Wikileaks
Dec 27th 2010, 3:24 pm
#61
Banned
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Vejer de la Fra., Cadiz
Posts: 7,653
Re: Wikileaks
We have aligned ourselves with the US rather than Europe for many years now, despite joining the EU, reluctantly, because 60% of our exports go that way. From the leaks it appears that the Americans no longer want us (or need us).
I always find this a difficult one to call, our links to the US are strong ones, historically and language wise, but a look at the map points us to the EU for closer ties. But the two Big Wars are not that far away and as a country we tend to dwell on them more than our European neighbours.
I’ve just realised that there haven’t been any leaks about Spain, to my knowledge; maybe they’re still to come.
I always find this a difficult one to call, our links to the US are strong ones, historically and language wise, but a look at the map points us to the EU for closer ties. But the two Big Wars are not that far away and as a country we tend to dwell on them more than our European neighbours.
I’ve just realised that there haven’t been any leaks about Spain, to my knowledge; maybe they’re still to come.
The Yanks have never felt that they needed us or wanted us. They are steadily rewriting history so that most Americans think that they won the war single handed.
Dec 27th 2010, 3:25 pm
#62
Banned
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Vejer de la Fra., Cadiz
Posts: 7,653
Re: Wikileaks
Aligning with the US appears to involve engaging in wars in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. Fair enough if it really is necessary to our security, but I suspect we'll be pulling out of Afghanistan without having achieved anything, save for blowing up x 1000s of local shepherd families
(and quite a few of home grown soldiers to boot).
(and quite a few of home grown soldiers to boot).
Dec 27th 2010, 7:51 pm
#63
On the road again.
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: On Top of the World
Posts: 17,507
Re: Wikileaks
I'm not sure that the yanks can afford to go on flexing their muscles indefinitely or that we can either.
There could well be a new World order within the next 50 years or so, but despite all thats gone before it may not neccessarily be for the best.
Last edited by Dick Dasterdly; Dec 27th 2010 at 7:53 pm.
Dec 27th 2010, 8:33 pm
#64
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,590
Re: Wikileaks
Look on the bright side bil, we should be out of there in a few years time.
I'm not sure that the yanks can afford to go on flexing their muscles indefinitely or that we can either.
There could well be a new World order within the next 50 years or so, but despite all thats gone before it may not neccessarily be for the best.
I'm not sure that the yanks can afford to go on flexing their muscles indefinitely or that we can either.
There could well be a new World order within the next 50 years or so, but despite all thats gone before it may not neccessarily be for the best.
If you believe many on the internet the wars are just what they need to keep the money rolling in, and the longer the better, but to get the people behind them they need something to make every one say "Hey lets go kick Ass" a False Flag Operation can do this, we know of the ones carried out years ago.
Many believe they need a big one now as many are starting to withdraw their support and question this war, and they may need to attack another country very soon and will obviously need a lot of support.
Maybe, just maybe this guy could tell us a thing or two, they look worried about something
It's so easy to say this is just a load of Bull, that's just it will we ever know
Dec 27th 2010, 9:11 pm
#65
Banned
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Vejer de la Fra., Cadiz
Posts: 7,653
Re: Wikileaks
Look on the bright side bil, we should be out of there in a few years time.
I'm not sure that the yanks can afford to go on flexing their muscles indefinitely or that we can either.
There could well be a new World order within the next 50 years or so, but despite all thats gone before it may not neccessarily be for the best.
I'm not sure that the yanks can afford to go on flexing their muscles indefinitely or that we can either.
There could well be a new World order within the next 50 years or so, but despite all thats gone before it may not neccessarily be for the best.
Should we pull out before proper democracy is established and secure, we might as well hand the country to the Taliban and be done with it
Now, how long do you think it will be before there is a secure, legitimate democracy there?
Dec 27th 2010, 10:36 pm
#66
On the road again.
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: On Top of the World
Posts: 17,507
Re: Wikileaks
You reckon? I think you are being overly optimistic. Remember the story of Brer rabbit and the tar baby? Afghanistan is the tar baby, and we are well and truly stuck.
Should we pull out before proper democracy is established and secure, we might as well hand the country to the Taliban and be done with it
Now, how long do you think it will be before there is a secure, legitimate democracy there?
Should we pull out before proper democracy is established and secure, we might as well hand the country to the Taliban and be done with it
Now, how long do you think it will be before there is a secure, legitimate democracy there?
Dec 27th 2010, 10:58 pm
#67
Banned
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Vejer de la Fra., Cadiz
Posts: 7,653
Re: Wikileaks
That is just running away, and to do that will mean that the Taliban will just walk back in, so all the deaths will have been in vain.
Dec 27th 2010, 11:35 pm
#68
On the road again.
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: On Top of the World
Posts: 17,507
Dec 27th 2010, 11:43 pm
#69
Banned
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Vejer de la Fra., Cadiz
Posts: 7,653
Re: Wikileaks
They were boasting about what they were going to do, post 9.11, how there were going to turn it into 'trashcanistan' and so on.
I posted that bearing in mind no-one had ever conquered more than a bit of the place before, maybe they should achieve something before boasting so freely. Their response was to verbally try and rip me a second arsehole, but seems I'm having the last laugh.
Dec 28th 2010, 6:01 am
#70
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2009
Location: Alicante province
Posts: 5,753
Re: Wikileaks
When al Qaeda blew up the twin towers (this post is now going straight to the CIA), the US had no choice but to go into Afghanistan to attack them, and NATO agreed, and I did too. If we hadn’t, the attacks on the West would have continued. That they did anyway was more to do with Iraq.
I’m sure that even Bush and Blair would have read up on Afghanistan first, and realised getting out unscathed would be a problem, but they were right to go after the enemy in the first place.
That a bunch of freaks would want to blow up the London Eye nine years later could not have been foreseen by anyone, but there they were in a London Court yesterday. Who do we bomb this time? Cardiff or Stoke in Trent?
Muddied waters.
I’m sure that even Bush and Blair would have read up on Afghanistan first, and realised getting out unscathed would be a problem, but they were right to go after the enemy in the first place.
That a bunch of freaks would want to blow up the London Eye nine years later could not have been foreseen by anyone, but there they were in a London Court yesterday. Who do we bomb this time? Cardiff or Stoke in Trent?
Muddied waters.
Dec 28th 2010, 6:14 am
#71
Straw Man.
Joined: Aug 2006
Location: That, there, that's not my post count... nothing to see here, move along.
Posts: 46,302
Re: Wikileaks
When al Qaeda blew up the twin towers (this post is now going straight to the CIA), the US had no choice but to go into Afghanistan to attack them, and NATO agreed, and I did too. If we hadn’t, the attacks on the West would have continued. That they did anyway was more to do with Iraq.
I’m sure that even Bush and Blair would have read up on Afghanistan first, and realised getting out unscathed would be a problem, but they were right to go after the enemy in the first place.
That a bunch of freaks would want to blow up the London Eye nine years later could not have been foreseen by anyone, but there they were in a London Court yesterday. Who do we bomb this time? Cardiff or Stoke in Trent?
Muddied waters.
I’m sure that even Bush and Blair would have read up on Afghanistan first, and realised getting out unscathed would be a problem, but they were right to go after the enemy in the first place.
That a bunch of freaks would want to blow up the London Eye nine years later could not have been foreseen by anyone, but there they were in a London Court yesterday. Who do we bomb this time? Cardiff or Stoke in Trent?
Muddied waters.
Dec 28th 2010, 12:36 pm
#72
Banned
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Vejer de la Fra., Cadiz
Posts: 7,653
Re: Wikileaks
When al Qaeda blew up the twin towers (this post is now going straight to the CIA), the US had no choice but to go into Afghanistan to attack them, and NATO agreed, and I did too. If we hadn’t, the attacks on the West would have continued. That they did anyway was more to do with Iraq.
I’m sure that even Bush and Blair would have read up on Afghanistan first, and realised getting out unscathed would be a problem, but they were right to go after the enemy in the first place.
That a bunch of freaks would want to blow up the London Eye nine years later could not have been foreseen by anyone, but there they were in a London Court yesterday. Who do we bomb this time? Cardiff or Stoke in Trent?
Muddied waters.
I’m sure that even Bush and Blair would have read up on Afghanistan first, and realised getting out unscathed would be a problem, but they were right to go after the enemy in the first place.
That a bunch of freaks would want to blow up the London Eye nine years later could not have been foreseen by anyone, but there they were in a London Court yesterday. Who do we bomb this time? Cardiff or Stoke in Trent?
Muddied waters.
