UK once again the US' lapdogs

[The Don]

IMO Tony Blair was an effective politician who managed to reverse some of the worst effects of 18 years of Tory government. The biggest failure of his government was his blind following of George W Bush into Iraq.

It now seems that Boris Johnson is sending clear messages that we're willing to do the same thing again.

Boris Johnson says it would be very difficult for the UK to refuse the US if it asked for support in another military strike on Syria.

The foreign secretary said MPs would not necessarily have a vote on any proposed joint action.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39730685

Personally, I would be wary of this kind of support even if the U.S. had a functioning and rational President and administration. With Trump and the GOP in control, this is IMO very unwise.

 

[MikeG]

The argument goes that we can bomb the hell out of ISIS on one side of a line in the sand, but not on the other. The other side is controlled by a despot. In military terms it is a nonsense. In political terms it is a nest of vipers.

You did pick one particular Boris quote. Let me balance it somewhat:

Asked if the Commons would need to be consulted ahead of any military strike, Mr Johnson commented: "I think that needs to be tested.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

IMO Tony Blair was an effective politician who managed to reverse some of the worst effects of 18 years of Tory government. The biggest failure of his government was his blind following of George W Bush into Iraq.

It now seems that Boris Johnson is sending clear messages that we're willing to do the same thing again.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39730685

Personally, I would be wary of this kind of support even if the U.S. had a functioning and rational President and administration. With Trump and the GOP in control, this is IMO very unwise.

Once again suggests a period where we weren't.

Seriously, the sickening sight of Theresa rushing to the States to fawn over that clown they have elected says all you need to know about her. Her and Boris are a fine pair. Not an ethic between them.

 

[imodium]

t'other day the tories had a massive erection after fallon proudly announced they are prepared nuke someone preemptively, for what reasons he wouldn't say but it gave them a 4% bump in the polls.
Interestingly, those that decry Blair as a war criminal support fallon, and boris, and the recent bombing of Syria and Libya.
Remember though, Corbyn executed many acts of terrorism including two own goals for the IRA and a suicide bombing for Hamas, or something.

 

[McHrozni]

IMO Tony Blair was an effective politician who managed to reverse some of the worst effects of 18 years of Tory government. The biggest failure of his government was his blind following of George W Bush into Iraq.

It now seems that Boris Johnson is sending clear messages that we're willing to do the same thing again.

Following George Bush or Donald Trump are not the same thing. George Bush was a sub-par president, but he was at least someone who knew what the president was supposed to do in office. He knew what the problems were and made an effort to approach them, but he wasn't capable enough to approach them skillfully.

By contrast, Donald Trump doesn't know what the president is supposed to do in the office, he doesn't know what the problems are and consequently doesn't make any effort to approach them. Whether or not he would be able to solve them skillfully doesn't even enter the equation, and I suspect he would underperform Bush by a significant margin if it did.

In short, Tony Blair >>>> Boris Johnson.

McHrozni

 

[theprestige]

Following George Bush or Donald Trump are not the same thing. George Bush was a sub-par president, but he was at least someone who knew what the president was supposed to do in office. He knew what the problems were and made an effort to approach them, but he wasn't capable enough to approach them skillfully.

And for that he was unrelentingly reviled by the left. Rather than being given the benefit of the doubt, or granted some modicum of understanding, he was labeled "Hitler", and "chimpanzee".

Indeed, having witnessed the extremity of the epithets and ridicule hurled at George W. Bush, it's hard for me to see how there's any room left to paint Trump as somehow even worse. After you've called the previous guy Hitler, where do you go from there? Hitler 3000? Double Hitler?

I think President Trump has value, among other things, as a curse upon the hysterical left--the wolf come to terrorize the boy who cried wolf.

 

[Mycroft]

I just want to add that lapdogs are adorable and loving. On behalf of the United States, thank you, and consider this to be a scratch behind the ears and a rub on the belly.

 

[stevea]

Hmm - and according to some the US is Putin's lapdog - is it still turtles from there all the way down ?

 

[McHrozni]

And for that he was unrelentingly reviled by the left. Rather than being given the benefit of the doubt, or granted some modicum of understanding, he was labeled "Hitler", and "chimpanzee".

I actually liked the guy. I could never understand why the retards reviled him. His biggest mistake wasn't going to war in Iraq, it was to assume toppling Saddam was an end, rather than means of making Iraq a worthwhile country to live in. Had he made a strong commitment to nation-building in Iraq after the war things would be much, much different today.

McHrozni

 

[Giz]

I could never understand why the retards reviled him.

McHrozni

Because for some on the left (think Corbyn), the USA is the source of international problems , rather than the underpin of the international democratic order.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I actually liked the guy. I could never understand why the retards reviled him. His biggest mistake wasn't going to war in Iraq, it was to assume toppling Saddam was an end, rather than means of making Iraq a worthwhile country to live in. Had he made a strong commitment to nation-building in Iraq after the war things would be much, much different today.

McHrozni

That would probably have required giving a **** about the people of Iraq though and there you see why he might be reviled. Preemptively invading another sovereign country based on fabricated evidence would be another one. Torturing people. Guantanamo. Rendition.

You know the standard suite of anything goes because we are the good guys ******** that America lives to pull and Americans\wannabe Americans love to swallow

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Because for some on the left (think Corbyn), the USA is the source of international problems , rather than the underpin of the international democratic order.

That would be because they are a source of problems.

International democratic order is a fine way to put it. Three words which show where the us is sorely lacking.

 

[Giz]

That would be because they are a source of problems.

International democratic order is a fine way to put it. Three words which show where the us is sorely lacking.

Really? Here’s a few things off the top of my head that the USA contributed:

World Bank
IMF
UN
WTO
Marshall Aid
Peace in Europe
USSR not nuking China *
India and Pakistan not going all-out
… this list could go on and on…

If the US had followed a foreign policy like that proposed for an independent Scotland… the World would have been in a vastly worse state. An interventionist USA is the greatest blessing an ungrateful world ever received.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Really? Here’s a few things off the top of my head that the USA contributed:

World Bank
IMF
UN
WTO
Marshall Aid
Peace in Europe
USSR not nuking China *
India and Pakistan not going all-out
… this list could go on and on…

If the US had followed a foreign policy like that proposed for an independent Scotland… the World would have been in a vastly worse state. An interventionist USA is the greatest blessing an ungrateful world ever received.

Can't tell if you are serious but thanks for proving my point.

 

[Giz]

Can't tell if you are serious but thanks for proving my point.

Absolutely serious.

Tell me, from what date do you think the USA should have followed an isolationist foreign policy?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Absolutely serious.

Tell me, from what date do you think the USA should have followed an isolationist foreign policy?

Can you tell me where I suggested they should?

All I pointed out was the irony of your words when the USA is not particularly internationally minded nor is it much for democracy when it suits and it hasn't done a hell of a great job on the order front of late.

US foreign policy is about furthering us interests. No more no less. Don't try to dress it up with your exceptionalist bs.

 

[Giz]

Can you tell me where I suggested they should?

All I pointed out was the irony of your words when the USA is not particularly internationally minded nor is it much for democracy when it suits and it hasn't done a hell of a great job on the order front of late.

US foreign policy is about furthering us interests. No more no less. Don't try to dress it up with your exceptionalist bs.

However, those interests include facilitating peaceful trade, multilateral agreements and preventing large scale wars. Ask yourself when, in all history, has there ever been such a benign hegemon.

For consideration:

Truman
"the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures".

Eisenhower
"to secure and protect the territorial integrity and political independence of such nations, requesting such aid against overt armed aggression from any nation controlled by international communism"

Walter Scott
“For he that does good, having the unlimited power to do evil, deserves praise not only for the good which he performs, but for the evil which he forbears."

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

However, those interests include facilitating peaceful trade, multilateral agreements and preventing large scale wars. Ask yourself when, in all history, has there ever been such a benign hegemon.

For consideration:

Truman
"the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures".

Eisenhower
"to secure and protect the territorial integrity and political independence of such nations, requesting such aid against overt armed aggression from any nation controlled by international communism"

Walter Scott
“For he that does good, having the unlimited power to do evil, deserves praise not only for the good which he performs, but for the evil which he forbears."

Yep exceptionalist bs.

 

[ddt]

The argument goes that we can bomb the hell out of ISIS on one side of a line in the sand, but not on the other. The other side is controlled by a despot. In military terms it is a nonsense. In political terms it is a nest of vipers.

You did pick one particular Boris quote. Let me balance it somewhat:

Asked if the Commons would need to be consulted ahead of any military strike, Mr Johnson commented: "I think that needs to be tested.

I'm not sure what that adds to the quote The Don gave. I read it as: "I'm going to order a strike and then I'll see if Parliament complains".

 

[ddt]

I actually liked the guy. I could never understand why the retards reviled him. His biggest mistake wasn't going to war in Iraq, it was to assume toppling Saddam was an end, rather than means of making Iraq a worthwhile country to live in. Had he made a strong commitment to nation-building in Iraq after the war things would be much, much different today.

McHrozni

There also was the slight problem of justification of the war in Iraq. All the lies surrounding it. Trying to associate Iraq with Al-Qaida. The "Axis of Evil" nonsense. Oh, and the GWB quote "the constitution is just a scrap of paper" isn't very helpful either for his image.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, though, on the relative assessment of Trump and GWB.