|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jaganath69
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:49 am Post subject: |
 |
|
McGarret
| Quote: |
| Oh, do explain in vivid detail how pragmatism is at work in this scenario and how Blair is indebted to the Thatcher era. And then, if you can get around to it, try to respond directly to the question posed. |
Pragmatism, self interest in international politics? My gosh, surely not as you paint your bitonal montage of the Labour Party being a bunch of peacenicks. As earlier mentioned, that party has supported various conflicts through the ages and in this case, again as stated by another poster, saw its interests being in maintaining the special relationship. But don't take my word for it, take this...
Prime Minister Tony Blair's involvement in the war in Iraq has damaged his standing at home (both in the country at large, and especially within his own party) and in Europe but will buttress the relationship at least to the end of his term in office due to the re-election of George W. Bush. When Bush first took office in January of 2001, it was predicted by some that Third Way/Clintonesque Blair and the conservative Bush would have little common ground but in fact their shared beliefs and responses to the international situation following 9/11 formed the commonality of purpose so important to the special relationship. Blair, like Bush, was convinced of the importance of moving against the new threat both perceived to international order. Warm personal relations apparently followed.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relationship#Current_status
And I am sorry, but if you can't detect the commonalities between Blair and Thatcher you've flunked poli sci 101 (I thought you were a PhD candidate?). The continued commitment to private ownership, personal endeavor, maintaining the pound, a healthy level of distance from Europe etc. You can read more on how the Thatcherite revolution in Britain shaped and influenced Blair,
here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3685881.stm
here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4335146.stm
and here
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1059-2092566,00.html
Good bit on his shifting views on trust schools and education in that last one.
As for answering the question, I'm not bound to since the original premises are so flawed and myopic it's not warranted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
madcap
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Location: Gangneung, Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why did Blair go along with the Iraqi war?
Well, despite what everyone says, it isn't because he is stupid. Yes, I know, I want to believe that both he and Bush are bumbling idiots who are easily fooled by misinformation. I mean, god, look at half them talk. It's the same stuff every time. The thing is, though, they know exactly what they are doing and they don't care if they come off as stupid because that makes it easier to explain when they screw up. DD suggested they are trying to gain control of the worlds resources. Bingo. Can anyone say BP and Mobile? That is why both men dragged their countries into this mess. Oil is running out and we want control of every drop that's left so that we can control the price and the longevity of American oil interests. Rah, rah, capitalism in one of its finest hours! Even wars can be bought and packaged (Warning: government not responsible for damage to industry, economy, or civilians. We reserve the right to refuse service.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
I cannot suggest an answer as I have little or nothing to contribute on a question treating Blair and London's motives for standing with America in the Middle East.
I am, however, glad they did. But we have stood together before and we will likely stand together again. So it does not come as a surprise to me.
Cheers to the special relationship. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:18 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
So you're applauding Britain for joining the US in a war you didn't support?
Interesting.
Actually, I think Gopher is is pointing out at least the public rationale given for that decision: It was at least in part to curry/maintain London's influence in Washington.
But Stevie, why did you address this thread to anti-war faction? You don't want pro-war individuals to offer their ideas? In fact, it would seem that you have an answer to this question, so why don't you tell us what it is? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
*I hold an MFA in Creative Writing, an M.A. in History (modern era), and a Ph.D in Applied Linguistics, all from top universities. Other than that, I don't know much, darn it. |
blah blah blah. we've heard enough about your degrees. not sure how a PhD in applied linguistics is relevant to the subject at hand either (or MFA in creative writing for that matter).
And why exactly should us "anti-iraq" people have an answer for this question?
As gopher said:
| Quote: |
| I cannot suggest an answer as I have little or nothing to contribute on a question treating Blair and London's motives for standing with America in the Middle East. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| So you're applauding Britain for joining the US in a war you didn't support? |
That is right. Especially as this contrasts with those other "allies" who would sneer, jeer, and generally kick us while we are down -- all the while calling it "friendly criticism" and then taking offense when Washington fails to single them out for gratitude as W. Bush did Blair in 9/11's immediate aftermath.
Also, you evince a deeply cynical take on the U.S.-British relationship. That is your prerogative. Do not present that as my view, however. You do not speak for me on this -- or much else for that matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Blair joined the US in the Iraq invasion because it was the right thing to do. The French stayed out from cowardice, profit motive and fear of having their past perfidies exposed.
The war, both in Afghanistan and Iraq, was needed as a don't screw with us message to the Islamic world. That being said the US under Bush has after the first 6 moths rather screwed up the war. It is still not to late to get it on track.
First of all let the Sunnis and the Shi'ites have it out, with the Kurds peripherally involved.
Ethnic "adjustments" will be necessary. The Kurds will kick the Sunni Arabs imposed on them out.
Then the US, Brits etc. can back off into secure bases and let let killing, or not, begin. It will be up to the two sides. Then just like in Germany and Japan, go back in after the bad stuff is over and help them rebuild.
It has also left the Israelis, by default, a much freer hand in dealing with the barned fool Palestinians. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| contrarian wrote: |
Blair joined the US in the Iraq invasion because it was the right thing to do. The French stayed out from cowardice, profit motive and fear of having their past perfidies exposed.
The war, both in Afghanistan and Iraq, was needed as a don't screw with us message to the Islamic world. That being said the US under Bush has after the first 6 moths rather screwed up the war. It is still not to late to get it on track.
First of all let the Sunnis and the Shi'ites have it out, with the Kurds peripherally involved.
Ethnic "adjustments" will be necessary. The Kurds will kick the Sunni Arabs imposed on them out.
Then the US, Brits etc. can back off into secure bases and let let killing, or not, begin. It will be up to the two sides. Then just like in Germany and Japan, go back in after the bad stuff is over and help them rebuild.
It has also left the Israelis, by default, a much freer hand in dealing with the barned fool Palestinians. |
You know what he forgot?
He forgot this!
| Quote: |
| The Brits wouldn't have gone to fight if it weren't for the Baathists, Bin Laden followers, and Khomeni lovers. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tiger fancini
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Location: Testicles for Eyes
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The Brits wouldn't have gone to fight if it weren't for the Baathists, Bin Laden followers, and Khomeni lovers. |
|
Ooooh now that rings a bell! Jog my memory, it's on the tip of my tongue.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
| contrarian wrote: |
Blair joined the US in the Iraq invasion because it was the right thing to do. The French stayed out from cowardice, profit motive and fear of having their past perfidies exposed.
The war, both in Afghanistan and Iraq, was needed as a don't screw with us message to the Islamic world. That being said the US under Bush has after the first 6 moths rather screwed up the war. It is still not to late to get it on track.
First of all let the Sunnis and the Shi'ites have it out, with the Kurds peripherally involved.
Ethnic "adjustments" will be necessary. The Kurds will kick the Sunni Arabs imposed on them out.
Then the US, Brits etc. can back off into secure bases and let let killing, or not, begin. It will be up to the two sides. Then just like in Germany and Japan, go back in after the bad stuff is over and help them rebuild.
It has also left the Israelis, by default, a much freer hand in dealing with the barned fool Palestinians. |
You know what he forgot?
He forgot this!
| Quote: |
| The Brits wouldn't have gone to fight if it weren't for the Baathists, Bin Laden followers, and Khomeni lovers. |
|
Where has Joo been? I miss him! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 6:59 pm Post subject: Re: DARE ANY ANTI-IRAQ WAR POSTERS TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
Why would Tony Blair, as the height of his popularity as British PM, in command of the Labour Party known for its pacifism and opposed ideologically to American conservatism, agree to let the UK armed forces join the coalition in Iraq?
|
Oh my god!
He was popular at one point and thus the invasion and occupation of Iraq was the right thing to do! To hell with the soldiers that are being stuffed in body bags daily. That's their job, after all.
Why didn't I see it this way before?
I was originally thinking Chairman Mao was a murderous douchebag, but since he was (And still is) so wildly popular in China, that TOTALLY justifies the invasion of Tibet.
Nor shall I continue to think poorly of popular leaders who invade other nations like Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, or Saddam.
Thank you Steve! All it takes is a different view on things.
Wow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:05 pm Post subject: Re: DARE ANY ANTI-IRAQ WAR POSTERS TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION |
|
|
| twg wrote: |
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
Why would Tony Blair, as the height of his popularity as British PM, in command of the Labour Party known for its pacifism and opposed ideologically to American conservatism, agree to let the UK armed forces join the coalition in Iraq?
|
Oh my god!
He was popular at one point and thus the invasion and occupation of Iraq was the right thing to do! To hell with the soldiers that are being stuffed in body bags daily. That's their job, after all.
Why didn't I see it this way before?
I was originally thinking Chairman Mao was a murderous douchebag, but since he was (And still is) so wildly popular in China, that TOTALLY justifies the invasion of Tibet.
Nor shall I continue to think poorly of popular leaders who invade other nations like Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, or Saddam.
Thank you Steve! All it takes is a different view on things.
Wow. |
Different board name. Different avatar. Same old William G. nastiness. Seriously, try reading steve's passage as a question. Do you have an answer or are you canadians so fixated on the u.s. that you can't think about the uk? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Care to point out where I mentioned the USA?
Regardless, Steve didn't pose a question, he laid down an unanswerable challenge. As was stated by others:
| Quote: |
| I cannot suggest an answer as I have little or nothing to contribute on a question treating Blair and London's motives for standing with America in the Middle East. |
Why not ask as why Saddam liked the Village People mustache while he was at it? We can't know the reasons.
And since Steve's "question" was worded with the implication that Blair, a popular leader, entered into an unpopular war, thus the war is justified. And for all of his PHDs, it was not only your typical right-winged debate framing, but also pretty ridiculous.
So my answer was ridicule. Which I've come to learn is the best way to view the right.
Personally, I think that if you guys who support the war would just admit that guys in camouflage gives you all a boner, you'd probably get less ridicule from a guy like me.
Last edited by twg on Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:35 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:22 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Where has Joo been? I miss him! |
The one and only Joo surfaced briefly around New Year's.
So don't fret, wannago, he's watching over you right now.
| Quote: |
| That is right. Especially as this contrasts with those other "allies" who would sneer, jeer, and generally kick us while we are down -- all the while calling it "friendly criticism" and then taking offense when Washington fails to single them out for gratitude as W. Bush did Blair in 9/11's immediate aftermath. |
If you'd care to elaborate on that, I'd be interested to hear.
| Quote: |
| Also, you evince a deeply cynical take on the U.S.-British relationship. That is your prerogative. Do not present that as my view, however. |
Well, let's say I'm a fan of the US-UK special relationship. If the one country I support makes the wrong decision about an invasion, am I supposed to be pleased that this other country I support followed along with this wrong decision?
You call that cynical? Deeply? I don't. I'd say that, if you support this special relationship, you should also support it acting responsibly. Not applauding one for following the other into a mistake.
There's nothing cynical about that. That's, to borrow a word, "realism".
| Quote: |
| You do not speak for me on this -- or much else for that matter. |
Did I ever say I did? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
twg:
| Quote: |
| Steve didn't pose a question, he laid down an unanswerable challenge |
It was posed as a question and if it is unanswerable, it only serves to confirm my long-held suspicion that the anti-Iraq war activists went all out bashing Blair without at least giving him the benefit of the doubt. In other words, they claim he was Bush's poodle, as if he couldn't or wouldn't think for himself. Yet evidently he must have given considerable thought to the matter before making his decision, given his political standing at the time.
| Quote: |
| And since Steve's "question" was worded with the implication that Blair, a popular leader, entered into an unpopular war, thus the war is justified. |
This syllogism is about as solid as paper-mache. 
| Quote: |
| To hell with the soldiers that are being stuffed in body bags daily. That's their job, after all. |
If you really believe this I can only say you are drowning in cynicism. And just how would you know it if Bush and Blair were anguished over the consequences of going to war? How presumptuous is that?
madcap:
| Quote: |
| DD suggested they are trying to gain control of the worlds resources. Bingo. Can anyone say BP and Mobile? |
Typical histrionic Marxist drivel; and anyone who uses DD to bolster their argument is really grasping at straws. If your line of thinking is correct, why did they wait so long to launch the Anglo-American invasion? And why not seize the oil fields after the first Gulf War. Your scenario reminds me of some IWW caricature of Western bankers in the 1920s. It's Mobil, by the way.
jaganath:
So how do you explain the huge rift in the Labour Party over the issue of going to war, much less the resignations and calls for Blair's ouster?
As for your poli sci spiel, of course British foreign policy is the result of a continuum of practice as some level. So what? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
