Americans: - Britain loyal friend or Insignificant other?

[Polwarth]

Blair is still PM because we have not had a general election since his lying about reasons for following the US into an ill-thought out campaign in Iraq.

Let's await our next GE.... His party has certainly bin gubbed at recent by-elections in the UK.

[Foxx]

Originally posted by Polwarth
Blair is still PM because we have not had a general election since his lying about reasons for following the US into an ill-thought out campaign in Iraq.

Let's await our next GE.... His party has certainly bin gubbed at recent by-elections in the UK.

I think its been well documented that neither Blair or Bush lied about the WMDs...The problem was with the intelligence people who because of lack of funding and silly restrictions imposed after the end of the Cold War did the best job they could have with what they had to work with.

If a person repeats something told to them by what they think is a reliable source that doesn't make him a liar.

I think in the next British General Election Blair will be reelected (As I perdict Bush will be in November) because the central issue in British politics is the war against terrorism and Blair is seen as a war leader like Churchill.

[ANDY-J2]

Originally posted by Foxx
I think in the next British General Election Blair will be reelected (As I perdict Bush will be in November) because the central issue in British politics is the war against terrorism and Blair is seen as a war leader like Churchill.
[/b]

Blair will certainly be re-elected but that shouldn't be seen as an endorsement of his policies-people no longer trust him as they once did.It will be as a result of his massive present majority.UK governments with overwhelming majorities tend to remain in power at the subsequent election albeit with a greatly reduced minority.Furthermore there is a lack of credible opposition as Michael Howard hasn't achieved the public support which one would have expected.In fact to put it in perspective a recent poll stated that the Liberal leader Charles Kennedy would make a better prime minister than Howard which is not what the Tories wanted to hear.

[Foxx]

Originally posted by ANDY-J2

Blair will certainly be re-elected but that shouldn't be seen as an endorsement of his policies-people no longer trust him as they once did.It will be as a result of his massive present majority.UK governments with overwhelming majorities tend to remain in power at the subsequent election albeit with a greatly reduced minority.Furthermore there is a lack of credible opposition as Michael Howard hasn't achieved the public support which one would have expected.In fact to put it in perspective a recent poll stated that the Liberal leader Charles Kennedy would make a better prime minister than Howard which is not what the Tories wanted to hear. [/b]

But most importantly the British public, like the American public, is uneasy about throwing out of office a successful leader in the middle of a war...it would be like in 1944 throwing Churchill out of office.

I realize that did happen in July, 1945, but the war in Europe had been over for a couple of months and the Pacific was basically an American show.

Unlike American Presidential elections, we do not get to vote for our Prime Minister. If we did, Blair would be dead meat, no question. Here we elect Members of Parliament and they choose the Prime Minister. Inevitably the choice is the leader of the largest party but, again, the electorate has no direct say in the matter. Political parties choose their own leaders.

Now, I know the US Presidential elections do not directly elect the President but the fact is the electors are voting for the candidate of their choise and those votes are then used to decide the make-up of the electoral college. There is no direct equivalent in Britain.

[heathen]

Bush is a right wing fascist scumbag and his supporters should get what they deserve,I would also like to add that britain contributing small forces to iraq is a pathetic way for britain to feel globally important again,

[heathen]

I also cannt belive people are so niaeve enough to think the threat of terrorism is higher than it was 10 , 20 , 30
years ago . Did it not enter their minds american and british propaganda has completely blown it out of proportion so that bush can flex his muscles and attack iraq for no reason after his humiliation at 9/11,
A merican and british airbases are built in uzbekistan a country with such a vicious , dangerous and evil dictator he would make saddam seem not that bad,But you dont hear them invading uzbekistan and heroically frreing the people cause they have made arm deals and such with him.
Saddam did NOT have wmd's and even if he did only an idiot would say he posed a threat to the west the man was not an idiot.