Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Albatross wrote:You brought up the fact that Cameron is public school educated. Me? I don't give a gak, as long as his government tackles the legacy of Labour profligacy.

You shouldn't care either, as it has no detrimental effect on his ability to discharge his duties as prime minister. I just find it odd that people like you keep bringing it up. If you're telling me you're not a small-minded bigot, then fair enough. Misunderstanding on my part.

Also, to my mind, whilst making a factual error when discussing our national obsession (WWII) is a little foolish, it's not in the same league as sending young British men to die in an illegal war based on fabricated evidence. Something to think on.

Its not the tackling of profligacy that is a problem, IMO. It never was. Labour were Clown-shoes who created legions of non-jobs and wasted money on toss for years, whilst selling us to Europe a piece at a time. The problem is how they go about tackling that. Where I stand, I see a lot of scapegoating and cutting going on, and not a lot of it where Labour were actually wasting cash. Local authorities are still plagued with non-jobs, and the feckless spankers who nearly demolished the economy are still getting bonuses for failure, whilst Cameron et al are busy doing things they were not mandated to do whilst hiding behind the LibDem meat-shields. I can admire and agree with their desire to return to weekly bin collections, but that doesn't mean I won't curse their short-sighted policy on Libraries. Frankly I couldn't care less if Dave is part of the Yah-Blah Brotherhood, if he wasn't busy supporting policies that kill innocent people. Strikes me that people are far too quick to pigeonhole people when it comes to politics. "Oh he must be a liberal/socialist/class warrior, he doesn't like Tories." Hmm if only life were that clear cut.

I was under the impression the comparison was broadly between a faux pas on the part of the current American President and a cock-up on the part of our glorious Leader, not Cameron being ignorant compared to Blair being a war criminal. Surely if we were going to do that comparison, we would compare Blair and Bush lying to start wars? That would make more sense.

Thinking on it, give the Dave New World time. He's started his own war already. Remains to be seen whether it costs us a blood price.

halonachos wrote:We were busy sending pilots to China in secret, keeping secrets takes a lot out of us especially when our allies were spying on us at the same time.

Are you referring to the Flying Tigers who went into operation towards the end of the following year?

For the record I believe this is the third Prime Minister in a row to make this 'mistake' regarding the Battle of Britain.

George Spiggott wrote:

halonachos wrote:We were busy sending pilots to China in secret, keeping secrets takes a lot out of us especially when our allies were spying on us at the same time.

Are you referring to the Flying Tigers who went into operation towards the end of the following year?

For the record I believe this is the third Prime Minister in a row to make this 'mistake' regarding the Battle of Britain.

You ever wonder if there is some other Battle of Britain that we weren't told about? Maybe they teach about a different Battle of Britain at Oxbridge? Or maybe its like the TV guide. If you buy TV Quick you get Jeremy Kyle and Corrie. If you buy Radio Times you get a much better quality of TV..Midsomer Murders and Doctors.

I think the Queen should just stage a coup and take direct control over the government again, put a stop to all this Prime Minister nonsense. Absolute Monarchy ladies and gents! Bring some law & order!

God Save the Queen!

Manstein wrote:I think the Queen should just stage a coup and take direct control over the government again, put a stop to all this Prime Minister nonsense. Absolute Monarchy ladies and gents! Bring some law & order!

God Save the Queen!

That would be fun to watch. I'll get the popcorn.

Frazzled wrote:

Manstein wrote:I think the Queen should just stage a coup and take direct control over the government again, put a stop to all this Prime Minister nonsense. Absolute Monarchy ladies and gents! Bring some law & order!

God Save the Queen!

That would be fun to watch. I'll get the popcorn.

Ermm... no. What we have maybe broken but it works and has worked for at lest 400 years (in one form or another). We over here don't want another Cromwell thank you.

I think Obama needs to read Front Magazine, then maybe he'll like the UK more.

Ribon Fox wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Manstein wrote:I think the Queen should just stage a coup and take direct control over the government again, put a stop to all this Prime Minister nonsense. Absolute Monarchy ladies and gents! Bring some law & order!

God Save the Queen!

That would be fun to watch. I'll get the popcorn.

Ermm... no. What we have maybe broken but it works and has worked for at lest 400 years (in one form or another). We over here don't want another Cromwell thank you.

Cromwell? Who said anything about bloody Protectorate nonsense, man decapitated ol' Stuart I and was no friend of the beloved Monarchy... although did kind of act like a monarch.

At any rate, I am advocating pure, unfiltered, and totally reasonable rule by a single person, Absolute Monarchy. The Queen just needs to order the Royal Guards, along with a group of combat eager Scottsman, to seize Parliament, declare it all a big rump, and just throw the whole lot of poor sods into the Tower, heck, make um eat some bloody haggish while you are at it.

GB will still be a democracy of sorts, unfortunately, only the Queen gets to vote.

When its all said and done, she can invite the Hohenzollerns, Wittelsbachs, and Hapsburgs over for tea so they might plan to return Europe to the only true, divinely mandated, form of reasonable and acceptable rule. To think the masses could rule... "Albert! More tea will you, I have an Empire to reconquer, Victoria style."

First, I don’t think the UK should worry about kissing up to anymore and I think whenever the PM seems to be pandering to a foreign power or some random dignitary, they do their Queen and Country a great disservice, regardless of party.

When I look around the world and think to myself, if the s*** really hits the fan, who will stand with us? 10 times out of 10 times the answer is going to be the UK. Despite some of the self serving platitudes and public gaffes by our respective leaders, I just don’t see our respective countries forsaking each other for the sake of anyone else. Would the US really abandon the UK for the sake of its relationship with any other country or vice versa? Honestly, who is a more natural ally for the US or the UK? I think that’s why the relationship between the US and the UK is “special”. It’s this sense of an inviolable alliance that permeates the relationship and thus supersedes the vagaries of politics and the oratory of the political party that may be in power at any given time.

Also, no matter how we may reflect on the past and honor our revolution, Great Britain will always be the mother country, and there should be no shame what so ever in admitting that. I mean I would much rather say we won our independence from what was considered the most powerful country on Earth, still in the process of ascending to the height of it's power than say we won our independence from an Imperial has-been or country in obvious decline.

Manstein wrote:

Ribon Fox wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Manstein wrote:I think the Queen should just stage a coup and take direct control over the government again, put a stop to all this Prime Minister nonsense. Absolute Monarchy ladies and gents! Bring some law & order!

God Save the Queen!

That would be fun to watch. I'll get the popcorn.

Ermm... no. What we have maybe broken but it works and has worked for at lest 400 years (in one form or another). We over here don't want another Cromwell thank you.

Cromwell? Who said anything about bloody Protectorate nonsense, man decapitated ol' Stuart I and was no friend of the beloved Monarchy... although did kind of act like a monarch.

At any rate, I am advocating pure, unfiltered, and totally reasonable rule by a single person, Absolute Monarchy. The Queen just needs to order the Royal Guards, along with a group of combat eager Scottsman, to seize Parliament, declare it all a big rump, and just throw the whole lot of poor sods into the Tower, heck, make um eat some bloody haggish while you are at it.

GB will still be a democracy of sorts, unfortunately, only the Queen gets to vote.

When its all said and done, she can invite the Hohenzollerns, Wittelsbachs, and Hapsburgs over for tea so they might plan to return Europe to the only true, divinely mandated, form of reasonable and acceptable rule. To think the masses could rule... "Albert! More tea will you, I have an Empire to reconquer, Victoria style."

Cromwell was fighting Charles I and he was most definitely not a monarch.
That said the armed forces to swear allegiance to the monarchy...

Lord of Deeds wrote:Would the US really abandon the UK for the sake of its relationship with any other country or vice versa?

I seem to recall a certain crisis over in the region of the Suez Canal. I also remember studying the general reluctance of American support in the Falklands.


The simple fact is, America's government does what is best for American interests, to the detriment of her allies, if necessary. They may have to think about it for a few minutes beforehand, but if you offered the American administration the chance to expand in power, wealth, and influence at the expense of the UK, they would do it undoubtedly. America puts America first.

Not that I find anything wrong with that in particular, states always strive to expand themselves. There's only so much wealth, power, and land to go around, its inevitably always going to be at the cost of someone else. I just find it amusing that people seem to think affectionate public sentiment towards Britain in America will ever stand in the way of America acting in her own interests and against ours, when history so clearly indicates the opposite. The funding of the IRA wasn't that long ago......

I think the UK and US would be much better friends, like I fully support we should be, if our president wasn't such an... a rude person to the British. I've heard rumors he started talking to propose a toast to the Queen while "God save the Queen" was playing, was this true? And if so, do you guys hate us as much as we'd hate your prime minister talking during the "Star Spangled Banner"?

In fairnesss most of this country already hates our Pime Minister simply because he's a Tory...

What is a Tory...?

A member of the conservative party...
Usually hated by Labour supporters and most of Britian due to Margaret Thatcher...

Is a British conservative comparable to the American version?

British conservative is pretty much centre of American politics if not slightly more left...
You guys are fairly right wing in comparison to our politics.

Azure wrote:What is a Tory...?

One third of the R&B group Tory! Tori! Toré!.

purplefood wrote:In fairnesss most of this country already hates our Pime Minister simply because he's a Tory...

Which is why he is in power because everyone hates him, Tories, and rich and powerful people...

Ketara wrote:
The simple fact is, America's government does what is best for American interests, to the detriment of her allies, if necessary.

America does what it's leaders believe is in the best interests of themselves, and maybe America as well, to the detriment of their allies, if necessary (Mubarak, Saudi Arabia), and sometimes even when it isn't (Sandinistas, Liberia). Same as every other body with agency.

Ketara wrote:
Not that I find anything wrong with that in particular, states always strive to expand themselves.

Well, not always. The Swiss are hardly chomping at the bit for more power, nor are the Vatican, South Korea, or Jamaica.

Ketara wrote:
I just find it amusing that people seem to think affectionate public sentiment towards Britain in America will ever stand in the way of America acting in her own interests and against ours, when history so clearly indicates the opposite. The funding of the IRA wasn't that long ago......

This is the internet age though. People like me get to call politicians idiots in front of a much larger audience these days.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord of Deeds wrote: Despite some of the self serving platitudes and public gaffes by our respective leaders, I just don’t see our respective countries forsaking each other for the sake of anyone else.

If I were put in charge of either country I would forsake my counterpart for China, India, Canada, Mexico, or Indonesia in seconds. Brazil too, but not for economic reasons, but bikini reasons.

Ketara wrote:

Lord of Deeds wrote:Would the US really abandon the UK for the sake of its relationship with any other country or vice versa?

I seem to recall a certain crisis over in the region of the Suez Canal. I also remember studying the general reluctance of American support in the Falklands.
.

To be fair we told you guys that you had to lose the foreign colonies after the war. It just took a bit longer then we would have liked.

youbedead wrote:To be fair we told you guys that you had to lose the foreign colonies after the war. It just took a bit longer then we would have liked.

To be fair we asked you guys to help us defend our and other countries during the war. It just took a bit longer and cost us significantly more then we would have liked.

SilverMK2 wrote:

youbedead wrote:To be fair we told you guys that you had to lose the foreign colonies after the war. It just took a bit longer then we would have liked.

To be fair we asked you guys to help us defend our and other countries during the war. It just took a bit longer and cost us significantly more then we would have liked.

Yeah, well we were busy doing...stuff. We showed up eventually. Still you were no where near as bad as the french though, they were the only ones to keep a colony in asia and look where that got us.

youbedead wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

youbedead wrote:To be fair we told you guys that you had to lose the foreign colonies after the war. It just took a bit longer then we would have liked.

To be fair we asked you guys to help us defend our and other countries during the war. It just took a bit longer and cost us significantly more then we would have liked.

Yeah, well we were busy doing...stuff. We showed up eventually. Still you were no where near as bad as the french though, they were the only ones to keep a colony in asia and look where that got us.

Well i think we can all agree that was a pretty s**t idea.

purplefood wrote:

youbedead wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

youbedead wrote:To be fair we told you guys that you had to lose the foreign colonies after the war. It just took a bit longer then we would have liked.

To be fair we asked you guys to help us defend our and other countries during the war. It just took a bit longer and cost us significantly more then we would have liked.

Yeah, well we were busy doing...stuff. We showed up eventually. Still you were no where near as bad as the french though, they were the only ones to keep a colony in asia and look where that got us.

Well i think we can all agree that was a pretty s**t idea.

Thats something we can all agree on, the french are stupid

Well they shouldn't have been there in the first place...

purplefood wrote:Well they shouldn't have been there in the first place...

To be honest the french have nothing on President Wilson as far as shortsightedness goes. After ww1 when he proposed his 14 points and self determination, a young Vietnamese man wanted to talk to him about allowing his country to determine their own rules and borders, Wilson refused to speak to him. His name was Ho Chi Min.

So... yeah, our bad

purplefood wrote:

Manstein wrote:

Ribon Fox wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Manstein wrote:I think the Queen should just stage a coup and take direct control over the government again, put a stop to all this Prime Minister nonsense. Absolute Monarchy ladies and gents! Bring some law & order!

God Save the Queen!

That would be fun to watch. I'll get the popcorn.

Ermm... no. What we have maybe broken but it works and has worked for at lest 400 years (in one form or another). We over here don't want another Cromwell thank you.

Cromwell? Who said anything about bloody Protectorate nonsense, man decapitated ol' Stuart I and was no friend of the beloved Monarchy... although did kind of act like a monarch.

At any rate, I am advocating pure, unfiltered, and totally reasonable rule by a single person, Absolute Monarchy. The Queen just needs to order the Royal Guards, along with a group of combat eager Scottsman, to seize Parliament, declare it all a big rump, and just throw the whole lot of poor sods into the Tower, heck, make um eat some bloody haggish while you are at it.

GB will still be a democracy of sorts, unfortunately, only the Queen gets to vote.

When its all said and done, she can invite the Hohenzollerns, Wittelsbachs, and Hapsburgs over for tea so they might plan to return Europe to the only true, divinely mandated, form of reasonable and acceptable rule. To think the masses could rule... "Albert! More tea will you, I have an Empire to reconquer, Victoria style."

Cromwell was fighting Charles I and he was most definitely not a monarch.
That said the armed forces to swear allegiance to the monarchy...

My apologies, he was Charles I of the House of Stuart, I recalled it a bit backwards.

As to Cromwell being a monarch, perhaps by British standards he didn't carry enough "bling" to be considered an official Monarch but his royal burial, styling of "His Highness, the Lord-Protector" (more than enough to damn a man for monarchial tendencies in the States), absolute power over the country, and the fact that his dictatorial office of Lord Protector was passed on to his son, smells a bit of monarchy by another name to me.

Then again, perhaps its all just my "yank" foolishness. Regardless, I think a return to something along the lines of dictatorship in England would make for great fun and giggles to observers.

I think a return to something along the lines of dictatorship in England would make for great fun and giggles to observers.

Really? Why the would you wish a dictator on anyone?

Blackskullandy wrote:Really? Why the would you wish a dictator on anyone?

Depends on the dictator.