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.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Its a shame Tony Blair didn't feel the same way.

A more important point to be drawn from that is that even when Britain was still reasonably more powerful and America less so, we still had to jump to their tune a lot of the time and work to keep American approval. It's got nothing to do with us necessarily liking them, it has to do with the fact that they have a vast, vast economy, combined with the fact that they are the only nation capable of defeating us with conventional military means.

Ultimately, Britain exists on America's sufferance. An unpalatable fact, but a fact nonetheless. Should America ever decide to absorb us directly, it would do so regardless of what we thought of the matter. When dealing with a power that much greater than you, it is important to keep them sweet, however short their memories may be, and however mercenary their motives.

 Ketara wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Its a shame Tony Blair didn't feel the same way.

A more important point to be drawn from that is that even when Britain was still reasonably powerful and America less so, we still had to jump to their tune a lot of the time and work to keep American approval. It's got nothing to do with us necessarily liking them, it has to do with the fact that they have a vast, vast economy, combined with the fact that they are the only nation capable of defeating us with conventional military means.

Ultimately, Britain exists on America's sufferance. An unpalatable fact, but a fact nonetheless. Should America ever decide to absorb us directly, it would do so regardless of what we thought of the matter. When dealing with a power that much greater than you, it is important to keep them sweet, however short their memories may be.

Someone better inform North Korea, Iran (well, most of the Middle East) and China.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Its a shame Tony Blair didn't feel the same way.

A more important point to be drawn from that is that even when Britain was still reasonably powerful and America less so, we still had to jump to their tune a lot of the time and work to keep American approval. It's got nothing to do with us necessarily liking them, it has to do with the fact that they have a vast, vast economy, combined with the fact that they are the only nation capable of defeating us with conventional military means.

Ultimately, Britain exists on America's sufferance. An unpalatable fact, but a fact nonetheless. Should America ever decide to absorb us directly, it would do so regardless of what we thought of the matter. When dealing with a power that much greater than you, it is important to keep them sweet, however short their memories may be.

Someone better inform North Korea, Iran (well, most of the Middle East) and China.

China is beyond America's conventional means. North Korea has an independent nuclear capacity (which we, ultimately, do not), and I think America has destroyed enough countries in the Middle East to show that it can do so easily enough.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

You don't seem to be aware just how sycophantic British foreign policy and past Prime Ministers were to the USA over the last decade and a half. British Prime Ministers have long been obsessed with the idea of the "Special Relationship" (its actually quite one-sided and not very "Special" at all).

'How little advantage is to be gained by making such efforts to conciliate American opinion. Whatever may have been done at enormous cost and sacrifice to keep up friendship is apparently swept away by the smallest little tiff or misunderstanding, and you have to start again and placate the Americans with another batch of substantial or even vital concessions....The great mass of the British Public do not wish to see England obseqious to the United States'.

~Winston Churchill, Cabinet Memorandum, 19th November 1928~

Its a shame Tony Blair didn't feel the same way.

Because all of our opinions should be based on century old political rhetoric from Winston Churchill

If we had, we wouldn't have followed you into the illegal and disastrous Iraq war. British involvement served little purpose beyond stoking Bliar's vanity and ego, allowing him to strut about on the world stage "standing side by side with America" and pretending to be a Statesman, and providing political cover to the USA even though our Military participation was not necessary.

 Ketara wrote:


China is beyond America's conventional means. North Korea has an independent nuclear capacity (which we, ultimately, do not), and I think America has destroyed enough countries in the Middle East to show that it can do so easily enough.

You surprise me Ketera. Please. Explain to me America's terrible plans to take over Britain.

 Ketara wrote:
When dealing with a power that much greater than you, it is important to keep them sweet, however short their memories may be, and however mercenary their motives.

Someone should tell Ukraine quick, before they start World War 3.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ketara wrote:


China is beyond America's conventional means. North Korea has an independent nuclear capacity (which we, ultimately, do not), and I think America has destroyed enough countries in the Middle East to show that it can do so easily enough.

You surprise me Ketera. Please. Explain to me America's terrible plans to take over Britain.

Thats a Straw Man.

Ketera said that America has the capability to do so (as anyone with half a brain cell can see). Ketara did NOT said that it has the motive and intention.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

If we had, we wouldn't have followed you into the illegal and disastrous Iraq war. British involvement served little purpose beyond stoking Bliar's vanity and ego, allowing him to strut about on the world stage "standing side by side with America" and pretending to be a Statesman, and providing political cover to the USA even though our Military participation was not necessary.

You get a bad hat every once in a while. Blair was a waste of space. Even Ed Miliband would be preferable, as he doesn't suffer from the same messiah complex.

But taking the long view, these things happen. America will dwindle in time. The trick is to still be here when it happens, and make sure that we're in a position to take advantage of whatever comes next. International relations is a game for the long haul. If you, your country, and a reasonable amount of prestige, wealth, and power remain to you, you're always ready for the next hand of cards.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ketara wrote:


China is beyond America's conventional means. North Korea has an independent nuclear capacity (which we, ultimately, do not), and I think America has destroyed enough countries in the Middle East to show that it can do so easily enough.

You surprise me Ketera. Please. Explain to me America's terrible plans to take over Britain.

Errr.....what?

Ketara wrote: Should America ever decide to absorb us directly, it would do so regardless of what we thought of the matter.

Emphasis on the word 'should' there.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
If we had, we wouldn't have followed you into the illegal and disastrous Iraq war. British involvement served little purpose beyond stoking Bliar's vanity and ego, allowing him to strut about on the world stage "standing side by side with America" and pretending to be a Statesman, and providing political cover to the USA even though our Military participation was not necessary.

Because the UK's only interest in all things is to stand side by side with America?

Also, I was hinting at Churchill's dimwitted political ideology (he's the British Woodrow Wilson, I thought you guys knew this?). He was a terrible politician. His memoirs are one of the greatest political comedies ever written!

 Ketara wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

If we had, we wouldn't have followed you into the illegal and disastrous Iraq war. British involvement served little purpose beyond stoking Bliar's vanity and ego, allowing him to strut about on the world stage "standing side by side with America" and pretending to be a Statesman, and providing political cover to the USA even though our Military participation was not necessary.

You get a bad hat every once in a while. Blair was a waste of space. Even Ed Miliband would be preferable, as he doesn't suffer from the same messiah complex.

True, Milliband suffers from an altogether different malady - the Spineless Worm Syndrome.

But taking the long view, these things happen. America will dwindle in time. The trick is to still be here when it happens, and make sure that we're in a position to take advantage of whatever comes next. International politics is a game for the long haul. If you, your country, and a reasonable amount of prestige, wealth, and power remain to you, you're always ready for the next hand of cards.

My money's on China.

 Ketara wrote:

Ketara wrote: Should America ever decide to absorb us directly, it would do so regardless of what we thought of the matter.

Emphasis on the word 'should' there.

And that has to do with Assange how? I think the UK has committed graver insults upon the United States than not doing everything it can to extradite Julian Assange to Sweden in the last 60 years

 LordofHats wrote:


Also, I was hinting at Churchill's dimwitted political ideology (he's the British Woodrow Wilson, I thought you guys knew this?). He was a terrible politician. His memoirs are one of the greatest political comedies ever written!

Have you read them? As someone who actually handles the stuff he physically wrote, I know all too well what a load of old cobblers the pseudo-intellectual revisionist view of Churchill is. It's almost as bad as the deified traditional view of him in its lack of flexibility.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:


And that has to do with Assange how? I think the UK has committed graver insults upon the United States than not doing everything it can to extradite Julian Assange to Sweden in the last 60 years

I was commenting on a post by Edithae, not the case directly. The conversation evolved from there.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
If we had, we wouldn't have followed you into the illegal and disastrous Iraq war. British involvement served little purpose beyond stoking Bliar's vanity and ego, allowing him to strut about on the world stage "standing side by side with America" and pretending to be a Statesman, and providing political cover to the USA even though our Military participation was not necessary.

Because the UK's only interest in all things is to stand side by side with America?

What does that even mean? Please speak in complete sentences.

I think our slavish devotion to American interests and policy over the last couple decades has caused irreparable damage to my country.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


I think our slavish devotion to American interests and policy over the last couple decades has caused irreparable damage to my country.

I'd disagree there's that much 'damage' to begin with. We have a huge economy, the most powerful fleet after America, and an excellent web of international relations. We have to play our hands more subtly than the Americans do these days, Pax Britannia being over and all, but we still do quite well for ourselves.

Blair was an aberration. A nasty one, who cost us some goodwill and money, but those scars are already fading.

 Ketara wrote:
Have you read them?

10/10 Would read again. One of the funniest things I've ever gotten my hands on. The way Churchill thought the world worked was so laughable I imagine he's sitting up in heaven waiting for George W. Bush to come up there and have a chat about how right they were all along.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I think our slavish devotion to American interests and policy over the last couple decades has caused irreparable damage to my country.

I see why you like Churchill so much

 Ketara wrote:
Blair was an aberration. A nasty one, who cost us some goodwill and money, but those scars are already fading.

And being replaced by new scars no doubt, by David "Heir to Blair" Cameron. And "Heir to Blair" was in his own words btw.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Have you read them?

10/10 Would read again. One of the funniest things I've ever gotten my hands on. The way Churchill thought the world worked was so laughable I imagine he's sitting up in heaven waiting for George W. Bush to come up there and have a chat about how right they were all along.

Which ones? The history of WW2? The World Crisis? His earlier historical work?

Churchill was a prolific author, who wrote many different ways for many different motives for many different audiences. You have to substantially read around him in any given field to begin to grasp the complexities. I'm not trying to be patronising here (apologies if I'm coming across that way), but the revisionist view of him that pervaded history up until a decade or two ago is not entirely accurate.

 LordofHats wrote:
I see why you like Churchill so much

On the contrary. I barely know anything about the man or his policies. I certainly don't buy into the traditional hero worship of him, and I think it was a mistake to enter WW2 ...or at least, a mistake to enter so soon in 1939. Much better to let Hitler bleed his armies in Russia, whilst we built up our own strength.

Please stop using Straw Men. Its rude.

 Ketara wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:


And that has to do with Assange how? I think the UK has committed graver insults upon the United States than not doing everything it can to extradite Julian Assange to Sweden in the last 60 years

I was commenting on a post by Edithae, not the case directly.

Okay then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

Which ones? The history of WW2? The World Crisis]? His earlier historical work?

That one (and a little bit of the History of the English Speaking Peoples).

but the revisionist view of him that pervaded history up until a decade or two ago is not entirely accurate.

I'm not involved enough in study of Churchill to go into that, but I have read some of his works and the only impression I've ever been able to draw is that of a man who was clever enough to survive internal British politics to become Prime Minister, but who utterly failed at understanding international politics in his time (hence the British Woodrow Wilson )

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Please stop using Straw Men. Its rude.

Have you read your posts?

a mistake to enter so soon in 1939. Much better to let Hitler bleed his armies in Russia, whilst we built up our own strength.

Because politicians can always see into the future and predict the outcome of events before they happen.

 LordofHats wrote:


That one (and a little bit of the History of the English Speaking Peoples).

I'm not involved enough in study of Churchill to go into that, but I have read some of his works and the only impression I've ever been able to draw is that of a man who was clever enough to survive internal British politics to become Prime Minister, but who utterly failed at understanding international politics in his time (hence the British Woodrow Wilson )

I'll illustrate a little then.

After WW2, he was more or less deified for a few decades. This was partially perpetrated by his clever distortion of history (his history books are often heavily modified to conceal certain truths, the draft versions are much more illuminating), his fame from the war, and the classification of certain sources. Everything for the following twenty years was written to revolve around him, with Lloyd George and the rest just playing the support cast to his Luke Skywalker.

After his political influence waned, archives were declassified, and more people had time to work on it, you had a lot of people jumping on to contradict the initial work about him. He was slated as being militarily inept, politically inept, and just generally a manipulative over-exaggerated idiot. But with the rush to contradict earlier work and make a name for themselves, a lot of the revisionist works had a nasty habit of selectively picking sources to show him in as bad a light as possible, and often dragging things far out of context. So for example, they would take a statement that Churchill had clearly not meant, had written ten other letters at the time saying the complete opposite with him making a direct statement that the first letter was hogwash, and use that first letter as proof as to how he supported something or did not support something.

This was then followed by a flurry of books written by neo-pseudo-historians for popular consumption in which they judged him by 21st century motives, and spent all their time taking digs at him for being a racist and suchlike. The goal basically being to make him look like a gak.

It's only now, with books like the recent Christopher Bell's, 'Churchill and Sea Power', we're beginning to get a bit balance in the field. As someone who does read Churchill's stuff, all I can say is that you should always be wary of anything the man writes. He often wrote to deceive, i.e. to rally support for a political agenda he had no interest in in exchange for favours in another field, to illuminate a cause of his own, to destroy the cause of another that he had no real problem with (it just belonged to a political opponent), to exonerate those who did badly in war that he liked on a personal basis, and so forth.

The problem is, he'd also often write because he was frankly just fethed off at something, and have a rant. And other times, he would be completely truthful. The skill is to separate all these things. And then once you've done that, to put them in context, on a stage where Churchill isn't the main character, and other people's agendas and motives interweave with his own.

I read his personal correspondence a lot because Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty in my particular field of study, so I get to see a lot more of his businesslike, day to day comments from the time. All I can say is that he was an extremely complex man, and to just write him off would be a mistake on your part.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Please stop using Straw Men. Its rude.

Have you read your posts?

I think he's complaining about people copying him.

 Breotan wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Please stop using Straw Men. Its rude.

Have you read your posts?

I think he's complaining about people copying him.

Then I shall apologize for jacking his style

just write him off would be a mistake on your part.

I don't write him off as an idiot so much as I write him up as a man who was so certain of his correctness he embodied the phrase "I've got an opinion and the facts can go get fethed" such that he'd literally look facts in the eye and tell them to get out of the way because they were inconvenient. No I don't think he's a simple figure, but for the very reason's you've outlined, Churchill is a myriad of opinions and statements that didn't care for the realities of the world so much as they cared for the personal interests of Winston Churchill.

 Steve steveson wrote:
It's a bit rich him saying he has been denied justice when the only problem is he expects special treatment.

Well, sort of. Following his trial a lot of people pointed out that it's pretty crazy that under European law you can be extradited without a charge or an arrest - you can be extradited simply because investigators want to talk to you. In fact, it was crazy enough that the law was changed after the Assange case. But the weird thing is that despite changing the law because of his case, courts are denying Assange the right to appeal his extradition under the new law. So in that sense all he wants is the same extradition rules that would apply to anyone else.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't have much time for Assange and think his best course of action would be to travel to Sweden, speak to the authorities and contest whatever charge they decide. Nor do I think there is any kind of plan to have him extradited from Sweden to the US... for no other reason than if that's what the US wanted, they would have had a much easier time extraditing him from the UK. Also, Assange is really annoying and his approach to wikileaks was a long way from what sensible whistleblowing ought to be. But on the matter of extradition, well there he actually has a point in asking that the law that will apply to anyone else should also apply to him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Well they didn't call Britain "America's Poodle" for no reason...

Yeah, so the plot to get Assange to leave 'America's poodle' and go to some other country in Europe in order to extradite him to the US starts sounding pretty goofy.

.... sorta hoped he was going to be in "Celebrity Big Brother", show might actually have been worth acknowledging .


Almost.

 Ketara wrote:
Ultimately, Britain exists on America's sufferance. An unpalatable fact, but a fact nonetheless. Should America ever decide to absorb us directly, it would do so regardless of what we thought of the matter. When dealing with a power that much greater than you, it is important to keep them sweet, however short their memories may be, and however mercenary their motives.

You can swim across the Channel and beg for some help from a real nuclear power. You're still part of Europe, and we will protect our british friends against any agressor, just like we protected our ukr... err... never mind.

Anyway, Great Britain seems have some nuking abilities. That should make you pretty independant, right?

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

I'm quite surprised, there isn't any chapter about english cuisine.

This still going on?

I don't mean to downplay "rape", but the way I see it, it's

1: an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a person by force
2: unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent — compare sexual assault, statutory rape
3: an outrageous violation;

In his particular case, he had sex with two different ladies (one of whom even attended his privately held party the next day), then after a couple of days they both call "rape". It was considered null, but after a month another prosecutor reopened it, that I know of, without any new elements.
Also, if memory serves me, it was considered "rape" because they both found out his condoms, on both occasions, were torn mid-act.

Did I miss something? Genuinely curious here, I feel sympathy for the guy simply because the charges against him were nothing like Roman Polanski's, but had his assets frozen, seems a bit off to get a red alert flag from interpol because he was a rape suspect. After all this, it doesn't seem excessive?

Litcheur wrote:

Anyway, Great Britain seems have some nuking abilities. That should make you pretty independant, right?

We have some nuclear capabilities (four submarines worth), but I'm not convinced we'd have the quantity necessary to completely level the States. Not only that, our nuclear missiles are built in the US. If relations with America cooled substantially, doubtless they'd be less than interested in renewing our supply. At that stage, we'd either have to start building them independently (at a fairly large financial cost) or give up our nuclear arsenal altogether.

Note that I specified conventional warfare as well. If it came down to mutual nuclear armageddon or life under Obama, I don't doubt we'd opt to carry on as part of the US.

 Ketara wrote:
North Korea has an independent nuclear capacity (which we, ultimately, do not)

I always wondering why we don't get paid for holding those Nukes if they're not independent which I had assumed. Apparently Germany gets paid to keep Nukes. We seem to have a bit of a raw deal.

This just in: Assange is critically ill.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2729081/"Assange-health-critical"-warns-Embassy.html

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
North Korea has an independent nuclear capacity (which we, ultimately, do not)

I always wondering why we don't get paid for holding those Nukes if they're not independent which I had assumed. Apparently Germany gets paid to keep Nukes. We seem to have a bit of a raw deal.

The nukes are independent in that they take orders from the Prime Minister instead of the President (whereas I believe the ones in Germany operate the other way around). The lack of complete independence is because as things stand, the only reason the Prime Minister has nukes to give orders to is because America allows us to buy them.

Having said that, we could operate an independent nuclear capacity, if we were willing to inject the necessary capital and build the storage/manufacturing facilities. We have the missile/atomic technology, whereas I'm not convinced the Germans currently do (though having said that, they could doubtless develop it in fast order). But it would probably take half a decade, and whilst our rapprochement with America continues, it benefits us to maintain a state of dependence upon the US for our nuclear arms.

First rate medical care in Sweden