 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / November 2003British patriots lay anti bush plans
The Brits having nothing to gain by the Iraqi war except body bags. The Americans will take all the oil, Brits will get zero. And if the idea is to join Americans in the fight against terrorism, where was the US in Englands fght against Irish terrorism?. The US was funding the Irish terrorists, Wake up England. > The Brits having nothing to gain by the Iraqi war except body bags. The > Americans will take all the oil, Brits will get zero. And if the idea > is to join Americans in the fight against terrorism, where was the US in > Englands fght against Irish terrorism?. The US was funding the Irish > terrorists, Wake up England. Perhaps Britain is a damn sight more awake than you give credit - and certainly far more awake than any other country. When the USA suddenly discovered terrorism someone was needed to ride the tiger and stop it madly lashing out at all and sundry. The work that Tony Blair did at the start was tremendous. The US response was cooled down and the vast majority of countries came 'on-board' and further helped the cooling task. In the second phase (v Iraq's SH regime) Blair's work was undermined, principally by France afraid that its debt income for providing illegal arms would be cancelled, and the plan to re-direct the US anger through the UN was thrown out. Nevertheless the backlash from the Iraq affair has been reduced by the British presence. So what does Britain get out of all this? Well the answer is "The same as every other country." More peace and less terrorism than if Britain hadn't been involved; just imagine what the US could have done post 9/11 had Britain and Tony Blair not intervened. So what extra does Britain get out of all this? Stop thinking French. Whilst France wants the bottom line for itself (and who cares if that means the whole world is plunged into something worse than WWIII?) Britain has always been willing to go that extra distance for the good of everyone. We've yet to persuade the USAians that there is more than money that's important but thankfully we're unlikely to have to bankrupt ourselves this time like we did last. Of course we'll get no thanks and we'll still have those ignorant Yanks demanding that we thank them for doing a small percentage* of what they could have done in WWI & WWII but what the hell? *For new readers: don't bother quoting numbers; just look at the percentages killed and injured in Russia and Australia, the economic effects on Britain and the low countries, the damage caused to homes and communities and Industry throughout Europe and China and see the corresponding effects on the USA. For Stalingrad read Chicago (or Manchester) and think how lucky was the USA (and the UK in this respect).  SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 Acorn Publisher magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com > > The Brits having nothing to gain by the Iraqi war except body bags. The > > Americans will take all the oil, Brits will get zero. And if the idea [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > corresponding effects on the USA. For Stalingrad read Chicago (or > Manchester) and think how lucky was the USA (and the UK in this respect). I agree with most of what you said but I take issue with your idea that we "Yanks" do not fully appreciate efforts of the UK in both the fight against terrorism and for their help in Iraq. I cannot stress how deeply and sincerely the UK's assistance is appreciated. For many Americans, myself included, working with the UK in this way is like working with an old and trusted friend. You might not frequently tell your close friends how much you value their friendship but you feel it all the same. Simply put, the UK and the US make a good team. Our strengths and values complement each other. One example of what I mean by complementary strengths is this. Events sometimes occur which require a response but the type of response is not always clear. American's don't always know whether to respond with guns blazing or with subtle diplomacy. That is a particular area where, perhaps subconsciously, I think American's look to the UK for guidance. We might not always follow that guidance but we at least trust it's source. The US might be tempted, at times, to use blunt force simply because we can, or because we are angry or frustrated and again, the UK has the ability (the permission?) to calm us down when others couldn't, and I mean that literally. I also agree with your opinion of france. I'm still shocked and amazed by Chirac's position on the Iraq war, and in my opinion, france can no longer be trusted as a Western ally. It's like they've gone over to the "dark side" and we, Americans, have just figured that out. I've heard people say that france's position should not have been a surprise, for various reasons, but I think it's safe to say that most American's were surprised. The deep feeling of betrayal was almost blinding. Congress (!!!) even renamed 'french fries' to freedom fries, and french fries aren't even french! I've never seen or experienced anything like it, on a national level like this. It was like a veil had been lifted, and the entire country could suddenly and abruptly see france in an unromanticized way. It was an unpleasant sensation. > I agree with most of what you said but I take issue with your idea that > we "Yanks" do not fully appreciate efforts of the UK Many (frequently noisy) "Yanks" but such are rarely, if ever, capable of responding in the coherent way that you have. We both have our problem populations! ;-) SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 Acorn Publisher magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com > I also agree with your opinion of france. I'm still shocked and amazed > by Chirac's position on the Iraq war, and in my opinion, france can no > longer be trusted as a Western ally. The trouble is that France's position is not that different from the UK position 10-20 years ago. And, at that time, it was the UK that was all gung-ho and unable to see in shades of grey. I'm convinced that the Iraqi war was entirely wrong but the combination of a deeply hurt USA and a deeply devious France made the 'correct' action impossible - which is why I very reluctantly supported the Blair line. In both Afghanistan and Iraq the need is to leave with the USA, UK and others as friends of many ordinary people in those places. Remember that the real enemies of peace and reason are in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and such places. Remember that many of the problems are there because we (at least the governments that you and I had forced on us) supported and armed the trouble makers. The only answer is to move towards a form of ethical foreign policy which is very hard to implement and will lead to some direct confrontations. It may seem expected and will lead to no results in the short-term - but it would have left the Taliban without the ability to shoot down US helicopters. SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 Acorn Publisher magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com > > I also agree with your opinion of france. I'm still shocked and amazed > > by Chirac's position on the Iraq war, and in my opinion, france can no [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > position 10-20 years ago. And, at that time, it was the UK that was all > gung-ho and unable to see in shades of grey. Even the US has had it's moments like that. Many wanted desperately to stay out of WWI and WWII but events and history have a way of teaching hard lessons that even a country doesn't soon forget. Something as big and potentially catastrophic as a war on terrorism needs the cooperation of everyone. This isn't our war, it's everyone's war. No country is safe from terrorism but at the same time, no one country has all the answers. > I'm convinced that the Iraqi war was entirely wrong but the combination of > a deeply hurt USA and a deeply devious France made the 'correct' action > impossible - which is why I very reluctantly supported the Blair line. Yup. Many Americans were as confused as the rest of the world when Bush made his intentions clear about Iraq. The idea at first of, "why now" was a typical reaction but at the same time, it was difficult to know whether invading Iraq was the right thing to do at that time. As you said, the idea was VERY grey for many of us, and if one or two factors had been different, Americans would not have supported the war to the extent that we did in the end. But when Saddam continued to play games with the UN concerning his WMD -even with a massive US force on his borders, it certainly looked as though he was trying to hide something. There was a point, I think, when Bush was willing to see if Saddam could be talked into giving up power without a war, and allow unobstructed access for the UN weapons inspectors but once the french began to actively work against the US, at every corner it seemed, Bush quickly lost all patience and went back to his unyielding position. That is when it seemed the majority of the war supporters in the US became convinced, perhaps wrongly, that the war was a good thing. It's like it was almost as much about telling the french that they can't control us, as it was about removing Saddam. It sounds nuts I guess but that's my take on it. > In both Afghanistan and Iraq the need is to leave with the USA, UK and > others as friends of many ordinary people in those places. Remember that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > short-term - but it would have left the Taliban without the ability to > shoot down US helicopters. Clearly you are correct. What a mess it all is. The hardest part is that I don't think that anyone really knows what the solution is. It's becoming a circle of action and reaction, like the situation in Israel -maybe not quite that bad but it could easily become that. If there is one thing that the problems in Israel and Northern Ireland have taught me, it's that the first step is to stop the killing. Above all else, that is the most important step. The anger and resentment doesn't go away but at least tempers can cool down to the point that people can think again. As simple as it sounds, a day or two, or three without death feels pretty good, even for those who aren't directly involved. In all of this, the most frustrating part for me is that I honestly do not understand why the West (the US?) and the Arab Muslims cannot get along. Islam is no more violent in nature than Christianity, even if some twist it into that. I know that there is the issue of Palestine but even that doesn't seem like enough for the Arabs to so violently hate the US. On the day of the attacks on the WTC, my first thought was, "why?" The event was so horrific and senseless that it went far beyond any ordinary feelings of vengeance and anger. What could provoke someone to do something so abhorrently evil? I know that there are many answers but still, the act was beyond humanity and reason. An act like that falls into the category of serial killers and insanity but it was done as an act of punishment. I still don't understand any of it. > In all of this, the most frustrating part for me is that I honestly do > not understand why the West (the US?) and the Arab Muslims cannot get > along. Islam is no more violent in nature than Christianity, even if > some twist it into that. The trouble is time. 'Christianity' was remarkably violent at a time when 'Islam' was cultured, progresive and tolerant. Indeed I don't think 'Christianity' has yet achived that height of tolerance. The pity is that 'Chrstianity' does not meet 'Islam' at a time when the majority are not at their most tolerant. SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 Acorn Publisher magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com > > In all of this, the most frustrating part for me is that I honestly do > > not understand why the West (the US?) and the Arab Muslims cannot get [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > achived that height of tolerance. The pity is that 'Chrstianity' does not > meet 'Islam' at a time when the majority are not at their most tolerant. And where is the Christian v. Islam conflict anyway? None of today's major problems are essentially based on that. Surreyman > > > In all of this, the most frustrating part for me is that I honestly > > > do not understand why the West (the US?) and the Arab Muslims cannot [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > pity is that 'Chrstianity' does not meet 'Islam' at a time when the > > majority are not at their most tolerant. > And where is the Christian v. Islam conflict anyway? None of today's > major problems are essentially based on that. You notice the ' ' bits. It's very little to do with the actual religions but more how some countries and some people are able to use the religions as excuses for their own political or fanatical ends. I doubt if today's suicide bombers could be persuaded to do what they're doing if the whole of Islam itself was today as cultured, progressive and tolerant as it was at its best. It isn't a conflict between the religions themselves and those that misuse religious beliefs are enemies of us all. SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 Acorn Publisher magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com > > > > In all of this, the most frustrating part for me is that I honestly > > > > do not understand why the West (the US?) and the Arab Muslims cannot [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > its best. It isn't a conflict between the religions themselves and those > that misuse religious beliefs are enemies of us all. Oh, absolutely. But today's global terrorists would invent other reasons. They have no half-way sensible aims (even the Palestinians at least have an aim). They're just conditioned to destroy. Surreyman |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.