Airliners.net

"The strain of, frankly, anti-American feeling in parts of European politics is madness when set against the long-term interests of the world we believe in," he said. "We want them engaged.(The U.S.) The reality is that none of the problems that press in on us can be resolved or even contemplated without them,"

Yes, the final analysis is we need each other. Most definitely. There is far too much poor feeling directed to the Americans as though it was some sort of new fashion trend. We owe ourselves much better than that.

Thank you very much.


http://reuters.myway.com/article/200...IDST_0_NEWS-SECURITY-BLAIR-DC.html

[Edited 2006-09-14 05:43:02]

There is no real anti-American feeling in European politics. There is a great difference to seeing the USA as a strategic ally and an important business-partner as they are and to be kissing the behind of the US president like Blair has been doing since he took office.

Tony Blair is leaving politics and seems to want to go out with a whimper.. we respect the US, but our interests aren't always the identical. The same can be said of the USA.

I agree generally with Blair, in the sense that European countries and the USA share the same long-term interests and are important allies, but the notion that we are somehow depandant on the approval of the US and can't choose our own path, as he is suggesting is insane.

Goodbye Tony.. don't let the door hit you on where the good Lord split you  

cheers

Asturias

Quoting Asturias (Reply 1): There is no real anti-American feeling in European politics. There is a great difference to seeing the USA as a strategic ally and an important business-partner as they are and to be kissing the behind of the US president like Blair has been doing since he took office.

Quite true - Blair has every incentive to not look like the only fool to follow the one in the White House at this time, but smearing the ones who had better sense than himself won't help his place in future history books either.

He's had his chance, and he screwed it up. Too bad for him.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 1): but the notion that we are somehow depandant on the approval of the US and can't choose our own path, as he is suggesting is insane.

Where did he say this?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 2): Blair has every incentive to not look like the only fool to follow the one in the White House at this time, but smearing the ones who had better sense than himself won't help his place in future history books either.

Better sense than whom? How is he smearing them? As for history are you ready to write it already based on what, current events only? That's not history, that's commentary. The history has yet to be written on Bush, Blair, Iraq, etc. It's too too early.

Thank you very much.

Quoting 787 (Reply 3): Where did he say this?

The anti-Americanism Blair is talking about is the criticism and unwillingess of some (most) European countries to follow the lead of the US into Iraq as part of the Coalition of the Willing. (or C.o.W for short)

That is the only real strain or dischord between the US and European countries (excepting UK, Denmark and a handful of others) and that is what he says in the article:

Quote: "The danger is if they decide to pull up the drawbridge and disengage. We need them involved," Blair said, spelling out his political vision in a pamphlet published by The Foreign Policy Center think-tank.

So, he is suggesting that if we don't play ball and do as the US wants, we may find us alone in over our heads. We have to follow the US lead and not continue this anti-Americanism by refusing to take part in the Iraq war.

Do you think he's talking about the WTO bickering between Aribus and Boeing over subsidies?

cheers

Asturias

Quoting 787 (Reply 4): Better sense than whom? How is he smearing them?

His colleagues in other countries who acted with a clearer perception of reality and less submissiveness to the Bush administration and its empty propaganda.

Quoting 787 (Reply 4): As for history are you ready to write it already based on what, current events only? That's not history, that's commentary. The history has yet to be written on Bush, Blair, Iraq, etc. It's too too early.

There comes a point when the victims' bodies stack up too high to get overlooked even in the "big picture".

When you say and do A, almost everybody else screams B at the top of their lungs and A turns out to be an all-out disaster in your own hands, it tends to taint your image in history books.

There are very few things easier extrapolated from current observation.

Quoting 787 (Reply 4): Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 6): His colleagues in other countries who acted with a clearer perception of reality and less submissiveness to the Bush administration and its empty propaganda.

That is not smearing. I do not want a person to pretend to tell us that it is.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 6): When you say and do A, almost everybody else screams B at the top of their lungs and A turns out to be an all-out disaster in your own hands, it tends to taint your image in history books. There are very few things easier extrapolated from current observation.

A disaster is just an opinion at this point. Some say it is and some say it is not. Yes? It is hardly history at this point. I will read the history books when they are written by appropriate authorities. For now it is too early to judge to make an accurate assessment of the whole issue in finality.

You believe otherwise. Of course! You are one of those subjects of those politicians that Mr.Blair speaks of. That can be no surprise to many of us for sure. Mr.Blair is perhaps right when we hear a citizen say "Bush administration and its empty propaganda" with "almost everybody else screams B at the top of their lungs". Why do we need to scream at our friends and say that their leaders sell empty propaganda? Mr.Blair is correct in his insight it would seem.

I thank you again.

Quoting 787 (Reply 7): That is not smearing. I do not want a person to pretend to tell us that it is.

Insinuating that not blindly following the respective US administration into their crusade du jour could only be due to anti-americanism is rather strong stuff.

It is pretty much identical to calling everyone names who hasn't had his spine removed.

Quoting 787 (Reply 7): A disaster is just an opinion at this point.

Yeah. I guess you'd be moving to Bagdad any day now...   

Quoting 787 (Reply 7): You believe otherwise. Of course! You are one of those subjects of those politicians that Mr.Blair speaks of. That can be no surprise to many of us for sure. Mr.Blair is perhaps right when we hear a citizen say "Bush administration and its empty propaganda" with "almost everybody else screams B at the top of their lungs". Why do we need to scream at our friends and say that their leaders sell empty propaganda? Mr.Blair is correct in his insight it would seem.

Rubbish!

The factual falsehood of the infamous UNSC presentation was already well-known at the time - all those claims were already credibly debunked or being known to be severely questionable for everybody who was able to read.

The complete lack of a credible case for the invasion was common knowledge around the world - there is no surprise at all in finding the initial warnings confirmed pretty much to the last letter now.

Smearing those who did not follow Blairs subservient course as anti-americans is not just disingenuous, it is a downright insulting claim which cannot be left standing.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 6): His colleagues in other countries who acted with a clearer perception of reality and less submissiveness to the Bush administration and its empty propaganda.

And if we were to follow the left, which hates the President, Saddam would still be in power, the Taliban would still rule Afghanistan, and we would still not have Osama Bin Laden. Indeed, it seems that the left in Europe hates the President more than Saddam. Most peculiar, but there you have it.

Oh, and if the U.S. and its international partners hadn't acted, Libya would still have designs on the West, Iran would still be developing its nuclear weapons, and the Middle East would still blame Israel for nearly everything.

Al Zarqawi would still be alive. The sons of Saddam would still be around as Saddam's heirs apparent. Pakistan would be noncommittal about its role in confronting terror. And anti-Western feelings would still be at a simmer, ready, however, to boil over at any moment.

Regardless of any inaction, they would still teach anti-Westernism at extremist madrasas, much as they do now, and even within Europe itself.

So much for the neo-isolationism of the left.

Where is the European leftist who dares confront the reality of history? Have all of them forgotten what it meant to leave terror to its own deliberate schedule?

In truth, the stability sought by the left in Europe was, and is, merely illusory. Sooner or later, had the West not acted, then at a time of Saddam's and Osama's and the ayatollahs' choosing, the specter of nuclear terrorism would suddenly rear its head, and then it would be too late. Much too late.

The left seems to think that had America stayed out of it, all would have been hunky-dory, that fine police work would have put the kibosh on terrorism, and that, to the contrary, what America has done in eliminating two virulently anti-Western regimes has merely worsened matters -- based solely on ignorance of history. This premise of the left is one that bears no degree of scrutiny. Fine police work resulted in nothing but the rise of Al Qaeda itself.

In this regard, the left reminds me of a child who objects to the fact that he must move from attending elementary school in one neighborhood to a secondary school in another. The people in secondary school are big and scary, whereas it was so much fun in primary school; so familiar. He doesn't know that the old neighborhood was rapidly going downhill; all he cares about is that he doesn't like the strange new school he's in now.

It's funny, if you think about it. The left is all about change, allegedly. But when it comes to the Middle East. all they want is to go back to the old days, where dictators had their place, and all was apparently right with the world.

[Edited 2006-09-14 08:10:37]

Quoting Asturias (Reply 1): There is a great difference to seeing the USA as a strategic ally and an important business-partner as they are and to be kissing the behind of the US president like Blair has been doing since he took office.

It's a common line of attack on Blair, and it's complete and utter nonsense. Blair's belief system about the world was in place long before Bush took office; do some research, he was talking about interventionism in the manner of the last five years long before. In many respects, Blair has always wanted to go further than Bush. It was Blair who was prepared to commit 50,000 British troops to a ground invasion of Kosovo in the teeth of American opposition, Blair who wanted to topple Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

Now, you can say he is wrong, you can say he is misguided, but this facile "poodle" stuff is plain wrong.

And by the way, there seems to be a re-writing of history by some people with regards to Afghanistan. Iraq is an entirely separate issue to it, and all NATO countries have a responsibility to stabilising Afghanistan, yet countries like Spain refuse to have any part of it. Germany's unique history understandbly prevents them from becoming more involved, but they have at least committed troops to the quieter parts of the country. In the south, it is Canadian, British, American and Dutch troops who are doing the fighting, whilst most of NATO refuses to fulfill its obligations.

Quoting Banco (Reply 10): And by the way, there seems to be a re-writing of history by some people with regards to Afghanistan. Iraq is an entirely separate issue to it, and all NATO countries have a responsibility to stabilising Afghanistan, yet countries like Spain refuse to have any part of it. Germany's unique history understandbly prevents them from becoming more involved, but they have at least committed troops to the quieter parts of the country. In the south, it is Canadian, British, American and Dutch troops who are doing the fighting, whilst most of NATO refuses to fulfill its obligations.

Banco, I hope you are not surprised concerning this revisionism on the part of countries like Spain.

When will we ever learn that the left can be every bit as devious as they claim their enemies are? In fact, I would suggest that the left -- the anti-American left -- in Europe is, next to extremists, the greatest threat to the West today.

The left there has almost always been wrong. It would have caved in to Soviet aggression, believing Communism docile and capitalism vicious.

Leftists of this sort consider it sport to pull the tail of the American lion, believing America at once too weak to respond, and too powerful to care. They are wrong on both counts: They weaken their greatest protector by distracting him, and they invite his wrath all at the same time.

I have read references this day to those who have had it with the betrayal of NATO by certain European elements. Surely this is not good for the trans-Atlantic relationship. And it plays directly into the hands of the greatest enemies of the West.

European leftists should thank their lucky stars that they are able to play their cynical political games; given the state of the world, if they had things their way, they would be living on borrowed time. If they, in the near future, actually achieve that which they want, they will.

[Edited 2006-09-14 10:46:31]

Quoting 787 (Thread starter): "The strain of, frankly, anti-American feeling in parts of European politics is madness when set against the long-term interests of the world we believe in," he said. "We want them engaged.(The U.S.) The reality is that none of the problems that press in on us can be resolved or even contemplated without them,"

He is right... Love him for saying this!

Boaz.

Quoting 787 (Thread starter): anti-American feeling in parts of European politics is madness

most if not all of the European governments certainly agree with him. There is no European country (possible exception Belarus) NOT interested in business with the USA, political and economic partnership with the USA and co-operation with the USA. So that such an accusation against "parts of European politics" simply is unnecessary and astonishingly bad style, quite unusual for Tony Blair.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 6): His colleagues in other countries who acted with a clearer perception of reality and less submissiveness to the Bush administration and its empty propaganda.

Wow Klaus what insight you have, seeing all the things Blair is too blind to see... Well I think you have fallen for propaganda, but not the Bush kind.

Boaz.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 13): most if not all of the European governments certainly agree with him. There is no European country (possible exception Belarus) NOT interested in business with the USA, political and economic partnership with the USA and co-operation with the USA. So that such an accusation against "parts of European politics" simply is unnecessary and astonishingly bad style, quite unusual for Tony Blair.

The question remains, do they love America for its money, or for its partnership?

[Edited 2006-09-14 10:52:41]

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 15): The question remains, do they love America for its money, or for its partnership?

depends on whom we are talking about. In case of most of Western Europe it is the partnership, good business, good entertainment, etc. In case of many of the East European countries, many of the "willing 'new'" ones among them, and in case of many in the Arab World, Africa, Asia, it is the money.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 16): epends on whom we are talking about. In case of most of Western Europe it is the partnership, good business, good entertainment, etc. In case of many of the East European countries, many of the "willing 'new'" ones among them, and in case of many in the Arab World, Africa, Asia, it is the money.

I note that there is a faddish love of all things American in Asia, though. I've heard that they love the openness of Americans, even as compared to Europeans. A traveler to China who came back after a long trip told me recently: "The post-Communist part of China is like America." And he believed that we had a similar outlook on life: Continental in scope, expansive in ambition, relaxed in spirit, and completely unlike more insular countries, like Japan.

Sometimes I wonder whether it's just the money, or maybe they really do like us for what we're free to do. I prefer to think the latter, at least as to them.