Lockerbie

[Walsingham]

I can't keep this to myself any more. Have to say: I am deeply ashamed of the behaviour of our last government in conniving in the release of the Lockerbie bomber. It was a grotesque insult to ALL the victims, but to the US in particular who bore the brunt of the casualties. I thought this might give the other Brits on the forum to second, or disagree as they see fit.

 

Makes sod all difference, of course. But I apologise fwiiw.

[Gorgon]

This is a long time ago yes, some kind of Deal with Khadaffi, which by all accounts worked really well from a foreign policy standpoint.. The Mosad would have made the deal and then made it look like an accident, maybe take a page from their book ?. I mean you do still have nefarious secret government agencies.

[Gfted1]

Sure is weird that he defies modern medicine and continues to life. Must be the excellent health care system in Libya.

[Volourn]

Doctors are wrong a lot when it comes to predicting how long someone has to live. Stories about people who were predicted to die within months who lived for years afterwards are rather common. *shrug* It's juste ducated guesses. there is no hardcore science that can tell even the smartest of doctors exactly how long someone will live. L0L

[Gfted1]

Then I suppose they shouldnt base "humanitarian releases" on junk science.

[Malcador]

Kind of odd to release him, just because he's dying (course other reasons involved). Should have brought his family and friends to see him in prison.

[Monte Carlo]

I've never voted Labour, never will and have contempt for those who did.

 

Then again, save for a few thousand people in a small corner of Scotland, nobody actually voted for Gordon Brown.

[Monte Carlo]

Then again, if the shoe was on the other foot does anybody seriously, for a moment, doubt that the US government wouldn't do exactly the same thing. It's the Speshul Relationship, stoopid.

[Hurlshort]

Then again, if the shoe was on the other foot does anybody seriously, for a moment, doubt that the US government wouldn't do exactly the same thing. It's the Speshul Relationship, stoopid.

 

I really don't think the US would have. The whole not negotiating with terrorists thing is taken pretty seriously by the US government. Not that I think it is always the best policy, but in this case it would have been appropriate.

[Monte Carlo]

Then again, if the shoe was on the other foot does anybody seriously, for a moment, doubt that the US government wouldn't do exactly the same thing. It's the Speshul Relationship, stoopid.

 

I really don't think the US would have. The whole not negotiating with terrorists thing is taken pretty seriously by the US government. Not that I think it is always the best policy, but in this case it would have been appropriate.

 

LOL. You gave the Russians all of our nuclear weapons ORBATs to boost your start treaty. You gave safe haven to IRA terrorists for years, stood by whilst a section of your community funded and armed them, then your judiciary put obstacles in the way of their extradition when they sought sanctuary there. Puh-leez. That's a mighty high horse you got yourself there.

Edited February 8, 2011 by Monte Carlo

[Malcador]

I really don't think the US would have. The whole not negotiating with terrorists thing is taken pretty seriously by the US government. Not that I think it is always the best policy, but in this case it would have been appropriate.

 

Hm, if it were Libya, I doubt it. The US government seems to hold grudges against certain leaders. Now if it were some nation they don't have a distaste for, well it's just the UK.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Then again, if the shoe was on the other foot does anybody seriously, for a moment, doubt that the US government wouldn't do exactly the same thing. It's the Speshul Relationship, stoopid.

 

I really don't think the US would have. The whole not negotiating with terrorists thing is taken pretty seriously by the US government. Not that I think it is always the best policy, but in this case it would have been appropriate.

 

LOL. You gave the Russians all of our nuclear weapons ORBATs to boost your start treaty. You gave safe haven to IRA terrorists for years, stood by whilst a section of your community funded and armed them, then your judiciary put obstacles in the way of their extradition when they sought sanctuary there. Puh-leez. That's a mighty high horse you got yourself there.

You may have a point there. Do you have evidence of the US government sheltering the IRA though? Also, the judiciary is independent, so again, is there evidence of political influence?

[Monte Carlo]

Re-read the post. I never accuse the US government, but a section of the community. Of course, there is a strong anti-British tradition in a small but significant part of both main US political parties and among them there have always been Irish Republican sympathies. Was there tacit support within a part of the US political machine for the IRA. Very probably.

 

In their minds the IRA were always Robin Hood type characters, hiding out in the woods from the evil Redcoats in their armoured cars, as opposed to murdering Marxist psychopaths.

 

None of this excuses the last Labour governments actions apropos Lockerbie / Libya, which were uniformly vile and make me ashamed of my country.

[Wrath of Dagon]

When you say "you", you imply the government. Surely you don't hold me responsible for what someone else might be doing? Besides, we're discussing a UK government act, so I understood you in that context. Edit: Btw, there is no anti-British tradition in the US at all, quite the opposite, excluding people of Irish descent of course.

Edited February 8, 2011 by Wrath of Dagon

[Walsingham]

When you say "you", you imply the government. Surely you don't hold me responsible for what someone else might be doing? Besides, we're discussing a UK government act, so I understood you in that context. Edit: Btw, there is no anti-British tradition in the US at all, quite the opposite, excluding people of Irish descent of course.

 

WoD I'm extremely Pro-US, but you're talking utter balls. The most cursory reading of history in that most fun of all periods (WW2) will show you how strong anti-British tendencies have run in the US> If that fails to grab you, have a look at what the US State department did to back us up during the Falklands war.

 

None of which is really relevant. This was a convicted mass murderer. Raining body parts over Scotland time. I happen to think there is more to being English than where my parents chose to ****. And while the precise definiton of what this means is debatable it ought NOT include releasing smug terrorists into the hands of other smug terrorists for the sake of tawdry oil bastards. And the mention of the IRA merely reinforces the point, since it was Libyan arms - thousands of rifles, and pounds of plastic explosive shipped to the IRA - which killed many more on top of Lockerbie.

 

Simply reinforces my contention that Gordon Brown was gokking insane. And unlike Monte I can't say I never voted for the bastards.

[Monte Carlo]

A significant number of Labour politicians coming of age in the 70's were usually members of the CCGB and other astroturfing leftist groups. Tolerance of 'progressive elements' like the IRA and KGB-funded 'liberation' armies is in their mother's milk.

[Hurlshort]

Monty is on a bit of a tear today. I probably needed to expand on my post a bit, but I just didn't have the time. It was not meant to come across as taking a moral high ground.

 

I'd also say anti-British sentiment is about as low as it has ever been in the US right now. Heck, just look at the popularity of Ricky Gervais and Simon Cowell. They make a living insulting Americans and we love them for it.

 

Politically I can't think of a country that the US has a closer relationship with. Canada doesn't count.

Edited February 8, 2011 by Hurlshot

[Monte Carlo]

Like any relationship, The Speshul Relationship has it's ups and downs.

 

With your saintly Mister Obama, it's just on a bit of a down at the moment.

[Monte Carlo]

WoD I'm extremely Pro-US, but you're talking utter balls. The most cursory reading of history in that most fun of all periods (WW2) will show you how strong anti-British tendencies have run in the US> If that fails to grab you, have a look at what the US State department did to back us up during the Falklands war.

 

1. Any examination of the repellent Joe Kennedy in the 1930s and 40s is enough to turn the stomach of the most ardent pro-Atlanticist. Point proven, M'lud.

 

2. The Falklands is trickier. Reagan said that the UK should have "all assistance save that of military support." I am a huge fan of The Gipper. Latin America is the Us backyard, they have to chose their actions there carefully (which is why Hillary Clinton's appeasement of the Argentinians at the moment is opportunistic and precisely the sort of problem we currently have with the Speshul* Relationship). We got a lot of diplomatic and int support from the septics in '82.

 

* Speshul = Special as I imagine it is spelt in the Merriam-Webster dictionary

[Wrath of Dagon]

When you say "you", you imply the government. Surely you don't hold me responsible for what someone else might be doing? Besides, we're discussing a UK government act, so I understood you in that context. Edit: Btw, there is no anti-British tradition in the US at all, quite the opposite, excluding people of Irish descent of course.

 

WoD I'm extremely Pro-US, but you're talking utter balls. The most cursory reading of history in that most fun of all periods (WW2) will show you how strong anti-British tendencies have run in the US> If that fails to grab you, have a look at what the US State department did to back us up during the Falklands war.

Not familiar with any of that. You'll have to educate me. If you're talking about US resisting various Churchill hare brained schemes, I'd say it has nothing to do with being anti-brit and everything with being sane.

 

Edit: You hold the entire US responsible for Joe Kennedy? He's probably as reviled here (by people who know anything I mean) as much as anywhere. Falklands, so far as I know US did everything possible to help Britain except join in the war.

Edited February 8, 2011 by Wrath of Dagon

[Monte Carlo]

Not familiar with any of that. You'll have to educate me. If you're talking about US resisting various Churchill hare brained schemes, I'd say it has nothing to do with being anti-brit and everything with being sane.

 

See my post above. Do, please, have a little look at Joe Kennedy, pro-Nazi, pro-IRA, elder of 'America's Royal Family.' What a piece of work.

 

Edit: Anglo-American tensions during WW2 deserves its own thread, it is an epic tale of mendacity and hubris on both sides. What I think Wals is referring to is the anti-British, mainly (but far from exclusively) Republican, isolationist tendency that wanted nothing to do with saving Europe from the Nazis.

 

Churchill is another hero of mine. Most heroes are flawed. He was a giant compared to FDR.

Edited February 8, 2011 by Monte Carlo

[Monte Carlo]

If you're talking about US resisting various Churchill hare brained schemes.

 

Admittedly Winston had a few of those, but the scheme the US resisted most ferociously was the one about not assuming the position for Stalin with regards to carving up Europe.

[Wrath of Dagon]

FDR is also a giant, he certainly conducted the war effort much more effectively than Churchill did. I agree about Europe, but there are extenuating circumstances. As far as Joe Kennedy, see my edit above. You can't just ignore FDR, Harry Hopkins, and a bunch of others who were very pro-Britain and single out one guy as representing the US. I believe there were quite a few upper class twit nazi sympasizers in Britain also.

[Monte Carlo]

You hold the entire US responsible for Joe Kennedy?

 

Yes. Apologise, dammit.

[Hurlshort]

History has not looked kindly upon Joe Kennedy. He has a very negative reputation in the US.