|
There is a strong feeling in my mind that Britain mustn't allow themselves to be bullied, America
is the most powerful country in the world, whilst Britain is a small country, but it is a great one
too, so people should be prepared to be much stronger rather than follow others |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
We do now, Blair was a complete lap dog because he wanted to do the after dinner tour of the US and
be extremely rich. Thatcher used to storm into Reagans office and give him a grilling if needed,
and he respected her for it. We have a duty to the world to keep the Americans in some sort of
check but Blair just went along with what he was told. You can see the utter disdain Bush has for
Brown and Blair and it is not healthy.
America has been described as "a good idea that has got a bit out of hand". It is our job to lend
them a guiding hand or leave them to it and side with the Euros. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes, it's sad that Britain has been de facto colonized by one of its ex-colonies, especially one
that is as primitive and risible as, in many respects, America is. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
England dances under puppet strings to America. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
I do not think that the traditional, stereotypical image of Brits is that they form a soft,
emotionally expressive nation of push-overs. I also think that it would be naive to believe that
Tony Blair decided to join Bush in the Iraq War because he was soft. Bush and Blair had a friendly,
personal relationship, but the two both went to war for political and economic reasons. Blair might
have partially bought into the idea that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, but his real reason
in joining the Americans was to show the French (and especially Jacques Chirac) that the UK can
chart a foreign policy independent of, and even in opposition to, the EU. Let's not forget that the
British and French governments were not nearly as friendly with each other under Chirac's rule as
they are now, with Sarkozy's more pro-Anglo-Saxon approach.
Blair was about as pro-EU as a politician can be in Britain, but he recognized the value of
maintaining the country's strong transatlantic ties and remaining a seemingly independent player on
the world stage. This is why he joined the Americans, and not because he was coerced into it, and
just could not muster the courage to resist. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It has nothing at all to do with "turning soft". Those are words that have very little meaning.
The reality is that those people hate us and they hate you too. When your country falls victim to
their terrorizing on a scale that my country did then who do you want right there helping you??? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree with not following America, but as an Englishmen myself i would say that i have not heard
anyone want to follow America, most normal people want out but as you probably know we have not had
an election in about 7 years and we probably will not get one for anther two. So i would disagree
with that England has gone soft and that it is only are rubbish, cowardly, government that has gone
soft. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
30 May 2008 22:06
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
