How it Works0 min ago
Sucking up to the US
Do those statements by Milliband, the Foreign minister, make you want to throw up? Here we are involved in an illegal war with the Yanks and all he can say is we depend on them for intelligence and create a peaceful world. We know he worked with Blair but it has certainly rubbed off. It is not a case of being anti-American but just a case of reality. Forget about our needless slaughter of 150 UK soldiers and the many thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and the expansion of Al Qaeda globally.
Just to rub salt in the wounds he is about to expel 4 Russians from the UK. Does our friendship with Russia upset the USA and feels that this action will please them? We have kept Russian dissidents in the UK when Russia requested their extradition so why should we expect favourable treatment when asking for Lugovoi for trial. Britain will now be the loser as usual and you may thank Milleband or his advisors for this!
Just to rub salt in the wounds he is about to expel 4 Russians from the UK. Does our friendship with Russia upset the USA and feels that this action will please them? We have kept Russian dissidents in the UK when Russia requested their extradition so why should we expect favourable treatment when asking for Lugovoi for trial. Britain will now be the loser as usual and you may thank Milleband or his advisors for this!
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by kwicky. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Unfortunately we will always suck up to the Americans because we need them more than they need us.
Similarly, we need to be friendly with the Russians more than they need us, so it was very stupid to request the extradition of Lugovoi. The Russian authorities were never going to comply with that, because it was they that ordered the killing in the first place. We might exclude some diplomats, the Russians will retaliate by dismissing some British diplomats, and er, that will be that.
Similarly, we need to be friendly with the Russians more than they need us, so it was very stupid to request the extradition of Lugovoi. The Russian authorities were never going to comply with that, because it was they that ordered the killing in the first place. We might exclude some diplomats, the Russians will retaliate by dismissing some British diplomats, and er, that will be that.
JNO there are a number of reasons for being friendly with Russia:
1. geographically as we are both members of a wider European area.
2. Energy supplies. In future more than 50% of our gas will come from Russia.
3. Oil. BP-TNK has huge oil reserves in Russia and the fragile middle east make transportation from that region very difficult in future.
4. Russia is an expanding country and will require huge imports from the rest of Europe.
5. A missile shield suggested by Russia which will cover the whole of Europe. An American missile shield is basically to prevent missiles from a roque country reaching the USA as they would be the main targets and shooting them down over Europe would like WWII or the cold war keep any action well away from their shores.
1. geographically as we are both members of a wider European area.
2. Energy supplies. In future more than 50% of our gas will come from Russia.
3. Oil. BP-TNK has huge oil reserves in Russia and the fragile middle east make transportation from that region very difficult in future.
4. Russia is an expanding country and will require huge imports from the rest of Europe.
5. A missile shield suggested by Russia which will cover the whole of Europe. An American missile shield is basically to prevent missiles from a roque country reaching the USA as they would be the main targets and shooting them down over Europe would like WWII or the cold war keep any action well away from their shores.
I've not seen any evidence to suggest that our 'special relationship' with the USA is anything but one-sided.
Remember the invasion, sorry, liberation of Grenada back in 1983?
Reagan didn't even tell Thatcher!
That's the way it always seems to be.
We're America's b*tch.
Oh, and David Milliband looks like that bloke from The Catherine Tate Show.
Not relevant, but true.
Remember the invasion, sorry, liberation of Grenada back in 1983?
Reagan didn't even tell Thatcher!
That's the way it always seems to be.
We're America's b*tch.
Oh, and David Milliband looks like that bloke from The Catherine Tate Show.
Not relevant, but true.
A relationship with Russia may have strong economic incentives, but the country is incredibly unstable politically, which is a turn-off for any potential friends. And which is why Europe is (justifiably) concerned about the control the Russian Bear has over energy resources. If you dislike what the UK is involved with alongside the USA, just think about what we'd be involved with alongside the dubious Russian government.
Our relationship with the USA is also a strong economic one (despite what everyone keeps saying about China, the USA is still no. 1 and that isn't changing anytime soon) , but the US political system is also highly stable. It has a government which is directly accountable to it's people (as the Republicans have over Iraq in the Congressional elections last year), and a government which is constitutionally limited to protect citizens' rights.
We may have followed the USA into Iraq, but that's the fault of Mr. Blair. USA relationships aren't 'in vogue' at the moment due to Iraq, but the UK and USA have throughout the C20 been the firmest of friends (note that the three most significant or 'agenda-setting' premiers of the century - Churchill, Attlee and Thatcher were all pro-Atlanticist) .
Our relationship with the USA is also a strong economic one (despite what everyone keeps saying about China, the USA is still no. 1 and that isn't changing anytime soon) , but the US political system is also highly stable. It has a government which is directly accountable to it's people (as the Republicans have over Iraq in the Congressional elections last year), and a government which is constitutionally limited to protect citizens' rights.
We may have followed the USA into Iraq, but that's the fault of Mr. Blair. USA relationships aren't 'in vogue' at the moment due to Iraq, but the UK and USA have throughout the C20 been the firmest of friends (note that the three most significant or 'agenda-setting' premiers of the century - Churchill, Attlee and Thatcher were all pro-Atlanticist) .
actually, I think Russia's quite stable but not terribly democratic and not a reliable economic partner. Businesses invest there at their peril - oil companies like Shell keep striking deals then finding the government changing its mind - and there's still a lot of corruption, plus an over-powerful KGB. But the instability is on the borders in places like Chechnya; Russia's own system is autocratic (though there are elections) but not about to fall apart. However, cosying up to it in hopes of getting generations of cheap oil is a waste of time, imho.
I didn't mean 'unstable' in that it's about to fall apart, I meant unstable in that, as you describe, it's an effectively autocratic system in which corruption is inherent. Because of this, you never know what kind of leader you're going to end up with having such power. In the USA, not only are leaders democratically elected, but they also have several checks and balances.
Our relationship with the USA, although now seemingly one sided, has been built upon the amazing financial help that the American's gave the UK after WW2. Had it not have been for the enormous, low interest loan that America gave this country after the war, we would have been in a terrible and disasterous situation. The loan was finally paid back around 1965.
We are indebted to the Yanks for their help and should never forget this, although I do agree that there is no need to be so joined at the hip with them now.
We are indebted to the Yanks for their help and should never forget this, although I do agree that there is no need to be so joined at the hip with them now.
In answer to the reply about the USA being a more stable country to do business with just think of 2 recent cases.
1. BP put over the coals about the fire within their plant in the USA where massive compensation was paid, and an enquiry where the BP managing director was forced to resign early.
2. An enquiry how BAE systems do business with the Saudis over massive aero deals using kickbacks. Surely the majority of world trade is carried out this way?
You get the impression the yanks have targeted us in a big way. Some have suggested this has some bearing on our dealings with Russia. Do we need their permission in whom we do business with?
1. BP put over the coals about the fire within their plant in the USA where massive compensation was paid, and an enquiry where the BP managing director was forced to resign early.
2. An enquiry how BAE systems do business with the Saudis over massive aero deals using kickbacks. Surely the majority of world trade is carried out this way?
You get the impression the yanks have targeted us in a big way. Some have suggested this has some bearing on our dealings with Russia. Do we need their permission in whom we do business with?
1 to 13 of 13
