Skip to comments.
So you think 7/7 has brought Britain and America together? Think again
The Times (U.K.) ^
| 07/07/06
| Gerard Baker
Posted on 07/06/2006 2:59:24 PM PDT by Pokey78
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 next last
1
posted on
07/06/2006 2:59:28 PM PDT
by
Pokey78
To: Pokey78
We British, it is universally averred, deal more calmly and understandingly with the threat and dont go clumsily invading third countries.
Tell that to India. Or any of the former "colonies".
2
posted on
07/06/2006 3:03:57 PM PDT
by
kaktuskid
To: Pokey78
"...the US seems to be sinking steadily deeper in British public esteem..."
It's about time we just turned our back on old europe and turned our face towards the Pacific Rim...let them pi$$ and moan amongst themselves. When was the last time we "really" needed a European nation? Seems our relationship with them has been pretty much one side for two centuries now.
3
posted on
07/06/2006 3:06:03 PM PDT
by
CWOJackson
(Support The Troops-Support The Mission--Please Visit http://www.irey.com--&--Vets4Irey.com)
To: Pokey78
But consider this: Polls suggest most Americans themselves think the Iraq war was a mistake. I would bet neither this nor any other Administration will contemplate doing anything like it again for a long time. Torture was outlawed by a vote in the US Senate that was 90-9 last year. What a load of BS!
4
posted on
07/06/2006 3:10:21 PM PDT
by
calex59
(The '86 amnesty put us in the toilet, now the senate wants to flush it!)
To: Pokey78
I noticed a common theme. There was outrage that three British bankers are facing extradition to the US; .....complaints about the failure of Western (read, principally: Americas) leaders to do more about Africa. lol....so the Brits' panties are in a wad about a few bankers and lack of American military action in Africa (while at the same time complaining about our "authoritarianism" and "hegemony")? Hilarious.
We British, it is universally averred, deal more calmly and understandingly with the threat and dont go clumsily invading third countries.
The comedy continues. Is the author familiar with the history of Britain prior to WW2?
There are probably more people who think England can still win the World Cup [than like President Bush].
Face it, there are probably more Brits who care about the World Cup than there are who care about Islamists infesting what's left of their country.
On top of that, America is now far more dominant in the world than it has ever been
You finally hit on it, Gerard: Envy.
5
posted on
07/06/2006 3:13:20 PM PDT
by
Mr. Mojo
To: Pokey78
These articles are intended to divide us from our allies and isolate us. Ignore them.
6
posted on
07/06/2006 3:15:30 PM PDT
by
monkeywrench
(Deut. 27:17 Cursed be he that removeth his neighbor's landmark)
To: Pokey78
Does anyone care what the British public thinks about anything anymore?
7
posted on
07/06/2006 3:17:23 PM PDT
by
bkepley
To: Pokey78
8
posted on
07/06/2006 3:27:38 PM PDT
by
Thoro
(Then an accidental overdose of gamma radiation alters his body chemistry....)
To: bkepley
"Does anyone care what the British public thinks about anything anymore? " I try to care, I really do. I still try to think of Europe as a friend and ally, but day after day of reading garbage like this makes it very hard. I especially dislike this particular author he's too smarmy. It truly is time to cut Europe loose. They are no friends of ours.
To: Pokey78
"Nor is it news that many have long regarded Americans as, shall we say, not quite our class."
In the 1700s it was a commonly held belief amongst many of the European elite that the "primitive" state of North America rendered all aspects of the continent "primitive" and less developed when compared to Europe. The theory pointed to the indian tribes and us uncooth colonists as proof of our indigent state. The reasoning went that even the plants and animals of North America were inferior to their counterparts in Europe. European deer, for instance, would be larger and healthier than deer in the colonies. The same went for horses, squirels, fish, etc.
Of course, we now know that the Europeans who held this belief were simply full of themselves.
10
posted on
07/06/2006 3:42:06 PM PDT
by
Owl558
(Pardon my spelling)
To: Pokey78
To many of theses ?

Maybe Not enough of them !
11
posted on
07/06/2006 3:53:19 PM PDT
by
ATOMIC_PUNK
( have long feared that my sins would return to visit me and the cost would be more than I could bear)
To: Owl558
"Nor is it news that many have long regarded Americans as, shall we say, not quite our class."
This is where our own liberal elites stand, as well. Euro-weenie wannabes.
12
posted on
07/06/2006 3:55:44 PM PDT
by
sageb1
(This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
To: Pokey78
 |
This article over "regime change" in Iraq conceals a little known ironyit offers a cast of characters and a reprise of arguments that shaped an earlier invasion of that same country. Not the Gulf War of 1991rather, it was the British invasion of 1941. In May 1941, in the midst of a World War, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill ordered his reluctant Commander-in-Chief Middle East, General Sir Archibald Wavell, to march on Baghdad to effect a "regime change." The British Prime Minister's arguments reflected many of those same concerns expressed today by members of the George W. Bush administration: British intervention would "pre-empt" Axis support for Rachid Ali, a violently anti-British Arab nationalist whose government threatened Britain's strategic position in the Mediterranean and the Middle East. It would strike a blow at a terrorist challenge orchestrated by a charismatic Islamic cleric. British intervention also would protect oil reserves vital to the British war effort. Furthermore, Churchill was willing to wave aside offers of third-party mediation in favor of a "unilateralist" approach. Conversely, Wavell's arguments against an invasion of Iraq mirrored contemporary objectionshe simply lacked the resources to add Iraq to an impossibly extensive list of military commitments. A military attack, Wavell believed, would make Britain's position in the Middle East less, not more, secure. Better let sleeping dogs lie and take care of pressing business elsewhere. http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepResources/si/dec02/middleEast.asp
|
13
posted on
07/06/2006 4:05:17 PM PDT
by
HawaiianGecko
(Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.)
To: Pokey78
So you think 7/7 has brought Britain and America together? Think again. No, I didn't think 7/7 brought Britain and America together. I didn't think 7/7 changed anything about the relationship between Britain and America. What gave you dimwits at The Times that idea?
I absolutely hate newspapers that think they have me all figured out. This is one of the things that most annoys me about Newsweek (which I read about once every six months, usually in a doctor's office). They "assume the sale," talking to their readers as though they are all a member of the same club, and all think exactly the same things about every subject.
My eight-grade teacher taught us (when we studied propaganda) that this technique is called bandwagon.
To: Pokey78
No American player advanced because they are lazy, Hollywood wannabes
To: HawaiianGecko
16
posted on
07/06/2006 4:11:47 PM PDT
by
HawaiianGecko
(Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.)
To: Pokey78
What is most evident is the unwarranted influence of a psychotic leftist media that propagandizes Brits and all Europeans with a constant stream of drooling Euro-twit lunacy. The story of how such a large % of Europeans now regard America as the main "threat to stability" in the world and not Iran or Islamo-fascism, etc. is a story of stark raving left-wing depravity. A continual refusal to face obvious facts and instead to rant and rave and "Blame America, Blame Bush" for everything wrong in the world.
When even the supposed conservatives (Tories) in the UK sound like raving moonbats it's time to wonder whether there is any hope left for European civilization.
17
posted on
07/06/2006 4:16:52 PM PDT
by
Enchante
(Keller & Sulzberger: Forget elections, WE are the self-appointed judges of everything)
To: Pokey78
A number of things are at work. First, it is not news to say that most British dont like President Bush. Nor is it news that many have long regarded Americans as, shall we say, not quite our class. But they dont think the President is some sort of aberrant figure in American society. What they dislike about him is that he represents the things they think they know about America and have always despised its supposedly vulgar, brash, uncultured, uncivilised character.To all my fellow Americans, I would like to say just two words...
Rock on.
18
posted on
07/06/2006 4:20:59 PM PDT
by
Irish Rose
(Will work for chocolate.)
To: kaktuskid; Pokey78; Gengis Khan; CarrotAndStick
<< We British, it is universally averred, deal more calmly and understandingly with the threat and dont go clumsily invading third countries.
Tell that to India. Or any of the former "colonies". >>
Put most simply, so even any lurking Limeys might get it, there is not a square foot of ground upon the planet upon which a bloody Brit has planted his hind hoof that is not the worse for his having passed by.
The problems of Iran and Iraq may be directly traced to Britain's bastardry.
Why, even once somewhat decent London(istan) -- in which one is around 6 times more likely to be the victim of violent crime than if in, say, New York, is rapidly becoming inhospitable to Judeo-Christian/Western/Human Civilization.
19
posted on
07/06/2006 4:21:04 PM PDT
by
Brian Allen
(And as for me -- Give me Liberty -- or give me death!)
To: Pokey78
" The Sunday Times last weekend you could find Jeremy Clarkson fulminating about Americas authoritarianism and its taste for double-egg burgers"
Jeremy Clarkson?
Is he not the moron that used to present stupid program on cars about 8/10 years ago, on the BBC?.
If I remember him correctly, he was an insufferable idiot and a buffoon.
When did he start writing articles on politics, then? I see he sucks at political writing, just as he sucked on his stupid TV program.
20
posted on
07/06/2006 4:22:07 PM PDT
by
Jameison
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson