1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The new Anglo-American 'Special Relationship' ends the "Blair Doctrine"

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion and Ethics' started by Markham, Jan 27, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Markham
    Offline

    Markham . Lifetime Member

    Back in April 1999, midway through the Clinton administration and whilst British Forces were engaged in the Balkans War, the then Prime Minister Tony Blair flew to Chicago. He addressed the Chicago Economic Club with a speech in which he outlined what he called his "doctrine of the international community". On this side of the Atlantic, it has become known as the "Chicago doctrine" whilst it's better known as the "Blair doctrine" in the US.

    In his speech, Blair promoted the idea of using military might to intervene in a sovereign nation's domestic affairs and forge a state "in our own image". This doctrine formed the basis of Blair's discussions with Clinton's successor, George Bush Junior, and led to the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That same doctrine was employed, virtually unaltered, by Cameron and Obama in prosecuting the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader.

    In his doctrine, Blair laid out the conditions for going to war and they are these:
    1. Are we sure of our case?
    2. Have we exhausted all diplomatic options?
    3. Are there military operations we can sensibly and prudently undertake?
    4. Are we prepared for the long term?
    5. Do we have national interests involved?
    According to Blair, if each of those five questions can be answered "yes", then a very strong case exists for going to war. However, not all those questions could honestly be answered with a "yes" for Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya and each of those countries are today hotbeds of Islamist terrorism whose presence can be directly attributed to Anglo-American interference.

    Speaking last night to an audience of American politicians in Philadelphia, Theresa May metaphorically tore-up the Blair doctrine stating that the UK would intervene only when the "threat is real" and it is in our interests to do so, no more 'wars of choice'. Hopefully this will translate to an end of our - and America's - 'failed' liberal interventionist foreign policy, no more dodgy dossiers, no more lies to Parliament and the British people, and an end to soldiers being repatriated in bodybags after being unnecessarily placed in harm's way by vanity-struck politicians - Hooray!

    Her speech chimes with Trump's long held view that the US is not the world's (unpaid) guardian and that the US may withdraw from NATO unless other countries - most notably France, Luxembourg, Germany and Poland make the required contributions to the organisation's budget.

    Her speech - and you can read the full text here - should be a pleasant reminder of the dawning of a new era when Maggie met Ronald and the Anglo-American 'Special Relationship' started to become truly special and rise to an all-time high. Her audience were initially gob-smacked and loved what she had to say, giving her an almost unprecedented three standing ovations. One Congressman, obviously delighted by what he'd heard wondered if May wasn't Trump's long lost sister. Cory Gardner, of Colorado, reportedly said Mrs May had "renewed the special relationship between our two great nations" but he's mistaken: May hasn't renewed that relationship, she has redefined it.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. Methersgate
    Offline

    Methersgate Well-Known Member Lifetime Member

    Two nonentities whistling in the dark.

    The rest of the planet isn't paying the slightest attention to these two strutting buffoons.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Markham
    Offline

    Markham . Lifetime Member

    Put simply, your objection to Trump is that he's not a Democrat and you object to May because she's a Tory who has chosen to obey the will of the majority of the electorate. That's called "Democracy", it and elections are concepts your party claims to uphold.

    It was widely reported - by the BBC and elsewhere - that Clinton was considered to be the more hawkish and more likely to engage in military action than Trump; but you may disagree.
  4. Methersgate
    Offline

    Methersgate Well-Known Member Lifetime Member

    No; my contention is that the adoption of protection and "America First" (interesting slogan, that one, if one has an awareness of history...) by Trump, and May's similar sentiments, mean that the "Anglo-Saxons" have given up their (perhaps unsustainable) claim to "leadership of the ("free") world" and abdicated in favour of China, which is now the dominant power in world affairs.

    There are those (I am not one of them) who say this may not be a bad thing.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Markham
    Offline

    Markham . Lifetime Member

    Let's not pre-judge something which may never happen, Andrew :) Trump's "America First" slogan is aimed fairly and squarely at his domestic audience but it is not incompatible with America striking a bilateral deal with Britain nor is it incompatible with a future Anglo-American-led armed coalition should such a need arise.

    If China is now the dominant power, then we have only ourselves to blame by sub-contracting all our manufacturing there in the interest of saving a buck or two; a negative effect of western liberalism and globalisation.
  6. Markham
    Offline

    Markham . Lifetime Member

    You and I both know that is simply not true. As evidence of that, Trump and May had barely finished their joint Press Conference when Germany started to urge the EU to quickly conclude around a dozen trade deals around the world. Merkel is enraged that Theresa May was the first world leader to meet the new POTUS whilst she and Hollande will have to be content with a quick phone call with him this afternoon, so she is prepared to trigger a trade war.

    Being a Europhile, your knowledge will be better than mine, so I will ask you: these trade deals that Germany wants concluded have to be signed by all EU member nations, right? And as far as the EU is concerned, Britain hasn't formally told the EU it intends to leave the Union - Article 50 hasn't yet been triggered - so all members including the United Kingdom must agree and sign. And as Britain has to continue making its full budgetary contributions right up until it actually leaves in two years or so, it follows that Britain remains a full member until that time from which it also follows that Britain has to be a co-signatory for any trade deals or treaties concluded before we leave, does it not?

    I would suggest that if Germany and the EU persist with actions likely to provoke a trade war with Britain and America, we terminate our membership of the EU on the very same day we serve notice under Article 50. Reverting to WTO tariffs will be far more crippling to the EU than the UK which could help exporters by mitigating the tariffs on exports in other ways. Indeed as the EU's largest customer, some countries could be financially crippled by such a move, the PIGS nations (Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece) are especially vulnerable. I agree Mrs May has said that it is Britain's interests that the European Union succeeds but those words left her lips before Merkel's hissy-fit. May and her government have to act in Britain's best interest.

    The words "war", "Germany", "Britain" and "America", when combined, have a certain historical significance with a rather predictable outcome. (I make no apology for writing the foregoing sentence given that Lib Dem politicians appear to believe it is perfectly acceptable to label leave supporters as "Nazis".)
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Bootsonground
    Offline

    Bootsonground Well-Known Member

    Nice to see Churchill`s bust back in the Oval office where it belongs!!
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Timmers
    Offline

    Timmers Well-Known Member Trusted Member

    All in all it appears that the meeting between May and Trump was a success, I enjoyed watching the media coverage, looked a little tense at first but they obviously warmed to each other. I especially enjoyed seeing them holding hands (hope there was no scananigins in the Oval office) :)

    Had the meeting not gone so well it could have been especially damaging to the UK as at this moment in time the UK needs all the friends it can get and the US being the UKs best friend and ally is the biggest scoop the UK can hope for.

    I firmly believe that the upcoming exiting of the EU negotiations are going to turn nasty and any prospective trade deals/talks with countries outside the EU are more than welcome.
  9. Aromulus
    Offline

    Aromulus The Don Staff Member

    I hope, Donald put a good word in for "r" Nigel...
  10. Timmers
    Offline

    Timmers Well-Known Member Trusted Member

    I'm sure he did and why not?

    Nigel deserves more credit than he is getting, I'm sure one of the reasons it went so well yesterday is partially down to him, better to be a good friend of Trump than an enemy.

    History will be kind to Farage.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  11. Markham
    Offline

    Markham . Lifetime Member

    "MayForce One" - the RAF A330 Voyager used to fly our senior politicians - flew direct to Ankara from Washington and having laid her customary wreath, she met President Erdogan for talks and set-up Britain's thirteenth bi-party working group on trade with Turkey. Britain's membership of the Customs Union prevents us negotiating and concluding trade deals but there's a lot of preparatory work that can be done behind the scenes whilst waiting for the "green light".
  12. Markham
    Offline

    Markham . Lifetime Member

    Erm, it's not the bust that it should be! Obama had the original bust that sat in pride of place in the Oval Office returned to London seven or eight years ago. There was a second, less-important Churchill bust in the White House Residence which was moved to the Oval Office during Trump's inauguration pending the return of the one Obama exiled.
  13. Bootsonground
    Offline

    Bootsonground Well-Known Member

    The real story about the Churchill bust!! (and where the original now sits)

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-about-the-churchill-bust-in-the-oval-office/

    There was a lot of commentary on Friday that President Trump had returned a bust of Sir Winston Churchill to the Oval Office. President Obama had famously removed it. But some news reports have got the issue mixed up.

    Few people seem to understand that there are actually two busts, by the same artist. The bust that Obama had returned to the British government is not the same bust that Trump now has in the Oval Office, as Trump hinted at in his remarks to the CIA.

    Let’s explain.

    The Facts
    There are two busts of Churchill, virtually identical, which for the sake of simplicity we will call Bust A and Bust B.

    Bust A was made by the English sculptor Sir Jacob Epstein. It was given to President Lyndon B. Johnson on Oct. 6, 1965. (Here’s Lady Bird Johnson’s diary entry about the gift, which was facilitated by Churchill’s wartime friends, including W. Averell Harriman.) So that bust has been in the White House for more than five decades.

    Bust B also was made by Epstein. It was provided in July 2001 by then Prime Minister Tony Blair, via the British ambassador, as a loan to President George W. Bush because Bust A was being repaired. Bush said he would keep it in the Oval Office, and various news reports at the time said the bust would be returned once Bush left office.

    a 2010 interview with White House curator William Allman, the decision to return the bust had been made even before Obama arrived, as the loan was scheduled to last only as long as Bush’s presidency. That narrative was confirmed by British ambassador Sir Peter Westmacott just before stepped down in 2015: “To be honest, we always expected that to leave the Oval Office just like everything else that a president has tends to be changed,” he told The Guardian newspaper. “Even the carpet is usually changed when the president changes.”

    Bust B was shipped back to the library of the British ambassador’s residence.

    But in 2016, Obama admitted he had decided to remove the bust of Churchill in the Oval Office to make room for one of Martin Luther King Jr. “There are only so many tables where you can put busts — otherwise it starts looking a little cluttered,” he said.

    Besides, he noted, he already had a bust of Churchill just outside his office in the private residence. “I see it every day, including on weekends, when I’m going into that office to watch a basketball game,” he said.

    That would be Bust A, which had been repaired and returned to the White House by the time Obama took office.

    So Trump appears to have temporarily moved Bust A to the Oval Office. In the meantime, he seems to have found a way to keep the King bust there, as well.

    But eventually Bust B will also arrive back at the White House.

    “The prime minister has agreed to loan the Churchill bust [Bust B] at the request of the Trump team,” a British Embassy spokesman said. “We are working out the details on the return.” It should not be a long trip: Bust B is still in the ambassador’s residence, which is next to the vice president’s residence on Massachusetts Avenue.

    Note: Trump has indicated that the British made the request first. “The prime minister is coming over to our country very shortly, and they wanted to know whether I’d like it back,” he said. “I said, ‘Absolutely.’ ”

    The Bottom Line
    The Churchill bust story has been a constant source of poor reporting. Sometimes it is incorrectly reported that Blair made the loan of Bust B in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when in fact he made it two months earlier. Meanwhile, the Obama White House for years misled reporters about whether the president had a hand in the decision to return the bust. Clearly, Obama misunderstood the symbolism of removing the bust from the Oval Office and was embarrassed to admit it.

    In any case, there are actually two busts. Now you know.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-about-the-churchill-bust-in-the-oval-office/
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Dave_E
    Online

    Dave_E Well-Known Member Trusted Member

    A supporting hand for Theresa May from President Trump is a good sign for our future relationship with the States.

    Far better than the EU equivalant - a drunken kiss from Junker, and a slap around the head if he is in a playful mood. :sick:
    • Agree Agree x 3
  15. Markham
    Offline

    Markham . Lifetime Member

    Tony Blair obviously enjoys snogfests with Juncker as this picture taken last Tuesday demonstrates:

    [​IMG]
    :sick:
  16. Bootsonground
    Offline

    Bootsonground Well-Known Member


    A liar,a Multimillionaire,a Barrister, a warmonger,a politician and a traitor walk into a bar..

    The barman say`s..

    "What`ll it be Mr Blair"?
  17. graham59
    Offline

    graham59 Well-Known Member

    That creep and enemy of the state Bliar should be in jail.

    Trump has the balls to stand up for his own country and people... and to protect them from harm. That's his job.

    Let the traitorous losers whine on. :rolleyes:
    • Agree Agree x 3
  18. graham59
    Offline

    graham59 Well-Known Member

    I also wish our idiot press... including the nauseatingly Biased BC would shut the f up . Their constant barrage of insults directed at President Trump and his team are damaging to our country. :boxer:

    Sour grapes after failing to scupper Mr. Farage's popular campaign, and ultimate victory ?

    Stop insulting your readers and licence-payers.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  19. Markham
    Offline

    Markham . Lifetime Member

    • Like Like x 2
  20. Timmers
    Offline

    Timmers Well-Known Member Trusted Member

    Not bad for a few hours work :like:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page