"If the US go to war, Blair will follow"
Sad, isn't it... One would expect a country's leaders to make independent decisions, not to leave the decisionmaking on whether to go along with something like that to other countries.
I'd say Blair is going to be remembered as another Anthony Eden if he keeps this up. (He's still ahead right now, since he at least appears to have genuinely believed the BS - Eden just wanted to teach Nasser a lesson)
Elections aux USA
-
Brass Monkey
There is a lot more going on than any one of us can see. Americans generally have no real allies, and putting America on the defensive will prove to be fatal for the attacker. The enemies of the western world are growing in numbers and cooperation, and I fear the day a true world way breaks out. Whether Bush or Kerry is elected does not matter, they will each deal with their problems in their own ways. What really matters is who America trusts as allies and who it accepts as enemies. Unfortunately, most Americans still believe Germany and France are true allies to America. Although this is a sweet thought, it is not exactly true. Britain remains allied probably only thanks to Tony Blair, which is not a bad thing. What America must do is strengthen its alliances with the strongest super powers of the world, the historically powerful countries. Britain, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, and Italy MUST remain allied to the United States in order to ensure proper maintenance of world democracy. The UN was a temporary fix and is currently insufficient.
I think this thread is about to go over the cliff...
I'm only going to respond to this bit:
"The UN was a temporary fix and is currently insufficient."
Like hell it was.
You might say that about Nato (which was formed to oppose the perceived threat of a Soviet push westward as you may recall), but you can't say that about the UN.
The UN security council is not there to be America's stooge, as much as US pundits would like it to be.
It's a forum for countries to attempt to settle their differences without bashing each other's heads in, which means it MUST remain impartial.
It also means that all countries have to be valued equally.
That does not sound like something meant as a temporary fix now does it.
It's by no means ideal, that's for sure.
But if you ask me, that's because of the veto powers of the permanent members of the council. Any timely UN intervention that might prevent the need for a later, military "solution" tends to be blocked by one of the permanent members.
And might I add that no country uses it's veto power more often than the good ol' US of A.
I'm only going to respond to this bit:
"The UN was a temporary fix and is currently insufficient."
Like hell it was.
You might say that about Nato (which was formed to oppose the perceived threat of a Soviet push westward as you may recall), but you can't say that about the UN.
The UN security council is not there to be America's stooge, as much as US pundits would like it to be.
It's a forum for countries to attempt to settle their differences without bashing each other's heads in, which means it MUST remain impartial.
It also means that all countries have to be valued equally.
That does not sound like something meant as a temporary fix now does it.
It's by no means ideal, that's for sure.
But if you ask me, that's because of the veto powers of the permanent members of the council. Any timely UN intervention that might prevent the need for a later, military "solution" tends to be blocked by one of the permanent members.
And might I add that no country uses it's veto power more often than the good ol' US of A.
-
Brass Monkey
"The UN was a temporary fix and is currently insufficient."
Not deliberately T101, but just like America's social security, it turned out that way. It requires reform. As does America. But ever since WWII its been different. America will never again NOT be such a major pain in the bum to the rest of the world. The UN was is an extremely noble idea and I think a step in the right direction. But as you said, it's by no means ideal. NATO, ah dont make me laugh. I personally wish we could return to the isolationism days, supporting our allies if were attacked, and forming new alliances whenever it would be beneficial for the group.
I am very sorry for pushing the thread nearly "over the cliff" so maybe it's time to get back on track
Not deliberately T101, but just like America's social security, it turned out that way. It requires reform. As does America. But ever since WWII its been different. America will never again NOT be such a major pain in the bum to the rest of the world. The UN was is an extremely noble idea and I think a step in the right direction. But as you said, it's by no means ideal. NATO, ah dont make me laugh. I personally wish we could return to the isolationism days, supporting our allies if were attacked, and forming new alliances whenever it would be beneficial for the group.
I am very sorry for pushing the thread nearly "over the cliff" so maybe it's time to get back on track
So I guess we're in agreement then. YES! Thread saved! 
Mind you:
WWI became a world war because of "true" alliances:
Austria wanting to beat up Serbia over the assassination - or at least with that as a pretext, Russia supporting Serbia, France's alliance with Russia, Germany's alliance with Austria, and possibly Britain's alliance with France. Though I'm not sure why the Ottoman empire was pulled into it.
And yet loose alliances and a weak proto-UN (Wilson's League of Nations) failed to prevent WWII. (I don't think you can call Stalin's secret deal with Hitler a real alliance).
Not sure which is better.
I don't think Nato is such a bad thing per se, but it should stick to its original mission: to protect its members from military threats. Projecting force is as much a source of new problems as it is a solution for certain existing ones.
Mind you:
WWI became a world war because of "true" alliances:
Austria wanting to beat up Serbia over the assassination - or at least with that as a pretext, Russia supporting Serbia, France's alliance with Russia, Germany's alliance with Austria, and possibly Britain's alliance with France. Though I'm not sure why the Ottoman empire was pulled into it.
And yet loose alliances and a weak proto-UN (Wilson's League of Nations) failed to prevent WWII. (I don't think you can call Stalin's secret deal with Hitler a real alliance).
Not sure which is better.
I don't think Nato is such a bad thing per se, but it should stick to its original mission: to protect its members from military threats. Projecting force is as much a source of new problems as it is a solution for certain existing ones.