The British No Longer A Friend of the USA?

Originally posted by the_oleneo
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.

The US and Britain ARE allies, no doubts.

The people are another matter altogether.

When leaders of free peoples refuse to listen, it's trouble all around.

I wish the rest of the world knew just how many people in the USA do NOT support the president's war policy. If they knew that, it would embolden them.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I wish the rest of the world knew just how many people in the USA do NOT support the president's war policy. If they knew that, it would embolden them.

Then what? The world would goes back to the way it was in 2000? Pleeezee.

Maybe the President's war policy is meant to be. I mean it's been a long time coming and a change of the world's status quo would just be necessary to shift everything in certain directions involving the global trade, economy and affairs between nations. Any continuance of the 1990s' (or even 1980s) status quo and policies doesn't fit well in the ever-changing geopolitics of the 21st century. New leaderships in every country would affect the outcomes of international and trade relationships between nations and uncertainty is a well-known territory for most old and new world leaders.

Let's say in a hypothesis: If Michael Howard wins the election instead of Blair, and if we Americans are to learn what type of politician Michael Howard is (as opposed to the fact we know a little bit better about Blair in general) and what type of approach he would deal with President Bush. That's where uncertainty comes in the minds of the American public: would Michael Howard be less or more like Blair's or are we going to deal with a Prime Minister who would be most likely to be less receptive of Bush? That would certainly make some people in Washington, DC and London nervous on one hand and some people in both capitals happy on the other. Anything like this would certainly affect the dynamics of the Anglo-American relationship in different directions. That's my take on it.

C'mon, stop acting like an infantile-minded tulipwalker passing around the blame-game.

Maybe you should stop blaming Britain for "creating" all the messes that America supposedly has to "clean up" now and then when someone points out that America has caused its own fair share of problems you pull out this blame-game bullsh*t?
Or an even better idea, how about you play the blame game with some of the people that have been incharge of the US, the ones you can vote for, that have actually managed to create some of the problems we see in the world now?

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.

followed by

That's where uncertainty comes in the minds of the American public: would Michael Howard be less or more like Blair's or are we going to deal with a Prime Minister who would be most likely to be less receptive of Bush?

You are worried that Britain is becoming more worried about American policies because of the actions of its President, yet you see no problem having the same view about Britain because of the views of its politicians? Wow, I thought Orwell was writing about a dystopian future but it seems double-think has already arrived.

I really can't see what your problem is. You seem to think that Britain should just believe what they are told by Herr President and not try and disagree because they are wrong to. What makes you think are right? Why are British politicians and a lot of the British public wrong for not liking GW's policies and decisions? You may support what he is doing but that doesn't make you right.

I think that Britons have a far better knowledge of what their government has done to other countries than Americans have of what their government has done. All Britons have to do to see what their past governments have done is look about 100 miles across the Irish Sea to see the mess that was created by their previous governments (I'm thinking of far longer than the last 40 years).

hhmmpphh,


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I forgot:

You have voted BillHicksRules for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

[edit on 5/6/05 by cmdrpaddy]

Originally posted by cmdrpaddy
Maybe you should stop blaming Britain for "creating" all the messes that America supposedly has to "clean up" now and then when someone points out that America has caused its own fair share of problems you pull out this blame-game bullsh*t?
Or an even better idea, how about you play the blame game with some of the people that have been incharge of the US, the ones you can vote for, that have actually managed to create some of the problems we see in the world now?

And I thought the great Anglo-American conspiracy is bearing fruits for what happened to the world since the turn of the 20th century?

Yes, America do caused its own fair share of problems with the world since then and I can honestly admit that. See? We take the blames and accepted it, at least we're learning our mistakes as we goes along and try our best not to repeat. However, it's time that you Brits OWE UP a great deal of blames and acknowledge 'em before the world. The same should be done with the French, the Russian, the Turks, the Chinese; at least the Germans and the Japanese have done their parts already (courtesy of the American helps).

Originally posted by cmdrpaddy

That's where uncertainty comes in the minds of the American public: would Michael Howard be less or more like Blair's or are we going to deal with a Prime Minister who would be most likely to be less receptive of Bush?

You are worried that Britain is becoming more worried about American policies because of the actions of its President, yet you see no problem having the same view about Britain because of the views of its politicians? Wow, I thought Orwell was writing about a dystopian future but it seems double-think has already arrived.

I stated a HYPOTHESIS! Do you understand what that word means?!

I was also pointing out the UNCERTAINTY adage between old and new world leaders on the geopolitical level. I pointed out the part about what the American public would perceive from a new major player (i.e. a newly elected leader of a great power such as Britain) on the world stage and what he/she would be like in dealing with President Bush. Outside the Beltway (that's the name of the main highway around Washington, DC, FYI), the American public isn't that overtly concerned about a new world player but the people INSIDE the Beltway do and it makes their business to know who's that newly elected leader is going to be like while Bush's in the White House. This can affect a lot of people's perceptions and speculations between Bush and a newly elected leader of a major power. Stock markets and shareholders would be affected, media pundits, editors and analysts would speculate a lot, the whole shebang could take up to new levels of wild assumptions, the Politics@ATS forum would percolate OR the status quo would remain exactly the way it was before with the previous leader of a major power and all things are just fine and quite dandy.

Originally posted by cmdrpaddy
All Britons have to do to see what their past governments have done is look about 100 miles across the Irish Sea to see the mess that was created by their previous governments (I'm thinking of far longer than the last 40 years).

Well, get out of Northern Ireland and let Ireland take it over, if you wanted my opinion on that matter.

[edit on 6/5/2005 by the_oleneo]

Moretti,

Originally posted by Moretti

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

Thank you very much for the honour.

Cheers

BHR

Originally posted by the_oleneo

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I wish the rest of the world knew just how many people in the USA do NOT support the president's war policy. If they knew that, it would embolden them.

Then what? The world would goes back to the way it was in 2000? Pleeezee.

Maybe the President's war policy is meant to be. I mean it's been a long time coming and a change of the world's status quo would just be necessary to shift everything in certain directions involving the global trade, economy and affairs between nations. Any continuance of the 1990s' (or even 1980s) status quo and policies doesn't fit well in the ever-changing geopolitics of the 21st century. New leaderships in every country would affect the outcomes of international and trade relationships between nations and uncertainty is a well-known territory for most old and new world leaders.

That is, if you buy into the whole 9-11 changed everything fiction. I, for one, do not.

Let's say in a hypothesis: If Michael Howard wins the election instead of Blair, and if we Americans are to learn what type of politician Michael Howard is (as opposed to the fact we know a little bit better about Blair in general) and what type of approach he would deal with President Bush. That's where uncertainty comes in the minds of the American public: would Michael Howard be less or more like Blair's or are we going to deal with a Prime Minister who would be most likely to be less receptive of Bush? That would certainly make some people in Washington, DC and London nervous on one hand and some people in both capitals happy on the other. Anything like this would certainly affect the dynamics of the Anglo-American relationship in different directions. That's my take on it.

From what I know, it is just as well Blair was re-elected. For now. However, I do not think that should excuse him from facing up to the fact he LIED them into this bloody awful war. Just like Bush did.

I'm FED UP with this new, post-9-11 world of NO ACCOUNTABILITY!!!!

Well, get out of Northern Ireland and let Ireland take it over, if you wanted my opinion on that matter.

Shows how little you know there, mate. And I am beginning to think your an alternative name for Edsinger, with your talk of Tulipwalkers.....oh jeez!

Perhaps you should read up on NI first, before making us endure your brain dead comments.

Originally posted by the_oleneo
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.

Who are your new friends? Who is this "us" you refer to? I should make something clear, and you probably won't like it. I, and many like me around the world, fully support Americans. We just don't support you. Your country is so divided into such hostile and clearly distinguished camps that it is very easy to establish who shares the same or similar attitudes, motives and goals with us. Quite frankly, I'm tired of the neocon warmongering and ultimatums.

You need to start taking responsibility for your own personal views and ideologies. You are quick to spew vitriol at your fellow countrymen in the other camp when it suits you, but when your own camp is faced with such sustained dislike around the world you are quite happy to drag them in to share your burden. Crying "See? See?? Look how they hate us!!". No, it is you we don't like. Extremist Right-Wing Fundamentalist Neo-Conservative Zealots.

I'm not worried about comeuppance. Your kind would just as quickly turn your backs on us in an instant, simply because you could. You are the most untrustworthy and dishonourable bunch in the country. Plus we don't crawl.

In brief: We don't want your friendship. That pleasure is reserved for the rest of America.

I wish the rest of the world knew just how many people in the USA do NOT support the president's war policy. If they knew that, it would embolden them.

We do know, ECK.


[edit on 7-6-2005 by cargo]

You have voted cargo for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Originally posted by cargo
I'm not worried about comeuppance. Your kind would just as quickly turn your backs on us in an instant, simply because you could. You are the most untrustworthy and dishonourable bunch in the country. Plus we don't crawl.

In brief: We don't want your friendship. That pleasure is reserved for the rest of America.

Most untrustworthy and dishonourable bunch..

And the rest of America is thankful.

I've always been a Republican, of the conservative variety - of course, until the NEOCONS came out of their lairs and latched on to the lunatic fringe of the Republican party. Now I am called a Realist. Kinda strange. All of a sudden the hawks have become doves because they don't share this suicidally aggressive world-view of domination. I am a Christian, even, hence my conservative history. Yet, I do not share this crazy bring Armageddon on! outlook. The Lord will return when He sees fit. He does not need a bunch of fruitcakes trying to "bring it on." Any Christian who shares that Neo Con outlook should return to his/her scriptures and re-evaluate their walk - in my opinion.

Brothers and sisters across the pond and elsewhere, remember those of us here who still have our minds right. We ARE your friends. Always.

I wish the rest of the world knew just how many people in the USA do NOT support the president's war policy. If they knew that, it would embolden them.

Originally posted by Cargo:
We do know, ECK.

Cheers, mate!

[edit on 6/7/05 by EastCoastKid]

Cheers BHR and ECK. I'd just like to highlight again that I aim my comments at the extremist variety. I do not consider myself "Liberal" and have always placed my political stance in the grey. The world is not black and white. To forgo critically important aspects of an opposing ideological stance in spite of their validity is dangerous and ignorant.

There are plenty of those people that lean right who are ok with me. It's interesting to note how much extremist neocons and extremist islamists have in common. They both hate the left. Or anything one millimetre away from being far right, for that matter.

[edit on 7-6-2005 by cargo]

Cargo,

I do consider myself a Liberal but that is because I am member of the Liberal Democrats Party here in the UK.

Cheers

BHR

Originally posted by cargo
There are plenty of those people that lean right who are ok with me. It's interesting to note how much extremist neocons and extremist islamists have in common. They both hate the left. Or anything one millimetre away from being far right, for that matter.

I was trying to make that point earlier and it got lost. What I have seen - as a Republican - is that today's GOP will EAT THEIR OWN - if you do not support the party line lockstep. That reminds me more Hitler's Third Reich.

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Cargo,

I do consider myself a Liberal but that is because I am member of the Liberal Democrats Party here in the UK.

Because of what I've seen inside my own party and b/c as I grow older, I am more willing to see all sides of an argument, I no longer call myself a conservative Republican, but a PROGRESSIVE. I like that, too. That allows me to change as facts present themselves.

ECK,

The Liberal Democrats I do not think of as a real party more just a collection of local well-meaning individuals.

Cheers

BHR

It's too bad those well-meaning people get so hammered for it, eh?

Until around Feb. of 2003, no one had ever accused me of being anything but a hawk on defense.. now I am constantly slandered for being a liberal. It's actually very funny.

And you know, despite what people say, I have some damn fine friends in the media who are LIBERALS. They seem to be the only folks these days employing their brains AND willing to speak out. (Can't tell you how many letters and emails I have gotten from Republicans (for what I've written) who say THANK YOU for saying what we are too nervous to say!) Can you believe that? The GOP has got the ranks terrified to disagree with the leadership.

There are actually even CHURCHES here in the South who have told members (who don't support Bush) to leave the church!!! Is that insane, or what?!

[edit on 6/7/05 by EastCoastKid]

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
It's too bad those well-meaning people get so hammered for it, eh?

- I agree; however if there is one thing that you can take as a positive out of it it might be that at least those rabid critics are making it loud and clear just what they stand for, ie a hypocritical gross intolerance of everything they deem 'not ours' at this particular moment whilst claiming a 'love' of 'freedom' and it's embodied rights to diversity.

At least we can see who the nutter element are now.

Until around Feb. of 2003, no one had ever accused me of being anything but a hawk on defense.. now I am constantly slandered for being a liberal. It's actually very funny.

- It's just the expression of that laughably - if cruel - ludicrous intollerance embodied by that neo-fascist 'with us or against us' 'creed'.

Can you believe that? The GOP has got the ranks terrified to disagree with the leadership.

There are actually even CHURCHES here in the South who have told members (who don't support Bush) to leave the church!!! Is that insane, or what?!

- Yup, when the madness takes hold it's a sorry sorry sight.

The one comfort is that all things pass, this is their moment, they have full political control in the US and when they fail to do (as opposed to sermonise and spout) there will be no-one left to blame.

Oh happy day, huh?

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

" liberal

• adjective 1 willing to respect and accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own. 2 (of a society, law, etc.) favourable to individual rights and freedoms. 3 (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate reform. 4 (Liberal) (in the UK) relating to the Liberal Democrat party. 5 (especially of an interpretation of a law) not strictly literal. 6 given, used, or giving in generous amounts. 7 (of education) concerned with broadening general knowledge and experience.

• noun a person of liberal views.

— ORIGIN originally meaning suitable for a free man: from Latin liberalis, from liber ‘free man’."

Now I'm a fan of the USA and have always considered it to be a country to be admired, generally trying to do the right thing and be a force for good. But whena section of society within a said country can use the above phrase as a derogatory term then I think we should all start to worry just a little!

BHR, ECK, Cargo, please refrain from voting WATS each other. WATS is nothing but a glorified high-school popularity award.

Originally posted by stumason
Perhaps you should read up on NI first, before making us endure your brain dead comments.

Just to show how stupid you are? I know about the history (not a great deal) of Northern Ireland and the British occupation. I'm half-Irish and my father's maternal family (my great grandparents) was from there (somewhere in Northern Ireland) before they immigrated to the US in 1880s.

Like I told you before, you do not know me as much as I don't know you. Now cool it!