Posted on 07/06/2002 8:59:49 AM PDT by ginle
I've just moved from New York City to London, into a little house with a little garden - and it seemed a good idea to throw a Fourth of July barbecue. After years of cramped Manhattan parties, craning out of our air-conditioned apartment window to catch a glimpse of fireworks, I was determined to have the traditional outdoor feast.
My British flatmate loved the idea. "It's a themed welcome-back party," she exclaimed. She emailed invitations to our friends. I bought gourmet sausages, and then suddenly I panicked. Why would a bunch of Brits, anti-Bush and liberal Brits at that, want to celebrate our most all-American day?
Having lived in London on and off for two years, I've realised that young British people don't like America; in fact, now that Bush is waging his war on terror, they hate it. At a dinner party in the autumn, a boy I'd just met said: "You know, basically bin Laden is right." I began to cry. "America oppresses every other country, and really exploits them just to get richer and, you know, crushes them if they try to stand up for themselves. Bin Laden was telling America to mind its own business; it needed to be told."
And all this when my city was plastered with posters for loved ones missing since September 11; when I had just discovered that a friend had died in the attack. Knowing that one of the charges against Americans was that we "take everything too seriously", I apologised for crying.
Since September, most of my introductions to young Brits begin: "Oh, you're American." Then comes a barrage of questions and assertions about Bush and America's place in the world. If you can clear such political minefields, you find yourself with some friends for life, whose political attitudes about America do not extend to their opinion of individual Americans. "So really," I told myself, "stop worrying. These are your cherished friends coming to the party. You can make it through an evening without talking politics, and everyone loves a camp themed party, especially one with gourmet sausages and mustard in a squeezy bottle."
Then I read the "youth" survey in The Telegraph - a huge majority of young Britons thought America was "aggressive", "inward-looking", "concerned only with its own place in the world" and "not a good example to other countries". Thirty-seven per cent thought Bush was either "poor" or "dreadful". I accosted each new guest - even before they had negotiated the red, white and blue balloons that covered our floor - with interview requests. "Please will you tell me what you really think about Bush and America? I swear I won't get upset and really the more honest the better and I know that we disagree anyway." It worked, but not until we had more than a little drink. What a sight: BA literature students, photographers, actors and people in the theatre - all British but me - piling on to a sofa and talking tipsily about politics.
"Well, America," began someone, nestling into the couch and setting her drink on the table. "I really like America, but I don't think their political system inspires much confidence." "Bush is awful - a total idiot," broke in a boy from across the room, and the polite reserve was broken. "Yeah," nodded another friend earnestly. "Everyone in Britain thinks he's horrible; we were really gutted when he won. We wanted the other guy, what's his name? - Gore - to win."
Turning away from a conversation revolving around an Alabama-style chocolate cake that one of our friends had brought us, someone volunteered: "Bush is a homicidal megalomaniac; he wants to take over the world." My friend's boyfriend added a new sort of conspiracy theory: "The US is the world's biggest terrorist. They think that it is fine to go into other countries and pillage them for their own good, but when other countries attack them they call it terrorism. George W welcomed September 11. Look what it did for him. He didn't exactly engineer it, but he wanted to go into Afghanistan because of their oil resources. Do we really know Osama was behind September 11?" "Where did you hear this?" I asked, trying desperately to be impartial. "Well, I pieced it together," he replied. His paranoia was met with approval from some quarters: "Yeah, Bush wants to use 9/11 to start a world war." He was shot down by the others: "He's too stupid to do that."
I wondered out loud why they were convinced that he was so dumb. The answer was a bit feeble: "Our media has hyped him as stupid." But another friend, while pouring us more wine, came to the rescue: "He always messes up the speeches that are written for him and trips over big words." "He's a knob," yelled a friend as she went into the garden to partake of the sausages.
Finally, I went out into the garden to talk to my friend, the war studies undergraduate, who seems the exception to the rule. "There is less to worry about George W than everyone makes out," he said, lighting my cigarette with an "I Love NY" lighter. "He is a strong hand on the tiller and his responses are not wrong. The Republicans pick people for character traditionally and set up a really intelligent strong team behind them. I don't think we have to worry with Colin Powell and Rumsfeld." This inspired a boy who had been quiet the whole evening - "I am the most British person you'll ever meet," he confided, "and I am completely behind Bush and America. So I guess that I don't have anything to say here."
Probably this, not the paranoid anti-Americanism, was the most shocking comment. But it was a lovely evening, and no one got into an argument, except for two Brits about the NHS. The Telegraph poll said that 63 per cent of young Britons think America is a good friend to Britain, and that is what I most noticed at my party. For all their criticism of America and its supposed militant posturing, here were my friends, bearing wine, celebrating the Fourth of July and staying late, long after we wanted to clear up and go to bed.
After all, these were the same people who had called me and my parents on September 11 and sent flowers to lay at the site.
Why bother going to the expense of traveling to The UK for such a conversation? A trip to Berkley would yield the same result.
In WWI, you say the Brits could have won with reinforcements from the Empire. You had three years to do that before we got there. What were you going to do? Ship a million Africans and Indians to fight in Northern France--with what weapons and by what transport? The Germans didn't need the population--your British generals were responsible for the senseless slaughter of millions of good,brave men in those three years. The truth is, you were down for the count in early 1917. And WW1 was really an interfamily spat, was it not?
In WW2, you were effectively out of the war in the Far East after December 1941, except for India. What naval assault did you mount to unseat the Japanese Empire? Or land invasion, for that matter? And how were you, by your lonesome, going to attack Fortress Europe? How were you going to get over the Channel? In rowboats?
Look, David, no one is taking away from the unparalled bravery of your countrymen in the Battle for Britain, the Blitz, Dunkirk, El-Aleman, D-Day, Operation Market Garden, etc. But your theories on how the war MIGHT have been won are beginning to sound like the two knights in the Monty Python movie about the Holy Grail.
If you can't admit that without the US you would be speaking German or Russian, fine. But please don't re-write history to make your point.
Take a look at Mark Steyn's most recent column. It was just posted.
But seriously the idea that the USA beat the NAZIs single handed is ludicrous. You'd think they would have the decency not to bring it up, after the way they deliberately stayed out of the war as long as possible and bankrupted us to get payment for arms and supplies.
As is said earlier we would have had to abandon the far East theatre of war, which would have weakened the USA's war effort.
And how were you, by your lonesome, going to attack Fortress Europe? How were you going to get over the Channel? In rowboats?
I never said we would have been able to liberate continental Europe. The Soviets would have eventually done that, hence the reason why it was in the USA's best interests to help us out.
Look, David, no one is taking away from the unparalled bravery of your countrymen in the Battle for Britain, the Blitz, Dunkirk, El-Aleman, D-Day, Operation Market Garden, etc.
Well that's the way it sounds.
This article does not actually prove a thing, except perhaps, the easiest job in the world is to be a critic. And nobody ever built a statue of a critic.
That was the Autumn of 1918, by November the Armistice had been signed.
As for your account on WW2, well a lot of that is in the “what if’ vein. Britain wasn’t actually at war with Japan until after the Pearl Harbour attack.
If you want to know who put in the greatest effort or had the best soldiers or who won the war I can tell you. They ALL did or had.
You should HEAR the stories he has about how his own people ABUSE their own military! He thinks that our military are revered almost as gods compared to the crap the British people pile on the men and women charged with keeping them safe in an unsafe world. The Brits have been edging ever closer to world socialism/communism since the IRON LADY (Maggie Thatcher) was deposed....and especially since the reign of Tony Blair.
I guess we really shouldn't be too surprised at this attitude. Like New York liberals, French socialists and the British leftists....they are what they are. Why should we act all surprised and hurt when they are merely staying in character?
The Fatuous Morons who comprised a large Portion of the "Guest List" conveniently forgot that they would be speaking German (or, more likely, Russian) if America hadn't "intervened" in WWII!
More than that, it takes a "near-Genius IQ" to "Strap on" an F-102 (1940's-50's Technology) and survive a flight (let alone SEVERAL flights!)
"W" was regarded as a "Good Stick" by his Pilot Evaluators--in an F-102, he HAD to be intelligent & courageous!!
The "above" leads me to believe that "W" is a VERY intelligent man!
The last "Leader" the 'Brit's had of ANY "Moral Character" was Maggie Thatcher!
As long as "Blair" is their elected leader, they have NO BASIS to criticise us!!
The next time one of your pathetic Brit acquaintances complains about us, ask him/her why they have the gall to speak to you in English (NOT German or Russian!)
Nothing I said about WW2 is in a "what if" vein. At the end of December, 1941, it was over for Britain in the Far East, and New Zealand and Australia were in danger.
You make my point. It wasn't America that won WW1, it was a bacteria. In WW2, it was "what if", not the fact that without America, no nation on earth was going to dislodge the Japanese Empire from their perch.You can say, "thank you", it won't kill you.
"From the day it broke away from the British Empire the United States has been living in large measure under the protection of that Empire, and in particular of the British Fleet"
President Harry S Truman - 20 March 1947
And I never said British soldiers weren't brave nor did I make it "sound" that way. But your point that American military power was an option in the fight against totalitarianism is not credible in the light of historical fact. American power was the key to victory, and the only way that victory was going to occur in the 1940s.
Simply remind them that they would all now be slaves of the Third Reich were it not for the blood of many, many Americans.
Fifty years ago, before the bombs started dropping in London, many "civilized" Europeans (and some Americans, to their shame) were saying:
"You know, basically Hitler is right."
Whatever America's flaws may be, Europe's Marxist minds are virtually incapable of comprehending Freedom; therefore they hate its perilous implications.
They much prefer the peaceful, subsidized tranquility of a socialist welfare state, a state which is made possible due to the military might of the USA; through two World Wars, they have been either unable or unwilling to defend themselves. Just remind them of that and they should pipe down. And remind them that socialist governments killed more people in the 20th century than all other causes combined.
Winston Churchill was the last of his kind in England, I fear. All that is left now are socialist appeasers who wish to propagandize their people into the EU nanny state.
OK, I'm done ranting about Eurosocialist ingrates whose asses we saved twice, for now...
Why would the Brits rather have Gore?
The short, paraphrased answer would have to be: "Because he's more socialist."
President Truman was a nice man, and I don't know the context in which he made this quote. But he was no history professor.
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.