Britain's New Clout

Witch of the south, like that but dont just blame us adopted southerners....No on second thoughts, I remember voting for her so it is indeed my fault, well Callaghan gave us abut 5 percent that year she said she would make it double figures, think every serviceman of the day was bought out..Errr sorry.

 

Bish, Redcoat, alternately for a laugh try... Dont Cry For Me Sgt Major... I defy anyone not to wet themselves reading that one.

 

You seem to have forgotten that it was her Conservative party under John Major, which set up the Good Friday Agreement.

 

If I may answer as well as Jumbo.
The British people fully support the "War on Terror" but we are confused with what Iraq has to do with this war.
Saddam is a dictator, one of many around the world, but to my knowledge he has never supported international terrorism.
As for the view of the situation on Iraq, to the majority of the British people its seems the other way round, the government is ignoring the people

The British people would like to know why Blair follows him on everything

we all know Saddam is an evil dictator, but is he one who plans to attack the west, or is it just about the oil

[ 28. January 2003, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: redcoat ]

 

I think KT may be right, I feel rather lucky that most of my American friends have passed. It is a shame that many Brits have failed the test. As for our government supporting Dubya, most people are fairly peeved about that and wish Mr. Blair would listen to us for a change. Oh, and if I hear another American say 'we saved all your a**es in WW2 (and/or WW1) so you owe us BIG TIME' I swear I will thump them. It is a rediculous childish attitude that victory in WW2 (which I still say would have been won without the US as long as Russia was involved) or WW1 (which I have heared claimed several times) gives Bush carte blanche to do what he wants is just plain offensive. No offence intended to anyone on this forum, I think just about everyone on here is above such things, but I have heared it claimed by certain childish individuals and it is beginning to annoy me.

 

You seem to have forgotten that it was her Conservative party under John Major, which set up the Good Friday Agreement. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]O no, have not forgotton. I was in Lndonderry at the time of that cease fire. And i was in Belfast on the day Blair was elected, the day this present cease fire started. And the two were very different.

Why.

Well, just days before, Adams had said that if Labour was elected, there would be a cease fire. Because they knew what they would get from it.

As for Maggie running down the defences of the Falklands, i was only 12 at the time so don't remember the full story. But it seems strange that if she was ready to hand it over, she was so prepared to fight for it.

 

nonsense .
[/QB][/QUOTE]


You reackon. I would not put it past that snivelling little rat.

And yes, i voted for Maggie, and damn proud of it.

 

No pun here Bish, but Falkland is to the UKingdom what Texas is to the U.S.A.?

Whooo-Hooo! I always thought that the Falklands are a cold, god-forgotten, bunch of stones lurking out of the Atlantic, with some people living on it having fun with their sheep.

I can underwrite this for the average opinion of Germans.

As for the “hegemony-issue”: urqh, I actually don’t meant that Blair appeases Iraq, but the U.S.A.

The majority of the British people are hereby welcomed to the “old Europe”.

Cheers,

 

Well, i guess it is a bit hard to find similarities between the Falklands and Texas. But i am sure you know what i meant.

As for the old Europe, thats something i don't think anyone wants to return to.

 

In that case Andy I understand your appeasment reference, as I agree with you.

 

Redcoat

You more or less covered everything I had to say. It should not escape the notice of US posters that all opinion polls held in the UK show a significant majority against an attack on Iraq without a new UN resolution. This extends all the way up the tree to the current Chief of Defence Staff and I have met far too many officers telling me of their grave misgivings about this farce not to be concerned. Their attitude is reminiscent of officers deployed during Suez: professional but not keen.

Bish: Look into the Endurance fiasco. The Thatcher government was pretty culpable for the war by giving signals to Galtieri that they didn't care: to the extent that the Islanders were not given full British passports. Compare and contrast with Jim Callaghans firm response in 1977 to an invasion threat.

Oh, and don't forget Pershing, Cruise, Zimbabwe, Westland....

Jumbo

Jumbo

 

And i wounder how man of these peole will still say they don't support action even we we have the evidence.

I firmly believe we need that action before we act. But getting rid of addam is hardly a bad thing. And i don't know whats worse. aying we will do it with or without the evidence. Or standing up for Saddam.

 

You more or less covered everything I had to say. It should not escape the notice of US posters that all opinion polls held in the UK show a significant majority against an attack on Iraq without a new UN resolution. This extends all the way up the tree to the current Chief of Defence Staff and I have met far too many officers telling me of their grave misgivings about this farce not to be concerned. Their attitude is reminiscent of officers deployed during Suez: professional but not keen.

Bish: Look into the Endurance fiasco. The Thatcher government was pretty culpable for the war by giving signals to Galtieri that they didn't care: to the extent that the Islanders were not given full British passports. Compare and contrast with Jim Callaghans firm response in 1977 to an invasion threat.
-----------------------------------------------
And dont forget Ridley in 1980 talking about leaseback. Went to Falklands and actually persuaded the Falklanders that a form of leaseback was the best way to go, if I remember rightly nearly 50 percent of the islanders were in agreement. When back in the UK, a small group of Labour politicans ambushed him in the commons and went wild. The cabinet then voted against any leasback, and Ridley was left to take the flack.

Ridley was a minister in Margarets govt, he did not sneak out to the islands in October 1980 with an idea for leasback without Maggie not knowing.

So ask yourself what message this sent to Argentina? And yes as Jumbo says Endurance and the defence cuts which were to devestate the navy as we knew it at that time could also be seen I suppose as a sign of Britians commitment under Maggie.

The reason she fought as she did to reclaim the islands after their invasion was quite simply survival, if she did not she was finished, not saying the tories would have been finished but her realm as prime minister would not have lasted much longer.

Once the media published pictures of Royal Marines with hands in the air, and lined up on the ground in prone postition and even the Commodore Lambardo? spelling??? shouted out his subordinates for allowing this to be photographed and knew what this would mean.

Maggie had no choice for her own survival.

 

Well, U.S. admin considers France and Germany representing "the old Europe", compared to the other, "modern" Eastern Europe.

Cheers,

 

Well, U.S. admin considers France and Germany representing "the old Europe", compared to the other, "modern" Eastern Europe.

Cheers, [/QB][/QUOTE]

Well, maybe that says more about the current US admin.

I consider the old Europe as the one that spent mutch of the last 1,000 years at war with each other.

I put this, and especialy the devistating conflict this site concentrates on, as being the main reason for continental European reluctance to go to war.

Unfortunatly, this is something many Americans i don't think fully understand.

I would rather we had closer ties to Europe, though not to mutch. But it seems that Europe is dominated by a France that simply wants to get revenge for getting their arses kicked by us so often.