Exciting but somehow sad - saw Baroness Thatcher today

[cardigankid]

Tadite said:

Not anymore. Not that American pressure was the key characteristic. The UK liked being an actor on the world stage and the "punch above it's weight" was thought to be a key part of foreign policy.

I am not trying to be anti-American. The US is a lot more powerful than Britain and that is simply a fact of life. Whether there is a proper role for a world policeman and whether that is what the US is doing, is a separate debate. The UK needs to concentrate on what it is good at.

My point as far as this thread is concerned is that Britain's industrial suicide post WW2 was to the benefit of the USA. That was perhaps an inevitable consequence of Britain's withdrawal from world power. There are still people in Britain who think that we should be 'an actor on the world stage' and my broader point is that we can no longer afford to do so, there is no benefit to us from doing so, and our allies should stop expecting it of us.

If I was arguing the other side, I would say that the US is now fighting terrorism, specifically militant, supposedly 'Islamist', terrorism on behalf of the free countries of the world, in the way that it fought Communism and won. It therefore requires and is entitled to our support.

I do not however think that analogy is correct. Many of the enemies the US is now fighting are enemies they have themselves created, and the way in which it is doing it is only creating more. You tell me, what interest the UK has in being involved in that process. When Britain asks the US for help, the US always considers its own interest first. Britain has to either do the same, or just become the next state of the US, which might not be such a bad thing. The EU, which the US strongly urged Britain to join, is corrupt, expensive and very likely to collapse under its own weight and not something I hold any candles for.

Edited by cardigankid on Monday 18th October 11:41

[Jimbeaux]

cardigankid said:

Tadite said:

Not anymore. Not that American pressure was the key characteristic. The UK liked being an actor on the world stage and the "punch above it's weight" was thought to be a key part of foreign policy.

I am not trying to be anti-American. The US is a lot more powerful than Britain and that is simply a fact of life. Whether there is a proper role for a world policeman and whether that is what the US is doing, is a separate debate. The UK needs to concentrate on what it is good at.

My point as far as this thread is concerned is that Britain's industrial suicide post WW2 was to the benefit of the USA. That was perhaps an inevitable consequence of Britain's withdrawal from world power. There are still people in Britain who think that we should be 'an actor on the world stage' and my broader point is that we can no longer afford to do so, there is no benefit to us from doing so, and our allies should stop expecting it of us.

If I was arguing the other side, I would say that the US is now fighting terrorism, specifically militant, supposedly 'Islamist', terrorism on behalf of the free countries of the world, in the way that it fought Communism and won. It therefore requires and is entitled to our support.

I do not however think that analogy is correct. Many of the enemies the US is now fighting are enemies they have themselves created, and the way in which it is doing it is only creating more. You tell me, what interest the UK has in being involved in that process. When Britain asks the US for help, the US always considers its own interest first. Britain has to either do the same, or just become the next state of the US, which might not be such a bad thing. The EU, which the US strongly urged Britain to join, is corrupt, expensive and very likely to collapse under its own weight and not something I hold any candles for.

Edited by cardigankid on Monday 18th October 11:41

Well put; I agree with about 98% of what you said.

[The real Apache]

Jimbeaux said:

cardigankid said:

Tadite said:

Not anymore. Not that American pressure was the key characteristic. The UK liked being an actor on the world stage and the "punch above it's weight" was thought to be a key part of foreign policy.

I am not trying to be anti-American. The US is a lot more powerful than Britain and that is simply a fact of life. Whether there is a proper role for a world policeman and whether that is what the US is doing, is a separate debate. The UK needs to concentrate on what it is good at.

My point as far as this thread is concerned is that Britain's industrial suicide post WW2 was to the benefit of the USA. That was perhaps an inevitable consequence of Britain's withdrawal from world power. There are still people in Britain who think that we should be 'an actor on the world stage' and my broader point is that we can no longer afford to do so, there is no benefit to us from doing so, and our allies should stop expecting it of us.

If I was arguing the other side, I would say that the US is now fighting terrorism, specifically militant, supposedly 'Islamist', terrorism on behalf of the free countries of the world, in the way that it fought Communism and won. It therefore requires and is entitled to our support.

I do not however think that analogy is correct. Many of the enemies the US is now fighting are enemies they have themselves created, and the way in which it is doing it is only creating more. You tell me, what interest the UK has in being involved in that process. When Britain asks the US for help, the US always considers its own interest first. Britain has to either do the same, or just become the next state of the US, which might not be such a bad thing. The EU, which the US strongly urged Britain to join, is corrupt, expensive and very likely to collapse under its own weight and not something I hold any candles for.

Edited by cardigankid on Monday 18th October 11:41

Well put; I agree with about 98% of what you said.

ditto