Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ] |
| Subject: US Elections | |
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 15:23:13 11/02/04 Tue I am interested in guaging the political opinions of people who post regularly on this forum. We discuss British, british, and Commonwealth politics a lot; we also discuss History, historiography, anthoropology and occasionally comparative linguistics (see Cornish debate, and also the business about dialects)! However, unless any of you feel it to be inappropriate, I should like to have a straw poll, as they say, about regular contributors' attitudes towards the vote in the U.S. today, particularly Canadian members. You see, thinking about it, I realise that I have no real idea what our general international, as opposed to intra-national and domestic, politics are. I also consider it significant in terms of the FC, since one of the most important debates about the creation of a Federal Commonwealth would be its attitude towards the United States, and to what extent we would support or seek to frustrate, United States foreign policy. Now, the Euro-Federalists would like to the the United States of Europe serve as a counter-balance to the USA; I would like to see an FC which is an [independent] complement to the US, not a rival. And I think that a quick straw poll on today's US plebiscite, as I say, would be a good way of roughly predicting how far other members agree with me. E.G.H. Oh, and p.s., a note to Canadian members: I always try to avoid refering to people and things from the USA as 'American', since they are not the only inhabitants of that continent, and I am all too aware how easy it is to offend... The trouble is that there is no such word as 'United-Statesian'... it's much easier over here, where we can say 'statiunitense' as well as simply 'americano'! [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> Subject: US Election Opinion | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:32:16 11/02/04 Tue Please go ahead and refer to the U.S. as 'American' - we do. We are Canadian and that's it. Continentally, we talk about being 'North Americans'. However, I am pleased that you are sensitive towards us. I usually prefer not to give an opinion on an election in a foreign country because it's really none of our business. I was asked this very question recently and my response was 'I am of no opinion because it is not up to us - it's entirely the decision of Americans, and Canadians have to work with whoever wins'. I was recorded as undecided! However, since the peace of the world depends very much on this election, my preference goes to John Kerry (which in recent surveys is the preference of Canadians by a 2 to 1 margin). And to our British friends, again, it's your decision, but my preference goes to Michael Howard. Tony Blair has proven that he is not interested in the Commonwealth. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Commonwealth politics | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:36:27 11/02/04 Tue I think it would be good for all of us to become familiar with the politics in each of the four FC realms. We should know who is PM, Opposition Leader and what the political parties are and where they stand. It would help us a lot. Since we want political union, we should not be afraid to form opinions on each other's politics and be able to express it. This can be very insightful in guaging opportunities towards the proposed federation in its different parts. I have links to all of these on the Links page in the FCS Canada site. This page will soon be updated to take out the minor and joke parties. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Minor parties | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:43:03 11/02/04 Tue I suggest that you leave in the MRLP (Monster Raving Loony Party) as a UK party, since it is very dear to our hearts. British politics would not be the same without people who give up thousands of pounds to of their own money to make us laugh at election time. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: U.S. election | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:13:34 11/02/04 Tue I would vote Bush. (if I were a U.S. citizen) He is the only politician that I have seen in our present time, counting French and English-Speaking ones, that has come across to me as being honest to the cameras. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: I'd vote Kerry, for all the difference it would make | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:07:19 11/02/04 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Largely because he seems less unilateralist | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:55:47 11/02/04 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Preferences | |
|
Author: Brent (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:03:23 11/02/04 Tue Canada - Stephen Harper US - John Kerry UK - Michael Howard Australia - already settled New Zealand - election time? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: I completely agree with all of your choices, Brent | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:11:42 11/02/04 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Choices | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:32:57 11/03/04 Wed I agree with all your choices although I would add Don Brash from New Zealand to that list. An election is scheduled for next year I believe. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Bush | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:58:17 11/02/04 Tue In the USA elections I hope for a Bush win. Hes a good conservative who likes to despose of foreign dictators, perfect. Here in the UK I want Howard in power in the next ellection. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: You would be welcome in Canada Ian | |
|
Author: Bruce (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:28:44 11/02/04 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: My Musings | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:26:48 11/02/04 Tue As hard as it is for me to work up an interest in the US election, here are my thoughts: Making such a choice is rather like making a choice between spam and corned beef – neither is particularly appetising. Neither Bush nor Kerry appeal to me on a personal or intellectual level. If I was to choose a preferred candidate, I would do so on the basis of who I thought would serve Britain’s interests best. I will go against the grain and declare that with this criterion, I believe Bush comes out on top. Bush has acknowledged the contribution Britain has made in Iraq in a way Kerry has never done. Bush has opened up the US to British companies in sensitive defence categories in a way that Kerry has intimated that he would not. Bush is also a self-proclaimed fan of Churhill, and an admirer of my country. Kerry however represents another incarnation of the Boston-Irish in the White House, which has never served us well in the past. All of this, in addition to Bush’s resistance to America’s more decadent ways, would make him the best of a bad bunch. His ideas come from the fairly intelligent people he surrounds himself, even if he expresses them in the most prosaic and inarticulate way. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Oh, and did I mention? | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:44:18 11/02/04 Tue I also reckon that a Bush re-election would present a better chance of hastening the demise of Tony Blair... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Four more years! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:39:23 11/03/04 Wed I'll stick with the trend and say that I'm a Bush-backer. And now it looks like the Americans have chosen him to go on with the good work for another term, with the largest number of votes cast for a candidate in American history... rather like John Major, whose slender majority concealed the fact that he got more votes than any incumbent PM ever. While it is true, as has been posted here, that most British people would rather have seen Kerry win, this is not generally true of British conservatives - and I imagine that, since most Brits on this forum are conservatives, this would explain why they seem to be falling down on the Republican side of the fence. One is not able to find a conservative in Britain who opposed the recent war, and since the main reason which people cite for wanting to get rid of Bush is the war (for reasons which have never, in my opinion, been adequately explained), most conservatives in this country are not affected by the Anyone But Bush mentality which seems prevalent elsewhere. Also, I think that whoever said that our attitudes towards Kerry were coloured by his slighter emphasis on the Special Relationship was dead right. Where does multilateralism get us, unless we are being excluded in the first place? Nowhere (in fact, it dilutes our influence). Where does unilateralism get us? Also nowhere. But Bilateralism, the world rotating round the twin poles of Washington and London, suits us fine - it's like the inter-war years all over again. Of course, I am aware that this is an oversimplification, and takes no account of the fact that Anglo-American relations are 'unequal'; but this Bilateralist view doesn't have to be a watertight argument for people to believe it. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: from where I sit, bilateralism looks like unilateralism with a fifth wheel | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:02:02 11/03/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Oh, quite... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:51:32 11/03/04 Wed ... because if I were not a monarchist and a great fan of the other three major countries of the Commonwealth, then I would certainly become a Fifty-First Stater. Britain has lost its way, and needs a new form of political relationship with another country, or other countries, to revitalise the nation and restore a sense of who we are. In that context, my prefered options would be, in order of preference: 1st) Reunification of the British World, or at any rate closer ties with the Commonwealth in an attempt to make that organisation meaningful. 2nd) Condoleeza Rice's suggestion that we should join NAFTA and eventually incorporate ourselves into a union of the USA, Canada and the UK. 3rd) GIve British independence from Europe a chance and see where that leaves us in a generation or two. ... ... 4,906,896th) the European Union. Let's hope that we find something better than Option 4,906,896!) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Option 4,906,895 | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:29:56 11/03/04 Wed Join a greater Azerbaijan... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Indeed. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:15:14 11/04/04 Thu I read an interesting study a few years ago on the subject of the UK and Japan. There was a lot of dated Freudian guff about how a people which lives on an island and has an overseas empire is necessarily going to produce a national mentality similar to another island which has an overseas empire etc etc. But the thesis was quite interesting, and listed all the similarities between the Japanese and the British, and not just in terms of historical parallels (which are eerily numerous). Such things as the fact that, in Asia, the Japanese are seen as funny old-fashioned people with a hereditary monarchy, who are always insisting on quaint old etiquette like bowing, and forever carrying round umbrellas. Does this, by any chance, remind you of the way in which Europeans see the British? So perhaps we should go for option 4,906,895 - union with Japan! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: yes, but.... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:37:54 11/04/04 Thu Yes, if only we had their railway system ;-) There are indeed many similarities. However, where the similarities end is the fact that Japan is not seeking to place control of its economy, currency, legal system, immigration, trade, employment laws and defence, in the hands of their neighbours (China, Russia and North Korea) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Hm... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:50:05 11/04/04 Thu Rabid Europhobe as I am, I would hardly put Belgium, Denmark, and Portugal in the same league as North Korea, China and Russia! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I wasn't being entirely serious ;-) | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:16:42 11/04/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Nor I | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:27:03 11/04/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Even some Germans aren't that keen on it | |
|
Author: Curnoack [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:04:14 11/05/04 Fri Regarding Europe... "Rabid Europhobe as I am, I would hardly put Belgium, Denmark, and Portugal in the same league as North Korea, China and Russia!" Many of the people in these countries actually have the same fears you do. I was in Germany in '02... far from being the rabid pro-Europeans they are made out to be, in actual fact many of them were opposed to the Euro, and the large amounts of cash they had to hand over to the EU... Yet if you look at the media, one side will have you think the Germans are the biggest Europhiles of the lot, and the other that they want to make it a fourth Reich. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Japan's nearest neighbours... | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:01:46 11/05/04 Fri Those bastions of enlightenment! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: It's interesting to see the difference between Brits and Canadians here | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:04:04 11/02/04 Tue A pattern is developing here: Canadians generaly favour Kerry while Brits generally favour Bush. This coincides with the difference of opinion over Iraq. Canada opposed the Iraq war and has been treated badly by Bush, so Canadians go for Kerry. Britain supported the war and got favourable treatment from Bush, so the Brits support Bush. I am just referring to the trend here, there are probably differing opinions in both countries. No matter what, it's for the Americans to decide and for us to work with whoever wins. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Bush/Kerry | |
|
Author: Ben.M(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:10:01 11/02/04 Tue Most people in the UK would prefer to see Kerry in the White House. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: I guess that makes me Canadian :) | |
|
Author: Ian (somewhere between the Pacific and Indian oceans) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:34:18 11/02/04 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: You would be very welcome in Canada Ian | |
|
Author: Bruce (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:31:52 11/02/04 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Thanks, Bruce | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:05:29 11/03/04 Wed I have vague plans to spend at least a semester there in the next few years when I start my doctorate. UBC is an interesting option, because it has a Centre for Australian Studies (where I'm sure I could continue my literature studies) and a Centre of International Relations (my wife's field). [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: UBC | |
|
Author: Bruce (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:18:28 11/04/04 Thu There is a lot happening on this coast Ian so UBC is a worthy idea I would suggest. Both UBC and University of Victoria (My alma) are getting bigger in Pacific Studies I'm Biology and my wife is PhD Anthropology from UBC. We could use your brand of political intelligence and activism. You might be interested in knowing that our ski hills are crawling with Aussies working to stay around the Mountains and the Coast. Between that and the British influence, Captains Cook and Vancouver not to mention the Pacific we'll probably be able to make you feel right at home - except, perhaps sadly that it a beautiful Autumn day with golden leaves and frost covering the fields. Isn't it fgreat to think in terms of the "sun never setting...." and all that. I love the world view the Empire and the Commonwealth have given us. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: You know not of what you speak | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:04:52 11/03/04 Wed Excuse me - you've got that very wrong. Most Brits, including 99% of the governing party, despise and fear Bush and his policies. Most Brits are also against the Iraq war (the largest demonstration London has seen was a bit of a giveaway). We do, it is true, feel that now that the can of worms has been opened we have a responsibility not to cut and run (another difference from the yanks) but we mostly opposed the war. Only our sycophantic little Prime Minister wanted the war and, as has been shown since, doctored the evidence to convince us we had no choice but to go in before the infamous WMDs, which were supposedly 45 minutes from deployment against us, were used. Don't confuse a sense of responsibility with a desire for war. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: I agree | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:02:57 11/03/04 Wed I agree [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I don't agree! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:10:37 11/04/04 Thu Most people in Britain did support the war, albeit by a slender majority. Even know, after Abu Ghraib, the beheading of that poor Bigley fellow, and the controvertial deployment of our troops in the US Zone, the polls indicate that barely 50% of British people think that the war was a bad idea - and this at the lowest point of popularity for the Neo-Con global agenda. As for the size of the Anti-War protest in London, I believe that the Anti-Foxhunting Ban Protest in London was in fact our largest ever demonstration - and about 70% of people want to see foxhunting made illegal. THis shows, surely, that you can not guage public opinion by measuring the decibels of protest groups. Silent majorities and all that. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: and... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:22:30 11/04/04 Thu The probably hired the same rent-a-mob for every demonstration in the country... I'm watching "Question Time" just now, and the look of consternation on the faces of the hand-wringing liberals in the light of Bush's win is quite entertaining. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Oh gawd | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:32:34 11/04/04 Thu I may not like being an expat... deprived of bangers and mash, buying things with Euros, getting flooded and snowed upon, etc. etc., but one thing which I will never miss is bloody Question Time. I saw today's Mirror headline online: "How can 59,987,563 people be so dumb?" Given that this number is earily close to the British population, I'm inclined to think that, from the evidence of Question Time, they may have been refering to the UK, and not to the Americans who voted for Dubya. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: That can't be the Mirror's circulation surely? | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:35:09 11/04/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Nope | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:36:20 11/04/04 Thu I believe that the combined readership of the Independent, Guardian and Mirror is less than that of the Telegraph alone. There is, perhaps, hope for us yet... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Obviously because... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:37:45 11/04/04 Thu Readership implies you can read :-) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Reading... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:40:19 11/04/04 Thu I can read in a dozen languages and half a dozen alphabets, but I still can't read the Guardian! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Have they gone tabloid yet? | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:43:16 11/04/04 Thu lol - I was wondering if they might try and increase their circulation in the fish'n'chip shops? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: ... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:47:32 11/04/04 Thu I understand that new regulations forbid the use of newspapers to wrap fish and chips, becuase of the potential health risks accruing from the contamination of food by the ink. I think that this is not a Euro-bonkers law, but is home-grown lunacy. Speaking of fish and chips, though, a British friend of mine lives in Seattle, and when she gets desperate she drives over the Canadian border where there are fish 'n' chip places rather than hot-dog stalls. Isn't that marvellous? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: weird | |
|
Author: Kevin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:03:35 11/07/04 Sun You have an odd friend. Although I feel the same way sometimes. But there are plenty of Irish/ British pubs in Seattle if you just look. Not to mention the one or two Irish/ British stores where you can buy aero bars, flakes, sausages and all that good stuff. Although since the mad cow disease, i'm not sure if they still carry sauages. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: good god | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 08:11:29 11/07/04 Sun Are you saying you cant normally get aero bars in the USA? I am disgusted. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Sausages? | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:08:17 11/07/04 Sun Hm. How can mad cow disease affect pork sausages? And many of my friends are odder than you might think! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: oh for such a border | |
|
Author: Ian (Porto Alegre) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:50:52 11/04/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I tried to read the guardian once... | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:04:30 11/05/04 Fri I was ill for a week after! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: On reflection I do not agree. | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:41:02 11/05/04 Fri "We do, it is true, feel that now that the can of worms has been opened we have a responsibility not to cut and run (another difference from the yanks) but we mostly opposed the war. Only our sycophantic little Prime Minister wanted the war and, as has been shown since, doctored the evidence to convince us we had no choice but to go in before the infamous WMDs, which were supposedly 45 minutes from deployment against us, were used." I only read this part very quickly and missed the rest (late night posting). I would say that most people, with the benefit of hindsight probably correctly, did mis-trust the OFFICIAL REASONS for going to war. Part of the reason that I am so pissed-off with TB is that he asked the British nation to give him the benefit of the doubt over WMD which as a conservative type of fellow I did. If the British P.M. & the President of the U.S. tell me that there is (undisclosable) inteligence on Ws of M D and ask me to support military action as the only solution then I will rally around the flag no matter how much I detest the actual man in power. I would say that most people in Britain did not "support" the war openly, rather they accepted that there was a need for it. The fact that France said in advance that she would veto ANY U.N. resolution that proposed military action greatly helped people in this country to sympathise with our Government's position. Subsequently our infamously glib primeminister said the week after the invasion began in reply to a question about why the dagerous weapons had not yet been seized: "because our priority is to protect the Iraqi PEOPLE!" Ever since he has given a different justification for the war every week and never repeated the original WMD issue. Iraq is better-off without that Baathist upstart ruling it. It will hold at least one democratic election before it falls back into chaos. Yes these are fine things for Iraq. If our P.M. had said quite openly that he wished to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussain Al-Tikriti for the benefit of the ordinary Iraqis or some other really silly nonsense then that would have been fine. It is a question of being honest. If I were asked whether I am in favour of the war in Iraq I would say "yes", (despite the idiocy of the question) as would more that 50% of people in this country. This is because overall I think that has been, as 1066 and All That would put it, a "good thing". This poll would not reflect upon how people feel about the sad issue of trust with the government which has blatantly deceived british citizens, despite the legalistic reports about the intelligence. This government has no honour. I never thought that they did before but they never pretended to before. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Self-defence versus regime change | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 04:15:06 11/06/04 Sat Like all sane people the world over I agree that getting rid of Saddam and his mates is a good thing. One less madman in power always is. However, even had our lying, two-faced, spin-happy assurance salesman Blair cited this as a reason I would have had to oppose the war. Not for some lofty ideal about 'who are we to say who is a madman' (hell, we've more than enough of our own I'd like to see replaced or, better still, tried) - but for the oh so simple rationale that where would we stop? Saddam is bad, therefore we should remove him militarily. Okay. But what of the others? Africa has its fair share of lunatic tyrants, so does Asia, the Americas and of course, Europe's not immune either. Australasia seems reasonable (though from what little I know of Howard I still get a skin-crawling sensation that he's not a particularly pleasant person - hey, don't shoot me. I live on the other side of the world and most of what I've heard of him is about supporting Bush blindly and setting his special forces on immigrants). We fell into this trap centuries ago - 'These people are backward/evil/savage/unchristian and so it is our moral duty to impose our progress/goodness/civilisation/morality upon them by force if necessary' and their leaders are barbarian warlords. It's called colonialism. The Neo-Con US has taken exactly the same approach with a new lexicon: for colonisation read regime change, for war read decisive action, for savage read anti-democratic and for civilisation read democracy. Some of the spiel I've heard from the 'crazies' of Dubya's team (who even his Dad kept at arms length as he thought they were mad) include a particular favourite: "The United States has never, ever waged war against a decent country." Oh, well, if they're indecent that's all right. Now what we are seeing in the US is the establishment of puritan-style Christain fundamentalism at the highest political level - exactly the sort of religious zeal we are waging war upon but, crucially, the targets are the unbelievers: whether it is democracy, globalisation, US imperialism, the west or Christ that they choose not to believe in. As for TB, inquiries and his approach to truth: Hutton said that the BBC were wrong to say the dodgy dossier had been sexed up and Tony was completely innocent. Butler said that the intelligence received at no 10 was not exactly the same as that that came out of no 10, it had had the unattractive caveats removed. Or, to put it in spin-speak, had been sexed up by Downing Street. Oh, and Tony was completely innocent. You just know that Tb's tombstone will read "He did it in good faith" - so did Hitler, I'm sure. Personally, as someone from Northern Ireland I've known all along that what TB says and what is the truth rarely even catch sight of one another, let alone cross paths. What really scares me is that, in light of the cost of TB's lies in financial, libertarian and bodycount terms, the Tories' toe-sucking, orgy-ridden scandals are starting to look positively tame and, dare I say it, more British than the US style lies and spin that have seen hundreds of our soldiers killed & maimed and untold hundreds of thousands of poor bloody Afghans and Iraqis slaughtered. In the end I ask myself: Would I buy a used car from Tony Blair? Not if I had a family, that's for damn sure. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Mad englishmen and dogs | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:15:23 11/03/04 Wed I agree on one point only: Bush and Kerry are the same thing - up to a point. Both are the poster-boys for US-led economic domination. I'm surprised to hear you argue that we (the Brits) gain anything from Bush as president, and the idea that our defence exports to the states are healthy is confusing. Could you be a bit more specific. After all, are our army not flying, or trying to, AH-64 Apaches rather than Lynxs, and are we not set to take on the F-22 and do away with the Harrier and Tornado. If any union suits our defence industry it's Europe surely - we are after all contributing to the Eurofighter in much the same vein as we did with the Tornado. Next thing you know we'd be firing M-16s instead of SA-80s (ah - I've just shot my argument in the foot, haven't I?). Maybe not, I'd rather they were carrying G-3s or G-36s from our German friends. As for the Boston-Irish nonce, I agree. As an Ulsterman in self-imposed exile my distaste for the whole "good ole Emerald Isle and those brave boys fighting the glorious struggle" nonsence makes me nigh on physically sick. In truth, the only good thing about Bush (and I do mean the ONLY good thing) is that post WTC attacks he agreed that the IRA, in whatever form, were terrorists. Well thank Feck for that - about 100 years too late. I'd still rather have some iijit that is in the pay of the US cable companies than our Halliburton-sponsored friend with an eye on everyone else's oil at the expense of his 51st state. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Westland are bidding to build the President's new heloicopter for starters... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:32:39 11/03/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: You don't honestly belive that, do you? | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 04:30:51 11/06/04 Sat Do you honestly think that the good ole boy will fly in a Brit-built chopper? Think of the outcry state-side when that hits the news. As for co-operating with Europe before the US - I'd rather know that British soldiers were fighting alongside French or German troops who at least know what our flag looks like and that we are not the enemy. As for the licensed Apache, don't make me laugh. Yes, it is a commendable gunship but just how much per craft do we pay the yanks for building it - and don't tell me that we couldn't do better. I concede that built-by-committee is bad but would argue that in Europe a lot more could be achieved with greater integration and co-operation (not that I'd actually like to see that, but still the point stands). Any multi-national co-operative venture is fraught with politics in Europe. In the end any UK-US co-operation will always end with the US on top and the UK getting screwed blind. With friends like that... Personally I'd be a lot more interested to see what, for example, a UK-Canada-Australia-NZ co-operation could create. At least then we'd know we're all working toward the same goal and not having to keep an eye on our 'partners' to figure out how they intend to take us to the cleaners or twist the venture to meet their own needs at the cost of others. But Bush in a British helicopter? Not even you can seriously think a non-US company is going to win that contract. The thought of it alone makes me want to have a bath. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: The fact remains that we are allowed to bid | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:48:11 11/06/04 Sat I agree that it is unlikely that we will get the helicopter order, but at least we were allowed to bid for it, which is progress. The Apache is a battle-tested attack helicopter that is probably the best in the world. We indeed have to pay a licence fee, but the project sustains British jobs, which we would not have were we to buy off-the-shelf. In this context, the actual cost is much lower. What are the alternatives? Eurocopter’s Tiger has never seen combat and probably never will. It is also another example of European design-by-committee. If you have seen any of my older posts, you will know that I have advocated closer Commonwealth defence arrangements/programmes on many occasions. I was merely stating that co-operating with American, rather than European programmes, is preferable in our current reality. It also acts as a barrier against the integration of our armed forces, which are in the sights of our EU master-planners. I’m surprised that you believe we are being screwed all the time by the Pentagon. BAE Systems is the largest foreign contractor to the Pentagon, and has even been allowed to take over smaller US defence firms. Can you imagine French or German companies doing the same? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Alternatives | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 05:30:45 11/07/04 Sun Would you agree that any US product, regardless of our own involvement, will be subjected to a quality of spin that would make even Blair blush? The Apache is good, yes, great, I wouldn't say so. Just because it's available does not mean it is ideal. We have always managed to design to meet our needs rather than buy an OTT 'panacea'. What use, exactly, have we for a gunship that puts the stress on bucket-loads of armour and anti-tank missiles in this day and age? Who's going to shoot at us? What we need is something that can multi-role: part anti-armour, part troop-transporter, part recce. Step forward the Lynx. Damned effective in Northern Ireland, bloody handy in Kosovo and able to provide for the needs of both the army and the navy. The Apache has one job: blowing up tanks. That's it. Well, whose tanks are we going to shoot at? As for at least being allowed to tender a bid - that's meaningless. It's like you or I lining up in the Olympic 100 metres. What's the point if we know that we'll still be running our knackers off while the winner's had his shower and gone home? I would even argue that it's worse than meaningless, it's insulting. "Yeah, sure, little Brit dude - you knock yourself out putting together a bid and spending a fortune doing so. Rest assured it will get the attention we feel it deserves." AKA straight in the bin. As for BAE systems, much as it pains me to back-stab our own, recent events would seem to show they're as corrupt as their US friends, who they no doubt do their best to emulate. European co-operation may not be perfect but it has come up with some good hardware: the Tornado, the Jaguar, the Gazelle. All of which do their jobs commendably. The Eurofighter, while over-budget and late, is still an incredible piece of kit. And, lest we forget her, it was European co-operation that brought us the most beautiful airliner to ever grace the skies. Not all bad. True, ask me which system works best and I'll proudly shout "British built" (with Land of Hope and Glory ringing in my ears). The Vulcan, the Spitfire, the Lightning, the Hurricane, the Buccaneer - excuse me while I wipe the nostalgic tear from my eye. But, sadly, those days are gone. Let's end on agreement - a coalition of the Commonwealth nations would no doubt create a masterpiece if, as we do both agree, the committee could be left watching from the sideline. Hmm, I wonder if there's a grant for that sort of thing? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: ... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:11:10 11/07/04 Sun “What use, exactly, have we for a gunship that puts the stress on bucket-loads of armour and anti-tank missiles in this day and age? Who's going to shoot at us?” The recent conflict in Iraq involved numerous anti-armour missions. “Step forward the Lynx. Damned effective in Northern Ireland, bloody handy in Kosovo and able to provide for the needs of both the army and the navy.” I agree, and I do not believe that the Lynx is being phased out. The Apache will supplement its capability in an intense battlefield scenario. The Apache is a much more survivable helicopter, and has a much larger combat radius than the Lynx. The lynx is a fast and agile aircraft, and makes a good “recce” and light attack platform - different roles, different platforms. “As for at least being allowed to tender a bid - that's meaningless. It's like you or I lining up in the Olympic 100 metres” I’ve already conceded we are unlikely to win the contract. Concorde was indeed Europe’s finest engineering achievement, and I mourn its loss everyday. The Tornado is junk. I’ve heard stories from some RAF friends that you wouldn’t believe. About a third of them are unserviceable at any one time. Compare this aircraft, with its agility analogous to a three-legged rhino, and the radar profile/heat signature of Manhattan (the reason its bombing missions were primarily at 500 feet), with its American contemporaries, the F-15 and F-16. Considering the latter aircraft are still the best air superiority and ground attack planes in NATO service today, it becomes clear which side of the Atlantic has the better technology. I grant you that the Eurofighter will eclipse both of these aircraft, but so it should, as it was conceived 25 years later. “The Vulcan, the Spitfire, the Lightning, the Hurricane, the Buccaneer - excuse me while I wipe the nostalgic tear from my eye. But, sadly, those days are gone.” Yep, it is a sad fact that each generation of aircraft programme is vastly more expensive than the last. It is therefore an inevitable fact that multinational efforts are the reality today. It has been predicted that at the current rate of spendig grown, the USAF will only be able to afford one plane in 75 years. We shall wait and see if the “Anglosphere” JSF project is more successful than Eurofighter. JSF is the nearest we have got to a Commonwealth programme at the moment with the UK, Australia and Canada on board. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Apache and anti-armour | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 05:32:39 11/10/04 Wed Ah, no - I won't accept that. We are in Iraq because of Dubya. We do not need an anti-armour gunship - we have aircraft that can do that. The helicopter's greatest strength is it's flexibility - the fact that it can land anywhere and get your infantry / special forces in or out quickly. As a troop transporter it's a great machine but to take out tanks? Nah, there are better ways - infantry for one. As regards needing an anti-armour gunship - who precisely would the British engage that would make a new anti-armour platform is a useful piece of kit? Russia? China? Iran? (Oh, hell I hope not). And just how useful is the AH64 in Iraq at present - sure its blowing the crap outta Fallujah but there's something strangely reminiscent of Israeli Apaches hitting Gaza in the footage. Throwing a Hellfire at a building that looks like 'an insurgent stronghold' (how do they know - do they have a billboard outside saying "beware the suicide bomber") is counter-productive especially when you end up slaughtering civilians. What is really needed in Iraq, as even the US agree, is more infantry - more feet on the ground and more faces doing the hearts n minds routine. All in all I remain convinced that, given we are unlikely to engage another nation state in an all-out land war and faced massed tank columns (unless Dubya does Iran) why spend an absolute fortune on a bunch of anti-tank helicopters that duplicate a function of the Lynx but without the flexibility to drop in an SAS unit? Sure, Lynx's aren't as armoured as the AH64 but the armour doesn't make a huge amount of difference when hit by AA fire. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: More military stuff | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:15:32 11/03/04 Wed Well, it would certainly be more appropriate for us to buy American kit than to buy European kit, as we a never likely to be involved in a war alongside the Europeans now are we, unless of course, EU withdrawal negotiations get nasty? From this perspective, interoperability with European kit is irrelevant. The Government has stated that all our future conflicts will be by consent, sorry, in co-operation with, the Americans. Britain’s defence arrangements with Europe have been a complete farce. The reason the Eurofighter project is ten years late is because there were so many disagreements on what the aeroplane should do. The French wanted a strike aircraft, and the rest wanted an air-dominance fighter. The resulting fighter was a typical design-by-committee jack of all trades, and the French went in a huff, withdrew from the project and developed the Rafale on their own! After this fiasco, we did it again with warships. We entered into a tri-nation agreement with France and Italy to develop Horizon – the replacement for the Type 42 destroyer. The thing is, we wanted a destroyer, and France/Italy wanted a Frigate, so we pulled out this time, and developed the Type 45 on our own! The AH-64 Apache helicopters that you referred to are in fact built in Britain by AugustaWestland under license. They are in addition to the Lynx, as they provide a new capability. Yes, that’s right; the US Government licensed their premier attack helicopter design to us. The F-22 fighter will never enter RAF service as it is too expensive, and is not multi-role (i.e. cheap) enough for us. The Eurofighter will replace the Tornado and Jaguar in the air-defence role. The Harrier is being replaced by the F-35 (formerly known as Joint Strike Fighter). This is a joint American/British Aircraft, with BAE Systems controlling about 10% of the programme, which is likely to be the biggest military aircraft programme ever seen. Rolls-Royce designed the lift-fan (the thing that makes it take off vertically) and our planes will be built by BAE factories in Britain. If August gets the contract to build Marine 1, Bush will be flying about in a British helicopter for years to come! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Britain's interests | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:22:40 11/04/04 Thu The U.K. paid for 15% of the JSF project and were allowed to specify design requirements. We get exactly what we wanted/needed at a cheap price. U.K. will build 10% of the project by value. 3000 are expected to be ordered by the U.S. govt 150 by the U.K. It is estimated that 3000 export versions will be built. taking this projected figure of 6000 aeroplanes and dividing it by 10 this would be equivalent to the U.K. building 600 aeroplanes! Rather than spending 100% of the development costs and only buying 150 of our own. British firms own 1/3 of the Eurofighter project and will order, at maximum, 232 of them. Exports will almost certainly not be as large as the JSF but they have already sold a few to Austria. This is where the U.K. lies, with as many fingers in as many pies as possible. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: my choice | |
|
Author: Kevin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 04:49:36 11/03/04 Wed since I live in the U.S., the election will affect me. Personally I would vote Bush. But time will tell who will lead the nation for the next four years. And i think it is good to have all your input. Because these elections do in some way affect you all. In some way or another [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Silver Lining | |
|
Author: Brent (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:28:06 11/03/04 Wed Living in Canada, and being as exposed to US culture/media as any US citizen, I believe that the next 4 years will be of such a nature that even supporters in the UK and Australia will be revulsed by what may happen. The Yanks are about to go hard-core - first the Presidency, then a clear majority in the Senate equals a stacking of the US Supreme Court. There are people who support Bush who are nothing less than Christian versions of Saudi Wahhabi cultists - and I am not exaggerating! The silver lining is that moderate conservatives in the Commonwealth who lose their lunch over some of the things that will happen between now and 2008 will seriously consider a counterbalance to these Xenophobic end-time cultists who only read the Bible and the latest volume of the "Left Behind" series! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Yeah but... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:41:53 11/04/04 Thu ...even the Democrats are not immune from the Bible-Bashing Barminess. A friend of mine told me that a Democrat from Florida was on television saying that "Florida has been warned four times by the Almighty during this election campaign not to make the same mistake as last time"! I can only presume that he was refering to the hurricanes... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: I agree Brent and we should be ready to capitalize on it | |
|
Author: Bruce [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:49:17 11/04/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: I'm more concerned by the Islamic fundamentalists than the Christian ones... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:46:19 11/04/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: ... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:00:08 11/04/04 Thu Maybe you wouldn't say that if you were a moderate Arab instead of a moderate Christian! But, joking aside, I think that you're right. To associate The United Alabama Church of the Cruciform Sword (which, like all Christian organisations, is dedicated to the distribution of orange squash and hobnobs to the Faithful) with the more barbaric excesses of the Iranian mullahs is somewhat overstating the issue. I doubt that even the most Bible-crazed nutter in Crudville, Ga., Popn. 38, goes around stoning adulterers, mutilating thieves and savagely oppressing women. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: The Xian fundamentalist has a finger on the nuclear trigger though | |
|
Author: Curnoack [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:28:13 11/05/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Put a nuclear weapon in the hands of Bin Laden and George Bush and… | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:10:49 11/06/04 Sat Who do you think is going to shoot first? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Dave, no offense, but... | |
|
Author: Brent (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:03:00 11/07/04 Sun ...it's a false choice. Of course, bin Laden is more likely to do it than Bush, but that is not the point. That is tantamount to saying that all non-Americans must bend over and take it in the you-know-where, lest al Qaeda gets a hold of us. How about a concerted global effort against al Qaeda without Bush acting like a conceited and arrogant a-hole? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |