Tony Blair Tells Europe to Quit Begging the U.S. for Help

This should not be turned into an anti U.S or anti E.U debate but actually discuss whether Blair has a point and imo he has.
With Nato being largely ineffective is it time for the EU to start up it's own defense force that would deal with these types of issues?

I think it should because with an aggressive Russia on it's doorstep if the U.S doesn't want to get involved, what options do we have? None really. So I do think we should have an EU military presence that is able to respond to threats from the likes of Russia or China.

At the moment I think the way Putin is running his country by promoting the were on our own mentality within Russia and his approval rating being very high, it's very similar to Hitler before WW2. We also know fascism is alive and well in Russia.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Ok you have Israel and Saudi Arabia but they are in the US circle of friends for there OWN selfish gains and will stab the USA in the back at the slightest chance.

China is now the Saudis biggest oil customer. I wouldn't rely on them for squat. Not to mention the Saudis part in all the sectarian fun and games in Iraq/Syria etc.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Exactly.

Only friends Id trust is the UK (along with New Zealand, Canada and Australia), France, Japan and South Korea. Maybe Poland and the Scandinavian states too. All have shared history and all have shared goals along with pretty much integrated military with each other.

You just have many country's in Europe, it's not like the US (not yet...) and I hope it stays that way. We need an EU president then and country's willing to give more power (& becoming states rather then country's) to the EU, then the EU can be more like the US but I'm not happy about that if that would happen...
You want a very powerful EU, another US where voting seems even more like pointless?

If it wasn't for the EU expansion drift we most likely didn't have this Ukraine splitting/chaos/war going on.. and who knows a WWIII later on.

a reply to: crazyewok

I'd be a BIG liar if I said I wasn't happy with the recent turn of events in Japan, it's a long way since WW2 and we need whatever help we can get. Not long ago if you threw Japan into that statement i'd have said "great the troops will have a good time on shore leave"

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: SLAYER69

Exactly.

Only friends Id trust is the UK (along with New Zealand, Canada and Australia), France, Japan and South Korea. Maybe Poland and the Scandinavian states too. All have shared history and all have shared goals along with pretty much integrated military with each other.

I'm just curious. Will this 'Friends" list of yours change when China starts flexing it's muscle and the US steps in on it's 'Friends' behalf?

Russia acts out and the US is seen as the bad guy.

When/if China acts out the US will be seen as?

a reply to: beezzer

I understand what Blair is saying but i don't really think it is that simple - we have had 70 years of tying together nations through various institutions. When you add in how interconnected the world is these days, it makes it even more complicated.

Unfortunately for the US, its position as sole global superpower (at the moment) means it is kinda the de facto 911 for the world (even though this rankles within the US and the rest of the world). If it doesn't take this position seriously then there is a very large and real potential that the USA will lose serious sway globally - kind of a catch 22 position.

Where Blair is correct is that Europe needs to get its house in order and to stop relying on US military and economic help. Europe is a big boy and the traditional big player. Frankly, we should be more than capable of dealing with things ourselves. The fact that we aren't is also largely down to US restructuring after the Second World War (and that isn't a dig at America by the way, more a reflection on the knock on effects of the way the Marshall Plan was implemented and the "hangovers" that resulted) - it helped to rebuild German industry and, basically, screwed the rest of Europe.

Europe's biggest problem, as i see it, is that whilst the EU is a great idea, as soon as things start going bad then everyone reverts to national identity (ie, Greeks see Germans as Nazi's, etc whilst we Brits see ourselves as almost a separate race of people!). Until we all start to pull in the same direction we will remain individually too weak for the global game. So, for example, whilst the UK would have no problem swatting aside Brazilian issues, we would be wary of that approach with China - this is where the US comes in......

a reply to: Flavian

I'd agree if we had strong leadership.

But we don't.

On the news this morning, it was pointed out that the US government responded to the petition to build a Death Star quicker than the petition to do something about a jailed Marine in Mexico.

Our foreign policy is one of reacting to crises with empty speeches and red lines. If I were a European leader, I'd not be looking for the US to do anything substantial.

originally posted by: SLAYER69



I'm just curious. Will this 'Friends" list of yours change when China starts flexing it's muscle and the US steps in on it's 'Friends' behalf?

Russia acts out and the US is seen as the bad guy.

When/if China acts out the US will be seen as?

If the USA is ever attacked by another nation (Not the attacker) I will standby you guys in what ever capacity I can.
Same with Canada Australia and New Zeeland.

If the USA is the aggressor? Then no.

a reply to: crazyewok

That wasnt what I asked but ok....

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: beezzer
I would be interested to see a valid argument "FOR" US intervention in Europe.

Lately, it seems that we can't even take care of our own domestic messes. What valid reason would we have to interfere with another country's issue?

Thanks for the replies, gentlemen.

America is a member of NATO is it not? If so, then it has responsibilities as do the other members.

If Blair had said America should remove their interests in Israel it would be a more valid point (whether I agree with it or not).

Should the US remove itself from NATO then? If not, then what responsibilities does the US have that, say Belgium, doesn't have?

It doesn't really work like that. Reading the link provided in the OP it's not totally clear what action Blair is suggesting has been asked of America and why it shouldn't have been asked. Believe it or not, Belgium cannot tell other EU countries to take military action against another country, but I guess the EU government could call on each member country to apply sanctions.

I do find this all a bit rich when it was Bush Jr who asked the UK to stand by America in Gulf War 2 and regardless of whether the UK population agreed or not with that, Blair did what was asked of him..... now he seems to be suggesting a quid pro quo situation shouldn't be discussed - even if it is Russia that is the aggressor?

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: crazyewok

That wasnt what I asked but ok....

Well the UK/Australia/New Zealand group cant afford not to back the US up. And Japan and south Korea wont likley have a choice as they will likely be at the centre of trouble.

originally posted by: mclarenmp4
This should not be turned into an anti U.S or anti E.U debate but actually discuss whether Blair has a point and imo he has.
With Nato being largely ineffective is it time for the EU to start up it's own defense force that would deal with these types of issues?

I think it should because with an aggressive Russia on it's doorstep if the U.S doesn't want to get involved, what options do we have? None really. So I do think we should have an EU military presence that is able to respond to threats from the likes of Russia or China.

At the moment I think the way Putin is running his country by promoting the were on our own mentality within Russia and his approval rating being very high, it's very similar to Hitler before WW2. We also know fascism is alive and well in Russia.

While I agree with a lot of your points, why should there be a European Army? Does North America share an army with Canada and every South American country? Why not? It's the same thing.

a reply to: beezzer

Tony "peace envoy" Blair said that.......

originally posted by: EA006
a reply to: beezzer

Tony "peace envoy" Blair said that.......

The irony right?
Making Tony Blair peace envoy is like making Charlie sheen head of Drug addicts anonymous

originally posted by: SLAYER69

originally posted by: crazyewok
Plus what would you suggest by involved? A full scale war with Russia is a definite NO NO.

Russia getting in a full scale war with NATO/US is a bigger NO NO.

The point I'm trying make is that what's the point of being a part of an organization that wont honor their agreements? The Ukraine gave up their nukes in exchange for a security arrangement with the West.

That fell flat on it's face for various reasons....

Ukraine got no security guarantees when it gave up its nukes beyond the signatories would call a UN security council meeting if Ukraine was attacked or thearened with a nuclear weapon. The agreement also said the signatories would respect Ukraines territory something one could argue Russia has broken but, the only thing required is that the signatories meet and discuss the issue. When this was being worked on under Bush Sr and Clinton Congress said they would not approve the treaty if it had any security or military clauses. So none were included. Not that Ukraine was asking for any as Russia was a best friend at the time and so was NATO.

As for the US and Europe? The US is of course by far the most powerful miltary and economic power on Earth so of course Europe having the US on call for problems allows them to spend less on defense.

So what does the US get? Lack of world wars. Lets face it a US withdrawl and Europe rearming is most likely going to lead to problems down the road. That goes for most of the world.

From a historical context Right now the US more dominate than at any other time in its history. US enemies are isolated and weak. The US economy even in recovery is still completely dominate and as China falters seems poised to remain so. And as we have recenly learned most of the world trust the US as a global leader something that it had lost after the Iraq invasion.

What do the EU and US get from working with each other? Only the most peaceful time in human history.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Flavian

I'd agree if we had strong leadership.

But we don't.

On the news this morning, it was pointed out that the US government responded to the petition to build a Death Star quicker than the petition to do something about a jailed Marine in Mexico.

Our foreign policy is one of reacting to crises with empty speeches and red lines. If I were a European leader, I'd not be looking for the US to do anything substantial.

That's a problem that pretty much every nation (except your North Korea's, Myanmar, etc) suffers from these days and i honestly believe that social media and rolling 24 hour news are to blame. Everything has to be instant. People don't seem to understand anymore that policies take years to roll out and actually gain results. These days, we see that something isn't working instantly and we demand changes to be made, instead of actually giving something a chance. The net result? More rushed policies that won't work anyway and will be changed regardless.

Why put the effort into formulating a policy that will be changed when you can get instant media back slapping by lending your name to a Death Star petition? And that sentence right there is exactly what is wrong with the modern world we live in. It does make me worry for the future in that everything is geared towards tomorrow rather than towards 10 years from now or for the next generation. Surely that is what every responsible should do? You don't act for yourselves, you act for your future...........

originally posted by: MrSpad

So what does the US get? Lack of world wars. Lets face it a US withdrawl and Europe rearming is most likely going to lead to problems down the road. That goes for most of the world.

According to many here (Not me) that's just American jingoist nationalism speaking. Having said that. Let the EU do it's own thing. It costs us a pretty penny and what do we get in return? Scorn and being ridiculed.

From a historical context Right now the US more dominate than at any other time in its history.

The Carthaginians once believed as you do.

ok im english and im on the russian side ,u.s.a should pull out of europe immediately ,,any attempt by the uk to go against russia would cause outrage ,,russia is not the agressor do your home work,blair is right,also stop forcing the world to use the petrol dollar its stupid it makes no sense ,i come from a military family but if the uk went to war against russia im signing up on the russian side and will attack from within

originally posted by: SLAYER69
. It costs us a pretty penny and what do we get in return? Scorn and being ridiculed.

And a friendly, mostly stable trading parter,

Sure some in Europe may scorn you. But sticks and stones and all that right?

USA does a dam lot of trade with the EU and stable EU is good for the USA.

EU going down the crappier? That leaves you will less than friendly nations as your main trade parters and "friends".
China are not the US friends. Nor is India by the looks of it.

Sure I agree the EU should pick up more of the slack defence spending wise.
But the USA should not go full isolationists as that has never ended well for the USA has it? Fact is the USA will be pulled into a global war like it or not. So may as well stay prepared for that then get caught with its pants down like WW2.


The problem with the USA is went too far the other way like in Iraq and the ME, it got TOO involved. Hence the scorn

The USA needs to get the balance right. Not too isolationist and not too interfering.
Basically it needs to be on a more defensive role rather than attack.

To but it more simply.

Going round attacking nations like Iraq in first strike operations = BAD =scorn

Setting up defensive bases and missile defences = good