Political Crossfire Forums

[scotsboyuk]

As you chaps will no doubt know there has been a good bit of talk over the past few years over whether we are too closely following America. I thought it might be a rather interesting topic for discussion here.

On the one hand one can argue that there has been an increase in anti-Americanism over recent years. I think this is probably true although not terribly widespread, and probably more directed towards the Bush Administration rather than America as whole. I also rather wonder whether some people engage in anti-Americanism because it is the 'thing to do' in certain circles.

On the other hand I think there is a genuine debate over whether Britain (and Blair in particular) has been following the U.S. too closely recently. I am very much in favour of the Trans-Atlantic Alliance, but at the same time I think that alliance is at its best when the British Prime Minister's spine is stiffer than the starch in his shirt. Thatcher used to give Reagan a ticking off as far as I ama ware and the relationship between Britain and America seemed rather close and productive at that time.

My own view is that Blair's grinning asquiesence to Bush has produced resentment in this country towards America. I think it is a great shame, and I think Blair does this country (and America) a great disservice with it.

[slitedeviance]

I'm heading home from work, so more later, but...

My number one concern about moving towards American and away from the EU is that the EU works by cooperation and a strength in numbers approach to economy and politics, therefore our nations become in a sense inter-dependant on each other. The US has none of this dependance towards the UK, and I would be very worried about being chewed up and spat out having polarised ourselves away from the EU.

[scotsboyuk]

slitedeviance wrote: I'm heading home from work, so more later, but...

My number one concern about moving towards American and away from the EU is that the EU works by cooperation and a strength in numbers approach to economy and politics, therefore our nations become in a sense inter-dependant on each other. The US has none of this dependance towards the UK, and I would be very worried about being chewed up and spat out having polarised ourselves away from the EU.

I don't think Britain necessarily has to choose one over the other old boy. I'm certainly not anti-EU in principle (although some of the tosh that comes out of the EU is rediculous), but at the same time I wouldn't like to see Britain moving away from the U.S. either.

Britain's role in Europe, to quote Sir Humphrey Appleby from Yes Minister:

Quote: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now when it's worked so well?

Joking aside, I think we have to recognise that at least part of our future lies with Europe, but at the same time I would be wary of 'burning our bridges' and moving away from America.

[slitedeviance]

(Last, last, last post I will make tonight or I will never get home)

I'm certainly not in favour of ditching the US as a friend and close ally, but I would be wary of relying on our special relationship to provide us with any benefits simply because of our history. I think the Bush administration reinforced this with things such as the contract tenders for Iraq etc.

In response to another point I would say that it's very popular to slag america off, and this encourages people to do this without thought or reason.

At the Make Poverty History march in Edinburgh last year I was livid at the amount of Socialist Worker "BUSH IS A WAR CRIMINAL" placards. It wasn't about war or politics per se, it was about trying to help those who have nothing, not even a future, and was hijacked by those wishing to further a very narrow political agenda.

[scotsboyuk]

slitedeviance wrote: (Last, last, last post I will make tonight or I will never get home)

I'm certainly not in favour of ditching the US as a friend and close ally, but I would be wary of relying on our special relationship to provide us with any benefits simply because of our history. I think the Bush administration reinforced this with things such as the contract tenders for Iraq etc.


I'm not awfully clued up on those contracts so I shan't comment ont hat. However, I think you do make a valid point regarding relying on 'history'. The U.S. will look out for the U.S. first and foremost of course and there will be times when British aims are not compatible with American aims. In such circumstances I think it would be wise for Britain to have another source of influence to call upon.

Quote:
At the Make Poverty History march in Edinburgh last year I was livid at the amount of Socialist Worker "BUSH IS A WAR CRIMINAL" placards. It wasn't about war or politics per se, it was about trying to help those who have nothing, not even a future, and was hijacked by those wishing to further a very narrow political agenda.

The trouble is that some people simply bundle their causes up into one and focus them on a certain person or institution.

[Norbert]

As an American, i can say there is A LOT of anti-UN/EU opinion going around right now... then again there are a lot of people who hate our government so much they wish that the EU would conquer us, too...

[antonio62]

I don't think it is right to look at it as a whole we should break it down into different parts where perhaps we have followed the US perhaps wrongly perhaps rightly and in others where we have diverged from America's ideas where we may have been wrong or right. We have followed the same terrorism policy as them one we have never followed before and one that seems to be failing while our old one succeeded. So why are we following their lead? On the other hand we have taken a different stance on environmentalism with us having at least outwardly a more environmental approach. So in short have we been to close to America? Well in some ways yes and some no and really keeping close to Europe is more important I think.

[DSwain]

The problem with the current round of debate about 'Whither the Special Relationship' is that it predicates that Tony Blair made certain decisions simply because GW Bush told him to. Such argument seems to suggest that, just so TB could show that he's 'his own man', then he should have actually gone against his own judgement and carried out a course of action solely out of spite - 'doing a Chirac', one might say.

[scotsboyuk]

DSwain wrote: The problem with the current round of debate about 'Whither the Special Relationship' is that it predicates that Tony Blair made certain decisions simply because GW Bush told him to. Such argument seems to suggest that, just so TB could show that he's 'his own man', then he should have actually gone against his own judgement and carried out a course of action solely out of spite - 'doing a Chirac', one might say.

That's a good point you raise, and I think there is probably some truth in that. However, it should be the duty of the Birtish Prime Minister to implement the will of the British people. I realise that the government can't, and indeed shouldn't, always bow to public pressure on certain things, but I think the general point is still valid.

The problem with Blair is that I think the public perhaps want to see more of a visible presence of him taking a stand on issues, which he doesn't want to follow America's lead on, rather than a more private approach.

I rather wonder whether it is the appearance of always going along with America that breeds some anti-American sentiment.

[bob.appleyard]

"Anti-Americanism" as a notion I find utterly repulsive, as it makes the totalitarian assumption that state=people.

On the actual "special relationship" discussion, I think TB made a deal with GWB. I can't go into specifics, but around 2002-3 a lot of money started going into certain sectors...

[Ssushi]

bob.appleyard wrote: "Anti-Americanism" as a notion I find utterly repulsive, as it makes the totalitarian assumption that state=people.

On the actual "special relationship" discussion, I think TB made a deal with GWB. I can't go into specifics, but around 2002-3 a lot of money started going into certain sectors...

Why can't you go int othe specifics? *confused*

IF TB went to war on the basis of return investment (I think that's what you're saying), the Britain I think many of us love is dead. I thought we had a notion of 'doing the right thing'... maybe I was wrong.

[slitedeviance]

Ssushi wrote: IF TB went to war on the basis of return investment (I think that's what you're saying), the Britain I think many of us love is dead. I thought we had a notion of 'doing the right thing'... maybe I was wrong.

I think the new way forward is "Doing the New Labour thing" which seems to involve looking very pained and troubled whilst screwing people royally.

[AKAMad]

I think that the Russians haven't got a f***ing clue how to win a war on terror.
I must be suffering from anti-russianism.

I think that the French haven't got a f***ing clue how to win a war on terror.
I must be suffering from anti-frenchism.

I think that lots of people haven't got a f***ing clue how to win a war on terror.
I must be suffering from anti-lots-of-peopleism.

[Bonobo]

Perhaps it has omething to do with the fact that lots of people (the majority) in the UK believe Bush decided to deliberately mislead his nation and the world, so that he and his friends could personally profit at the expense of a few hundred thousand lives.

Wether the UK had a presence in Iraq or not, my opinion on the USA's actions and the person America has chosen to lead them would remain the same.

That and they change the spelling of words they find too challenging.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

DSwain wrote: The problem with the current round of debate about 'Whither the Special Relationship' is that it predicates that Tony Blair made certain decisions simply because GW Bush told him to. Such argument seems to suggest that, just so TB could show that he's 'his own man', then he should have actually gone against his own judgement and carried out a course of action solely out of spite - 'doing a Chirac', one might say.

There has always been an imbalance in the British-American relations where Britain doesn't have much choice in how it can respond to the American policies. The French [as misguided as they are], however, don't have the same problems as they are not bound by an imaginary "special relationship" with the US. Indeed, the French have sought to assert themselves in a variety of ways over the years.

[Robin Hood]

Hatred of America is a longstanding European tradition, often as not in a manner directly linked to Euro-fascism. Certainly the amount of hatred at the moment suggests fairly extreme intolerance and prejudice....in fact hating America and calling its citizens stupid is currently the only acceptable form of this irrational thinking. Well that, and constantly assuming that Euro working class whites are racist, slovenly and need constant intereference.

This stems from a Manichean world view - that people are good and evil and that if only the 'good' (i.e agree with the particular form of statism of the people speaking) are in power then everything will great. I don't think you need a very wide view of history or world affairs to see just how untrue this is.

Rather the problem is power, and how it corrupts. George Bush is a well-meaning man. George Bush wants the world to be a better place...this point shouldn't be controversial, but GWB isn't evil. The root of the problem is the state and other coercive institutions. IT really doesn't make a difference who controls, any more than it makes a difference who is doing the murdering and stealing. The situation is wrong, not the Americans. Scrap the state and we would be a huge step forward in fixing the problem.

[Bonobo]

Robin Hood wrote:

Rather the problem is power, and how it corrupts. George Bush is a well-meaning man. George Bush wants the world to be a better place...this point shouldn't be controversial, but GWB isn't evil. The root of the problem is the state and other coercive institutions. IT really doesn't make a difference who controls, any more than it makes a difference who is doing the murdering and stealing. The situation is wrong, not the Americans. Scrap the state and we would be a huge step forward in fixing the problem.

Then it is the last paragraph we greatly differ on.

My genuine conempt for the man comes not from my thinking he is inept, but from my opinion being he lied to the world on his daddies orders so they could finish off the war his dad tried to win.

This is the source of such venom. The American president lying to the world and causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents so that he and his family may personally profit.

Moreso, as our leader decided to go along (in my opinion he knew ful well the state of things when he decided to go to Iraq - however as any countries leader would have he decided to act in the self interest of the UKand secure energy for us) the venom is two fold. We see America not only as being responsible for the mess in the first place, but also for involving us in it.

[Robin Hood]

Bonobo wrote: Robin Hood wrote:

Rather the problem is power, and how it corrupts. George Bush is a well-meaning man. George Bush wants the world to be a better place...this point shouldn't be controversial, but GWB isn't evil. The root of the problem is the state and other coercive institutions. IT really doesn't make a difference who controls, any more than it makes a difference who is doing the murdering and stealing. The situation is wrong, not the Americans. Scrap the state and we would be a huge step forward in fixing the problem.

Then it is the last paragraph we greatly differ on.

My genuine conempt for the man comes not from my thinking he is inept, but from my opinion being he lied to the world on his daddies orders so they could finish off the war his dad tried to win.

This is the source of such venom. The American president lying to the world and causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents so that he and his family may personally profit.

Since his father chose not to pursue the war into Bagdhad, it seems unlikely that GWB desired invasion simply to go against his father's previous decision....furthermore most Democrats in the US and Conservatives/Lib Dems supported the war. Personally I feel that buoyed by the, at the time success, of Afghanistan and lacking any ideas, grand vision or will on the domestic scenes the elites of the US and UK attempted to manafacture one....not as to trick the people but as to trick themselves. Trick themselves into thinking that they actually have any ideas left.

Of course this has worked, and been turned into the one policy that the media and politicians can parrot with confidence, which rather ironcally, has turned into anti-Iraq war feeling. Rejecting the war on such idiot objections as the lack of third world dictatorial support, and that Haliburton may gain some money from it or something. In attributing failure to such minor aspects of the invasion they are again displaying the bereftness of their vision. Simply put: invading a country where people hate you and are armed to the teeth, then occupying it in order to estabilish some sort of peace only works if you're willing to kill completely indiscriminately. An ex-Saddam general made a clear point when he advised the US to put some rebel heads on spikes and stick them up around the country.

I don't believe that the WMD thing was a lie as such, as much as a mistake. French intelligence services had confirmed the reports, and even Saddam seems to have believed that he had WMDs. In fact the total ignorance displayed by all can be attributed to Ba'ath bureaucracy. Basically various committees and generals were in charge of weapons developement and would be paid by the state for success. Results of such a system are predictable, as we can see from the memo wherebye one general, writing to Saddam, states that he's developed a special missile for stealth planes...the details of which strike most experts as impossible. Basically if you said that you'd made a Dr. Evil Death Ray then Saddam would give you money to send your children to a US university.