D
david and julie
Tony6 said
They didn't take us, your namesake did.
They didn't take us, your namesake did.
US elections someone explain it
- Thread starter Thermo
- Start date
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 8 Apr 2004
- Messages
- 386
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
More a mixture of the two...
Certainly, a less America-happy pm would not have taken us to war.
However, I do think Blair was not presented with the right information, and I think Dubya did have the majority of the influence.
Certainly, a less America-happy pm would not have taken us to war.
However, I do think Blair was not presented with the right information, and I think Dubya did have the majority of the influence.
D
david and julie
Tony6
our closet allies
You've got me curious mate! simple spelling mistake or very very well said?
our closet allies
You've got me curious mate! simple spelling mistake or very very well said?
Election of the head of state in britain is done by an electoral college too. Only difference here is that the members of the electoral college are called MPs and get £100,000 a year for sitting around instead of going home after the voting is finished. The PM makes all the decisions anyway.
I do not believe the prime minister was deceived by wrong information into starting a war in Iraq. I think British intelligence did a perfectly good job of reporting the exact risk from Iraq, as it is now known. Virtually none. Also, that any war would in fact make the lives of britains more dangerous, not less. This war had nothing to do with military threat from Iraq, or how badly Sadam might have treated his own people.
We went to war because America called in a favour. If you can call it anything as friendly as a favour. And that is exactly why everyone thought it important to see if the guy who started this war got his job back.
When it comes down to it, all the rest of the world might wish Bush not to be elected, but Americans are in the opposite position. They see America benefiting from throwing its weight about. Nice to see all those defence dollars being used for what they were intended.
People who say we have a special relationship with the US are living in the time of the British Empire. When it came down to it, Churchill had bugger all influence with America, never mind Blair.
America is interested in what is good for America. It is the only country in the world now powerfull enough to stand a chance of getting its own way without help from others. If you want to fear a country which poses a serious risk to Britain, fear America. If you want to stand a chance of saying 'no' instead of 'how high', when America says 'jump', then you had better try and get the EU to get its act together. Nothing else stands a chance of standing up to the US. Why do you think America hates the EU so much?
I do not believe the prime minister was deceived by wrong information into starting a war in Iraq. I think British intelligence did a perfectly good job of reporting the exact risk from Iraq, as it is now known. Virtually none. Also, that any war would in fact make the lives of britains more dangerous, not less. This war had nothing to do with military threat from Iraq, or how badly Sadam might have treated his own people.
We went to war because America called in a favour. If you can call it anything as friendly as a favour. And that is exactly why everyone thought it important to see if the guy who started this war got his job back.
When it comes down to it, all the rest of the world might wish Bush not to be elected, but Americans are in the opposite position. They see America benefiting from throwing its weight about. Nice to see all those defence dollars being used for what they were intended.
People who say we have a special relationship with the US are living in the time of the British Empire. When it came down to it, Churchill had bugger all influence with America, never mind Blair.
America is interested in what is good for America. It is the only country in the world now powerfull enough to stand a chance of getting its own way without help from others. If you want to fear a country which poses a serious risk to Britain, fear America. If you want to stand a chance of saying 'no' instead of 'how high', when America says 'jump', then you had better try and get the EU to get its act together. Nothing else stands a chance of standing up to the US. Why do you think America hates the EU so much?
Sponsored Links
We in the UK are actually pretty lucky if you look at the big picture. We effectively have 3 choices:
1) Be fully independent of all (probably not that much of a good idea right now)
2) Become part of a United States of Europe - could be exciting, but could also be very damaging to our culture and way of life, and there is no guarantee we would get a good deal out of a USE.
3) Become part of the USA - wouldn't involve much in the way of a cultural change due to our commonality, and it is also a known quantity.
No-one else is currently in this position.
As for our US cousins joining both World Wars late, that is true but when they did join at least they fought well which is more than can be said for certain EU neighbours of ours (I have heard the phrase "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" used elsewhere )
I read somewhere (might have been here) that if the UK was a 51st State, we would have over 100 electoral college votes so Bush wouldn't have got to power in the first place.
1) Be fully independent of all (probably not that much of a good idea right now)
2) Become part of a United States of Europe - could be exciting, but could also be very damaging to our culture and way of life, and there is no guarantee we would get a good deal out of a USE.
3) Become part of the USA - wouldn't involve much in the way of a cultural change due to our commonality, and it is also a known quantity.
No-one else is currently in this position.
As for our US cousins joining both World Wars late, that is true but when they did join at least they fought well which is more than can be said for certain EU neighbours of ours (I have heard the phrase "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" used elsewhere
)I read somewhere (might have been here) that if the UK was a 51st State, we would have over 100 electoral college votes so Bush wouldn't have got to power in the first place.
Um. Not sure I can agree there. Some people would say that Britain joined WW2 rather late as well. Put it off until there was no choice. Which is exactly what the USA did. Those who rushed in unprepared got pasted.
As to 3... wouldn't be much of a culture change... you jest! You want to live in a country run by rabid fundamentalists; that frankly could not care less about the rest of the world or even their own bit; doesn't give a damn if people starve with no healh care (at least they are consistent here, home and abroad); loose our sovereignty, currency and independance to a government which is much much more controlling than the EU? We have a lot more in common with the French!
1. Become fully independant. How exactly can we do that? I do not mean just leaving the EU. We could do that, but all it would mean is that we would still have to agree with EU directives or they would refuse to trade with us, and we would no longer have a vote when they make their rules. The only independant country is the US, and then only sometimes. Just wait until their budget deficit gets out of control and see who comes begging for loans.
2. We already get a good deal out of USE. The smaller you are the better the deal you get, so not as good as the minnows, but it still gives us influence how Europe is run. This is a lot more relevant considering people take day trips to france (not america), and twice in the last 100 years Europen disputes have cost millions of British lives. People do not believe that could happen again, but it can. What exactly would be damaging to our culture and way of life?
Option 4. Perhaps we should dissolve the united kingdom and go back to intependant countries of Cornwall, Wales, South Saxons etc.etc. No? Why not? Because alliances make for strength?
As to 3... wouldn't be much of a culture change... you jest! You want to live in a country run by rabid fundamentalists; that frankly could not care less about the rest of the world or even their own bit; doesn't give a damn if people starve with no healh care (at least they are consistent here, home and abroad); loose our sovereignty, currency and independance to a government which is much much more controlling than the EU? We have a lot more in common with the French!
1. Become fully independant. How exactly can we do that? I do not mean just leaving the EU. We could do that, but all it would mean is that we would still have to agree with EU directives or they would refuse to trade with us, and we would no longer have a vote when they make their rules. The only independant country is the US, and then only sometimes. Just wait until their budget deficit gets out of control and see who comes begging for loans.
2. We already get a good deal out of USE. The smaller you are the better the deal you get, so not as good as the minnows, but it still gives us influence how Europe is run. This is a lot more relevant considering people take day trips to france (not america), and twice in the last 100 years Europen disputes have cost millions of British lives. People do not believe that could happen again, but it can. What exactly would be damaging to our culture and way of life?
Option 4. Perhaps we should dissolve the united kingdom and go back to intependant countries of Cornwall, Wales, South Saxons etc.etc. No? Why not? Because alliances make for strength?
Damocles said:
Only if you are Belgian, and by "we" you are talking about all the other Belgians! There is very little in common between the UK and the French other than location. We share some of our history, but most of that is wars we fought with the French. The remainder is wars we fought to save the French because we were next for invasion. Culturally, as a people, we have far far FAR more in common with the USA. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say the USA has far more in common with us.
I really don't think "full independence" is a good idea. My point is, we in the UK are in a unique position between the USA and a potential USE. The only way our position on this could be any better would be if we were slap bang in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.
The problem at the moment is that we get pulled between the two. The USA grumble because we are in bed with the French, the French grumble because we swap spit with the Americans. Sooner or later we will have to decide, but it is great that we have that choice. Of course, becoming part of the USA is entirely hyphothetical, we will join a United States of Europe eventually.
In my eyes, a USE will have good and bad points for all. For example, we could adopt the quality of the French NHS across the USE, so we would all be a bit healthier. We could adopt German recycling policies, so we would all be a little greener. The ESA would finally have a NASA-like budget to do some really cool stuff. Believe it or not, these are the easy bits. The most difficult bit is convincing 400 million people that English is now their official language, or telling a million lawyers that their interpretation of law is now totally wrong and they all have to retrain in the USE federal legal system. I know the language point will raise some eyebrows, but we would need a common language, and English is the logical choice as more people in Europe speak it as a first or second language than French, German et al. Dual language signage, as per Wales, would help of course.
Perhaps we are not seeing this from the right angle: maybe the USSR is a better example of what a USE would be like than the USA? Lots of different countries with different heritages, languages and cultures all tied together in a union.
Tell that to the guys in chetchnya (sorry, cen't spell that). USSR is still held together by force of arms. Not good.
As to english, yes quite possibly. But whether we are there or not is now almost irrelevant to that because of the universal use of english as a second language.
Some of the analysis of the American elections and who has influence are really really scary. Worse than Mr Howard leaning to the nght.
As to english, yes quite possibly. But whether we are there or not is now almost irrelevant to that because of the universal use of english as a second language.
Some of the analysis of the American elections and who has influence are really really scary. Worse than Mr Howard leaning to the nght.
Damocles said:
That's why I brought it up! Forced unions where you don't have the backing of 99% of the population are bound to leave those against it feeling repressed. We have (or have had) enough problems with IRA terrorists and Basque separatists. If we are all pushed into a union then we are likely to end up with separatist movements to differing degrees in every country.
On the subject of the USSR, I laughed the other day when I read something talking about Joseph Stalin that referred to him as a Russian... he was of course Georgian and proud. Russian was his second language, and as a teenager he was very anti-Russian. Yet he will always be remembered as a "Russki".
jasy said:what more repeats of 1970's shows for over £100 per year ang yes you guessed it....... we don't have a choice you have to pay it
i wonder if i don't pay my tv licence and they take me to court would i get away with it if i said i dont watch the bbcYou won't get away with it even if you do not have an aerial. Possesion of a video player with UHF output and connected TV requires a licence.
I would be not at all surprised if 1% or more of the UK population think the Uk should be broken up. You think we should do this then?
I agree, you can not compel a sufficiently determined minority to go along with the majority. But for most things about 1/3 of the population in favour is generally considered enough by politicians. And generally accepted by the 2/3 who do not agree.
We do have a lot more on common with the French. They also have not come to terms with not being a world superpower. Though I admit they are sometimes more realistic about it.
I would be not at all surprised if 1% or more of the UK population think the Uk should be broken up. You think we should do this then?
I agree, you can not compel a sufficiently determined minority to go along with the majority. But for most things about 1/3 of the population in favour is generally considered enough by politicians. And generally accepted by the 2/3 who do not agree.
We do have a lot more on common with the French. They also have not come to terms with not being a world superpower. Though I admit they are sometimes more realistic about it.
D
david and julie
Sorry Damacles but I am confused with this comment.
We could still trade with the EU if we were independant as long as our products complied with the CE regulations. The EU is awash with Chinese products, can you name any EU directives (save CE) which the Chinese are bound to conform to?
The EU member states are also signatories to world trade agreements, are you saying the EU would back down on these international agreements and refuse to trade with the UK?
It is a dangerous power game being played by the EU, the UK has very little to fear from the US or the EU.
We could still trade with the EU if we were independant as long as our products complied with the CE regulations. The EU is awash with Chinese products, can you name any EU directives (save CE) which the Chinese are bound to conform to?
The EU member states are also signatories to world trade agreements, are you saying the EU would back down on these international agreements and refuse to trade with the UK?
It is a dangerous power game being played by the EU, the UK has very little to fear from the US or the EU.
Sponsored Links
