Thanks for responding, it's nice to know that at least one Brit feels like they can stand beside the US again. I had asked because when I watch BBC America or read BBC online there appears to be a strong dislike (or even hatred) for the USA. Because of that dislike I was afraid it would cloud your nation's judgment to work with us if Iran continues on the current course.
The BBC is not anti-US, its programmes provide a forum for all sides and, lacking the understandable US patriotism you see in the American outlets (obviously, why would they be pro-US any more than anti?) can appear to be anti at times, but they aren't. They have a slight left-wing bias, but that is not the same thing.
There is a *lot* of anti-Blair
sentiment in this country, which translates to a perceived anti-Bush bias in correspondents on the Brit media becasue Blair is so allied to Bush. I have never been pro the war in Iraq in the way it was implemented; I don't think the inspectors were allowed to do their job; I do think that the intelligence was skewed for political gain; and I also think that if we were going to go in the whole effort should have been far better funded and with a lot more soldiers on the ground. But I am absolutely convinced that we now need to stay in Iraq until the job is done 100% properly (and that is one of many areas where I am in disagreement with the "anti-war" crowd).
Most Brits are very pro-US at heart, believe me, even if not all of us trust Bush. But it doesn't stop us from having the right to question Blair if we think he's making a big mistake. Questioning a war does not make one anti-American.
In some ways it was a good thing Bush was re-elected; the last thing needed now is a policy of withdrawal, or a power vacuum whilst a new US president gets a handle on things. Also I think the two leaders should be there for the end of the proceedings; if it succeeds (as I hope it will), Bush/Blair will be the heroes and will have been totally vindicated. On the other hand if it ends in humiliation, I want to see the pair of them crucified politically for their mistake. It's only fair, either way.
Going back to the BBC, I think the reason why the argument over here has become so nasty is that Blair leads the Labour Party, the equivalent to the US Democrats (although more left-wing historically). Blair himself is a former member of CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, a pacifist left-wing group dedicated to the removal, unilaterally, of the UK Nuclear deterrent), and the left feels politically disenfranchised by this rather right-wing leader of their party. When you get a political vacuum, the "wronged" party tend to become vocal and abusive. This is an indictment more of the poor state of our own politics here than anything going on in America. Auntie Beeb are only reflecting the mood of some of the country.
We're at a crossroads here. Do we side with the US, or go in with Europe. We've always been somewhere in the middle, but it's all coming to a head now. As for France and Germany, well the Germans have a tendency to be pacifists these days so allowances must be made for them, and I sympathise with their viewpoint. The French however make a living out of being difficult, and this should come as no surprise. They've always wanted to control Europe as a counter to the US (with the UK/Germany paying for it all of course
) and only this week Chirac has managed to offend Blair and Allawi who were over to try to rebuild bridges. They can be a funny bunch lol.
we cannot afford to wait until there is a nuclear capacity as is now speculated with North Korea....
Ah Jeez... North Korea, and Taiwanese independence are the two things more likely to lead to nuclear armageddon right now than just about anything else. One thing you have to remember is that dicking with a country as powerful as China is a stupid idea
unless you have absolutely no other choice, and the chances are China will defend N Korea if they feel they have to. I really wouldn't like to be the one having to make decisions about Korea in particular right now.