Posted on 05/11/2007 3:51:07 PM PDT by Sleeping Beauty
BRITAIN'S likely next prime minister Gordon Brown has admitted today "mistakes" had been made in Iraq, and vowed a new emphasis over the violence there, as he launched his bid to succeed Tony Blair.
Mr Blair, who is preparing to stand down after 10 years in power, has long refused to apologise for his decision to support US President George W. Bush in the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.
....Mr Brown insisted that Britain remained committed to ongoing efforts to bring peace to the violence-scarred fledgling democracy.
“We will keep our obligations to the Iraqi people. These are obligations that are part of UN resolutions, they are in support of a democracy.”
“I do think that over the next few months, the emphasis will shift,” he said.
“We've got to concentrate more on political reconciliation in Iraq; we've got to concentrate more on economic development so that people in Iraq, that they feel they've got a stake in the country for the future.
“And obviously we've got to do more to win the battle of hearts and minds against Al-Qaeda terrorism,” he said.
“If we do not fight a cultural and political and ideological attack against that form of extremism, then we will not be able to help the moderates,” he said.
Mr Brown, answering questions at the launch of his bid to become the leader of Britain's governing Labour Party, added that Britain needs new rules for how it decides to go to war.
Critics have long argued that Mr Blair and Mr Bush took their countries to war against Iraq illegally, after frantic diplomatic efforts failed at the UN in the run-up to the invasion.
“We will listen and we will learn from what mistakes have been made,” he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at theaustralian.news.com.au ...
Will our relations with the UK change?
Judging from his statements, the Brits will remain in Iraq for some time. He is just making more politcal correct and “moderate” rhetoric, probably to calm down the anti-war labours.
This is a slight deterioraiton compared to Blair... but IMO what Britain needs is a Conservative PM, not labour. Howard would have been great.
Brown, the serious, intellectual son of a no-nonsense Scottish minister, travelled to the US to see how Clinton and freewheeling aides such as James Carville created politics and policy and sold them to the public. Over the years Brown has become friends with key Democratic figures, including the political strategist Bob Shrum and Senator Edward Kennedy.
He has remained a regular visitor to the US. “He is steeped in the whole public discourse in America in a way that Blair isn’t,” Naughtie says.
(snip)
Neal Lawson, a former Brown adviser who now runs Compass, a centre-left political advocacy group in London, says Brown’s foreign policy is a closely held mystery. “I don’t think it’s even clear who’s advising Gordon on foreign policy,” he says. “Nobody seems to know.”
But Cameron and a lot of Conservatives over there have shown heaps of contempt upon America. I’m quite sure a PM David Cameron will end the Anglo-American alliance on all practical sense.
That is true. We will still have 2000+ troops in iraq for some time.
If anything, our departure should be viewed as success, as we have trained the iraqis, cleared out a lot of the terrorists and helped build up infrastructure.
Whoever claims the plan is to completely end the violence there before leaving is simply wrong.
If the Iraqis can take care of there own mess, then why not let them do it?
NZ, what you see as ‘contempt’ is simply the wish to have a strong independent foreign policy and remain close to America without being part of a possibly subserviant ‘special relationship’...
So, will you be happy with anotehr Thatcher? Or want someone like Helmut Kohl?
Thatcher please.But remember even Maggie wanted a strong Britain within the ‘special relationship’.
No, you said in post 6 you want the special relationship to end, and then in 8, you want another Thatcher which, mind you, has repeatedly exhorted Britons not to ditch the special relationship.
Sorry mate, but you can only choose one. Either a full ally like Thatcher or a still-supportive-but-not-active one like Kohl.
Id still like a very close relationship,if not a ‘special one’.Which can be constraining in many senses to both parties,whereas a close relationship affords a degree of independence,latitude and honesty the former dosent.
My remarks on Maggie were more to do with her wanting to maintain British optimum strength.More than her love of the special relationship.I do disagree somewhat with her on that.
She wants a marriage irrespective of marital problems when I think a strong common-law relationship is healthier....
Yep,I am crap at analogies.....lol
Hold on now, what about the Torys? Isn't there going to be another election to choose a PM?
So which means you are support a Kohl path, which contradicts your post 8.
Case closed. (Don’t understand what this term means? Look up at the dictionary)
What I should have said is that I wanted/want another Thatcher TYPE. I want a Thatcher type who will have a strong British foreign policy based on British military strength(which I would like to greatly increase).
I dont wish a carbon copy of Maggie.
The sarcasm was not necessary.We are both intelligent men.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.