[familyop]

...contempt for Prime Minister Blair, because he sent British troops to help us in the first small step in the War on Terror. Such sentiment has been evident (even in many Conservatives) since before the September Attack. What will Britain do when Iran's missiles can reach London? I'm concerned.

[nathanbedford]

Beyond warm words, what has Britain received from Mr Bush in return for the Prime Minister's unconditional and uncritical support? If there is an answer to that question other than "Nothing", it is extremely difficult to see what it is.

The world's only superpower as your very own bodyguard? Priceless.

[kinoxi]

i typed this previously concerning Blair, he is an excellent orator.

[Canard]

This is more anti-Blair than anti-American I would have said. The broad thrust of the article is that the Prime Minister of the UK should make decisions based on the national interest of the country. I wouldn't disagree with that.

[Darkwolf377]

The "international community" has proved to be largely a figment of Mr Blair's imagination

I have to agree with that, though not in the way the writer may have intended. The "international community" leftists are always squawking about boils down to UN representatives making iseless gestures when they're not raping, ignoring genocide or filling their pockets.

When people talk about One World governments and breaking down national boundaries, what they seem to be talking about is taking all the mountains of money the US and a few Saudi princes have socked away, distributing it equally to everyone in the world, and then we'll all dance and sing together in the streets, everyone will have plenty, and wheeeee! won't it be just great?!

They never seem to consider that the world community can't get together on ANYTHING. As Ann Coulter said, what's legal in this world is what the US and the UK say is legal.

[Liberty Valance]

[NZerFromHK]

Britain's foreign policy goal was, is, and will always be its own national interests above all else. Lord Palmerston said this about 160 years ago:

"We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are perpetual and eternal and those interests it is our duty to follow."

What the Telegraph is thinking is that it considers Britain fighting the WOT is serving America's national interests but NOT Britain's. It is dead wrong, in this case America's national interests do coincide those of Britain.