| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Bush in London | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 14 2003, 06:13 PM (707 Views) | |
| Hoss | Nov 14 2003, 07:34 PM Post #16 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
You mean like Roosevelt did in the 1930s and 1940s when most Americans wanted no part of another war in Europe? Or are you talking about the US bailing the French out of Vietnam? Perhaps you are refering to the US bailing the British and French out of Israel in the 1960s. Getting rid of Hussein in Iraq was in the best interest of the west. London has been the target of the terrorist as well as NY and DC. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Nov 14 2003, 07:35 PM Post #17 |
|
Admiral
|
I was trying to give an example of the economic power the USA has over even a wealthy and fairly powerful nation such as Great Britain. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Nov 14 2003, 07:40 PM Post #18 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
Yes it may be quite similar to what China is doing to the both of us with the yuan currently. I think that if you integrated the whole curve, that Britain has greatly benefited from its relationship with the USA. There are things that don't figure into the curve. The USA ensures the freedom of the seas, the British navy no longer has to do spend great sums of money to do this. The USA ensured the freedom of the west from the Soviet Empire with nukes, keeping NATO troop and army sizes to a cheaper minimum. The US runs a large trade debt bit the Europeans which is another way of saying we export wealth to you. You'd miss us, I think, if we weren't here, comrad. Das vidanya and Auswitersain (expuse my poor Russian and German spelling) |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Nov 14 2003, 07:42 PM Post #19 |
|
Admiral
|
Hello, you only gave the really important help in WW2 (military assistance) once your own interests had been threatened at Pearl Harbour. During the Battle of Britain the future of the free world hung in the balance (imagine D-day across the atlantic!) but we faced it alone. Lets leave France out of this, both the USA and Britain have been bailing them out for years (WW1?!). Refresh my memory about Britain in Israel in the 1960's, I thought we pulled out after WW2??? BIG POINT: Saddam had not a lot to do with the terrorists of al-Qaeda and 9/11 and the war has only served to increase and strengthen the terrorists. I am absolutley in support of the war or terror and was in favour of the Afgan campaign (that is a dangerous area and we have taken our eyes of the ball I fear). Our own intelligence agencies were saying a war in Iraq would make the terror problem worse, our leaders ignored that and failed to either tell us that or tell our elected representatives that. If Blair had revelled the 'other side' to the intelligence advice he was given Parliament would have likely vetoed the war. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Nov 14 2003, 07:48 PM Post #20 |
|
Admiral
|
Thats my point, that gives you a lot of power economically over us, which gives you a degree of political power as well. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Nov 14 2003, 07:48 PM Post #21 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Can you prove that the war has only served to increase and strengthen the terrorists? and not a lot is still some - and some is to much for me. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Nov 14 2003, 08:00 PM Post #22 |
|
Admiral
|
Look at the terrorist activity in Iraq and Saudi to start with. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Nov 14 2003, 08:54 PM Post #23 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
You really should sit down and learn some history, DS. Months before Pearl Harbor, FDR signed the Lend Lease Program, which sent seven billion dollars worth of military aid straight to the UK. The bill was drafted in March, nearly nine months before 12/07/41. During this time, these unescorted cargo ships were under constant threat of attack from German U-boats. Do you still think that we did nothing until Pearl Harbor. IN actuality, we were supplying armaments to Britain as early as August 1940. Just not on the scale of Lend Lease. An interesting sidenote: in today's dollars, 7 billion is worth about 70 billion dollars. By the way, you can claim Blair is not a liberal, but he is. Do you have a death penalty? No. National ID cards are quite popular in socialist nanny state nations. Why was he so gung ho to tie you to that soon-to-be albatross, the Euro? Lastly, the Department of Defense is circulating a memo linking Saddam Hussein with al Queda. You're just having a bad day today! |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Nov 14 2003, 08:57 PM Post #24 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
That would seem like a link between Saddam and al Queda, wouldn't it? Wasn't Osama bin Laden a Saudi? You're just proving the point. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Nov 14 2003, 09:21 PM Post #25 |
|
Admiral
|
I'm talking about the terror now in 'post-Saddam Iraq', your right Bin-Laden was a Saudi but by that reconing we should have gone to war with Saudi not Iraq (actually I suspect they had/have much greater links to al-Qaeda than Saddam ever did - after all Bin Laden wanted Saddam's reign deposed). As for Defense Department memos, sorry I stopped believing a long time ago, their credability is shot. OK, right, will say it again. Blair is NOT a liberal. A socialist maybe, a conservative possibly but not a liberal. The death penalty was abolished years ago in Britain and all the main parties support that policy, as would be the case in a civilised country Seriously you seem to be confusing socialism and liberalism. Perhaps the US definitions are different but here a liberal believes in the freedom of the individual where as a socialist tends to believe that collective action is best, which usually means state co-ordination.I'm quite aware of the lend lease, what I am saying is that the help we asked for - military help as in troops and ships and planes was not forthcomming. Only when the USA was directly threatened did she enter the war. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Nov 14 2003, 10:00 PM Post #26 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
Personally, Ds (nice to see you pop in by the way, hope you saw your birthday greetings in the Kicback forum) I think part of the reason for conducting the visit the way they are (as opposed to previous Presidential visits) has to do with going a step further to illustrate to the rest of the world the depth of our alliance. Furthermore Blair was very warmly welcomed when he was here not too long ago, or do you recall his address to Congress? Not every visiting head of state is afforded that privelege when they come here (I don't think the Iron Lady ever got to do so, correct me if I am wrong). (SIDE NOTE: Since the treatment of the prisoners at Guantanamo has been a big concern of yours, are you aware that our Supreme Court has agreed to hear argument about their treatment and the question of due process soon?). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Nov 17 2003, 08:45 AM Post #27 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
Ah, it must be hard to find anything good about the USA whilst looking down your nose at us. And people say Americans are arrogant.... I think that all of the recent terrorism in Saudi Arabia may answer the question of why we didn't attack Saudi Arabia and focused on Iraq. For years Saudi Arabia has not had to really deal with terrorism, why? Because they had a deal with the terrorists: have this secret support and help, but keep it off Saudi soil. It appears that the deal has been broken, because the terrorist are all over Saudi now and they aren't going after American targets there, but Saudi targets. The Saudis must be secretly providing a great deal of help to the USA or at least quit supporting the terrorists. Does this mean that there is hope for the middle east? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Nov 17 2003, 01:04 PM Post #28 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
I think there is hope yet. I was watching the news last night (NBC Nightly News) and they had a report on about Saudi Arabia and their recent change in attitude towards the terrorists. Yes, it doe seem to have a lot to do with their being the cross-hairs now. They have Imam's teaching tolerance in the mosques (An Imam explaining to a group of children that it is immoral to murder infidels. One kid asks if it is true even in the case of sinners and the reply was that it remained true). One newspaper editor there indicated that he thought it was a good start but that it was not going far enough yet. Case in point where improvement is still needed. The Mutawa (religous police) are still allowed a great deal of latitude. A scene in the report showed two such officers stop and lecture a group of Saudi teenage boys who looked like the came of the cover of the latest, greatest hip-hop album. They could not just walk away from the two mutawa as that could result in their arrest. So much for my bit of digression... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Nov 17 2003, 04:57 PM Post #29 |
|
Lieutenant
|
I heard it was Mr Bush who personally asked for a STATE visit himself, rather than the usual "leader to leader" visit. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Nov 17 2003, 07:40 PM Post #30 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Then you heard wrong again... as usual. http://www.thisislondon.com/til/jsp/module...?itemId=7716040 ---SNIP--- This is LONDON 17/11/03 - News and city section Blair defends Bush visit The Prime Minister today stood by his decision to invite President George Bush to visit the UK this week despite mounting controversy from anti-war protesters and other demonstrators. Tony Blair departed from a prepared speech at the CBI national conference to say that he strongly believed now was the right time for President Bush to come to this country. "If we assess what has happened yesterday in Turkey, again many innocent people murdered, many more injured, and put that together with what happened in Saudi Arabia and in the bombing of the UN and Red Cross, this is the right moment for us to stand firm with the United States in defeating terrorism wherever it is and delivering us safely from what I genuinely believe to be the security threat of the 21st century. "Now is not the time to waver, now is the time to see it through." Mr Blair was greeted by a group of around 20 anti-war protesters when he arrived at the conference in Birmingham. ---SNIP--- Does it bother you to get so many things wrong, NZ? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
![]() ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Register Now |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



Seriously you seem to be confusing socialism and liberalism. Perhaps the US definitions are different but here a liberal believes in the freedom of the individual where as a socialist tends to believe that collective action is best, which usually means state co-ordination.

2:13 PM Jul 11