Blair needs to remove his head from Bush's ass?

from JoeUser Forums
I never had a problem with Brit troops going into Iraq. Many people here did. I can fully understand their position. It wasn't our war, we had no place there. We were simply following the lead of a country, bigger and more powerful than us. Many people here thought we were better than that. That Blair was better than that and him sending Brit troops over there was a sign of weakness more than anything. I don't think it was. It was something that had to be done. To show our support of a nation, who was putting to an end a terrible tyranny. We were showing support for our biggest ally. As I said I fully agreed with this. As time has gone on, and more information about this war has come forward this opinion hasn't always stood, but this isn't relevant. We started something and it needs to be finished. That is my opinion. We can't just go into something, maybe lacking information, but then find things out and decide we shouldn't of done it so we'll just walk away. The world doesn't work like that. It is a job that needs to be finished. By the Brit troops as well as the US troops. Listening to the news recently and finding out that they want to place Brit troops under US command was taking it a little far for me though. We may be an ally of the US. They may be in charge of these proceedings, but we still have our own identity, our own way of doing this and I think that needs to be respected. I don't think putting us under US command will do any good. Except annoy people here, and want people to pull Brit troops out even more.

Currently Downing Street is denying claims that Brit troops will be put under US command in Iraq as part of a political deal with Bush. Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon is to make a statement in commons saying such a decison would be purely operational.
This comes as thousands of people were demonstrating in central London calling for the withdrawal of Brit troops. The US is apparently requesting for a UK force of about 650 to step in because a US unit has been earmarked for "combat opereations" in the insurgent strong hold of falluja.

Robin cook (former foreign secretary) fears Brit troops will be blamed for US aggression if redeployed. Mr Cook, who resigned from the government over the decision to invade Iraq, said: "The real risk of sending a British battalion into the US sector is that our troops could become associated in Iraqi minds with US methods."

The biggest march in the UK this year organised by Stop the war coalition is supported by Paul Bigley, brother of murdered hostage Ken. They just want our troops out completely. No being under US command. Downing street wants to make sure this doesn't look like it has anything to do with the American election, and Blair showing support. As I said, I don't have a problem with Brit troops being there, I think under US comman is a little to far though. Maybe it could work out for the best though, we are supposed to be working together after all. I think it will happen eventually whether we like it or not.
politics
11,367 views 25 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Of course Blair needs to get his head out of Bush's ass...there's barely room for George's OWN head up there...
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Myrrander, I couldn't have said it better! However, I will add that what Blair really needs to do is cut the leash and stop being led around by a foreign leader and needs to listen more to his OWN constituency because he was chosen to lead by his party, who in turn was elected by the British people...not by George W. Bush or the American people.
Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
to place Brit troops under US command was taking it a little far for me though. We may be an ally of the US. They may be in charge of these proceedings, but we still have our own identity, our own way of doing this and I think that needs to be respected. I don't think putting us under US command will do any good. Except annoy people here, and want people to pull Brit troops out even more.
"Fair and balanced." Yes, whenever there's a suggestion that US troops be under the command of UN, all hell breaks loose. Can you imagine the turmoil in the US if we were placed under Brit command?
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
controversial writing to get interest going in your blog again is it?
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Myrrander, I couldn't have said it better! However, I will add that what Blair really needs to do is cut the leash and stop being led around by a foreign leader and needs to listen more to his OWN constituency because he was chosen to lead by his party, who in turn was elected by the British people...not by George W. Bush or the American people.


Interesting that this is said....especially when pretty much all i hear is that Bush should do the EXACT opposite.....Bush SHOULD listen and be led around by foreign allies and not "cut the leash" so to speak....afterall, Bush was elected by the American People....
Reply #6 from PolMach Forums Top
Damn, I'm, lucky i live in Canada and Paul Martin's head isn't up Bush's ass (Thank you Chretien for FINALLY doing something right!). Now if only we can get the border open and no tariffs on our beef/softwood lumber/hogs... I can just see some guy in D.C. saying "We need more money. Better drain some more maple syrup!"
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Good article Sandy.

I don't personally have an issue with British troops being under US command at all. The big issue for me here is the redeployment of British troops from their relatively stable southern command area into regions where US troops are hated and targeted. If the British troops begin to be targeted in these areas because of association with US decisions and actions then they should not be redeployed. UK troops have a very different phiuliosphy to handling such a conflict and it is working Iraqis equating British soldiers with US soldiers is a recipe for disaster.

The recent hostage issue with Bigley shows this where demands were made to release women prisoners the UK forces did not hold (the US forces did).

Paul.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
there's barely room for George's OWN head up there...


..thanks for the giggle!

Blair really needs to do is cut the leash and stop being led around by a foreign leader and needs to listen more to his OWN constituency because he was chosen to lead by his party, who in turn was elected by the British people...not by George W. Bush or the American people.


Well said. I think Blair sometimes forgets that!

Can you imagine the turmoil in the US if we were placed under Brit command?


Hehe...now that would be fun!

controversial writing to get interest going in your blog again is it?


I think it will take more than one article for that to happen

Bush SHOULD listen and be led around by foreign allies and not "cut the leash" so to speak


As leader of the most powerful country in the world, he should listen other leaders. What he does will have a knock on effect. That does not mean our leader should get lost up his arse though!

I'm, lucky i live in Canada and Paul Martin's head isn't up Bush's ass


Very lucky!

Good article Sandy


Oooh where's Danny??? Hehe...sorry, thankyou

The big issue for me here is the redeployment of British troops from their relatively stable southern command area into regions where US troops are hated and targeted. If the British troops begin to be targeted in these areas because of association with US decisions and actions then they should not be redeployed.


I agree, this is another issue that is rising. That they want our troops to move to more dangerous areas. We will just have to wait and see what happens.

Thankyou for all the comments
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry for the name mistake. Comes with typing too fast for the brain to process.

I see today that the UK has sent a recon team to the area to investigate before making a decision.

As if!

More likely the Uk already made the decision and is now looking for ways to make it seem better or more thought out!

Paul.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Excellent artcle. Now to business: The real reason Bush wants Blair to send his Troops to central Iraq is political. He can claim that Americans alone are not bearing the brunt of the Insurgency. Tony Blair should remember that the last time British troops went to Iraq or MESOPOTAMIA as it was then called 65,000 ended up dead. Of course, Tony will not remember that piece of History because nearlt all of them were colonial troops. Now he has to send his own to get slaughtered in Iraq and this kind of cynical politicing will cost him his election. Unfortunately, the TORIES forgot that British trrroops are sent abroad only to defend British territory, as it did in the case of Falklands 26 years back. They backed Tony and hence cannot get the moral capital of the anti war movement.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #8 By: Sally jacobs - 10/18/2004 7:57:40 AM
I think it will take more than one article for that to happen

Bush SHOULD listen and be led around by foreign allies and not "cut the leash" so to speak


As leader of the most powerful country in the world, he should listen other leaders. What he does will have a knock on effect. That does not mean our leader should get lost up his arse though!

Bush does listen to what other world leaders say. But as the leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world he's not required to follow their advise.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
More likely the Uk already made the decision and is now looking for ways to make it seem better or more thought out!


Oh yeah! It's so obvious they are doing it. Now they've decided they are just trying to throw things at us to make us agree more!

Excellent artcle. Now to business: The real reason Bush wants Blair to send his Troops to central Iraq is political. He can claim that Americans alone are not bearing the brunt of the Insurgency.


Thankyou. I know this, but why doesn't Blair see it???

Now he has to send his own to get slaughtered in Iraq and this kind of cynical politicing will cost him his election.


He's appearing like he can't make decisions on our behalf at the moment. He's not listening to us, and it will cost him the election!

Bush does listen to what other world leaders say. But as the leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world he's not required to follow their advise.


No he's not required too. Im not sure he listens that well though

Thanks for all the comments folks xxx
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #12 By: Sally jacobs - 10/20/2004 6:36:42 PM
No he's not required too. Im not sure he listens that well though


He doesn't really need to. This is America and we tend to do things our way around here.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually that statement should read,

'This is America and we tend to do things the Bush way anywhere we want'.

Just pointing out the facts that almost half the US disagree with the Bush way, and that we're not talking about doing things in America but elsewhere on the planet.

paul.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
He doesn't really need to. This is America and we tend to do things our way around here.


Yes you do. Good job Bush is a leader you can trust to do the right thing, huh. Otherwise listening to no one else would get you into difficult situations .


Just pointing out the facts that almost half the US disagree with the Bush way, and that we're not talking about doing things in America but elsewhere on the planet.



Well said Paul, thankyou.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #14 By: Solitair - 10/21/2004 3:05:59 AM
Actually that statement should read,

'This is America and we tend to do things the Bush way anywhere we want'.

Just pointing out the facts that almost half the US disagree with the Bush way, and that we're not talking about doing things in America but elsewhere on the planet.


Actually my statement should read exactly the way it does. *Almost* half? What about the majority that you refer to. From your comment I guess the *other* half of the people in the US count for shit. Right?


Yes you do. Good job Bush is a leader you can trust to do the right thing, huh. Otherwise listening to no one else would get you into difficult situations



Better leader than Kerry could ever be!
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler,
what majority do I refer to? You commented that Bush does not need to listen to other world leaders as he does things the American way. Just look at the election in the US, with America split 50/50 as to whether the Bush way is right. Bush is president and so the US currently does things his way not 'the American way'. When Clinton was president things were done his way. This is a fact of life. There is no such thing as a unified 'the Ameican way', just the way the current president wants to run things.
I was also commenting that Iraq is not in the US and ignoring other world leaders to do things 'the American way' does not make it right. Saddam was doing things 'his' way there and it was his country! We felt he was wrong though and took action. Doing things the American way in the US is fine. Doing things outside the US 'the American way' by ignoring the objections of other world leaders is not.

To bring the article back to topic, I see that the UK today has agreed to send the troops to support the US areas. No big surprise there as most people think they made the decision weeks ago.

Paul.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #17 By: Solitair - 10/21/2004 3:47:16 PM
drmiler,
what majority do I refer to? You commented that Bush does not need to listen to other world leaders as he does things the American way. Just look at the election in the US, with America split 50/50 as to whether the Bush way is right. Bush is president and so the US currently does things his way not 'the American way'. When Clinton was president things were done his way. This is a fact of life. There is no such thing as a unified 'the Ameican way', just the way the current president wants to run things


Excuse me, you very specifically said "almost" half! Not a 50-50 split.


Reply #14 By: Solitair - 10/21/2004 3:05:59 AM
Actually that statement should read,

'This is America and we tend to do things the Bush way anywhere we want'.

Just pointing out the facts that almost half the US disagree with the Bush way, and that we're not talking about doing things in America but elsewhere on the planet.


 And BTW his way IS the American way. We (the american people) voted him into office.
Reply #19 from PolMach Forums Top
And BTW his way IS the American way. We (the american people) voted him into office.


*Shakes his head*

WRONG. The Supreme Court voted him in. Yeah, he "won" the election, but you can't say that the American People voted him in. I mean I guess if you're gonna get technical, the Supreme Court justices are Americans, and they voted 5-4 for Bush to win and become president... but strictly speaking... the electoral votes, the popular vote... none of that mattered. I'm not trying to say Bush stole the election or Al Gore won or anything that extreme, but the fact remains that "we" had very little to do with Bush getting into office.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #19 By: CraigAlan - 10/21/2004 4:15:55 PM
And BTW his way IS the American way. We (the american people) voted him into office.


*Shakes his head*

WRONG. The Supreme Court voted him in. Yeah, he "won" the election,


Excuse me....But if he won the election we voted him in. Case closed, next case. BTW Bush DID win the electoral vote!
Final score Bush 271 Gore 266
Reply #21 from PolMach Forums Top
Excuse me....But if he won the election we voted him in. Case closed, next case. BTW Bush DID win the electoral vote!
Final score Bush 271 Gore 266


Excuse me, but did I SAY that Gore won the Electoral Vote? No, I don' t think that I did. But again, I think maybe you didn't read my whole post. Maybe you don't care. That's your right, I suppose, but once again you missed the entire argument of my post.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #19 By: CraigAlan - 10/21/2004 4:15:55 PM
And BTW his way IS the American way. We (the american people) voted him into office.


*Shakes his head*

WRONG. The Supreme Court voted him in. Yeah, he "won" the election, but you can't say that the American People voted him in. I mean I guess if you're gonna get technical, the Supreme Court justices are Americans, and they voted 5-4 for Bush to win and become president... but strictly speaking... the electoral votes, the popular vote... none of that mattered.


Yes I read your *entire* post! And no, I missed NOTHING! What you said was that the electoral vote didn't matter. (Your words, not mine.) And I'm pointing out that it *did* matter.
 You *also* made an inference that he did not *win* the election. On this I refer you back to the electoral vote count.
Reply #23 from PolMach Forums Top
Yes I read your *entire* post! And no, I missed NOTHING! What you said was that the electoral vote didn't matter. (Your words, not mine.) And I'm pointing out that it *did* matter.


Before this turns into a "tastes great" "less filling" debate... let me just come right out and say it: Bush won the Presidency, but NOT by the strict rules of the American voting process. He won because the Supreme Court decided the countless, incessant recounts for Bush, and voted 5-4 that Bush won the election because THEY ruled Bush won the electoral college. This fact is entirely separate from your argument that the electoral votes were 271 to 266. I won't even get into the popular vote issue... we both know it was in favor for Gore, but we also both know that's not the way the "system" works. I'll give you the fact that the Electoral Votes were, when all the incessant recounting was done, in favor of Bush. I can't argue with that, really. My original point, which I will restate, was the Supreme Court ultimately decided the outcome of the 2000 election. Which was a direct response to your original statement "we (the american people) voted him into office." You can spin doctor this any way you like but the fact remains that it's the truth.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
the Supreme Court ultimately decided the outcome of the 2000 election.
Right, no other way to explain it.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Regardless of who actually decided the US election I believe my point stands that there is no 'American way', just the way of the current president. Likewise there is no 'British' way, just the way of the current British prime minister. And he seems quite happy to keep his head shoved up Bush's ass. That does not mean that ass kissing is the 'British' way.

Today those British troops get ready to move nortwards as talk begins of a possible 1500 more British troops being sent to Iraq. Increasing troop levels just before a US election feels too much to me like Blair getting involved in US politics.

Paul.