It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Blair: U.S. Must Work With Rest of World

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   
In an address to the World Economic Forum, Tony Blair had some constructive criticisms to offer his counterpart in the US, George Bush. Citing the Kyoto Accord as one of the leading issues dividing the US from the Europe and many other parts of the world, he said that this was not an issue that was going to go away, and it was time to make a serious effort to cut greenhouses gases. Jacques Chirac also appeared, via video link, focusing mainly on global poverty, and made this statement, "The world suffers chronically from what has been strikingly called the 'silent tsunamis' - famine, infectious diseases that decimate the life force of entire continents."
 



cnews.canoe.ca
British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Wednesday the United States must do more to address the concerns of the rest of the world if it expects support for its own policies, and he cited global warming.

"If America wants the rest of the world to be part of the agenda it has set, it must be part of their agenda, too," he told the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum, a gathering of 2,500 world political and business leaders.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


At first I was surprised at the comments Tony Blair made. While I do agree with some of what he's said, it's unusual to hear him speak so bluntly about the US, but this may have something to do with upcoming elections. It is true though, if the US wants the rest of the world to work with them, they need to work with us, too. It's called diplomacy.

If the US govt does want to push it's agenda over everyone else's, then they have to accept the complaining that will go with it.




posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   
You can't reason with a wannabe Texan thats deals with Saudi Bin Laden group and the Carlyle group, he is someone that believes everything should be given on a Gold platter without working for it.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Even our greatest allie notices that bush if giving an image that he is in charge of the world and other countries has to bend to his wishes but he doesn't necessarily has to bend back.

Bush is becoming more and more the center of the world when he is just part of the world.

Well done Blair.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Even our greatest allie notices that bush if giving an image that he is in charge of the world and other countries has to bend to his wishes but he doesn't necessarily has to bend back.

Bush is becoming more and more the center of the world when he is just part of the world.

Well done Blair.


Well done indeed. Too bad Blair is Bush's Lap dog and just doing this to help save his own butt. If he wins the election we can expect a prompt about face IMO.





[edit on 27-1-2005 by Veltro]



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 04:56 AM
link   
if Tony Blair is true to his word, then he will go up in my estimation. Currently I believe him to be Bush's poodle and a traitor to the British nation.

Hopefully he will prove me wrong. If he does, I will personally send him a packet of Pixy Stix as a reward.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 04:56 AM
link   
And there we have it....

The first significant signs of a very uneasy Blair in Europe. His domestic position is also takign a significant beating.

Getting practical, IMO he will start distancing himself from any positive signs of a military srtike against Iran.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by dixon
Getting practical, IMO he will start distancing himself from any positive signs of a military srtike against Iran.


Jack Straw has already told Condi Rice that the UK will not be involved.
St raw tells US not to invade Iran



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 05:02 AM
link   
I think thats an unfair criticism of Blair. He, as Prime Minister of Britain, has to do whats best for the country both economically and in security. For him to thumb his nose at George Bush would NOT be in the best interest of Britain - simple.

He isnt a lap dog, he just does whats best for Britain. Its not easy trying to keep on both good sides of the US and Europe but I think he's done a good job. He'll be getting my vote.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
He isnt a lap dog


If he proves it by refusing to send more British troops to die for Bush, then I will change my opinion of him.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 05:10 AM
link   
Did that make Roosevelt Churchill's lap dog because he sent American troops into Europe in 1944? Not a great comparison I admit but being a lap dog implies that Blair is only doing these things to please George W. Bush.

That is part of it but its a means to an end. He's keeping George W. Bush happy BECAUSE its in Britains best interests. PM's cant afford principles when it comes to alienating the biggest entity in World politics. Its in Britains interest to have the USA as a friend and ally rather than a scorned acquaintance.

Which American said it so well? "He's a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch"



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 05:12 AM
link   
I read just yesterday (or the day before) that at a commons debate, when questioned point blank by an opposition member, Blair refused to rule out military intervention in Iraq.

Well, whatever it is, he seems to be moving away from warmongering and it remains to be seen, just how far this will impact on George of the Jungle's stance.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 07:00 AM
link   
You must mean Iran Dixon, no?



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 07:02 AM
link   
I believe Bush's goal is to work with the rest of the world.

One way or another.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Ok Ok. I admit it.

I meant Iran. Too late to edit post.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Pisky, I am afraid that I have some bad news for you.


An extra 220 British troops are to be sent to Iraq, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has announced.


news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   
IMO Blair means what he says.

He is trying to maintain the 'bridge' between the USA and Europe as he thinks - absolutely rightly - that it is in all our interests on each side of the atlantic.

I also think he believed, in good faith, the arguements regarding 'global terrorism', WMD's and fundamentalist regimes in the ME.
The difference between him and Bush being that TB understands that a peaceful settlement will not come without a genuine and just peace in Israel and that rampaging around the entire ME is not a great idea, there are other ways.

I think TB was 100% behind Afghanistan, rightly.

I think he was persuaded to go along with Iraq on the basis of what we now know was deeply flawed intel, but in good faith.

I also think that the UK forces are there now to try to leave the place with hopefully a semblence of hope, order and civillisation rather than handing the country over to the regressive fascists there.

Personally I am against the war and I think Bush deliberately went to Iraq for all the wrong reasons but I fail to see how TB acting in good faith makes him a "poodle".

(When Maggie agreed with just about every utterance ever made by Reagan in the 1980's was she being a "poodle" or merely agreeing with a view-point?)



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Is this part of a rotation ? Smoetimes, the reports just state that more troops are going but do not pay attention to returnees.

Apart from that, the elections are just around the corner. TB is committed one way or another to see this through. The need for more troops at this time makes sense if only to carry the elections through on a smoother path.

Interesting to see what he does after the elections and especially if he distances himself from any further opssible George of the Jungle conquests like Iran or Syria.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Good report Duzey. Thanks.

Blair is stating the obvious - but sometimes, that just needs to be done.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by dixon
Is this part of a rotation ? Smoetimes, the reports just state that more troops are going but do not pay attention to returnees.


No not a rotation of UK troops. They are being sent to replace Dutch troops leaving in March I believe.


An MoD spokesman said they would replace Dutch troops who are due to return home in March.


[edit on 27-1-2005 by Kriz_4]



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Well, if that's the case, then let's see just how quickly and how many British troops start coming home within the next two months. This will be the true measure of here TB is going with all this.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join