samuel taiwo Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 I think the decision of Britain government to leave the military action for the Americans alone cannot does not pose any threat to the special relationship. The UK government have a right to say their own view on how to deal with the matter. However if the American governement did not agree with Britain then they can back off from such matter. That doesn't mean that they cannot work together in future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey999 Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 I wish we did not back the USA in the current situation in the Ukraine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 I wish we did not back the USA in the current situation in the Ukraine. I wish the US didnt have to ... once again.... be the nation to have to involve itself in the squabbles of European nations. The Founding Fathers warned against this. It's time Euro politicians grew balls and learned to deal with bullies like Hitler, Stalin and Putin on their own. ---------- Post added 25-04-2014 at 16:12 ---------- I think the decision of Britain government to leave the military action for the Americans alone cannot does not pose any threat to the special relationship. The UK government have a right to say their own view on how to deal with the matter. However if the American governement did not agree with Britain then they can back off from such matter. That doesn't mean that they cannot work together in future Why that decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 It's time Euro politicians grew balls and learned to deal with bullies like Hitler....... It was Hitler who declared war on the USA after Pearl harbour, not vice-versa. Some nations had been fighting Hitler for two years by then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
natjack Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 ...My personal feeling on Blair is that I think he is slightly deranged. How this man can go about his life without an apparent care in the world is beyond me. The fact he is also advocating military action in Syria as a former Peace Envoy to the area would be hilarious if it wasn't for the seriousness of the situation. Sorry it's a link to the Daily Mail, I know a lot on here have a hatred bordering on obsession for it, but it was the first one to come up http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2210164/Hubris-man-thinks-judged-God.html This could explain a lot about the man and his actions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Sorry it's a link to the Daily Mail, I know a lot on here have a hatred bordering on obsession for it, but it was the first one to come up http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2210164/Hubris-man-thinks-judged-God.html This could explain a lot about the man and his actions? That doesn't surprise me in anyway. Blair has shown absolutely no self doubt or remorse over the decision to involve this country in actions which resulted in the deaths of many thousands of innocents. America only wanted the UK to provide political backing, and didn't require military support, but Blair insisted on sending troops. Blair has blood on his hands and is apparently completely relaxed about it. In my view he has some form of mental problem possibly a 'messiah' complex. Making him Middle East Peace envoy was a sick joke. As for the 'Special Relationship' there isn't one, and there never has been. Like all major powers America does what it wants, and if another country is daft enough to spend it's peoples blood and treasure helping them then why should they say no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 It was Hitler who declared war on the USA after Pearl harbour, not vice-versa. Some nations had been fighting Hitler for two years by then. It was PM Neville Chamberlain who declared war on Hitler, September 3rd 1939. This declaration after several years of being bullied and pushed around by Hitler when finally Chamberlain was completely boxed in with no way out and no choice. Churchill then later having to beg the US for help This is what comes of appeasment and lack of balls ---------- Post added 25-04-2014 at 18:09 ---------- That doesn't surprise me in anyway. Blair has shown absolutely no self doubt or remorse over the decision to involve this country in actions which resulted in the deaths of many thousands of innocents. America only wanted the UK to provide political backing, and didn't require military support, but Blair insisted on sending troops. Blair has blood on his hands and is apparently completely relaxed about it. In my view he has some form of mental problem possibly a 'messiah' complex. Making him Middle East Peace envoy was a sick joke. As for the 'Special Relationship' there isn't one, and there never has been. Like all major powers America does what it wants, and if another country is daft enough to spend it's peoples blood and treasure helping them then why should they say no? Prior to the attack on Pearl Harbour historical records show that in the month of July 1940 only 8 percent of Americans were in favour of getting involved in another European war. Any other president but Roosevelt could have signed a non aggression pact with Hitler. Hitler was always against any war with the US as he was with war with Britain. Roosevelt however thought that sooner or later there would be a war between the US and Germany but in that respect he could have been wrong. Japan's attack on the US in 1941 forced Hitler's hand (due to the Axis agreement with Japan) but if a US-German non-aggression pact had existed prior to that then Hitler would not have been bound to declare war against the US. Germany and Japan had no interests in common. Japan and Germany's territiorial ambitions were far apart nor historically were the Japanese and Germans anywhere close in ties of any kind. The US therefore after Pearll Harbour, at peace with Germany by prior agreement and without any obligation to aid Britain could have dealt with Japan in half the time it took having twice as much materiel and manpower to accomplish the task. Roosevelt however was a decent sort of fellow. He seemed to feel that there was some cause in protecting and aiding distant Anglo cousins thousands of miles away and history thus took it's course. A few hundred thousand Americans shed their blood in Europe for a cause that today's European generation benefit from. It's not written in stone however that it's always Americans who have to bear the brunt and take the casualties. If on the other hand you believe that then it's probably high time NATO was dismantled and as the French say "Sauve qui peu" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Harleyman. There is no such thing as an altruistic unselfish country which puts other countries needs in front of it's own. The politicians of all countries are there for specific reasons, usually these are, get reelected, get rich, get your family and friends rich, try not to get caught doing anything dodgy which may prevent you getting reelected ,so that you can get richer. In any spare time you may have, run the country as much as the Corporations, political donors, unions, civil servants and last and least, the public, allow you to. Countries act in their own self interest, as politicians go Roosevelt was one of the less bad ones. He didn't go to war to help Britain though, he went to war because he knew that if Hitler conquered the whole of Europe his ambitions would not end there. At some point America was going to have to fight, and it's always better to fight on someone elses land rather than on your own. The Lend-Lease program was formally entitled ' An act to further promote the defense of the United States.' Personally I have no problem with any of that, it's simply the way of the world and what powerful countries have always done, look after their own interest first, second, and last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hope Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Russia still has far more nukes that the UK and would survive very easily in a nuclear exchange between it and the UK. The US has provided the real nuclear umbrella to protect Europe since 1945 The UK has the enough anthrax to poison the planet several times over. If the the nukes don't succeed the biological warfare afterwards will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 The UK has the enough anthrax to poison the planet several times over. If the the nukes don't succeed the biological warfare afterwards will. Makes you proud don't it? When it comes to dealing out death and destruction we are equal to anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.