Donald Trump 'set for June state visit to UK'

[Space Commander Travis]

 

42 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

That seems a trifle harsh ! What about the Falklands ? 

That's true; ol' Ron did provide intelligence assistance (while at the same time being anxious not to be seen to be too anti-Argentina. as they wanted a strongly right-wing regime to balance out the danger of Commieness), and I believe he did even offer the use of a carrier but Maggie was determined she could do that on her own, thank you very much.

What about Suez though? It was Ike's unwillingness to cooperate that resulted in the Uk and France having to withdraw, so that it could be presented as a humiliation when it fact it was a military victory.

Edited June 5, 2019 by Dumbledore the Awesome

[Duke Wellington]

17 minutes ago, Setton said:

What about the Falklands? The US did everything it could to stay out of that conflict. How many US lives did they put on the line to defend our territory when it was under attack?

Yet we gave away hundreds of ours to topple a regime that had never and could not threaten American soil. And now we're expected to do the same again. Its about time the US either started treating its allies as such or fought its own wars. 

???

When the Falklands War occurred Britain was still a superpower so we didnt ask for NATO help. The USA still helped though by providing us with sidewinder missiles, communication equipment, and let us use their spy satellites. We had everything else to do the job and boy did we do it. Those Argies didnt know what hit them and ran home with their tails between their legs. In return for sending forces to Iraq and Afghanistan we got a share of the oil and reconstruction contracts. The tax revenues from that help our budget.

[RoofGardener]

14 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

 

That's true; ol' Ron did provide intelligence assistance (while at the same time being anxious not to be seen to be too anti-Argentina. as they wanted a strongly right-wing regime to balance out the danger of Commieness), and I believe he did even offer the use of a carrier but Maggie was determined she could do that on her own, thank you very much.

What about Suez though? It was Ike's unwillingness to cooperate that resulted in the Uk and France having to withdraw, so that it could be presented as a humiliation when it fact it was a military victory.

Hmm.. I was thinking more of the supply of Sidewinder missiles for our Harriers ? 

[Setton]

35 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

???

When the Falklands War occurred Britain was still a superpower so we didnt ask for NATO help. The USA still helped though by providing us with sidewinder missiles, communication equipment, and let us use their spy satellites. We had everything else to do the job and boy did we do it. Those Argies didnt know what hit them and ran home with their tails between their legs. In return for sending forces to Iraq and Afghanistan we got a share of the oil and reconstruction contracts. The tax revenues from that help our budget.

1. Britain has not been a superpower since 1956.

2. The US refused to support us as a NATO ally as the conflict wasn't in North America or Europe (neither is Iraq, for reference). And because they had a separate pact with Argentina.

3. There were no US satellites over the Falklands/Argentina. We were relying entirely on our own intelligence, which the US refused to believe. 

4. How many US lives did they put at risk to defend their 'ally'?

5. Can you name a single time the US has come to our aid when needed? 

Edited June 5, 2019 by Setton

[RoofGardener]

1 hour ago, Setton said:

2. The US refused to support us as a NATO ally as the conflict wasn't in North America or Europe (neither is Iraq, for reference). And because they had a separate pact with Argentina.

.. but they DID support us in the United Nations, and in particular with helping push through Resolution 502, without which it would have been politically difficult to recapture the Falklands.

1 hour ago, Setton said:

3. There were no US satellites over the Falklands/Argentina. We were relying entirely on our own intelligence, which the US refused to believe. 

They refused to believe it initially , because Galtieri was lying through his teeth to them, and assured the President directly that there would be no invasion. And there WAS satellite coverage of the Falklands... eventually. 

1 hour ago, Setton said:

4. How many US lives did they put at risk to defend their 'ally'?

What do you propose ? That the USA should have played "World Policeman" and sent the Marines in to Port Stanley ? Be realistic. 

1 hour ago, Setton said:

 Can you name a single time the US has come to our aid when needed? 

Yes. During the Falklands. They DID give us satellite intelligence about Argentinian troop positions on the Falklands. They also fuelled the Royal Navy at Ascension Island, without which half the fleet wouldn't have been able to make the journey. They supplied us with Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, which the Harriers used to shoot down a large number of Argentinian aircraft.

Edited June 5, 2019 by RoofGardener

[hetrodoxly]

16 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

You said the Americans are your 'friends and blood' while rejecting Germany. There's more German blood in the US than there is in Britain.

No i didn't

 

16 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

Oh, jawohl, mein Herr! That last British monarch not born in Britain was a German Hanoverian who couldn't even speak English as his native tongue. He was reared in Germany, only arrived in England when he was 31 years old and had to learn the language. The Hanoverian court under George I spoke German. Why do you think posh hooray Henry's say 'yaw' (German 'ja') instead of yes?

Over 300 years in the country and you don't think they're British you sound like a fully paid up member of the national front.

[Duke Wellington]

3 hours ago, Setton said:

1. Britain has not been a superpower since 1956.

2. The US refused to support us as a NATO ally as the conflict wasn't in North America or Europe (neither is Iraq, for reference). And because they had a separate pact with Argentina.

3. There were no US satellites over the Falklands/Argentina. We were relying entirely on our own intelligence, which the US refused to believe. 

4. How many US lives did they put at risk to defend their 'ally'?

5. Can you name a single time the US has come to our aid when needed? 

The usual lies and distortions.

Right now the UK is on parity with the USA in terms of technology, but lacks the girth of a superpower. Back in the 1980s we had the numbers too until the Iron Curtain came down. Then we scaled back our military expenditure to 2% to 3%. Before then it was twice the amount, it was 5% to 6% of GDP.

We had a large number of soldiers on our payroll and a decent navy with 3 aircraft carriers.

[Setton]

43 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

The usual lies and distortions.

You want to actually back that up with anything? 

Which of these, precisely, is a lie and why? 

4 hours ago, Setton said:

1. Britain has not been a superpower since 1956.

2. The US refused to support us as a NATO ally as the conflict wasn't in North America or Europe (neither is Iraq, for reference). And because they had a separate pact with Argentina.

3. There were no US satellites over the Falklands/Argentina. We were relying entirely on our own intelligence, which the US refused to believe. 

4. How many US lives did they put at risk to defend their 'ally'?

5. Can you name a single time the US has come to our aid when needed? 

 

[Duke Wellington]

Just now, Setton said:

You want to actually back that up with anything? 

Which of these, precisely, is a lie and why? 

Are you young? Everyone old enough remembers.

[spartan max2]

19 minutes ago, Setton said:

. How many US lives did they put at risk to defend their 'ally'?

5. Can you name a single time the US has come to our aid when needed? 

Perhaps I missed part of the conversation, 

But are you somehow not counting WW1 and WW2 lol

Also it might be a outlandish concept to you but some of the wars like Korea was not a U.S only war but was a NATO war from the cold war. It was common interest to stop the spread ( so was the mindset)

To rest that on the U.S seems like someone trying to avoid it's country's role in it. "The U.S made me do it" lol. Ignoring the common interest of the U.K wanting to be involved with these things as well.

Same logic with Iraq. Many countries like Canada and the U.K freely chose to help because it was a global issue not just a U.S issue. (Can debate that part I suppose

The U.S and U.K have always had similar democratic, political, and economic goals so it makes sense their actions typically alligned on the world stage. 

You seem to have a big hatred of the U.S 

Edited June 5, 2019 by spartan max2

[Duke Wellington]

1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

Perhaps I missed part of the conversation, 

But are you somehow not counting WW1 and WW2 lol

Also it might be a outlandish concept to you but some of the wars like Korea was not a U.S only war but was a NATO war from the cold war. It was common interest to stop the spread ( so was the mindset)

To rest that on the U.S seems like someone trying to avoid it's country's role in it. "The U.S made me do it" lol. Ignoring the common interest of the U.K wanting to be involved with these things as well.

Same logic with Iraq. Many countries like Canada and the U.K freely chose to help because it was a global issue not just a U.S issue. (Can debate that part I suppose

The U.S and U.K have always had similar democratic, political, and economic goals so it makes sense their actions typically alligned on the world stage. 

You seem to have a big hatred of the U.S 

Its a minority that hate the USA.

Best just to ignore them. What about all the research deals we have had with the Americans? From nuclear weapons to scientific research. That country has done a lot to help us Brits including beating the Germans twice.

[+susieice]

Oh no! Somebody killed the blimp!

https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/05/donald-trump-baby-blimp-stabbed-tommy-robinson-supporter-9812318/

[RAyMO]

1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

But are you somehow not counting WW1 and WW2 lol

Perhaps it is being suggested that the US did not get into WW1 and WW2 to help the British (as a primary focus at least), perhaps they had other motivations which eventually forced them to enter the war. 

They only joined WW1 in 1917 having originally declared neutrality - what prompted the change in stance - why did they not join the war in 1914 along side Britain?

as for WW2 they were technically neutral until late 1941 - Why did they join the war in 1941 - why did they not join alongside Britain in 1939?

[Setton]

2 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

Are you young? Everyone old enough remembers.

So, no then? 

[Space Commander Travis]

6 hours ago, Setton said:

1. Britain has not been a superpower since 1956.

2. The US refused to support us as a NATO ally as the conflict wasn't in North America or Europe (neither is Iraq, for reference). And because they had a separate pact with Argentina.

3. There were no US satellites over the Falklands/Argentina. We were relying entirely on our own intelligence, which the US refused to believe. 

4. How many US lives did they put at risk to defend their 'ally'?

5. Can you name a single time the US has come to our aid when needed? 

that'snot actually true. Do you know where US surveillance satellites were? I doubt they'd release that information to the layman. Now you're saying that the US should have got involved in another war? 

[RAyMO]

8 hours ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

What about Suez though? It was Ike's unwillingness to cooperate that resulted in the Uk and France having to withdraw, so that it could be presented as a humiliation when it fact it was a military victory.

It was presented as an humiliation for both France and the UK because they were told to take a hike and had no option but to oblige, thus ending the perception of the UK as a Superpower.

Which was true, if a power can tell another so called power to back off, and the lesser one does, then only one of them really has power.

Edited June 5, 2019 by RAyMO

[Setton]

2 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

Perhaps I missed part of the conversation, 

But are you somehow not counting WW1 and WW2 lol

Yes, because the US didn't help us when needed. They came in long after we'd dealt with the threat to our land. 

Quote

Also it might be a outlandish concept to you but some of the wars like Korea was not a U.S only war but was a NATO war from the cold war. It was common interest to stop the spread ( so was the mindset)

To rest that on the U.S seems like someone trying to avoid it's country's role in it. "The U.S made me do it" lol. Ignoring the common interest of the U.K wanting to be involved with these things as well.

Not that the US made us do anything but that we have helped them far more than they have helped us. 

Quote

Same logic with Iraq. Many countries like Canada and the U.K freely chose to help because it was a global issue not just a U.S issue. (Can debate that part I suppose

Unlike Korea, we only went into Iraq to keep the 'special relationship' going. Not for any of our own interests. 

Quote

The U.S and U.K have always had similar democratic, political, and economic goals so it makes sense their actions typically alligned on the world stage. 

Sure. Which means we should expect the same support of our goals as we provide the US. But we don't get that. We commit our people to support the US and, at most, get only money to support our own aims. 

Quote

You seem to have a big hatred of the U.S 

I don't hate the US. I just question who this 'special relationship' is actually special for. As far as I can see, the US has benefited far more. 

[itsnotoutthere]

Did anybody see that piece in the paper showing a group of anti Trump protesters assaulting an old guy in the  crowd. Couldn't help noticing that most of the protester were carrying pre-printed placards with the obligatory 'socialist worker' logo printed at the bottom. These characters are absolute vermin, just thugs intent on causing trouble.

[Setton]

1 hour ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

that'snot actually true.

Which part? That's two of you have said that but neither of you have given specifics or backed up that position. 

Quote

Do you know where US surveillance satellites were? I doubt they'd release that information to the layman.

Yes. There have been plenty of academic works published in the Falklands, including the lack of satellites which inhibited intelligence gathering. 

Quote

Now you're saying that the US should have got involved in another war? 

Yes. I'm saying the US should be willing to do as much for us as we do for them. Otherwise its not an alliance, it's subservience. 

Edited June 5, 2019 by Setton

[Space Commander Travis]

Well, there is one rather big post-1945 war involving America that the UK did manage to stay out of, so it wasn't all one way.

[Setton]

Just now, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

Well, there is one rather big post-1945 war involving America that the UK did manage to stay out of, so it wasn't all one way.

US staying out is not the same as them helping us. 

So far no one has a single example of the US committing its people to our defence. Yet we have fought at least two wars on their behalf and are now being asked to fight another. 

[Setton]

7 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

.. but they DID support us in the United Nations, and in particular with helping push through Resolution 502, without which it would have been politically difficult to recapture the Falklands.

They refused to believe it initially , because Galtieri was lying through his teeth to them, and assured the President directly that there would be no invasion. And there WAS satellite coverage of the Falklands... eventually. 

What do you propose ? That the USA should have played "World Policeman" and sent the Marines in to Port Stanley ? Be realistic. 

Yes. During the Falklands. They DID give us satellite intelligence about Argentinian troop positions on the Falklands. They also fuelled the Royal Navy at Ascension Island, without which half the fleet wouldn't have been able to make the journey. They supplied us with Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, which the Harriers used to shoot down a large number of Argentinian aircraft.

I should have been clearer.

Any time the US has committed troops to our defence? 

As opposed to just money or weapons. If we fight the USs wars for just money, what does that make us? Mercenaries? 

[RoofGardener]

1 minute ago, Setton said:

US staying out is not the same as them helping us. 

So far no one has a single example of the US committing its people to our defence. Yet we have fought at least two wars on their behalf and are now being asked to fight another. 

AOK.. lets summarise. 

When it comes to THIS particular issue, you are being a total moron. 

Which is strange, because normally you are very incisive. 

Ah well.. I guess everybody has their blind spots.  

Well, except ME of course. I'm perfect  

[Space Commander Travis]

They didn't have to commit hundreds of thousands of troops and millions and millions of dollars' worth of equipment and armaments to assist the UK in driving Hitler out of France; it was Japan that had directly attacked them. That, it could be argued, was due to Roosevelt's strength of character and his desire to help his good friend Winston.

[spartan max2]

1 hour ago, RAyMO said:

Perhaps it is being suggested that the US did not get into WW1 and WW2 to help the British (as a primary focus at least), perhaps they had other motivations which eventually forced them to enter the war. 

They only joined WW1 in 1917 having originally declared neutrality - what prompted the change in stance - why did they not join the war in 1914 along side Britain?

as for WW2 they were technically neutral until late 1941 - Why did they join the war in 1941 - why did they not join alongside Britain in 1939?

So the assertion is that the U.S was not a close ally of britan because we hesitated to rush into a World War lol.

With both WW1 and WW2 we were supplying wepons and food to the British as well as still trading before getting militarily involved.

This is why Germany began shooting down our ships because our support made it harder for the British to get starved out. 

Also everyone country has a hand full of reason for getting involved in wars. All self serving to some extent.