For a start, mietla, I keep mistaking you for miko2d. I don't know why, but it keeps happening. Sorry.
Mietla, you're right, we've had a similar discussion before (superficially similar mind you). I've also said that there is no way on Earth Britain could have got enough troops supplied, deployed and ready to halt the German invasion of Poland. We couldn't even stop them in France. That is a fact.
You now seem to be suggesting that Britain should have gone to war with the USSR in attempt to keep Poland free. Towards the end of the war, it became clear who the new enemy was - Stalin. The race was on to claim as much land as possible for the West, before communism over-ran everything. There was also a need to reach an agreement so that the Allies could re-group and have a bit of a breather - 6 years of total war had taken it out of Britain, by the way (it has never really recovered in terms of economy and military capability). It was clear Stalin was pretty much immovable on the subject of territory - how could Britain have taken back Poland or pushed back the USSR back to the borders of Russia at the negotiation table when you were dealing with Stalin?
Also remember that Britain and the US contemplated nuking Russia to win back Eastern Europe, but by that time Stalin had developed atomics for himself.
...died for your country in BoB.
They weren't just fighting for Britain - they were fighting for 'freedom' and for the people back home who had been put into forced labour camps, or worse.
"Benefits me? --- good, does not benefit me? --- bad." And you seem to evaluate your position daily.
Well thanks for telling me what I think, I appreciate it. But isn't that what Bush thinks? Benefit America - good (NMD). Doesn't benefit America - bad (Kosovo). I'm not being cynical when I say that self-interest if the underlying principal in all foreign policy.
Toad:
Of course the Middle East situation is all Britain's fault. Perhaps you could do the world a favour and nuke Britain - nothing good has ever come out of this country, except the American people, who are above all blame and have never, ever done anything questionable, abhorrant or 'evil'. Above all (literally), it's an irrefutable fact that no American government has ever made a mistake. Vietnam was a victory. God would never allow an error to be made by His country. The world's problems are all the fault of those god-damned Europeans. Let's buy up all their manufacturing industries and then lay all the workers off - that'll show them who's king of this castle. Keep that flag flying higher than the rest, boys, they might forget that we are superior.
Not serious, not that cold hearted.
Glad to hear it. But I think America would have enemies even if it was in splendid isolation; you would have to ban all American financial influence from anywhere outside the States to trully escape from the world.
That means you're vulnerable today without the "missile umbrella". How could you be more vulnerable with it?
The missile umbrella doesn't cover us, for a start. It only covers the States.
Finally let me reiterate that in the event of an attack on the US you are obligated by the treaty your government signed to become involved in the conflict, immediately. That goes for conventional as well as non conventional situations. All those who would think of an attack on the US know this. That means they know they would have to be prepared to deal with the Brits in that conflict as well.
Firstly, I really doubt that the UK government would respond with nuclear weapons if America was attacked on a limited scale (i.e. not a MAD type scenario). For instance, if Iraq somehow managed to get a nuclear bomb to detonate within a US city (either by ICBM or 'suitcase'). Conventional warfare would be used.
Secondly, we are already a target - of course I know that. But why add another reason to the list of why the UK should be obliterated? The way Bush seems to want it, US forces should be withdrawn from Europe ('wiping their own asses' as some great intellectual observed in this thread), yet Britain would still form a cornerstone of NMD (which doesn't cover the UK). It doesn't seem realistic to me.
BTW, I can't wait until we have a European superstate with the financial and military might of the States. I reckon we'll have it within 50 years. The world will be a much safer place with two democratic super-powers.
"unsinkable aircraft carrier".
I hate that phrase, BTW, it's so patronising. What good is an 'aircraft carrier' that is too radioactive to live on?
He, he... we tried that once already in 1939.
And wasn't war declared, despite the fact Hitler would have gladly have left Britain alone, if we had wanted it? We could have sued for peace after Dunkirk. But we didn't.
