Reply to: That Special Relationship ...

[Rantor]

Stan, its simplistic, liberal, appeasing, politically correct views like yours which have left Britain in the state it's in at the moment.
Your experiment has failed, even the government is finally turning its back on blindly following the ideals of a generation of weak, misguided fools.

Thats what this board needs - more well-balanced, clearly argued debate backed up by lots of well documented evidence.

[GreenerGrass]

Yeah those damned humans don't need rights.

Oh wait, I am one

Stan, its simplistic, liberal, appeasing, politically correct views like yours which have left Britain in the state it's in at the moment.
Your experiment has failed, even the government is finally turning its back on blindly following the ideals of a generation of weak, misguided fools.

[threaded]

The NHS and nationalisation were far from the only problem.

Did you realise that while France and Germany invested the Marshall Aid they received, Britain (who got more than either of them) just squandered it?

"The Wasting of Britain's Marshall Aid"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british...shall_01.shtml

Read it and weep. (:

Actually that article reads far better than what happened. For example the post war Labour government increased taxes massively on steel companies in an effort to put them out of business. Then 'rescued' them with nationalization!

[Sysman]

Of course the Yanks exacted harsh conditions for their loans ...

... and after WW2 it was the UK's self-indulgence and pie in the sky socialism like founding the NHS and nationalising everything in sight that almost bankrupted the country.

The NHS and nationalisation were far from the only problem.

Did you realise that while France and Germany invested the Marshall Aid they received, Britain (who got more than either of them) just squandered it?

"The Wasting of Britain's Marshall Aid"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british...shall_01.shtml

Read it and weep. (:

[Rantor]

That Independent is a sneering, twisted, bitter little rag, as bad if not worse in its way than the preachy Daily Mail.

Never considered it like that but not a bad point - sneering bit anyway

Of course the Yanks exacted harsh conditions for their loans - It was Europe's fault for dithering so long that allowed Hitler to become such a threat and a hideous expense and sacrifice to combat before the US had to join in, and after WW2 it was the UK's self-indulgence and pie in the sky socialism like founding the NHS and nationalising everything in sight that almost bankrupted the country. And the US itself wasn't all that rich until the 50s - The RAF was larger than the USAF until the late 1930s!

Oh come on, Britain didn't have a pot to piss in after the war even before nationalisation and the NHS. Oh, and the Marshall Plan - no exacting a high price? WW2 caught the US on an upswing out of the depression and they made a mint whereas the two wars and the depression wiped the UK out.

What the smart-ass, bilious author of that piece also fails to mention is that if our so-called "special relationship" with the US in a political sense may be a joke (which I wouldn't dispute) you can say the same even more so of our relations with the EU, and we have far more business and cultural affinities with the US and a common language.

Tony Blair and fellow Europhiliacs like Cameron delude themselves that the UK can really influence France and Germany together, but in the EU the UK is like one of those parasitic fish that cling onto the belly of sharks. All those EU federalists and socialist despise the UK, and plough on with their plans regardless...

Do you think you have more in common with the average American citizen rather than the equivalent Dutchman, German or even Fenchie? Mainstream US thought seems pretty bloody foreign to me.

If only the EU was that simple now - France has been marginalised and in a sulk for years (hence Zarkos "We're Back" speeches.) I think most older-country eu cutizens don't want an eu federalist state.

I would love someone to actually tell me what the EU is meant to be for now. Apart from the trade and common rights stuff I cab't figure it out. Maybe I'll ask some of those eurocrats I see on the train in th emorning.

Oh, the CAP - protection money at best - that does p!ss me off.

[Stan]

The first thing we need to do is repeal the Human Rights Act

Yeah those damned humans don't need rights.

Oh wait, I am one

[wendigo100]

Excellent rant Alfred, have you read Hegemoney or Survival by Noam Chomsky?

Chomsky - discredited. Even the lefty buggers in education acknowledge that now.

EU or Russia? You're mad. The only problem with our US relationship is the our current lap-dog attitude to it.

[GreenerGrass]

Don't forget France has had a change of governent now. Sarko sees us as a shining example in some senses.
You're probably right on the rest of them.

Anyway, I've been agreeing with The Independent for too long, it is after all run by Islamists with a hidden agenda.

The first thing we need to do is repeal the Human Rights Act and regain sovereignty and control of our borders. This would horrify the Independent editors.

[OwlHoot]

That Independent is a sneering, twisted, bitter little rag, as bad if not worse in its way than the preachy Daily Mail.

Of course the Yanks exacted harsh conditions for their loans - It was Europe's fault for dithering so long that allowed Hitler to become such a threat and a hideous expense and sacrifice to combat before the US had to join in, and after WW2 it was the UK's self-indulgence and pie in the sky socialism like founding the NHS and nationalising everything in sight that almost bankrupted the country. And the US itself wasn't all that rich until the 50s - The RAF was larger than the USAF until the late 1930s!

What the smart-ass, bilious author of that piece also fails to mention is that if our so-called "special relationship" with the US in a political sense may be a joke (which I wouldn't dispute) you can say the same even more so of our relations with the EU, and we have far more business and cultural affinities with the US and a common language.

Tony Blair and fellow Europhiliacs like Cameron delude themselves that the UK can really influence France and Germany together, but in the EU the UK is like one of those parasitic fish that cling onto the belly of sharks. All those EU federalists and socialist despise the UK, and plough on with their plans regardless...

[GreenerGrass]

Excellent rant Alfred, have you read Hegemoney or Survival by Noam Chomsky?

Do you think Blair has even read about Suez or any 20th century history whatsoever?

How about the latest hypocrisy with Bush criticizing Russia (who really should be an ally in the "war on Islamist terror") on democracy when he is actually jealous of what Putin can get away with. The only difference is Bush "offshores" his little CIA rendition operations to satisfy US law.
Playing devils advocate here a bit, but how would we feel if Russia was looking after Hookhand Hamza who was claiming 7/7 was all a hoax carried out by the British security services?
The Polonium stuff is a bit OTT though, couldn't they just have fed him a raw puffer fish?

So who do we befriend? Poland?

No, Russia. We need cheap gas and oil, they are an energy superpower. Its tragic watching Blair trying to talk tough with Putin, he's completely out of his league and being bestest chums with the USA does us no favours with Russia at the moment, or in fact any other country.

This new Cold War, put yourself in Russia's position with all these missiles in your backyard, and former Warsaw pact countries as well. Talk about rubbing their noses in it.
The last time something this antagonistic happened was with the Cuban missile crisis, and that was largely brought on by the US placing missles in Turkey, that were later secretly withdrawn as part of the bargaining.
Perhaps we need a strong Russia to keep the USA in check? They'd never dream of invading a middle eastern country at the height of the Cold War.

What does the panel think? Does any of the panel hold shares in Russian companies?

[xoggoth]

I really could not be bothered it read it all, I have to ration those few brain cells not yet destroyed by vodka on doctor's orders, but as for the gist of it, I applaud every word Alf. It is an insane one-sided relationship in every sense.

Some might say that it is worth it to be aligned with the most powerful nation on earth, what an alliance eh? Unfortunately, everything you read about US right wing Republican viewpoints suggest that their allies are valued not because of support they have shown for the US in the past, but purely because of the immediate value they might have to the US in the current situation.

Anyone who has not become a USophobe since Bush got in is an idiot.

[Rantor]

Thanks AJP. Right enough, why do we need this? Why are we so stupid? Or do the private agreements make it clear in some way that out leaders have no choice?

Or is it really that they are all so seduced by the illusion of power that they will do anything to preserve the illusion that we have, and are, a great power? Is Trident the price of entry? It's a lot of money otherwise just to break the non-proliferation agreement that we righteously propose for others, very US-like that is. So we have to pointedly spit in Putin's eye to make him bare claws and hiss, thus proving that we need Trident after all, so we pay a fortune to the world's most profligate spenders to buy it, and they pay us back by letting our PM bask in the glow of the Smirk.

Please let me wake up.

The Trident "Dual Key System" makes it superflous as well. I think. It seems a bit vague whether George W or successors would ever let us set of our own fireworks - maybe its a good thing. Need to ruminate>>>

[wendigo100]

So who do we befriend? Poland?

A special relationship with the US is fine.

It's having a weak, mealy-mouthed tosspot in charge at this end that makes it bad.

And imagine what they must think when we send Prescott over there!

The yanks are taking the piss out of us only because they know they can get whatever they want.

[DodgyAgent]

Long-winded but true. Were better off without the "special relationship"

Unlike Bliar, Harold Wilson was able to see through the cr*p that is US foreign policy and kept us out of Vietnam - in hindsight a great achievement. Unfortunately with Gordon Brown the George Bush ar*e licking will continue.

Its interesting to see David Cameron keeping his distance from Bush and his cronies right now much to the anger of the Murdoch press. I'd like to think that the Tories (Cameron, Ken Clarke etc) have seen the light

So who do we befriend? Poland?

[Hart-floot]

From the Independent ...

When the next came, Reagan remained studiedly neutral in public over the Falklands. In between, the absolute reliance on US support to keep sterling from collapsing prevented Harold Wilson condemning the Vietnam war, to the dismay of naïve colleagues who affected not to appreciate what an epic achievement it was to avoid sending British troops....

So it won't be long before he's standing beneath the imperial eagle at one of those twin lectern White House press conferences, intoning: "Mr President, I'm sure you know how deeply we value the special relationship between our great nations." And when Mr Bush reciprocates the sentiment, his valiant fight to suppress the scornful Frat Boy smirk will be all the carefully nuanced commentary this outmoded ritual strictly demands.

Long-winded but true. Were better off without the "special relationship"

Unlike Bliar, Harold Wilson was able to see through the cr*p that is US foreign policy and kept us out of Vietnam - in hindsight a great achievement. Unfortunately with Gordon Brown the George Bush ar*e licking will continue.

Its interesting to see David Cameron keeping his distance from Bush and his cronies right now much to the anger of the Murdoch press. I'd like to think that the Tories (Cameron, Ken Clarke etc) have seen the light