When is the Anglo Empire going to reunite? - Page 6

The Viceroy · May 10, 2003, 17:12

Im in complete agreement of this idea, and Id take the pain happily of pulling out of the Rome agreement, it would soon settle down.

Im seriously amazed that no political party has considered it, chatting to a good tory friend of mine (there are some tories left), we both agreed that it appears nobody will suggest it, because its believed it would not be taken seriously..

I say, SUGGEST IT ! I will vote for whoever is brave enough.

Ned · May 10, 2003, 17:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Clear Skies

And I'll be betting rather heavily that anyone US-bashing will have you and several hundred other posters down on them like a ton of rectangular building things...

I'm not going to "bash" the French. I now understand them a bit better. They are the natural leaders of Europe: So long as they keep the Brits and the US out of Europe, they will remain the loan "power" in the EU due to their possession of nuclear weapons and their UN veto.

Cruddy · May 10, 2003, 18:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

I'm not going to "bash" the French. I now understand them a bit better. They are the natural leaders of Europe: .

Maybe "progressives" rathan than "natural leaders" - maybe not, because they're very keen to hang onto traditional agriculture. But yes, france is keen to "improve" Europe rather than let it stand still.

If you think of the UK as one of the "status quo" elements, keeping things the same, you're on the right lines.

The natural leaders of Europe, are of course, the Swiss. They've got all the cash!

DAVOUT · May 11, 2003, 11:04

Dear Plato (May I call you Plato now that we are kindly discussing?

)

Thank you for your clarifying answer; I feel more comfortable to deal with disappointment, human feeling easy to understand, than with hatred. The following comments relate to the other side of the disappointment.

Quote:

Their are many many channels of communication with the US government that they could have used to dissent and even to advise should they have chosen to.

My assumption is that these many channels have been used; at least, during the writing of the 1441, both governments had all the time necessary to clear the problem. They did not. How can it be only the fault of the French ?

Quote:

They, instead, chose to openly, loudly, and forcefully cause a trans-atlantic rift.

We reach here the centre of the problem.
First, you made known that you have decided to invade Iraq, and you send 6 carriers and 250000 soldiers on the Iraqi borders, ready for action. Then, after we expressed clearly that we disagreed on some aspects of your plan, in an international and formal game we are playing along with the rest of the world, you gathered votes in the SC, and we did the same, since we were not convinced that your decision was the best. It would be honest to recognize that we had no great efforts to accomplish since many countries were spontaneously sharing our views, and we were not in a mood to convince the others with subsidies, and at that point, our mistake was to tell frankly what we were thinking.
You must understand that a lot of that was caused by the fait accompli method you used. It is no more acceptable on individual relations (family, enterprise), than between nations. Even when we are absolutely sure to make the good decision, we cannot tell our wife, our children, our employees : I have decided that, I expect you to agree. The reason why I personally never do that is simply because I would never accept it.

Quote:

When you combine this action with Chirac's Iraqi ties, with French oil contracts they could stand to lose, and with illegal French weapons found in Iraq, then any American would become angry.

You are telling me that those horrible things would not have made Americans angry if we had not opposed M. Bush. It can only means that they are not serious crimes.

Quote:

Chirac's choice

Although not a leftist, I am not a supporter of Chirac, and I really doubt of his personal influence in this matter (he follows but not initiate the move).

Quote:

The ball is now in their court and they now have a chance to restore some of the UNSC power and heal the rift with the new UNSC resolution on the table. Hopefully they will realize that America is watching and hoping.

Assuming that the hawks shut up about their punishment demands, the question we have (as good allies) to answer is : Would it be better for the US that the resolution be amended or voted as it is?
If the hawks continue, you would not be disappointed that we abstain …

Dr Strangelove · May 11, 2003, 16:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Cruddy

AMAZED! An American brave enough to take on the gun lobby!

You haven't been around long. I've done so many a time.

Ted Striker · May 11, 2003, 16:30

Me too.

Cruddy · May 11, 2003, 17:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

You haven't been around long. I've done so many a time.

No doubt you have the perforations to prove it.

Kramerman · May 11, 2003, 17:34

Quote:

Originally posted by The Viceroy
Im in complete agreement of this idea, and Id take the pain happily of pulling out of the Rome agreement, it would soon settle down.

Im seriously amazed that no political party has considered it, chatting to a good tory friend of mine (there are some tories left), we both agreed that it appears nobody will suggest it, because its believed it would not be taken seriously..

I say, SUGGEST IT ! I will vote for whoever is brave enough.

You and TheStinger are tied for second as my favorite Brittish gentlemen. This is because I agree with yall so often. My favorite is Tony Blair

Kman

Ben Kenobi · May 12, 2003, 20:44

Quote:

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand this.

Part of the difference between the British abortion law and the US abortion law is that the British have more input made by the doctors. The doctors determine which procedures should be considered medically necessary as opposed to the courts. This system has been accused of being too restrictive and paternalistic by British pro-choicers.

However, my main thrust is that your criticisms are all off-topic in the quest for trade union of the commonwealth, and not political union.

Dinodoc:

A trade union with India? Very interesting.

Ned · May 12, 2003, 21:14

Actually, had Roosevelt lived through the end of the war and had Churchill still been prime minister, I believe the two may have suggested a reunion. At one point, IIRC, Churchill suggested union with France before its fall. But the two of them were the greatest leaders of the twentieth century, got along famously and could have pulled it off.

Cruddy · May 12, 2003, 21:16

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18

Part of the difference between the British abortion law and the US abortion law is that the British have more input made by the doctors. The doctors determine which procedures should be considered medically necessary as opposed to the courts. This system has been accused of being too restrictive and paternalistic by British pro-choicers.

...

It depends on the due date. After 26 weeks it takes a lot more beauracracy for a legal abortion.

Before 26 weeks, there are any number of "same day" abortion clinics.

I could well be wrong on this, however. This is just my understanding of abortion in the UK.

Ben Kenobi · May 12, 2003, 21:19

Quote:

It depends on the due date. After 26 weeks it takes a lot more beauracracy for a legal abortion.

I'm trying to keep it simple since this is kind of off-topic.

Dr Strangelove · May 12, 2003, 21:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Cruddy

It depends on the due date. After 26 weeks it takes a lot more beauracracy for a legal abortion.

Before 26 weeks, there are any number of "same day" abortion clinics.

I could well be wrong on this, however. This is just my understanding of abortion in the UK.

I think that in Britain an abortion after the 26th week can only be done for medical reasons. In the US it depends on the state. The last SC decision on abortion allows states to declare their "compelling interest" to protect the life of the infant at around the 26th week. Some states now restrict abortion in the last trimester, some don't.

TCO · May 24, 2003, 11:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Clearly there is a strong alliance between the anglo countries of the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

I'd like to see a free trade zone setup between these nations.

Who's with me?

I am in favor of it, provided no new protectionist barriers are raised against other countries. I don't want Fortress Angllica versus Fortress Europe.

Spiffor · May 24, 2003, 12:20

Quote:

Originally posted by GP
I am in favor of it, provided no new protectionist barriers are raised against other countries. I don't want Fortress Angllica versus Fortress Europe.

What would be the problem with that ?

TCO · May 24, 2003, 12:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

What would be the problem with that ?

I am in favor of freer trade.