And the other half believe in quality dental care.

100% of Americans believe Tony Blair is Bush's lapdog.
While 99% of Americans believe Bush is a moron.

What does that say for Mr. Blair?

MY GOD GEORGE MICHAEL WAS RIGHT:




Jeez, I mean really, he got a lot of crap about this a couple of months ago, but he was absolutely right. He is Bush's lapdog.

I'm guessing the other half didn't understand the question...

Boobies?

But Bush is Big Oil's lapdog. So would that make Blair Bush's lapflea?

*scratches head*

"This was an attack on people of all faiths, and on people of none." --Blair, shortly after Sept. 11

Blair may be a lap dog, but at least he's not a religious loon like Bush and his cronies. And England even has official religion!

They're all lapdogs to the Bildeburgers. What difference does it make?

The_Synergism...no 99% of you strange farkers belive bush is a moron...

The_Synergism
I'm sick of people like you making flippant statements. All style, no substance. Backup your arguements with data.

Whoohoo!

More Anti-Western, bash it to hell flamage!

Speaking of laps, I'm getting sleepy, and I tend to get wood when I get sleepy. Is that odd, or is it just me?

I hate to disagree (no, wait, I don't) but I really have to.

Because Blair agrees with Bush, and doesn't try to placate where other countries seem content to (and I'm not even American, or British), he's a lap dog?

I think that we need to think back to the events leading up to World War II, where everyone just kept trying to give Germany more leeway, rather than face the true issue at hand.

I don't know enough to say that Iraq is, or isn't stockpiling weapons, or whether they intend to use them, should they be stockpiling, but I do think that the international community has the right to demand an answer.

... flame away

h4g

ive got a british dog

Hack4good: I think that Blair is considered Bush's lap dog simply because he seems to follow the Bush administration wherever it cares to go. He's been in lock-step with Bush since 9/11 and hasn't formulated anything that resembles an independent foreign policy. This wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, except for the fact that a majority of Britons don't appear to agree with what he's doing. Corrupt regime aside, isn't following the will of the electorate the primary role of any elected official?

I never thought I'd see the day when I couldn't distinguish a Labour government from a Conservative one.

I have a lap dog..and I call it my weiner.

I think that it's true that Bush and Blair have been aligned on most issues pertaining to the 'War on Terrorism', but they have mutual interest in it.

None of the governments who have been in 'lock-step' in their opposition of any action since day one (or should that be, day eleven) have been labeled lap-dogs, while the similarities in their responses mirror the American-British ones...

or something like that.

h4g

Prinzeugen:
Some people are driven by morals, and right & wrong -- not polls.

Dr._mindbender

Prinzeugen:
Some people are driven by morals, and right & wrong -- not polls.

Shocker. They are there to do the will of the electorate, and nothing more. If they aren't, they have forgotten their basis for government and should be turfed out.

Just because Bush panders to the Christian Right and ignores the rest of his electoral base doesn't mean other world countries will tolerate such government. Does Britain have compulsory voting ? I bet the answer is yes, and I also bet that if the USA has compulsory voting that Bush wouldn't be in power right now.

Dr._mindbender: Waving old ladies and gay rape scandals aside, Britain is a representative democracy, not a monarchy. Shrugging at the wishes of your constituents and following your own line, especially if you'll be sending some of those constituents off to fight and possibly die as the result of your policy (as Britain will be if there is a war with Iraq), is irresponsible. The last poll I saw, about two months back, stated that about the same amount of people in Britain (~70%) wanted no involvement in potential military action against Iraq as in Germany, France, and other European countries where elected officials have actually done what their people want them to.
If their people did support possible military action against Iraq in like numbers, I would be just as critical if they didn't support that line.

If Tony Blair feels wants to express his moral belief that it might be right to go to war with Iraq, let him apply for American citizenship and join the US Armed Forces.


Hack4good: Well, the difference is that those nations (primarily European) that don't support an invasion of Iraq aren't doing so: a) at the behest of a superpower or b) against the wishes of the electorate.

Personally, I think a regime change in Iraq would be beneficial for all concerned, including the Iraqi people. The fact that Mr. Bush's stated reasons for doing so don't really have much in the way of factual support is certainly a speedbump, but when is it bad to bring democracy to a country, if indeed that's what the United States is going to do (and I don't think the American people would tolerate the installation of a 'friendly' dictator)? However, I wouldn't want to see the government of any nation involve themselves in any war that might result if most of their people didn't want to fight it. What's the point of strengthening the power democracy abroad if you're going to weaken it at home?

Dr._mindbender:
Some people are driven by morals, and right & wrong -- not polls
lol

I'm simply saying that a politician that lives by the polls, is a self-serving one.

No, a self-serving politician lines his pockets with money as much as possible from PAC and lobbyist slush funds while shaping his rhetoric to reflect the polls, counting on the fact that 99% of voters never check the voting records of their representatives.

A politician that votes the way his constituents want him to vote would be living up to the ideals that the Founding Fathers set for political representatives, before American politics denegerated into corruption and sound bites.

Of course, things might always work differently in Britain. For all I know, politicians may be trying to live up to a 'do whatever the fark you want once you get elected' tradition that some eminent parliamentarian developed in the 18th century.

In any case, I'm done. Nice to see that we managed to keep this topic from (temporarily) spiraling out of control into stupid flames.

Also, the US and Britain are an indirect democracy. We elect our leaders to lead for us. If they goof, they're out of office. If they're successful, they're relected. If we were constantly having initiatives, referendums, etc nothing would be done.

MadCat221: Since Blair is the lapdog of Bush, and Bush is the lapdog of Big Oil, then Blair is the grandlapdog of Big Oil. :D

Tadlette:
Does Britain have compulsory voting ? I bet the answer is yes

you lose, the answer is no. The only prominent countries I know of with compulsory voting are Australia and Belgium. But your point about Bush not being elected in such a system is well-taken.

Correct me if I'm wrong (it's been a year or two since my Brit. Poli. Sci. Class) but the PM is usually the leader of the majority party in Parliament and must be a member of the lower house. Right?

He's selected by Parlament.

Compulsory voting? That's one of the biggest crocks of shiat I've ever heard of. Just like I believe that freedom "of" religion includes freedom "from" religion, the same should apply to voting. If 50% of the populace don't care enough to vote, then hey, they don't get a voice. Sucks to be them, but it was their choice. I for one know that I wouldn't want the people who are only voting because it is compulsory to actually vote. Hell, those are probably the kind of people that would have elected David Duke U.S. President.

Dr._mindbender

That's right, he is nothing more than the mouthpiece of his party and has no business having any say of his own. His party can pass a no confidence vote in him even midway through the party's term which usually results in a PM stepping down and a new PM stepping up to the plate.

Helps to remind them that they are not kings, they are elected officials and have to behave as such. Any person holding a seat in parliament has as much actual authority as they do.

When Blair was elected, the story in the newspapers was how the younger generation of liberals was coming into power, since it was while Clinton was in office. But now he's Bush's lapdog? Or maybe he just supports his allies.

To those of you who think that politicians are supposed to vote how their constituents want them to vote... well, let's just say I'm glad that politicians are not that foolish. Democracy is mob rule. A republic is a government that is ultimately accountable to the people, but not directly controlled by them.

heh, I'm reminded of the old joke about mayor Daley and an aide walking through a graveyard (taking names of the dead for more votes) before the 1960 Presidential election. The aide tells the mayor, "We have enough votes now, we should be able to go." The mayor replys, "Now, you know just as well as I that everybody in this cemetary has the right to vote."

Dr._mindbender

He isn't so much selected by Parliament as selected by his party to lead the party into an election. He has to be elected into a seat of his own by his electorate regardless. I don't think there has ever been a party leader who didn't win their own seat and so couldn't be PM, they usually run them in fairly 'safe' seats for that party. It would be interesting if it happened though :)

Regardless - he is the Prime Minister Elect well before the election, and people can decide to vote the party in or out on that basis. Or the people in his seat can get rid of him if they want. Whichever applies.

It decouples the person from the power of the position to a certain degree, and ensures that -all- our decision makers are elected. This as opposed to the errrm .. biggest democracy in which for the whole executive branch, only one decision maker is elected at all. Even then, it is by a minority of the people. Yet some people call it representative. Heh :)

Bildeburgers.
that name sounds really familiar.
I remember my dad saying something about them to me when I was really young.
Aren't they like an elite group of rich people that basically control everything?

Blair wants to be first president of Europe. It's therefore in his interests to maintain a relationship with America that's strong enough to back him doing so.

Blair, Bush, politicians.

Burn them all.

Socrates was right. Philosopher kings is the way forward.

Not that anyone on Fark will know what I'm on about (/flamebait).

Not only is Blair a lapdog, he's a lapdog whos had his balls lopped off.

OK, the Tories really need to get their act together. Oh, whooops, they would obviously be in support of any war against Iraq, so they're not going to give Blair hell. Go LibDemsw, rub his nose in the fact that his view are estranged from the electorate! Lib Dems, please get yourselves bloody electable! If required, drive that wedge down the Tory heart, and claim their left wing.

Anything, anything, anything to allow Her Majesty's Oppossition to azctually oppose the government effectively.

And yes, I am of the point of view that says Bush is a far greater danger to world peace than Hussein.

Socrates was right. Philosopher kings is the way forward.

Wasn't that Plato?

"As your Prime Minister I say to you, for the comming year my priorities are Walkies, Walkies, Walkies!"

As an American living in England for the past 3 years I've been amazed at the left for calling Blair, Bush's lapdog. Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were joined at the hip long before Bush (ever heard of The Third Way?). It says a lot about Bush's character that Blair would sacrifice his relationship with Clinton.

Blair has been very courageous for his stance on backing America. It takes a strong person and politician to go against the tide and stand up for something they believe in. I admire Blair very much for this and he will go down in history for being strong. The left wants to appease terrorists and brutal dictators and Blair is willing to do something about it.

Why have so many become so soft and out of touch with reality?

When did people become so spineless?

What would Winston Churchill say?

Concept
"As an American living in England for the past 3 years I've been amazed at the left for calling Blair, Bush's lapdog. Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were joined at the hip long before Bush (ever heard of The Third Way?)."

It's not so much who's the predident, just that a Brit PM will always off their arse up for a US Pres.

"It says a lot about Bush's character that Blair would sacrifice his relationship with Clinton."

Like two-faced? (Mind he still fancys Clinton, see the last Labour confrence)

"Blair has been very courageous for his stance on backing America. It takes a strong person and politician to go against the tide and stand up for something they believe in."

Or arrogant.

"The left wants to appease terrorists and brutal dictators and Blair is willing to do something about it."

I consider my self 'left', I'd like to see al-quaida (sp?) and Bin Laden slapped about a lot. But I'm not seeing that, I'm seeing a non-threat to the west being bullied for political reason not humanitarian. It'd be lovely for Saddam to be ousted, but somehow I don't think the US will tidy up properly afterwards.

"When did people become so spineless?
What would Winston Churchill say?"

Probably something about sorting out the economy back home, oohh and crime rates, and industrial action, and... [cont.]

Concept
Blair is blindly following Bush without regard for the views of his party or the British population at large.

Clinton's political position was far closer to UK public opinion. Bush seems to stand for big business, protectionism and warmongering.

I see you've brought up WW2. Are you aware that Saddam Hussein is not Hitler? Do you believe that a wholescale invasion of a foreign coutry is an act of self defence?

It'll be interesting to see the developments of the weapons inspections. Commentators here predict that at the end of the 30 day deadline Iraq will claim to have no weapons. The US will say they're lying and invade immediately.

I'd call it loyalty, sticking by your allies when they need help. I am sure the Americans will do the same for us next time we need help, as they have in the past. I guess loyalty is a trait of dogs. As an Englishman I'd rather be a loyal friend than the sort of jealous idiot who indulges in cheap anti-Americanism whilst not realising that the Americans are our best friends in the world. The dammed French would shaft us soon as look at us and I wouldn't trust the Germans to go out of the way to help us either.

ScudEast
"I'd call it loyalty, sticking by your allies when they need help. I am sure the Americans will do the same for us next time we need help, as they have in the past."

Ohhh! Ohhh! Like in the Faulklands war, you guys really helped out on that one! Or in Northern Ireland, geee thanks for NORAID. Yep America has always been willing to help, thats why they were soooo early for both WWs.

"I guess loyalty is a trait of dogs. As an Englishman I'd rather be a loyal friend"

Fetch!

We did help in the Faulklands. You have to remember our ties to Argintina. However, we did supply crucial intellegence and much needed weapons.

WWII and Northern Ireland: Consider the massive German-American and Irish-American populations of America. I think we ultimately came through for you (at least WWII).

A real friend is one who tells you when you are about to screw up.

So Osama was dead, a bet a lot of farkers are eating their words this morning.

Concept
"We did help in the Faulklands. You have to remember our ties to Argintina."

Soooo, Argintian dictator = good, Iraqi dictator = bad ?
The argies got the best deal out of that war, they lost their dictator and we ended up with Maggie for a decade or so.

"However, we did supply crucial intellegence and much needed weapons."

I'm sure we paid for it too.

"WWII and Northern Ireland: Consider the massive German-American and Irish- American populations of America. I think we ultimately came through for you (at least WWII)."

Well if you conside our large Muslim/asian/arab population in the UK. Give us a few years, and we might come through for the US.

--

Harmonia
"A real friend is one who tells you when you are about to screw up."

Harmonia for PM!! :)

I was interested to see the quality of some of the arguments above. Nice to see that there can be some intelligent debate about something which has lead to a lot of firey debate.
First off is that several people have noted that Blair is leading a left wing party (Labour) which is the equivalent of the Democrats, but seems to be supporting a right-wing (Republican) Leader. I would say that not only is politics rarely black and white/left and right, but also that Blair seems to be basing his policy on both a moral basis - that Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator, as well as more pragmatic reasons: that Saddam has the effect of de-stablising the whole region, and his removal would send a clear message to others who may be thinking in the same direction.
Secondly, I am not surprised by the amount of anti-US bias in a lot of the anti-war protesters. A lot of it seems to be driven by an envy of the fact that the US is the only Super Power at present, as well as the fact that the US has allowed itself to be seen as arrogant and unthinking towards the feelings of other nations (e.g Koto, the anti-racism summit in South Africa, the World Court, etc.). A lot of people find it difficult to believe that the US could be operating from a moral, humanitarian stand-point, so they just say that it is just to protect future supplies of oil. Even if this was true - so what, why shouldn't there be a pragmatic reason for this? Again, going back to a previous point - nothing is ever fully black and white, and there will always be a mix of reasons why something is done.
Finally on the European side - most of the reasons why the French and the Germans have been so ambiviant in supporting the US have more to do with hypocracy than any true moral stance. Not only are they doing business deals with Iraq, selling arms and construction for oil, but they are also using this as an opportunity as a stick to beat both the US over its 'arrogance' in recent years, as well as the UK over its position in Europe, which has been strengthened due to having a more flexible and dynamic economy.

One thing I forgot to put - the statistics and the article comes from The Guardian, a notoriously left-wing, and generally anti-US paper. To quote Samuel Clemens: 'there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics'. Be careful with what you read and always know where it comes from.