This is an article from one of the UK's right-wing newspapers which argues that, particularly but not exclusively under Barack Obama, the special relationship has become strained and possibly should be ditched.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Special relationship at risk?
- Thread starter Matt Black
- Start date
FR7 Baptist
Active Member
This is slightly off topic, but the picture in that article leads me to ask: Why are so many connies on this board ready to scream "Marxist" if a man wears a red tie, but are okay with George Bush being pals with real socialists like Tony Blair and the Labour Party?
Tony Blair a socialist?:laugh: Gordon Brown, maybe, but Blair has never been a socialist, much to the irritation of many in the Labour Party.
FR7 Baptist
Active Member
Tony Blair a socialist?:laugh: Gordon Brown, maybe, but Blair has never been a socialist, much to the irritation of many in the Labour Party.
That's true. However, that's enough for the connies to call someone a socialist given that the Labour Party is self-described "democratic socialist."
Why are so many connies on this board ready to scream "Marxist" if a man wears a red tie...
Can you point to an example of that? Because I am not aware of it ever happening.
Officially, the Labour Party have not been socialist (democratic or otherwise) since they dropped Clause 4 of their constitution (aiming for public ownership of the means of production) in 1996
That's true. However, that's enough for the connies to call someone a socialist given that the Labour Party is self-described "democratic socialist."
Young man you don't know enough to make such claims.
From the article: "Dame Elizabeth shockingly disclosed that U.S. officials had deceived Britain over their use of torture following their capture of the Al Qaeda commander Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in 2003..."
**
Isn't it a little hypocritical to be shocked at American use of waterboarding when the British used it in Northern Ireland? - LINK
There will always be disagreements between the US and UK, but we have always turned to each other when needed. I don't see that ending. As for the Administration's stance on the Falklands, I think that is just another bone-headed attempt at even-handedness, and a big mistake.
**
Isn't it a little hypocritical to be shocked at American use of waterboarding when the British used it in Northern Ireland? - LINK
There will always be disagreements between the US and UK, but we have always turned to each other when needed. I don't see that ending. As for the Administration's stance on the Falklands, I think that is just another bone-headed attempt at even-handedness, and a big mistake.
I think it was the deception to which 'Dame Judi' was alluding, not the waterboarding per se but, whilst we're on the subject, I don't think our use of it in 'Norn Iron' makes it any more right, for the record.
I think it was the deception to which 'Dame Judi' was alluding, not the waterboarding per se but, whilst we're on the subject, I don't think our use of it in 'Norn Iron' makes it any more right, for the record.
Well the writer of the cited article was upset about alot more than the withholding of information.
He speaks of America's "too many troubling and hideous episodes"..."the horrors inflicted on Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib jail" etc. and pronounces that "U.S. values are no longer civilised values".
He ignores that British troops did similar themselves. LINK
and LINK .
In other words, he's on his high horse. If he speaks for the prevailing attitude in the UK that, as he says, "The time has come to work out a fresh and much more distant relationship with the U.S." then so be it, and best of luck.
Last edited by a moderator: