Why does a sizable part of England criticize Tony Blair for supporting George Bush?

Question

I remember the Brits whining incessently about John Major and the Tories, and couldn't wait to replace them with Blair and a Labor government.
Now that Blair is showing integrity and supporting President Bush when the United States needs England's help, a sizable portion of the population there wants to cut and run and refer to Blair as Bush's poodle. What utter nonsense.

England appears to have a short memory. Who bailed you guys out sixty year ago?

The British better wake up soon - the Islamic threat that has declared war on the US has been festering in their country for years.

There will be more train bombings.

To tiko writing below - I served in the military.
However, you are right about US foreign policy. If it were up to me, I'd let the rest of you motherf*****s sink or swim.
See where you'd be without the US taxpayer.

Not one person who has an adverse reply has addressed any one of my main points intelligently or factually.
Wanna know why? They can't.

worldwise1 - excellent repy.
But don't forget, the Arabs attacked us first.

Most of these answers are unintelligible at best. Folks, take some writing lessons.

'fatsausage' - how is Bush a loser?
He managed to steal two elections. Not many people can do that

Answer 1

You're good people. Keep fighting the good fight! Your e-mail doesn't work.

Answer 2

Here we go again: 'We bailed you guys out sixty years ago!' Only after you were bombed at Pearl Harbor, don't forget. Oh, and by the way, unless you are a veteran, don't take credit for anyone by using 'We.'

As for your question, the British voted in Blair thinking he would carry on the Labour agenda, which he did not. He became a soft Tory, and the war is unpopular because the British, unlike many Americans, can judge a party's policy BEYOND policy lines. It was/is also unpopular around the world. Stop playing the 'You're ungrateful' ticket because it doesn't work with people with anything beyond a 5th grade education.

Finally, the blame game so many in America play is making me sick. First it's Canada, and its lax immigration laws; then it's Britain, where terrorism has been 'festering' for years. But never, ever is it US foreign policy.

Wake up, and leave everyone else alone.

Answer 3

I understand Blair's desire to give support to Bush during this war, but I also understand the fear of the families over in England. They(like many families right here in America), don't want to keep losing children, husbands, wives, etc. in a war that seems likely to go on for decades. Maybe if everyone watched the documentary that PBS carried several months ago detailing the history of the Middle East and what happens when outside nations become involved in their affairs, they would have an equal understanding as to what I'm trying to say. Those people are savage and barbarous and will not be brought under control by any foreign interest.

Answer 4

After Mr. Blair put all of is career on the line for YOUR president Bush, when it came time to give out lucrative contracts in Iraq,
your president offered none to Mr. Blair, some friend! Mr. Blair almost had to ask (beg might be better) for some consideration.

Too, not every American feels that we should have invade Iraq.

That country has never been a THREAT to the US! We have the capability of erasing that country off the face of the earth while you watch TV, I practice my drums and everyone else do what ever they want to do. And we do not need to send one person to do this!

We have over two thousand plus dead, tens of thousands with out arms, legs, blind and what have you, for what?????????

Not only that our government LIED about going there!

After 9/11 we jumped on Afghanistan. Iraq was NEVER mentioned. Not at all, Not until we could not find any WMD did our media start the terror bit with Iraq!

It is so sad that Americans just do not seem to keep up with the real political Arena.

Answer 5

If you recall, Bush's first reason for going to war with Iraq was to rid the country of its' weapons of mass destruction and linked Osama Bin Laden to Iraq. Osama and Saddam do not like one another and there was no proof that there was a link between the two. The Brits did not believe there were weapons of mass destruction in the country and they did not think Iraq was responsible for 9/11. As of today, we haven't found any WMD and we found out that Osama thinks Saddam is a moron. Maybe they hid the WMDs or maybe there never was any. But the Brits appear to be right about there not being any WMD over there and that Iraq was not responsible for 9/11. A few days after Bush said we were going to war to get rid of the WMDs, he came up with a different reason for going to war. He said we were going to rid the country of an awful dictator. The Brits know there are horrible dictators all around the world and wondered why go after this one and why did Bush's reason for going to war change? It just seemed like he wanted to go to war and changed his excuses within a matter of days, which made the Brits suspicious.

Answer 6

I think that George Bush is really not doing the right thing. Starting a war against several Islamic countries was definetely the wrong thing to do. The Brits clearly understand this, or they just plain oppose the war and the numerous other things that Bush supports and funds.

Thanks,\
Colin Gregory Powell
Former Secretary of State
United States Government

PS. I work in real estate now.
PSS. Call me if you need a house in the Compton area. I grew up there. TO DA HIZZOUT

Answer 7

In my opinion, Tony Blair does have a lot of integrity and intelligence. However, the World perceives George Bush as a President who is mentally challenged and prone to make bad decisions. So regardless of the rights and wrongs of it, Tony Blair is in trouble for backing a loser.

Answer 8

Well, your "question" put forth the patriotic position in the approved manner, but let's look at it objectively, shall we? Was Britain attacked? No. I find it quite understandable of Britons not wanting their country dragged into a war it was not absolutely necessary for them to fight. Now they are just as much a target of terrorists as America, and they may well ask if that is a consequence of joining America in the invasion of Iraq.

Answer 9

Great. Why don't you set your alarm clock too, make sure you wake up too. Other than a few deluded individuals in government no sane person believes the train bombings were a consequence of anything other than Tony's conceding to George's wishes.

Answer 10

Liberals live in LA LA land and England has them too. They loved it better when Clinton was in office and the terroists hits went unanswered, until they built up to the "Big Daddy" of 9/11, and Bush answered.