Why isn't Tony Blair the Prime Minister of England anymore? We need a strong ally in Iraq!?

Question

this new guy, I forgot his name, wants to pull out and let the terrorists win. England shouldn't be allowed to do that. Can't we in the USA encourage a strong rebellion in England to have this this phony thrown out?

I mean, he was never elected like tony blair was so he might as well be a dictator, huh?

Answer 1

There is deep hostility towards the UK Government, amongst its population/electorate and in relationship to the war in Iraq. Most UK people don't agree with it and despise George Bush to boot. The Prime Minister is Gordon Brown and he is overseeing a planned withdrawal of troups, in line with his predeccessors plans. The war in Iraq has been an unmitigated disaster and the loss of life unspeakable.

Answer 2

You do not elect a Prime Minister under the British Constitution. You elect your MP. The MP's in parliament then see which of them has sufficient support amongst the other MP's to appoint a government of ministers (the foreign secretary, the home secretary, the chancellor of the exchequer, the ministers of defence, health etc etc.) Obviously, the only person who can do this is the man or woman at the head of the party with the largest number of MP's, but if his own party think another person could do a better job - the prime minister will not have the support to continue. The party in power in Britain thought it's chances of staying in power would be better with another leader, because Blair had become unpopular both within the party and the country, largely because of his middle-east policies.

At no time did Britain go to war in Iraq to 'win against the terrorists'. The war was intended to remove the specific military threat posed by Saddam Hussein, specifically the threat of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. That threat no longer exists.

The artificial state of Iraq was formed from three largely antagonistic provinces of the Ottoman Empire, and has fallen apart as might be expected. There is no point in remaining in the shia South, as the population do not want a foreign military presence there, and nobody is considering building an empire and adding Southern Iraq to it. The Kurdish North has no wish for or need for a foreign military involvement. This leaves the sunnis in the West and the Centre.

The question for the US is whether it intends to stay there for ever running the place as a small client state, or whether it has a clearly thought out plan to leave. It is unrealistic to suppose that any other countries will remain there with the US if it does not have its own aims and plans defined.

As for Gordon Brown - unfortunately any leader in a country which does not have an effective opposition might just as well be called a dictator, - elected or not. Time will tell.

Answer 3

..... References to England and the endorsement of a rebellion? Well sir, I'm afraid it's not the 17th century.

Tony Blair is the phony, not Gordon Brown....The BRITISH PM Gordon Brown is SCOTTISH was not so pro-war as TB was, in fact I think he did mull it over for a while before agreeing with TB to take action in Iraq, and given the power struggle between the Brownites and Blairites his support was crucial. The fact is Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney and various WH & Pentagon officials are responsible for this sorry mess. Tony Blair did raise his concerns over the implemtation of the state infrastructure in the post Saddam era, but no one in the U.S. government listened.

Oh, and Bush didn't even know about the different ethnic and religious factions in Iraq until after the invasion took place.

Oh, and about the mandate thing? There will be a general election very soon and Mr. Brown will be elected as PM as the opposition have yet proprosed any substative policies the Conservative's leader David Cameron is a wannabe TB.

So in other words you should really get your facts straight before debating such issues.

Answer 4

Your call of course would not journey your unquestionably know-how. He regarded after out Northern eire, as different posters have mentioned, isn't precisely one hundred% actual. confident, he became there on the top and took the credit, yet Mo Mowlam did maximum of it. reasonable politicians in Northern eire did some. and since the tw@t have been given us into an Iraqi conflict on the returned of relatively doubtful American intelligence (there's a contradiction in phrases superb there...) he hasn't been efficient interior the eyes of the British inhabitants. keep in mind, triumphing 3 elections on the trot became as lots a mirrored image of how hated the Conservative party became for the duration of their time in government. than how solid the Labour party became. It additionally ought to be suggested that for lots of Tony Blair's time in workplace the Conservatives have been below an sufficient opposition and in no way a central authority in waiting. And tens of millions of electorate in this usa keep in mind how the Conservatives screwed over the everyday public and have not voted for them in two decades. that's loss of a respected decision that keeps Labour in potential, no longer Tony Blair.

Answer 5

We had 10 years of lies from Blair, even his own spineless
front benches had enough of him. Any way he will be joining his friend Maggie Thatchers (she's living in the US ,after she
made a mess of the UK).they are like 2 peas in a pod.
True we should have had an election, but we were so glad to get rid of Blair, we let Mr Brown take control.
Any more comments concerning dictatorship and our Mr Brown will be going across the pond, and give you Mr Bush a good slapping.

Answer 6

Because he lied to Parliament and the British public over the reason for going to war. The fact that Saddam could launch weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes. In fact he lied for the 10 years he was Prime Minister. He also was dubbed as Bush's poodle and lap dog.

Answer 7

QUOTE YOU "england shouldn't be allowed to do that Can't we in the USA encourage a strong rebellion...." BLAH BLAH BLAH

unbeeeeeelievable !!

Is this your way of warning UK that USA is going to invade UK?

Thank God we have Gordon Brown... Yup.. THAT IS THE NAME OF THE UK PRIME MINISTER.. the guy who has balls to deal with idiots like you and your mate in the Whitehouse...

Jeeeeeze you are so unbeeeelievable !

Answer 8

You are as good as Blair at spin, you should ask yourself who started the war in the first place?
Read your history, it is BRITAIN not England!
The U.S.A. was marching its storm troopers all over the world long, long before the September 11th incident and you and your government wonder why you are so disliked throughout the world.
Wake up to reality and for once realise you are living in the 21st century not the dark ages.
Attend to your own violent drug and gun infested society before lecturing the rest of us.

Answer 9

the British have done their job in the areas they were allotted. we want them home now. we went to Iraq on the lies and deception of a man not fit to run our country (Tony Blair) we are leaving 5000 troops in case they are needed. surely Israel is your ally in the middle east too. why cant Israel re-enforce your possition. i know that orrigionaly it was very likely suposed to be the outher way round. but Israel has a powerfull army and 'lets face it' owes you BIG TIME!!! ( or am i being too simplistic?)

Answer 10

Blair has been judged and found wanting.....so indeed has Bush. Brown will probably follow suit. This is OUR world and the politicians would be wise to realise this obvious truth.