Is the UK our enemy?

It makes me proud of my Irish roots to see that a jury refused to convict some peace activists for damaging a weapon of war.

This is the about the only worthwhile piece of new information I've seen in this whole stupid, misbegotten thread. There have been some voices of reason, but they've been reacting to some truly breathtaking displays of ignorance and intolerance.

Tony Blair is Bush's poodle and is a pathetic waste of space. The threat of Islamic terrorism in the UK is, firstly, fostered by our own security forces and secondly, due to our involvement in an illegal war in Iraq. WE SHOULDN'T BE THERE. For TB to deny that the SUBSEQUENT rise in Islamic extremism here is nothing to do with this war is a simple, flat-out lie.

Is the UK an enemy of the US? It would be more correct to ask, is the US the enemy of... well... everybody else? And that would pretty much be a "yes". The US is so hungry for resources, so stuffed with its own propaganda, and so drunk on its own military might, that it is utterly blind to the REASONS that people across the world dislike its government; and they prefer not to look at these reasons clearly, but to dismiss them as "anti-American bias".

Originally posted by Flyer

If they invaded Portsmouth, they could do several million pounds worth of improvements from their bombing.

Anyway, I think were pretty from invasion from anyone.

Haha, I'll keep stum about Portsmouth, as I am from Reading and "we not get on so well"... Thats if your a football fan, anyway

About the invasion, I think the last time was 1066. And even then, Harold and his Royal Army were up north fighting of a Viking invasion! Didn't do too badly, all things considered

You could count, I suppose, Willaim of Oranges "invasion" in the 1600's, but it wasn't really and invasion, more of a force of mercenaries to fight out who would be King. Nothing else changed much in the grand scheme of things.

I'm not too sure on my own stance towards being biased to the US or the EU. I think on the whole we have far more in common with the US, yet I don't see the US as being a real ally to the British. Where were they when the Falkland islands were invaded? Oh that's right they say there and predicted Britain would lose!

The EU? Call me old fashioned but older hatreds still remain, I mean how many British love the French? I for one do not, and in the same respect I do and will carry on buying non-French goods. I think many French may resent Germans and so on.

I like the French, I really do. I like the fact that their little towns have a real sense of civic pride: they're kept scrupulously clean and tidy - traveling from France into Italy is quite a contrast, as is (eurrgghhh) driving off the ferry at Newhaven. But the best thing about them is that they're so bolshy. We don't want English meat? Set fire to their trucks. Don't like these new labour laws that everyone else in the world is just rolling over to accept? Let's have a riot! The UK needs some of that spirit, frankly, and so does the US.

One of my favourite stories is how the inhabitants of a small village protested the arrival of MacDonalds by, overnight, dismantling the entire restauant and leaving the pieces in a pile in front of the town hall.

As for the Falklands... hm... one US client state invades territorial possession of another... what are they to do? I did hear they supplied us with satellite intelligence but no more than that. And God knows I hated Thatcher, but one of the few good things she did was to browbeat Mitterand into getting the French company that built Exocets to give us the codes to neutralise them.

Which reminds me... those posters earlier in the thread who were talking about the UK's "independent" nuclear deterrent need to know a couple of things.

Firstly, we can't launch ANYTHING without US permission. They've seen to that by withholding launch codes.

Secondly, the US has nukes pointed at us. If there's any US base that has technologically advanced equipment (like Pine Gap in Australia or Menwith Hill in the UK) then there are contingency plans to nuke the site in the event it should fall into unfriendly hands.

Originally posted by rich23
Firstly, we can't launch ANYTHING without US permission. They've seen to that by withholding launch codes.

They cant withold the launch codes of our nuclear deterance or we would not have bought them, secondly we already have a second shorter range option.

The tornado A2G plane has nuclear strike capability, we have several squadrons within range to strike at many european US bases. The american public does not take kindly to having a large chunk of its army being wiped out.

Secondly, the US has nukes pointed at us. If there's any US base that has technologically advanced equipment (like Pine Gap in Australia or Menwith Hill in the UK) then there are contingency plans to nuke the site in the event it should fall into unfriendly hands.

Umm nuclear strike is a little OTT for taking out advanced kit, mabye using cemtex and stuff but not a nuke.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by rich23
Firstly, we can't launch ANYTHING without US permission. They've seen to that by withholding launch codes.

They cant withold the launch codes of our nuclear deterance or we would not have bought them, secondly we already have a second shorter range option.

The tornado A2G plane has nuclear strike capability, we have several squadrons within range to strike at many european US bases. The american public does not take kindly to having a large chunk of its army being wiped out.

Secondly, the US has nukes pointed at us. If there's any US base that has technologically advanced equipment (like Pine Gap in Australia or Menwith Hill in the UK) then there are contingency plans to nuke the site in the event it should fall into unfriendly hands.

Umm nuclear strike is a little OTT for taking out advanced kit, mabye using cemtex and stuff but not a nuke.

Inorrect I'm afraid we only have Trident nukes - all other nukes were dismantled and destroyed in '98.

nuclearweaponarchive.org...

Contingency plans for nuking Menwith Hill (and large parts of Yorkshire at the same time)

Do you have a source for that ????

I could imagine it, if the US, did try to invade the UK.....

I'd get very,very,very upset if someone disturbed my porridge for breakfast....

So I'd throw all the kids out to play with the American Soldiers, cos we all our kids could beat them hands down.

Man, if the US think invading Iraq is tough, maybe we should let them come over and train in say, The Gorbals or Possilpark in Glasgow with a weekend camp in Shankhill Road,Belfast... I reckon they'd want to get back to Iraq ASAP for the peace and quite!

Originally posted by Pictnation
I could imagine it, if the US, did try to invade the UK.....

I'd get very,very,very upset if someone disturbed my porridge for breakfast....

So I'd throw all the kids out to play with the American Soldiers, cos we all our kids could beat them hands down.

Man, if the US think invading Iraq is tough, maybe we should let them come over and train in say, The Gorbals or Possilpark in Glasgow with a weekend camp in Shankhill Road,Belfast... I reckon they'd want to get back to Iraq ASAP for the peace and quite!

Well I guess their 'friendly' fire incidents would actually be correct this time!

Sorry I know it's in very bad taste but I couldn't resist! In all seriousness I think the UK has the best policy as being an ally. The US doesn't seem to care unless its best interests are involved.

As far as the "nukes pointed at Menwith" thing goes, I have no source on the Internet. My informant was a former colleague who, during his time in the Aussie Army, went to work for their Intel branch around the time of Gulf War I. Even back then the US military was regarded as trigger-happy - he told me about a joint military exercise where the US pilot was getting really pissed off with an Aussie fire controller who wouldn't let him attack a target (correctly as it turned out) because it didn't conform to all the identification criteria.

Anyway, he told me about the nukes pointed at Pine Gap - which was the one that concerned him - and a host of other targets, and I believe him. Whether you believe me or not is up to you.

I'm not too sure on my own stance towards being biased to the US or the EU. I think on the whole we have far more in common with the US, yet I don't see the US as being a real ally to the British. Where were they when the Falkland islands were invaded? Oh that's right they say there and predicted Britain would lose!

Erms tell me if I am wrong, But I thought the US, helped the UK out during the Falklands war with supplying them with equipement such as the Sidewinder for the Harriers??

If I am wrong then oks.

Erms tell me if I am wrong, But I thought the US, helped the UK out during the Falklands war with supplying them with equipement such as the Sidewinder for the Harriers??

If I am wrong then oks.

this may or may not help

jcgi.pathfinder.com...

"By no means did London get everything it wanted. Lacking an effective airborne early-warning system to protect its naval task force from surprise air attacks, the British asked to borrow an undisclosed number of U.S. AWACS. Washington refused on the grounds that American servicemen, who would be necessary to man the aircraft, should not become involved in the conflict."

Should a strong Ally be refusing something like this ?
Sounds a bit harsh.

Originally posted by NeoSocialist
"By no means did London get everything it wanted. Lacking an effective airborne early-warning system to protect its naval task force from surprise air attacks, the British asked to borrow an undisclosed number of U.S. AWACS. Washington refused on the grounds that American servicemen, who would be necessary to man the aircraft, should not become involved in the conflict."

Should a strong Ally be refusing something like this ?
Sounds a bit harsh.

We refused them British Service personnel (officially, anyway) in Vietnam. No doubt we did whatever else we could to help, but we weren't going to put our guys in harms way for another countries expedition.

I wouldn't expect the US to have helped unless the Argies were actually threatening the mainland UK, which would be different.

I wouldn't expect the US to have helped unless the Argies were actually threatening the mainland UK, which would be different.

If they had threatened the Mainland of the UK, We wouldnt have needed help, Argentina would not be the country it is nowadays, If they even had thought of attacking the UK. Suicidal for them more than us.

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone

I wouldn't expect the US to have helped unless the Argies were actually threatening the mainland UK, which would be different.

If they had threatened the Mainland of the UK, We wouldnt have needed help, Argentina would not be the country it is nowadays, If they even had thought of attacking the UK. Suicidal for them more than us.

That is a given, seeing as the NATO treaty would (should?) have kicked in... Although, in theory, it could be argued NATO should have come to our help over the Falklands, it is after all British Soveriegn Territory.

Um, the US did aid Britian in the Falklands. We provided quite a bit of intelligence, and other indirect forms of aid.

answers.google.com...

At the time, America was still wounded from the Vietnam war, and we also had troops in lebanon, which was very unpopular.

The French were supplying missiles to the Argentinians.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Um, the US did aid Britian in the Falklands. We provided quite a bit of intelligence, and other indirect forms of aid.

Yes, we know. That was covered about a page ago, if not on this page. For that, we are grateful

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
At the time, America was still wounded from the Vietnam war, and we also had troops in lebanon, which was very unpopular.

The French were supplying missiles to the Argentinians.

Indeed. Not that we needed the help (in terms of troop deployments), but NATO was setup on the premise of "If one member nation is attacked, this will be treated as an attack on all".

That is clearly not the case, as the only help we got was off the US. The French, well, enough said really. As for the Germans? The Dutch? The Spanish? No sight of them, yet all NATO members. Not even a sniff of a telling off from them, to be honest.

Argentina invaded the territory of a NATO member and the only people to offer any help were the Americans.

I do understand that help wasn;t provided for a variety of reasons.

Own national interests for one.

Not wanting to start WW3 was probably high on the list, as no doubt the Soviets could have played it up somewhat if NATO went to town on Argentina.

Britain not requesting any help (at least publicly) probably gave the impression we needed none. We got what we needed behind closed doors and did the rest ourselves.

My point being, though, that NATO did not behave the way NATO should have. That is my complaint.

That said, we kicked arse with a ragtag fleet (The RN was woefully inadequate for the job) and a hastily assembled Task Force, so in the end, no massive help was needed and as stated above, none was really asked for.

Don't worry, I'm not trying to pin any blame on any country, just curious as to how NATO did nothing when the UK was attacked. It might be a collection of islands in the SA, but it is still part of the UK none the less.

[edit on 5/9/06 by stumason]

The US appeared to have supplied intelligence and aviation fuel to Britain, other than that other equipment was bought and not given according to several reports. The US didnt offer the use of their aircraft carrier, this I believe was said in jest.

The French did supply missles. BUT, they also gave the British many de-arming codes of somekind to stop many being fired. They also gave Britain many of the French made aircraft to practice with. France helped the Argentinians fit missles they had bought before the conflict as French teams were already in Argentina.

Primary US help to UK was intelligence; SIGINT and from satellites (particularly on Arg Navy movements), fuel from USN stock at Ascension, tankers replacing RAF ones deployed to support the Op and on the Sidewinders.

The Sidewinders were stored under NATO 'in case of war' status and actually owned by NATO. The US allowed the UK to 'borrow' these and re-started the production line to allow the NATO stock to be replenished with UK-bought missiles. This was completely against NATO rules and the secret was kept from other NATO members.

An US aircraft carrier was offered but rejected on political grounds, reasons of practicality (UK crewed?) and the realisation that Hermes could be reactivated in time for the Op.

Sorry only have book sources for this

Firstly, we can't launch ANYTHING without US permission. They've seen to that by withholding launch codes

This I dont get, someone explain tome oks

Why does the UK need permission form the USA before it fires any Nukes?

Done we need our own parliament to say yes without consulting or asking the BIG USA for permission??