China seals oil deal with Chavez

[Martino]

Originally Posted by SunWuKong

Martino - i know you might be feeling ganged up on here at an American forum,

It's the 'in' thing.

Originally Posted by SunWuKong

but i do have to wonder, would the UK be as influential in the EU as it currently is without being such a close ally to the US?

The UK would probably be more influential if its links to the US were lessened, given the cult of anti-Americanism in Europe today. As it is, Britain is undeniably a country with a strong economy and an influential voice in Europe and elsewhere. In many ways it straddles the Atlantic, orbiting both the EU and US, and investing heavily in both.

Along with the French and the Germans, the UK has shaped modern Europe through investment and political union. Britain is a major player in the international economy too; it is part of the EU trading bloc, but has strong trade links with the US and the Pacific Rim, growing links with China - and globally it remains in a strong position within the Commonwealth of Nations (an accidental product of the British Empire).

All this highlights one simple fact: the UK isn't some isolated island nation that is being sponsored or supported by the US. Nor does it exist to do the US's bidding. The UK is a major global trading nation with links throughout the world; it is a huge global outward investor, and is a magnet for European, Chinese and Japanese investment, and in fact has many points of conflict with the US.

Britain's strength, in trade, and in technology transfer, can in no way be attributable to America, with which it really has few shared interests - even militarily. No British troops went to Vietnam; the US invaded Grenada despite protestations from the Thatcher government; the US opposed the Anglo-French invasion of Egypt. So, without all that, comments that the UK is the 'lapdog' of the Americans really boils down to an overused left-wing sensationalist tabloid term, an over-simplified piece of national stereotyping.

And we don't encourage national stereotyping in YW, do we?

[otter p.]

Yada, yada, yada.

I could also highlight Japan's trade and economy.

But, you still haven't answered why Britain went along with the US into an illegal invasion of Iraq if it knew that it was a bad idea.

It could be either two things

1) The UK really believed all those lies Bush was selling to the public about how dangerous Iraq was- WMDs, Al-Queda, etc..

OR

2) It knew it was a bad idea, but along with it anyways to make Bush happy.

Which one is it?

Sure, there are a few isolated instances where the UK didn't slavishly follow America's lead in its junior partnership role. But, those were mostly minor ones where it didn't really concern America.

And, its not just the left that's been critical of how Blair has bowed and acquiesed to all of Bush's demands. The Tory party has called the relationship 'slavish':

Tory Denounces Blair’s ‘Slavish’ Tie to U.S.

By ALAN COWELL
Published: September 12, 2006

LONDON, Sept. 11 — In his first major foreign policy address, David Cameron, the leader of Britain’s opposition Conservatives, sought Monday to distance his party from what he called a “slavish” bond established between Britain and the United States by Prime Minister Tony Blair.

At the same time, though, he asked his audience of several hundred bankers and policy experts in London’s financial district to bow their heads in silence during his speech at the moment when the first hijacked plane slammed into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

Mr. Cameron is the main opposition contender likely to challenge whoever takes over the governing Labor Party from Mr. Blair, who has promised to quit within a year. His remarks seemed intended to sharply demarcate his foreign policy from that of Mr. Blair, for whom the war in Iraq and his ties with President Bush have proved politically ruinous.

His remarks — by a Conservative accusing a Labor leader of being too far to the right — showed just how far the British political spectrum has shifted since the end of the cold war and, particularly, since Mr. Blair’s rise to power in 1997.

The speech was also intended to draw a line under previous Conservative policy. Mr. Cameron himself supported the Iraq invasion in 2003, but a senior Conservative, who spoke on the condition of anonymity under party rules, said: “We don’t want to have an endless fight about what happened three or four years ago. This is about the next 10 years.”

Mr. Cameron, 39, a former public relations executive who took over the Conservative leadership last December, assailed what he described as American neoconservatism and Mr. Blair’s close alliance with the White House, which has encouraged British critics to label their prime minister America’s “poodle.”

But, he said, “I and my party are instinctive friends of America and passionate supporters of the Atlantic Alliance.”

Mr. Cameron said there had been mixed success by Britain and the United States in curbing terrorism since the Sept. 11 attacks. A terrorist attack on the same scale had been averted, he said, but “across the globe, terrorists are being recruited in increasing numbers and are active in many more areas than before Sept. 11.” Anti-Americanism had taken hold, he said, “not just in countries affected by war and instability, but here in the West, here in Britain.”

He urged development of “a foreign policy that goes beyond neo-conservatism, retaining its strengths but learning from its failures.”

“We will serve neither our own, nor America’s, nor the world’s interests, if we are seen as America’s unconditional associate in every endeavor,” he said. “Our duty is to our own citizens, and to our own conception of what is right for the world. We should be solid but not slavish in our friendship with America.”

The gibe was clearly aimed at Mr. Blair, who faced hostile protesters in Lebanon on Monday because of his support for the American and Israeli positions during the Lebanon war.

Senior Conservatives acknowledged that Mr. Cameron seemed to be positioning himself for a post-Bush White House. “He’s unlikely to be prime minister when George Bush is president,” the Conservative official said. Britain’s next general election is due some time before 2010, probably long after the 2008 American presidential vote.

Before his speech, Mr. Cameron met with Robert H. Tuttle, the American ambassador, and asked him to “take the speech as a whole and not bits and pieces of it,” said David T. Johnson, the deputy chief of mission, the No. 2 diplomat at the American Embassy. “Some of the things we disagree with,” Mr. Johnson said in an interview, singling out a reference in the text of the speech to “illiberalism,” referring to repressive behavior at the American detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

But, he said, “I take him at his word that he did not intend it to be anything other than pro-American.”

Much of the speech seemed intended for a British rather than an American audience, Mr. Johnson said. For instance, in the address, Mr. Cameron said that Mr. Blair had “lost the art” familiar to British leaders going back to Winston Churchill of effectively playing what he called the junior partner in the so-called “special relationship” with Washington.

“I fear that if we continue as at present we may combine the maximum of exposure with the minimum of real influence over decisions,” Mr. Cameron said.

He assailed Mr. Blair’s and Mr. Bush’s view of the effort to prevent terrorism, saying he was “skeptical of grand schemes to remake the world” and asserting that Western policy had lacked “humility and patience.”

He also attacked the notion that counterterrorism was “a single struggle between single protagonists.’’

“The danger is that by positing a single source of terrorism — a global jihad — and opposing it with a single global response — American-backed force — we will simply fulfill our own prophecy.”

George Osborne, a senior Conservative official, said in an interview: “He talks about the future. Most of the speech is about the future and how we get beyond neo-conservatism.”

[Yeahman]

The US is just in a stronger bargaining position than the UK so we can demand a lot from them. But I doubt this war was one of them. I think Blair's a neo-con who really believes in the righteousness of his actions.

[Martino]

Originally Posted by otter p.

Yada, yada, yada.

That's the most intelligent thing you've said since you joined the board.

Originally Posted by otter p.

I could also highlight Japan's trade and economy.

Are you saying the Japanese are the lapdogs of the Americans now?

Originally Posted by otter p.

But, you still haven't answered why Britain went along with the US into an illegal invasion of Iraq if it knew that it was a bad idea.

Maybe I didn't answer because that wasn't the fucking question?

[otter p.]

Originally Posted by Martino

That's the most intelligent thing you've said since you joined the board.

And, yet, its still more intelligent than the stuff I've read you post- the rambling posts why Steve Irwin provoked that stingray into attacking him despite all the evidence to the contrary, your refusal to explain why england went along with the invasion into iraq, etc...

Originally Posted by Martino

Are you saying the Japanese are the lapdogs of the Americans now?

That point has already been expressed by the moderator. I happen to think that if you're going to accuse the Japanese of being lapdogs, then that term should apply to the British as well, especially for their support and assistance in invading Iraq.

Originally Posted by Martino

Maybe I didn't answer because that wasn't the fucking question?

Your refusal to answer it already gives the answer that we already know about why England went into Iraq.

[SunWuKong]

Originally Posted by otter p.

That point has already been expressed by the moderator. I happen to think that if you're going to accuse the Japanese of being lapdogs, then that term should apply to the British as well, especially for their support and assistance in invading Iraq.

um. hold on. i didn't say that Japan is a lapdog of the US. i said i don't think Japan should get a permanent seat at the UN security council until its foreign policy is more independent of the US.

[Martino]

Originally Posted by otter p.

And, yet, its still more intelligent than the stuff I've read you post- the rambling posts why Steve Irwin provoked that stingray into attacking him despite all the evidence to the contrary, your refusal to explain why england went along with the invasion into iraq, etc...

Again, the Steve Irwin thread contained something called spec-u-la-tion. Look the word up. It was something people (thinking people) do.

Re "england" (England??) going along with the invasion, I've already covered that. I can't help if you're too stooopid to read.

Originally Posted by otter p.

That point has already been expressed by the moderator. I happen to think that if you're going to accuse the Japanese of being lapdogs, then that term should apply to the British as well, especially for their support and assistance in invading Iraq.

As I keep pointing out, you can't read. Luckily, it's you yourself who proves my point over and over. You make it so easy for me, thank you.

Originally Posted by otter p.

Your refusal to answer it already gives the answer that we already know about why England went into Iraq.

England again? Don't think England went into Iraq ... not my fault if you are incapable of understanding. Refusal to answer? I explained how I see Britains relationship with the US. Increase your medication.

Originally Posted by SunWuKong

um. hold on. i didn't say that Japan is a lapdog of the US. i said i don't think Japan should get a permanent seat at the UN security council until its foreign policy is more independent of the US.

Illustrates my point exactly re otter p's reading and comprehension skills...

Methinks otter p is simply scrambling to oppose any viewpoint I post - note the reference to Irwin - but lacks the wit to construct an argument to back his views that the UK is anyones lapdog.

Note: I'm adding otter p to my ignore list, because frankly, talking to someone who has the intellect of a carrot is no fun.

[haplesshobo]

Looking at the Ven. situation right now, its a reminder that Hitler was democratically elected.

Originally Posted by SunWuKong

i do believe there's an amount of truth in that. unfortunately, i hardly read about how they could have built smaller dams, it's usually that the Three Gorges is bad, bad, bad.

I think there has been, but that whenever wrote a nuanced piece, it tended to be longer than a lot of people were willing to read. Its going to be easier to critically look at all sides with a three page piece than a short blurb about an issue.

For example, the NYTimes, one of the most influential papers in the US, just published this piece about the Dams:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/wo...=1&oref=slogin