Home Politics & Debate

New PM, same old sucking up to the US

It seems David Cameron has become the latest in a long and distinguished line of British Prime Ministers to find out what American Presidential cock tastes like.

From- quite wrongly- demeaning the Scottish government and judicial system by agreeing with Obama about the release of al-Megrah (oh the fun we could all have by looking at some depth at the disgraceful going-ons and appalling miscarriage of justice that took place there) to failing to tell the Americans to fuck off a bit with their 'British Petroleum' ranting, here goes another chance for Britain to stand up on its own.

For what's worth this is not an attack on the Tories. It does not matter whether it's a Labour or Conservative PM- they all kneel before the POTUS with an eagerness that would put Monica Lewinsky to shame.

And so the fallacy (for the UK) that is the much trumpeted "special relationship" will go on for at least another five years.

What a con :D
Beep boop. I'm a bot.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think the irony of the US complaining that he might have been released as part of a deal for oil, when they have fought wars for oil, quite amusing.

    But of course the US is the senior partner in the arrangement, what else could they be?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Also, given that 25 years after an American company killed tens of thousands of people in Bhopal and seriously affected the health of many more, and the US govenrment and the company in question still have managed to pay next to fuck all in compensation for the atrocity they commited, they have some fucking cheek with their high-horse compensation demands and cries of outrage against BP and the British government.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Also ignoring the fact that it wasn't BP who caused the explosion either. Wasn't the rig being run by Transocean (Swiss)? Leading up to the explosion wasn't a company called "Haliburton" doing maintenence.

    Now, where have I heard that name before?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    It seems David Cameron has become the latest in a long and distinguished line of British Prime Ministers to find out what American Presidential cock tastes like.

    From- quite wrongly- demeaning the Scottish government and judicial system by agreeing with Obama about the release of al-Megrah (oh the fun we could all have by looking at some depth at the disgraceful going-ons and appalling miscarriage of justice that took place there) to failing to tell the Americans to fuck off a bit with their 'British Petroleum' ranting, here goes another chance for Britain to stand up on its own.

    For what's worth this is not an attack on the Tories. It does not matter whether it's a Labour or Conservative PM- they all kneel before the POTUS with an eagerness that would put Monica Lewinsky to shame.

    And so the fallacy (for the UK) that is the much trumpeted "special relationship" will go on for at least another five years.

    What a con :D

    HR02885_BrokenRecord.jpg
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It is indeed getting really boring and repetitive that PM after PM dances to the same old Special Relationship tune. Well spotted.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    From - quite wrongly - demeaning the Scottish government and judicial system by agreeing with Obama about the release of al-Megrah...
    Al-Megrah is supposed to be dead. At least he is according to the doctors who said he'd be dead within three months because of his cancer. Now it emerges the cunt is still alive, and could live for another ten years. We've been strung up like a couple of kippers over this.

    Why exactly should Call Me Dave not criticise the Scottish government?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Because Scottish law provides for the possibility of freeing prisoners on compassionate grounds. Unless the Scottish are proven to have let him go in the knowledge that he wasn't terminally ill, they have done nothing illegal.

    I suspect they let him go partly because they know, like anyone else who's looked at the details of the case even superficially, that the the conviction was unsafe as fuck and the trial a complete farce.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »

    I suspect they let him go partly because they know, like anyone else who's looked at the details of the case even superficially, that the the conviction was unsafe as fuck and the trial a complete farce.

    If that's the case they're should be resignations as basically you're arguing that politicians should be able to overule courts if they don't agree with the verdict.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I suspect they let him go partly because they know, like anyone else who's looked at the details of the case even superficially, that the the conviction was unsafe as fuck and the trial a complete farce.

    This. It's a long time since I looked into the subject, but that was my overwhelming conclusion when I did.

    Also, this is worth a look:-

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill#Litigation_and_cleanup_costs
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    UK PMs have delusion fantasies. That's the only reason for the maintenance of this special relationship nonsense.

    I think the only reasoned argument for this special relationship is that the USA is still the world's superpower. We have more in common culturally with Australia and New Zealand, and even the US' little brother to the north of it has the same monarch as we do.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Because Scottish law provides for the possibility of freeing prisoners on compassionate grounds.
    And this means criticism of the decision from the head of any government is inappropriate because...?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If that's the case they're should be resignations as basically you're arguing that politicians should be able to overule courts if they don't agree with the verdict.
    By 'they' I mean whoever is legally responsible for making such decision. I don't know if the Scottish government would have such powers, but of course they should not influcence judiciary decisions any more than anyone else.

    Whoever has the legal power to grant a release on humanitarian grounds would have weighed all factors into consideration. A man who, by all accounts, was convicted on very dodgy grounds indeed is always going to have a better chance of being freed than someone whose conviction is beyond doubt and/or is still considered a danger to the public.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    And this means criticism of the decision from the head of any government is inappropriate because...?
    It's not the business of the British government. Cameron was speaking as Prime Minister during an official visit

    You could also say his 'rebuttal' of America's claims that it's all the doing of BP that he was released was nowhere near as firm and clear as such absurd claims deserved.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    It's not the business of the British government. Cameron was speaking as Prime Minister during an official visit

    You could also say his 'rebuttal' of America's claims that it's all the doing of BP that he was released was nowhere near as firm and clear as such absurd claims deserved.

    I don't understand. How is voicing an opinion bad? He didn't prevent the legal decision, or prevent it from being overturned.

    I'm sure his chum Obama would not baulk at criticising a legal decision in, say, Mississippi. It's a similar situation.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Al-Megrah is supposed to be dead. At least he is according to the doctors who said he'd be dead within three months because of his cancer.

    Erm... the medical advice was that he could die anytime between three months and ten years. Just because the media only chose to report one element of the advice doesn't mean that the advice was bad or wrong.

    Worth noting that there is no dispute that he has terminal prostate cancer and that, on it's own, was enough for his release.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    kira wrote: »
    I'm sure his chum Obama would not baulk at criticising a legal decision in, say, Mississippi. It's a similar situation.

    ... and he would also be criticised for doing so. It would be pointed out that those are State issues and not Federal and could he kindly keep his nose out and concentrate on those issues which are his perview.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If that's the case they're should be resignations as basically you're arguing that politicians should be able to overule courts if they don't agree with the verdict.

    I'm not entirely sure that is what is being said.

    The decision to release is a win/win. The Libyan gets to go home and consequently has to accept a guilt which has long been in dispute - conviction stands. No re-opening of a case, no appeal hearing (which was being planned)...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    I'm not entirely sure that is what is being said.

    The decision to release is a win/win. The Libyan gets to go home and consequently has to accept a guilt which has long been in dispute - conviction stands. No re-opening of a case, no appeal hearing (which was being planned)...

    But that's isn't what aladdin said - he said they let him go because politicians (not the courts) decided they didn't agree with the verdict (actually that isn't what happened and Aladdin's wrong, but that's by the by)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But that's isn't what aladdin said - he said they let him go because politicians (not the courts) decided they didn't agree with the verdict (actually that isn't what happened and Aladdin's wrong, but that's by the by)

    Yeah, he did... point taken
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    By 'they' I mean whoever is legally responsible for making such decision. I don't know if the Scottish government would have such powers, but of course they should not influcence judiciary decisions any more than anyone else.

    Whoever has the legal power to grant a release on humanitarian grounds would have weighed all factors into consideration. A man who, by all accounts, was convicted on very dodgy grounds indeed is always going to have a better chance of being freed than someone whose conviction is beyond doubt and/or is still considered a danger to the public.

    The law is that a man in jail is guilty, now they may weigh up the chances of him committing the crime again, but they don't second guess the decision (indeed in hearings those who still claim innocence are less likely to be freed than those who admit guilt as still claiming innocence is seen as not accepting responsibility).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To be added to the list pathetic instances of sucking up to the President are of course Cameron's fucking disgraceful comments yesterday about Britain having been a 'junior partner' in WWII in 1940.

    To me the fact that he got the year wrong is secondary. The claim that Britain had been a 'junior partner' at all, when it bore the brunt of Germany's armed forces at its mightest for 5 years, is imbecilic and insulting to everyone in the country, and one of the most pathetic attempts to suck up to anyone ever witnessed.

    (On an aside note, the Soviets endured a far greater sacrifice than any other nation on earth in WWII. Indeed, Britain would probably have been fucked had Russia and Germany not gone to war with eather other. But I guess the 23 million Soviets who perished don't count, being as they were Evil Commies TM.)

    I had thought Tony Blair's arse kissing of the POTUS was going to stand as the worst in British history; but it seems he has a strong contender for the post in our Dave here.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    To be added to the list pathetic instances of sucking up to the President are of course Cameron's fucking disgraceful comments yesterday about Britain having been a 'junior partner' in WWII in 1940.

    To me the fact that he got the year wrong is secondary. The claim that Britain had been a 'junior partner' at all, when it bore the brunt of Germany's armed forces at its mightest for 5 years, is imbecilic and insulting to everyone in the country, and one of the most pathetic attempts to suck up to anyone ever witnessed.

    (On an aside note, the Soviets endured a far greater sacrifice than any other nation on earth in WWII. Indeed, Britain would probably have been fucked had Russia and Germany not gone to war with eather other. But I guess the 23 million Soviets who perished don't count, being as they were Evil Commies TM.)

    I had thought Tony Blair's arse kissing of the POTUS was going to stand as the worst in British history; but it seems he has a strong contender for the post in our Dave here.

    Check how long the UK bore the brunt of the Germans - 1 year might be more accurate. And we were obviously the junior partner in its alliance with the US - the relative size of the armies and the fact most of our tanks were American are evidence

    And what's the Soviet Union got to do with it? He's not rehearsing the history of WW2, but on the UK-US ties (and the US was supplying us with Destroyers when the Soviet Union was supplying the Germans with fuel)

    I honestly don't get what you think he should do, pull out of NATO and ally ourselves with Cuba and North Korea perhaps
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Check how long the UK bore the brunt of the Germans - 1 year might be more accurate. And we were obviously the junior partner in its alliance with the US - the relative size of the armies and the fact most of our tanks were American are evidence

    And what's the Soviet Union got to do with it? He's not rehearsing the history of WW2, but on the UK-US ties (and the US was supplying us with Destroyers when the Soviet Union was supplying the Germans with fuel)

    I honestly don't get what you think he should do, pull out of NATO and ally ourselves with Cuba and North Korea perhaps
    I would like him to retain some dignity actually and to have the backbone to stand up for British interests.

    As I said earlier I am not suggesting this is a new happenning, or exclusive to the Tories. I'm simply reflecting on yet another British PM being all too willing to dance to America's tune.

    Regarding the WWII comment, to be honest it is just a very bizarre and unwarranted one to make. Nobody is denying the US was a great ally and friend in time of need during those hard times. But to describe Britain as a 'junior partner' not only comes across as wrong and missing the point (how on Earth could Britain be a junior partner to anyone in WWII?), but as a rather pitiful attempt to brown nose the US for the gallery. It might not be a grand crime in the greater scheme of things, but still comes across as rather pathetic. I guess he's just eager to please...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I would like him to retain some dignity actually and to have the backbone to stand up for British interests.

    As I said earlier I am not suggesting this is a new happenning, or exclusive to the Tories. I'm simply reflecting on yet another British PM being all too willing to dance to America's tune.

    Regarding the WWII comment, to be honest it is just a very bizarre and unwarranted one to make. Nobody is denying the US was a great ally and friend in time of need during those hard times. But to describe Britain as a 'junior partner' not only comes across as wrong and missing the point (how on Earth could Britain be a junior partner to anyone in WWII?), but as a rather pitiful attempt to brown nose the US for the gallery. It might not be a grand crime in the greater scheme of things, but still comes across as rather pathetic. I guess he's just eager to please...

    It's not bizarre or pathetic, its just accurate. The UK was easily the junior parnter, a cursory reading of history would show that the UK's influence declined quiet rapidly after 1942, to the extent that British attempts to postpone D-Day were pushed aside and Eisenhower appointed boss, against British protest. The US also overode British protestations on including the French in the post-war settlement of Germany (which they later regretted) and Churchill's (and Stalin's) plan to shoot all the leading Nazis and instead decided to hold trials. I could name dozens of other examples and I've already mentioned the vast majority of British tanks were from the US, as were the trucks, the landing ships, the self-propelled artillery.

    What I admit is bizarre and pathetic is people jumping up and down screaming firstly for a slip of the tongue and secondly for advancing an accurate historical position.

    And shock, horror, successive UK PM and Governments have decided its in the UK's interests to have a close relationship with the most powerful state in the world. Funnily enough virtually all Western European countries feel the same way, luckily for us and unluckily for them, speaking a common language is a major advantage.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The issue with Cameron isn't the slip on the tongue. The issue is that he is our PM and shouldn't be publically talking down his country in order to ingratiate himself with a foreign HoS IMHO.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    The issue with Cameron isn't the slip on the tongue. The issue is that he is our PM and shouldn't be publically talking down his country in order to ingratiate himself with a foreign HoS IMHO.

    Well, that's alright because he didn't. I could see the point if he'd said something like 'Lucky you yanks came because all we were doing was sitting round drinking tea', however instead he gave a measured, intelligent and (apart from a slip of the tongue) accurate resume of the relationship between the UK and US.

    Funnily enough there are cries of outrage from the same quarters as are criticising him here if anyone suggests that we won WW2 on our own.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's not bizarre or pathetic, its just accurate. The UK was easily the junior parnter, a cursory reading of history would show that the UK's influence declined quiet rapidly after 1942, to the extent that British attempts to postpone D-Day were pushed aside and Eisenhower appointed boss, against British protest. The US also overode British protestations on including the French in the post-war settlement of Germany (which they later regretted) and Churchill's (and Stalin's) plan to shoot all the leading Nazis and instead decided to hold trials. I could name dozens of other examples and I've already mentioned the vast majority of British tanks were from the US, as were the trucks, the landing ships, the self-propelled artillery.

    What I admit is bizarre and pathetic is people jumping up and down screaming firstly for a slip of the tongue and secondly for advancing an accurate historical position.

    And shock, horror, successive UK PM and Governments have decided its in the UK's interests to have a close relationship with the most powerful state in the world. Funnily enough virtually all Western European countries feel the same way, luckily for us and unluckily for them, speaking a common language is a major advantage.
    Perhaps your definition of 'junior' is different from mine. The way I see it, a small country that fought alone for part of the war against the biggest military machine the world had ever seen; which was hit with thousands of tonnes of explosives and was subject to a bombing campaign unparalleled in history; which scientific discoveries and scientific and mathematical genius alone undoubtedly changed the cause of the war, and which spirit of defiance and resiliance because an inspiration for the world, cannot possibly be described as a 'junior' partner by any stretch of the imagination.

    As MoK says, that Cameron even thought the comments were appropriate to make (even if he was right about them, which I don't think he was) reeks of of an eagerness to please that is unbecoming of a Prime Minister of Great Britain.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Perhaps your definition of 'junior' is different from mine. The way I see it, a small country that fought alone for part of the war against the biggest military machine the world had ever seen; which was hit with thousands of tonnes of explosives and was subject to a bombing campaign unparalleled in history; which scientific discoveries and scientific and mathematical genius alone undoubtedly changed the cause of the war, and which spirit of defiance and resiliance because an inspiration for the world, cannot possibly be described as a 'junior' partner by any stretch of the imagination.

    As MoK says, that Cameron even thought the comments were appropriate to make (even if he was right about them, which I don't think he was) reeks of of an eagerness to please that is unbecoming of a Prime Minister of Great Britain.

    I don't know what your defenition of junior is, but I mean the less powerful one in the partnership who had to rely on the other. I'm really proud of your sudden outburst of British patriotism, it brings tears to my eyes about how well we can integrate. But if we're talking about tonnes of bombs dropped well we're junior to bloody Belgium. We may have discovered radar, but we couldn't make a tank which wasn't a deathtrap (only the Italians and French were worse) and the Americans provided a few inventios of their own (including a rather big bomb). And as for changing the course of the war that was probably Greece by delaying the German invasion of the Soviet Union enough that they couldn't take Moscow by winter

    Even the much vaunted Battle of Britain is a bit of a myth. The Germans hardly outnumbered us in fighters and they were often flying at the end of their endurance. And even if the Germans did somehow manage to destroy the RAF their invasion barges were so unseaworthy that a destroyer going at speed would have sunk them in its wash. Never mind that the Germans didn't have a bomb which could penetrate British Battleships top armour and had no torpedo launching planes at the time

    I think they were totally appropriate comments. He isn't saying the Brits sat out WW2 or we didn't contribute, just acknowledging the truth that virtually all historians of the period accept that we were a junior partner. I simply can't see how its controversial to say that of the big 3 we were the smallest.

    Now if he was discussing WW1 on the other hand...

    At least he didn't go on about the Greeks and the Romans which seems to be the level of incisiveness his critics have got to.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's also worth noting that he didn't say that the UK was a junior partner to the Americans, he said it in an interview to Adam Boulton of Sky News

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mp8iKLi64ro
Sign In or Register to comment.