Obelix Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 On the other thread about the date the Great War started you accused me of the same thing. Indeed. You showed the same behaviour then that's why. You've been banging on about how American trucks are so much better than any Euro trash as well. Get over yourself, and stop assuming that because it's American it *must* be better, and try a little humility for once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 With the EU they continue to be a Monarchy. With the US the Monarchy would have to go. That prospect would be very unpalatable to the great majority of Britons, Sheffielders excluded It would also be very unpalatable to the vast majority of Americans too, Californians included. For a Republic you sure do lap our monarchy up, if not as much as we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 However, I think that there is some truth to the old adage, that tere is no such thing as allies, only joint interests. So maybe the only reason the special relationship is still in place is that generally the UK and the US share the same interests. Wasn't that ever the case though? The US was quite reluctant to get involved in the Falklands in any way until it became clear that we were going to attempt to retake them, regardless of outside assistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Indeed. You showed the same behaviour then that's why. You've been banging on about how American trucks are so much better than any Euro trash as well. Get over yourself, and stop assuming that because it's American it *must* be better, and try a little humility for once. Best offer some sort of link.. ---------- Post added 01-09-2013 at 12:02 ---------- Wasn't that ever the case though? The US was quite reluctant to get involved in the Falklands in any way until it became clear that we were going to attempt to retake them, regardless of outside assistance. Probably difficult for the US as it had treaties with both nations. Argentina refused everything that was laid out before them. The UK on the other hand didn't, it was prepared to accept an offer put forward by negotiators. Galtieri didn't have the luxury of negotiation. His then present position was solely based on taking the Falklands, any climbdown and he would probably have ended up like Mussolini. On the face of it it only looked like the Americans were wobbling, in reality they weren't. They were providing vital intelligence to the Brits while seemingly looking bipartisan. As a footnote for the Americans, who do you edge your bets on? A stable nation or one that is ruled by an unstable Junta? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hillpig Posted September 1, 2013 Author Share Posted September 1, 2013 Blair wouldn't have done anything of the sort. After Blair's lies 10 years ago no one would believe a word he says anymore. Blair was happy to go along with Bush but in doing so he discredited UK foreign policy so much that the country - parliament and population - have no stomach now for war. I think we'd need to be attacked for us as a nation to support a war now. That is at least one thing we can thank Blair for even if hundreds of thousands had to pay for it with their lives. Let us also not forget that 10 years ago Cameron was happy to go along with the dodgy dossier despite it obviously being a pack of lies. Some people like to fool themselves to justify their megalomania. Cameron and the Tories went along with it because they were lied to by Blair. Surely they and we are entitled to believe a Prime Minister who, in the House of Commons, makes a statement which includes the sentence "we can expect an attack with 45 minutes notice". Under such dire circumstances I believe what I am told. So did the Tories. They were conned, as we all were. ---------- Post added 01-09-2013 at 13:59 ---------- Cameron was not happy to go along with the dodgy dossier. He was taken in by it. It didn't become a dodgy dossier until after the war had started and it was exposed as a pack of lies. Until then it had been presented by the Prime Minister as information of the highest caliber and put forward as absolute proof that Sadam had WMD that threatened the UK and could be deployed in 45 minutes. You seem to be trying to fool yourself into who was culpable. Let's not forget that until Blair it wasn't expected that a Prime Minister would lie to parliament in order to gain its support. I posted my response to Le Maquis before I read yours. I agree in all regards but lack your eloquence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Cameron and the Tories went along with it because they were lied to by Blair. Surely they and we are entitled to believe a Prime Minister who, in the House of Commons, makes a statement which includes the sentence "we can expect an attack with 45 minutes notice". Under such dire circumstances I believe what I am told. So did the Tories. They were conned, as we all were I think you saying that will come back to haunt you soon enough. Only the other day Cameron said he wouldn't stand by, just like Blair said http://www.dailytimes.com.ng/article/cameron-i-wont-stand-over-syria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hillpig Posted September 1, 2013 Author Share Posted September 1, 2013 I think you saying that will come back to haunt you soon enough. Only the other day Cameron said he wouldn't stand by, just like Blair said http://www.dailytimes.com.ng/article/cameron-i-wont-stand-over-syria He did not stand by, he tried to get a motion through parliament that would have allowed him, acting in concert with our allies, take military action. He was prevented from doing so by a parliamentary vote. He had the guts to risk his reputation and his job by doing so, he never lied. He has shown himself to be an honourable man. Which is more than can be said about Milliband who as a Labour leader has turned out to be an opportunistic guttersnipe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Indeed. You showed the same behaviour then that's why. You've been banging on about how American trucks are so much better than any Euro trash as well. Get over yourself, and stop assuming that because it's American it *must* be better, and try a little humility for once. Is this a one sided argument to appease your sensitivies? Kindly go back and read post number 13 submitted by Phantom309. He had plenty to say about the shorcomings of American trucks. Also stay on the thread subject as I will from now on attempt to Thank you and have a nice day ---------- Post added 01-09-2013 at 18:33 ---------- It would also be very unpalatable to the vast majority of Americans too, Californians included. For a Republic you sure do lap our monarchy up, if not as much as we do. Well you have to understand that the lifestyles of the rich and famous always held a lot of fascination for people this side of the pond. Robin Leach who is/was British hosted a very succesful program on American TV called in fact "Lifestyles of the rich and famous" He always concluded each program with the words "May your champagne wishes and caviar dreams come true" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 He did not stand by, he tried to get a motion through parliament that would have allowed him, acting in concert with our allies, take military action. He was prevented from doing so by a parliamentary vote. He had the guts to risk his reputation and his job by doing so, he never lied. He has shown himself to be an honourable man. Which is more than can be said about Milliband who as a Labour leader has turned out to be an opportunistic guttersnipe. He said he won't stand by, end of. He also said he respects the the decision against action even though he didn't like being voted against. Never lied? Pull the other one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 He did not stand by, he tried to get a motion through parliament that would have allowed him, acting in concert with our allies, take military action. He was prevented from doing so by a parliamentary vote. He had the guts to risk his reputation and his job by doing so, he never lied. He has shown himself to be an honourable man. Which is more than can be said about Milliband who as a Labour leader has turned out to be an opportunistic guttersnipe. Well he should have backed the Labour amendment shouldn't he, waiting for compelling evidence before intervening. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Unfortunately Cameron couldn't bring himself to back a Labour amendment and so lost everything through his pride and stubbornness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.