Is Cash-Strapped Britain Losing the Will to Defend Itself?
British Prime Minister David Cameron has unveiled the long-awaited results of a Strategic Defense and Security Review which, if fully implemented, will significantly diminish Britain’s geopolitical position and status. Cameron has announced reductions in military manpower and materiel of such magnitude that Britain will no longer be able to mount military operations on the scale of the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
As Britain, which currently possesses the most potent military in Europe, stops putting its forces in the field, it will become a far less dependable ally for the United States in the future. Cuts in British defense spending will also further magnify the military capabilities gap between the United States and its European allies, and thus call into question the continued viability of the NATO alliance.
Cameron says that in order to “get to grips with the biggest budget deficit in post war history,” Britain’s defense budget will be reduced by a staggering 8 percent over the next four years. (Cameron says his government inherited a £38 billion ($60 billion) black hole for future defense projects, bigger than the entire annual defense budget of £33 billion.)
In terms of manpower, Cameron says he will cut 42,000 jobs from the British Ministry of Defense by 2015. In addition to cuts in civilian jobs, the British army will be cut by 7,000 troops to 96,000; the navy will be cut by 5,000 marines to 30,000; and the Royal Air Force (RAF) will be cut by 5,000 airmen to 33,000.
Such cutting will impact what the already-stretched-thin British military is capable of doing in the future. For example, the largest overseas deployment over the next decade will be limited to no more than 30,000 troops, or two-thirds of the 45,000 British troops that took part in the invasion of Iraq. The cuts also imply that Britain will no longer be able to sustain the type of long-term military campaign that it is fighting in Afghanistan, where it currently has 9,000 troops, the second-largest force after the United States.
In terms of materiel, Cameron says he will reduce the number of tanks by 40 percent, and the total number of frigates and destroyers from 23 to 19. He will immediately scrap the navy’s flagship aircraft carrier, the HMS Ark Royal, and retire the iconic Harrier Jump Jet. Taken together, the consequence is that Britain will be without the capability to fly jets from aircraft carriers for the next ten years, until new ones are delivered in 2020. This will deprive Britain of the ability to project air power to many overseas locations for all of the next decade.
The RAF has been hardest hit by the budget cuts. As well as scrapping the Harrier, the RAF will receive far fewer new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters than previously planned. The RAF’s aging fleet of Tornados, essential to operations in Afghanistan, has been saved, but once the Afghanistan commitment ends in 2015, its future is also uncertain. Orders for the next generation of Nimrod surveillance planes, which had been due to come into service in 2012, have also been scrapped.
In terms of nuclear forces, Cameron says that the crucial decision about whether to replace Britain’s Trident nuclear deterrent will not be taken until after the next general election, which will be another four or five years down the road. Instead, the life of the Vanguard class of submarines that carry the Trident system will be extended so that the final go-ahead for new submarines will not be given until at least 2016. This delay will save billions of pounds from the defense budget.
At the same time, the Cameron government has unveiled a new National Security Strategy (NSS), which asserts that cyber warfare is the most pressing threat to Britain’s security and safety; it has allocated £500 million to a national cyber security program to counter unconventional threats of the future. Echoing the post-modern rhetoric of other European leaders, Cameron also says that Britain should focus more attention on the causes of conflict to reduce the costs of “just dealing with the consequences” of failed states. (The NSS does admit: “It is a realistic possibility that, in the next 10 years, [Islamic] extremists … could cross the line between advocacy and terrorism” and threaten Britain’s national security.)
The cuts in British defense spending come at a time when Britain is engaged in an emotional debate over its diminishing role in the world. Many voices (especially on, but certainly not limited to, the anti-American British left) are now calling into question the very cornerstone of British foreign policy for more than 60 years, namely the Anglo-American “special relationship.”
Scratch one hanger-on. I wonder what the new owners of that island will rename Britain in 25 years? Al-Britainia?
Great Islam?
Sad that Britan is going down the tubes militarily. Sure hope that the Swiss don’t invade ‘em!
This is a very, very, sad article. The once mighty British Empire, the envy of the modern world, will soon be reduced to a totally defensive force, probably no better than Sweden. And for Britain to get rid of one of its only carriers, the Ark Royal, as well as all of its Harrier attack aircraft, will mean that it has no major power projection capability at all. In fact, with the cuts it is going to have, I think Britain would find it almost impossible to launch another Falklands-type rescue operation again.
But Britain is forgetting two major points. First, England is an ISLAND nation. It depends on free sea lanes of communications between Europe and the United States for its survival. If another country comes along with just an even small number of nuclear-powered submarines to try and blockade Britain, the UK will have few ships to fight back with. To have only 19 frigates and destroyers is almost embarrassing. To put things into perspective, India, Britain’s former colony, now has a bigger surface fleet than England does. Now THAT is pathetic. And let’s not even talk about Chinese capabilities these days.
Second, if Britain is unable to project substantial military power, then it is, politically, at the mercy of all of its enemies around the world. A good example of this is when those British sailors were kidnapped by the Iranians. Britain could merely “protest” the situation and had to rely on the “good will” of the Iranians to release those sailors. What if the Iranians decided NOT to release the sailors and decided to keep them, like the American diplomats during the hostage crisis under the Carter administration? When you have a purely defensive force, then you have to be content with the fact that you’re a third-rate power. That means that you will have precious little to say if another country in a distant part of the world, such as China or Iran, decides to harm you or attack you. If your enemies know you can’t fight back, you’re done. Then don’t even think about trying to project your influence in other parts of the world. Enjoy the status Sweden has and stick with it, because it’s all you’re going to have.
But what’s most sickening about all of this is that NATO actually expects America to pick up the slack here in terms of defending Europe. Well, newsflash to Europe, we have our own economic problems here in the United States and the gravy train that existed during the Cold War has long since left the station. We simply can’t afford to defend Europe anymore as well as take on all sorts of additional military commitemnts around the world. We are going to have our hands full with the Middle East and Asia (especially defending South Korea from North Korea) for many years to come. The Europeans will be on their own.
Which also begs the question, since all of the other European nations are in the same or worse shape, is NATO already finished? If America pulls out of NATO, will the remaining nations be neutered militarily? Of course they will be, which means that they will always be vulnerable to a stronger nation (such as Russia or China). The Europeans won’t even be able to mount a limited military operation right next to its own borders, such as sending in troops to Bosnia or Kosovo. Even during those missions, NATO relied on American air power to win the day. That problem would only get much worse if the United States decides to leave Europe and go home.
In short, Europe will become totally neutral, will be unable to project much (if any) power, and will have to depend on the kindness of its enemies for its survival. See what the socialst nanny-state society has achieved? It has turned once powerful nations into defenseless weaklings, and we all know what happens to countries that can’t defend themselves. They eventually get stomped on by somebody else.
Take a look at the different columns and blogs over at the Telegraph website. There are people skeptical of Brussels, and frankly since no country on its own can solve its own financial problems, there has been buzz about revamping the Commonwealth.
Instead of each member, by itself, deciding what sort of funding the military should receive, the pooling of resources can save cuts to militaries.
Plus, a higher priority would be given to military funding, instead of generation after generation showing addiction to social engineering done in the name of social services.
Cameron wants to be ready to fight “cyberwars”. Milibrand wants Britain to be a “Global Thought Leader” and fight “climate change”.
I am hearing distinct echoes of Stanley Baldwin and Ramsay MacDonald here. Baldwin somehow believed that in the event of a war (which he regarded as impossible) Britain could somehow make do with fewer forces than they committed to the Boer War. And MacDonald mainly wanted to wage an existential “thought war” against capitalism, both at home and abroad, especially in the U.S., which he regarded as a horrible example of a country run by all the wrong people on all the wrong principles.
And neither one of them believed that Germany would ever be a problem again after the Versailles Treaty.
It seems to me that once more we have a case of the “enlightened elite’”, regardless of party or “political philosophy”, simply not believing that there are any people around they cannot either (a)co-opt as tools to achieve their Utopian ends or (b)just ignore. The fact that they are invariably wrong never seems to deter them; they just assume they were somehow “sabotaged” by all those reactionaries who are less enlightened than themselves.
Neville Chamberlain believed the same thing, in spite of being a “conservative”. As history shows, he died shortly after Dunkirk, meaning he lived just long enough to realize the enormity of his error.
As for Cameron being “worried” about Britain’s deficit, I’ll believe he’s serious about dealing with both the deficit and the damage socialist and “progressive” policies have done to Britain when he;
1. Restores Britons’ right to keep arms for self-defense;
2. Allows the police to actually arrest thugs, and the courts to jail them, instead of just giving out ASBOs; and
3. When the British government spends more on national defense each year than it does on funding “quasi non-governmental organizations”, aka “quangos”. The socialists created them to do things the government was forbidden to do, mostly to the detriment of the British people, who ended up paying for them anyway. So far, Cameron has been about as interested in abolishing them as he is in abolishing the VAT, and he shows no signs of being at all interested in that.
From all I can see, this is just one more example of how the differences between “socialists”, “liberals”, and “conservatives” in Britain are ones of degree, rather than substance. They all basically want the same thing; total power over the people. They also all have something else in common; when they get it, they have no more idea what to do with it than a chimpanzee can fly a Boeing 747.
clear ether
eon
Compared to Cameron, Baldwin was an intellectual giant. He was also a very modern man in that he refused to read the newspapers. Cameron might at least copy that.
“Is Cash-Strapped Britain Losing the Will to Defend Itself?
Dramatic defense cuts signal a global military withdrawal by a Britain that lacks both the economic means and the political will to continue projecting power beyond its own shores.”
I understand this article is about The U.K. However, the same notion applies to The United States. Why must we defend ourselves by “projecting power”? Besides being wasteful in terms of budgetary concerns, projecting power does not seem to be in tune with what the Founding Fathers envisioned for our nation. “……peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” -said Thomas Jefferson. Projecting power isn’t at all what is considered “honest friendship”.
Anyway, it would be far easier to meet our budgetary obligations and rebuild this country’s crumbling infrastructure if we would follow Britain’s lead and scrap a sizable fraction of our 11 carrier fleet. Think about how much it costs us to build, maintain and equip this fleet which is actually quite vulnerable to the technology both The People’s Republic and Russia possess.
It’s actually funny that you quoted Thomas Jefferson. He was the very first president to project power overseas when he sent the American Navy over to the Mediterranean to fight the Barbary Pirates that were endangering our merchant ships in that part of the world. There have been hundreds of examples since then where a powerful navy, let alone a large carrier strike force, has come in quite handy for either rescuing American citizens or defending American interests overseas. You’re just plain wrong when it comes to power projection. There’s a reason that whenever there is a crisis the first thing an American president asks is, “Where are the carriers?”
Libertyship46,
The projecting power I am talking about is the one that has The United States maintaining more or less permanent bases overseas at a huge expense. Jefferson’s administration maintained how many overseas bases? For the past 50 years or more, we’ve succumbed to this notion that defending America means we must project our military might far from home. Can we even afford to continue this practice?
The cost effectiveness of aircraft carriers “defending American interests overseas” is a question the American people need to debate. 11 carriers at a cost of roughly $50Billion to build, maintain, and equip is more than we can afford. Why 11? Could 4 do the job? Who’s interests is it any way? If it is a business or corporate interest, perhaps they should pay, and not the American tax payers. Aircraft carriers have had value in the past allowing The United States to wage war far from our own shores in such places as Vietnam, or Kuwait and Iraq. In many cases, it has been a monumental waste to project our power so far from home. Defense is one thing, but not overt offense. Now, at the start of the 21st century, our floating air bases are as vulnerable as our battleship fleet in Pearl Harbor was on 7 December, 1941. Big expensive targets that we can ill afford any longer my friend.
http://dvice.com/archives/2010/08/experimental-ch.php
Thank you Libertyship for stating facts that some Americans cannot see or understand.
As a starting point, I would recommend that all Mr Walters read RAdm Alfred Thayer Mahan’s “The Influence of Seapower on History” which used to be required reading for all naval officers. Even though our more “enlightened” progressives believe that “This time it’s different”, history has a nasty habit of repeating itself. If Mr. Walters really believes that somehow we can survive without a viable Navy, well, I don’t know how to respond. It used to be axiomatic that a strong Navy was vital to our survival as a nation; if that has changed then I’m afraid we’re doomed.
By the way, in times of crisis most, if not all Presidents’ first response is “Where are the Marines?”. The carriers are further down on the list. What Obama would say is anyone’s guess.
AB,
“If Mr. Walters really believes that somehow we can survive without a viable Navy, well, I don’t know how to respond.”
-I NEVER said we do not need a viable Navy. What I stated, “…..we’ve succumbed to this notion that defending America means we must project our military might far from home. Can we even afford to continue this practice?”
Defense of our nation to many including you means overtly projecting our military power far beyond our own borders. It is very costly, and exactly how does having bases on the other side of the world defend our own soil? I can be argued that our bases in the Middle East are the root of our problem with terrorism. In other words, would terrorists from the middle east been interested in us had we not had bases in their land?
We can more than survive with a viable Navy that doesn’t include costly aircraft carriers that are obsolete in the 21st century. RAdm Mahan’s text, as with so many military texts circulating in our military academies, tends to teach the new generation of Naval and Army officers how to fight the last war and not the war we’ll find ourselves in.
First, Mahan’s book has nothing to do with the “last war”. It is a history book from the late 1600′s to the early 1800′s that shows how sea power is a sine qua non of any major nation. The most memorable quote – “In any operation, and under all circumstances, a decisive naval superiority is to be considered as a fundamental principle, and the basis upon which every hope of success must ultimately depend.” – is from the Marquis de Lafayette and is as true today as in the 1780′s. That’s one reason why we have aircraft carriers: i.e. to ensure a decisive naval superiority.
In regard to the projection of power, that is also a prerequisite and a necessary and sufficient condition for being a world power. For us it started with in 1907 with the Great White Fleet – mainly to show the British that we were not to be trifled with. From the end of WW2 to the 80′s, the Russians showed their flag around the world with those awesome Kynda-class cruisers. Give it 10 years and I can guarantee the Chinese will be showing off their warships to the world.
Andronicus Beneficus,
-By “last war” I was metaphorically speaking of old history. This is the 21st century, and there are a few technological advances since the period RAdm Mahan writes of. No doubt the maxim he wrote:
“In any operation, and under all circumstances, a decisive naval superiority is to be considered as a fundamental principle, and the basis upon which every hope of success must ultimately depend.”
-has some relevance. Yet just as Adm. Husband E. Kimmel depended on the notion of superiority based upon battleships, we base our naval superiority on aircraft carriers. Adm. Kimmel was relieved of his command when those battleships went to the bottom of Pearl Harbor on 7Dec. 1941. Our fine military academies do a good job teaching our cadets and midshipmen the historical perspective of warfare. The don’t always teach them the relevance of that history to the existing realities.
It seems as if the notion of our dominance of the world militarily is a given:
“In regard to the projection of power, that is also a prerequisite and a necessary and sufficient condition for being a world power.”
My point originally in this thread is why do we need to be a world power? It isn’t what the Founding Fathers formed this republic for, is it? It is as President Dwight D. Eisenhower stated in his Farewell Speech in 1961:
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
My question is this Andronicus, do we have military might to protect our selves or does it exist for the purpose of enriching a certain segment of our industrial business sector? If so, that isn’t what The United States was founded for. “We The People….”
begins our constitution, not we the corporation.
…said George Washington, David. The entangling alliances phrase comes from his Farewell Address.
Uh no, acyually you’re wrong Akaky:
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres16.html
-It is in fact incorrectly attributed to George Washington. I once held that mistaken belief also, until I was corrected.
Why do we need overseas bases…Why do we need to defend ourselves by projecting power…
Because, it is far less damaging to the Homeland to fight our enemies where they are, before they can get here, and those bases allow for the deployment of power in an expedient manner.
It is why we armed soldiers with rifles when the rest of the world used smooth-bore muskets (as AT&T recommends: Reach out and touch some one).
With these reductions in the UK’s security forces, they have become little more than a Banana Republic with a flotilla of coastal gun-boats; but I’m confident that they will continue to look good when changing the guard at Buckingham Palace, at the Tower, and other Occasions of State. Who knows, one day, Andrew Lloyd Weber will write a musical commemorating them.
AD,
Sounds real nice…..
“Because, it is far less damaging to the Homeland to fight our enemies where they are, before they can get here, and those bases allow for the deployment of power in an expedient manner.”
Seems we’re in a kinda Catch-22 here, don’t you think? The homeland was attacked because….?
-Because we keep our troops in their neighborhood. Think about it this way. Suppose the People’s Republic wanted to project some power to protect the homeland. I know I’d be fighting ‘em, and I hope you’d be by my side.
“Projecting power isn’t at all what is considered “honest friendship”.”
A brilliant non sequitur; how about keeping the “peace” part of the pronouncement you quote? If naivete has now left you by now, it never will.
Gay Grammarian,
Actually, it is naive to think that peace can ultimately come from projecting this power you seem so fond of. A thug can project power. Sure, if one is intimidated by a thug, imminent violence isn’t likely. Resentment can be suppressed for awhile, but in time intimidation will lead to violence.
David W. Walters,
I am afraid you are lost in the woods and would not come out. The sort of argument you offer might impress a bunch of teenagers, but it does not cut the mustard here. I do not want to sound disparaging but you leave me with no choice. To repeat myself, minus the typo: If naivete has not left you by now, it never will.
I have to jump in on this one: I do believe a lot of people felt just like Mr. Walters back in the 20s, even into the early 30s (both from the standpoint of cutting the defense budget as a way to promote peace, and the idea of isolationism here in America).
We all know how that turned out; in fact, every time nations have cut defense in order to promote peace and tried to be isolationist usually a particularly nasty war takes place.
Because we don’t live in an ideal world Mr. Walters…and some nations just aren’t friendly. Besides, how do you think we rapidly deploy humanitiarian aid around the globe so quickly and efficiently? Here’s a hint: it’s with those obsolete carriers (I should think that sort of thing is pretty “friendly”, which makes carriers very pragmatic things being both useful for war and for peace).
unknown jane,
“every time nations have cut defense in order to promote peace and tried to be isolationist usually a particularly nasty war takes place.”
The status quo keeps trying to frame this argument as isolationist in character to deflect the actual issue of military extravagance. Jane, looking back to the past century to draw parallels with what I propose isn’t even close to reality. I’m not advocating an ineffective Navy or a weaken Army such as was the case in 1920-1940. But you’d be mistaken in an attempt to cast me as naive about potential threats to our nation.
I question the need for and our ability to maintain a fleet with 11 aircraft carriers. There is a role for carrier based aircraft. But we can achieve real security without 11. All the fleets of the world probably do not have the capability to deliver fire power our carriers now have. The statement I found particularly interesting you made was:
“Besides, how do you think we rapidly deploy humanitarian aid around the globe so quickly and efficiently? Here’s a hint: it’s with those obsolete carriers”
-Certainly there were some carrier based helicopters providing support during the Pakistan earthquake disaster for instance, but it was primarily the heavy lift capability of our Air Force transports that moved the bulk of supplies and personnel around the world “quickly and efficiently”. My airborne days are history, but as far back as 1982, the entire 3rd Brigade of the 82nd, INCLUDING their vehicles and support, flew non-stop nearly 4400 mi. to participate in Reforger 82. From Pope AFB to a drop zone near Würtzburg Germany, we refueled midair and finally jumped out of our C-141′s. Today’s C-17 are quite a bit more capable in terms of payload to what we had then.
We can in fact project power anywhere in the world without the huge cost that burdens our budget from funding an 11 carrier fleet. We can project power worldwide with fewer foreign bases than we now maintain. I have no illusions about what a dangerous world we live in since I’ve been to some of the worst. But the problem that overshadows the dangerous world we live in is the greed of the contractors that suck our country dry, convincing us of the dire need for more, when we can make do with less.
Ah..airborne…just like my husband (and my daughter who is attached to your old brigade — hopefully she’ll be getting her wings soon). Capital folks, airborne, but sometimes this old former marine thinks you just don’t understand ships too well.
Those C-17s are great, and we can get a lot accomplished with them as far as moving men and materiel. However, they can’t provide energy generation or desalinization…and the bases they fly from have one bad feature: they don’t move, and you know what happens to stationary targets. Carriers are hell on money, but they scramble pretty decently for an air ops platform, and they get planes in quicker and more expediently. We did a lot of support work based off carriers in GW 1; I think you boots in the sand found it awful handy.
There are three strands to this problem.
1. The Blair-Brown regime have wrecked our economy. In a rare burst of honesty, they told the incoming government there was no money left.
2. NATO has been perverted. It shouldn’t be in Afghanistan or anywhere else outside the geographical limits of the NATO treaty.
3. The electorate doesn’t support the expeditionary force policy. We don’t want to be in any more American wars – or in any French wars at all.
I might also add that most people would support restrictions on the import of any more Muslims and would like to insist that the ones here get themselves integrated ASAP. Nor is there much support for giving any money to various 3rd world countries.
Fat chance that anyone will take any notice of course.
“We don’t want to be in any more American wars – or in any French wars at all.”
Funny, Americans didn’t have the same attitude towards Britain and France during World Wars I and II. Seems like whenever Europe needs help, such as during the Cold War, it’s always appreciated. But when the United States needs help, well, we’re on our own. And if you do “help,” it’s not without a lot of moaning and groaning on your part.
Perhaps it is time to let NATO twist in the wind. Fight your own wars for once, instead of relying on Americans to protect you. You people barely have a defense anymore, so you’re really no better than Sweden. Becoming a third-rate power armed with nuclear weapons must hurt, but I’m guessing you won’t mind being more like Sweden anyway.
Please don’t confuse us with “Europe”. As to the past, I am quite happy to acknowledge that you came to our aid, but why did we need it? Because we had gone to the aid of France thats why. The biggest mistake we ever made was the alliance with France forged in 1905. It has bought us nothing but grief. As to England falling to Islam – we shall see.
So you honestly think that Germany would have left Britain alone if it did not come to the aid of France in 1940? Well, that’s a new one on me. Hitler knew that he couldn’t hold Europe as long as Britain stood in his way and Britain never would have approved of a Germany that dominated all of Europe. Whether or not Britain was allied to France was irrelevant when talking about Germany. Germany could not let Britain stand in her way of her desire for global domination, just like Japan could not let the United States stand in the way of its desire to rule the Pacific. And the only reason Hitler left Switzerland, Sweden, Portugal, and Spain alone was because there was nothing he wanted in those countries and none of those countries could prevent him from dominating Europe.
You simply have to admit that a strong defense discouraged maniacs like Hitler or Stalin (during the Cold War) from attacking your country and that the ability to project power is a strong tool when needed to protect lives and property overseas.
Or in WWI either. In 1914 Germany already had a blue water navy to rival Britain’s, although it remained untested for the duration of the war. But if Germany had won the war on the continent, it would have devoted much of its newly got resources to further expanding its navy, which was a pet project of the Kaiser’s. So even without another shooting war, the imbalance of resources between the two countries would have meant that Britain ceded its control of the seas to Germany sooner or later. And considering Britain’s dependence on shipping in a world where Germany controlled all overland passages to Europe, this effectively would have meant the end of Britain as a sovereign nation.
The British at the time knew this. They knew something like this could happen for most of their history. It’s probably what spurred them on to such ingenuity and fortitude of character for so many hundreds of years. Apparently they don’t know this anymore.
Guys: our large issue is stopping the out of control spending here in the US, not getting into a fight with the Brits who are friends and who can actually still field a modern useful and effective force on the ground. The Cameron govt cannot reverse 10 years of labor spending overnight. Give them a break. Focus on our own spending control here.
Michael of England
nene, you fled away in 1940 and retained your planes for protecting your coasts, thus the germans flugzeugen finished the job on our troops
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbsoda_la-france-au-combat_news
” The biggest mistake we ever made was the alliance with France forged in 1905. It has bought us nothing but grief”
too bad for you see what your government just decided with France and the US:
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4784167
Well said! Libertyship46!
On another blog-site I’ve been advocating my version of a “neo”-isolationism whereby we Americans concentrate on defending our Homeland areas with a withdrawal of our massive manpower from both Europe and that very absorbent Central/West Asian land-mass, thus eliminating the costly and near-impossible logistics which that entails over globe-spanning distances.
Unmanned drones controlled from such areas as Nevada with close support at destination by small well placed Special Ops units are coming into their own. Cyber warfare shows immense promise. As the international liberal media bleat that the Drones are opposed by our “allies”, that indicates to me that we’re doing something right. That’s the way we should be handling the “fight the enemy over there instead of on our shores” arguments.
On a related issue,this idea of continuing massive amounts of USAID dollars has got to stop; we seem to have created a hydra-headed entitlements culture on a near worldwide scale, creating an industrial-strength corruption web. Specifically and immediately, look at….Pakistan.
Lastly, don’t even think about the waves of anti-American sentiments at the “United” Nations.
We don’t want to be in any more American wars
So fighting the Taliban & Al Quada is an “American war”. Anyway, you might get your wish. There is a not insignificant group of people here inclined to let the U.K. & the rest of Europe go its own way. A war without an American can’t be an “American war”. You certainly don’t seem to think we can be of use in your defense, and I’m not inclined to argue.
I might also add that most people would support restrictions on the import of any more Muslims and would like to insist that the ones here get themselves integrated ASAP.
And how likely are “most people” over there going to act to get what they want. From what I can see “most people” over there are cowed by a mild bit of mocking from a BBC sitcom.
>>>>>>>3. The electorate doesn’t support the expeditionary force policy. We don’t want to be in any more American wars – or in any French wars at all.
You’d have stayed at home on D-day, wouldn’t you? American soldiers invading French shores JUST BECAUSE of some dictator somewhere outside England. Clear imperialism, if you ask me.
The Brits left a lot more than guns and equipment on the beaches of Dunkirk, it seems.
Thanks for this article…It’s sad to see the West destroy itself. The England of great thinkers and literature exists no more. Those of us who read the climate news have watched the radical environmentalists take control of governments already burdened by years of economic decline via Marxism. It’s not surprising to see defense sacrificed on the altar of Utopia…
We have aided the European slide into their failed states by ‘footing the bill’ for defeating Hitler, halting the USSR’s spread, rebuilding the countries after WWII, and providing their defense for 70 years.
You can’t spend what you don’t have, and I suppose if domestic budget cuts follow similarly, that it’s the way it is. But while the Brits focus on cyber threats, I think the one real threat they face and seem to refuse to acknowledge is that of Muslim extremism and infiltration. Their renowned habit of ignoring odd behavior is ruining their culture profoundly, and they’ll soon be forced to make a choice that the French, Germans and Dutch are starting to make, or submit, and we’ll see the sun set on the Empire . . . permanently.
Yet the Overseas Aid Budget is ringfenced and even more money for Pakistan.
As is universally acknowledged the Pakistani Government is rife with corruption, the ISI, Military and other agencies collude with the Taliban and we take on face value their protestations of innocence.
A day of reckoning is fast approaching and Cameron and co wave ‘peace in our time’edicts willy nilly. And they’re the Conservatives!
Cameron sounds like Joe Sestak.
Was it really just 234 short years ago that most of the world, including most of the inhabitants of the American colonies, thought it was suicide to declare independence against the will of the mighty British Empire?
What’s truly amazing is not only that they had the will and the ability back then to send some 50,000 troops halfway across the world to fight over such a large area, but how much smaller the population of Britain was at the time, how much poorer their economy was in percapita terms, and how much more of an effort such a logistic undertaking was given the available technology.
So they lost that one… but that was the only war they ever lost. Today they would not even consider such a thing. Or even anything smaller, it seems.
The way things are going, I’m for the total demilitarization and disarming of Great Britain. After all, who wants a hostile muslim nation with the UK’s present capabilites and a nuclear arsenal?
Maybe, the US should take a hint!
The EU states like Britain think of “soft power” as the eminence gris, the powerful behind-the-throne counsellor, but their model of soft power is more like a courtesan. Good luck with that.
The “velvet glove” is only effective if it is worn over an “iron fist”!
Maggie knew this, today’s Brit pols seem to not.
Aren’t we in about the same position? We ran up our credit cards and now have to pay the Chinese bank back with interest. Debt payments are now a much larger part of our budget and when rates rise, the portion devoted to interest will be even larger. Defense will be the thing everyone wants to cut. Its already happened with the cutting of the F-22. This is what we get when people who vote with their “feelings” and are too elevated to inform themselves about budgets get to vote. And when we have politicians devoted to milking the public fisc for votes.
The British let in millions of welfare parasites and jumped their expenses over 25% ahead of revenue. But they are at least cutting their bloated public payroll and other expenses: I can only hope we elect people who do the same.
Our debt is not a problem from our security concerns and activities, but because of the wastrel spending of an Administration drunk on power wishing to reward all of their domestic friends.
The effect will be the same.
It seems as if Britain, like too much of the rest of the world, is counting on America to come to its aid (again) if push comes to shove. Sorry to say, they might be in for a nasty surprise next time around.
This type of snarky remark is neither realistic not helpful. I would not reach out to help Belgium and probably not France either, but I’d spend the last dollar to help the British; try to remember who has been fighting with us in Iraq and afghanistan from day one. Remember who is doing the type of cost cutting we ought to be doing; what is the one country that is a bastion of sanity out that way.
Cameron announces to the world, Britain is weakening. I’m sure Ahmadinejad, Pyongyang, and all the terrorist groups around the world are having a good laugh over this. It almost sounds like an invitation for another 9/11 or 7/7. The enemies build up their military powers and Britain reduces.
Sounds like a dangerous imbalance. Oh, Britannia!
Nations are circling the wagons for inevitable economic crashes and cycles, The worlds democracies have been on drunken spending spree. This is not to be confused with private banking and commodities however, which is the mistake too many economists make. They do not separate private and public banking concerns.
Goldsmiths were the original bankers, and have been the source of banking for the last thousand years regardless what Feds or anyone else wants to believe, Gold based Banking is still the house of last resort. From these economic Families and Houses flow all fractional based banking systems.
England is still the source of most currency and metal trading, which occurs in corporation known as “the City”. It is a square mile in London proper that contains metal, currency, gold, and related trading centers. Most of the worlds banking and trading passes through this square mile sooner or later.
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Business/
The Banking houses of England, France, Germany and Switzerland have been investing heavily in Asia, partnering with banking families and interests as World trade is shifting to Asia, which will continue rising over the next decade and slowly replace US banking systems as the worlds foundation for international trade.
The US dollar is collapsing and cannot be relied upon for international settlement much longer. As of today, about a dozen nations circumvent the US petro dollar system for international settlement, mostly in Asia.
Asia was the worlds center of trade for thousands of years and is slowly moving back to that position. The USA had its day in the Sun, but in last 100 years made terrible decisions regarding trade, self interest, economics, foreign interests, banking, foreign policy, and relationships with emerging economies.
England is simply doing what it must; prepare for coming shift in global economics.
100 years of diversion from the Constitutional path
Soft power is an oxymoron. Nations have interests not friends, said Palmerston. Cuts both ways on either side of the pond.
On the other hand, recall British performance in Basra. Maybe we’re better off without British help.
“Dramatic defense cuts signal a global military withdrawal by a Britain that lacks both the economic means and the political will to continue projecting power beyond its own shores.”
Good. Let them get their own house in order first. And contrary to Roger Kimball’s gleeful announcement that Britain was “dismantling” it’s socialized medical services, it should be noted that the budget for the National Health Service is actually being increased. Nice to see that Britain has its priorities straight.
Oh give it a rest. The death of Great Britain is greatly exaggerated. The Brits have grit. They are this country’s strongest, best and most reliable ally, and they’re one the most highly respected members of NATO. Don’t EVER count them out.
BTW, David Levani, Palmerston might have said that, too. But that quote is most frequently attributed to General and President Charles de Gaulle of France.
Also attributed to Otto von Bismarck (by Spengler in the Asia Times).
If Britain is really going Islamic, it’s indeed better that it cut its fighting force. I can see a future – in fact it’s partially here – where large numbers of British Muslims join jihadi units around the world. Not only have they done so in Pakistan, they have attacked Israel (Mike’s Pub in Tel Aiv). Of course, American Muslims have also gone on these jihad training and execution runs. No, it looks like the West as a whole is indeed teetering and flirting with suicide partly because of laziness, denial and the maintenance of materialistic values. As absurd as it sounds to most of the US patriots posting here, I can see a future in which an Israel that realizes its true heritage and values in fact leads the campaign against the Jihad.
As for Britain itself, I agree with the analysis that says that the elites have mostly disarmed the domestic opponents to the creeping Jihad at home. The future will be very hard.
Just to put the US-UK relationship in perspective (from the UK side).
The “special relationship” between the US & the UK is a one way street. And a back passage at that.
James Blunt @ #23
I suspect that you’re being disingenuous intentionally with dishonorable ulterior motives.
But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt by saying that those are YOUR perceptions, which are neither accurate, nor rational.
What the Germans couldn’t accomplish in two world wars… Cameron has accomplished in less than six months.
Where is the money going to come from to pay for Albion’s defense (I equate Albion with Great britain), other than working out a deal with the wealthiest Commonwealth countries (a security fee, perhaps for ships that are within the coastal waters of Canada, Australia, India, and Singapore).
For given the financial mess the world is in, largely, but not solely, due to the US; an alternative to the status quo is needed, and frankly I don’t like what Teheran and Caracas have cooked up.
Hail Britannia @ #24
Well if you want examples of how the US is seriously shafting its main ally, how about Echelon, ITAR and extradition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations#Controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition#Controversies
ITAR results in the farcical situation of a UK company sending its own technical data to a US subsidiary, now can’t have that data returned to it by the subsidiary, due to blanket export restrictions (with a trusted ally, no less). No similar restrictions exist from the UK to the US.
As I said previously, its a one way street. The US wouldn’t tolerate ANY of these measures in reverse.
Blair was Bush’s poodle and it remains to be seen whether Cameron has the guts to stand up to any more US interference in UK affairs. I suspect that the he’ll be only too willing carry on replacing democracy and civil liberties with (US driven) corporatism, in deference to “doing the right thing”.
Mr Blunt, seriously, if you’re going to quote Wikipedia as your source, why not Cuba’s Granma ? C’mon Wikipedia lets anyone write whatever one wants to write with no fact checking. In fact, in most quality U.S. institutions of higher learning one cannot even reference Wikipedia without an instant failing grade.
As for the “poodle” and “lap dog” execrations, please stop regurgitating the Guardian with it’s incessant anti-American slobbering. Your post is just another example of ill-informed mutterings that have no basis in fact. In regard to “US driven” corporatism, British corporations own a significant amount of American assets just as American corporations own British assets just as French corporations own American assets or German companies etc. They’re called multi-national corporations i.e. MNC’s and they try to transcend national boundaries. Many of them have headquarters in London (if they haven’t yet moved to Dubai).
As far as the one way street is concerned, you sound like a silly little college student that faithfully repeats whatever some ethnic-studies professor tells you to say. In finance and commerce, it’s far from a one-way street; I mean does the importance of LIBOR vs Treasuries mean anything to you ? Some of us might be waking up to New York time but a lot of us are waking up to London time and closely watching the FTSE. But I would assert that these terms are probably beyond your understanding.
1.) You’re naive, Mr. Blunt. It’s strictly business, neither personal, nor nationalism.
2.) Blair was GW’s lap dog, huh? I reiterate; you’re naive and uninformed on the issues.
3.) I say old man, all countries have trade barriers, restrictions, tariffs, etc. That’s commerce. All trading partners seek an advantage over their trading partners. Blimey mate, that’s common sense. With the UK and the USA, its quid pro quo, not status quo. Both countries are joined at the hip, you know, kind of like Siamese twins? Now pip, pip, old chap, give it rest, eh wot?
I don’t understand Britain any more and I’m not sure that anyone else does, including the people who live there. When I visit the UK, the Britain that I grew up in has vanished. The new replacement Britain is a confusing and contradictory place with no clear identity or unifying set of beliefs, guiding principles or cultural foundation. The old British identity has vanished.
The only part of Britain that I recognize is the land and the buildings. The society seems to have had a nervous breakdown or has come from some parallel universe. What to make of Orwellian oversight, ASBO’s, and a nation turned inward?
Britain, like other nations in Europe (Germany, Italy, France, Netherlands) was an ethnically based nation. In contrast, the USA and Canada are immigrant based nations drawn from many ethnic groupings. By and large , in spite of recent “multi-kulti”, the US and Canada have assimilated most immigrants, or at least the immigrants’ children, into the melting pot. Perhaps Britain is part way between the old ethnically based nation and a new immigrant based nation. Maybe they should practice a huge amount of melting so that some new ethnically mixed population of Britons emerges with a new, never before seen, British identity. Maybe that’s already happening.
This article about Britain may, or may not, be accurate. Whatever is going on in Britain – it’s a head-scratcher.
The more Krugman, and the rest of his ilk, bellow about more needed to get us out the mess they got everyone in (the global financial crisis), the more it will boomerang on them.
Take a look at the Democrats who were Presidents in the 1800s. From Jefferson to Cleveland, they championed laissez-faire and sound money. Interestingly enough the Republicans accepted FDR’s gambit about strengthening the fed via the FDIC, thereby opening the door for the widespread destruction of financial markets, thanks to the unholy nexus of government wanting to rewrite the laws of
economics, and banksters wanting to make more money when times are at their wildest.
Take a look at who withdrew from the sub-prime mortgage market before it collapsed. Michael Lewis does a good job of identifying the prudent in “Inside the Collapse”: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/12/60minutes/main6292458.shtml
That Lewis article at CBS is from the political-correctness-makes-you-dumb school. You need to dig deeper and find out why the bad loans were made in the first place. Wall Street did not initiate the no-down-payment loans with no references, close-the-housing-gap between minorities and whites, the GSEs pressure on lenders, the CRA community organizer shakedowns; and in general the great fear of being labeled racist if loans are not given to “disadvantaged groups.” Wall Street packaged and scattered the mess already made.
There is overwhelming evidence: look at the demographics of foreclosures. People who don’t pay their bills were given loans they couldn’t afford.
The point is, government cannot only point to Wall Street for the mess. But, you have that going on. I find it interesting that Wall Street is not as overt as inside the Beltway in pointing to government for its share of what went wrong.
Some assets were over priced, and this has a detrimental effect on balance sheets. All the rest is window dressing.
“I’m shocked, there’s gambling going on here” !
All of you that express “dismay” and “horror” at the pickles the UK finds itself in really shock me.
We all knew what the UK is now (or rather, what it has become): a colony of the Middle East, a foothold of islam into Europe. So why are you surprised at all with this? England had started to shed it’s “Western” heritage (even with Major and the Torries in power) FROM THE BASE UP since the 1990s (and here I’m trying hard to be kind to Thatcher). This is just the final straw.
Wait till Boehner pulls one like this on us here after November 2. Never mind O’Bama.
Are they daft? Budget cuts sure, but throw away expensive military equipment that’s already paid-for and they can’t afford to re-buy?
Well, I shall have to leave this interesting discussion for a trip to Belgium for a few days. I shall drive thru’ the Mrs Thatcher tunnel with minimal fuss, drive across France and visit Belgium to admire the buildings of Ghent. Collecting cheap cigars and booze on my way home.
My final contribution is to say bugger history – I want us to uncouple ourselves from American politics and I want us to leave the EU. As to our Muslims – in a couple of generations they will be as English as I am; but I will be long gone.
Please tell the British Muslims of your prediction. Better yet, interview ten or so and record their reaction…
Nah, he can do better than that: Why, let him talk to the Mahomedans of Ghent. They constitute about one tenth of the city population, and have their own university. It is a good idea to grab some booze as long as it is available there. Also, the Ghent area is quite run down, which makes one wonder what came first. Otherwise, for observing Arabs wallowing in the streets, I should recommend Liege. Belgium is fascinating in places.
Isn’t gay grammarian redundant?
Or it could be that that is the quaint way that prissy and hoity-toity English gay grammarians spell Muslim. One never knows with those gay English grammarians.
As any computer engineer could tell you, redundancy increases strength.
You would think that, of all grammarians, a gay grammarian would know how to spell Mohammedan.
Or it could be that that is the quaint way that prissy and hoity-toity English gay grammarians spell Muslim. One never knows with those gay English grammarians.
But precisely – only a sad grammarian would spell it your way!
I’m sure that made perfect sense to you, H.W.Fowler.
But it won’t make any sense to any rational person.
I am the Last Englishman.
I will leave the light on.
Thank you. I might want to visit some day.
PS. Another reason for going to Belgium is to photograph the grave of one of my ancestors, who died of his wounds in 1917. What did he die for I wonder?
He died because Britain decided it was in their best interests to put a halt to the German kaiser (one can quibble endlessly about the causes and necessities of that war as it could have possibly been avoided, but it was not and there we have it). I would say in deciding to stop the kaiser the British were being prudent. Conquerors are like cannonballs (so the saying goes) — they don’t stop until they run out of momentum or something blocks their progress. The kaiser was taking on some very uncomfortable, cannonball-like attributes.
Well duh, unless he got hit by a bus, I suspect that maybe he gave his life so that you would have the freedom to come here and make a fool of yourself, ya think?
“Cash strapped” once-great Britain had lost the will to defend itself by 1916. Ever since it has been but a pretender to a seat at the first team bench and for its defense has been absolutely dependent upon a hardier breed. Upon, that is, those colonial and former-colonial Men all marked apart by virtue of their ancestors having put as many thousands of miles as possible between themselves and their families and once-great Britain.
Why, even its greatest modern battle, the battle of Britain, was won by the genius of the New Zealander, Keith Park and via the cojones and the competence of colonial and former colonial pilots.
And as great as he was, not even that well-known anglo-American, Winston Leonard Spencer Jerome Churchill, realized that the Britain of his delusional fantasies and of which he constantly spoke — and so brilliantly wrote — hadn’t existed for decades before it incited, encouraged, facilitated and, having, since its last military misadventure, disarmed itself, stumbled into World War Two and into Dunkirk and into Singapore and into sitting about waiting for the colonies and the Dominions — and for Uncle Sam.
The Battle of Britain was truly a team effort, and removing any significant member of that team would have caused the battle to be lost. As for me, I will not forget the achievements and contributions of the Polish squadrons.
Having said that, the demise of Britain brings great sadness to me, for their contributions over the years have been invaluable. The Spitfire & Hurricane,and the Rolls-Royce engine that powered them and the Mustang, to name a few. Then there is radar and the fact they had to teach us how to make our Corsair a successful carrier plane.
I think Churchill had a realistic view of their situation. However, I don’t believe that when he said “This was their Finest Hour”, he could have imagined just how far Britain was going to fall in the postwar years.
Its interesting to hear the way so many of you think of us. It seems that many of you despise Britain,actively dislike us and hold us in contempt. There are a couple of things i would like to say:
I am English and I love the USA (is it still there?)
We are broke,so are you but we are taking steps to sort it out!
You have a large military but it is effectively owned by China. No, they won’t fight you but they are controlling your government via money paid to politicians.
Actually there are more Muslims in North America than Britain.
Lots of us are extremely grateful for the U.S soldiers who took part in WW2 after their Navy was attacked in Pearl Harbour. In my town we place wreaths to remember them every year. We are also grateful for the many millions of Russians who died defeating the highly effective German Army.
Many people seem to confuse Britain with The British Empire which finished about 60 years ago. Its pretty obvious that an Empire that large would have very large forces. They still exist as Indian,Pakistani,Australian,New Zealand forces etc.
I hope to keep good relations with individuals around the world and hope the tone on this website isn’t indicative of a new antagonism between ordinary people with a lot in common..
You need not get worked up excessively: the tone of the comments here is that of general disappointment, and no wonder, really. Are you not disappointed by what has become of Britain? I am. Your presentation of WW2 history is on the funny side (a bit like Cameron´s): the Wehrmacht was defeated by the Allies, not just those millions of Russians who had to die courtesy of Uncle Joe´s commie politics, and after the Red Army hand in hand with the Wehrmacht, split Poland in two, and through Ribbentrop/Molotov enabled Hitler to attack westwards unworried about any eastern front.
Just as funny is your comparing North America and Britain re: Mahomedan population. Percentage-wise, it is certainly higher in Britain than the U.S. And as for being broke, the U.S. could get out of the malady pretty fast, as long as it does not get bogged down in socialist precepts, British style.
Well, Lauren Booth and Red Ed ought to be telling you what your beloved country has become, never mind Cameron and his newly found Liberal partner.
‘Well, Lauren Booth and Red Ed ought to be telling you what your beloved country has become, never mind Cameron and his newly found Liberal partner.’
And what would that be?
That England is no longer a “Western” country – why do you need for people to keep repeating this? I know, it’s hard to admit, but at least you ought to get it.
And for you, the British, not to take it very personally, I have already stated that the US is going down the same road too. Canada, by the way, is way ahead of us both towards islamization.
‘That England is no longer a “Western” country –
I am actually Queen Eizabeth 2. and i want to award you ,
Arise Sir no kidding for the lack of insight and knowledge of ‘England’
Here’s some proof for doubter Ono and the like:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1324194/Mohammed-popular-baby-boys-ahead-Jack-Harry.html
Sorry doubters – England is gone, Englandstan has set in.
Don’t confuse bitchy, chronic complainers with haters, the former of whom will bitch, bitch, bitch just to be bitchy, even though they’re blissfully ignorant of the issues.
You need to recognize, too, that blogs have become the new forum for gossipy yentas.
Which is a good thing. To tune them out now, you only have to shut off your computer.
I recommend it for you. If you do shut yours off, you won’t have to see your own words, which are full of ridicule as compensation for having an argument against the clear decline of Britain.
Larry always gets like this whenever he hasn’t had his meds or his afternoon naps.
Note to self: Increase Larry’s meds …, and oh yeah, tell him to get a life.
As a yenta, Larry is a recently discovered, new sub category of transvestites.
Not to worry: every article on the UK seems to bring forth some professional British bashers who pull out the old carnard about who won WWII, (we all did), the relative states of decline among Western countries (we’re all in deep debt and need to get out) and so on. Please ignore them. Be well. Best wishes.
No GG, its not that I am worked up,more disappointed in the tone. As if people are really opposed to Britain. I think our coalition is being realistic and cutting debt. That is extremely important. Moving tanks home from Germany isn’t going to make any difference to our security is it? Does anyone really see the Russians or Germans attacking us overland?
I think my understanding of WW2 is pretty standard. I have said I respect all who fought for the allies and remember them every year. Some on this thread have sought to undermine the contribution played by non U.S forces. We are used to it.
I don’t think I would gloat over the relative decline of the U.S. It is a problem for all of us. Britain is investing greatly in India because we have many links there and see more opportunity in Asia than in mature markets like the U.S and Europe. All my life Britain has been in decline relative to the U.S and many European and Asian countries. Thats what happens to countries that do not face reality. We are finally facing reality. Only by doing this can we start to build a better economic base for our nation.
Nelson and Wellington must be turning over in their graves …
They actually have risen from the dead and are now watching Al Arsenal playing Manchester Medina at the Emirates Stadium, in Londonstan. I see them asking for more UAE beer to go with that Persian Gulf fishn’chips.
The anti-British hatred is palpable on this site.
Then they call us ‘anti American’ and wonder why.
Having to be eternally grateful to the U.S for wars over 60yrs ago, whilst
ignoring our support following 9/11 ,Afghanistan and Iraq is unhelpful.
Dave has explained how the country comes to a complete standstill on rememberance sunday to recognise all those who lost their lives in all our wars.
We are broke, but we also have to understand how best to deal with the threat to our security and what tools we need.
Our security services has put us on high alert for dissident I.R.A terrorits
attacks.This has been higher then the threat from Islamic extremists.
There is no military response to this.
Davidstanley is absolutley correct in his comments and explains issue’s
better then i can.
Take notice.
No Sir, truly it isn’t “hate” – it’s lamenting the gradual loss of a former “Western” ally to islam.
I think you see offense where none is intended. Britain has always been a source of puzzlement to many here, myself included. The Magna Carta laid the groundwork for the representative democracy both countries have. It is lamentable that the British lost certain guarantees of the “common law” it guaranteed such as the right to bear arms. It is doubly lamentable that having regains said right in the English Bill of Rights, it was again relinquished. MPs take out adds in “American Rifleman” magazine and attend NRA meetings in the US begging for sporting arms to defend against Hitler, then you disarm again. Churchill leads Britain to victory over socialism, and the British immediately replace him. . . with socialists.
I’ve never been to Britain, my opinions are formed from what I read and the British I’ve met (too few). You should realize that in matters such as socialized health care and our second amendment, the left in the US often point out Britain and other commonwealth countries as “examples” we should follow. We all know there are still freedom loving Brits, but we have no idea how many of you are left.
It is not “Anti-British” emotions your are sensing here so much as “Anti- British Socialism” emotions. You are the mother country, the big brother who had freedom even before we did. . . and you threw it away, then regained it, then threw it away, then regained it. . . and now?
‘I think you see offense where none is intended. Britain has always been a source of puzzlement to many here, myself included.’
Yeah,we were always puzzled why America funded and politically supported the I.R.A who were blowing us up.
We took that as an offense.
‘It is lamentable that the British lost certain guarantees of the “common law” it guaranteed such as the right to bear arms.’
What century are you in ,in the U.S?
Whe are a democracy and we don’t want the right to bear arms,we have seen what it does to your society.
‘attend NRA meetings in the US begging for sporting arms to defend against Hitler, then you disarm again.’
Why did we have to beg? It was to equip our army which is different.We had to pay the U.S of which debt we have only recently paid off.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/article1264220.ece
We have armed forces and armed tactical police.
The U.S refused weapons to the R.U.C (police of Northern Ireland ).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8418150.stm
‘
I’ve never been to Britain, my opinions are formed from what I read and the British I’ve met (too few).’
Myself,Michael in England and davidstanley have all tried to explain the U.K,but nobody is interested because is isn’t what posters want to hear.
‘You should realize that in matters such as socialized health care and our second amendment’,
I speak for all of the U.K to say we don’t care what health system you have.
However if you want to discuss the N.H.S we ask you all to find out the facts before disagracefully attacking a system that is widely supported here.
Sarah Palin called the N.H.S evil,claiming we have enforced Amnios and abortion and we would of practically killed her down syndrome baby at birth.
That doesn’t sound like a ‘special relationship’.
‘ We all know there are still freedom loving Brits, but we have no idea how many of you are left.’
What are you talking about? I refer you again to 45. davidstanley.
What ‘freedoms ‘ do you belive we had and now lost? Beside’s the gun’s we didn’t want anyway ?
‘so much as “Anti- British Socialism” emotions.’
Besides the fact that it’s nothing to do with you, Churchill and that well known socialist Thatcher when in power did not dismantle the N.H.S.
We have just elected a conservative government.
Support for the N.H.S transends political parties because this is what the country wants.
Can we be anti American capitalist and not anti-American?
My late mother was English and went through the Blitz. She met my father when he was stationed near her hometown during World War II. He proposed and she emigrated to the U.S. after the war. Ever sicne I was five I have gone back to blighty every coupleof years. (Originally travelling on the great Cunard liners like the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth – Luxury even in third class.) During the last forty-five years I have witnessed the steady decline of everything once associated with Great Britain.
English children are taught to revile their past and it’s history as one of “racism, colonialism and exploitation.” British youths have little on their minds except beer, bad music, resentment and and an unfocused sense of entitlement. Everyone pays lip serve to the need for more private enterprise but only Indian and Pakistani immigrants seem to have the drive and the initiative to run a private business. Britons cling to failed socialist policies like passengers frantically clinging to the mainmast of a sinking ship. English society is regulated to the point of farce and simple things like the purchaase of a home, buying a car or starting of a business are tied up in paperwork straight out of Terry Gilliam’s “Brazil.” It is all horribly sad and pathetic. Naturally the energy and vitality to defend such a society is almost gone.
Jean Francois Revel famously said…”Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the conviction to defend itself.” If Churchill was alive today he would probably say “This…was their most squalid hour.”
For a moment there, I thought you were referring to the US, its youth, and its liberals/radicals/welfare recipients.
Let me make a broader point here, however; going beyond the UK, the US and Canada (forget Japan – really, what happened to Japan?) and from looking at the global investment world one realizes that these days it’s the (communist) Chinese (holding the US debt) and the (islamic) Middle Easterners (possessing the petrodollars) who are largely doing the “investing” Worldwide. These two are the rising economic superpowers, and they are the ones to eventually fight it out. Their coveted prize: the former “West” – Europe and the Americas. The West, weakened by forces within (central in them, liberalist “tolerence” to its enemies, a craving for self-gratifying comfort and decadent wealth coupled with radical romantic dreams of “social equity,” and self-hate for an alleged “sinful past”) is and won’t be a player any more.
Hint: watch out for islam making inroads in Latin America now, within a neo-communist context, just like in North America and Europe (although this “neo-communist” is still called “socialist” and it has a “soft” version vis a vis its Stalinist antecedent.
Negativity, always with the negativity.
thanks for some great replys! I am glad I made the original post. Chambers,there is a lot of power in what you say. I really can’t disagree with anything in your post. You are right that we are far too apologetic about empire days but then there was a lot of racism and exploitation. We have had two generations of self pity and excuses,now we need to focus on growth.
Thanks oxo,you are too kind.
Thanks for the kind word but I would like to focus on your phrase,”…(B)ut then there was a lot of racism and exploitation.” Well yes – But there was also imagination, exploration and development. Say what you like about chaps like Clive, Hastings, Cook, Burton, the Elizabethan explorers etc. but they were incredibly courageous and exuded a sense of purpose and societal confidence that at which we can only marvel. At the very least the British left a tradition of common law and rule by law in nearly every territory they occupied. These should be sources of immense pride and serve as constant reminders that there is indeed something unique in the British inheritance. Yet British elite opinion and, in particular academic opinion, despises this inheritance while clinging resolutely to the class structure of an earlier day. As I said its very sad.
“Soft-power”? Really? What an oxymoron!
“How many divisions has the Pope?” – Stalin
We have police and armies because the thugs only understand force… hard-power! Sometimes you just have to open a can of whupass… if you have one, that is.
Cliff Clavin, that is you, isn’t it?
I am a long way from “elite opinion” but I do agree with you. My sons will know all about our history but I suspect from me rather than their teachers.
I think class structure has changed though and those of us from a modest background no longer defer to supposed “upper classes”. The Army has been one of the places where tradition and class structure has persisted longest. Not true of the RAF.
To those who seem convinced Britain is fast becoming a muslim state I have to say its unlikely. However there may well be some cities with a majority of muslim worshippers in the future. This is as much to do with decline in Christianity as rise of Islam. There is a trend for moving to the countryside when you make some money and hence the inner cities can become very unrepresentative of the general population distribution. I am certainly not complacent about Islam but to suggest we are destined to be living under sharia is absurd.
“Their renowned habit of ignoring odd behavior”. I love that! Britain is still the land of eccentrics and individualists.
The Brits should be grateful to the USA if for no other reason than because we gave them McDonalds, Kentucky Friend Chicken and Pizza Hut. Their own native food really sucks. Kind of like the food in Israel, but not as bad. Which reminds me, you haven’t lived until you’ve tasted Israeli buffalo wings made from choice, Kosher cuts of buzzard meat, and mmmm wah, their spaghetti and motza balls is to die for.
Fish ‘n chips are an acquired taste, popular mostly among the elderly in England …, you know, kind of like dog bisquits and cat food?
I don’t know if you realise how funny it is to use the Daily Mail as a true reflection of life here.
It’s not us that are brainwashed ,we are trying to tell you what is going on here but you believe you know better ,why?
Are you and your merry band of wishful-thinkers writing from Demos by any chance? With the Guardian as your paper of choice? That would be sublime, indeed. Daily Mail not representative – my hard fanny, old boy!
I was trying to reply to Proofs October 28, 2010 – 9:35 am
I was trying to respond to Proof’s comment made on October 28, 2010 – 9:35 am.
Myself and other posters here are well aware of problems we face.
We like to come to our own conclusion’s not just what the media spoon feeds us.
We believe our own eyes and experience’s.We are also not as politically divided as the U.S.
The Daily Mail is well known for it’s bias and fearmongering. Comedian’s have a field day on it.
Not interested in the Guardian either.
However your comment shows that you have no insight into life here. I would gladly educate you on these issues.
So, kiss my ass.God bless America.
You have just certified yourself.
“I would gladly educate you” … except that you need to start very close to home, namely with your orthography (just looking up the word will boost your skill set). I take it you know what apostrophe is, although you do not seem to be quite sure when to use one.
As of last August, Daily Mail was “well known for it’s [sic!] bias and fearmongering”, and also for 2,169,690 regularly sold copies. For your information, the figure comes from ABC (you are, no doubt, aware in this instance it is neither the American TV network nor the Ozzie outfit).
The readership is estimated at over 4.5 mln; that looks like a load of bias- and fear-loving Brits! Perhaps time for you to take a B.A. in British Life & Institutions at some warm, fuzzy place like Warwick Uni? Then you could really start educating us.
7.5% of the U.K read the Daily Mail,including myself.Just because you read it doesn’t mean you agree with it.
http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/
It’s different here,people are not a slave to media outlets and get their news from different sources.
I was objecting to the ‘we are doomed’ posts and , ‘we are no longer Western’ That is debatable and is not a reflection of life here.
We know there is problem’s with immigration but to think we are a week away
from sharia law is just untrue.
I do not live in Liverpoolstan.
We have always known that the U.S needs to be educated about the U.K.
You funded and politically supported I.R.A terrorism against us for years.
So maybe your citizens should do a course on British Life and Institutions it might of saved lives.
I say, old bean, what’s with this you, you, you, collectively, tommyrot of lumping all Yanks in with the ignorant ones? I dare say that some of us Yanks are better informed on what is going on in merry, old England than you are, certainly on a broader scope. Jolly good show, eh wot. BTW, between you and me, old chap, I think that this thread is dead.
‘I dare say that some of us Yanks are better informed on what is going on in merry, old England than you are, certainly on a broader scope’
Well mate you are not showing much of that.
I would really like to know what you do/read to be so arrogant.
Does the American media all give a correct account of issues there.?
If i said i am better informed then you about the U.S because i watch CNN
would you be happy with that?
It’s the British and American people that are important.
Those opinions matter most.
Myself and other posters from the U.K have been telling you to not believe the hype .
Put the Daily Mail down and discuss the issues with us ,but with respect on both sides.
I don’t think the thread is dead ,it’s on life support.
The United States will also be forced to abandon it’s unsustainable military budget once it’s currency and economy collapses down to Mexico’s level due to endless Bailouts and Printing!!. Print and Spend and Print and Spend and Print, but above all Spend. That is your Congress and it will never change untill the IMPLOSION occurs…
209519 250771Aw, this was a actually good post. In thought I would like to put in writing like this in addition – taking time and actual effort to make a really excellent article