America / Britain

[ebb]

No this isn't another abusive message :) Its more of an appreciation thread :eek: I for one seem to of been posting alot of abuse recently and its all been getting a little nasty :( I guess its a love/hate relationship, lets face it neither the American or British public are the arse licking types and neither are willing to back down. But its also perhaps true to say neither country has a greater friend in the world when times dictate unity is neccessary. I just don't want to project this anti-American stance, I like America and Americans, our 'relationship' gives us both a certain stabilty in the world.

I won't go on for fear of sounding like a wet wednesday morning, but its worth remembering whilst we sit firing abuse back and forth our forces are standing shoulder to shoulder around the world fighting the same cause, its worth remembering how quick our country gave virtually unconditional support after september 11th and continue to do so and the fact you guys give me hope that we won't end up relying on those bloody europeans for ever more.

So thats as close as your going to get to an apology for certain comments from myself :)

I still don't want your bloody guns though :D

[Whowhere]

woohoo, well said :p

[Thanatos...AGAIN]

Originally posted by ebb


I still don't want your bloody guns though :D

My guns are not "bloody"... they get cleaned after every using... ;)

And the only way that you would get them is to take them from me, and that might prove a bit more difficult than you had anticipated... :rolleyes: As in > you might get to experience the dirt nap. ;)

The balance is accepted, and appreciated. :)

[kathybrn]

Originally posted by ebb
No this isn't another abusive message :) Its more of an appreciation thread :eek: I for one seem to of been posting alot of abuse recently and its all been getting a little nasty :( I guess its a love/hate relationship, lets face it neither the American or British public are the arse licking types and neither are willing to back down. But its also perhaps true to say neither country has a greater friend in the world when times dictate unity is neccessary. I just don't want to project this anti-American stance, I like America and Americans, our 'relationship' gives us both a certain stabilty in the world.

I won't go on for fear of sounding like a wet wednesday morning, but its worth remembering whilst we sit firing abuse back and forth our forces are standing shoulder to shoulder around the world fighting the same cause, its worth remembering how quick our country gave virtually unconditional support after september 11th and continue to do so and the fact you guys give me hope that we won't end up relying on those bloody europeans for ever more.

So thats as close as your going to get to an apology for certain comments from myself :)

I still don't want your bloody guns though :D

I will also apologize for some of the remarks I made. Apology accepted.

Im with Thanatos on the bloody gun issue. It would be very damaging to our guns to leave the blood on them, maybe thats why guns dont work out in your county.

You have to properly care for them.:p

[MacKenZie]

Britain and America really do have a special relationship -- the words are not hollow ones. The special relationship stems from the distance between the two countries, which is exactly right to allow a most productive partnership.

America and Britain are close in many ways. They are close enough to agree on and work together on many important issues. When they do so they do so with no more friction between them than the normal friction between their own constituent parts. Because they share many of the same interests they have an interest in working together -- and they do.

There is also a certain separation between the two countries. In many ways each provides a useful counterpoint to the other, pointing out the flaws in the other's plans, policies and thought processes. This distance also allows the two countries to be (rightly) seen as separate entities: the UK is not state number 51.

After September 11 Britain arguably served as America's go-between in dealing with the rest of the world and trying to build what we now sometimes call The Coalition. To call Britain a "go-between" is not to demean her role -- it was a very essential one. Could America, wounded and enraged, still not in the good books of many Arab states, have done all that diplomacy for herself? Britain's closeness allowed her to work as part of the American effort; her distance allowed her to be seen as being separate from America so that her diplomats were not simply ignored.

For myself, I think that the special relationship manifests itself even on these boards. Our two countries (and their citizens) are close enough to care about each other, and to talk to one another frankly and openly. Our distance helps each side see the other's flaws -- because we all have to admit that neither country is perfect in its way of doing things. Sadly, both the British and the Americans are strong and proud peoples, and we are sometimes not receptive to alien ideas. But it is our closeness that allows the discourse, even its raised volume. We sometimes forget that, I think.

Some historians have called this phenomenon the best of the many effects of British imperialism. There is between Britan and many of her former colonies -- and especially the large ones, later the dominions, such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand -- a certain connection. Writers at the turn of last century, when Australia gained her independence, likened it to the connection between a parent and children who have now flown the nest: independence with closeness. In this respect America too is a former colony, and I think we see much the same relationship, although this one has a character all of its own.

To paraphrase John Quincy Adams, 6th President of the USA: "May our countries be succcessful, but whether successful or otherwise, always friends."

(Even if friends do have the occasional slanging match. ;) )

[Greenhat]

Hoo-rah.

[Thanatos...AGAIN]

Originally posted by Greenhat
Hoo-rah.

S'cuse me, SIR!

That is pronounced OO-RAH! ;) :D

[RubberSkin]

Hurrah:D

[Diesel]

I stole it fair & square!

http://www.gunsnet.net/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=527423

[Paul_2]

I’m a Englishman who likes America, and Canada, and Oz and NZ. I feel I have far more in common with the peoples of these nations than with the French, Germans, Italians etc.

When the chips are down and war looms in the uncertain times of today, I would rather have these people on our side than the bloody Europeans, who havn’t got the balls for a good fight anyway.

Paul

[Whowhere]

Originally posted by Paul_2
I’m a Englishman who likes America, and Canada, and Oz and NZ. I feel I have far more in common with the peoples of these nations than with the French, Germans, Italians etc.


Because at the end of the day we are essentially the same peoples.
Britain is the mother country, and I believe there will always be a special connection between us and our former colonies. I don't think it is a coincidence that Britain and her former colonies are the most powerful nations in the world. Could it be to do with the nature of the people who live in them perhaps?

[Vox populi, vox Dei]

Originally posted by Whowhere



Because at the end of the day we are essentially the same peoples.
Britain is the mother country, and I believe there will always be a special connection between us and our former colonies. I don't think it is a coincidence that Britain and her former colonies are the most powerful nations in the world. Could it be to do with the nature of the people who live in them perhaps?

The power of those nations stems primarily from geograhical convenience and a lot of luck. World War One spelt the death of the Central and Eastern European Empires, but Britain, in both wars, survived, as an island, without the infrastructural damage suffered on the continent. America got away practically scot free in both wars, and indeed had its economy boosted by the increase in production.

Although some would argue that we're not really amongst the most powerful nations any more. Germany and Japan are, ironically after their defeat in WW2, stronger than us economically, and if you're looking at military strength then we're vastly inferior to Russia (well, in ability to indiscriminately destroy continent-sized areas of land).

America is the strongest both economically and militarily, and although a former colony, periodic influxes of immigrants have rendered it a complete polyglot; you cannot say that the "average" American is descended from English settlers.

[carlito]

What exactly is it that we gain from our "special relationship" with America?

Security? Surely not, since our present main security threats come from the fact we support America and her wars, in the form of terrorism.

Economic advantages? Yes, we trade with the US, bigtime, but recent events such as Bush's steel tarrifs show us that when it comes to the crunch the Americans are out purely for self interest- not even beliving in the strength of pure capitalism even though they espouse it so.

Culture? :rolleyes:

Any others?

We are going to get attacked sooner or later, and we get no benefit for supporting the wars which anyway cost thousands of innocent lives. Break with America.

[Thanatos...AGAIN]

Originally posted by Vox populi, vox Dei



America is the strongest both economically and militarily, and although a former colony, periodic influxes of immigrants have rendered it a complete polyglot; you cannot say that the "average" American is descended from English settlers.

Hmmm... let us see, now...

My forebears were indentured Prussians who were brought over to fight against the colonials... seems they got outta them funky coats, changed sides, and helped punt the arrogant "sovereigns" out of the country...

Lots of "empathy" there...

Then there was the Cherokee side...

More empathy...

Lastly, the Australian side. Seems that they got to Australia courtesy of the "good" king...

Most definitely an affinity for English there... ;)

Now... THAT said...

Originally posted by carlito


We are going to get attacked sooner or later, and we get no benefit for supporting the wars which anyway cost thousands of innocent lives. Break with America.

Perhaps America should have broken you YOUR lot 65 years ago?

Should you extract that butt-plug you grow on your neck, you might realize that there are mutual benefits to the association between these two nations, and you not saluting a "SIEG HEIL" to the Third Reich every morning is a start... :rolleyes:

Are you ignorant of history, stupid, or simply totally consumed by your self-serving anal/cranial inversion? Perhaps it would be better to allie yourselves to the French? :eek:

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by carlito
Security? Surely not, since our present main security threats come from the fact we support America and her wars, in the form of terrorism.

Er....have you ever considered that we support the US because their ideals match ours?

Have you contemplated on the Irish Terrorists who attack us, but couldn't give a shit about the US?

Economic advantages? Yes, we trade with the US, bigtime, but recent events such as Bush's steel tarrifs show us that when it comes to the crunch the Americans are out purely for self interest- not even beliving in the strength of pure capitalism even though they espouse it so.

Whereas the europeans welcome our trade with open arms, don't they?

Which is the only country to maintain a total ban on UK beef imports?

We are going to get attacked sooner or later, and we get no benefit for supporting the wars which anyway cost thousands of innocent lives. Break with America.

We are going to get attacked sooner of later because we believe in democracy. I know that is a tough concept for an ingnorant twat like yourself, but hey its not my fault that you are [apparently] a moron.

As for getting nothing out of war, might I point out that most of europe would be under the control of the Nazi Party now, if it wasn't for war. Including the UK. Guess you'd find it hard to express political beliefs then, would you?

[Thanatos...AGAIN]

Originally posted by carlito

Culture? :rolleyes:

You would be refering to your soccer hooligans??? :rolleyes:

[Thanatos...AGAIN]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent





We are going to get attacked sooner of later because we believe in democracy. I know that is a tough concept for an ingnorant twat like yourself, but hey its not my fault that you are [apparently] a moron.

As for getting nothing out of war, might I point out that most of europe would be under the control of the Nazi Party now, if it wasn't for war. Including the UK. Guess you'd find it hard to express political beliefs then, would you?

Damn... this "co-inq-a-dink" be happening too often for comfort! :eek:

So here's ta YEW, MoK: http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/cheers.gif

{but I'll take mine cold, if you please}

[carlito]

Originally posted by Thanatos...AGAIN


Perhaps America should have broken you YOUR lot 65 years ago?

Should you extract that butt-plug you grow on your neck, you might realize that there are mutual benefits to the association between these two nations, and you not saluting a "SIEG HEIL" to the Third Reich every morning is a start... :rolleyes:

Are you ignorant of history, stupid, or simply totally consumed by your self-serving anal/cranial inversion? Perhaps it would be better to allie yourselves to the French? :eek:

How suprising, when asked for the benefits to us NOW of supporting America's wars around the globe, an American goes back to "we saved your ass in WW2" :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

What would be wrong with an anglo-French axis?

[carlito]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent


Er....have you ever considered that we support the US because their ideals match ours?



Hundreds of other countries around the globe's ideals match those of the UK. We don't support their wars.



Whereas the europeans welcome our trade with open arms, don't they?

Which is the only country to maintain a total ban on UK beef imports?



I never mentioned Europe, I was discussing our special relationship with America.



We are going to get attacked sooner of later because we believe in democracy. I know that is a tough concept for an ingnorant twat like yourself, but hey its not my fault that you are [apparently] a moron.



Were the September 11th attacks about democracy/freedom? So we am told, every day, by Blair and Bush. Bin Laden says he is at war with America because of their military bases in "his" "holy land," because of UN (but US led) sanctions on Iraq, and becuase US support for Israel in her (percieved by him) oppression of Palestinians.

Insults the way to go?

As for getting nothing out of war, might I point out that most of europe would be under the control of the Nazi Party now, if it wasn't for war. Including the UK. Guess you'd find it hard to express political beliefs then, would you

And back to WW2.....

[carlito]

Originally posted by Thanatos...AGAIN


You would be refering to your soccer hooligans??? :rolleyes:

Again, thats not what I said. I'm perfectly sympathetic to you if you don't want "our" culture, if thats what "soccer holigans" are.

[Thanatos...AGAIN]

Originally posted by carlito



Were the September 11th attacks about democracy/freedom? So we am told, every day, by Blair and Bush. Bin Laden says he is at war with America because of their military bases in "his" "holy land," because of UN (but US led) sanctions on Iraq...

Let's see now...

As best I can recall (not having benefitted from your experience in fictional and editted history), US forces were in Saudi because of that nation's fear of being over-run by Saddam Hussein... :rolleyes: You miss that little factoid, just like your hero bin Laden?

Duplicitous behavior your "strong suit"? Or just ignorant of history, even relatively recent?

[Thanatos...AGAIN]

Originally posted by carlito


Hundreds of other countries around the globe's ideals match those of the UK. We don't support their wars.

Hundreds, eh?

Care to list a few? Perhaps even only a mere ONE hundred? ;)

[Whowhere]

Originally posted by Thanatos...AGAIN


Hundreds, eh?

Care to list a few? Perhaps even only a mere ONE hundred? ;)

Last count there was something like 176 nations. Many of them are in the Middle East/Africa/Asia.
How many of them share our ideologies....hmm.

As for an Anglo-French axis, we've already had one of those. The French ducked out of it.

[Man Of Kent]

So where to start?

Originally posted by carlito
Insults the way to go?

If you post something which is moronic and ignorant, I'm going to say that you are an ignorant moron.

Hundreds of other countries around the globe's ideals match those of the UK. We don't support their wars.

If you ignore the recent conflicts in which we have been involved. Kuwait, Bosnia, Sierra Leone. You could also look to UK involvement in Malaysia and Oman.

I never mentioned Europe, I was discussing our special relationship with America.

and I was giving a comparison. You picked on one aspect of our relatioship with the US - Steel. I pointed out that Europe (who is supposed to be our closest partner) includes countries who still embargo our trade.

Were the September 11th attacks about democracy/freedom? So we am told, every day, by Blair and Bush. Bin Laden says he is at war with America because of their military bases in "his" "holy land," because of UN (but US led) sanctions on Iraq, and becuase US support for Israel in her (percieved by him) oppression of Palestinians.

Isn't Israel democratic then? I think Thanatos covered the other aspect.

OBL has never sought to use democratic means to resolve his grievences, isnstead believing that terrorism is his answer. I'd say that was an attack on democracy - using force to resolve an issue. Especially when it is your first option.

And back to WW2.....

So look back at what YOU said - "We are going to get attacked sooner or later, and we get no benefit for supporting the wars which anyway cost thousands of innocent lives."

WW2 did just that, we benefitted from it.

If you don't like the WW2 example then look at Kuwait, the Falklands, Kosovo...

[Thanatos...AGAIN]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
So where to start?

If you post something which is moronic and ignorant, I'm going to say that you are an ignorant moron.

Originally posted by Thanatos...AGAIN


So here's ta YEW, MoK: http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/cheers.gif

{but I'll take mine cold, if you please}

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/cheers.gif

[carlito]

Originally posted by Thanatos...AGAIN


Let's see now...

As best I can recall (not having benefitted from your experience in fictional and editted history), US forces were in Saudi because of that nation's fear of being over-run by Saddam Hussein... :rolleyes: You miss that little factoid, just like your hero bin Laden?

Duplicitous behavior your "strong suit"? Or just ignorant of history, even relatively recent?

Well you've got a funny little way of twisting words haven't you?

I never commented on whether or not Bin Laden was justified in "going to war with the US" over US military bases in Saudi Arabia. I simply said that was one of his demands from the US which he hopes terrorism will acheive.

But since you didn't bother to counter my argument that democracy isn't the reason Osama Bin Laden attacked the US, I'll assume you have retracted your original statement.

[carlito]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
So where to start?



If you post something which is moronic and ignorant, I'm going to say that you are an ignorant moron.





Well, ok, but apparently I can report you to a modertator for doing that. :eek:

If you ignore the recent conflicts in which we have been involved. Kuwait, Bosnia, Sierra Leone. You could also look to UK involvement in Malaysia and Oman.



Hardly a roll call of the world's problems in terms of fighting for democracy :rolleyes:



[b]

and I was giving a comparison. You picked on one aspect of our relatioship with the US - Steel. I pointed out that Europe (who is supposed to be our closest partner) includes countries who still embargo our trade.



Well done. :confused:



Isn't Israel democratic then? I think Thanatos covered the other aspect.



YEs, it is democratic (although that could be argued agaisnt), but thats not the reason Bin Laden wants to curtial/remove it. The reason OBL wants to do that is because hje percieves that Israel oppresses Palestinians.

Kindof like saying...."oh, but Osama Bin Laden hates Israel? well, Israel has the letter "I" in its name, therefore hes anti-"I".

OBL has never sought to use democratic means to resolve his grievences, isnstead believing that terrorism is his answer. I'd say that was an attack on democracy - using force to resolve an issue. Especially when it is your first option.



Its questionable to what extent Osama Bin Laden and men like him CAN use democracy to resolve the issue. Where specifically can he vote for the Palestinians to be given their own state?

Which isn't to say that terrorism is justified. But it doesn't necessarily mean hes at heart anti-democratic. The IRA believe in a democratic united Ireland. The Red Brigades, in Italy, wanted the most comprehensive democracy ever known in history.

Does the fact that George W Bush has used war in Afghanistan, and possibly will in Iraq, mean he is anti democratic?



So look back at what YOU said - "We are going to get attacked sooner or later, and we get no benefit for supporting the wars which anyway cost thousands of innocent lives."

WW2 did just that, we benefitted from it.

If you don't like the WW2 example then look at Kuwait, the Falklands, Kosovo

WW2 was 50 years ago. I'm asking for the benefits now.

Kuwait? Did we gain from that? The US didn't fight in the Falklands. How did we gain from Kosovo?

[carlito]

Originally posted by Whowhere


Last count there was something like 176 nations. Many of them are in the Middle East/Africa/Asia.
How many of them share our ideologies....hmm.

As for an Anglo-French axis, we've already had one of those. The French ducked out of it.

:eek: :eek:

Ok maybe hundreds isn't the word i was looking for....got a little carried away there :o

[Thanatos...AGAIN]

Originally posted by carlito


:eek: :eek:

Ok maybe hundreds isn't the word i was looking for....got a little carried away there :o

THAT? Would be the norm, wouldn't it?

Originally posted by carlito


WW2 was 50 years ago. I'm asking for the benefits now.

Kuwait? Did we gain from that?...

I would think that Saddam Hussein being prevented from sufficiently looting Kuwait to purchase both nuclear weapons and the delivery systems to get them to your little island would be of some small value to you... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by carlito


Well, ok, but apparently I can report you to a modertator for doing that. :eek:

"DADDIE?!?!? That mean old Man of Kent is telling the TRUTH about me!" http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/icon5.gif

Originally posted by carlito


But since you didn't bother to counter my argument that democracy isn't the reason Osama Bin Laden attacked the US, I'll assume you have retracted your original statement.

You "assume" very well, just about anything and everything. Relating to reality? Is another issue.

And I have retracted NOTHING!

Never have, and never will. If I say it or print it, it is what I meant.

You have much to learn, lambchop... and are much too boorish a subject for me to teach it all to... :rolleyes:

You comprehend very little of what you post.

Educate yourself beyond your inane little world, if you expect to engage adults in conversation...

[MacKenZie]

Originally posted by Whowhere
Last count there was something like 176 nations. Many of them are in the Middle East/Africa/Asia.
How many of them share our ideologies....hmm.

Yeah, all those wonderful traditions like presumption of innocence until proof of guilt is established in a court of law. Hell yes hundreds of countries share that viewpoint with us -- NOT! And such enlightened ideas as severance of thieves' hands, stoning, rule by religious decree and fiat. We here in the UK love those -- NOT!

The USA and UK have their differences but they are inconsequential next to the HUGE GULF of cultural differences that lie between us and most of the rest of the world, with particular emphasis on Africa and South-East Asia. Their thought processes are simply alien. The mental outlook of Brits and Americans is so similar that English Common Law has standing in American courts.

Why do we have international relationships at all? Because no country save a massive superpower (the USA if it came to it, Rome at her peak) can stand alone. Why do we have a special relationship with America? Because they are closest to us when it counts!

Anyone remember last summer, when Bush declared Mexico America's closest ally? The mistake of a new President -- mistaking geographical proximity for ideological closeness. America and Britain have proved in blood that, when it really counts, they stand for the same things. Germany, Italy and Japan know this. No doubt others will too, in time.

[MacKenZie]

Originally posted by carlito
Well, ok, but apparently I can report you to a modertator for doing that. :eek:

You will find that we have better ways of dealing with trolls on these boards. The mods need use their sticks only rarely. And if you see that a poster has a post tally of four figures (anyone hit the big 10K yet?) you can bet that (s)he isn't a troll, 'cause 9S)he'd have been gone long ago.

You will find several merciless debaters here. They will shoot faulty arguments and opinions down in flames without hesitation. This is done without mercy... and without hard feeling.

Kuwait? Did we gain from that? The US didn't fight in the Falklands. How did we gain from Kosovo?

Kuwait: So, we didn't gain from Saddam not rolling onwards into Saudi Arabia and thereby getting a choke-hold on the world's oil supply? Look at your nearest busy road and see one of the benefits of the Gulf War.

Falklands: No, the US simply supplied a lot of materiél. You know, those super-duper Sidewinder air-to-air missiles? Or did you think that the Task Force stopped at Ascension Island so the crews could top up their tans?

Kosovo: How did we gain? Ask they Kosovars how they gained.

[Thanatos...AGAIN]

Originally posted by MacKenZie


You will find that we have better ways of dealing with trolls on these boards. The mods need use their sticks only rarely. And if you see that a poster has a post tally of four figures (anyone hit the big 10K yet?) you can bet that (s)he isn't a troll, 'cause 9S)he'd have been gone long ago.

You will find several merciless debaters here. They will shoot faulty arguments and opinions down in flames without hesitation. This is done without mercy... and without hard feeling.

How about any feeling? ;)

Does this mean that after 4,000+ posts, that I can call MoK a "troll"? :D

[Thanatos...AGAIN]

Me thinks we need to fluff up our post count a bit... which forum shall we besiege? ;)

[DJP]

Originally posted by Thanatos...AGAIN
Me thinks we need to fluff up our post count a bit... which forum shall we besiege? ;)

Can we make a list?

[carlito]

Originally posted by Thanatos...AGAIN


THAT? Would be the norm, wouldn't it?



I would think that Saddam Hussein being prevented from sufficiently looting Kuwait to purchase both nuclear weapons and the delivery systems to get them to your little island would be of some small value to you... :rolleyes:



"DADDIE?!?!? That mean old Man of Kent is telling the TRUTH about me!" http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/icon5.gif



You "assume" very well, just about anything and everything. Relating to reality? Is another issue.

And I have retracted NOTHING!

Never have, and never will. If I say it or print it, it is what I meant.

You have much to learn, lambchop... and are much too boorish a subject for me to teach it all to... :rolleyes:

You comprehend very little of what you post.

Educate yourself beyond your inane little world, if you expect to engage adults in conversation...

Well, I presumed that this was a debate, rather than a "conversation"-

de·bate Pronunciation Key (d-bt)
v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
v. intr.
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
4. Obsolete. To fight or quarrel.


You haven't countered the argument in question, I think i can safely assume that you don't want a debate, you want to call people names and pretend your big and clever on the net.
:o :rolleyes:

I would think that Saddam Hussein being prevented from sufficiently looting Kuwait to purchase both nuclear weapons and the delivery systems to get them to your little island would be of some small value to you... :rolleyes:


Saddam Hussein deliver a nuclear strike on Britain in 1990?

Strange....what I wonder would be the motive for that? :confused: :confused:

We had been friendly with him, and sold him arms, up until that point. I'm not quite sure where you are coming from.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooohhh, unless you are being anachronistic, and thinking that in 1990 he might have the same (accused) aims as he is supposed to now, i.e. terrorism/force toward Britain....well, I was under the impression that that was because she supported America in the Gulf War, and the subsequent sanctions against Iraq.

As a minor point, Saddam Hussein would have almost certainly had the finance needed in 1990 to purchase weapons systems/nuclear warheads, but they simply were not available. Are you suggesting that Hussein invaded Kuwait to raise finance to nuke Britain? :confused:

Might stay around for one more post to see if you seriously want to discuss something, rather than try and act condescending and insulting.

:o

[Thanatos...AGAIN]

Originally posted by DJP


Can we make a list?

Well... I seem to recall that PussyKatty has invited me to "dabble" in the sex forums, but can envision all sort of lewd and lascivious behavior, there, and I am rather not still the kidlet... :eek:

Doubt I would make such a hit in the drugs forum... :rolleyes:

[carlito]

Originally posted by MacKenZie


You will find that we have better ways of dealing with trolls on these boards. The mods need use their sticks only rarely. And if you see that a poster has a post tally of four figures (anyone hit the big 10K yet?) you can bet that (s)he isn't a troll, 'cause 9S)he'd have been gone long ago.

You will find several merciless debaters here. They will shoot faulty arguments and opinions down in flames without hesitation. This is done without mercy... and without hard feeling.



Hmm...

...I was under the impression that "shooting down faulty arguments" is supposed to be done by defeating them logically and with relevant evidence/argumnets, not calling them and "ignorant moron" period.

Falklands: No, the US simply supplied a lot of materiél. You know, those super-duper Sidewinder air-to-air missiles? Or did you think that the Task Force stopped at Ascension Island so the crews could top up their tans?



The US arms anyone and everyone. As do most countries.

The British and the French sold the Argentinians the missiles they used.

Kosovo: How did we gain? Ask they Kosovars how they gained

Aside from the fact that the Kosovo campiagn was completely disasterous, and failed in its aims, we aren't discussing that, we arediscussing the supposed benefits to the British people of our close relationship with America.

[DJP]

Carlito,

I don't know you, and you don't know me. That's fine. Let's say this. Crossing swords on pedantics with people on here will not do you much good. Most of them are certainly practiced in arguing, and often better equipped to do so. I say that as someone who quite thought that I could debate, and had my head handed to me here more than once.

Debates will not run according to dictionary terms, and rarely stay precisely focused on the subject. You just have to accept it, and roll with the arguments as they develop throughout the thread. Cut through the rhetoric, and find the argument. Ignore the rest.

The US and Britain have a special relationship. This is true. Both have fought common wars, share a common language (though US English - I ask you?!) and share a philanthropic outlook on foreign policy underwritten by capitalist mores and rationales. The UK population has more in common with that of the US in many things, despite physical proximity. And both countries know this, and that it is an historical inevitability.

Now. Where's your argument?

[Thanatos...AGAIN]

Originally posted by carlito



Might stay around for one more post to see if you seriously want to discuss something, rather than try and act condescending and insulting.

:o

Now, that would really be a priviege for the rest of us, would it not, to be graced even further by your presence? :rolleyes:

Ever learn to play chess? Even familiar with the game?

It involves observing the opponents traits, tendencies, and anticipating his movements, strategies...

Hussein is just another wannabe Hitler. Nothing more, but certainly less. If you want to play footsie with him, then I guess Chamberlain rather wrote the play book for you, didn't he? :rolleyes: A "charismatic" speaker with the ability to delude a nation, or enslave them through their ignorance to his agenda, and overpower any resistence.

ANYTHING is available, if you have sufficient power/influence/capital. With the fall of the Soviet Union, there is ALOT of nuclear weaponry floating around, awaiting being snatched up by them with sufficient capital. Does not take all that much intellect nor powers of discernment to comprehend the reasons why Hussein went into Kuwait with the intent of plundering that country, as the opening act to his road show. Need a replay of Hitler's Blitzkrieg to refresh your memory? You rape and pillage one nation to finance the taking of the next. After Kuwait would have come Saudi Arabia. Eventually, all of Europe would have fallen. Including your little island.

bin Laden is Hitler's Hirohito, but the real opening gambit kinda didn't cause the cowardly giant US to fall to its knees, trembling. Major fuck-up, rather like Pearl Harbor. Oops...

If you cannot comprehend that, best confine yourself to the drugs forum... :rolleyes:

btw... I AM archaic, out of place and time, a throwback to a period when boys were not neutered at birth, and thus became men, not simpering little ignorant morons. You will find that there are a few others who post here, and their intellect has not been stunted by testosterone deprivation.

Now that you have returned from the peanut gallery, exactly which question has not been sufficiently explained to your inept satisfaction? :rolleyes:

[carlito]

Originally posted by DJP
Carlito,

I don't know you, and you don't know me. That's fine. Let's say this. Crossing swords on pedantics with people on here will not do you much good. Most of them are certainly practiced in arguing, and often better equipped to do so. I say that as someone who quite thought that I could debate, and had my head handed to me here more than once.

Debates will not run according to dictionary terms, and rarely stay precisely focused on the subject. You just have to accept it, and roll with the arguments as they develop throughout the thread. Cut through the rhetoric, and find the argument. Ignore the rest.

The US and Britain have a special relationship. This is true. Both have fought common wars, share a common language (though US English - I ask you?!) and share a philanthropic outlook on foreign policy underwritten by capitalist mores and rationales. The UK population has more in common with that of the US in many things, despite physical proximity. And both countries know this, and that it is an historical inevitability.



Agreed.

Now. Where's your argument?

That not only does our close relationship with America do us more harm than good, put us at threat from terrorism, and make us hated across the world, but that in many cases it is morally reprehensible.

Although obviously co-operating with America as closely as possible in the fight to prevent terrorism, we should take a step back from the wars which we are obliged to support. If we must remain so close, we must try as much as possible to restrain the more bellicose aspects of current US policy, and actively seek to solve the world problems that cause/result in the terrorism which we are at risk from.

[carlito]

Originally posted by Thanatos...AGAIN


Now, that would really be a priviege for the rest of us, would it not, to be graced even further by your presence? :rolleyes:

Ever learn to play chess? Even familiar with the game?

It involves observing the opponents traits, tendencies, and anticipating his movements, strategies...

Hussein is just another wannabe Hitler. Nothing more, but certainly less. If you want to play footsie with him, then I guess Chamberlain rather wrote the play book for you, didn't he? :rolleyes: A "charismatic" speaker with the ability to delude a nation, or enslave them through their ignorance to his agenda, and overpower any resistence.

ANYTHING is available, if you have sufficient power/influence/capital. With the fall of the Soviet Union, there is ALOT of nuclear weaponry floating around, awaiting being snatched up by them with sufficient capital. Does not take all that much intellect nor powers of discernment to comprehend the reasons why Hussein went into Kuwait with the intent of plundering that country, as the opening act to his road show. Need a replay of Hitler's Blitzkrieg to refresh your memory? You rape and pillage one nation to finance the taking of the next. After Kuwait would have come Saudi Arabia. Eventually, all of Europe would have fallen. Including your little island.

bin Laden is Hitler's Hirohito, but the real opening gambit kinda didn't cause the cowardly giant US to fall to its knees, trembling. Major fuck-up, rather like Pearl Harbor. Oops...

If you cannot comprehend that, best confine yourself to the drugs forum... :rolleyes:

btw... I AM archaic, out of place and time, a throwback to a period when boys were not neutered at birth, and thus became men, not simpering little ignorant morons. You will find that there are a few others who post here, and their intellect has not been stunted by testosterone deprivation.

Now that you have returned from the peanut gallery, exactly which question has not been sufficiently explained to your inept satisfaction? :rolleyes:

Well I was still waiting to hear some detail on Bin laden's hatred of Britain because of her democracy, but that seems to have gone by the wayside to a very noble rhetorical rant about how Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait to attain enough capital to buy nuclear weapons, which, apparently, are available.

Not that this is the issue at hand, but I'd be interested to see the pricings on these nukes in 1990, and specifically how much money Hussein needed to gain to be able to afford them.

I'd love to take your word for all this, I really would, but the rhetoric of an angry American citizen, which he seems to have recycled straight from GWB's speeches, is not quite enough guarantee for me, since my brother will be fighting in these far away places, my tax will be paying for it, and my home at risk if and when a terrorist cell decides they want to break up the coalition against terror by striking London.

bin Laden is Hitler's Hirohito, but the real opening gambit kinda didn't cause the cowardly giant US to fall to its knees, trembling. Major fuck-up, rather like Pearl Harbor. Oops...


The reason for striking Pearl Harbour to get America to fall to her knees, trembling?

Maybe I don't have a gfreat grasp of histoircal knowledge or something, but I was under the impression that it was an attempt to destroy US naval power in the Pacific so that Japanese strategic oil interests could be protected.

Also a questionable analysis on OBL's intentions for Sept 11th. A tactician would probably say that it was fairly obvious that Bin Laden didn't expect America to "fall to her knees," but to polarize the population of the world, particulary between Islamic and non-Islamic peoples, in an attempt to escalate Jihad.


p.s. I'd also be interested to know why since Hussein is just a wannabe Hitler, the US supported and sold arms to him during the 1980s?

[DJP]

Originally posted by carlito

That not only does our close relationship with America do us more harm than good, put us at threat from terrorism, and make us hated across the world, but that in many cases it is morally reprehensible.

Although obviously co-operating with America as closely as possible in the fight to prevent terrorism, we should take a step back from the wars which we are obliged to support. If we must remain so close, we must try as much as possible to restrain the more bellicose aspects of current US policy, and actively seek to solve the world problems that cause/result in the terrorism which we are at risk from.

Okay. You would, I imagine, accept that in economic terms, the US is the world leader? Surely, having a close relationship with the economic leader of the world is a good thing? Economically, I don't think that it can be argued any other way. We are not quite fully integrated in to Europe, neither are we an American puppet. We retain sufficent control to avoid the pitfalls of either, and yet, reap most of the benefits. That is all well and good.

Diplomatically, I think that we find ourselves benefitting from ties with the US. Our memberships of the UN, NATO et al. are certainly not hindrances to this status, and nor are they hindered by our relationship.

Well, on to your point of terrorism. To some extent, I can agree with your point. When there's a guy shooting, you don't voluntarily stick your head up. It seems that this is what the UK foreign policy is doing, and certainly, I think that full compliance with US policies are negatively going to affect the UK.

However, much as I agree with that, I don't think we have fully complied, and I think that the UK often acts as an arbiter between a hot headed and previously untested US Administration and the reasonable force of the rest of the world. The strikes were not lauched immediately, the whole of the region was not carpet bombed with nuclear weapons, and such moderation was in part, I would suspect, due to calming influences, amongst them, ours. As a moderator and perhaps influence on the world's strongest power, we expect considerable reward, and economically, diplomatically and sometimes in terms of power relations, we get it.

Both our countries are founded on principles of honour, of freedom and of justice. In the UK, the Constitution is unwritten, whereas the US one is a codified and legislative piece. We both take on a role as international peacekeepers, as those who provide support, aid and help to those who need it. Do we do it for reward? No. Do we do it because it benefits us? No. Do we do it because it's right? Yes. If being right subjects us to attack, then so be it. Far better to stand for principles than to accede to something we don't believe in.

If they're shooting at us; that's when we know we're doing it right.

[carlito]

Originally posted by DJP


Okay. You would, I imagine, accept that in economic terms, the US is the world leader? Surely, having a close relationship with the economic leader of the world is a good thing? Economically, I don't think that it can be argued any other way. We are not quite fully integrated in to Europe, neither are we an American puppet. We retain sufficent control to avoid the pitfalls of either, and yet, reap most of the benefits. That is all well and good.



Yes, its true that a close economic bond with the Hyperpower of the world economy is beneficial. However, to what extent would America "cut off" economic ties with Britain if she decided to take a 'step back' diplomatically? I severly doubt that the US would place any kind of economic sanction nor would she economically collapse if we were not allied...

Diplomatically, I think that we find ourselves benefitting from ties with the US. Our memberships of the UN, NATO et al. are certainly not hindrances to this status, and nor are they hindered by our relationship.



The fact that the US is now taking steps to disband NATO would contradict this point. Its plain that NATO is a 'relic of the cold war,' as the cliche goes, whether it could find a place in the New World Order was somewhat questioned by the success of the Kosovan crisis. Do we gain any real benefit now from NATO? Yes, I agree, we may have gained at the height of the Cold War, but now it is highly questionable.

As for the UN, I am a firm beliver in its good influence. America is not, that is plain. Repeated violations of UN law, for instance during the Kosovo crisis (to stick with a single example), and disregard for UN resolutions time after time show that the US, and possibly the UK (which isn't to say other countries don't) see the UN as a hinderance, only useful in the cases where it doesn't get in the way.

Well, on to your point of terrorism. To some extent, I can agree with your point. When there's a guy shooting, you don't voluntarily stick your head up. It seems that this is what the UK foreign policy is doing, and certainly, I think that full compliance with US policies are negatively going to affect the UK.

However, much as I agree with that, I don't think we have fully complied, and I think that the UK often acts as an arbiter between a hot headed and previously untested US Administration and the reasonable force of the rest of the world. The strikes were not lauched immediately, the whole of the region was not carpet bombed with nuclear weapons, and such moderation was in part, I would suspect, due to calming influences, amongst them, ours. As a moderator and perhaps influence on the world's strongest power, we expect considerable reward, and economically, diplomatically and sometimes in terms of power relations, we get it.



Possibly.

However it is doubtful how much of a real influence the UK has on US policy. When it comes to the crunhc, the US has shown that it can and will act unilaterally, without hesitation. GWB says so even now, unprecedented in diplomacy.

Both our countries are founded on principles of honour, of freedom and of justice. In the UK, the Constitution is unwritten, whereas the US one is a codified and legislative piece. We both take on a role as international peacekeepers, as those who provide support, aid and help to those who need it. Do we do it for reward? No. Do we do it because it benefits us? No. Do we do it because it's right? Yes. If being right subjects us to attack, then so be it. Far better to stand for principles than to accede to something we don't believe in.

If they're shooting at us; that's when we know we're doing it right

Principles?

Did you not just say before that US and UK policy is simply capitalistic in nature?

The pithy aid we give to the third world is a face saving gesture. Granted, we intervene in some interbnational disputes out of principle, but the fact that we pick and choose which we will and will not intevene in leavce questions as to the motives of these escapades...

If we were getting it right "they" wouldn't be shooting at us, or if they were we would be able to destroy them quicjkly and easily because they would have no support.

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by carlito
That not only does our close relationship with America do us more harm than good, put us at threat from terrorism, and make us hated across the world, but that in many cases it is morally reprehensible.

So is your contention that rather than help defend the "freedoms" of the world, we should just avoid making ourselves targets for terrorism. That each time a terrorist raises his ugly head, we should shy away from conflict?

Is it "morally reprehensible" that the Kosovan Albanians no longer fear Milosevic, that they are not just another in a long list of people he (and his "army") removed from the face of the earth with a bullet in the head before burying them in an unmakred grave?

The reason for striking Pearl Harbour to get America to fall to her knees, trembling?

Maybe I don't have a gfreat grasp of histoircal knowledge or something, but I was under the impression that it was an attempt to destroy US naval power in the Pacific so that Japanese strategic oil interests could be protected.

You're right you don't have a great grasp of history. Firstly you miss the fact that wars do bring benefits for us all (and yes I do know that the cost is high, but I believe that Thanatos is in a bteer position to judge that cost than either you or I), then you miss the fact that the Japanese were on a imperialist march. The reason they decided to try and negate US forces was because they percieved them as a threat to their proposed expanision. If they were only interested in Oil, why did they procede to invade most of SE Asia? Have you ever heard of the Northern and Southern Resource Zones - better known to us as Russia and Australia?

Well I was still waiting to hear some detail on Bin laden's hatred of Britain because of her democracy

and I'm still waiting for his first direct attack on this country. Yet we still go out to ensure that this doesn't happen. Would you rather that we waited for an attack here, before reacting?

p.s. I'd also be interested to know why since Hussein is just a wannabe Hitler, the US supported and sold arms to him during the 1980s?

and then you wonder why I suggest that you are ignorant :rolleyes:

At that time the US saw Iran as a bigger threat - ever heard of the US Embassy Hostages? - consequently they percieved Hussein as an enemy of their enemy and worth supporting. Hindsight, the kind used by the left-wing, claims that this was a mistake. I disagree, at the time it was the right thing.

You also seem to miss the fact that Hussein executed a member of the British Press - Farzar Bazoft - before his invasion of Kuwait. In fact this was a couple of years before. He claimed that Farzar was a member of MI5, and was on a spying mission. A claim denied by everyone who knew him.

As for nuclear weaponry, have you not listened to what the UN inspectorate found? Are you aware that Israel bombed a nuclear weaponry facility years before the Kuwait invasion?

...I was under the impression that "shooting down faulty arguments" is supposed to be done by defeating them logically and with relevant evidence/argumnets, not calling them and "ignorant moron" period.]

Which I did, in addition to pointing out why I believed it to be ignorant and moronic.

Feel free to report me to the moderators, if you think that is the way forward. But don't expect us to take you seriously if you hide behind your mother's apron everytime we say something you don't agree with.

Do you notice a connection here? You would rather hide than face up to terrorism, you would even rather hide than face up to a rather low intensity insult. I thought that my countrymen had more balls than that. Obviously I am mistaken.

[Greenhat]

Carlito,

The UK should be glad that you and your ilk do not control the policies of the UK.

History is useful as a tool to learn from. Maybe we should call you "Neville".

[Thanatos...AGAIN]

Originally posted by Greenhat


History is useful as a tool to learn from. Maybe we should call you "Neville".

Me thinks that be MUCH too far over his head...:D

[Thanatos...AGAIN]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent



Feel free to report me to the moderators, if you think that is the way forward. But don't expect us to take you seriously if you hide behind your mother's apron everytime we say something you don't agree with.

Do you notice a connection here? You would rather hide than face up to terrorism, you would even rather hide than face up to a rather low intensity insult. I thought that my countrymen had more balls than that. Obviously I am mistaken.

Originally posted by Thanatos...AGAIN



btw... I AM archaic, out of place and time, a throwback to a period when boys were not neutered at birth, and thus became men, not simpering little ignorant morons. You will find that there are a few others who post here, and their intellect has not been stunted by testosterone deprivation.

Seems we agree, again... :rolleyes:

[Diesel]

T, you're breaking the rules...you are not allowed to agree with MOK...I mean really...what will these (shee)ple think?

:D

[Ocean Sailor]

WELL SAID EBB !! ;)

Although don't knock the Europeans too much, as our advantage is that we have our relationships with them aswell. The US doesn't really have a close relationship with any other European nation except us, so I think they value our ties with the EU.

If you think about it, the UK, has a unique position in the world, where we are able to exert alot of influence, probably greater than our geographical & economic situation actually dictates.

We are a member of the EU.
We are head of the Commonwealth nations.
We have a seat on the Security Council of the United Nations.
We are a member of NATO.
We have our close & Special Relationship with the USA.
The English language is probably the most widely spoken around the world, even though not a native one in most countries.

So lets not knock our ties with any of these parties, & use our unfluences & friendships wisely !
:)

[Murph the Surf]

I just love threads like these. It gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling!:D

[DJP]

Originally posted by Murph the Surf
I just love threads like these. It gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling!:D

Have you had therapy for that?

[Murph the Surf]

No! But the voices in my head tell me too! :D