Why do people accuse Blair of 'sucking up' to Bush?

It seems everyone hates Tony Blair, and the only reason people seem to be able to come up with for hating him is that "he's sucking up to Bush".

Could anyone please explain in what way he has 'sucked up'?

If 'sucking up' means backing up Bush's decision to go to war, why hasn't everyone else who backed the war (including Michael Howard, leader of the opposition) been accused of sucking up to Bush too?

If 'sucking up' means visiting world leaders and trying to strengthen our relationships with allied countries, why hasn't Blair been accused of sucking up to all the other world leaders he's visited? And how could standing by an ally ever be considered a bad thing (by anyone but a coward)?

I think this 'sucking up' notion is totally moronic. Blair is an honourable man who does not let pressure from other people influence his decisions. Over the past two years, he's ignored the wishes of the British public and put his career on the line — because he thought it was the right thing to do. If he was the sort of person who only wanted to be popular, he would have given in to all the pressure long ago.

 

amen to that

 

Amen indeed!

 

GO BLAIR!!! i've always been interested to see people to the unpopular thing just because they believe it's the right thing. it's so fascinating.

 

Well if your ally wants you to get your nation involved in a war that doesn't have anything to do with your people, that might not be good. Loyal, but not necessarily good. Only allied country that Blair strengthened his relationship with in supporting the war was America.

I don't exactly hate Blair, but I think he was a fool to support the war. What did Britain get out of it?

 

Such a selfish attitude!

The war wasn't about helping Britain, it was about helping Iraq. You may not give a toss about anyone but yourself, but most people in this world do care about others, especially when they are suffering.

If you must have a reason for the war though, here are four:

1. The war saved lives. In his 25-year reign, Saddam Hussein is said to have killed and tortured something like a million people, that's over 100 people killed a day. So, assuming he would have gone on killing at that rate, the war has already saved 40,000 lives in the last year alone.

2. Intelligence mistakedly reported that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and posed an immediate threat — that alone was reason enough to act.

3. The war rid the world of an evil and powerful man who was likely to have been a real threat to other countries in the future. He already had some weapons of mass destruction, and we know he was making more, and doing everything he could do to acquire nuclear weaponry.

4. The Iraqi people were living under a brutal dictatorship; Saddam ruined their country and drove the people into poverty while he led a life of luxury. The Irqai people wanted their freedom, they wanted Saddam out and they desperately wanted the war. There was no internal way for them to get rid of him. We gave them what they sought, and freed them. The people of Iraq will soon be able to regain control of their country and live in a free and democratic society.

 

Maybe it is because blair said : "Saddam Hussien has weapons of mass destruction that can be deployed within 40 minutes" that he is losing credibility, I dunno, not my country.

 

Look, I'm all for international cooperation and helping others. But those aren't the conditions of this war. Liberating and helping Iraq sure as hell weren't the driving forces behind invading Iraq. If they were, then we'd be leading a crusade to invade most of Africa and many of the Gulf States with whom we are quite chummy, business-wise. The US defied UN authority and invaded Iraq for its own interests. We have not really helped Iraq - instead we've made it into a massive power vacuum in the Middle East which is sure to embroil the region in even more turmoil. Blair should have known better than to get involved in something like this.

Hm, then perhaps we should get rid of Ariel Sharon while we're at it.

I don't doubt there wasn't alot of love for Saddam. But wanted the war? They sure don't act like they did.

 

In the run up to the war, I saw Iraqi people on TV shows giving their opinions, and they all said the Iraqi people desperately wanted the war (but nobody could talk about it in their own country or they'd be killed).

 

Those "Iraqi people" you saw spouting claims about what Iraqis wanted in the run up to this war were those exiles (aka the INC) who hadnt lived in Iraq for the past 40-45 years and have no relevance to the indigenous population nor their aspirations nor shared in their past 13 years of brutal suffering under US maintained sanctions.

Every talking heads show on mainstream media were touting these guys as credible witnesses to the political and societal reality on the ground simply because the White House wanted them at the forefront to form the vangaurd of whatever puppet government is eventually installed.

Their credibility over time has come to be seen by most political analysts (apart from the neo-con hacks directing US policy) the world over as completely duplicitous, self serving and unreliable. It was in fact these bozos (Chalabi and co.) who pushed the great "we know precisely where the WMDs are hidden" argument which Powell embarassed himself and the administration even further by so strongly advocating before the UN.

I would suggest you take whatever the INC tie and suit brigade claim with a mountain of salt, if you are wise.

 

The "sucking up" thing seems to come from the notion that Blair is apparently blindly following Bush's policies regarding Iraq and Afghanistan, despite public opinion in Britain that the "war on terror" is being prosecuted in an unwise manner - Iraq, in particular, was an extremely unpopular war for the British public. Despite this, Blair went ahead.


There's a case to be made that "we" are being used by America to further their neo-conservative interests. If it weren't for Britain, the USA would arguably have had no international support for invading Iraq. This puts Blair in a unique position - in theory he has the ear of the most powerful man in the world, but instead of using his position to temper the neo-con extremes of Bush policy, he blindly goes along with it all, despite in theory being ideologically opposed to a Republican government and the interests of the Bush whitehouse.

 

Such a mistaken attitude.

 

you mean like we did in Kosovo? What did we get out of Kosovo?

 

Europe and Nato defied the UN on attacking Kosovo..whats up with thats? It seems like NO one respects international law.

 

You're right, no one does, unless international law can be used to further one's own interests, as was done with Iraq. If the UN is to ever have authority, we strong countries need a willingness to defer to their authority, and not ignore it and say "well, the UN should be ignored because it's too inactive/weak/doesn't do anything." - read, "the UN doesn't obey us."

 

LickHerIsh said:

Who are you to decide which Iraqis are legitimate and which are not? Especially, who the fuck are you to say that someone who had been driven out of their home by a murderous dictator no longer can speak up about their country? Are Palestinians in Lebanese refugee camps no longer legitimate voices?

Apparently without your knowledge, Saddam's killing campaigns did not stop with the Gulf War. So while you, reading from your Chomsky script, may be unaware of anything other than "US" [sic] sanctions happening in the last 13 years, in actual fact Saddam was quite busy.

He started by crushing Kurdish and Shia uprisings in 1991, creating half a million refugees and killing tens of thousands.

Moving on, in one of the worst acts of environmental despoliation in history, Saddam ordered the Destruction of Iraq's southern marshes. Of the 500,000 Marsh Arabs, barely 10,000 survive in the remains of the wetlands. Saddam forced about 100,000 to flee to Iran. The rest were killed or displaced inside Iraq.

Then there was the business as usual repression an murder. Amnesty International reported last year that Iraq's prisons were among the world's worst and arbitrary killings were common. A "prison cleansing" campaign claimed 3000 lives in 1997 alone.

And you wonder why people left?

Here's a tip buddy - no matter how much Chomsky you read, it doesn't give your the right to decide which Iraqis are entitled to an opinion.


Note: quoted liberally from http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336894548.html?from=storyrhs

 

I don't think Blair is sucking up to Bush, i think he is just so intimidated by the US government he is willing to go along with anything they do, and hell, can you blame him? Look at what happened when the French questioned our policies, the US got their panties in a tangle and turned on them, they even changed the name of those TASTY fried potato snacks from French Fries to Freedom Fries!

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

If 'sucking up' means backing up Bush's decision to go to war, why hasn't everyone else who backed the war (including Michael Howard, leader of the opposition) been accused of sucking up to Bush too?

Many people have attacked Howard on that very fact, do you actually live in Britain? I now people from Devon and they haven’t mentioned a news blackout?

If 'sucking up' means visiting world leaders and trying to strengthen our relationships with allied countries, why hasn't Blair been accused of sucking up to all the other world leaders he's visited? And how could standing by an ally ever be considered a bad thing (by anyone but a coward)?

The French and Germans are also our allies and Blair has visited them many times, if it is cowardly to not stand by allies is he a coward for not standing with them?

I think this 'sucking up' notion is totally moronic. Blair is an honourable man who does not let pressure from other people influence his decisions.

Except if that person is Rupert Murdock maybe

The war wasn't about helping Britain, it was about helping Iraq. You may not give a toss about anyone but yourself, but most people in this world do care about others, especially when they are suffering.

If you believe the neo-cons were going into Iraq only to ‘help’ the Iraqi people then I think you are ill informed and politically naïve and would accuse Blair of the same thing.

1. The war saved lives. In his 25-year reign, Saddam Hussein is said to have killed and tortured something like a million people, that's over 100 people killed a day. So, assuming he would have gone on killing at that rate, the war has already saved 40,000 lives in the last year alone.

The thing is I have supported campaigns against Saddam for over twenty years, the problem is that when Saddams regime was at its most bloodiest, (the Iran-Iraq war, gassing the Kurds etc) that was just the time when the US and the other western powers were supporting him. In the latter part of his reign his activities although horrific were curtailed.

2. Intelligence mistakedly reported that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and posed an immediate threat — that alone was reason enough to act.

It wasn’t a mistake it was manipulation of evidence to make it look like an excuse to go to war.

3. The war rid the world of an evil and powerful man who was likely to have been a real threat to other countries in the future. He already had some weapons of mass destruction, and we know he was making more, and doing everything he could do to acquire nuclear weaponry.

He was still ‘evil’ when the west supported him and more powerful then.


4. The Iraqi people were living under a brutal dictatorship; Saddam ruined their country and drove the people into poverty while he led a life of luxury. The Irqai people wanted their freedom, they wanted Saddam out and they desperately wanted the war. There was no internal way for them to get rid of him. We gave them what they sought, and freed them. The people of Iraq will soon be able to regain control of their country and live in a free and democratic society

At the end of the Gulf War the Shia had revolted at the US president’s behest but it was then decided to abandon them just as they were winning. The US government gave Saddam the helicopters and amour to deal with the uprising. The US had a no fly zone in place they lifted it long enough for Saddam to crush the uprising then the US brought the no fly zone back into place. Many people believe these actions were taken because the US feared the a successful shia rebellion would have lead to a more pro-Iranian government, so the US preferred to keep Saddam in place.

 

Actually the no fly zones did not prohibit helicopters (under the terms of the Safwan ceasefire agreement) which is why they were supplied knowingly by Washington to assist in keeping the Shia down. In fact, authorisation for their use by the Iraqi military came directly from then Coalition Commander Gen. Schwarzkopf!

http://www.opendemocracy.com/debates/article.jsp?id=2&debateId=73&articleId=825

 

Ah the great helicopter conspiracy!

Yes, like everything else that has happened in the Gulf wars, the helicopters were allowed to fly as part of a carefully planned, top level conspiracy of senior US military leaders who knew that helicopters alone could change the course of history and prevent an Iran friendly government, which Schwartzkopf expertly predicted would come to power if Iraqi helicoperters could not fly.

Brought to you by www.halfbakedtheories.org