The British No Longer A Friend of the USA?

Are the British no longer a friend/ally of the US anymore?

Seem that more and more British are acting more antagonizing toward American foreign and military policies around the world, more specifically hostile to the Bush administration and their policies, in spite of Prime Minister Blair's close relationship to Bush and the United States in general.

"Gorgeous" George Galloway came out to the US two weeks ago, lambasted the Congress and the Bush administration of his alleged involvements in the UN Oil-for-Food scandal and oil bribery case. He was roundly cheered and praised for his anti-American stance in UK and Europe, claimed that his stand-up to the Bush administration have solidified his reputation as the most powerful British critic of the American foreign policy. Galloway have long been known to be the most hostile against American foreign/military policy since 1970s. Terribly envy, I presume?

Then we have the Tories, the British Conservative Party and longtime ally of the Republicans, becoming more like a real hostile Democratic Party that the real Democratic Party in the US would be ashamed of not being hard and hostile enough. Michael Howard, the leader of the Conservatives who lost the Prime Minister election to Blair just recently, wrote a scathing critique of the Bush administration, calling Blair "slavishly loyal" to Bush and called upon him to stand up to Bush. The Tories, in the eyes of anti-war activists and anti-American factions, have solidified themselves as a force to be reckoned in the British politics in the near future, much to the chagrins of their traditional Transatlantic ally, the Republican Party. Is the honeymoon over that Ron and Margaret started?

The Labour Party, notwithstanding, seem as every bit as hostile to the Bush administration in spite of Blair's leadership, now reduced, in his party.

The current generations of the UK have become more or less hostile to the Bush administration and to the Americans who backed Bush, as evidently often noted here in the ATS forums or anywhere on the Internet. I wonders if any of the current British generation is aware of their country's past affairs which have brought about the very problems and circumstances that the Americans have inherited and trying to solve in one way or another since the end of World War II.

If these British would remember the words of a great British diplomat, Alfred Milner in 1885, about the needs to make the world achieving an universal peace by any means:
"...I am no cosmopolitan... I think we can foresee a time when the great Anglo-Saxon Confederation throughout the world, with its members self-governing in their domestic concerns, but firmy united for the purposes of mutual protection, will not only be the most splendid political union that the world has ever known, but also the best security for universal peace."

Sure, we have differences with the British in the past and the disputes over the American colonies in the late 18th century (and the war of 1812-1814, notwithstanding) seem like a long time ago. Yet, I'm still concerned of a growing British hostility, or exhibiting a dismissive attitude(?), toward the United States because of President Bush, his administration, his policies and the "brainwashed American sheep" who are backing him.

In 2003, there was a real transAtlantic rift between the United States and Europe. However, since then, there is a growing rift between the United States and the United Kingdom thanks to the generally apathetic, dismissive or hostile attitude among the British have for the Americans.

Too bad, our American-British relationship would have come to this.

[edit on 5/28/2005 by the_oleneo]

Well only Americans pro Bush administration and policies are not been able to see through the lies and deception.

Most of the rest of the world including our long time friends like the Bristish can not longer ignore the realities of what US has done.

Sorry to bring this to you but . . . we have a mess in our hands.

The sad part of it . . . we are going to end up all by ourself and littler help from others.

Actually. . . we are already all by our self with not help.

But then again we don't need help. Right?

Just as the British not being able to see the lies and deception what their British government and monarchy have done to the world in the Victorian and post-Victorian eras?

Just because most anti-Bush/anti-American folks didn't like what we are doing for the world entitled you all to think there is a big mess out there? The world is already a big mess long before the US was established and will still continue to be a big mess long after the US dissolves.

Please, spare me the moral standing. People have been criticizing the American foreign policy for as long as since the turn of the 20th century. Any criticism of the Bush administration and its policies is nothing new, nothing worst or best. History will judge otherwise.

I cannot ignore what the British have done to the world since the end of World War I and we are still cleaning up the mess the British left us.

Yeah it's not Bush & Co.; it's everybody else.

Oleneo,

Just as most people in the world (not just Britain) actually do not judge all Americans by George Bush you should not judge us by Tony Blair.

Furthermore, you might just want to read up a bit more on the General Election we just had. It was not a "Prime Minister Election".

The bottom line here is what do you want friendship or a lapdog?

Friendship is what the US gave the UK in WW1 and WW2. Friendship is what the UK gave the US in Korea and the Gulf War.

We let you get on with Vietnam and you let us get on with the Falklands.

Try reading about the Suez Crisis.

What you are expecting now is lapdog. You think that we should go along unquestioningly with every whim of Dubya the Stupid, King of the Puppet People.

Funnily enough we are not. We are not happy to see our troops sent out to die so that your President and his cronies can fill their wallets.

The whole BS about regime change and "bringing democracy" to Iraq is offensive to those of us with the ability to read above kindergarten level.

If there was no oil in Iraq this would not be happening.

Furthermore, what about democracy in Saudia Arabia? You might cry that they have oil. The difference is that they are under your control (well almost, they did happen to kill 3000 people on 11/09/01)

Look around the world and there are dozens of tinpot dictators like Saddam Hussein. So where is the regime change for the "huddled masses" in these countries?

No where. Thats where.

So the next time you want to come on here and have a complaining session about how nobody loves America anymore, take a moment to ponder why.

"I wonders if any of the current British generation is aware of their country's past affairs which have brought about the very problems and circumstances that the Americans have inherited and trying to solve in one way or another since the end of World War II. "

Yes the British Empire screwed up, so did the Roman Empire.

Does that make it OK for the US Empire to make the same mistakes "only bigger"?

Who helped keep Saddam in power, who trained Osama Bin Laden? It was not the Brits. The problems you have are of you own making.

Christ, even Pearl Harbour was caused by your own policies and could have been avoided.

Maybe you are the one who should read up on his nation's history. If you like I can give you dozens of examples of it.

You sir, suffer from a terminal case of externalism. As do many of your countrymen on this site.

Nothing is your fault it is always someone elses.

No ability to take responsibility for your actions. In fact unable to see that your actions WILL have consequences.

Then you come crying to those who warned you "can you help us" or "why do you say nasty things about us".

BHR



[edit on 28-5-2005 by BillHicksRules]

[edit on 28-5-2005 by BillHicksRules]

You posted a thread, I found it interesting, I posted my views, but hey is not what you wanted to hear, well not everything is the way we want most of the time.

Just like our politicians policies they are not always the best but we tend to follow their lead blindly.

So what do you think US should do with the British now that in your views they are not longer friends?

Invade them, put sanctions against them, denied them our friendship back?

It will be kind of childish, don't you think? If our politician were to do any of that.

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Just as most people in the world (not just Britain) actually do not judge all Americans by George Bush you should not judge us by Tony Blair.

Funny, I never judge all British by Tony Blair. It's more likely judging by how many crazy, raunchy and vicious Brit tabloids and opportunistic politicians you have.

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Furthermore, you might just want to read up a bit more on the General Election we just had. It was not a "Prime Minister Election".

Well, the election WAS about having an occupation in 10 Downing Street, right?

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
The bottom line here is what do you want friendship or a lapdog?

Funny, we were YOUR lapdogs in WW 1 and WW 2.

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
We let you get on with Vietnam and you let us get on with the Falklands.

Uh, wasn't Vietnam a French issue in the 1950s that got somehow became an American mess? Your Falklands war have nothing to do with us. Argentina had a dispute over that island(s) and you Brits wouldn't give up that little cold corner of the world occupied by British holdovers and a bunch of penguins.

Iraq WAS YOUR MESS! Period. If the British didn't have anything to do with the invasion and occupation of Mesopotamia in World War I, then who would?! The French? The Arabs? The Turks? The Persians?

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Funnily enough we are not. We are not happy to see our troops sent out to die so that your President and his cronies can fill their wallets.

Funny, I'm not too happy about too many American troops being sent to die in Europe because you Brits didn't have the sufficient manpower and means to stop the Nazi expansion. You might well have a peace treaty with Hitler because he didn't wanted war with Great Britain in the first place.

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
The whole BS about regime change and "bringing democracy" to Iraq is offensive to those of us with the ability to read above kindergarten level.

Just like you did to the Iraqis...er.... the people of Mesopotamia... after World War I?

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
If there was no oil in Iraq this would not be happening.

That may be so. Then again, there is no such thing as a bottomless abundance of oil in any country.

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Furthermore, what about democracy in Saudia Arabia? You might cry that they have oil. The difference is that they are under your control (well almost, they did happen to kill 3000 people on 11/09/01)

First off, you are condemning the entire nation of Saudi Arabia on the actions of the few. Is this how you're resorting to belittlement of an entire people or its leadership on the actions of a few? Democracy was never introduced to the Arabian peninsula after World War I because of different power struggles among Arabic tribes and your British diplomats made some trade-off deals to keep the peace throughout the peninsula under the powerful Saudi family that rules the kingdom since the 18th century. If democracy did introduce into the Arabian peninsula before World War II, I would shudder at the thought of very different outcomes: possibly a fanatical Wahhabi government dictating how its vast oil reserves should be based on Allah's divine will with other nations in need of oil.

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Look around the world and there are dozens of tinpot dictators like Saddam Hussein. So where is the regime change for the "huddled masses" in these countries?

Do we need your permission slip to stop Kim Jong Il or the Ayatollah of Iran?

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
So the next time you want to come on here and have a complaining session about how nobody loves America anymore, take a moment to ponder why.

I'm not really worried about how nobody loves America nowadays, but I'm more concerned with the tacit, perhaps silent, approval of any hostile action, opinion or behavior against the United States. I love your country, its history, culture and all's that but I hate your attitude and arrogance you have toward my country. :|

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Empire screwed up, so did the Roman Empire. Does that make it OK for the US Empire to make the same mistakes "only bigger"?

Oh, for God's sake, there is NO, I repeat, NO American Empire!!! It's a fantasy perpetuated by anti-American leftists and paranoid folks with irrational fears about the PNAC agenda. The PNAC is based on protecting American national and economic security interests in the face of changing political conditions and threats in the post-Cold War period and it is all designed to counter the growing powers of China, the only other superpower on pace to become the 21st century's newest hyperpower. The language of PNAC may be politically vague about America's true interests in the world but it is really all to deter China and eventually the EU.

Both of us don't know how much the future would hold for the US, UK, EU and China in the outcomes. It's all up to our politicians, diplomats and world leaders.

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
You sir, suffer from a terminal case of externalism. As do many of your countrymen on this site.

As did your countrymen one hundred years ago.

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
No ability to take responsibility for your actions. In fact unable to see that your actions WILL have consequences.

Of course, actions have consequences. Unlike you Brits, we deal with consequences one way or another. It's called staying ahead and on top of it.

Originally posted by marg6043
You posted a thread, I found it interesting, I posted my views, but hey is not what you wanted to hear, well not everything is the way we want most of the time. Just like our politicians policies they are not always the best but we tend to follow their lead blindly. So what do you think US should do with the British now that in your views they are not longer friends? Invade them, put sanctions against them, denied them our friendship back? It will be kind of childish, don't you think? If our politician were to do any of that.

I know and I respect your opinions. I'm not just saying all British are now our enemy. I'm just concerned with continued hostile and very, very misguided attitude of the British as well as the Europeans have for the Bush administration and the American people who supports him.

Tell me, what is wrong with these pictures?

Kim Jong Il and his glorious People's Democratic Republic of Korea with millions of citizens having few little rights, very starving and dying of famine, with several hundreds or thousands Koreans keep escaping as refugees INTO China. Claimed to have 4 to 6 nuclear weapons and could be making more.

The Ayatollah and the Guardian Council of the Islamic Republic of Iran with millions of citizens subjected to very strident religious laws that even the most orthodox Christians would be envious of, with hundreds of pro-Western reformers being continually undermined by many hardline supporters of the Ayatollah. Openly admitted they seeks nuclear weapons (but constantly changed the official line of reasoning) and keep claiming its nuclear energy policy is for peaceful needs but still under the strict controls of the Revolutionary Guards and its military?

The Sudan, with its Islamic government looking the other way while Christian and non-Muslim folks are being persecuted, pushed out of their homes or slaughtered by the Arabic militants, causing serious refugee and food/supply problems in the neighboring countries in Africa?

Russia under Vladimir Putin and his slow rollback of democracy toward a more authoritarian-style government under his thumbs, are Russians concerned about that? Depends on who you ask.

Now don't get me started on China.

Now compare that to the United States under President Bush.

[edit on 5/28/2005 by the_oleneo]

The notion that the British are no longer a friend of America is Rubbish .
the_oleneo George Galloway is only one man who issued a healthly dose of reality to a bunch of Neo Cons.
Do you expect your allies to follow you blindly? If so your a fool. Mind you anyone who thinks diagreeing with Bush is anti american must be blind to facts or they have the mind of a 10 year old.

Comparing the current situation to the Cold war alliances is clearly ludcius.

Funny, I never judge all British by Tony Blair. It's more likely judging by how many crazy, raunchy and vicious Brit tabloids and opportunistic politicians you have.

Yeah, god forbid if anyone should judge us by our Tabloids....(shudders at the thought)...

Funny, we were YOUR lapdogs in WW 1 and WW 2.

Not quite sure how you came to that conclusion. Both WW made alot of cash for the US, especially WW2. And during that very same war and even now, the Supreme Commander always had to be a US Officer. Doesn't seem very lapdoggy to me, does it?

Uh, wasn't Vietnam a French issue in the 1950s that got somehow became an American mess? Your Falklands war have nothing to do with us. Argentina had a dispute over that island(s) and you Brits wouldn't give up that little cold corner of the world occupied by British holdovers and a bunch of penguins.

Vietnam "somehow" became a US problem due to your policy of trying to contain Communism.
The Falklands irked us as you continues to trade with Argentina after the invasion whilst you where supposed to be an ally of us. Technically, the entire of NATO should have come a running, due to the clause which stipulates than any attack on one member is an attack on all. But we did it ourselves, 10,000 miles from home, with crappy kit (as usual).

And it isn't "occupied by British Holdovers", they are British Subjects and it is British Territiry and needed to be defended.

Plus, there is alot of oil near there

Iraq WAS YOUR MESS! Period. If the British didn't have anything to do with the invasion and occupation of Mesopotamia in World War I, then who would?! The French? The Arabs? The Turks? The Persians?

Shows how much you know. We didn't invade in the slightest. We took over those lands as part of a League of Nations Mandate after WW1 from the Ottoman TURKS who had controlled it before. Debate the ethics of aquiring more land for "Empire" if you like, but is was at least sanctioned by the international community.

You say this:

Just like you did to the Iraqis...er.... the people of Mesopotamia... after World War I?

And then contradict yourself here:

Democracy was never introduced to the Arabian peninsula after World War I because of different power struggles among Arabic tribes and your British diplomats made some trade-off deals to keep the peace throughout the peninsula under the powerful Saudi family that rules the kingdom since the 18th century. If democracy did introduce into the Arabian peninsula before World War II, I would shudder at the thought of very different outcomes: possibly a fanatical Wahhabi government dictating how its vast oil reserves should be based on Allah's divine will with other nations in need of oil.

You are right on the second point about stopping radicals controlling the oil, but you can't then moan about us not "bringing democracy" IN THE SAME BREATH? WHAT DO YOU WANT?

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Look around the world and there are dozens of tinpot dictators like Saddam Hussein. So where is the regime change for the "huddled masses" in these countries?

Do we need your permission slip to stop Kim Jong Il or the Ayatollah of Iran?

That was a pretty random answer which does nothing to answer the question, are you a politician?

BHR is saying if you are saving the Iraqis from Saddam, then why not Zimbabwe, Sudan, Korea, blah-blah, blah-blah...the list goes on... If you really are saving them, then save others and don't igonre them. Nowhere does he say you need our permission and I doubt you would ask anyway.

Oh, for God's sake, there is NO, I repeat, NO American Empire!!! It's a fantasy perpetuated by anti-American leftists and paranoid folks with irrational fears about the PNAC agenda. The PNAC is based on protecting American national and economic security interests in the face of changing political conditions and threats in the post-Cold War period and it is all designed to counter the growing powers of China, the only other superpower on pace to become the 21st century's newest hyperpower. The language of PNAC may be politically vague about America's true interests in the world but it is really all to deter China and eventually the EU.

Ok, you have a go at us for being paranoid about PNAC as it is onyl to secure AMERICAN interests at the expense of CHINA and the EU.... The UK is part of the EU, so shouldn;t we be at the very least a little concerned? Its ok for you guys over there, but from our point of view, you are getting very selfish and greedy and want to make sure America is top at the expense of our own lands!

Don't fancy working together then, no?

Ok.....then don't bloody moan about the UK not being your friend, as you sure as hell aren't acting like ours!

As did your countrymen one hundred years ago.

A hundred years ago? That was a completley different world where Racists supremacy and Empire where the "in thing", how can that compare to today? Are you saying that Americans behaviour is justified as it happened a century ago? And America was hardly an Angel then either......

Unlike you Brits, we deal with consequences one way or another.

Oh dear god, what is that supposed to mean? Come on, spit it out, should be worth a laugh..... Perhaps you may wish to activate your 3rd brain cell before replying, it may help you...

Originally posted by xpert11
The notion that the British are no longer a friend of America is Rubbish.

Did you read my first post carefully?

Originally posted by xpert11
the_oleneo George Galloway is only one man who issued a healthly dose of reality to a bunch of Neo Cons.

See my other thread on Gorgeous George: politics.abovetopsecret.com... and check the link on "Not so fast, Mr Galloway". Be the judge of that scheming opportunist from the East End.

Originally posted by xpert11
Do you expect your allies to follow you blindly? If so your a fool. Mind you anyone who thinks diagreeing with Bush is anti american must be blind to facts or they have the mind of a 10 year old.

Typical British attitude you're showing.

[edit on 5/29/2005 by the_oleneo]

Originally posted by stumason
Not quite sure how you came to that conclusion. Both WW made alot of cash for the US, especially WW2. And during that very same war and even now, the Supreme Commander always had to be a US Officer. Doesn't seem very lapdoggy to me, does it?

Uh, not quite. Eisenhower was appointed as Supreme Commander of all the Allied Forces in Europe upon agreement made by the President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill, General George C. Marshall (Eisenhower's boss) and the Allies. Field Marshal Montgomery suggested he, himself, should be SACEUR, not Eisenhower; a great battlefield general he was but he was a pompous peacock.

How Eisenhower was selected as SACEUR

Originally posted by stumason
Vietnam "somehow" became a US problem due to your policy of trying to contain Communism.
The Falklands irked us as you continues to trade with Argentina after the invasion whilst you where supposed to be an ally of us. Technically, the entire of NATO should have come a running, due to the clause which stipulates than any attack on one member is an attack on all. But we did it ourselves, 10,000 miles from home, with crappy kit (as usual).

And it isn't "occupied by British Holdovers", they are British Subjects and it is British Territiry and needed to be defended. Plus, there is alot of oil near there

Okay, fair enough.

Originally posted by stumason
Shows how much you know. We didn't invade in the slightest. We took over those lands as part of a League of Nations Mandate after WW1 from the Ottoman TURKS who had controlled it before. Debate the ethics of aquiring more land for "Empire" if you like, but is was at least sanctioned by the international community.

Uh, not quite. The British and its Commonwealth troops DID invaded Mesopotamia in 1915 and won it over the Turks in 1918. Approximately 52,000 British and Commonwealth troops died in the invasion and occupation of Mesopotamia until 1932.

Originally posted by stumason
You are right on the second point about stopping radicals controlling the oil, but you can't then moan about us not "bringing democracy" IN THE SAME BREATH? WHAT DO YOU WANT?

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm just pointing out the similarity of what happened in the Middle East in World War I and the Iraqi war in 2003. The British thought they have the best interests in mind for the people of Iraq at the time, control of oil fields was very much in the British mind. Democracy in Iraq was dead when Saddam took powers and we are giving the opportunity of democracy back in the hands of the Iraqi people. I believe that the Iraqis should be given the chance to decide their own nation's fate democratically again and hope they maintain it strongly.

You are under the impression that we Americans are trying to impose our version of democracy in Iraq. That's not entirely accurate. The Iraqis are restoring its own version of constitutional democracy established after the 1958 Iraqi revolution but later mishandled by the Ba'athist and Arab nationalist factions up until Saddam assuming powers in 1979 and the constitution itself became a rubber stamp document for Saddam. We know we can't impose our version of democracy on an unfortunate country with unfortunate problems.

We are teaching the leading Iraqi politicians how to build safeguards and strengthen their constitution to ensure there will be no further repeats of power struggles, coups or military/party dictatorship.

Originally posted by stumason
BHR is saying if you are saving the Iraqis from Saddam, then why not Zimbabwe, Sudan, Korea, blah-blah, blah-blah...the list goes on... If you really are saving them, then save others and don't igonre them. Nowhere does he say you need our permission and I doubt you would ask anyway.

Do you really expect the US to do all the policing and saving other peoples while the rest of you are contended to sit back and sip away your cups of tea and crumpets?

Originally posted by stumason
Ok, you have a go at us for being paranoid about PNAC as it is onyl to secure AMERICAN interests at the expense of CHINA and the EU.... The UK is part of the EU, so shouldn;t we be at the very least a little concerned? Its ok for you guys over there, but from our point of view, you are getting very selfish and greedy and want to make sure America is top at the expense of our own lands! Don't fancy working together then, no?

Hey, what's wrong with that? We knows how to win and know how to get what we wanted. We just wanted other countries to stop fighting among themselves or quit their constant b*tchings about us. That's the attitude of whining losers.

Originally posted by the_oleneo
Typical British attitude you're showing.

[edit on 5/29/2005 by the_oleneo]

First of all Im not a pom sometimes and as soon as someone comes out and says that America and its military isnt perfect you get labeled anti american. Some americans need to take a good hard look at themselvs. when your countries troops are serving in any threate of war it is in your best interests to question your allies methods if need be.

Uh, not quite. Eisenhower was appointed as Supreme Commander of all the Allied Forces in Europe upon agreement made by the President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill, General George C. Marshall (Eisenhower's boss) and the Allies. Field Marshal Montgomery suggested he, himself, should be SACEUR, not Eisenhower; a great battlefield general he was but he was a pompous peacock.

Hmm, I am sure that this "agreement" was reached after some "Diplomatic Wrangling".

Anyhoo, just as well Monty wasn't made the boss, he got lucky in North Africa as the Germans where poorly supplied. And yes, he was a pompous pillock

Uh, not quite. The British and its Commonwealth troops DID invaded Mesopotamia in 1915 and won it over the Turks in 1918. Approximately 52,000 British and Commonwealth troops died in the invasion and occupation of Mesopotamia until 1932.

Getting slighlty skewed there. We may have "invaded", but that was to fight the Turks not to snatch the region (note: Mesopotamia wasn't a country). We received the mandate after the war to preserve the staus quo. Could hardly have the worlds oil under the control of Wahabis now could we? (your point ). And once we had stabalised the region we installed puppet regimes and started the ground work for a democracy.

Anyway, getting slightly off point there. Iraq isn't "our" mess. Your the ones who propped up Saddam, your the ones who supplied him with WMD, your the ones who sanctioned them for 10 years and buggered their country and your the ones who have screwed up the occupation. How in Gods name is any of that a British problem?

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm just pointing out the similarity of what happened in the Middle East in World War I and the Iraqi war in 2003. The British thought they have the best interests in mind for the people of Iraq at the time, control of oil fields was very much in the British mind.

I didn't, you quite happily contradicted yourself . We where not concerned with "control" per se, just "securing". After the collapse of the Ottoman Turks, we could hardly let the worlds oil supply dry up when the locals all start fighting each other to fill the vacuum.

There is no similarity with today as the Oil was secure, back then, had the Turks just pulled out and we had not taken the region, the locals would have been fighting for years while the oil dried up. Today, they are fighting as you invaded randomly out of nowhere.

You are under the impression that we Americans are trying to impose our version of democracy in Iraq.

I think you may have misunderstood my post, I don't believe that, although I do believe the "democracy" there is anything but and really skewed in favour of certain parties.

Do you really expect the US to do all the policing and saving other peoples while the rest of you are contended to sit back and sip away your cups of tea and crumpets?

Not at all, I would prefer it if no-one did without the express permission of the UN. However, it is the US which has assumed the role of Policeman and it is the US which claims that it invaded Iraq to get rid of Saddam as he was a very bad man (At least, I think thats the excuse this week ). If that is the case, then why not the others I listed?

If it is not the case and you don't want to be a policeman, then don't go round with your chest puffed out, claiming to bring "democracy and freedom" to the poor masses of the world, as you are quite clearly not.

(PS...don't do crumpets, although I drink loads of Tea. Milk, three sugars please )

Hey, what's wrong with that? We knows how to win and know how to get what we wanted. We just wanted other countries to stop fighting among themselves or quit their constant b*tchings about us. That's the attitude of whining losers.

There is nothing wrong with looking out for your own, but at the expense of friends, thousands of lives and worldwide respect (which you had prior to 2003). Perhaps you could work with other countries rather than bombing them? Novel concept I know, but it's cheaper and you might actually like it....but then, the Military-Industrial complex needs it's wars and bad guys to keep the money rolling in of an increasingly paranoid (and gullible) American public.

[edit on 30/5/05 by stumason]

Originally posted by stumason
Getting slighlty skewed there. We may have "invaded", but that was to fight the Turks not to snatch the region (note: Mesopotamia wasn't a country). We received the mandate after the war to preserve the staus quo. Could hardly have the worlds oil under the control of Wahabis now could we? (your point

). And once we had stabalised the region we installed puppet regimes and started the ground work for a democracy.

Not entirely accurate. The British have vested interests in the Middle East including oil long before World War I (or the Great War), only the Ottoman Turk Empire stood in their ways. How did BP and Royal Dutch Shell came to be?

Originally posted by stumason
Anyway, getting slightly off point there. Iraq isn't "our" mess. Your the ones who propped up Saddam, your the ones who supplied him with WMD, your the ones who sanctioned them for 10 years and buggered their country and your the ones who have screwed up the occupation. How in Gods name is any of that a British problem?

Not true. Saddam completely brought himself into powers on his own with the supports of Sunni Ba'athist loyalists. There was a case that the CIA did knew him in the 1960s and 1970s but to a degree that he was a "person of interest" by the CIA, MI-6, the KGB and the French intelligence. The very idea of "we" propped him up into powers is laughable and a fantasy perpetuated by the anti-American sentiments throughout the Middle East from the 1980s. All the "WMD" we did supplied to Saddam were bacteria samples intended for agricultural and pesticidal scientific purposes, nothing more.

How did Iraq acquired chemical weapons:
Indigenous or external sources of supply?

With the exceptions, maybe, of the last two of these different categories of putative Iraqi agent, sources of supply might as well be indigenous as external to Iraq, given the technology implied. Involvement of the last three categories would, in some circles, implicate the USSR as supplier, for the reason that the USSR is said, on evidence that has yet to be solidly substantiated but which has nonetheless attracted some firm believers, to have weaponized all three of them in recent years. For its part, the USSR has expressly denied supplying Iraq with toxic weapons. Reports of Soviet supply attributed to US and other intelligence sources have nonetheless recurred. The earliest predate reports of Iraqi use of chemical weapons in the Gulf War.

Official Iranian commentaries, too, have pointed to the USSR as a supplier of the Iraqi weapons. These sources have also accused Brazil, France and, most conspicuously, Britain of supplying the weapons. No basis for any of these Iranian accusations has been disclosed. France, alongside Czechoslovakia and both Germanies, is reportedly also rumoured, among "foreign military and diplomatic sources" in Baghdad, to have supplied Iraq with chemical precursors needed for an indigenous production effort. Unofficial published sources have cited Egypt as a possible supplier of actual chemical weapons. In the mid-1960s, when Iraq was alleged to be using chemical weapons against insurgent Kurdish forces, Swiss and German sources of supply were reported in the Western press.
Source

Originally posted by stumason
Not at all, I would prefer it if no-one did without the express permission of the UN.

See my avatar. That's YOUR UN Policeman of the future. Permission not needed.

Originally posted by stumason
If it is not the case and you don't want to be a policeman, then don't go round with your chest puffed out, claiming to bring "democracy and freedom" to the poor masses of the world, as you are quite clearly not.

Well, when the UN forces are in the American soil, rounding up US citizens in the name of world peace, we'll remember your "supports" and gratitude.

Originally posted by stumason
There is nothing wrong with looking out for your own, but at the expense of friends, thousands of lives and worldwide respect (which you had prior to 2003). Perhaps you could work with other countries rather than bombing them? Novel concept I know, but it's cheaper and you might actually like it....but then, the Military-Industrial complex needs it's wars and bad guys to keep the money rolling in of an increasingly paranoid (and gullible) American public.

Coddling and appeasing with terrorists, criminals and dictators with cups of tea and crumpets are YOUR things. You tried it with Hitler and looked what happened!

I'm sensing confliction here. You really are starting to feel like you have no friends in the world. And it bothers you. Humilty is crushed to make way for inferiority complex defenses (individual), however, and the result is just a run-of-the-mill whine session.

edit: Oh, and good post BHR. You got a vote from me.

[edit on 4-6-2005 by cargo]

Originally posted by the_oleneo
See my avatar. That's YOUR UN Policeman of the future. Permission not needed.

Yes an american soldier, in an american suit with the UN flag cough shield cough on his head is really the "policeman" of the future.

Well, when the UN forces are in the American soil, rounding up US citizens in the name of world peace, we'll remember your "supports" and gratitude.

Oh yeah now the UN is a NWO....

Coddling and appeasing with terrorists, criminals and dictators with cups of tea and crumpets are YOUR things. You tried it with Hitler and looked what happened!

Yeah they where our things but you seemed to pick this idea up.
You did supply terrorists, you did supply dictators and guess what you even PUT those dictators in power!

Originally posted by cargo
I'm sensing confliction here. You really are starting to feel like you have no friends in the world. And it bothers you. Humilty is crushed to make way for inferiority complex defenses (individual), however, and the result is just a run-of-the-mill whine session.

Okay, who died and made you an armchair psychiatrist? Your short-sighted perspective knows no boundary and doesn't square with me. You are going to get your comeuppance from the behind. Don't come crawling to us when you're down and out, we're too busy with making new friends.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yes an american soldier, in an american suit with the UN flag cough shield cough on his head is really the "policeman" of the future.

No, that's the future version of the UN police force, modeling after a futuristic version of US Army Infantryman that won't be seen in public, perhaps never will. Some concepts can be pretty inspiring, you know?

Originally posted by devilwasp
Oh yeah now the UN is a NWO....

The UN IS a NWO organization, at least the forerunner of the future one world government system (though the League of Nations was the failed prototype that gave way to the formation of the UN during World War II).

Originally posted by devilwasp
You did supply terrorists, you did supply dictators and guess what you even PUT those dictators in power!

Blah, blah, old news. You. You. You. C'mon, stop acting like an infantile-minded tulipwalker passing around the blame-game.

You have voted BillHicksRules for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.