Young Writers Society

(CNN) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair headed Friday to Washington, where he was expected to press President Bush on a swift solution to the Middle East crisis.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/28/us.britain/index.html

Comments?

This means Blair will go and try and do something, but eventually will end up saying the exact same things as President Bush.

Our Prime Minister needs to grow some balls.

"We want a Lebanon free of militias and foreign interference, and a Lebanon that governs its own destiny"-Bush

That's why you attacked Iraq when they invaded Kuwait...

You have a point, Bjorn. The only difference is a middle name.

I'm just saying.

There was a great article in the Economist just a week or two ago which explained why where the United States goes, England goes. To summarize, it dates back to the Suez crisis. England, France, and Israel concoted a conspiracy that would give them a reason to attack Egypt. They did this without anyone knowing, much less President Eisenhower at the time. Once it happened, Eisenhower became incensed and threaten to dump all English bonds then held by the United States Treasury. Thus, England halted the invasion, which then incesned France. Since then, England has gone with the US, and France has tried to oppose the US at every turn.


Regarding the Iraq-Kuwait comparison to the latest crisis, that's a very limited comparison. Iraq was a dictatorship that wanted to completely takeover Kuwait. Israel is a democracy that is temporarily occupying southern Lebanon. In all likelihood, Israel will comply with whatever resolution the UN passes. The same could never be said for Iraq.

So in all reality, comparing Iraq-Kuwait to Israel-Lebanon ignores the geopolitical sitution and the reality of the crisis in favor of an over-simplified version that has absolutely no bearing on what is going on currently, and is thus dangerous as disregarding knowledge is always dangerous.