Royal family

[footymad13]

Quote[/b] (chaco27saf @ June 24 2005,16:13)]In response to FM's post

-The U.S. did not charge extraordinate prices for goods, however, it is true that the prices were not as good as one would hope for when an ally is involved in war.  However, the reasoning for this was Neutrality Acts which were passed during the mid-30's and prevented the USA from selling arms to a country that was currently at war.  This was because the congressmen who made these laws saw the potential for European war and wanted to stay clear of any involvement.  Therefore FDR, who wanted to help the allies at any cost was forced to find a loophole, and the charges for these weapons/supplies were unavoidable.  New acts were passed continually until 1941 to ease, but not remove these restrictions.

-As for America owing Britain a great deal for the reasons you stated, I disagree.  Firstly, Britain has not always stood by us.  In fact they sold weapons and munitions to the Confederacy during the American Civil War.  In recent years this is true, but then again so is the reverse.  When Britain invaded the Falkland Islands in the 80's the USA offered assistance, which was politely refused.

-As for some of your other points, I disagree, but fair play to you.  I do think it is a shame that you refuse to realize that US motives are not always selfish, but I truly doubt that I will change your opinion, but at least you stick to your beliefs, and are not afraid to voice them, which is more than can be said about many people.  

I understand that, however like you say loopholes can be created, and if the States wanted to cancel the debt say in the last 40s when Britain was undergoing a period of depression you could have.

Pre 1900 relations were going to be a bit faught, we wanted to hold on to the US and some argue in which i agree if we had not had the Peniuslar Wars in Spain/France etc then we could have sent a much larger force and quickly solved the rising. Perhaps we didn't realise until later just how valuable America was.

We used alot of your Satelite technology, to be fair the Falklands reaction was trying to prove Britain still had the might to defend itself, and was about pride.

If you look at the film U517, Its unbelievable that you made a film on that notion that you found the engima machine. A tad off.

One more question, Why doesn't the US intervine in North Korea who are building up a nuke arsenal, or India, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and many other of the worlds problems that are much more of a priority than Iraq and Hussan.

1. Because its revenge for 9/11
2. Oil.

Cheers, always good to have a nice debate and you always seem to find something new to talk about with the States

 

[chaco27saf]

The Iraq was is definitely an interesting issue to look at, but i think it is strange that you listed only two reasons for the invasion. There are IMO several reasons such as the belief that a western style democracy in the middle east will stabilize the volitile region, a percieved link between Hussein and terrorists, amongst several others. While I do not deny that the two reasons you listed could very well be true, I also believe that this war is much more complex than most people realize.

You also say that the US has not intervened in North Korea, which is not true, we have just not intervened militarily. We have entered into bi-lateral and regional discussions with them, but IMHO, at least at this juncture an invasion is not a possibilty. There are simply too many question marks to deal with. We do not know their military capabilities, their readyness to use a nuclear weapon, and the reaction of nearby countries (most importantly China).

I also do not see any justification to invade India or Pakistan, sure they have nuclear weapons, but we can only hope to discourage them from using these via diplomatic channels, not military ones. Finally, a situation like Zimbabwe shows that the United States cannot be everywhere at once, but it does seem odd that the US is criticised for not intervening in a situation like this, but also because we believe we have the right to police the world.

I'll readily admit that the United States is not perfect, but then again show me a country that is. Throughout my time here in England I have become more critical of the United States, but at the same time I have also gained additional pride in the USA as well, because to an extent I've begun to feel that some people's reasoning for the dislike of the US is flawed. I am wondering how I will feel once I am back in the states, though, and if this increased pride will continue.

 

[Ron Manager]

A thread about the Royals which has degenerated into a multitude of arguments without any $%&*-stirring from me. Blimey, I feel a bit redundant now. It seems I'm not needed on here anymore.............

 

 

[Bob Cratchitt]

Quote[/b] (Ron Manager @ June 25 2005,08:05)]A thread about the Royals which has degenerated into a multitude of arguments without any $%&*-stirring from me. Blimey, I feel a bit redundant now. It seems I'm not needed on here anymore.............

 

It seems to me you think of yourself too much, or have you missed out an important 'not'

Flaming Republican

 

[Ron Manager]

Quote[/b] (Bob Cratchitt @ June 25 2005,12:11)]

Quote[/b] (Ron Manager @ June 25 2005,08:05)]A thread about the Royals which has degenerated into a multitude of arguments without any $%&*-stirring from me. Blimey, I feel a bit redundant now. It seems I'm not needed on here anymore.............

 

It seems to me you think of yourself too much, or have you missed out an important 'not'

Flaming Republican

I really haven't got a clue what you're on about....

......

 

[Bob Cratchitt]

Oh dear seems someone forget to set the 'edited by' for you. Let me go and sort that out now.

 

[footymad13]

Quote[/b] (chaco27saf @ June 24 2005,20:52)]The Iraq was is definitely an interesting issue to look at, but i think it is strange that you listed only two reasons for the invasion.  There are IMO several reasons such as the belief that a western style democracy in the middle east will stabilize the volitile region, a percieved link between Hussein and terrorists, amongst several others.  While I do not deny that the two reasons you listed could very well be true, I also believe that this war is much more complex than most people realize.

You also say that the US has not intervened in North Korea, which is not true, we have just not intervened militarily.  We have entered into bi-lateral and regional discussions with them, but IMHO, at least at this juncture an invasion is not a possibilty.  There are simply too many question marks to deal with.  We do not know their military capabilities, their readyness to use a nuclear weapon, and the reaction of nearby countries (most importantly China).

I also do not see any justification to invade India or Pakistan, sure they have nuclear weapons, but we can only hope to discourage them from using these via diplomatic channels, not military ones.  Finally, a situation like Zimbabwe shows that the United States cannot be everywhere at once, but it does seem odd that the US is criticised for not intervening in a situation like this, but also because we believe we have the right to police the world.

I'll readily admit that the United States is not perfect, but then again show me a country that is.  Throughout my time here in England I have become more critical of the United States, but at the same time I have also gained additional pride in the USA as well, because to an extent I've begun to feel that some people's reasoning for the dislike of the US is flawed.  I am wondering how I will feel once I am back in the states, though, and if this increased pride will continue.

I don't doubt that the war on Iraq has alot of complex issues and there are things that we will never know however if you look at the bigger picture, Africa and other countries who are either victim of mass human rights abuses or building up a arsenal of weapons the US seems to fall weak at the knees. Why not go into a country where people are starving or getting tortured or just killed because of corruption.

I dont doubt going into Iraq was right, perhaps not for the reasons given but my problem is what about all the other countries, Where thousands are dying and there are much bigger threats than Iraq, i can't see why Bush won't intervine and do his bit help these countries instead of trying to 'wage war on terror' which is pityfull compared to the thousands dying daily.

One this bais, i don't think its all that wrong to assume to the oil reserves taking a dive, Mr Bush has gone into a country given a very weak excuse and taken lots of lovely oil. Problem solved.

To cut a long story short Seth, if America really wanted to stop human rights abuses and help the world then they need to be prepared to do and not just go into oil rich countrys in the name of terrorism.

America is a great country, id rate it better than places like France, Spain with ease, whenever i have been there the people are both pleasent and friendly compared to the Spanish who i found to be incredibly rude, But do you not think that America's foreign policy needs a bit of a rethink.

 

[Squirrel and G man]

Quote[/b] (footymad13 @ June 27 2005,11:00)]

Quote[/b] (chaco27saf @ June 24 2005,20:52)]The Iraq was is definitely an interesting issue to look at, but i think it is strange that you listed only two reasons for the invasion.  There are IMO several reasons such as the belief that a western style democracy in the middle east will stabilize the volitile region, a percieved link between Hussein and terrorists, amongst several others.  While I do not deny that the two reasons you listed could very well be true, I also believe that this war is much more complex than most people realize.

You also say that the US has not intervened in North Korea, which is not true, we have just not intervened militarily.  We have entered into bi-lateral and regional discussions with them, but IMHO, at least at this juncture an invasion is not a possibilty.  There are simply too many question marks to deal with.  We do not know their military capabilities, their readyness to use a nuclear weapon, and the reaction of nearby countries (most importantly China).

I also do not see any justification to invade India or Pakistan, sure they have nuclear weapons, but we can only hope to discourage them from using these via diplomatic channels, not military ones.  Finally, a situation like Zimbabwe shows that the United States cannot be everywhere at once, but it does seem odd that the US is criticised for not intervening in a situation like this, but also because we believe we have the right to police the world.

I'll readily admit that the United States is not perfect, but then again show me a country that is.  Throughout my time here in England I have become more critical of the United States, but at the same time I have also gained additional pride in the USA as well, because to an extent I've begun to feel that some people's reasoning for the dislike of the US is flawed.  I am wondering how I will feel once I am back in the states, though, and if this increased pride will continue.

I don't doubt that the war on Iraq has alot of complex issues and there are things that we will never know however if you look at the bigger picture, Africa and other countries who are either victim of mass human rights abuses or building up a arsenal of weapons the US seems to fall weak at the knees. Why not go into a country where people are starving or getting tortured or just killed because of corruption.

I dont doubt going into Iraq was right, perhaps not for the reasons given but my problem is what about all the other countries, Where thousands are dying and there are much bigger threats than Iraq, i can't see why Bush won't intervine and do his bit help these countries instead of trying to 'wage war on terror' which is pityfull compared to the thousands dying daily.

One this bais, i don't think its all that wrong to assume to the oil reserves taking a dive, Mr Bush has gone into a country given a very weak excuse and taken lots of lovely oil. Problem solved.

To cut a long story short Seth, if America really wanted to stop human rights abuses and help the world then they need to be prepared to do and not just go into oil rich countrys in the name of terrorism.

America is a great country, id rate it better than places like France, Spain with ease, whenever i have been there the people are both pleasent and friendly compared to the Spanish who i found to be incredibly rude, But do you not think that America's foreign policy needs a bit of a rethink.

Africa is:

1: A continent.
2: A Lynx deodorant fragrance
3: A song by Toto

It is not however, a country.

Also, I would like to know what criteria you rate America as being a better country than Spain or France?

(BTW, Spain and France as well as England played a played huge part in making the USA the country it is today.)

 

[footymad13]

Quote[/b] (Squirrel and G man @ June 27 2005,12:10)]

Quote[/b] (footymad13 @ June 27 2005,11:00)]

Quote[/b] (chaco27saf @ June 24 2005,20:52)]The Iraq was is definitely an interesting issue to look at, but i think it is strange that you listed only two reasons for the invasion.  There are IMO several reasons such as the belief that a western style democracy in the middle east will stabilize the volitile region, a percieved link between Hussein and terrorists, amongst several others.  While I do not deny that the two reasons you listed could very well be true, I also believe that this war is much more complex than most people realize.

You also say that the US has not intervened in North Korea, which is not true, we have just not intervened militarily.  We have entered into bi-lateral and regional discussions with them, but IMHO, at least at this juncture an invasion is not a possibilty.  There are simply too many question marks to deal with.  We do not know their military capabilities, their readyness to use a nuclear weapon, and the reaction of nearby countries (most importantly China).

I also do not see any justification to invade India or Pakistan, sure they have nuclear weapons, but we can only hope to discourage them from using these via diplomatic channels, not military ones.  Finally, a situation like Zimbabwe shows that the United States cannot be everywhere at once, but it does seem odd that the US is criticised for not intervening in a situation like this, but also because we believe we have the right to police the world.

I'll readily admit that the United States is not perfect, but then again show me a country that is.  Throughout my time here in England I have become more critical of the United States, but at the same time I have also gained additional pride in the USA as well, because to an extent I've begun to feel that some people's reasoning for the dislike of the US is flawed.  I am wondering how I will feel once I am back in the states, though, and if this increased pride will continue.

I don't doubt that the war on Iraq has alot of complex issues and there are things that we will never know however if you look at the bigger picture, Africa and other countries who are either victim of mass human rights abuses or building up a arsenal of weapons the US seems to fall weak at the knees. Why not go into a country where people are starving or getting tortured or just killed because of corruption.

I dont doubt going into Iraq was right, perhaps not for the reasons given but my problem is what about all the other countries, Where thousands are dying and there are much bigger threats than Iraq, i can't see why Bush won't intervine and do his bit help these countries instead of trying to 'wage war on terror' which is pityfull compared to the thousands dying daily.

One this bais, i don't think its all that wrong to assume to the oil reserves taking a dive, Mr Bush has gone into a country given a very weak excuse and taken lots of lovely oil. Problem solved.

To cut a long story short Seth, if America really wanted to stop human rights abuses and help the world then they need to be prepared to do and not just go into oil rich countrys in the name of terrorism.

America is a great country, id rate it better than places like France, Spain with ease, whenever i have been there the people are both pleasent and friendly compared to the Spanish who i found to be incredibly rude, But do you not think that America's foreign policy needs a bit of a rethink.

Africa is:

1: A continent.
2: A Lynx deodorant fragrance
3: A song by Toto

It is not however, a country.

Also, I would like to know what criteria you rate America as being a better country than Spain or France?

Spain and France played a big part in the history of the USA.

Only my opinion, Nothing wrong with either France or Spain but i prefer the States, something about the place. Still everybody is different.

Whats your point about Spain/France playing a big part in US history ?

 

[Squirrel and G man]

Quote[/b] (footymad13 @ June 27 2005,13:16)]Whats your point about Spain/France playing a big part in US history ?

Just a bit of a history lesson, that's all.

 

[footymad13]

Quote[/b] (Squirrel and G man @ June 27 2005,12:18)]

Quote[/b] (footymad13 @ June 27 2005,13:16)]Whats your point about Spain/France playing a big part in US history ?

Just a bit of a history lesson, that's all.

Ta, noted.