Britain's role in the conflict

[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?

------------------

Save Chip - Don't let Sarah win!
Official Titterer of the Laughing Hyenas
Don't mention the score - I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it!

[250]

the preference is:

world against terrorism

well, I don't know much about the rest but it seems you feel unfair when US Britan becomes best friend at time of crisis, and they were not before September 11th.

have we (mostly americans) not all bended together because of the attack on WTC towers? you can tell me it is a different thing between nations. well, I say it is the same just in lesser degree. and what has Britain got to lose if we eliminate terrorists (hopefully) once for all? when we have a commen goal, we should cooperate, instead of digging out the past. we can do that while both are satisifed, there is a time for everything

[This message has been edited by 250 (edited 10-11-2001).]

[Cloudbringer]

Donut, I suspect the forum title was just a natural reaction based on the fact that the targets hit were on American soil. I'm fairly it wasn't meant to say that the WORLD isn't involved in battling terrorism. Certainly we all know that Britain is a staunch supporter of the cause and a participant in the current action.

Cloudy

------------------



Raindancer of the Laughing Hyenas Clan
CloudDragon of the OHF
Storm-Queen
Raven's Cloud
StormCloud of the Black Knight: Heart Mind Soul Forever
"To sleep, perchance to dream..."

[Donut]

British forces have already been in action Look at this poor sod!

------------------

Save Chip - Don't let Sarah win!
Official Titterer of the Laughing Hyenas
Don't mention the score - I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it!

[Sazerac]

Originally posted by Donut: British forces have already been in action Look at this poor sod!

OMG. No sacrifice is too much for the glorious cause, hmmm? LOL!



------------------

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

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.

[Ronn_Bman]

Great Britain and the USA have been the closest of Allies throughout the world for the past century. It doesn't mean we always agree, or do what the other would wish at all times, but in times of trouble, we have always been there for one another and isn't that what friends and family are all about?


------------------
An elevator smells different to a dwarf.



"The object of war is Not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his."

-General George Patton (1885-1945)

[250]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Great Britain and the USA have been the closest of Allies throughout the world for the past century. It doesn't mean we always agree, or do what the other would wish at all times, but in times of trouble, we have always been there for one another and isn't that what friends and family are all about?

I dont remember who said this, but:

there is no friendship between nations, only mutual benefits

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by 250: the preference is: world against terrorism well, I don't know much about the rest but it seems you feel unfair when US Britan becomes best friend at time of crisis, and they were not before September 11th. have we (mostly americans) not all bended together because of the attack on WTC towers? you can tell me it is a different thing between nations. well, I say it is the same just in lesser degree. and what has Britain got to lose if we eliminate terrorists (hopefully) once for all? when we have a commen goal, we should cooperate, instead of digging out the past. we can do that while both are satisifed, there is a time for everything [This message has been edited by 250 (edited 10-11-2001).]

What has Britain got to lose? Well, smack bang in the firing line for a start. Same as Son of Star Wars. Whoopy do, Tone, you just go right ahead, the 52nd state, here we come......... Only it's not so funny, is it?? Democracy. Dontchajustloveit

------------------


Most Ecstatic and Exotic Mistress of the Illuminati

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by 250: I dont remember who said this, but: there is no friendship between nations, only mutual benefits

What is friendship but a mutual benefit?

On the individual level, it's a personal benefit. Friends make you feel good about yourself, and you derive pleasure from interaction with them. You enjoy making them happy, because it makes you happy, too. If someone tries to hurt your friend, then you stand up for them. You don't always agree, but...

On the national level, we provide mutual assistance and we benefit from each others efforts. We make each other happy, and we're willing to fight on the other behalf. You don't always agree, but...

Why do you make this sound like it's less important than it is?

------------------
An elevator smells different to a dwarf.



"The object of war is Not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his."

-General George Patton (1885-1945)


[This message has been edited by Ronn_Bman (edited 10-14-2001).]