Osama Bin Laden is dead

I think Tony Blair just agreed with Bush.

that would confirm some of the rumours that blair was really an idiot

Yes, but the electorate didn't.

Strange when your time of need came in the Falkland Islands we supported your retaking the islands at not some small cost to our relationships with all of South America.

I can remember being ask by members of the large Latin Community of South Florida how the US could support a European power using military force on Argentine with special reference to the Monroe Doctrine.

My reply at the time was that British was the mother country to the US who we had fought two world wars with and we have a relationship of share blood with both on and off the battlefields.

Oh off hand I can not see the US allowing any other European power no matter what the reason happen to had been to apply military force in our back yard.

A grain of truth, Lash. You're improving. But you didn't go far enough.

Tony Blair just agreed to share Bush's lies and war crimes. And war crimes they were. The ultimate war crime - a war of aggression upon a sovereign nation. Let me get you the exact quote.



You oughta read the whole article. The last part, Noam Chomsky writes;

"There is much more to say, but even the most obvious and elementary facts should provide us with a good deal to think about."

Or, given your new found habit of sticking your head in the sand, I would guess that will be a 'negatory'.

You may well have a point there, but regardless of Blair's personal opinions he was a Labour Prime Minister, a party overwhelmingly opposed to the war in Iraq. Over 1 million people marched in London against the war. The largest demonstration ever in the UK. Tony Blair was not the President, he did not have a personal mandate, other than to the people of his own constituency Sedgfield. So he should have behaved like a Labour Prime Minister in this respect, the same way that Harold Wilson did.

I don't remember Americans being involved in any way during the Falklands War, unlike Australia and New Zealand who offered material assistance from the outset,you just offered words. Maybe that's what we should have done over Iraq.

Your replies at any given time have to be fallacious and duplicitous, Bill, because there's no other way for you to explain away the duplicitous, perfidious, war criminal nature that is the USA.

If my memory serves me correctly there was some re-supply of your forces and the moving of US forces to cover some of your NATO obligations.

But more to the point we did not stop you dead in your tracks from sending such military forces into our backyard to attack a South American country as I am sure we would had done if it had been France for example or any other European power.

The very fact that we did not stop you cost us a great deal of good wills in all of South American at the time.

Which means that the US installed dictators were a bit miffed?

LOL Those along with the bulk of the citizens of all of the south American countries with or without dictators in power.

Most of them viewed it as the turning of our backs on an obligations to be the their protector from Europe that we assumed back in 1823.

My good dog but you are delusional, Bill. The Monroe Doctrine was meant only to allow the US to be unimpeded in its rape and pillage of Latin and South American countries.

The historical record is so clear on this -- I was going to say that "it's astonishing that you could even suggest such nonsense" but as I've noted, providing perfidious and duplicitous comments is all you can do when you have to "defend" the crimes and duplicity of the USA.


History of U.S. Interventions in Latin America
http://www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/interventions.html

An once more under similar circumstances with say French naval forces headed to get back territory in South American if they would not had turn back on a verbal warning there would had been a US naval carrier battle group waiting for them.

We have a long long history of claiming protector rights over South American even when it involved the UK.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine



1895 saw the eruption of the Venezuela Crisis of 1895, "one of the most momentous episodes in the history of Anglo-American relations in general and of Anglo-American rivalries in Latin America in particular."[12] Venezuela sought to involve the US in a territorial dispute with Britain over Guayana Esequiba, and hired former US ambassador William L. Scruggs to argue that British behaviour over the issue violated the Monroe Doctrine. President Grover Cleveland through his Secretary of State, Richard Olney cited the Doctrine in 1895, threatening strong action against the United Kingdom if the British failed to arbitrate their dispute with Venezuela. In a July 20, 1895 note to Britain, Olney stated, “The United States is practically sovereign on this continent, and its fiat is law upon the subjects to which it confines its interposition.”[13] British Prime Minister Lord Salisbury took strong exception to the American language. The United States objected to a British proposal for a joint meeting to clarify the scope of the Monroe Doctrine. Historian George Herring wrote that by failing to pursue the issue further the British “tacitly conceded the U. S. definition of the Monroe Doctrine and its hegemony in the hemisphere.”[14]

Depends on when you took that poll.

It won't have done a lot of harm to your relations with Chilli, as they provided material assistanceto the UK. The Falklands War was unnecessary, we knew for a year that Argentina was going to invade, Thatcher allowed it to happen, and her relationship with Reagan was a little too close for comfort. She was rock bottom in the polls, if the Falkland War had not happened, or we'd lost, Michael Foot would have been Prime Minister. How do you think that would have affected relations with Reagan?

Anyway the Falkland Islanders wanted to be British, Argentina invaded British Sovereign Territory. It's not that hard to defend the UK's stance, but what about the Suez crisis? It was a shameful episode in post imperial UK history, but Eisenhower favoured relations with Egypt and the Arab World rather than the special relationship.

If you ask anyone over here who they think has the special relationship with America, the answer wouldn't be Britain it would be Israel. We back you up pretty much all the way down the line. You tell Israel to freeze building illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian land, they tell you to **** off, and you still give them billions of dollars in aid, military and other.

There are two things that really stuck in the throat over here. The first was your healthcare debate. It's your county, and you can run your healthcare system the way you want to. What is unforgivable was the way Fox 'news' ran a campaign of smears and lies about the NHS, using the perjorative term 'socialised medicine,' instead of the more accepted term 'universal healthcare.' They even broadcast that if Stephen Hawking were British he would have died by now. He is British, and as far as I'm aware he's still alive and he has the NHS to thank for that.

You really don't know how proud we are of the NHS, it's something that cuts across the polical parties. The NHS was the first example of universal healthcare in the world, and it came about during the harshest period of postwar austerity. I know some systems in Europe have overtaken us in world ranking, but it's still a top rate service, it's main problem now is the Con-Dem government. We feel about the NHS the way you feel about the American flag. How would you feel if one of our news channels ran a regular feature where people would defecate, burn, and otherwise denigrate the American flag? Think about that for a minute, then you'll know why we were so upset.

The other thing that was upsetting, was that when an Anglo-American multinational corporation polluted vast swathes of the American coastline your president insisted on repeatedly calling it BRITISH Petroleum. It's not called that, hasn't been called that for years. It's called BP and it's as much American as it is British. The British people were not resposible for the pollution, a multinational was, and it's the multinational that should pay. This created the bizarre situation, in which a public school educated toff like David Cameron, could phone up the first black President of the United States and accuse him of being racist.

What BP should have done is straight away change their name to Israeli Petroleum. That way the American taxpayer would pick up the bill for cleaning up the gulf. Israeli Petroleum could sail the gulf with impunity, committing acts of piracy, and all criticism could be shrugged off as being anti-semitic.

You allow the French to talk you in playing big power games without clearing it with the real big power of the time.

Shame on you for being so stupid.

Fox news is an insult to anyone with room temperature or above IQ but what the hell do they had to do with the US/UK relationship?

Cameron is a dickhead, it comes from being slimy and posh. What Fox News said was run on all the news channels over here, and it really did feel like an onslaught on our core values by the American right wing, and seemed like a real betrayal after we'd helped that same right wing over Iraq.

Over here all that's run on the news channels is Americans funneling propaganda.

With a couple of minor exceptions.

Despite Cameron being a dickhead, what do you call getting a UN security council resolution if that's not clearing it with the big power?