America entered the Second World War for her own reasons, and on her own strictly
businesslike terms with us.
Nothing wrong with that.
Nothing wrong with that.
But it gives the
lie to the popular fantasy of a "special relationship", a term which no
American has ever used.
We went to Korea, but so did a lot of other people. The Americans opposed us in Suez (when they were right, but that is not the present point), and did not go to Malaya. We stayed out of Vietnam.
We went to Korea, but so did a lot of other people. The Americans opposed us in Suez (when they were right, but that is not the present point), and did not go to Malaya. We stayed out of Vietnam.
They were practically on the other side in the Falklands
War, when, apart from ever-reliable Portugal, our nearest thing to an ally was France. And the first Gulf
War was much like Korea.
All in all, there is simply no factual basis whatever for the warmongering lie that we have an unbreakable military alliance with the United States. Or, at any rate, unbreakable until last night. We have not.
All in all, there is simply no factual basis whatever for the warmongering lie that we have an unbreakable military alliance with the United States. Or, at any rate, unbreakable until last night. We have not.
If you do not
believe me, then just ask the Americans themselves.
Old Dan Hodges is right about one thing.
ReplyDeleteMiliband has behaved in a disgracefully opportunistic, unprincipled fashion, flip- flopping between asking Cameron to publish legal advice and "go the UN route" to Tweeting that we shouldn't "write a blank cheque" for war, to assuring Cameron over the phone that (with UN backing) he'd have his support... to finally voting against even that.
Our side won-but Miliband was not a principled ally in the victory-merely a cheap opportunist.
He never once made the principled case against ever intervening in Syria (and by extension, the Middle East in general) We still don't know what he even thinks on that.
It's academic now.
ReplyDeleteTrue. But, for those of us who would like this to be the start of a general reassertion of national sovereignty, by withdrawing from NATO and from Afghanistan (and, of course , from the EU)-the long wait for a representative voice in Parliament goes on.
ReplyDeleteFew have noticed that only UKIP takes the consistent approach to this.
It has recognised - from its very inception-that withdrawal from the EU is as vital to our national sovereignty as opposition to US-led neocon interventions in other people's countries.
How can you oppose interfering in Syria's internal affairs, and simultaneously support the EU interfering in ours?
Only UKIP is truly consistent in opposing both-for the same reason.
Not at all. There are lots of parties of that view with no seats in the House of Commons. UKIP is but one.
ReplyDeleteLots of parties who support EU withdrawal?
ReplyDeleteAny number. Mostly on the Left. And mostly devoting their time to fighting each other. But they exist.
ReplyDeleteWell, I've always supported our policy of not standing against any sitting MP- of any party-who supports EU withdrawal.
ReplyDelete