Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/2/2001 8:02:05 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/2/2001 8:13:07 PM EDT
... gotta love it!
Link Posted: 10/2/2001 8:14:07 PM EDT
I second that, and I'll drink a pint for the Brits tonight.
Link Posted: 10/2/2001 8:15:45 PM EDT
HEAR HEAR!! I second that, But hay often the worst of enemies and the two biggest kids on the block form up as inseperable buddies. Its called Respect! America and Britain have fought all over the world together and even each other. For over 400 years. 400 years is long time. Brits may have a funny accent, but they DO HAVE SOME KIND OF METTLE! The Desert Rats come to mind.
Link Posted: 10/2/2001 8:17:16 PM EDT
I'll drink some tea to that.
Link Posted: 10/2/2001 8:19:34 PM EDT
I wouldn't even say Ally. I would go so far as to say FRIENDS!
Link Posted: 10/2/2001 8:24:26 PM EDT
The president said it best--"Great Britain, our only true friend"
Link Posted: 10/2/2001 8:27:12 PM EDT
...reserving judgement. I'll have a strong cuppajoe and wait to see what happens.
Link Posted: 10/2/2001 8:27:47 PM EDT
[beer]
Link Posted: 10/2/2001 8:34:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/2/2001 8:36:25 PM EDT by Duffy]
Link Posted: 10/2/2001 8:41:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Orion526: The president said it best--"Great Britain, our only true friend"
View Quote
... yeah, he meant it but I don't think he meant to say it out loud.
Link Posted: 10/2/2001 9:01:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/2/2001 10:33:15 PM EDT by AmOTramp]
I consider Australia our friend also. [img]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid27/p70fc3efbcbada126acc0c9ee48af650f/fe35078b.gif.thumb.jpg[/img] AmOTramp
Link Posted: 10/2/2001 9:07:28 PM EDT
I thought he said," Britain, never has America had a truer friend." Did I not hear correctly??? Ben
Link Posted: 10/2/2001 9:11:07 PM EDT
Britain, Australia, even *gasp* Canada ([;)]) are true friends of the US, unlike the french, who talked tough at first but now are silent
Link Posted: 10/2/2001 9:17:05 PM EDT
I thought the first half of Tony Blair's speech was fantastic. Great content, and brillant delivery. The second half sort of wandered into the "New World Order" bit — Guess he wanted to include a few tidbits for the people who got him elected... All in all, though, an excellent gesture of British support.
Link Posted: 10/2/2001 9:31:26 PM EDT
Well, it does appear that Mr. Blair has 'found his voice' in the present crisis, much the same as Clinton, who 'found his voice' while acting as national mourner-in-chef over the Oklahoma City Bombing. I hope he stays at this level, and, yes, he did get into a 'kum-by-ya' moment toward the end. But we need every damn friend we can get nowadays! Eric The(GodSaveTheQueen!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 10/2/2001 9:38:21 PM EDT
Well, for what it's worth, while in USAFE I had the opportunity to work with the Brits on numerous exercises and they really do know what they're doing. Great bunch of guys. Barracuda
Link Posted: 10/2/2001 9:48:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/2/2001 9:45:09 PM EDT by Goad]
Blair has been called Clinton's protégé. I don't trust him. I am positive Britain is populated with fine people, but I've met a lot of Brits that were visiting here and all but two were disagreeable. Smith and Wesson was owned by a British conglomerate that I believe was out to finish the job of disarming the colonists that their forefathers twice failed at. I am serious about this. (edited because I remembered two Brits that were likeable)
Link Posted: 10/2/2001 10:09:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sharky30: French, who talked tough at first but now are silent
View Quote
the French are wussies
Link Posted: 10/2/2001 10:18:09 PM EDT
Blah. All anti-gun countries that always criticize the U.S. for having a 2nd Amendment and citizens owning guns. Gee, I wonder how many of them had representatives supporting the UN civilian disarmament conference.
Link Posted: 10/2/2001 10:19:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: Blah. All anti-gun countries that always criticize the U.S. for having a 2nd Amendment and citizens owning guns. Gee, I wonder how many of them had representatives supporting the UN civilian disarmament conference.
View Quote
hmmmm......interesting
Link Posted: 10/2/2001 10:24:49 PM EDT
Was listening to a radio talk show today and a British guy called in and said that the majority of people over there are pissed about the attack and are ready to fight. "Get even", he said. It's about time the British got back to their military roots. Wellington, Nelson, Chard & Bromhead. Roarks Drift!
Link Posted: 10/2/2001 11:48:06 PM EDT
I am very glad we have England as a friend. Isn't it ironic that we fought them for our freedom and now we are like bestest buddies. But we are fortunate to have buddies like that.
Link Posted: 10/3/2001 12:11:08 AM EDT
You guys who think Britains so great need to look at the big picture. These guys shot down the merger of two US companies after our regulatory board approved it. Blair was also spouting off a few months ago about how the US needs to realize how much they need Britain and Europe. Plus this country is pushing hard for disarming America through UN. While not fessing up to the fact that after their gun ban violent crime went up considerably( I think doubled but not sure). I think they're showboating and that they will get hard to find if the suituation gets ugly. Unless they're in trouble. All things considered we don't have any true friends. Every nation is out for themselves. Which is what you'd expect.
Link Posted: 10/3/2001 12:22:02 AM EDT
Look at what our "friend" is doing to it's own citizens. [url]www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$KLIMYLAAAA0EDQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQ­UIV0?xml=/news/2001/09/29/wfor229.xml[/url] Reckless ID card plan will destroy nation's freedom By Simon Davies (Filed: 29/09/2001) THE Government has embarked on its most reckless policy to date in pursuing the idea of national identity cards. The initiative will fundamentally change the nature of government and the character of the nation. This is inevitable because the modern ID card is no simple piece of plastic. It is the visible component of a web of interactive technology that fuses the most intimate characteristics of the individual with the machinery of state. It is the means by which the powers of government will be streamlined and amplified. Almost every national ID card system introduced in the past 15 years has contained three components with the potential to devastate personal freedom and privacy. First, each citizen is obliged to surrender a finger or retina print to a national database. This information is combined with other personal data such as race, age and residential status. A photograph completes the dossier. In addition, its introduction must be accompanied by a substantial increase in police power. After all, authorities will want to be able to demand the card in a wide range of circumstances, and people must be compelled to comply. The most significant, yet most subtle, element is that the card and its numbering system will permit the linking of information between all government departments. The number is ultimately the most powerful element of the system. Such a system, linked through tens of thousand of card readers to a central database, is the conventional means of dealing with the problem of counterfeit cards. But the technology gap between governments and organised crime has narrowed so much that even the most highly secure cards are available as blanks, weeks after their official introduction. Criminals and terrorists can move more freely and more safely with several fake identities than they ever could in a country with multiple forms of ID. To make sure people are who they claim to be, the new generation of cards, such as those introduced this year in Malaysia, incorporate a chip containing the "biometric" - a fingerprint, retina or hand scan of the holder. The card and the finger are placed into a reader, and the person is "validated".
Link Posted: 10/3/2001 12:22:36 AM EDT
(continued) Authorities can gain further personal information stored on the chip to confirm the holder's identity. This validation process can be done anywhere - on the streets, in airports, schools, banks, swimming pools or office buildings. You will not hear any government emphasising these aspects. Instead, the new ID systems are benignly promoted as "citizen cards" that guarantee entitlement to benefits and services. Five years ago, the Government quietly buried proposals for ID cards when it discovered that they would cost billions of pounds more than expected, would do little to prevent crime, and might become wildly unpopular. How much more unpopular will they be when people learn that a scan of their body parts will be required? If an ID card was unworkable five years ago, why would it work now? The short answer is that it would not - unless the biometric were added and the whole system verified through a national database. That is not a card: it is a national surveillance infrastructure. If such a scheme is introduced in the current climate, three outcomes are inevitable. First, a high-security card will become an internal passport, demanded in limitless situations. (Don't leave home without it.) Second, millions of people will be severely inconvenienced each year through lost, stolen or damaged cards, or through failure of computer systems or the biometric reading machinery. Finally, the cards will inevitably be abused by officials who will use them as a mechanism for prejudice, discrimination or harassment. No one has been able to identify any country where cards have deterred terrorists. To achieve this, a government would require measures unthinkable in a free society. The Government thus faces a choice. Either it introduces a high-security biometric card that will challenge every tenet of freedom, or it introduces a low-security card that will soon be available to criminals and terrorists on the black market. Or, of course, it can scrap the whole idea and concentrate on more proven measures to deal with terrorism. Simon Davies is visiting fellow in the department of information systems at the London School of Economics and director of the watchdog group Privacy International
Link Posted: 10/3/2001 2:00:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/3/2001 1:57:36 AM EDT by TacCar]
Guess I won't refer to them as Limeys for at least a few months now.[:D]. The Aussies have been supportive of the U.S. quite a bit in the past as well. Heck, even the Japanese are offering to shoulder some of the fighting chores this time. Nice to see other countries willing to shed some of thier blood with us for a change instead of the usual token small outfits they send if at all. God, if the French volunteer to support us with troops, does this mean I have to start liking the Frogs to?[:D] Which kinda reminds me, lets not forget the Kanuks...Er, I mean the Canadians, they've generally been good allies as well.
Link Posted: 10/3/2001 1:26:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: Blah. All anti-gun countries that always criticize the U.S. for having a 2nd Amendment and citizens owning guns. Gee, I wonder how many of them had representatives supporting the UN civilian disarmament conference.
View Quote
Thank you Imbroglio. People...Tony Blair is a socialist. He rules the English people like a damn king, and has done nothing but crack down on every freedom he can get ahold of in England. England is one of the biggest criticizers of out 2nd amendment rights, and guns as a whole. If he wants to give the US this much help, that is fine. But I would not consider him our "friend". If he was in charge, we would be much worse off. stubbs™
Link Posted: 10/3/2001 1:42:08 PM EDT
Imboglio, boys, we're at war. Take the blinders off, just for a second, and see the world. There's more to an ally than just there opinion of our constitution.
Link Posted: 10/3/2001 1:46:32 PM EDT
I know, murphy. I think it is great he is serious about strongly supporting the US. That is greatly needed help. I just take foriegn opinions against our constitution a little more personal than some, is all.
Link Posted: 10/3/2001 1:57:59 PM EDT
Hey, the Village Voice is criticizing our allegience with Egypt, because of their treatment of gays. When the movie Braveheart came out, their movie reviewer panned it because of the movie's portrayal of gays. Everybody has an axe to grind.
Link Posted: 10/3/2001 2:32:05 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/3/2001 10:26:17 PM EDT
Sure, the actors all are. Well, except for Mel Gibson. The prince and his advisor lover thrown out the window by Longshanks.
Top Top