Military cuts to leave Britain with weaker armed forces

[Grant]

PeteEU

First off, American's have zero plans for spending cuts.

I don't know who your sources are but these midterm elections are all about spending cuts, ending pork, balancing the budget, and so on. Who is your source by the way? I'd suggest you look around for some media who is more fair and balanced.

It is all based on partisan wishful thinking and winning the next election. The Republican's only plan after they most likely win power back in Congress, is to do what they did to get the US into the mess they are in now.. spend spend spend and if they cut, they will cut areas that they see can hurt the other side's supporters.. welfare and healthcare. The only "light point" is the Tea Party, but thanks to freaks, liars, criminals, racists, homophobes, nazies, fanatics and brain dead morons, the Tea Party is nothing but a joke now. When people in a political movement one moment can claim "government money is bad" and then accept government money... they are no different than the present crop already in power, just a different tag. Come back to us when the US finally gets its economic situation under control... and that will be never I bet under the current conditions.

Find a news source that is more fair and balanced, Pete. You're showing signs of left wing overload.

Secondly, while I dont like the new British government, they have (unlike your hero's the Americans and their politician's), gone after two of the "holy cows" of conservative thinking.. defence and justice and cut them. Now I might not agree with their dispositions and what they have cut, but the very fact that a conservative government has the balls to cut defence and justice and not only the usual suspects for conservatives, shows me that the con-lib government has at least in part stepped up over political ideology and looked at the big picture. That I can respect. Do you really think that a US conservative would survive by suggesting cutting by dumping a US navy carrier from one day to another? Or cutting 10% of all US military forces from one day to another and closing bases? Or cutting funding to prisons and other justice related areas? yea right! He would be labelled a RINO and a socialist before the end of the day.

Thirdly, the only riots there are, are in France and that is how the French protest. While American's are content to do nothing, the French like to go on the streets and protest measures they feel are unfair. Now they might be right or they may not be, does not matter.. the very fact that most European's are willing to stand up for their rights and opinions shows a hell of a lot more than what any American has done the last 50 years to change anything in their political system or government. Where was the massive protests on the streets over TARP? Or GM Bail out? Or Iraq? The only massive "protest" you have had in the US lately have been the Beck glorification rally for god sake and even that had so many different voices that we still dont know what it was for.. was it a prayer meeting or the usual Tea Party combo of racists, homophobes and a few normal people? Or both?

You seem to be talking to yourself. Not a good habit on a public forum.

 

[Grant]

PeteEU

And so what? Does not change the fact that the original term came from the US.. The BBC just were not clever enough at the start to cut through the hype versus reality of the situation. They dont use the term any more because it is inaccurate and offensive. Heck eve CNBC has stopped using it (with exception of the most rabid right wing hosts) because it is inaccurate and offensive.

So now it has changed from "There is no PIIGS,.. it is US right wing media hype" to "the original term came from the US" to it being "offensive". You really don't have any idea, do you?

Of course they have, they report on anything the puts France in what they perceive as a bad light. Those media usually go out of their way to paint France in a bad light.

So the European media aren't reporting on the riots in France because it might put them in a bad light? What other news are they not reporting? But I guess you wouldn't know that, would you?

 

[kaya'08]

The fiscal paths are similar but with one real distinction.

The majority of Americans are prepared to make sacrifices in order to make their financial problems more manageable while Europeans, if we can judge by the ongoing riots, are not. Bith do share the same serious problems however, and demographics tell us that these problems will not go away easily.

Your accepting this conclusion for Europe because of France? You couldn't be any more off-mark and it shows an ignorance to the countries unique situation.

France has traditionally enjoyed low retirement ages. In France, the retirement age is going up to 62 whereas ours was 65 BEFORE the spending review and climbing here in the UK. Its something France is not pleased about, its something the French lifestyle disproves of even more. The UMP party is highly unpopular and its precisely this fact the trade unions have exploited to create such momentum on a large scale for strikes.

In terms of employment and growth, with the exception of Greece, much of Europe is outperforming its growth estimates (even the UK as of late), whereas US employment figures has failed to impress time and time again.

What cuts has the US made exactly? Europe has tightened its belt and has had to suffer much more. Obama continues to spend like he has free vouchers for every shop in Oxford street. The deficit is climbing. Pointless stimulus packages are still being released in the billions. The UK has had to perform a radical review of its spending. It has made £81 billion pounds worth of cuts, axed in excess of 100 quango's, cut military expenditure by 8% and capped child benefits for those earning in exccess of £44,000 a year, not to mention we are faced with the possible scenario that £81 billion pounds worth of cuts may "not be enough". European lifestyles have been compromised and America continues to act like a fat child in McDonalds. I find your opinion highly inconsistent with reality (the fact that you insist Europe is not "willing" to make the cuts necessary).

 

[Grant]

Infinite Chaos

OK here we go, firstly there is a world of difference between the US Govt and Americans as a people. Most Americans don't even trust the US govt.

The American people elect their governments and these governments, as in all democracies, represent the people. If you don't trust all governments perhaps you should say so, but you specifically said the American government. And all because Eisenhower disappointed you over 50 years ago.

You haven't answered my previous question on the other page. I've answered yours - what lesson would you have us learn from Suez?

The British should have noticed well before Suez that they were well past playing power games. Britain at the time still felt they had some power in the world but they had not. As well, Britain was not to be entirely trusted. They had involved the United States, and the world, in two World Wars. What would you have the Americans, and others, learn from that? Their clever diplomacy simply did not work anymore. Eventually the straight talking American method, epitomized most by Ronald Reagan in his "tear down this wall" speech, would prevail. The British, to use their own phrase, had become too clever by half. They trusted too much in their own self=satisfied natural superiority, and assumed everything would fall into place as a result.

We lost a Govt, the French Mollet Govt collapsed and you want us to admire the US as an ally?

Had you been smart you would have played Real Politik and used the Americans however you could. Instead the British government, their media and their people sneered at the Americans, and still do. That is not smart politics, and a lack of smart politics is why you got involved in two world wars and were ignored at Suez. The simple fact is that America as an ally was of greater importance to Britain than Britain ever would be to the United States. The British seemed to think the reverse was true.

Britain has ceased to be a world power and, as well, has little influence in world affairs. That is not such a bad thing as the same is true of many countries, including my own. But because Britain was such a powerful nation, and a most positive influence on the world btw, their fate is more difficult for the British to accept. They feel frustrated that their former colony doesn't know their rightful place.

I'm not whitewashing the fact that the UK Govt was desperately trying to keep sterling as a financial standard and it would have collapsed anyway - however the fact is a supposed close ally threatened to dump its reserves of our currency on the international markets an ruin us.

I'm not aware of this. Do you have a link?

I'm surprised MSgt hasn't turned up yet to blame us for everything yet - this is fast becoming the perfect thread to tell us how evil and awful Europeans are.

I don't think Europeans are naturally evil, though they can be on occasion. Their politics are tiresome though and usually quite immature and unrealistic. We'll see more riots demonstrating that fact for sure. They often do not respond like responsible adults.

Elaborate please - I suspect you're trying to make some kind of underhand reference regarding WW2 but don't forget we went to war with Germany and Italy long before the US decided to come in late and claim all the glory.

The British have entered into trade agreements with Italy and Germany but not with the United States and Canada. I also hear more sarcastic comments coming from the Brits regarding the Americans ("don't forget we went to war with Germany and Italy long before the US decided to come in late and claim all the glory") than are ever directed against the Germans or Italians, the bastards who started two world wars.

The British will quickly forgive the Italians and Germans, in fact the term "PIIGS" has apparently become offensive, while the complaining about the Americans, and Suez of all places, continues. How Suez can ever compare to the madness of the Germans, Italians, and of course the Japanese, can never be satisfactorily understood. Even the most rabid European left winger couldn't explain that.

 

[Grant]

kaya'08

Your accepting this conclusion for Europe because of France? You couldn't be any more off-mark and it shows an ignorance to the countries unique situation.

No, I'm saying of because of PIIGS, the acronym that dares not speak its name. There will be further riots in Europe, and collapses, to come. It is inevitable.

France has traditionally enjoyed low retirement ages. In France, the retirement age is going up to 62 whereas ours was 65 BEFORE the spending review and climbing here in the UK. Its something France is not pleased about, its something the French lifestyle disproves of even more. The UMP party is highly unpopular and its precisely this fact the trade unions have exploited to create such momentum on a large scale for strikes.

Whatever. But you are proving my point.

In terms of employment and growth, with the exception of Greece, much of Europe is outperforming its growth estimates (even the UK as of late), whereas US employment figures has failed to impress time and time again.

Why compare yourself to the United States? It's in the tank also and will have a real problem getting out. And by the way, any time the situation in Europe is being discussed it's always, "Oh, yeah? What about America??" Is it not possible to discuss Europe and stay in Europe?

What cuts has the US made exactly? Europe has tightened its belt and has had to suffer much more. Obama continues to spend like he has free vouchers for every shop in Oxford street. The deficit is climbing. Pointless stimulus packages are still being released in the billions. The UK has had to perform a radical review of its spending. It has made £81 billion pounds worth of cuts, axed in excess of 100 quango's, cut military expenditure by 8% and capped child benefits for those earning in exccess of £44,000 a year, not to mention we are faced with the possible scenario that £81 billion pounds worth of cuts may "not be enough". European lifestyles have been compromised and America continues to act like a fat child in McDonalds. I find your opinion highly inconsistent with reality (the fact that you insist Europe is not "willing" to make the cuts necessary).

I agree. In fact the common complaint is that the Obama Administration has gone all European. Whoever inherits the mess Obama made will have a helluva job fixing it. The biggest beneficiary from BHO has been Canada.

 

[kaya'08]

No, I'm saying of because of PIIGS, the acronym that dares not speak its name. There will be further riots in Europe, and collapses, to come. It is inevitable.

Is it? This is based on nothing other than your own personal fantasies rather than fact. If America will not "collapse", then neither will Europe, since our prospects of decent economic recovery is better.
The PIGS have made some substantial progress in regards to their economy. If they follow their rigorous IMF policies they will do just fine, especially with the added help of an EU lifeline (unfortunate that Europe was made to pay for the stupidity of Greece but the financial help is still there). Spain, Portugal, Greece and the UK have some tough years ahead of them but things are finally looking up compared to the last couple of years. Trade unions have rallied and battered but there actions are nothing uncommon in times of austerity and economic uncertainty. The strikes in France are loosing momentum and so are the strikes in Greece. At the end of the day, people need to work and they know that European governments will move full steam ahead to meet the necessary obligations regardless of what the unions do.

Whatever. But you are proving my point.

What point have i proven? French Trade Unions acted especially aggressive due to the sensitivity of the retirement age in France. The UMP government is at a 30% rating and the people are disproving towards Sarkozy. It represents a hesitation to compromise on everything in France, certainly, but it does not represent a hesitation by the French government to do what it must, nor does it reflect on Europe as a whole.

Why compare yourself to the United States? It's in the tank also and will have a real problem getting out. And by the way, any time the situation in Europe is being discussed it's always, "Oh, yeah? What about America??" Is it not possible to discuss Europe and stay in Europe?

You made an incorrect comment about America being ready to make the sacrifices it needs, when in reality the only people making sacrifices are the Europeans who are outperforming America economically. My point was, out of everybody here, it is the American government that should be making the biggest sacrifices, and it is not. So your accusation of us not being able to stomach sacrifices remains baseless when it is the Europeans that have stuck there necks out. It was you that bought America into the discussion, not me.

 

[Grant]

kaya'08

Is it? This is based on nothing other than your own personal fantasies rather than fact.

The future, of course, is not fact. If you think there will not be further riots then I admire your optimism. I'm more pessimistic about Europe's future, and on more than one front..

If America will not "collapse", then neither will Europe, since our prospects of decent economic recovery is better.

I wouldn't invest in either just yet.

The PIGS have made some substantial progress in regards to their economy. If they follow their rigorous IMF policies they will do just fine, especially with the added help of an EU lifeline (unfortunate that Europe was made to pay for the stupidity of Greece but the financial help is still there). Spain, Portugal, Greece and the UK have some tough years ahead of them but things are finally looking up compared to the last couple of years. Trade unions have rallied and battered but there actions are nothing uncommon in times of austerity and economic uncertainty. The strikes in France are loosing momentum and so are the strikes in Greece. At the end of the day, people need to work and they know that European governments will move full steam ahead to meet the necessary obligations regardless of what the unions do.

Good luck to them.

What point have i proven? French Trade Unions acted especially aggressive due to the sensitivity of the retirement age in France. The UMP government is at a 30% rating and the people are disproving towards Sarkozy. It represents a hesitation to compromise on everything in France, certainly, but it does not represent a hesitation by the French government to do what it must, nor does it reflect on Europe as a whole.

You were offering reasons for the riots while I don't care about the reasons. I'm only discussing the inevitable riots.

You made an incorrect comment about America being ready to make the sacrifices it needs, when in reality the only people making sacrifices are the Europeans who are outperforming America economically.

I don;t doubt that's true in many areas.

My point was, out of everybody here, it is the American government that should be making the biggest sacrifices, and it is not.

Right, and they know its not. That's why they're having a mini revolution in these midterms.

So your accusation of us not being able to stomach sacrifices remains baseless when it is the Europeans that have stuck there necks out.

The necks are not that far out yet. Let's see how the next year goes.

It was you that bought America into the discussion, not me.

I brought the American economy into the discussion??

 

[PeteEU]

PeteEU
I don't know who your sources are but these midterm elections are all about spending cuts, ending pork, balancing the budget, and so on. Who is your source by the way? I'd suggest you look around for some media who is more fair and balanced.

The Republicans said it in 1994, and did nothing. They had years to change many of the things they are campaigning on now..and did nothing. This has nothing to do with what my sources say but the historical fact of the US political system and especially the Republican party.

Find a news source that is more fair and balanced, Pete. You're showing signs of left wing overload.

Actually you should.

You seem to be talking to yourself. Not a good habit on a public forum.

And you are attempting to divert attention away from your own comments by attack me.. typical right wing tactic.

 

[Harshaw]

The Republicans said it in 1994, and did nothing. They had years to change many of the things they are campaigning on now..and did nothing.

No, actually, they DID, and Clinton successfully took credit for it.

 

[PeteEU]

PeteEU



So now it has changed from "There is no PIIGS,.. it is US right wing media hype" to "the original term came from the US" to it being "offensive". You really don't have any idea, do you?

No, nothing has changed. There is no PIIGS other than in US right wing media hype. And the original term did come from the US and it is offensive and highly inaccurate.

So the European media aren't reporting on the riots in France because it might put them in a bad light? What other news are they not reporting? But I guess you wouldn't know that, would you?

The European media are reporting them. But they are nothing special, which is my point and the European media are not going out of their way to paint it as such. The French always do that.. it is their way to protest. Now the US media, especially Fox, do go out of their way to paint it as something sensational.. it is not, it is normal.

 

[PeteEU]

No, actually, they DID, and Clinton successfully took credit for it.

They did jack ****. If you look at the "contract for America", very very little of it was actually ever done. On top of that they put in place the ground work for the crisis we have today. They were far too busy back then going after Clinton than actually do anything.

 

[Harshaw]

They did jack ****. If you look at the "contract for America", very very little of it was actually ever done. On top of that they put in place the ground work for the crisis we have today. They were far too busy back then going after Clinton than actually do anything.

The "Contract with America" was a gimmick introduced quite late in that campaign. Things like welfare reform, bringing the budget into balance, etc. -- that was what they ran on. They happened.

Not that you will ever, ever, give them any credit for it, 'coz that's not the way you roll.

 

[PeteEU]

The "Contract with America" was a gimmick introduced quite late in that campaign. Things like welfare reform, bringing the budget into balance, etc. -- that was what they ran on. They happened.

Not that you will ever, ever, give them any credit for it, 'coz that's not the way you roll.

LOL you ever read that document? They passed a bunch of stuff but nothing ever came of it. Even their first day promises were broken fast. Even the first one on their list was never really implemented.....

If This Were the Private Sector, Those Congressional Staffers Would End Up in Jail - By Veronique de Rugy - The Corner - National Review Online

Cool that a US congressman and his/her staff can do insider trading but you cant!

And their nr 1 law to pass.. balance budget.. how did that go? The list goes on.... the Contract with America was an utter failure... passing useless laws and promises without results = failure.

 

[Harshaw]

LOL you ever read that document?

Did you even read what I wrote?

 

[Grant]

PeteEU

The Republicans said it in 1994, and did nothing.

Actually that's not true but quite beside the point anyway.

They had years to change many of the things they are campaigning on now..and did nothing. This has nothing to do with what my sources say but the historical fact of the US political system and especially the Republican party.

If you are saying that the Republican party became less conservative then you are correct. This is why they are under pressure now to be more conservative and fiscally responsible.

And you are attempting to divert attention away from your own comments by attack me.. typical right wing tactic.

I'm only suggesting you look around for a better news source. After what you said about the Tea Party it's clear you have little idea what it's all about, and that you have been seriously misled.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- The American people elect their governments and these governments, as in all democracies, represent the people. If you don't trust all governments perhaps you should say so, but you specifically said the American government. And all because Eisenhower disappointed you over 50 years ago.

Yes, I specifically said the American Govt, you tried to turn that into an anti-America statement and failed. Even now, you're trying to do it while justifying my comment that it was an American Govt.
Confuse yourself much?

-- The British should have noticed well before Suez that they were well past playing power games. Britain at the time still felt they had some power in the world but they had not. As well, Britain was not to be entirely trusted. They had involved the United States, and the world, in two World Wars. What would you have the Americans, and others, learn from that? Their clever diplomacy simply did not work anymore. Eventually the straight talking American method, epitomized most by Ronald Reagan in his "tear down this wall" speech, would prevail. The British, to use their own phrase, had become too clever by half. They trusted too much in their own self=satisfied natural superiority, and assumed everything would fall into place as a result.

Not an answer I'm afraid - you're avoiding by trying to say we should have learned before Suez.

-- Had you been smart you would have played Real Politik and used the Americans however you could. Instead the British government, their media and their people sneered at the Americans, and still do. That is not smart politics, and a lack of smart politics is why you got involved in two world wars and were ignored at Suez.

We weren't ignored - Eisenhower went so far as to ask George Humphrey to prepare sale of the US Sterling holdings. Google it if you wish to challenge me.

-- The simple fact is that America as an ally was of greater importance to Britain than Britain ever would be to the United States. The British seemed to think the reverse was true.

No, we knew the US was an important ally - what we underestimated was the propensity to stab us in the back when it suited the US govt.

-- Britain has ceased to be a world power and, as well, has little influence in world affairs. That is not such a bad thing as the same is true of many countries, including my own. But because Britain was such a powerful nation, and a most positive influence on the world btw, their fate is more difficult for the British to accept. They feel frustrated that their former colony doesn't know their rightful place.

We aren't a superpower anymore - nobody in the UK thinks much about it. You however seem to spend your waking life trolling the Europe forum telling us how we're evil, has-beens and unimportant.

-- I'm not aware of this. Do you have a link?

Where do you want me to start? - look for "economic diplomacy" on Google - however there's a book available to search via Amazon.

The IMF has good records on it's part in the whole shebang - France was lucky to have asked for an IMF loan which helped strengthen them against the same tactics by the US Govt.

Look for Eisenhower and Goerge M Humphrey on google - "Eisenhower in fact ordered his Secretary of the Treasury, George M. Humphrey, to prepare to sell part of the US Government's Sterling Bond holdings. The Government held these bonds in part to aid post war Britain’s economy (during the Cold War), and as partial payment of Britain’s enormous World War II debt to the US Government, American corporations, and individuals. It was also part of the overall effort of Marshall Plan aid, in the rebuilding of the Western European economies."

Interesting that the situation has reversed and the Chinese have been watching and studying history - "If history is any guide, the power of the lender over debtor nations is not just theoretical. The key moment when the world leadership passed from Britain to the United States came during the Suez crisis of the 1950s as a result of Britain's large WWII debt owed to the United States.
When Britain, France and Israel invaded Egypt to take control of the Suez canal, the US President Eisenhower warned the British that unless they withdrew, he would order the sale of the United States' currency reserves of British Pounds and Sterling Bonds; thereby precipitating a collapse of the British currencies' exchange rate. Eisenhower in fact ordered his Secretary of the Treasury, George M. Humphrey to prepare to sell part of the US Government's Sterling Bond holdings. The British withdrew and ceded the control of the Canal to Egypt."

-- I don't think Europeans are naturally evil, though they can be on occasion. Their politics are tiresome though and usually quite immature and unrealistic. We'll see more riots demonstrating that fact for sure. They often do not respond like responsible adults.

Love the sneering snide comments. :lamo

-- The British have entered into trade agreements with Italy and Germany but not with the United States and Canada.

Apart from the EU being our major trade agreement, do you really think the UK has no trade agreements with the US?

-- I also hear more sarcastic comments coming from the Brits regarding the Americans ("don't forget we went to war with Germany and Italy long before the US decided to come in late and claim all the glory") than are ever directed against the Germans or Italians, the bastards who started two world wars.

Germany and Italy never pretended to be a stalwart ally did they? I prefer an enemy who is clearly an enemy - not an "ally" prepared to sink a friend when it suits.

-- The British will quickly forgive the Italians and Germans, in fact the term "PIIGS" has apparently become offensive, while the complaining about the Americans, and Suez of all places, continues. How Suez can ever compare to the madness of the Germans, Italians, and of course the Japanese, can never be satisfactorily understood. Even the most rabid European left winger couldn't explain that.

Speaking of rabid hatred, how's your anti-Europe rash doing?

Nobody is comparing Suez with WW2, however just because the US came in does not mean we have to roll over and forget that the US cannot truly be trusted. France went its own way after Suez, never to be part of NATO and look at the anti-French hatred you read from US posters and US media.

Now, please answer my question - I'll make it simple - what lesson should a country threatened with a financial knife in the back learn from a supposed friend / ally prepared to use that weapon when you are trying to defend western interests in the ME?

 

[Grant]

Infinite Chaos

Yes, I specifically said the American Govt, you tried to turn that into an anti-America statement and failed. Even now, you're trying to do it while justifying my comment that it was an American Govt. Confuse yourself much?

You don't trust the American governments because of Suez. Which governments do you trust then? Which government has a history that will meet your rigorous standards? Have all other governments met with your political satisfaction for the past 50 years?

Not an answer I'm afraid - you're avoiding by trying to say we should have learned before Suez.

Of course you should have. You demonstrated well before Suez that you cannot be trusted in high stakes politics. Have you forgotten the Peace in Our Time craziness? Why should you have been supported in the matter of Suez? You cannot give a reason.

We weren't ignored - Eisenhower went so far as to ask George Humphrey to prepare sale of the US Sterling holdings. Google it if you wish to challenge me.

I'm not challenging you. But the issue means nothing to me whatsoever.

No, we knew the US was an important ally - what we underestimated was the propensity to stab us in the back when it suited the US govt.

Actually it was Germany who stabbed you in the back, as well as everywhere else. But blame the Americans for sure. Who really cares anymore?

We aren't a superpower anymore - nobody in the UK thinks much about it. You however seem to spend your waking life trolling the Europe forum telling us how we're evil, has-beens and unimportant.

I really don't have to troll all that much.

Where do you want me to start? - look for "economic diplomacy" on Google - however there's a book available to search via Amazon.

The IMF has good records on it's part in the whole shebang - France was lucky to have asked for an IMF loan which helped strengthen them against the same tactics by the US Govt.

Look for Eisenhower and Goerge M Humphrey on google - "Eisenhower in fact ordered his Secretary of the Treasury, George M. Humphrey, to prepare to sell part of the US Government's Sterling Bond holdings. The Government held these bonds in part to aid post war Britain’s economy (during the Cold War), and as partial payment of Britain’s enormous World War II debt to the US Government, American corporations, and individuals. It was also part of the overall effort of Marshall Plan aid, in the rebuilding of the Western European economies."

You were the authors of your own misfortune.

Interesting that the situation has reversed and the Chinese have been watching and studying history - "If history is any guide, the power of the lender over debtor nations is not just theoretical. The key moment when the world leadership passed from Britain to the United States came during the Suez crisis of the 1950s as a result of Britain's large WWII debt owed to the United States.

The US Government has made a tremendous error in electing Barrack Obama and China used him well. It's difficult to tell whether the Americans will ever recover. And world leadership actually changed during WWII when the Americans took charge in Europe.

When Britain, France and Israel invaded Egypt to take control of the Suez canal, the US President Eisenhower warned the British that unless they withdrew, he would order the sale of the United States' currency reserves of British Pounds and Sterling Bonds; thereby precipitating a collapse of the British currencies' exchange rate. Eisenhower in fact ordered his Secretary of the Treasury, George M. Humphrey to prepare to sell part of the US Government's Sterling Bond holdings. The British withdrew and ceded the control of the Canal to Egypt.

And he saved many lives in the process. About time Europeans stopped their invasions. It's a good thing you were neutered.

Apart from the EU being our major trade agreement, do you really think the UK has no trade agreements with the US?

All countries are covered by trade agreements, notably GATT. Britain could have entered into a special agreement, as Canada and several other countries have done, and Japan wants to do.

Germany and Italy never pretended to be a stalwart ally did they? I prefer an enemy who is clearly an enemy - not an "ally" prepared to sink a friend when it suits.

Let's tell the truth here. Britain was only a friend of the Americans when they needed American blood and money. The rest of the time the Americans were not your friends at all, and never have been. What evidence do you have to the contrary? The laws and language are similar but it ends there.

Speaking of rabid hatred, how's your anti-Europe rash doing?

Quite well thank you. All I have to do is point out the facts.

Nobody is comparing Suez with WW2, however just because the US came in does not mean we have to roll over and forget that the US cannot truly be trusted. France went its own way after Suez, never to be part of NATO and look at the anti-French hatred you read from US posters and US media.

As a matter of fact the Americans, like the British, laugh at the French. They don't think about them enough to ''hate" them. Why would anyone bother hating the French?

Now, please answer my question - I'll make it simple - what lesson should a country threatened with a financial knife in the back learn from a supposed friend / ally prepared to use that weapon when you are trying to defend western interests in the ME?

"Supposed" friend/ally is the key. Americans were always a source of derision in Britain despite them having to get involved in two world wars. What favours have the British done for the United States that would at all compensate for the aid the American people have given the British? In fact the British were parasites, wanting Americans lives and money but complaining when it came time to repay their debt, despite much of it being forgiven and at rates anyone else would relish.

 

[FederalRepublic]

News Analysis: Military cuts to leave Britain with weaker armed forces

Suprised no one mentioned this before.

I'm shocked that this is surprising.

 

[FederalRepublic]

....passing useless laws and promises without results = failure.

That statement describes nearly everything that's happened in government in the U.S. since the beginning of 2007 (and a great deal of it before that as well). Brilliant.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- You don't trust the American governments because of Suez. Which governments do you trust then? Which government has a history that will meet your rigorous standards? Have all other governments met with your political satisfaction for the past 50 years?

I've already said - many Americans don't even trust their own Govt - so why should anyone else? They even have a section of their constitution set up so the populace can defend themselves from their Govt.

-- Of course you should have. You demonstrated well before Suez that you cannot be trusted in high stakes politics. Have you forgotten the Peace in Our Time craziness? Why should you have been supported in the matter of Suez? You cannot give a reason.

You have no credibility and you're now saying I cannot give a reason for something you haven't asked before. As for Chamberlain - your interpretation of history is completely one sided. Chamberlain may have tried to appease but he ended up declaring war on Germany. He was also removed from his position.
Eisenhower didn't change and he went on to be re-elected.

You have no understanding of high stakes politics - the only thing you see is "hate Europe."

-- Actually it was Germany who stabbed you in the back, as well as everywhere else. But blame the Americans for sure. Who really cares anymore?

Germany had nothing to do with Suez. Whitewash all you want but it was an American Pres who stabbed two allies in the back.

-- I really don't have to troll all that much

What amuses me is you think we take your opinions seriously.

-- You were the authors of your own misfortune.



The US Government has made a tremendous error in electing Barrack Obama and China used him well. It's difficult to tell whether the Americans will ever recover. And world leadership actually changed during WWII when the Americans took charge in Europe.



And he saved many lives in the process. About time Europeans stopped their invasions. It's a good thing you were neutered.



All countries are covered by trade agreements, notably GATT. Britain could have entered into a special agreement, as Canada and several other countries have done, and Japan wants to do.



Let's tell the truth here. Britain was only a friend of the Americans when they needed American blood and money. The rest of the time the Americans were not your friends at all, and never have been. What evidence do you have to the contrary? The laws and language are similar but it ends there.



Quite well thank you. All I have to do is point out the facts.



As a matter of fact the Americans, like the British, laugh at the French. They don't think about them enough to ''hate" them. Why would anyone bother hating the French?


"Supposed" friend/ally is the key. Americans were always a source of derision in Britain despite them having to get involved in two world wars. What favours have the British done for the United States that would at all compensate for the aid the American people have given the British? In fact the British were parasites, wanting Americans lives and money but complaining when it came time to repay their debt, despite much of it being forgiven and at rates anyone else would relish.

Mere histrionics, you've chosen an indefensible position and have resorted to type with you simplistic hatred of Europe / European history.

 

[Grant]

Infinite Chaos

I've already said - many Americans don't even trust their own Govt

Then why repeat it? Especially when you weren't even asked that question? I was clearly asking of other governments, of course, so it seems only the American government has disappointed you over the past 50 years plus.

so why should anyone else?

Now it's gone from you not trusting the Americans because of Suez, but that no one else should trust them either! And you'll not even give thanks to Dwight Eisenhower for saving so many British and Egyptian and French lives! More ungratefulness!

They even have a section of their constitution set up so the populace can defend themselves from their Govt.

So you think, of course, that this is an indication that Americans can't trust their government. Meanwhile the United States has enjoyed continuous democracy more than all your neighbours. As Mark Steyn pointed out, Portugal, Spain and Greece, where "Seventies nostalgia means Salazar, Franco and the Colonels. In most of Europe, there simply is no tradition of sustained peaceful democratic evolution. After 215 years, the U.S. Constitution is not only older than the French, German, Italian, Belgian, Spanish and Greek constitutions, it's older than all of them put together. Whether the forthcoming European constitution will be the one that sticks remains to be seen, but I wouldn't bet on it. It's more likely the latest doomed big idea: Communism, Fascism, European Union, each wacky notion a response to the last dud". No European has a legitimate claim to question democracy, or the system, of the United States.

You have no credibility and you're now saying I cannot give a reason for something you haven't asked before

.

Then give me a reason now?

As for Chamberlain - your interpretation of history is completely one sided. Chamberlain may have tried to appease but he ended up declaring war on Germany.

Sure he was an appeaser and he got Britain into WWII. And while he was appeasing Hitler the British ppeople, and most of their media and government, were cheering him on. That's why you weren't taken seriously later at Suez. And while you wanted yet another invasiion, Eisenhower put his foot down and said no, just as he should have.

He was also removed from his position.

Well, sure! But far too late. He'd already done all the appeasing he could.

Eisenhower didn't change and he went on to be re-elected.

As well he should have. Eisenhower didn't appease anyone, especially the British and French, and didn't start any wars. He stopped them.

You have no understanding of high stakes politics - the only thing you see is "hate Europe."

Well let's see some examples where I've been untruthful. It seems clear that Europeans have had a free ride for so long in blaming the Americans for all their woes that they can't understand why anyone would dare question their own history. It's immediately assumed that the speaker must "hate" Europeans, the most childish and response of all.

Germany had nothing to do with Suez. Whitewash all you want but it was an American Pres who stabbed two allies in the back.

Certainly Germany had nothing to do with Suez but preventing Britain and France from invading Egypt was a good thing. You had just been saved from one war and you want to start another??? Do you understand now why the Americans had to have bases stationed all over western Europe?

What amuses me is you think we take your opinions seriously.

You tend to run from any serious debate.

Mere histrionics, you've chosen an indefensible position and have resorted to type with you simplistic hatred of Europe / European history.

More European whine! You hate us , you hate us, you really, really hate us. How can you ever expect any respect from anyone with responses like these? And this is a whine I only hear from Europeans. Nobody else. No Canadian or American would ever wallow in this sort of self pitying behaviour.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- Then give me a reason now?

I refuse to take you seriously anymore.

-- And you'll not even give thanks to Dwight Eisenhower for saving so many British and Egyptian and French lives! More ungratefulness!

You can't even get your facts right – you and the other “wevisionist” that plague this forum are busy re-writing history. Where do you get the idea that Eisenhower was trying to save British and French lives?

-- So you think, of course, that this is an indication that Americans can't trust their government. Meanwhile the United States has enjoyed continuous democracy more than all your neighbours. As Mark Steyn pointed out --

Do you know what the word “Republic” means? For a fanboy, your knowledge of the US is pretty poor.

No European has a legitimate claim to question democracy, or the system, of the United States.

True, I'll leave the questioning to the African Americans, the native Indians and the women of America.

You tend to run from any serious debate.

Shall I search back through the forums for all the times I've wiped the floor with you?

More European whine! You hate us , you hate us, you really, really hate us. How can you ever expect any respect from anyone with responses like these? And this is a whine I only hear from Europeans. Nobody else. No Canadian or American would ever wallow in this sort of self pitying behaviour.

Glass of wine for you Mr Joyce?

You're like a Canadian equivalent of “Lord HawHaw.”