Quote:
Originally posted by Donut:
I have to say I feel a bit out of place here. This forum is titled 'America Strikes Back:War on Terrorism' and there is a banner stating 'America Strikes Back' and 'A temporary forum to discuss America's new war'.
The initial strikes on Sunday included the launch of 2 or 3 cruise missiles from a British hunter killer submarine, possible HMS Triumph, patrolling in the Indian Ocean. In addition there are a number of refuelling aircraft and some Canberra reconnaisance aircraft. The SAS have probably been on the ground for some time and the US will have had the full support of the British Intelligence Services. It's unknown if any British ground troops will be involved if a land campaign is necessary, but just in case, we've got 25,000 service personnel in Oman on manoeuvres. And you might want to make use of our Gurkha regiments. Born and brought up in the Himalyas they may be of some use in the mountains.
Why was it necessary for the Royal Navy to fire those few missiles. The US could certainly have handled it on their own. The only reason it was done has to be political. It is a token gesture to show the world that this is not just the US that is fighting this war. The US is not forging any concrete alliances in this war. That way they will not have to consult any allies before taking action.
And then George W goes on TV to announce that the attacks were aided 'by our staunch friend Great Britain'. Thanks George, let us take our place in the firing line with you, we don't mind. It is much easier to target London because access is much easier than it is into the US. But that's okay, we've been here before. I hope you remember our friendship when the war is over - you kind of forgot that before the 11th September.
I suppose the question I'm asking is, is this America's war or is the rest of the world involved in this war against terrorism? and should I continue posting in this forum or should the rest of the world have our own forum?
|
As you say, the US wants it both ways (naturally enough, as would anybody else I guess): on the one hand to claim that its actions are supported by the rest of the world and are part of a great worldwide effort against terroism, on the other hand not to give any of the other countries anything like full partner status, so as to be able to call the shots itself.
And yes, I was struck by the same complete about-face of the Bush Administration as you note. Before Sept 11, Bush was basically giving the rest of the world the middle finger across the board. After Sept 11, he has been preaching nothing but worldwide solidarity. As for your question as to whether Bush will remember Britain's support after the conflict is over, frankly I don't think you should count on it.
Regarding the Banner: yes, you are right. Your comment about that was eye opening for me, as your point had not crossed my mind one time, and I consider myself to be a fairly open minded American regarding the perspective of other countries in the world. Hmmm . . . food for thought, thanks for bringing that up.