Jump to content

Beginning of the end!.


algy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just a thought on this result of democracy - re anti royalists.  The presidents of  USA and France say action will be sanctioned.  Wonder if PRESIDENT Cameron would have joined them/

Haven't got a clue what this has to do with 'anti royalists' but just to balance the statement the Presidents of Germany and Russia say action will not be sanctioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting how, in this current wave of unrest along the North African coast & into Egypt & Syria, the USA has been happy to sit back & let NATO partners take the lead. It seems they now have a new pet poodle to do their bidding. The gung ho style of the US led assaults on Iraq & Afghanistan is not evident & it remains to be seen how much will America has to see this through to an acceptable conclusion.

 

Could America's public opinion be weighing heavily on American foreign policy ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As in the UK, US public opinion is more concerned with the current invasion of their own Country; and their domestic social, economic and environmental wellbeing, rather than playing the global bully.  The hypocrisy of the West is nauseating, they use the excuse of "chemical weapons", whilst holding their own stockpiles of chemical and biological agents, plus an armoury of nuclear weapons, all created for mass killing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 The hypocrisy of the West is nauseating, they use the excuse of "chemical weapons", whilst holding their own stockpiles of chemical and biological agents, plus an armoury of nuclear weapons, all created for mass killing.

Saddam Hussein used sarin and mustard gas against Iran and the US did nothing, because they didn't want Iran to win. Thatchers government sold chemical weapons to Iraq. The US dropped thousands of tons of Agent Orange ( a chemical herbicide ) on Vietnam. You are right Obs the hypocrisy of the West is nauseating.

 

I wonder what they would do if they found out that the North Korean government had used it on their civilians.

 

PS. The Yanks deserve France as an ally

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US are going to find dealing with the French a great deal more difficult than dealing with the UK, the first problem they have is though most of the people in power in the French government and the military can speak English they are reluctant to communicate in any language other than their native tongue, if at all possible they are more arrogant than us Brits. I can't see this being a very 'happy marriage'!.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The French are actually the USA's oldest Ally; they bankrupted themselves by funding the American Revolutionaries and supplying a fleet, which allowed the final defeat of Gen Cornwallis. I don't think the Yanks paid the money back to the French? So they went bankrupt and had a little revolution of their own! But talking of "Allies" and the "special relationship"; in WW1 the Yanks refused to be officially classed  as "allies" of the British, and between the wars actually had prepared plans for the invasion of Canada. So as Kisinger said " We don't have friends, we have interests"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Limited to what? Number of cruise missiles used or number of people killed?

Your guess is as good as mine, you know how trigger happy they are, they may even take off from the UK as they did against Libya the first time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Yanks won't sever relations with us as we are the most westerly and largest 'anchored aircraft carrier' and missile base of europe as Jean intimated.

Just to clarify a point The term United States of America did not exist at the time when the French were assiting the country of America. When the 13 British colonies revolted against British rule in 1776, the Declaration of Independence made one of the first references to the "United States of America." However, the capitalization used on the header of that document is: "united States of America," implying that "united" was not yet part of the name of a country, but a mere descriptor for the way in which the 13 colonies or states were related to each other and it wasn't until during the course of the American Revolution, the name "United States of America" came to refer to the 13 colonies collectively and then, under the Articles of Confederation (1781) and under the current federal constitution (as of 1787), to them as a unified federal republic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's probably realising what a mistake he made in daring Assad to cross his red line, not taking into account that Assad is as mad as  a bucket of frogs, and is looking for an excuse to "strategically" withdraw without too much loss of face (Congress wouldn't let me do it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's probably realising what a mistake he made in daring Assad to cross his red line, not taking into account that Assad is as mad as  a bucket of frogs, and is looking for an excuse to "strategically" withdraw without too much loss of face (Congress wouldn't let me do it).

The reason Obama is doing the Congress bit is because he has to, a while back they added an amendment to the Constitution that says in short that the President no longer has the power to declare war without a bill passed by Congress, and they don't meet till sometime in September.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...