[Zhang Fei]

WWI wasn't our war. The Germans weren't hundreds of miles away from American territory. The war in Europe wasn't our war either - Germans weren't forty miles away from our territory, either. The fact is that we lost four hundred thousand dead fighting two British wars - and you're giving us a hard time about losing a hundred dead? Gimme a break.

And the IRA was made all the more difficult to defeat due to the arms (Hey, you said the arms were shoddy, are you that bad at making weapons now boys?)and financing they received from our closest ally, the USA. So cheers for doing your bit in killing British soldiers, we wont forget, nor forgive.

No offense - we lost four hundred thousand soldiers helping to fight off Britain's enemies during WWI and WWII. We're entitled to a bit of slack. Note that Britain helped the Confederates during the Civil War - a war in which we lost a million men on both sides. During the entire course of the IRA campaigns, you have lost less people than we lost during 9/11. Note that we haven't even started counting the number of Irish dead inflicted by the King's men during their genocidal military campaigns in Ireland. A few thousand dead really isn't very many, is it?

Funnily enough the only nation wno does at the moment is a Republic, in much the same vein as France before Napoleon took over. Comparisons anyone? Emporer Dubya, or Empress Condi....

Funnily enough, at the end of WWII, we had more troops in Europe than Napoleon had at the peak of his glory, and we went home without taking with us the combined sum of the European treasuries. Could we have annexed the UK, given that we had more troops than any other Western belligerent? But of course. But that never happened. Have we taken the Iraqi treasury home with us? No. We've pumped in a hundred billion dollars, and counting. Did Napoleon loot or contribute funding to his conquered territories?

What I find really amusing is how touchy the Brits have been over their token contribution to the common defense in Iraq, when Americans have lost so many men defending them. It just goes to show that Britain does have no permanent friends, only allies it uses and discards.

[Lost Humanist]

"Have we taken the Iraqi treasury home with us? No. We've pumped in a hundred billion dollars, and counting"

Actually man, yeah you/we all have. US pledge $100 billion dollars on reconstruction etc (by the way, the funds are loands that are to be repaid with Oil from Iraq, thats not aid, its a bridging loan)... In real life less than a fifth of the funds allocated have been spent on the Iraqi people. 150 new medical centres to be opened around Iraq, less than 6 built and best estimate is no more than 20. Schools? Roads? Pipeline? Jobs? Infrastructure? No security, no construction. And all the while a massive building project is taking place inside the Green Zone. Costing billion of dollars, its the new US 'diplomatic mission'. I dont know of any 'diplomatic mission' that needs 8,000 staff...


You're trying to rationalise that because the British have such a bloody and Imperial past, that they somehow deserve what they are getting now?
And you have gone back all the way to the US civil war looking for wrongs done by the British against the world. Ok, I know your history starts around then, but ours goes back thousands. We had been pillaging and doing evil deeds long before your country was invented okay?
I dont want to get into a 'my terrorist attack was bigger than yours' contest, cos thats just cheap man. Just as I wont, and dont wish to, argue over the ratio of dead soldiers. Its as bad to lose one life over an event as thousands, the amounts dont matter. My complaint with your comments, perspective, socio-political thinking, is that you are trying to cheapen British sacrifice by stating that the US lost more soldiers fighting in the two world wars. Well, a world war will generally create a little more carnage than a scuffle in a dusty, neglected part of the world.

As for your comments about US troops being in a position to occupy Europe, much the same as Napoleon years before, you're right. The US could have, didn't and got it right. But the leaders then were vey different to the leaders now. During that period you had a group of leaders who were essentially Wilsonian Isolationists, with a bit of Jacksonian theory thrown in, and so had no need, nor desire, for Empire. I say, thats things are a little different now.

PS: Can you explain why you have a seemingly unending hatred for the us? Have our evil Kings and foul Knights despoiled your back yard in Rhode Island, or Maine, or Kentucky?
You hate the British because we have done what you're doing now. We have been the Imperial aggressor, stolen, looted, and pillaged and have evolved, as a social grouping, beyond that kind of desire...its the Third Way.