If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
You do not own us!
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
As far as the Americans are concerned Britain is their 51st state.
I belive it is important to seek out, and destroy Al'Quaeda, I support Blair's decision to involve us in America's war on terror.
However, I feel supporting Bush in his invasion of Iraq would be irresponsible and dangerous.
The UK is not merely there for America's convenience.
Yes, obviously it is better to have America as a friend than as an enemy, but that doesn't mean have to lick its God damned arse!!
I belive it is important to seek out, and destroy Al'Quaeda, I support Blair's decision to involve us in America's war on terror.
However, I feel supporting Bush in his invasion of Iraq would be irresponsible and dangerous.
The UK is not merely there for America's convenience.
Yes, obviously it is better to have America as a friend than as an enemy, but that doesn't mean have to lick its God damned arse!!
0
Comments
Blair is in the enviable (to some) position of having a special relationship with the US. This lets him bridge the trans-Atlantic gap between Europe and the States. To maintain this relationship, he needs to cosy up the US a fair bit. Depending on your views, especially of the danger Iraq poses to the west, Blair could be kissing US ass, or simply maintaining a strong and traditional diplomatic relationship.
I think you'll find that Britain would be somewhat adrift without its ties to the US. It has no other powerful friend, since the continuing Europhobia ensures it will be closer to its English speaking cousins than it will to its neighbours for the forseeable future. The merits of the war on Iraq are dubious, although pre-emptive action is justifiable from a western point of view, it may be illegal from a world view. The timing of the war, and Iraqs actions over the next few weeks, months or years, will determine just how easily justified a war will be.
I really like the combination of varied spelling you've gone for there. Very stylish.
Agreed. I think ANY British PM is under some pressure to maintain the 'special relationship' with the US.
But I question whether we do truly 'lick America's arse'. Personally I don't believe any attack on Iraq is justified anyway.
Actually, we fought two wars to be seperate from you. Thank you for the offer, but we really aren't interesting in owning you.
Roger, that!
Without insult...The U.S. is the Varsity and Britain is the Junior Varsity. No insult intended.
"You say special relationship, we say dance, monkey boy!"
Sorry but this post makes very little sense. And have you actually read any American History? Or do you just read tabloids? How can "the only thing that separates us" be a COMMON language??
Where did the language originate?? I'm sure the people in the UK didn't originally learn it from their American cousins...
Edited to suggest you read "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" by Dee Brown.
Guess you need to read a bit of Churchill, since it was his famous quote that was being referred to by Murph. Guess you're smarter than Churchill though, huh?
As for where the language originated, do you really want to go into the linguistic roots of the English language?
As for the war on iraq. USA shouldv'e finished the job properly back in '91. I'm all for a new attack on Iraq. They deserve as much shit from someone as USA do.
:rolleyes: :mad: :rolleyes:
Hehehehe im so confused.
I hadn't heard of that quote. I certainly don't claim to know everything, in fact I don't claim to know very much or to be smarter than anybody else. I thought it made no sense. If I had heard of this quote then maybe I'd have understood the point better. I didn't and for that I apologise, people make mistakes.
I'm quite happy to go into the linguistic roots of the English language if you wish as it's something that interests me, but I don't think it's relevant to this thread.
What is this Churchill quote then?
I agree with Fifi, the post itself doesn't make sense, so if someone could provide the quote, that would help my understanding. Thank you.
Ref: http://www1c.btwebworld.com/quote-unquote/p0000149.htm
(2) (Of England and America) 'Two nations separated by a common language.'
Sometimes the inquirer asks, 'Was it Wilde or Shaw?' The answer appears to be: both. In The Canterville Ghost (1887), Wilde wrote: 'We have really everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language'. However, the 1951 Treasury of Humorous Quotations (Esar & Bentley) quotes Shaw as saying: 'England and America are two countries separated by the same language', but without giving a source. The quote had earlier been attributed to Shaw in Reader's Digest (November 1942).
Much the same idea occurred to Bertrand Russell (Saturday Evening Post, 3 June 1944): 'It is a misfortune for Anglo-American friendship that the two countries are supposed to have a common language', and in a radio talk prepared by Dylan Thomas shortly before his death (and published after it in The Listener, April 1954) - European writers and scholars in America were, he said, 'up against the barrier of a common language'.
Inevitably this sort of dubious attribution has also been seen: 'Winston Churchill said our two countries were divided by a common language' (The Times, 26 January 1987; European, 22 November 1991
Evidently the quote originates further back in time than Churchill. Thus, while he may have used the quote, he didnt invent it.
Thank you very much.
I still think the original post wasn't clear then, because this statement is obviously a joke - and I didn't get that from the original post.
Anyway, probably me being stupid. Get it now.
Gee, I'm so contrite. :rolleyes:
Well done.
Just one problem, Greenhat never claimed that Churchill invented the expression, just that he used it.
I nhever said he did. I'm just saying the original post wasn't clear. It was a joke, included with supposedly some sensible points, and as a sentence it doesn't make sense. It only makes sense if you know the person is making a joke - which is difficult in writing on here.
D'oh
Okay!
At least we've got to the bottom of it now. Just goes to show that trying to come across as intelligent and knowledgeable can often backfire. There's always someone who knows that bit more...