NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/03/nbrown603.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox


Boohoo so apparently we aren't Bush's best friend anymore because we decided to do what is right for the Iraqi people and our national interest by withdrawing some troops from Iraq.

This so called "special relationship" Britain has with America is an illusion propagated by America to keep us on their side so they can use us for military back up and support. Believe me I used to even foolishly believe in this relationship but its a wholly one sided arrangement who agrees with me here.

Well, it used to be that Bush's best friends were the ones that kept the best secrets for him .... like Egypt, Gonzales, Cheney ... you know.
After things like the Downing Street Memos, the BND Report on Iraq intelligence falsification, the two Duelfer Reports and perhaps a few more, came out ... well, to be brief-ious, i'd just say that even with all the $ blown by the Bush administration and friends, you *still* can't pay enough to keep good friends these days.

I'm sure Britian will make new friends. America, on the other hand.......

Honestly, it's like a school playground.

'Britain, you can't be my friend anymore because you don't want to play Iraq, France is my bestest new friend now. Come on France, let's go play Iran, it's like totally different to Iraq and it's better and Britain can't play...'

Bush's closest ally is and has always been Haliburton. :/

Bush's thoughts =/= US's thoughts

America, on the other hand.......Bush has a new Lap dog..

http://kylia.hautetfort.com/images/thumb_nicolas-sarkozy.jpg

*waits for English muffins to become Freedom muffins*

Did I miss re-read something in that article? Because the headline is talking about how Bush isn't as chummy with Brown, not that the alliance between the UK and the US is either under stress or going away.

Instead of Blair's conjoined twin-like approach, would it not be better that the UK recognises that its own interests may be best served by allying with the US on some occasions and not on others. I think some early US president made some comment to the effect that you shouldn't have alliances so close that you get dragged along with your ally even if it's against your interests.

*waits for English muffins to become Freedom muffins*
No... PLEASE DEAR GOD NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/noooooooo.jpg

browns just taking british foreign policy into his own hands which is a welcome change, doesnt mean he considers the US as less of an ally, he just would prefer British officials to determine British policy. And if anyone expects Sarkozy to be a lap-dog to anyone then they're on another planet, him and Brown are in a similar vein when it comes to leadership and he's not afraid to use his proverbial weight.

Did I miss re-read something in that article? Because the headline is talking about how Bush isn't as chummy with Brown, not that the alliance between the UK and the US is either under stress or going away.I've heard this all over the place. Things are going sour not just between Brown and Bush, but between the US army and the UK army as well. Coalition Generals have been sniping at each other. Not very cohesive at all.

Oh deary me, however can I sleep at night in the knowledge that Bush doesn't like us?

No... PLEASE DEAR GOD NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/noooooooo.jpg

I'd love it if that happened, mainly because I don't eat the damned things anyway and I could pretend to be boycotting them. :D

Jeebus, Bush looks old next to Sarkozy.

woots and yays! I'm unexpectedly turning out to be quite pleased with Gordo :D

well we DO have many close friends around the world.

we have to consider canada and mexico. france is our oldest ally.

but i guess our closest must be saudi arabia. i mean really, did you ever see mr bush kiss mr blair the way he kisses the king of saud?

From the article in question: "The White House no longer views Britain as its most loyal ally in Europe since Gordon Brown took office and is instead increasingly turning towards France and Germany, according to Bush administration sources..."

Administration "sources" said THAT??? Clearly, the Brits do not understand Americans if they would give any credibility at all to that. Either this is an attempt at creating sensationalism and scandal where none exist (and I'll bet we're all just shocked at the notion that the press might try to do that!), or the "sources" were those that became audible to the journalist only after one too many pints at the Crown and Anchor.

A minor dispute over who helps where and how does nothing, means nothing, the fact is the two nations are linked by far more than who occupies the top government slot. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't spent enough time in BOTH nations. Bear in mind, the US and the UK spent the whole of WWII arguing over the priorities. There will be times in the years to come when the US does not deploy troops where the UK would prefer, and vice versa. It does not mean the two nations are not allies. Your best friend does not automatically say "yes, how much do you need" when you ask for a loan.

France and Germany? Sheesh.

i mean really, did you ever see mr bush kiss mr blair the way he kisses the king of saud?

Giving each other a bit of tongue are they?

well we DO have many close friends around the world.

we have to consider canada and mexico. france is our oldest ally.

but i guess our closest must be saudi arabia. i mean really, did you ever see mr bush kiss mr blair the way he kisses the king of saud?

No, I never saw Bush putting his tongue in the mouth of another male that deep.

well we DO have many close friends around the world.

we have to consider canada and mexico. france is our oldest ally.

but i guess our closest must be saudi arabia. i mean really, did you ever see mr bush kiss mr blair the way he kisses the king of saud?

Blair kept telling him "No tongue!".

...fools seldom differ

...fools seldom differ

I guess the joke was just too predictable. :(

A CIA report revealed that it is 100% sure that Saudi Arabian males “tongue” each other as a way of saying “hello”. Also and occasionally they kiss each other but.

Colin Powell showed the “evidence” in the United Nations by using a cartoon (designed by Danish artists)

Powell demonstrated a phone record as well:

Powell: “You hear the king of Saudi Arabia and the minister of Oil”

Mister Oil: “Dear king, I want a raise”
King: “Kiss my *ss!”

plz britain we're very sorry b r frends agen :'(

we'll fire bush we promise

Jeebus, Bush looks old next to Sarkozy.

That's cos Bush IS old.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/03/nbrown603.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox


Boohoo so apparently we aren't Bush's best friend anymore because we decided to do what is right for the Iraqi people and our national interest by withdrawing some troops from Iraq.

This so called "special relationship" Britain has with America is an illusion propagated by America to keep us on their side so they can use us for military back up and support. Believe me I used to even foolishly believe in this relationship but its a wholly one sided arrangement who agrees with me here.

I'd like to clarify something here, Bush is not America. Further he doesn't speak for all of us and is on his way out.

I'm not unhappy to see this 'special relationship' gone, it hasn't benefited us at all. We didn't need to get involved in crap like Iraq, conflicts over there needn't be of any concern to us. We should just stay neutral in future. But even now I wouldn't bank on it, there are plenty of other politicians in this country who would gladly kiss the US government's arse if the opportunity came up.

All you British shouldn't feel bad.

Bush doesn't like Americans either.

Ah, how foolish of les anglais. Now, maybe France can become the closest ally of USA.

I've heard this all over the place. Things are going sour not just between Brown and Bush, but between the US army and the UK army as well. Coalition Generals have been sniping at each other. Not very cohesive at all.

I now have a picture of Generals sitting out in a field with rifles taking potshots at each other while their aides cheer them on from the side.

In my opinion the UK should concentrate on the EU and become really good friends with them for many reasons.

We will be equals with them, not like USA were we are the bitch

They are closer to us and what happens is Europe affects us more

We are PART of Europe

Europe is getting stronger and stronger while the US, well that's just getting weaker and weaker.

Being allied to the US is hurting Britain, whereas if we pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan and condemned any war then maybe we be less of a terrorist target.

But we should still be cordial with USA and finish projects with them like the F-35 and the such, if we fell out with USA that would be very bad for Britain.

In my opinion the UK should concentrate on the EU and become really good friends with them for many reasons.

<snip>
I agree with you that we have been neglecting our relationship with the EU too much, but I don't want to go too far the other way. I don't think we should gain independence from America, only to go and give even more of our independence away to the EU. I don't think the EU is particularly interested in seeing us as equals and I'm not hopeful on the way things may go if more of our vetoes are stripped. The EU has always had an obsession about butting into the home affairs of member states, particularly Britain. America, for all its faults, never really cares how we do things at home.

And this just shows you what a crap position being the junior partner in 'the special relationship' is. If you're more distant you can can expect all sorts of goodies for playing ball, but if you're a 'closest ally' then even considering putting your own country's priorities before or even on the same level as America's meets with this sort of nonsense.

And the supposed benefits are begrudged. Take the F-35; despite the fact that we were paying good money towards the development and despite the fact that in all certainty they would be used almost solely in US led war efforts in the future, getting an agreement for the codes necessary to maintain them without having to keep crawling to the Americans was like getting blood out of a stone.

Does this mean we won't be the 'Little Satan' anymore? :(

Being allied to the US is hurting Britain, whereas if we pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan and condemned any war then maybe we be less of a terrorist target..

Let's parse that philosophy: You actually mean to say given a small yet very loud minority community* in the UK willing to kill their fellow British if their foreign policy suggestions are not followed, that it best to obey those suggestions rather than risk their violent attacks?

And what happens when they start making demands concerning domestic policy as well?

And when you get into the habit of saying "yes, of course, anything you say, just don't hurt us"?

There are some people in Europe already going this way. And some even in the USA.

heh heh. Be nice to the crocodile, and hope it eats you last?

Europe is a fortunate place. Just in the nick of time, they always manage to cough up a Jan Sobieski or Charles Martel who doesn't think that way.




*And no, I am no racist, I am not talking about the Muslim community. I am talking about those polled who responded that they support terror attacks against the British people. The kind of people who carry signs that say "Behead those insult (insert name of random religious figure here)"

mot haven i disagree with you profoundly. Im not in the habit of giving in, but Im also not into fighting a lost battle, especially one I dont agree with in the first place.

Do you blame these terrorists either, if Britain got attacked by China (assuming China could actually win) then wouldn't you take up the sword? I sure as hell would, I don't condone terrorism, but I don't condone war either, but if somebody hits you, you try and hit back is all I'm saying, we shouldn't have attacked in the first place. I'm not saying agree to everything if a little bit of violence is used, but in this situation it was our fault to go in and so we must pull out before we can expect the terrorists to hold back.

Do you agree with going in in the first place?

And also you say 'behead those who say something bad about our religion' or something like that, that is obviously fucking bollox, but that not what I disagreeing with you about, I think they should be a bit pissed with the fact of so many Iraqis dead and for what? Oil.

From the article:

"Operationally, British forces have performed poorly in Basra," said the official. "Maybe it's best that they leave. Now we will have a clear field in southern Iraq."

... whereas America has done so very very well.

In it, USA such a bunch of fucking gays

Let’s parse that philosophy: You actually mean to say given a small yet very loud minority community* in the UK willing to kill their fellow British if their foreign policy suggestions are not followed, that it best to obey those suggestions rather than risk their violent attacks?

*And no, I am no racist, I am not talking about the Muslim community. I am talking about those polled who responded that they support terror attacks against the British people. The kind of people who carry signs that say “Behead those insult (insert name of random religious figure here)”
It’s not just the small minority of militant religious fundamentalists who are calling for the withdrawal of British troops, a good percentage (haven’t got the numbers to hand...) of the British public want the troops home, or at least a speedy exit from Iraq.

Moreover, unnecessary and arguably illegal occupation of a foreign country in an already destabilised region does Britain no favours. No, we shouldn’t give up on an action because that action is hard, or even dangerous, to achieve. But when we are spending millions, if not billions, of taxpayers money on a war (not to mention lives lost and casualties sustained on both sides) that is supposed to create a safer and more peaceful world/UK, and that war is making the world/UK even more unstable and dangerous, is it not right to take stock?

Time and again we are told that fighting terrorists/insurgents/brown people is making the world a safer place. If this objective is not being met, then why continue down a path of war?

Killing terrorists is not a virtue in itself.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13105127']I agree with you that we have been neglecting our relationship with the EU too much, but I don't want to go too far the other way. I don't think we should gain independence from America, only to go and give even more of our independence away to the EU. I don't think the EU is particularly interested in seeing us as equals and I'm not hopeful on the way things may go if more of our vetoes are stripped. The EU has always had an obsession about butting into the home affairs of member states, particularly Britain. America, for all its faults, never really cares how we do things at home.

I think we should go bring the Empire back (From Canada myself), then we wouldn't have to worry about much. :P

And also you say 'behead those who say something bad about our religion' or something like that, that is obviously fucking bollox, but that not what I disagreeing with you about, I think they should be a bit pissed with the fact of so many Iraqis dead and for what? Oil.

Oil, Rome? Debunked myth of the hard core left. The west buys the oil now, they bought the oil then, and its a fungible commodity anyway. Not a drop of the stuff has been stolen by the allies in Iraq. (Corrupt Iraqis, on the other hand...)

You seem to think there was no fundamentalist islamist threat before the Iraq war. I strongly differ. There merely hadn't been direct attacks on the UK, yet, although more British died in the WTC attack than in anything the IRA ever blew up.

But therein lies a paradox. Read what you wrote and think about the hidden assumption you disclosed. You said "They" in a way that combined Iraqi insurgents in Iraq, with Pakistanis in Britain, didn't you? Why? What is going on that makes a Pakistani radical in Manchester part of the They and not the We?

Was the invasion of Iraq connected to the war on terror, then? You- and "They"- seem to think it is, quite strongly- otherwise, there is no logic at all to a Brit of Pakistani origin attacking other British in "retaliation" for British actions in Iraq. There are no British troops in Pakistan, there are no Pakistanis around Basra. Why the connection? So one of several things is going on:

1) It is linked, quite strongly. In this scenario, there may be no direct, western style heirarchical links between Saddam and Osama, but there are powerful social-ideological bonds between the insurgents in Iraq and Islamic terrorists everywhere.

If that is the case, then actions against the network anywhere really do deplete the network as a whole. This seems to be what the Pakistanis believe, otherwise, why would they be interested in Iraq?

2) Those who would attack Britain would find a pretext. It needn't be direct, or even logical. The west is perceived as a whole. Their word for it is in fact "Dar Al Harb", or house of war, implying that the western world as a whole is something to be fought with. Attacks are aimed at Britain not because of anything special Britain did, but because Britain has a special vulnerability that can be easily exploited- a radicalized, unassimilated immigrant muslim population with members that can be seduced into terrorism.

3) Al Queda, or what's left of it- remote, semi-pyschotic, highly religously and politically charged groups- are still acting with a sense of purpose and strategy. They perceive that splitting the West is helpful to their cause, just as the US and UK forces in Iraq and Afghanistan perceive that splitting Muslims away from Al Queda helps. So, just as western military officers visit with sheikhs and make offers to gain their support and weaken the insurgent base, so does Al Queda make "offers" in its own way to the West, to divide and weaken the western base.

4) Some combination of the above.

I go with 4. In any event, the worst possible solution is to allow Al -queda, which is really just a figurehead on what is actually an ideological network, to succeed in splintering the West. The UK and USA are the bulwark of the West. The French would be too, if they thought for a moment they could be in charge, and be the most respected member of it. They really hate the second tier status of the Francophonie. (And really, the US is a poor choice for Western Leader, it's much too big and therefore gives the appearance of bullying the smaller members, even when it doesn't. I suggest Australia.)

So consider it all for a moment, and ask: If Iraq is of no interest to the UK, why is it of such pressing concern to non-Iraqi terrorists IN the UK?
What would Sherlock Holmes deduce?