized suddenly gained dominance in the White House, and their desire for preemptive action was adopted. On the map, Iraq sits at a crossroads of the Middle East and on top of a lot of oil, which made it an optimal place to use Iraq for these hawks (we now call them neo-cons) to use it as a staging ground for launching this new policy, while giving US corporate interests a new market in which to set roots.

Look at the map again, and you'll notice that between Afghanistan and Iraq lies Iran. Furthermore, Iran borders the Caspian region, which is one of the world's great largely-untapped sources of oil. Iran now has US forces along most of its border, and the US goal was almost surely to move on to Iran once Iraq had been sorted out.

Unfortunately for the US, the Iranians used the opportunity to destablize its long-time enemy Iraq, which entangles the US and keeps it too busy to pursue the Iranians. The Bush neocons got outmaneovered by the Iranians, and the result is the Vietnam-style mess that we see today. Bush the Younger is starting to make his dad look like a genius, isn't he?

[RoadWarriorFromLP]

Originally Posted by gruffbrown I had to google it, did they join recently? They weren't in the 80's.

No, I was saying that having France outside of NATO allowed the west to have two sources of nukes, versus the Soviet's one. It left the west with another source of nukes in its backpocket that were carved out of US-Soviet treaties.

[gruffbrown]

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP No, I was saying that having France outside of NATO allowed the west to have two sources of nukes, versus the Soviet's one. It left the west with another source of nukes in its backpocket that were carved out of US-Soviet treaties.

It's was a good move, if the Soviets had invaded over a weekend, most of NATO would have been incapable of repulsing anything.

[Seahorse3]

Originally Posted by snowbunny So many reasons to hate Bush, why choose just one? Have a little faith, there are many Americans who see Britons in a very positive light.

I for one like the British people. Especially the English.

[gardnma]

Originally Posted by Seahorse3 I for one like the British people. Especially the English.

Well, we're not bad....

Tend to complain a bit though.
Any insights as to just why Americans dont like to complain? Never quite figured that one out - its so much fun.

[gardnma]

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP I saw your emoticon there, so I know that ........................................., and the result is the Vietnam-style mess that we see today. Bush the Younger is starting to make his dad look like a genius, isn't he?

Well, its hard to credit that its really all over spreading a pax Americana. Oil is certainly the world's currency. If we just got up off our bums and pursued renewable resources and stopped with the wastefull lifestyle.........

BTW, I used to work for an outfit that was taking the Solar Energy technology and trying to use it in another application. The goal was (and prob still is) to get the efficiency of them up to 90% or better. This is phenominal and you know what? They think it can be done. When they pull it off, we probably won't get the technology for another 20 years, if at all.

The implications of that are astounding, they allready put solar cells in roofing shingles.......

[cindyabs]

Originally Posted by gruffbrown We still have the Isle of Wight, but they may go for Independence soon.

Well they do have a plaque dedicated to Elvis Presley there..........

[cindyabs]

Originally Posted by Sally I've been asked that but it kind of makes sense - some countries do celebrate more on different days eg Chistmas Eve or Epiphany.

Just like celebrating Boxing Day here.

[Tableland]

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP In the post-Cold War era, that isn't as critical factor for the UK as it was when the Soviets were the dominant threat. I wouldn't be in a hurry to undo NATO just yet, but if anyone had leverage after 9/11, it was the other western powers, not the US. Blair could have adequately represented the UK's interests without allowing Bush to play him like a violin, as he did. If he wanted a wedge to counterbalance France and Germany in the EU, he could have allied with those countries that are offput by the Franco-German alliance such as the Netherlands, and meanwhile spoke as a voice of leadership that any involvement in the "war on terror" by the EU was conditional on its goals also being served. I think that we have to understand that Bush's original intent was to gain control over the Iraqi economy and political system sufficiently so that US industry could benefit from the spoils. (This was discussed in the Wall Street Journal even before the war began, so this was no secret or conspiracy theory.) Bush's focus was on achieving US goals, irrespective of whether those goals benefited or harmed anyone else. You simply can't trust or do business with those who have a strong "my way or the highway" mentality, because you can never do enough to please them, and they couldn't care less how events affect you, except if it blows back on them. Bush is simply one of those people, it's a character flaw that does not reflect on overall US policy making and is inseperable from who he is as an individual.

Blair should have accepted the lesson learned by every other British prime minister: you won't get anything out of Europe by diplomacy alone. Of course US interests in Iraq have to be met: the US is not a registered charity but a nation-state, and nation-states only act in their own interests. You don't have to like his policy to agree with this. Bush's intransigence is not a flaw, but a tried and tested political 'type'. Some are more naturally multilateral than others, and you'll have a new president in 2009.