StreetScooby 5 #26 December 4, 2006 We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #27 December 4, 2006 QuoteQuote Could say the same for us and Iraq and Afghanistan. Then take your piddling 2000 troops and go home. Maybe it'll give us an excuse to come in and really clean up (...since our country has now clearly lost the will to win). The UK currently have between 7000-8000 troops in Iraq alone. In Afghanistan we are the ones fighting those who planned the 9/11 attacks seeing as your fellow countrymen seem to have either given up or no longer care about going after the perpetrators. Our soldiers are dieing clearing up the mess that your government has created and deserted.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #28 December 4, 2006 Shit, thanks mate. Nice to be educatedWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #29 December 4, 2006 Quote In Afghanistan we are the ones fighting those who planned the 9/11 attacks seeing as your fellow countrymen seem to have either given up or no longer care about going after the perpetrators. Yep, and it sounds like they are kicking yalls ass. Why else surrender a province?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #30 December 4, 2006 Just a province.... the US appears to have surrendered the country. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #31 December 4, 2006 Quote Shit, thanks mate. Nice to be educated Hey, just pointing out an attitude that you've got as per a previous post in this thread. You might think its trivial, but its not. You should just be lucky you don't share a boarder with Canada!--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,219 #32 December 4, 2006 Quote From The Guardian, December 1,2006: In Washington, meanwhile, the hard realities of US-UK relations occasionally bubble to the political surface. This week, a senior State Department official named Kendall Myers - perhaps freed from the usual decorum by the fact that he is apparently "considering retirement" - offered a blunt critique of the UK's transatlantic clout at an academic event in Washington. The special relationship, he claimed, was a "myth" of around 60 years standing ("The poodle factor did not begin with Tony Blair," he said, "it began with Winston Churchill"), cruelly pointed up by the celebrated occasion in 2003 when Blair was desperately trying to convince his party to back plans for an attack on Iraq, but the ever-tactful Donald Rumsfeld said that the UK's help was not necessarily required. "I feel a little ashamed . . . that we treated him [Blair] like that," said Myers. "And yet there it was - there was no payback, no sense of reciprocity in the relationship." Around Westminster, however, such illusions still prevail. The special relationship - a phrase first uttered in 1946, in the same Churchill speech that contained the first mention of the Iron Curtain - remains all but uncontested, and such matters as the role of UK bases in Bush's "Son of Star Wars" programme or the fact that there are American nuclear weapons in rural East Anglia barely intrude on mainstream politics. Instead, give or take the arguments about Iraq, the political class unanimously accepts the alleged benefits of close ties: privileged access to high-end intelligence, the vital role of the US in the upkeep of British nuclear weapons (without which they would effectively be useless), and the fact that the special relationship allows a medium-sized ex-imperial country to punch above its weight. Such is the background to recurrent bits of political theatre: from Blair's gushing speech to both Houses of Congress in 2003 to Condoleezza Rice's sojourn with Jack Straw in Blackburn, undertaken just a few months before he lost his job as foreign secretary - when whispers circulated that it was a nudge from Washington that did for him.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #33 December 4, 2006 I voted to renew. I think not to do so would impede the UK in a parallel manner as when they decommissioned their full-sized carriers in favor of the "Invincible" class boats years ago. Also, the UK's role on the UN security council would be seriously deminished.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #34 December 4, 2006 Nice piece. The romantic notion of the special relationship only exists in the heads of politicians. The reality has always been clear for anyone to see.... We're still paying for WW2 (although that should be done with this year)... Little or no rent paied for RAF bases...... Free Jet Engine!! ... Rendition..... One way extradition process.... One way Visa requirements. . (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #35 December 4, 2006 Quote The romantic notion of the special relationship only exists in the heads of politicians. FYI... I'm one of those folks in America that thinks we should COMPLETELY withdraw from Germany. Fuck them. Let them pay for their own defense. I'm on the fence with Britain.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #36 December 4, 2006 <> - Be careful... we dont upkeep it like we sholuld (no money) so you may get a splinter in your arse (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #37 December 4, 2006 QuoteNice piece. The romantic notion of the special relationship only exists in the heads of politicians. Not just politicians, average "joes" too. I think you guys are cool, politics aside. No, I'm not trying to hug you. QuoteLittle or no rent paied for RAF bases I know, all those people living there and contributing to the economy. Clearly never a benefit... So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,642 #38 December 4, 2006 QuoteI know, all those people living there and contributing to the economy. Clearly never a benefit...OK, howzabout if we start letting other countries start up bases in depressed sections of the US? Maybe on old abandoned US bases? Think of the boon it would be to the local economy, and there'd be a trained workforce already as well Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #39 December 4, 2006 You are right to a degree, the local economy does benefit some; it would a lot more if the hard-core Stay-on-Base brigade would venture out into the Oh so scary U.K sometimes.... There is a very large number that dont - really. Oh and thanks for the hug (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
orribolollie 0 #40 December 4, 2006 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- your not protecting us. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lose your nukes, and you most definitely won't be protecting yourselves. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thats not an answer to 'your not protecting us'....so as I said, your not protecting us. Again, as I said; youve made our situation worse if anything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,173 #41 December 4, 2006 >Lose your nukes, and you most definitely won't be protecting yourselves. I think you overestimate the defensive capability of nuclear weapons. Japan doesn't have em, and hasn't been invaded since WWII. Sweden doesn't have em - they're doing OK. We DO have them, and are currently losing in Iraq. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #42 December 4, 2006 Quote>Lose your nukes, and you most definitely won't be protecting yourselves. I think you overestimate the defensive capability of nuclear weapons. Japan doesn't have em, and hasn't been invaded since WWII. Sweden doesn't have em - they're doing OK. We DO have them, and are currently losing in Iraq. Sweden is not a global influence. Japan is a mountainous island, and has never been successfully invaded, but attempts have been made over the centuries. The Warsaw Pact/USSR never attempted to overrun Western Europe even though they had an overwhelming majority of materiel and men to do so. There was one reason for that: nuclear weapons.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
orribolollie 0 #43 December 4, 2006 Sorry I confused the thread. I was replying to someone else regarding 'lose the nukes', that arguement in itself was nothing to do with what I had said anyhow. In essence I agree with you. Having nukes didnt stop 9/11, or the july bombings in London. Warfare has changed since the cold war rendering nukes kind of useless....like defending yourself from an agressor in an aeroplane with a gun (sort of). Japan doesnt have a nuclear arsenal but apparently retains the knowledge to make one....or so I hear. Doesnt seem to deter North Korea tossing bombs into the Japanese sea, but Im fairly sure Japan could produce bombs that would exceed N. Koreas wildest dreams. Its a shame that power mad political leaders are wasting their countries monies on trying to piece together nuclear weapons. It just doesnt get you anywhere. Look at the state of the US, Russia and the UK...great stock piles of ageing nuclear weapons and not one ever fired (yet..thankfully). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,173 #44 December 4, 2006 >and not one ever fired (yet..thankfully). Uh, I think you may have missed two rather famous uses of nuclear weapons . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
orribolollie 0 #45 December 4, 2006 No I havent....I was referring to the cold war build up of modern nuclear weapons. Not the atomic bombs dropped at the end of the second world war. I thought everyone would plainly see that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #46 December 5, 2006 QuoteI think you overestimate the defensive capability of nuclear weapons. Japan doesn't have em, and hasn't been invaded since WWII. Japan hasn't needed them, because for all intents and purposes they've been protected by the US's nukes (bitterly ironic in light of Hiroshima/Nagasaki, but true nontheless). QuoteSweden doesn't have em - they're doing OK. Yeah, but Sweden has lots of blonde chicks. You see my point, don't you? QuoteWe DO have them, and are currently losing in Iraq. Ah, but we haven't been attacked on our own soil. Oh, wait.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #47 December 5, 2006 QuoteA) Pakistan happens to be one of our allies. The U.S. once was an ally of Iraq"...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #48 December 5, 2006 Quote>Lose your nukes, and you most definitely won't be protecting yourselves. I think you overestimate the defensive capability of nuclear weapons. Japan doesn't have em, and hasn't been invaded since WWII. Sweden doesn't have em - they're doing OK. We DO have them, and are currently losing in Iraq. You know that's BS, Bill. Japan has happily lived under the US nuclear umbrella (nevermind the Navy) and the minute they worry that it's not there, they'll easily crank out their own deterrent force. The defensive capability of nukes is so obvious that every estranged 3rd world nation is trying to get them, following the lead of North Korea. Get a nuke and suddenly the first world believes in the diplomatic process. Lack em, and you're invaded. England doesn't need 200 or 160 - it would do just fine with a round number of 100. That's enough to take out half of a major opponent within days. Two subs and some planes. The Trident is kind of the wrong missile though - 10 (14?) MIRVs per rocket is more of a Cold War efficiency. Without nukes, England will have to rely either on the US, or the EU (in other words, France - good god!) to deter against a nuclear attack. And lest you think the terrorist outfits are free to use em, no nation state will knowingly support a group with such intent/capabilities. The experience of the Taliban for a much smaller attack show what would happen. A nuke for a nuke will happen...at least with nations that possess but one or two. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #49 December 5, 2006 As people have mentioned Pakistan lets look at a scenario... General Musharaf is assasinated by Islamic extremists and in the following turmoil a pro Taliban extremist faction take power supported by elements within the military. What do you (or any of you) think would be the action taken to remove the Nukes from the equation. Bear in mind that the use of Nukes to do so isn't an option at this point. Also that Pakistan has long range missle technology aquired from North Korea.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloudseeker2001 0 #50 December 5, 2006 Quoteyour not protecting us. If anything you (US foreign policy), has dragged the UK into the disgraceful mire that you created bombing hell out of the world. Who do you think you are protecting us from specifically? We protect each other, we have agreements. "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
