The Special Relationship Between the UK & US Must End

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh, might be the little fact that this entire thread is about the United Kingdom and the United States. Who the fuck gives a toss about the Irish? That belongs on another thread.

Do I have to explain the bleedin obvious to you?
You were banging on about the british empire, posting maps, as if I was applying double standards, criticising the US empire while seeing nothing wrong with the British one. Otherwise, why were you banging on about the British Empire? That's why I pointed out my Irish ancestry, and said quite plainly that I in no way justified the British Empire.
Why was that so hard to understand? It seems crystal clear to me. I can't imagine why you have such trouble with such a simple point.

Why is it that you are banging on about the American so-called Empire (which isn't one), and it's somehow improper for anyone to bang on about other Empires (including but not limited to the British one)? I focused no the British one because the thread is about the UK and the US.

The US doesn't run Kuwait.

You really are incredibly naiive. You see nothing but headlines, you seem incapable of seeing what happens behind them.

I see reality. I don't make shit up and pretend that I'm a seer, gleaning the unknown and unstated reality that "they" don't want me to know.

The Royal family run Kuwait. The US runs the royal family. If the US pulled out, the royals wouldn't last five minutes. They know it, the people know it, and the US government know it. So what the US wants, it gets.

Folks like you always overstate your cases about the US. We're either the behind the scenes master of all things, controlling every other country like puppets on strings, or we're the most incompetent nation ever to grace the planet.

THAT'S why Kuwait is effectively US property.
You can spout the headline titles all you like, the reality is what happens behind the facade. Kuwait is independent in theory. It isn't in fact. But I don't expect you to be able to see behind the facade any more. You've proved often enough that you can't. (or maybe like the christians, you only see what you want to see).

That must by why my gasoline just went up in price by 25% in the last month, because the United States controls Kuwait like it's American property. We can just order them to increase output, but we don't, for reasons "they" don't want us to know.

Talk about seeing what you want to see - you think "making shit up" is the same as being knowledgeable.

You mean - the same OPEC countries that have held us over a barrel of oil and screwed with our economy in the past - jacked up the price of oil against our will? They're part of our "empire" but we can't control how much oil they pump out of the ground, right?

How the fuck do you make that out? Whenever the oil supply is threatened, it's Kuwait and Saudi that move the price down. If they wanted to raise it, they could double it overnight.

They've quite often squeezed the oil supply.

Why don't they? They wouldn't dare, because the US calls the shots.

The US gets only 5% of its imported oil from Saudi Arabia. That's why they can't fuck us over. We protect ourselves from the vicissitudes of the Arabs by getting 80% of our imported oil from non-Arab sources. But, do go on thinking it's because we call them on the phone and order them around.

The PEOPLE of Saudi and Kuwait might want to raise the price of oil, but the Royals don't. Their private wealth is invested in the west, so they don't want a depression, and they don't want to lose their US bodyguard.

Like the US was Mubarak's bodyguard? The US was giving Egypt almost $2 billion a year. Guess it wasn't enough to "own" that country, since we couldn't even see the revolution coming. Took our government completely by surprise - must be because we "owned" it. It's part of our "Empire."

And, the Iraq occupation is just ending. We upheld our responsibilities under the Geneva Conventions to put back together what was broken by the war, and we're pulling out.

You're WHAT? Perhaps you could say what you mean by pulling out? To most people that means all the US troops are leaving. Are you claiming that?
See, you drink up the headlines you're fed like an obedient puppy dog.

Actually, I don't. You see, that's why the I used the gerund form - "pulling." We haven't left. If all the troops were out, I'd say "pulled" as in past tense. Don't they speak English in Ireland?

You just can't see reality unless it lands on your foot.

No, I see it. I just don't make up stuff in my head without evidence and pretend it's reality. You really give the US too much credit. I only wish we had the power you give it. We'd not be in the danger and the world of shit that we're in.

The US won't leave Iraq till W and his friends get all their money.

And, you say I can't see reality. You swallow talking points like it's truth. I guarantee you don't have the slightest clue who "W's friends" are and how they're "getting their money." You are just sure that his friends are there, and that they're getting their money somehow. Right? Or, do you actually know something? Feel free to provide some detail on this.

I love how - 2 years into the Obama administration - you think that the stupidest President in history is still pulling the strings. How much of a capon do you think President Obama is? You think he can't stop "W's Friends" and he can't pull us out of Iraq? He's not really the President, but "W" is the de facto President?

I iz ur Prezidunt - controllin yer oilz.....LOL

And that will take years. And their puppets don't want them to go. They know they'd get slaughtered. So they will beg the US to stay, and Uncle Sam will "reluctantly" stay on, but will take even more money for their trouble.

That must be because O wants W's friends to get their money. I iz ur Prezidunt - helpin u get yer moneyz.

Folks love their conspiracy theories, I tell ya.

We don't hate Cubans - the US takes in more Cubans by far than any other country in the world, and they are given automatic permanent residence of the United States if they can reach our shores. We oppose Castro because he's a fucking dictator who seized billions of dollars worth of assets of American citizens (not American government property, but the property of American citizens). And, he proceeded to ally himself with Soviet Russia. Yeah, we oppose that.

I didn't say you hated Cubans. Do try to get it right.
The US has tried to break Cuba and Vietnam with sanctions.

Sure - but, we haven't had sanctions on vietnam since the 1990s. We're now a peaceful trading partner with Vietnam.

For what? For not wanting the US running their country in all but name.

No. We tried to break CASTRO with sanctions because Castro is a fucking dictator who allied himself with the Soviets and seized billions of dollars worth of American assets in bloody coup to conquer the country which he has now held for over 50 years, along with his brother.

That's sulking in my book. No other country had such a sanctions regime.

Of course, that's a straw man, because the US did not impose sanctions because the US wanted to run the country in all but name. That's your nonsense.

Plenty of other countries have had sanctions regimes on other countries.

Cuba had every right to nationalise whatever it liked. If you invest in a foreign country, that's a chance you take.

And, the US has every right to not trade with Cuba. The thing is - Castro doesn't have a "right" to be a dictator and steal the wealth of the nation.

It was mostly mafia money, which is why it caused so much trouble. The mafia have the contacts in government, and don't like losing their ill-gotten gains.
I'd rather it reverted to the Cubans myself.

That's fine. I wonder why Castro isn't giving "it" to the Cubans.

Do try to use language with greater precision than a 4 year old. The Bay of Pigs was not the US getting "kicked out" - since we weren't in Cuba at the time to begin with.

You really are out of touch with reality. The US invaded Cuba at the bay of pigs, and got kicked out. I suppose you see it as some kind of victory? You really are amazing.

No - I see it as having been "kept" out. Not "kicked" out. Do try to be at least somewhat precise in your verbiage. Sure, we lost the battle of the Bay of Pigs. So fucking what?

Fuck this, what am I doing, replying to your delusions? I think it must be catching, bye.

I have delusions? Got any more conspiracy theories?

"They" don't want us to know that the "O's friends" are tryin' to "get they money," right? Or, really it's not "O's friends" - it's "W's friends." Skull and Bones. The Illuminati. You know? New World Order. PNAC - 9/11 was an inside job. Bush lied people died.

Keep up the mantra my friend. Once again, I can only wish the US had the kind the unbending power that you claim it to have. If only we did have the ability to control the oil and take it at will. If only we did own Iraq and Kuwait as if they were just Kansas and Rhode Island situated in a different spot on the globe. Things would sure be a lot easier. Unfortunately, reality is a lot more complicated, and a lot more dangerous, than your pat little theories suggest. We can't just point to "W" and say "all our problems are caused by the greedy Bush Administration - controllin yer fossil fuelz" -- would be nice for us if it was that way. Unfortunately, it isn't.

[Warren Dew]

I think this thread might have to get moved to the "No it isn't! Yes it is!" section. It was weird to begin with, and went clear off the rails a while ago.

You might as well move the entire site there if going off the rails is a problem.

[mistermack]

That must by why my gasoline just went up in price by 25% in the last month, because the United States controls Kuwait like it's American property. We can just order them to increase output, but we don't, for reasons "they" don't want us to know.

Talk about seeing what you want to see - you think "making shit up" is the same as being knowledgeable.

The Saudis announced that they would make up the Libyan Shortfall. The purpose of announcing it was to scare off speculation that would force up the price. You're too busy making shit up to read the news.

The US gets only 5% of its imported oil from Saudi Arabia. That's why they can't fuck us over. We protect ourselves from the vicissitudes of the Arabs by getting 80% of our imported oil from non-Arab sources. But, do go on thinking it's because we call them on the phone and order them around.

That's incredibly dumb. You've really excelled yourself there. What the fuck does it matter where your oil comes from? You pay the market rate. The Saudis could double what you pay for imported oil, without selling you a barrel.
Surely you can understand that much?

Like the US was Mubarak's bodyguard? The US was giving Egypt almost $2 billion a year. Guess it wasn't enough to "own" that country, since we couldn't even see the revolution coming. Took our government completely by surprise - must be because we "owned" it. It's part of our "Empire."

You surprise me. You've finally said something intelligent. I agree with every word, except "it's". It was. It's not any more. It must have really hurt to see all that money go down the drain.

Actually, I don't. You see, that's why the I used the gerund form - "pulling." We haven't left. If all the troops were out, I'd say "pulled" as in past tense. Don't they speak English in Ireland?

So you meant pulling out in the completely meaningless sense. It could be one man a year. It's still "pulling out" in your English. That actually fits your use of the language very well. Talk big, say little.
And I'm not Irish. My parents were Irish. Here, I'll write it down for you again. I'm not Irish. My parents were Irish. Hope that helps.

I only wish we had the power you give it. We'd not be in the danger and the world of shit that we're in.

Like the rest of your country, you're fuckin paranoid. What danger? What world of shit?
That's what comes from Americans knowing nothing about how the rest of the world lives. You don't know what danger or shit is.
The biggest danger to you, is heart disease and cancer, same as me. And the world of shit you're in is paying a bit more at the pumps or a bit more tax. Big deal. Get real.

And the US WAS kicked out at the bay of pigs. You KEEP burglars out with locks. If they break in, you KICK them out by force. The US broke in, and Castro kicked them out. Everyone knows that but you, apparently.

[Brian Peacock]

Well, I think we'd all agree its been a robust debate, and so I call on each party to sum up in their closing arguments of 500 words or less.

[surreptitious57]

The governmemt of Chile was overthrown courtesy of the United States in 1973. It had no business interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. Kissinger was worried about South America turning Red so had to put a stop to that. The irony is that Allende was democratically elected - the same as Nixon - but because he was a Communist he had to go.

Also when Nixon won the Presidency in 1968, he could have pulled out of Vietnam striaght away, but was worried that the American electorate would interpret this as weakness and would fail to return him to the White House. It wasn't until 1972 when he secured a second term that he gave consideration to withdrawal. Think of all those American lives that would have been saved if he did it four years earlier. But he was far more concerned with consolidating power than ending war. 57,000 mothers lost their sons and for what - nothing, absolutely nothing - Saigon went Communist in 1975.

I am not engaging in American bashing here. You have a great nation and you should be proud of it, but at the same time, you need to take a good hard look at where it went wrong - Vietnam and Watergate being the absolute nadir. It is important to do this, because history has a nasty habit of repeating itself otherwise - and more importantly as a democracy, there has to be accountability all the way to the very top. You don't have to go too far back to see the devastating consequences of what happens when some start believing in their own invincibility . . .

[Warren Dew]

Like the US was Mubarak's bodyguard? The US was giving Egypt almost $2 billion a year. Guess it wasn't enough to "own" that country, since we couldn't even see the revolution coming. Took our government completely by surprise - must be because we "owned" it. It's part of our "Empire."

You surprise me. You've finally said something intelligent. I agree with every word, except "it's". It was. It's not any more. It must have really hurt to see all that money go down the drain.

Actually, the "new" government of Egypt has promised to keep all the agreements with the U.S. and Israel that Mubarek did. I'm sure they'll happily continue to accept the $2 billion a year as well. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

Also when Nixon won the Presidency in 1968, he could have pulled out of Vietnam striaght away, but was worried that the American electorate would interpret this as weakness and would fail to return him to the White House. It wasn't until 1972 when he secured a second term that he gave consideration to withdrawal. Think of all those American lives that would have been saved if he did it four years earlier. But he was far more concerned with consolidating power than ending war. 57,000 mothers lost their sons and for what - nothing, absolutely nothing - Saigon went Communist in 1975.

Nixon campaigned in 1968 on a promise to get the U.S. out of Vietnam "in five years" - and he actually accomplished that exactly on schedule, something for which he should perhaps be given credit. Most of the 57,000 you mention died under Johnson, and were already dead by the time Nixon took office. But hey, I guess it isn't politically correct to criticize Democrats, even the ones in the running for most incompetent president ever.

To the extent that Nixon "could have pulled out" right away, Johnson could have not gotten us in in the first place.

[Gawd]

I think this thread might have to get moved to the "No it isn't! Yes it is!" section. It was weird to begin with, and went clear off the rails a while ago.

Just because people are robustly criticizing the colonialist activities of the US?

[Atheist-Lite]

I think this thread might have to get moved to the "No it isn't! Yes it is!" section. It was weird to begin with, and went clear off the rails a while ago.

Just because people are robustly criticizing the colonialist activities of the US?

They are like so many and have a stake in being Mr Right....despite the reality.

[surreptitious57]

Also when Nixon won the Presidency in 1968, he could have pulled out of Vietnam striaght away, but was worried that the American electorate would interpret this as weakness and would fail to return him to the White House. It wasn't until 1972 when he secured a second term that he gave consideration to withdrawal. Think of all those American lives that would have been saved if he did it four years earlier. But he was far more concerned with consolidating power than ending war. 57,000 mothers lost their sons and for what - nothing, absolutely nothing - Saigon went Communist in 1975.

Nixon campaigned in 1968 on a promise to get the U.S. out of Vietnam "in five years" - and he actually accomplished that exactly on schedule, something for which he should perhaps be given credit. Most of the 57,000 you mention died under Johnson, and were already dead by the time Nixon took office. But hey, I guess it isn't politically correct to criticize Democrats, even the ones in the running for most incompetent president ever.

To the extent that Nixon "could have pulled out" right away, Johnson could have not gotten us in in the first place.

Sorry, but you are wrong. One needs to look at the background to this to understand Nixon's motivation. Here was a man who had spent 8 years trying to become President and now that he had finally achieved it, was just not going to sacrifice it all on making a rash decision - regarding withdrawal from Vietnam. Yet the political situation in 1972 was no more favourable than in 1968 as far as this was concerned. Why do you think Nixon referenced five years in the first place ? Because that would have been after he had secured a second term. You need to be aware that sustaining power was far more vital to him than winning the war. Both he and Kissinger were convinced that early withdrawal would make America look weak, not only with the electorate but also the Soviet Union. Remember also that Kissinger wanted power as well, probably even more so than Nixon. Even in the campaign year of 1972, there was reluctance to commit the United States to withdrawal too soon, lest the election was lost.

The figure of 57,000 refers to all American soldiers who died in Vietnam, not just under Nixon. I didn't elaborate on this, becaused I assumed it was accepted as such. I apologise if I inadvertently gave the impression that all this happened on Nixon's watch - it didn't. You are absolutely right that he deserves recognition for eventually getting America out, but as I have demonstrated above, he could have done it much earlier.

[Seth]

The governmemt of Chile was overthrown courtesy of the United States in 1973. It had no business interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. Kissinger was worried about South America turning Red so had to put a stop to that. The irony is that Allende was democratically elected - the same as Nixon - but because he was a Communist he had to go.

Yup, we've done a lot of that, and we need to do a lot more of it. Opposing Communists is in our national interest, particularly in our hemisphere. Fucking pussies we've had in office lately haven't got the balls for it. We should be getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan and into Venezuela and Bolivia and fighting the Marxists down south. It's important to keep the Communists at bay and on the run.

But none of it is about creating an American empire, it's just about resisting tyranny and Communism. Unfortunately, that requires nation building after we've destroyed the tyrants and Communists, so that the people we've just liberated will have a chance to hold on to their freedom.

If we were empire builders, we'd still be occupying Japan, Germany, and a host of other countries we've gone to war with and in. But we aren't. And economic suasion is not empire building, or if it is, every other country on the planet is trying to do the same thing, but aren't as good at it as we are...or were.

[Warren Dew]

Sorry, but you are wrong.

You say that, but then you agree with everything I said.

[Coito ergo sum]

That must by why my gasoline just went up in price by 25% in the last month, because the United States controls Kuwait like it's American property. We can just order them to increase output, but we don't, for reasons "they" don't want us to know.

Talk about seeing what you want to see - you think "making shit up" is the same as being knowledgeable.

The Saudis announced that they would make up the Libyan Shortfall. The purpose of announcing it was to scare off speculation that would force up the price. You're too busy making shit up to read the news.

You attribute everything to U.S. hegemony like a knee-jerk reaction and accuse me of making shit up?

Saud Arabia has plenty of reasons to want to stabilize oil prices, not the least of which is its own survival.

The US gets only 5% of its imported oil from Saudi Arabia. That's why they can't fuck us over. We protect ourselves from the vicissitudes of the Arabs by getting 80% of our imported oil from non-Arab sources. But, do go on thinking it's because we call them on the phone and order them around.

That's incredibly dumb. You've really excelled yourself there. What the fuck does it matter where your oil comes from? You pay the market rate. The Saudis could double what you pay for imported oil, without selling you a barrel.
Surely you can understand that much?

They can't double the price of oil unilaterally. That's something you're missing.

Like the US was Mubarak's bodyguard? The US was giving Egypt almost $2 billion a year. Guess it wasn't enough to "own" that country, since we couldn't even see the revolution coming. Took our government completely by surprise - must be because we "owned" it. It's part of our "Empire."

You surprise me. You've finally said something intelligent. I agree with every word, except "it's". It was. It's not any more. It must have really hurt to see all that money go down the drain.

Sure does. I don't like to see wasteful spending. However, the US paid Egypt so much in order to buy the Egyptian-Israeli peace deal and to keep the Suez canal rolling. To suggest that we "owned" Egypt and it was part of our "empire" is silly. It confuses "making a deal" with "owning."

Actually, I don't. You see, that's why the I used the gerund form - "pulling." We haven't left. If all the troops were out, I'd say "pulled" as in past tense. Don't they speak English in Ireland?

So you meant pulling out in the completely meaningless sense.

No, I meant pulling out in the accurate sense, as in "in the process of"...

It could be one man a year. It's still "pulling out" in your English.

That would be exceedingly slow. As of November 30, 2010, the US has only 47,000 troops left in Iraq. That's not "one man a year."

That actually fits your use of the language very well. Talk big, say little.
And I'm not Irish. My parents were Irish. Here, I'll write it down for you again. I'm not Irish. My parents were Irish. Hope that helps.

You must be embarrassed about where you are from, since you denied being British, and you seemed to claim you were from Ireland. It doesn't really matter where you're from, but I don't know why you won't just disclose it.

I only wish we had the power you give it. We'd not be in the danger and the world of shit that we're in.

Like the rest of your country, you're fuckin paranoid. What danger? What world of shit?

You obviously don't follow the news. If you think the position of western societies is very far from precarious, then you don't pay much attention.

That's what comes from Americans knowing nothing about how the rest of the world lives. You don't know what danger or shit is.

Sure I do. I know exactly what it is. That's why I don't pretend it doesn't exist.

The biggest danger to you, is heart disease and cancer, same as me. And the world of shit you're in is paying a bit more at the pumps or a bit more tax. Big deal. Get real.

That's not the biggest danger. Those are among the most common ailments, and they are immediate concerns. But, the biggest dangers are far different and far greater, and far more fundamental to our society. You and your ilk pretend that such possibilities don't exist, and it's probably because of your isolated and protected upbringing, and the insular nature of your communications. You don't get it. You prefer to bury your head in the sand and take the easy and convenient way out by pretending that all bad things are the fault of the US, all problems can be solved if the US just stopped doing what it's doing, and all violence in the world is part of the fight against American worldwide hegemony...oh, and everything is orchestrated by "W and his friends" two-plus years after the Obama Administration took office. It's never "O and his friends." It's still "W and his friends." Speaks volumes about where you're coming from.

[Atheist-Lite]

America was a powerful nation but now the internal contradictions are moving towards tearing it apart. The massive influx of peoples from the south over the past thirty years means it isn't even America to itself anymore but if you think about it more closely resembles a South American failed state. It is borrowed time, the prestige it obtained long ago and is now squandering on cheap booze and bar fights, that defines America today. It is a party that has to end sooner rather than later - and I don't believe it sensible for the UK to around when this violent friend realises it has no more 'dollar' in tis dollar. The time to carefully navigate the piles of dead lager cans and exit this party is now....whilst Mr Superman still believes he can fly and doesn't want to start throwing punches this way.

[mistermack]

Saud Arabia has plenty of reasons to want to stabilize oil prices, not the least of which is its own survival.

See, you see the world in such simplistic terms. What do you mean by Saudi Arabia? Why is it's "survival" in doubt? Is it about to evaporate?
The real answer is it's the Saudi royal family you really mean. They run Saudi, and it's their survival which is shakey. And that's why they need the US.

They can't double the price of oil unilaterally. That's something you're missing.

Can you justify that claim? I say the price would double within hours, if the Saudis announced they were stopping the flow. Even before they turned the tap off.
You don't seem to understand how a market works

Sure does. I don't like to see wasteful spending. However, the US paid Egypt so much in order to buy the Egyptian-Israeli peace deal and to keep the Suez canal rolling. To suggest that we "owned" Egypt and it was part of our "empire" is silly. It confuses "making a deal" with "owning.

When you pay a whore, you "own" her for the hours you paid for. (so I'm told)

That would be exceedingly slow. As of November 30, 2010, the US has only 47,000 troops left in Iraq. That's not "one man a year."

ONLY??? You're amazing. ONLY 47,000!!! And how many just across the border, just hours away? Conveniently placed to put down any insurgency in Saudi, Kuwait or Iraq. And you ignore the 70,000 non Iraqi "contractors", most of whom are ex military and armed to the teeth.

You must be embarrassed about where you are from, since you denied being British, and you seemed to claim you were from Ireland. It doesn't really matter where you're from, but I don't know why you won't just disclose it.

I'm british, I've said it many times on this forum. I never "seemed" to claim anything of the sort. I said my parents were Irish, and I had no love of empire, british or otherwise. You seem to read one thing, and make something entirely different in your head from what's written. It's really quite easy to understand me. What I write is what I mean. Sorry if that's too complicated.

You obviously don't follow the news. If you think the position of western societies is very far from precarious, then you don't pay much attention.

Like I said, paranoid.

That's not the biggest danger. Those are among the most common ailments, and they are immediate concerns. But, the biggest dangers are far different and far greater, and far more fundamental to our society. You and your ilk pretend that such possibilities don't exist, and it's probably because of your isolated and protected upbringing, and the insular nature of your communications. You don't get it. You prefer to bury your head in the sand and take the easy and convenient way out by pretending that all bad things are the fault of the US, all problems can be solved if the US just stopped doing what it's doing, and all violence in the world is part of the fight against American worldwide hegemony...oh, and everything is orchestrated by "W and his friends" two-plus years after the Obama Administration took office. It's never "O and his friends." It's still "W and his friends." Speaks volumes about where you're coming from.

Paranoid.

And the funny thing is that the real dangers to world peace are self inflicted by the US. Support for undemocratic dictatorships, and Israel. The US has been the author of it's own problems for years now.
Even Iraq and Afghanistan are wars with people that the US supported and armed.

[Coito ergo sum]

Saud Arabia has plenty of reasons to want to stabilize oil prices, not the least of which is its own survival.

See, you see the world in such simplistic terms. What do you mean by Saudi Arabia? Why is it's "survival" in doubt? Is it about to evaporate?
The real answer is it's the Saudi royal family you really mean. They run Saudi, and it's their survival which is shakey. And that's why they need the US.

You claim I see the world in simplistic terms, and yet you think the fact that Saudi Arabia depends to some extent on the US (and others) means that it is part of the United States "Empire."

They can't double the price of oil unilaterally. That's something you're missing.

Can you justify that claim? I say the price would double within hours, if the Saudis announced they were stopping the flow. Even before they turned the tap off.
You don't seem to understand how a market works

I'm sure that I do, and clearly much better then you.

Sure does. I don't like to see wasteful spending. However, the US paid Egypt so much in order to buy the Egyptian-Israeli peace deal and to keep the Suez canal rolling. To suggest that we "owned" Egypt and it was part of our "empire" is silly. It confuses "making a deal" with "owning.

When you pay a whore, you "own" her for the hours you paid for. (so I'm told)

That's bullshit, but it does explain why you think every country economically tied to the US is part of the American Empire. It's just your simplistic way of ascribing all negative events to the United States. In your view, the US is always lurking behind the scenes, the immutable "they" who don't want you to know...

That would be exceedingly slow. As of November 30, 2010, the US has only 47,000 troops left in Iraq. That's not "one man a year."

ONLY??? You're amazing. ONLY 47,000!!! And how many just across the border, just hours away?

Move the goalposts, why don't you. You first said "in Iraq." Now it's "hours away?" News Flash - fucking Germany is "hours away" from Iraq - shit - we fly planes from the mainland United States to Iraq and back without landing, all in a matter of hours. If that's your test, then even if the troop levels in Iraq are drawn to zero, we still haven't withdrawn because the US can always move troops in within a matter of hours.

And - you're ridiculous. Remember what we're talking about here - the US is "pulling" out. We had upwards of what? between 150,000 and 200,000 soldiers there a year ago? Now there are 47,000. Yeah. That's a big difference.

Conveniently placed to put down any insurgency in Saudi, Kuwait or Iraq. And you ignore the 70,000 non Iraqi "contractors", most of whom are ex military and armed to the teeth.

I didn't ignore them. The contractors were there before. The fact remains that we've removed 2/3 (at least) of combat troops from Iraq. Clearly, that demonstrates that troop levels are going down.

You must be embarrassed about where you are from, since you denied being British, and you seemed to claim you were from Ireland. It doesn't really matter where you're from, but I don't know why you won't just disclose it.

I'm british, I've said it many times on this forum. I never "seemed" to claim anything of the sort. I said my parents were Irish, and I had no love of empire, british or otherwise. You seem to read one thing, and make something entirely different in your head from what's written. It's really quite easy to understand me. What I write is what I mean. Sorry if that's too complicated.

Then I was correct to point out the hypocrisy of a Brit pointing his silly, judgmental finger at others.

You obviously don't follow the news. If you think the position of western societies is very far from precarious, then you don't pay much attention.

Like I said, paranoid.

I'm paranoid? Mr. American Empire in ur biznus - ownin' ur countrie? You think the US is some all-powerful mighty Empire that just controls events in the world - and you call ME paranoid?

I merely recognize the reality of the world today, and understand the weaknesses of my own country and some others. Paranoid, my ass.

That's not the biggest danger. Those are among the most common ailments, and they are immediate concerns. But, the biggest dangers are far different and far greater, and far more fundamental to our society. You and your ilk pretend that such possibilities don't exist, and it's probably because of your isolated and protected upbringing, and the insular nature of your communications. You don't get it. You prefer to bury your head in the sand and take the easy and convenient way out by pretending that all bad things are the fault of the US, all problems can be solved if the US just stopped doing what it's doing, and all violence in the world is part of the fight against American worldwide hegemony...oh, and everything is orchestrated by "W and his friends" two-plus years after the Obama Administration took office. It's never "O and his friends." It's still "W and his friends." Speaks volumes about where you're coming from.

Paranoid.

Ignorant. Foolish. Conspiratorial. Tell me again what's "really" going on and what "they" don't want us to know... tell me again the "real" story that you "read between the lines" using your master seer powers to glean the truth through the fog of what is actually written and said....

And the funny thing is that the real dangers to world peace are self inflicted by the US.

Naturally. Exactly as I told you. The lions would lie down with the lambs if only the US would stop doing what it's doing. It's a very simplistic notion you hold - you attribute to the US near omnipotence - a behind the scenes power and control - dominating the world in global hegemony and worldwide Empire -- once you attribute that sort of hyperbolic power to the US, it logically follows that all the dangers and problems are attributable to it. Makes it a nice, neat, solvable package for you - what "they" tell us is the real danger isn't the real danger - all that messy stuff - terrorism, the spread of catastrophic weapons, apocalyptic dictatorial theocratic regimes, complex interplays of economics and geopolitics - that's all too messy and complicated. It's much nicer for you blokes down at the pub to burp your Guinness and pontificate about how everything would be just fine if it tweren't for United States.

Even Iraq and Afghanistan are wars with people that the US supported and armed.

Complete ignorance.

Let's start with Iraq, shall we?

Does the US manufacture and sell MiG aircraft? No? Well, that's what was in the Iraqi air farce. Were there F series jets? Answer. No.
Does the US manufacture Kalashnikov rifles? The AK-47? No? Well, that's what the Iraqi military used. Did they use M-16's? Answer. No.
Does the US manufacture SCUD missiles? Answer - no.
Does the US manufacture T-72 Soviet battle tanks? Answer - no. What did Iraq use? The Lion of Babylon - a T-72 version.
So, what are you claiming was purchased from the United States?

During the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s - Iraq's army was primarily equipped with weaponry it had purchased from the Soviet Union and its satellites in the preceding decade. During the war, it purchased billions of dollars worth of advanced equipment from France, the People's Republic of China, Egypt, and Germany.

The only stuff the US sold Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war were helicopters. About $200 million worth. And, there was some indirect aid through the CIA. The bulk of aid from the West, however, came from Germany, France, and the UK. And, nonwestern sources included China, Egypt and Germany. In addition, the "knowledge" regarding unconventional weapons was filtered into Iraq through hundreds of foreign companies from a variety of nations - West Germany, France, UK, yes, the US too, and the People's Republic of China

Iraq's main financial backers in the 1980s were the oil-rich Persian Gulf states, most notably Saudi Arabia ($30.9 billion), Kuwait ($8.2 billion) and the United Arab Emirates ($8 billion). Not the US.

From 1993 to 2003 the US didn't sell much of anything to Iraq, for obvious reasons. France and China and Russia, however, did.

But, you, of course, ignore all of the facts in favor of the notion that you swallow whole that the "US armed Iraq." It's all the US, holding the strings.