The Bush effect

mkpdavies · 03-11-2004, 11:53 AM

It's started already!

Robin Cook, on Sky News has made the case for the EU providing a balance against the US now they seem to be going down a unilateral route. I can see this becoming more and more of battle cry from the Europhile camp.

It is a ridiculous argument, as they are on one hand saying all this power in one nations hands is bad, while at the same time trying to create an artificial nation with a dispropotionate amount of power itself! Surely this will only end in tears! The fact thet the EU is going to be a badly cobbled together sham, with little democracy and no real accountabilty is a very dangerous thing. Could we have war between the US and EU in our lifetime? I pray we do not!

We are caught right in the midddle of it with our strong links to the US and our locality forced links with Europe. At some point we are going to be made to choose sides, and I know which side Blair will want it to be!

We have to make sure we are a free independent nation, so that we can choose which route we take. I would hope Britain could refuse to get involved in a power struggle between the EU and the US, as I don't think there can be a winner.

Tom Wilde · 03-11-2004, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Robin Cook, on Sky News has made the case for the EU providing a balance against the US now they seem to be going down a unilateral route. I can see this becoming more and more of battle cry from the Europhile camp.

I agree that we are going to hear a lot of this argument in the coming days, weeks and years. Unfortunately, just at the moment I can't think of a good answer to it. I hope somebody else here can.

The problem is this: our futures mustn't depend any more on what the American voters do. We mustn't ever again be in a position where it matters so much.

This time our futures did depend on them. Firstly because Blair sucks up to Bush at every opportunity and will probably throw British troops INTO phpbb_more of Bush's wretched pre-emptive wars. North Korea anyone? Syria, maybe? Secondly the Bush administration doesn't negotiate with smaller countries - it just tells them what to do. If the EU was as big and powerful as the US, then the US couldn't just ignore it's views but would have to negotiate with it whether they wanted to or not. So no, I don't think that Cook's is a ridiculous argument. Actually, though, there is one weakness with Cook's argument. Just because the USA had to negotiate agreements with the EU, it wouldn't necessarily follow that those agreements were in the interests of Britain.

I think the only remaining chance other than throwing ourselves INTO phpbb_the EU's embrace is to:
(1) kick Bliar out at the next election - which means UKIP focusing primarily on winning votes from Labour rather than from the Tories. There may well be Labour MPs who have simply had enough of Blair and his lies but lack the stomach to join the Tories. We should recruit them. A coalition government led by almost anyone other than Bliar would pursue a line independent of the US in Iraq and elsewhere, and about time too.
(2) do what we can to support the United Nations. The USA will turn back to multilateralism in foreign policy one day. We need to preserve the structures until it does.

ldatakiller · 03-11-2004, 01:54 PM

In answer to Tom Wilde

One possible scenario is this.

Bush will continue in a similar vein to what he has done since 9/11, in that he will drive Iraq to Democracy by killing as many insurgents as he feels he needs to. This is not another N.Vietnam because they have lost over 1,000 soldiers so far & the American people still voted for him again. So this impies that they are happy (at least 50% of them are), to continue driving unilaterally to prosecute the so called "war On Terror".

Bush will NOT move INTO phpbb_Iran, Syria or anywhere else because he does not have the ground forces to prosecute a new battle front with ground forces.

On paper it looks as if he has lots of forces to spare, but don't forget that he has to keep some in Iraq longer than expected because he does not have the correct type spare & ready to go. He also has a very large amount of NON-full time military ground forces so he cannot continue to keep them away from home too long nor pay the large sums of money for them.
He has already asked Congress for billions & then gone back & asked for some more billions, so he does not have the capacity to keep doing this otherwise the Americian public will be hit by extra taxes to pay for it & he is a Conservative & hence a tax reducer, not increaser.

I suggest that he will keep the pressure up on Iran via the UN Council & push very hard for the French, Germans & Russians to keep on side & do what is necessary if the time comes. He will not go it alone again.

The only way Iran would be next for war would be if he (Bush), suddenly found he had his military freed up in Iraq if he was able to hand over full security to the Iraqi's. This will NOT happen for at least a year & by then Iran will be either resolved or find they have 130,000 American forces on their doorstep with both the will & the ability to go to war with Iran. Iran
will not allow that to happen because they have seen that the Americans will not bluff.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The thing we need to think about more than this "Regional" issue (Iraq), is Global Warming or whatever else you want to call it. My view is this:

American will not step away from oil usage in the near term but they are & will continue to spend very large sums on Fuel Cell technology & other cleaner options. WE in Europe must drive ahead with the G8 & others, to reduce our dependency on oil & other fossil fuels & hten this will give hte America public an option. At present they have no option because they have NEVER in their history, had a major issue on their own land (except 9/11 & the war of Independance. This means that they do not understand hardship & cannot think of giving up what they have until there are fully viable options that have been proven by use. So lets give them the options & get them off fossil fuels etc. It's nice to be in a position where we in the UK can help to push America the way we need them to go.
Imagine what we could do if we had a UKIP Government.

Well that's my view.

mkpdavies · 03-11-2004, 05:15 PM

I wouldn't be sitting to comfortably if I was in Iran right now. I think as soon as the "elections" are over, that will be a signal for the mass pull out of troops in Iraq, and it will be left to sort itself out, just like Afganistan. Iraq will then be used as a base to attack Iran, with the blessing of the US backed Iraqi government.

Don't forget, the whole reason Saddam was backed as a friend of the US was to help them destroy Iran. More unfinished business, that W will want to tie up.

Young Americans should also have an eye on their government. A number of bills are being looked at, for some sort of restoration of the draft. Now Bush has more power, he may well drive this through, provinding him with a lot more man power.

Perhaps I am over suspicious, but thats what being constantly lied to for the last 4 years does to you. What will be interesting is if Blair goes along with his puppet master or cuts loose.

Anthony Butcher · 03-11-2004, 05:32 PM

You will be able to see which nation, if any is next, by watching the news for the next few months. Bush, like Blair, has to win a certain level of popular support for a new war, and that will require a clear and present danger. If there is to be a new target, expect repeated news items about WMDs, human rights vioations, nuclear build ups, terrorism sponsorship and so on.

mkpdavies · 03-11-2004, 05:39 PM

I have already seen that for a lot of countries. However Iran is the one I keep hearing about developing a nuclear weapon. Afterall they can't be trusted not to use them, but we have the divine right to have them as we are Gods free children. :roll:

Oh and you are free to do what you want in the US, as long as you are not gay, or want to do anything that the bible doesn't aprove of. Did anyone see the BBC3 program about porn being banned in the states, if John Ashcroft has his way? The internet will suddenly become a lot less busy!

I hope I am wrong, I really do, but I think Iran will be under attack within two years.

C_steam · 03-11-2004, 05:56 PM

A minefield of a subject this, howevery my tuppenny worth:-

America was violated by 9/11, more than, perhaps, we as Europeans can understand - this was the first terrorist attack on US soil and the loss of life massive. Moreover, it happened in 'real time' - a nation watched as people jumped from the top storeys. This had a profound impact on the american physche.

In George Bush, they have a gung ho president, which tunes INTO phpbb_the red neck, Tom Clancy America. Bush is not frightened to get involved, where he believes it is in America's best interests to do so - and that means striking at those who support and harbour terrorists, mostly through intelligence operations and surgical operations (we can expect these, I think). What you are unlikely to see is another war.

The Iraq war took place for many reasons - not least to rid the world of a tyrant who gassed and tortured his own, and had the potential to rebuild WMD's in the future.

America has always been a trusted ally, a close friend and has supported the UK more than any other nation on earth. We should not forget this. Take the long view - Iraq colours our thinking currently but we should remember that the UK occupies a unique position geographically and in the hearts of the US people.

We are ideally placed to act as a trade frontier for the US INTO phpbb_Europe, and we are ideally placed to influence, to some degree (but much more than others) American actions.

Remember who your friends are.

Hypothetical poll:-

IF the UK could NOT remain as an independant nation and HAD to join a superstate - which one would you choose? EU or US? I rest my case.

mkpdavies · 03-11-2004, 06:12 PM

I agree that we are good friends with the USA and should try to remain so. However, we shouldn't given them our support if they are wrong. I don't care what anyone says, we were conned INTO phpbb_attacking Iraq. Saddam was not a problem when he was our buddy, helping attack Iran with weapons supplied by the US. We turned a blind eye to his tyranny, because it was in our interests.

They lied over and over again, and that includes Blair here, so it's not being anti-American. I just rememeber both of them telling the world that there was not a set plan for war (lie). That there was a clear and PRESENT danger (lie). That Saddam was best buddies with Bin Laden (lie). That they had WMD (lie) and that the Iraqi people were desperate for us to go in and save them, indeed we would be thrown sweets and flowers (LIE).

So how can I trust these same two "leaders" ever again? The American people have voted that they think Bush has done a fine job. I can't accept that. The whole neo-con agenda set out in the Project For A New American Centrury website, is being implemented bit by bit. The same people now have another 4 years to continue their objectives. If you had a friend, who turned INTO phpbb_a bully, would you

a) Help him beat the little kids up (Blair)
b) Confront him (Chiraq)
c) Or turn a blind eye

It's a tough choice, but I don't think helping to put the boot in is the right one!

C_steam · 03-11-2004, 06:19 PM

well, beating liitle kids up is now illegal, even if it's just a little bit and you are the parent

Anyway, my point is that I believe a further Iraq style conflict is unlikely (I'll take up the wagon wheel bet - and if I win I'll hunt you down and your family and your relatives and your friends like dogs until I get it :wink: ).

The UK can act as a catalyst for good as an independant nation and trusted ally of America - an 'elder statesman' role if you like. But Blair can't do it.

mkpdavies · 03-11-2004, 06:24 PM

I agree about Blair not being able to do it. I wouldn't trust him to do it either!

OK, if USA hasn't attacked Iran by 03/11/2006 I will mail you an orignal Wagon wheel! I hope that I do!

03-11-2004, 11:53 AM	#1 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,194 Party: Libertarian Party	The Bush effect It's started already! Robin Cook, on Sky News has made the case for the EU providing a balance against the US now they seem to be going down a unilateral route. I can see this becoming more and more of battle cry from the Europhile camp. It is a ridiculous argument, as they are on one hand saying all this power in one nations hands is bad, while at the same time trying to create an artificial nation with a dispropotionate amount of power itself! Surely this will only end in tears! The fact thet the EU is going to be a badly cobbled together sham, with little democracy and no real accountabilty is a very dangerous thing. Could we have war between the US and EU in our lifetime? I pray we do not! We are caught right in the midddle of it with our strong links to the US and our locality forced links with Europe. At some point we are going to be made to choose sides, and I know which side Blair will want it to be! We have to make sure we are a free independent nation, so that we can choose which route we take. I would hope Britain could refuse to get involved in a power struggle between the EU and the US, as I don't think there can be a winner. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

03-11-2004, 05:15 PM	#4 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,194 Party: Libertarian Party	I wouldn't be sitting to comfortably if I was in Iran right now. I think as soon as the "elections" are over, that will be a signal for the mass pull out of troops in Iraq, and it will be left to sort itself out, just like Afganistan. Iraq will then be used as a base to attack Iran, with the blessing of the US backed Iraqi government. Don't forget, the whole reason Saddam was backed as a friend of the US was to help them destroy Iran. More unfinished business, that W will want to tie up. Young Americans should also have an eye on their government. A number of bills are being looked at, for some sort of restoration of the draft. Now Bush has more power, he may well drive this through, provinding him with a lot more man power. Perhaps I am over suspicious, but thats what being constantly lied to for the last 4 years does to you. What will be interesting is if Blair goes along with his puppet master or cuts loose. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

03-11-2004, 05:39 PM	#6 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,194 Party: Libertarian Party	I have already seen that for a lot of countries. However Iran is the one I keep hearing about developing a nuclear weapon. Afterall they can't be trusted not to use them, but we have the divine right to have them as we are Gods free children. :roll: Oh and you are free to do what you want in the US, as long as you are not gay, or want to do anything that the bible doesn't aprove of. Did anyone see the BBC3 program about porn being banned in the states, if John Ashcroft has his way? The internet will suddenly become a lot less busy! I hope I am wrong, I really do, but I think Iran will be under attack within two years. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

03-11-2004, 06:12 PM	#8 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,194 Party: Libertarian Party	I agree that we are good friends with the USA and should try to remain so. However, we shouldn't given them our support if they are wrong. I don't care what anyone says, we were conned INTO phpbb_attacking Iraq. Saddam was not a problem when he was our buddy, helping attack Iran with weapons supplied by the US. We turned a blind eye to his tyranny, because it was in our interests. They lied over and over again, and that includes Blair here, so it's not being anti-American. I just rememeber both of them telling the world that there was not a set plan for war (lie). That there was a clear and PRESENT danger (lie). That Saddam was best buddies with Bin Laden (lie). That they had WMD (lie) and that the Iraqi people were desperate for us to go in and save them, indeed we would be thrown sweets and flowers (LIE). So how can I trust these same two "leaders" ever again? The American people have voted that they think Bush has done a fine job. I can't accept that. The whole neo-con agenda set out in the Project For A New American Centrury website, is being implemented bit by bit. The same people now have another 4 years to continue their objectives. If you had a friend, who turned INTO phpbb_a bully, would you a) Help him beat the little kids up (Blair) b) Confront him (Chiraq) c) Or turn a blind eye It's a tough choice, but I don't think helping to put the boot in is the right one! __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

03-11-2004, 06:24 PM	#10 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,194 Party: Libertarian Party	I agree about Blair not being able to do it. I wouldn't trust him to do it either! OK, if USA hasn't attacked Iran by 03/11/2006 I will mail you an orignal Wagon wheel! I hope that I do! __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

03-11-2004, 01:54 PM	#3 (permalink)
ldatakiller Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 25	In answer to Tom Wilde One possible scenario is this. Bush will continue in a similar vein to what he has done since 9/11, in that he will drive Iraq to Democracy by killing as many insurgents as he feels he needs to. This is not another N.Vietnam because they have lost over 1,000 soldiers so far & the American people still voted for him again. So this impies that they are happy (at least 50% of them are), to continue driving unilaterally to prosecute the so called "war On Terror". Bush will NOT move INTO phpbb_Iran, Syria or anywhere else because he does not have the ground forces to prosecute a new battle front with ground forces. On paper it looks as if he has lots of forces to spare, but don't forget that he has to keep some in Iraq longer than expected because he does not have the correct type spare & ready to go. He also has a very large amount of NON-full time military ground forces so he cannot continue to keep them away from home too long nor pay the large sums of money for them. He has already asked Congress for billions & then gone back & asked for some more billions, so he does not have the capacity to keep doing this otherwise the Americian public will be hit by extra taxes to pay for it & he is a Conservative & hence a tax reducer, not increaser. I suggest that he will keep the pressure up on Iran via the UN Council & push very hard for the French, Germans & Russians to keep on side & do what is necessary if the time comes. He will not go it alone again. The only way Iran would be next for war would be if he (Bush), suddenly found he had his military freed up in Iraq if he was able to hand over full security to the Iraqi's. This will NOT happen for at least a year & by then Iran will be either resolved or find they have 130,000 American forces on their doorstep with both the will & the ability to go to war with Iran. Iran will not allow that to happen because they have seen that the Americans will not bluff. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The thing we need to think about more than this "Regional" issue (Iraq), is Global Warming or whatever else you want to call it. My view is this: American will not step away from oil usage in the near term but they are & will continue to spend very large sums on Fuel Cell technology & other cleaner options. WE in Europe must drive ahead with the G8 & others, to reduce our dependency on oil & other fossil fuels & hten this will give hte America public an option. At present they have no option because they have NEVER in their history, had a major issue on their own land (except 9/11 & the war of Independance. This means that they do not understand hardship & cannot think of giving up what they have until there are fully viable options that have been proven by use. So lets give them the options & get them off fossil fuels etc. It's nice to be in a position where we in the UK can help to push America the way we need them to go. Imagine what we could do if we had a UKIP Government. Well that's my view.

03-11-2004, 05:32 PM	#5 (permalink)
Anthony Butcher Administrator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Long Ashton, Bristol Posts: 10,209 Party: None	You will be able to see which nation, if any is next, by watching the news for the next few months. Bush, like Blair, has to win a certain level of popular support for a new war, and that will require a clear and present danger. If there is to be a new target, expect repeated news items about WMDs, human rights vioations, nuclear build ups, terrorism sponsorship and so on.

03-11-2004, 05:56 PM	#7 (permalink)
C_steam Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Paddling up 5hit creek..... Posts: 7,805	A minefield of a subject this, howevery my tuppenny worth:- America was violated by 9/11, more than, perhaps, we as Europeans can understand - this was the first terrorist attack on US soil and the loss of life massive. Moreover, it happened in 'real time' - a nation watched as people jumped from the top storeys. This had a profound impact on the american physche. In George Bush, they have a gung ho president, which tunes INTO phpbb_the red neck, Tom Clancy America. Bush is not frightened to get involved, where he believes it is in America's best interests to do so - and that means striking at those who support and harbour terrorists, mostly through intelligence operations and surgical operations (we can expect these, I think). What you are unlikely to see is another war. The Iraq war took place for many reasons - not least to rid the world of a tyrant who gassed and tortured his own, and had the potential to rebuild WMD's in the future. America has always been a trusted ally, a close friend and has supported the UK more than any other nation on earth. We should not forget this. Take the long view - Iraq colours our thinking currently but we should remember that the UK occupies a unique position geographically and in the hearts of the US people. We are ideally placed to act as a trade frontier for the US INTO phpbb_Europe, and we are ideally placed to influence, to some degree (but much more than others) American actions. Remember who your friends are. Hypothetical poll:- IF the UK could NOT remain as an independant nation and HAD to join a superstate - which one would you choose? EU or US? I rest my case.

03-11-2004, 06:19 PM	#9 (permalink)
C_steam Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Paddling up 5hit creek..... Posts: 7,805	well, beating liitle kids up is now illegal, even if it's just a little bit and you are the parent Anyway, my point is that I believe a further Iraq style conflict is unlikely (I'll take up the wagon wheel bet - and if I win I'll hunt you down and your family and your relatives and your friends like dogs until I get it :wink: ). The UK can act as a catalyst for good as an independant nation and trusted ally of America - an 'elder statesman' role if you like. But Blair can't do it.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode