NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is Tony Blair supporting President Bush when Blair comes from the English Equivillent of the Democrat Party. I have a poll question on this matter.

When argueing your point please keep the rhetoric and name-calling to a minimum! Thanks!

Because the UK has been a traditional ally with the US, most likely the ties of English language are strong. Naturally the UK should be more interested to ally with European nations, which are closer and more important trade partners.

It could also be fair to say that England is still grateful for the US coming to their aid during WWII. That may not be true now as much as it may have been 20 or 30 years ago, though.

I think it's because of Blair's backround. He is extremely intelligent, but is also extremely religious. While he doesn't always agree with Bush on foreign policy matters, Blair knows where Bush is coming from, as they speak the same moral language. After all, currently, Washington is chocked full of religious and bright people. Of course, there are some big exceptions in even the White House itself. In fact, it runs all the way to the top.

Perhaps Blair was also mislead? Just a thought.

I think Blair is too smart to be mislead...If Blair is smart and was mislead by Bush, then wouldn't that mean Bush is also smart?

I would argue that it has more to do with an issue of finance rather than an issue of language or ideology or a combination of both. And my basis for the argument lies in the example of Canada. Canada is an English (and French)speaking country also with quite strong ties to the United States in terms of trade (NAFTA), however, Canada is staunchly unwilling to support the United States when actions are clearly questionable. Take for instance Iraq and Canada's refusal to send troops.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040314.wiraq0315/BNStory/Front/

It would seem, I believe, that the issue here would have to do with oil. the UK being islands and not having access to a natural source of petrolium where as Canada has vast natural resources. I would imagine it has a lot to do with scratching backs and oil. Though, I'm sure I'm missing some other things as well.

The US isn't exporting oil to the UK. I always thought that the UK got their oil from the same place the US does....Saudi Arabia.

The US isn't exporting oil to the UK. I always thought that the UK got their oil from the same place the US does....Saudi Arabia.

That's a majour misconception here. The United States actually gets the majority of it's oil domestically. A portion of it comes from the middle east, and not necissarily Saudi Arabia. the UAE, Quatar, Kuwait etc. And I didn't mean to say they export oil to the UK, but were the PM to back Bush, I'm sure bush would be more than willing to keep prices of oil in the occupied nations at levels the brits would want. That was my point.

That's a majour misconception here. The United States actually gets the majority of it's oil domestically. A portion of it comes from the middle east, and not necissarily Saudi Arabia. the UAE, Quatar, Kuwait etc. And I didn't mean to say they export oil to the UK, but were the PM to back Bush, I'm sure bush would be more than willing to keep prices of oil in the occupied nations at levels the brits would want. That was my point.
That is true, but most domestic oil in the US goes to the Stratiegic Reserve or else petrolium prices would be lower. However the US does depend too much on oil importation.

I would argue that it has more to do with an issue of finance rather than an issue of language or ideology or a combination of both. And my basis for the argument lies in the example of Canada. Canada is an English (and French)speaking country also with quite strong ties to the United States in terms of trade (NAFTA), however, Canada is staunchly unwilling to support the United States when actions are clearly questionable. Take for instance Iraq and Canada's refusal to send troops.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040314.wiraq0315/BNStory/Front/

It would seem, I believe, that the issue here would have to do with oil. the UK being islands and not having access to a natural source of petrolium where as Canada has vast natural resources. I would imagine it has a lot to do with scratching backs and oil. Though, I'm sure I'm missing some other things as well.

Interesting theory.. might just have some meat to it. I know that Canada deemed it against International law without UNSC approval, thus Canada didn't take part. Which does seem in-line, as Canada does have quite a few troops in Afghanistan.

Interesting theory.. might just have some meat to it. I know that Canada deemed it against International law without UNSC approval, thus Canada didn't take part. Which does seem in-line, as Canada does have quite a few troops in Afghanistan.
I think Afghanistan was clearly a more defined action than Iraq. Everybody knew who to go after and for what reasons in Afghanistan.

Surprisingly I one time agree with Gigatron.
It is the traditional British foreign policy since Churchill at least.
And with the end of the empire (directly following World War II) Britain is even more bound into the transatlantic alliance as the junior partner of the US. Cultural reasons do play a role though. Britain may be geographically a part of Europe but the attitude in Britain is "We are NOT the continent". Britain is Britain - that was traditionally the British policy. But with the end of the empire that didn´t work anymore. Since that was the case it was logic to intesify relations with the US, which is culturally in many ways more close to Britain than continental Europe.
Any British government would have acted that way.


And by the way: The Democrats also voted for the war (with exceptions I know like Labour). But the presidential candidate Kerry was a supporter of the war as well.

Surprisingly I one time agree with Gigatron.
It is the traditional British foreign policy since Churchill at least.
And with the end of the empire (directly following World War II) Britain is even more bound into the transatlantic alliance as the junior partner of the US. Cultural reasons do play a role though. Britain may be geographically a part of Europe but the attitude in Britain is "We are NOT the continent". Britain is Britain - that was traditionally the British policy. But with the end of the empire that didn´t work anymore. Since that was the case it was logic to intesify relations with the US, which is culturally in many ways more close to Britain than continental Europe.
Any British government would have acted that way.


And by the way: The Democrats also voted for the war (with exceptions I know like Labour). But the presidential candidate Kerry was a supporter of the war as well.
Kerry voted for the war, then voted against it. You have proved he "flip-flops."

And by the way: The Democrats also voted for the war (with exceptions I know like Labour). But the presidential candidate Kerry was a supporter of the war as well.

Yes and we all know now they were mislead and perhaps outright lied to. So, that argument is sort of moot.

Kerry voted for the war, then voted against it. You have proved he "flip-flops."
1) there are more than 1 version of a bill that go through congress
2) he doesnt agree with how the war was carried out

Most of the oil drilled in the states does not go directly to the strategic reserve. That's another misconception. The United States has 500,000 active wells in service which provide for most of the fuel needs in the United States. Importing is minimal. It's there - but the cathphrase "our dependance on foreign oil," has been used ad nauseum. Right up there with the word "terrorist." A lot is made of the importation of oil only because it's a way to give the public something to blame when prices go up. I'm not trying to be a leftist extremist here but the reserve can't keep just getting bigger and bigger. 500,000 active wells is more than enough. We do have some on store, but I think it's pretty static as far as size. The other thing is, by reviling a "dependance on foreign oil" the administration has planted the seed of Xenophobia. Something that fits in well with the current agenda...

It isn't only this administration. The oil crisis of the late 70s early 80s was caused by an embargo on the US by OPEC. Where was the domestic then?

It isn't only this administration. The oil crisis of the late 70s early 80s was caused by an embargo on the US by OPEC. Where was the domestic then?
OPEC tried a similar embargo in 1956 and 1967. However, the US had an excess production capacity of an additional 25%. It was used only in these events, to supply not only ourselves, but to supply our allies and flood the world market. However, by 1973, that production margin was only 10%, which was far less than needed.

It isn't only this administration. The oil crisis of the late 70s early 80s was caused by an embargo on the US by OPEC. Where was the domestic then?

Pretty good question. What one has to keep in mind is that for every economic problem there are two sides to the coin. One of demand: "The USA needs oil to make it's cars go 'vroom.'" and one of supply: "We need to have somewhere to get oil in order for our cars to go 'vroom.'" Some will remember that the 70's was a time of economic instability, weak energy policy, and VERY high consumption (a problem which still persists). The US had been cutting domestic oil production in favor of the (then cheaper) foreign oil. It came back to bite them in the butt, however, when arab countries began to get more and more angry over American support of Israel.

"It is important to emphasize that the energy crisis in the United States cannot be explained simply as the result of the political alliances. The 1973 oil crisis did not wholly cause the energy crisis, though it is important to understand its impact and its catalyzing component. Actually, many sources emphasize that the actual “crisis” in the United States stemmed more from our own domestic political and social circumstances than any single event that might have occurred overseas."

* Many people believe that consumption was the root cause of the energy crisis
* The crisis was essentially one of control: the result of over-consumption on top of flawed energy policies.
* U.S. policy flaws were recognized as a major cause of the crisis
* The Arab oil embargo alone was not the cause

The background leading up to it is important, too.

* U.S. oil consumption was high in the early 1970’s, while U.S. oil production declined
* In 1973, 36% of energy consumption was in foreign oil, while in 1970 it had been 22%
* The Nixon administration was in office, the Watergate scandal was at its height in 1973, providing limited strength in policy formulation, and little potential for an effective response to the oil embargo
* Arab-Israeli conflicts had already produced a growing tension between U.S. and Arab countries
* The OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) cartel led to rising gas prices in early 1970's

information from:
http://cr.middlebury.edu/es/altenergylife/70's.htm

and my own mind. lol.