Wilson refused to support US over Vietnam, Thatcher over Grenada. Why couldn't Blair oppose Bush re Iraq?

Question

My full point is:

Blair supporters say Blair had to back Bush to maintain the 'Special Relationship'.

Was it harmed by Harold Wilson refusing British military support for the Vietnam invasion?

Was the special realtionship ever stronger than under Thatcher even though she opposed the US invasion of Grenada?

Answer 1

Because God told him to!

Answer 2

I think it is just simply that Blair made the decision after 9/11 to stand shoulder to shoudler with the Americans to present as united a front as possible at that time and bearing in mind nearly 1000 Brits died that day too.

When it came to the invasion of Iraq, one of the primary supporters of Al Qaeda, Blair had backed himself into a corner and couldn't not wade in with US for fear of making the Alliance look divided.

The UK is far more integral to the whole situation in Iraq than we ever were with Vietnam or Grenada. Neither of these had anything to do with us so why should we have interfered.

Answer 3

You forgot to mention that Reagon did not support Thatcher when she made the decision to protect the Falkland Islands. The British medical ship had to be berthed off South American waters as the USA forbid the medical ship to berth in American waters. Good allies!

I believe Blair had to show some sort of support for the Americans in a bid to offer some sort of reasoning, justification or creditability or whatever you wish, in the decisions that were made. Those were the days when Blair retained some creditability. Unfortunately Blair became one of the 'rats' and followed the 'Pied Piper' into the dark and murky waters.

Blair will be okay though. He will get a job on the US University circuits blowing smoke up the US students bum holes, they'll love the accent!

Answer 4

I totally disagree Blair is a lapdog, he seriously thinks he's the second coming and has *the hand of history* on his shoulder to use one of his own quotes. He's very war friendly, don't forget he persuaded a reluctant Bill to get involved with Kosovo and positively lapped up all the attention.

To my mind, Tony bears primary responsibility for the deaths and misery in Iraq, he and George had already decided to invade Iraq WAY before serious troop deployment to the Gulf started, we know this from leaked memos. If he had refused to get involved like Wilson regarding Vietnam it's very likely the Iraq disaster would not have happened, I doubt the US admin would have done it alone. By the time they bothered to involve the UN, there was no way they could back down from invading without losing face because the military build-up in the region was so heavy it was obvious what they WERE going to do.

The *special relationship* would not have been damaged if Tony had said no, the US admin needs friends too, at worst there'd have been some initial froideur. And look at the grief and suffering that would have been avoided. As R says in his question, history shows there was no need for this, Maggie actually TOLD Ronald not to invade Greneda *it would have been TOLD with Maggie, believe me!=) * he ignored her but they continued to have probably the strongest *special Relationship* Britain and the US have ever had.

Answer 5

If England, and Australia had said NO like the rest of the foreign governments said NO, then we would NOT be at war right now with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 ! Bush would NOT have been able to go to war without allies!

Answer 6

I suppose he felt about it the same way that John Howard did.
They both seem to have the opinion that they should support U.S. over everything. We all know that that idea and the idea that Iraq attacked the WTC are incorrect. We would all have been better served if they had shown a bit of backbone and pointed out that G.W. was about to make an almighty blunder.
You don't need hindsight to come to that conclusion, just a belief that it is wrong to attack somebody who has not attacked you and also that you should not independently interfere in the internal affairs of another country.

Answer 7

The big money in America is controlled by the neocon brigade. Bush is their poodle - why do you think people spent billions getting a half-wit into the White House? Blair wants access to their money - in particular the million dollar lecture circuit.

It's not Bush that Blair is supporting, they've just got the same puppet masters. Must go, there's a couple of men in dark suits and sunglasses at the door.

Answer 8

Blair did the right thing. Did you want the rapes, and murders to continue, fueled by oil money secured by bribes to UN officials?

Did you want a bunch of Cuban communists in Grenada? I suppose that you do.

Sir Harold Wilson was a brilliantly successful politician, but no one would suggest that he believed in any principles. As he correctly said, "A week is a long time in politics."

Answer 9

Grenada. There`s a joke, the media was there hours before the Yanks came gung-ho onto the beach, I`ve never laughed so much in my life.
Big brave Yanks, ROFLMFAO

Answer 10

I do not understand Blair's decision, other than blind support of the U.S.
I think Thatcher was a great PM, but, began to wane terribly in the last part of her term. She was strong, and able to stand against the countries she disagreed with.

Answer 11

Blair supported Bush because the attack on the WTC was an attack upon all of western society. Plus, the British have had their share of terrorist attacks. Why wouldn't he have supported the war and appropriately viewed it with equal importance.

Why do people insist upon re-writing history? Blair was a great statesman with a mind of his own and happened to concur with Bush on this issue - nothing more should be read into it.