UK wasn't prepared - and initially failed?

[jimnyc]

I didn't see this earlier. (now see it came out today, hence the "new" part)

I purposely created a new thread because I have a feeling this thread is going to turn into being more about UK policy than the actual situation in the Strait of Hormuz.

--

I don't think they were prepared, because they failed, that's easy. They had a frigate "in the area", but they didn't get there in time. So the ship's protection was a radioed message from that frigate. If they were fully prepared they would not have failed. They could have kept that frigate close by or they could have had a multitude of ships - a fleet. Alternatively they could potentially have an ally that they can radio and have them come in with their fleet of ships and/or air support. Or you can accept failure and use the radio alone to warn the enemy.

Why even point out he had a stern voice? :rolleyes:

This article also implies that the UK has a weak military or a weak Navy and I do not believe that to be the case. I think they didn't send more of them, only issue I can think of.

Wouldn't doing a 360 put you back in the same dame direction?

---

New audio shows UK could not prevent Iran takeover of tanker

LONDON (AP) — The release Sunday of an audio recording has shed new light on the seizure of a British-flagged tanker at the hands of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as tensions flare in the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

The audio released by maritime security risk firm Dryad Global shows that a British frigate was too far away from the targeted tanker to keep it from being diverted into an Iranian port despite U.K. efforts to keep it from being boarded.

On the recording, a stern-voiced British naval officer insists that the U.K.-flagged oil tanker Stena Impero must be allowed to sail through the Strait of Hormuz even as Iranian paramilitary forces demand — successfully — that the vessel change course.

The audio shows how Britain’s once mighty Royal Navy was unable to prevent the ship’s seizure, which has been condemned by Britain and its European allies as they continue to call for a reduction of tensions in the vital waterway.

The free flow of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is of critical importance to the world’s energy supplies because one-fifth of all global crude exports pass through the narrow waterway between Iran and Oman.

In the recording, an Iranian officer can be heard telling the Stena Impero to change course, saying: “You obey, you will be safe.”

“Alter your course to 360 degrees immediately, over,” the Iranian officer says, adding that the ship is wanted for security reasons.

A British naval officer from the HMS Montrose frigate that was patrolling the area around the Strait of Hormuz is heard telling the Stena Impero, which had a crew of 23 on board, that its passage must be allowed.

“Sir, I reiterate that as you are conducting transit passage in a recognized international strait, under international law your passage must not be impaired, intruded, obstructed or hampered,” the unidentified British officer says.

The British officer then tells an Iranian patrol boat: “Please confirm that you are not intending to violate international law by unlawfully attempting to board the MV Stena.”

His words did nothing to deter the Iranians.

British officials say the HMS Montrose was roughly 60 minutes from the scene when the Iranians took control of the tanker, too far away to intervene effectively.

Iranian officials say the seizure of the British oil tanker was a justified response to Britain’s role in impounding an Iranian supertanker two weeks earlier off the coast of Gibraltar, a British overseas territory located on the southern tip of Spain.

Friday’s seizure comes amid heightened tensions between the U.S. and Iran stemming from President Donald Trump’s decision last year to pull the U.S. from Iran’s nuclear accord with world powers and reinstate sweeping sanctions. The U.S. has also expanded its military presence in the region, while Iran has begun openly exceeding the uranium enrichment levels set in the nuclear accord to try to pressure Europe into alleviating the pain caused by the sanctions.

European nations, which are trying to save the nuclear deal and keep Iran from isolation, have tried to come up with ways to keep trading with Iran but have run smack into Trump’s sanctions.

Rest - https://apnews.com/3079b05145e0442b912f270e0a9380b8

[Gunny]

I didn't see this earlier. (now see it came out today, hence the "new" part)

I purposely created a new thread because I have a feeling this thread is going to turn into being more about UK policy than the actual situation in the Strait of Hormuz.

--

I don't think they were prepared, because they failed, that's easy. They had a frigate "in the area", but they didn't get there in time. So the ship's protection was a radioed message from that frigate. If they were fully prepared they would not have failed. They could have kept that frigate close by or they could have had a multitude of ships - a fleet. Alternatively they could potentially have an ally that they can radio and have them come in with their fleet of ships and/or air support. Or you can accept failure and use the radio alone to warn the enemy.

Why even point out he had a stern voice? :rolleyes:

This article also implies that the UK has a weak military or a weak Navy and I do not believe that to be the case. I think they didn't send more of them, only issue I can think of.

Wouldn't doing a 360 put you back in the same dame direction?

---

New audio shows UK could not prevent Iran takeover of tanker

LONDON (AP) — The release Sunday of an audio recording has shed new light on the seizure of a British-flagged tanker at the hands of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as tensions flare in the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

The audio released by maritime security risk firm Dryad Global shows that a British frigate was too far away from the targeted tanker to keep it from being diverted into an Iranian port despite U.K. efforts to keep it from being boarded.

On the recording, a stern-voiced British naval officer insists that the U.K.-flagged oil tanker Stena Impero must be allowed to sail through the Strait of Hormuz even as Iranian paramilitary forces demand — successfully — that the vessel change course.

The audio shows how Britain’s once mighty Royal Navy was unable to prevent the ship’s seizure, which has been condemned by Britain and its European allies as they continue to call for a reduction of tensions in the vital waterway.

The free flow of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is of critical importance to the world’s energy supplies because one-fifth of all global crude exports pass through the narrow waterway between Iran and Oman.

In the recording, an Iranian officer can be heard telling the Stena Impero to change course, saying: “You obey, you will be safe.”

“Alter your course to 360 degrees immediately, over,” the Iranian officer says, adding that the ship is wanted for security reasons.

A British naval officer from the HMS Montrose frigate that was patrolling the area around the Strait of Hormuz is heard telling the Stena Impero, which had a crew of 23 on board, that its passage must be allowed.

“Sir, I reiterate that as you are conducting transit passage in a recognized international strait, under international law your passage must not be impaired, intruded, obstructed or hampered,” the unidentified British officer says.

The British officer then tells an Iranian patrol boat: “Please confirm that you are not intending to violate international law by unlawfully attempting to board the MV Stena.”

His words did nothing to deter the Iranians.

British officials say the HMS Montrose was roughly 60 minutes from the scene when the Iranians took control of the tanker, too far away to intervene effectively.

Iranian officials say the seizure of the British oil tanker was a justified response to Britain’s role in impounding an Iranian supertanker two weeks earlier off the coast of Gibraltar, a British overseas territory located on the southern tip of Spain.

Friday’s seizure comes amid heightened tensions between the U.S. and Iran stemming from President Donald Trump’s decision last year to pull the U.S. from Iran’s nuclear accord with world powers and reinstate sweeping sanctions. The U.S. has also expanded its military presence in the region, while Iran has begun openly exceeding the uranium enrichment levels set in the nuclear accord to try to pressure Europe into alleviating the pain caused by the sanctions.

European nations, which are trying to save the nuclear deal and keep Iran from isolation, have tried to come up with ways to keep trading with Iran but have run smack into Trump’s sanctions.

Rest - https://apnews.com/3079b05145e0442b912f270e0a9380b8Whichever know it all wrote that "failed" opinion needs to get HIS ass on a frigate in the Gulf THEN talk shit and pass judgement. It takes a day with both boilers hittin' it to get from one end of the Gulf to the other. People talk about the Gulf like it's this tiny puddle of mostly land-locked water. One way in and out is true. Little doesn't even come close.

While these EU countries want to leave out the US in dealing with Iran, that's akin to ignoring the elephant in the room. The only way to "be prepared" in this context is to escort each ship individually. I don't see that happening.

[Drummond]

This all comes down to mindsets. The psychology involved. Particularly - the perception held in my part of the world that ending the Iran nuke deal was an extremely bad move, and that Trump needs to do a 180 degree turn and re-institute it, pronto.

The EU (and to a degree, the UK) holds to the position that the deal needs to be saved. Whether from purely pragmatic motivations or out of an actual 'sympathy' for Iran, what all the powers in my region want is for things to be smoothed over, defused.

[We've seen sympathy-pieces on BBC News, detailing how the 'poor Iranians' are suffering, thanks to 'aggressive' sanctions they are a 'victim' of ....]

On the one hand, they can't view the seizure of the British tanker as something to take a tolerant view over. On the other, they're still scrambling around for diplomatic answers, because they hope that just to be seen doing that may get Tehran to see us more favourably.

In the UK's case, though .. I'm sure Iran views us as a more natural ally of the US, and weaker, therefore, ripe for picking on.

On the UK side - and, critically - we're hamstrung by our 'PC' climate, which has us forever finding ways to defer to other cultures and be 'enlightened' enough to be 'hyper-receptive' to what they'll say.

Our own psychology is, thanks to long-term social conditioning (from the Left !), disgustingly weak.

So here we are, in a political soup, driven to weakness, some of it entirely home-grown.

If, by some miracle, all of this IS resolved through diplomacy, will we be alert to future belligerence from Iran ? We'll be aware of the possibility of it, BUT, there'll be a lot of back-slapping congratulations because ours will be domestically seen as the 'far better, more civilised and decent' answer to a crisis. Precious few people are going to see our approach as weak, therefore, wrong-headed: indeed, we'll probably wonder why Trump can't 'be more civilised' and 'tolerant' of Iran in future.

This is what chiefly infuriates me ! We absolutely WILL NOT LEARN, UNLESS FORCED TO.

[Kathianne]

Whichever know it all wrote that "failed" opinion needs to get HIS ass on a frigate in the Gulf THEN talk shit and pass judgement. It takes a day with both boilers hittin' it to get from one end of the Gulf to the other. People talk about the Gulf like it's this tiny puddle of mostly land-locked water. One way in and out is true. Little doesn't even come close.

While these EU countries want to leave out the US in dealing with Iran, that's akin to ignoring the elephant in the room. The only way to "be prepared" in this context is to escort each ship individually. I don't see that happening.

While the EU most definitely is not overly fond of the US President, they have to be a bit miffed at all the Brexit talk as well? France and Germany working together? How quaint.

[Kathianne]

This all comes down to mindsets. The psychology involved. Particularly - the perception held in my part of the world that ending the Iran nuke deal was an extremely bad move, and that Trump needs to do a 180 degree turn and re-institute it, pronto.

The EU (and to a degree, the UK) holds to the position that the deal needs to be saved. Whether from purely pragmatic motivations or out of an actual 'sympathy' for Iran, what all the powers in my region want is for things to be smoothed over, defused.

[We've seen sympathy-pieces on BBC News, detailing how the 'poor Iranians' are suffering, thanks to 'aggressive' sanctions they are a 'victim' of ....]

On the one hand, they can't view the seizure of the British tanker as something to take a tolerant view over. On the other, they're still scrambling around for diplomatic answers, because they hope that just to be seen doing that may get Tehran to see us more favourably.

In the UK's case, though .. I'm sure Iran views us as a more natural ally of the US, and weaker, therefore, ripe for picking on.

On the UK side - and, critically - we're hamstrung by our 'PC' climate, which has us forever finding ways to defer to other cultures and be 'enlightened' enough to be 'hyper-receptive' to what they'll say.

Our own psychology is, thanks to long-term social conditioning (from the Left !), disgustingly weak.

So here we are, in a political soup, driven to weakness, some of it entirely home-grown.

If, by some miracle, all of this IS resolved through diplomacy, will we be alert to future belligerence from Iran ? We'll be aware of the possibility of it, BUT, there'll be a lot of back-slapping congratulations because ours will be domestically seen as the 'far better, more civilised and decent' answer to a crisis. Precious few people are going to see our approach as weak, therefore, wrong-headed: indeed, we'll probably wonder why Trump can't 'be more civilised' and 'tolerant' of Iran in future.

This is what chiefly infuriates me ! We absolutely WILL NOT LEARN, UNLESS FORCED TO.

I don't understand your country well enough to get this. Why is it you never have applied for US permanent visa? If you were American I'd find you sort of at the level of 'hate America.' Maybe I just don't understand.

[jimnyc]

Whichever know it all wrote that "failed" opinion needs to get HIS ass on a frigate in the Gulf THEN talk shit and pass judgement. It takes a day with both boilers hittin' it to get from one end of the Gulf to the other. People talk about the Gulf like it's this tiny puddle of mostly land-locked water. One way in and out is true. Little doesn't even come close.

While these EU countries want to leave out the US in dealing with Iran, that's akin to ignoring the elephant in the room. The only way to "be prepared" in this context is to escort each ship individually. I don't see that happening.

Sorry man, it was me that added it to the title. I did so and when I did I had the British government in mind. (if similar to us anyway). Just as Trump would be responsible for getting the military alerted and sending them to the Middle East and I would also assume the amount being sent. With that in mind is when I was thinking of failure, that the British did not send enough over there to have enough participation in order to protect. I do believe they have a more sizable Navy and had they sent the multitude of ships they probably and most likely would have stopped that. 1 aircraft carrier and two amphibious ships. They have six destroyers and 13 frigates. Then they have some kick ass Patrol boats to go along and travel behind all of them. It looks like these patrol boats are designed for speed. The list continues to go on but it appears that that is the majority of their fighting fleet, where some of those patrol boats look like they are designated for specific areas?

My intent was to call out the British government and they were the ones I was referring to as losers. I 100% did not have any military minded people in mind when I wrote that, British or American. And even with the government and the loser comment it was in reference to just this one situation. I think at least everyone knows by now that I wouldn't purposely insult our military or the British military. It was obviously just a very poor timing to use that word. I apologize to anyone that may have read that and thought that I was insulting to either military or personally. :(

[Drummond]

While the EU most definitely is not overly fond of the US President, they have to be a bit miffed at all the Brexit talk as well? France and Germany working together? How quaint.

That's surely for another thread ?

France and Germany NOT working together is somewhat rare. I don't see why you regard it as 'quaint'. Much has changed over the decades, and common EU-based interests have done much to bring both countries' political attitudes together.

Brexit ... better discussed elsewhere. But both countries take an almost totally unified stance on it. Germany's a bit more sympathetic (just a bit) towards us having yet more time before we must leave than France is, to help solve the 'deal/no deal' situation. Otherwise, their views are in lockstep.

[Gunny]

This all comes down to mindsets. The psychology involved. Particularly - the perception held in my part of the world that ending the Iran nuke deal was an extremely bad move, and that Trump needs to do a 180 degree turn and re-institute it, pronto.

The EU (and to a degree, the UK) holds to the position that the deal needs to be saved. Whether from purely pragmatic motivations or out of an actual 'sympathy' for Iran, what all the powers in my region want is for things to be smoothed over, defused.

[We've seen sympathy-pieces on BBC News, detailing how the 'poor Iranians' are suffering, thanks to 'aggressive' sanctions they are a 'victim' of ....]

On the one hand, they can't view the seizure of the British tanker as something to take a tolerant view over. On the other, they're still scrambling around for diplomatic answers, because they hope that just to be seen doing that may get Tehran to see us more favourably.

In the UK's case, though .. I'm sure Iran views us as a more natural ally of the US, and weaker, therefore, ripe for picking on.

On the UK side - and, critically - we're hamstrung by our 'PC' climate, which has us forever finding ways to defer to other cultures and be 'enlightened' enough to be 'hyper-receptive' to what they'll say.

Our own psychology is, thanks to long-term social conditioning (from the Left !), disgustingly weak.

So here we are, in a political soup, driven to weakness, some of it entirely home-grown.

If, by some miracle, all of this IS resolved through diplomacy, will we be alert to future belligerence from Iran ? We'll be aware of the possibility of it, BUT, there'll be a lot of back-slapping congratulations because ours will be domestically seen as the 'far better, more civilised and decent' answer to a crisis. Precious few people are going to see our approach as weak, therefore, wrong-headed: indeed, we'll probably wonder why Trump can't 'be more civilised' and 'tolerant' of Iran in future.

This is what chiefly infuriates me ! We absolutely WILL NOT LEARN, UNLESS FORCED TO.My opinion. I don't get why the EU/UK are so dead-set on living up to a one-sided deal that only slows down the process of Iran getting nukes. Is Chamberlain doing its thinking for it? The picture of "Peace in our time" is infamous; yet, pointless if the lesson isn't learned. THAT is stupid.

Iran is going to have to be dealt with. It isn't going away nor is there an "Abraham Lincoln" waiting in the wings to take over. It is going to have to be dealt with by force. I see zero reason to ensure they have armed themselves to the teeth and becoming a formidable opponent when they can be stopped NOW.

Other side of the coin: I was against and am still against Trump bullying so-called "allies" into who they can and cannot deal with. Trump pulled out of the deal and I'm completely fine with that. However, he/we/the US doesn't own the world. The whole point to all these useless organizations is to get a consensus that is best for everyone, not just one Nation. I don't like them either, but let's not pretend to be friends with these other countries if all we are going to do is tell them what to do.

F*ck Iran. And since I forgot earlier in the thread, REALLY f*ck France. That puss-hole probably would surrender to itself.

I am all for supporting the UK if it chooses to act. But the UK is going to have to choose and quit riding the fence because I'm not for saving Europe from itself. Again. They're already trying to get out of the EU.

This whole mess is a bunch of horseshit because our previous President. When one has the power to rule the world, one must use that power wisely. Not waste it kissing ass to a Nation of criminals just to go against everything the US stood for up to that point.

[Drummond]

I don't understand your country well enough to get this. Why is it you never have applied for US permanent visa? If you were American I'd find you sort of at the level of 'hate America.' Maybe I just don't understand.

I think I must agree. You do not understand. But then .. neither do I.

Are you saying that my seeing things in a pro-American way must mean I should move to America ? Why does the one follow from the other ? I have enormous sympathy for Ukraine, and the disgusting way Russia treats them .. but I have no plans or wish to move to that part of the world, either.

You say if I was American, I'd be 'sort of' at the level of 'hate America' .. ? Now this completely baffles me. Why does my thinking equate in any way to 'hating' America ??

I can only think you've mis-typed, or you're suffering from a total misunderstanding of what I'm all about.

[Kathianne]

That's surely for another thread ?

France and Germany NOT working together is somewhat rare. I don't see why you regard it as 'quaint'. Much has changed over the decades, and common EU-based interests have done much to bring both countries' political attitudes together.

Brexit ... better discussed elsewhere. But both countries take an almost totally unified stance on it. Germany's a bit more sympathetic (just a bit) towards us having yet more time before we must leave than France is, to help solve the 'deal/no deal' situation. Otherwise, their views are in lockstep.
I disagree. France and Germany NOT working with UK and US is not smart, on so many levels-74 years later or not.

To the first, it does seem that Trump is miffed at UK for ambassador's comments-that he was not to ever know about. France & Germany miffed at UK for Brexit. All three Euros miffed at US, because. Trump.

Meanwhile, Iran is doing what it can to cause choas and possibly start a war, which is much more likely with allies miffed at each other.

[Kathianne]

I think I must agree. You do not understand. But then .. neither do I.

Are you saying that my seeing things in a pro-American way must mean I should move to America ? Why does the one follow from the other ? I have enormous sympathy for Ukraine, and the disgusting way Russia treats them .. but I have no plans or wish to move to that part of the world, either.

I am not saying you MUST do anything, just that your rah rah American views are a bit disconcerting. You do know that the Democrats have more members than Republicans? That even amongst those that are in favor of Trump, most wish he were not as he is? I too have sympathy for the people in the Ukraine, those who would most definitely love to be admitted to US or even the UK, but I have no desire to move there either. Your talk is always of how disappointed, disgusted, and dismayed you are at the UK, but I hear very little positive about it, from you.

I want my country to improve, but whether my discontent is from extremes on the political spectrum or individuals like the squad or Trump, I do not fail to see why, still, it is the best place to be, in my opinion.

You say if I was American, I'd be 'sort of' at the level of 'hate America' .. ? Now this completely baffles me. Why does my thinking equate in any way to 'hating' America ??

I can only think you've mis-typed, or you're suffering from a total misunderstanding of what I'm all about.

I meant that while you are saying that IF Britain acted more like America, control the 'liberals' the country would return to what it should be. Still you argue that for over 1/2 your life, that isn't the way she goes.

[Drummond]

My opinion. I don't get why the EU/UK are so dead-set on living up to a one-sided deal that only slows down the process of Iran getting nukes. Is Chamberlain doing its thinking for it? The picture of "Peace in our time" is infamous; yet, pointless if the lesson isn't learned. THAT is stupid.

Iran is going to have to be dealt with. It isn't going away nor is there an "Abraham Lincoln" waiting in the wings to take over. It is going to have to be dealt with by force. I see zero reason to ensure they have armed themselves to the teeth and becoming a formidable opponent when they can be stopped NOW.

Other side of the coin: I was against and am still against Trump bullying so-called "allies" into who they can and cannot deal with. Trump pulled out of the deal and I'm completely fine with that. However, he/we/the US doesn't own the world. The whole point to all these useless organizations is to get a consensus that is best for everyone, not just one Nation. I don't like them either, but let's not pretend to be friends with these other countries if all we are going to do is tell them what to do.

F*ck Iran. And since I forgot earlier in the thread, REALLY f*ck France. That puss-hole probably would surrender to itself.

I am all for supporting the UK if it chooses to act. But the UK is going to have to choose and quit riding the fence because I'm not for saving Europe from itself. Again. They're already trying to get out of the EU.

This whole mess is a bunch of horseshit because our previous President. When one has the power to rule the world, one must use that power wisely. Not waste it kissing ass to a Nation of criminals just to go against everything the US stood for up to that point.

I think it comes down to naivety, and the enormous damage the Left has done, over decades, to our thinking. They've made it a part of our culture to see others in a 'kind', 'deferential', so-called 'understanding' way .. often in complete defiance of commonsense.

Many people here have a misguided faith that Iran cannot be the 'villain' ... in the accepted sense. They think that talk of them being that is propagandist. We see very much the same thing in the way so many people see Islamic terrorists as 'extremists', in no way representative of 'more enlightened, mainstream' Islam. We could be nuked to hell and back by Muslim terrorists, but still, remarkably few people would see Islam as being at fault.

Tehran's regime will be seen as not being 'quite like us'. But talk of their being warmongers, wholesale terrorist enablers, belligerent in the extreme ... a lot of people take that with a pinch of salt. Always, you see, the equivocation arguments are seen to have weight to them. Have Trump sound off against the threat Iran poses ... and many here won't take it literally. They'll be seen to be the victims of Trump's hostility, with their 'poor people suffering' because of him.

When Obama rounded on the UK, both over the BP oil spill, and his insistence that we must remain in the EU or be put to the back of the queue for trade deals, the reactions were of sheer shock, both because of his arrogant judgmentality and his willingness to dictate to us from a position of hostility. People LIKED Obama here. Obama himself joked that he was better liked abroad than at home; I think he was right.

Trump's seen as the polar opposite to him, so, he's painted as extreme, bigoted, not to be automatically believed. Recent commentary has been united in condemnation for his 'racism' ... nobody sees any other side to the argument than that.

So with Iran: few here think the painting of Iran as being a great threat is accurate, and thinking here is that diplomacy is likely to work because, at heart, Iranian regime members are 'reasonable' thinkers, reacting to sanctions they're a 'victim' of.

We have a lot to learn. Leftie equivocation propaganda holds sway here, and I think we'll need to understand the truth of Iran's hostility the hard way. Jeremy Hunt is one figure who clearly needs to learn. I believe his 'extreme disappointment' with Iran over the tanker seizure isn't just diplomacy talking: he means what he says. He doesn't comprehend Iran as the enemy power it is.

[Gunny]

I meant that while you are saying that IF Britain acted more like America, control the 'liberals' the country would return to what it should be. Still you argue that for over 1/2 your life, that isn't the way she goes. Slow down, teacher. You lost me as well. I don't understand the at the level of hate America comment either. What am I missing?

[Kathianne]

Slow down, teacher. You lost me as well. I don't understand the at the level of hate America comment either. What am I missing?

He sounds like the British version of the squad.

On another thread just posted, he's saying, that the British people see that Iran is reacting as a reaction to Trump's rhetoric, with the people of Iran being the victims.

Like the squad, 'world suffering is the US fault.'

THAT is what I meant he sounded like 'the hate America crowd' IF he were American. He's not American, he's a Brit, often sounding like 'Britain is awful, though it's the liberals fault.'

[Gunny]

He sounds like the British version of the squad.

On another thread just posted, he's saying, that the British people see that Iran is reacting as a reaction to Trump's rhetoric, with the people of Iran being the victims.

Like the squad, 'world suffering is the US fault.'

THAT is what I meant he sounded like 'the hate America crowd' IF he were American. He's not American, he's a Brit, often sounding like 'Britain is awful, though it's the liberals fault.'I've never got that impression from Drummond. He's hard to follow at times. Especially whe he starts using the terms "liberal", "conservative" and/or "labour". They don't mean the same thing there as they do here.

If Drummond hates the left in the UK, look what the left has done to the UK. Its hate crime laws alone are ridiculous, BUT, EXACTLY what the left is trying to do here.

Anyway, I just get the idea he's loke the rest of us and wants his country back :) Hell, remember the 70s here? Pretty bad but I prefer then to now here.

[Kathianne]

I've never got that impression from Drummond. He's hard to follow at times. Especially whe he starts using the terms "liberal", "conservative" and/or "labour". They don't mean the same thing there as they do here.

If Drummond hates the left in the UK, look what the left has done to the UK. Its hate crime laws alone are ridiculous, BUT, EXACTLY what the left is trying to do here.

Anyway, I just get the idea he's loke the rest of us and wants his country back :) Hell, remember the 70s here? Pretty bad but I prefer then to now here.

I'm not nostalgic for the past, other than letting kids, be kids. I'm grateful for what was accomplished back then, we enjoy the fruits every bit as much as we do those from 1776, 1885, 1945, etc. We have the good and bad, we don't get to choose.

If we are unhappy, sure bitch a bit, then try to change it. If impossible, be grateful for what you do have or find someplace more to your liking. It's why I am in AZ rather than IL right now. It's how I've made job choices, etc.

I wouldn't quit a job, without a new one. I would not stay longer than I must, but would do my best until the end.

It's the way I was raised.

[Drummond]

I meant that while you are saying that IF Britain acted more like America, control the 'liberals' the country would return to what it should be. Still you argue that for over 1/2 your life, that isn't the way she goes.

I see (sort of).

You really don't understand, do you ?

You SHOULD understand, better than this ! I've already been effusive enough, on other threads and at other times, about how it is that I come to think as I do. I'm conscious that in answering you, I'm covering old ground.

Oh, well. Here we go again, then ....

My society's history is different to yours. Politically, it's already swung to such extremes, known such stresses and strains, that you've not only not experienced any equivalent of, but probably would struggle to even imagine.

I argue against the Left, be it my country's version of it, or yours. But with me, it isn't just that I hold a view which makes me THINK I'm right: I absolutely KNOW with CERTAINTY that I'm right. It isn't a matter of debate with me, but certain knowledge of being right.

I know this: the Left has its worldview, and its political imperatives, and it'll sink to any level, do anything at all, to win through with them. It's intensely propagandist, and will insist its propaganda succeeds. If you're anti-Islam for whatever reason, you're automatically bigoted and racist, and all proof to the contrary is dismissed and subject to hate campaigns.

The Left is extremely pro-Union, and vice versa. Unions here have done enormous damage, to trading infrastructure, peoples' livelihoods, and we needed Margaret Thatcher to pass laws just to keep them in check !

Regardless -- twice in our history, Union leaders have worked to depose lawfully elected Conservative Governments. Arthur Scargill tried it in 1984, but failed. Earlier, Ted Heath was successfully deposed in early 1974 (the Three Day Working Week ... look it up !), Labour were elected ... and within two years, we knew 26 percent inflation and a devaluation of the Pound.

So, tell me, Kath: does America have equivalents of this, in its history ? AND, isn't it a GOOD thing when you elect a President, and Administration, who'd never in a million years stand for any such destruction being so much as threatened against American society ??

I know, repeat, KNOW, that the Left's influence must be defeated. I know what you'll suffer if it isn't. Yes, I'll 'rah-rah' my support for President Trump, Kath ... because, without realising it, you need a President of his standing.

Or would you rather America suffered what my society has done, before you come to see that I might actually be justified ??

I celebrate that America hasn't suffered what the UK has. I have no wish whatever to see that it risks doing so.

I invite you to agree with me that it shouldn't.

[Kathianne]

I see (sort of).

You really don't understand, do you ?

You SHOULD understand, better than this ! I've already been effusive enough, on other threads and at other times, about how it is that I come to think as I do. I'm conscious that in answering you, I'm covering old ground.

Oh, well. Here we go again, then ....

My society's history is different to yours. Politically, it's already swung to such extremes, known such stresses and strains, that you've not only not experienced any equivalent of, but probably would struggle to even imagine.

I argue against the Left, be it my country's version of it, or yours. But with me, it isn't just that I hold a view which makes me THINK I'm right: I absolutely KNOW with CERTAINTY that I'm right. It isn't a matter of debate with me, but certain knowledge of being right.

I know this: the Left has its worldview, and its political imperatives, and it'll sink to any level, do anything at all, to win through with them. It's intensely propagandist, and will insist its propaganda succeeds. If you're anti-Islam for whatever reason, you're automatically bigoted and racist, and all proof to the contrary is dismissed and subject to hate campaigns.

The Left is extremely pro-Union, and vice versa. Unions here have done enormous damage, to trading infrastructure, peoples' livelihoods, and we needed Margaret Thatcher to pass laws just to keep them in check !

Regardless -- twice in our history, Union leaders have worked to depose lawfully elected Conservative Governments. Arthur Scargill tried it in 1984, but failed. Earlier, Ted Heath was successfully deposed in early 1974 (the Three Day Working Week ... look it up !), Labour were elected ... and within two years, we knew 26 percent inflation and a devaluation of the Pound.

So, tell me, Kath: does America have equivalents of this, in its history ? AND, isn't it a GOOD thing when you elect a President, and Administration, who'd never in a million years stand for any such destruction being so much as threatened against American society ??

I know, repeat, KNOW, that the Left's influence must be defeated. I know what you'll suffer if it isn't. Yes, I'll 'rah-rah' my support for President Trump, Kath ... because, without realising it, you need a President of his standing.

Or would you rather America suffered what my society has done, before you come to see that I might actually be justified ??

I celebrate that America hasn't suffered what the UK has. I have no wish whatever to see that it risks doing so.

I invite you to agree with me that it shouldn't.

So I ask you, you choose to live there. Why?

[Drummond]

I've never got that impression from Drummond. He's hard to follow at times. Especially whe he starts using the terms "liberal", "conservative" and/or "labour". They don't mean the same thing there as they do here.

If Drummond hates the left in the UK, look what the left has done to the UK. Its hate crime laws alone are ridiculous, BUT, EXACTLY what the left is trying to do here.

Anyway, I just get the idea he's loke the rest of us and wants his country back :) Hell, remember the 70s here? Pretty bad but I prefer then to now here.

THANK YOU, GUNNY ! YOU GET ME.

You understand.

Why Kath doesn't, is beyond me to understand. I've just posted a 'War & Peace' sized epistle aimed at Kathianne, which says things I've already made clear in other posts, on other threads. Hopefully, now, Kath will understand.

The Left has been ruinous to us ... materially so, in decades past, and now, in terms of what they insist they successfully indoctrinate us with. I certainly 'get' that Kath will have no conception of such dangers being manifest in America, but even so, I've explained myself more than once on all this already.

Regardless of what Kathianne may think of Trump, he's one hell of an antidote to all of the evils I have described. He may not be perfect. But, trust me ... you, Kath, so many other Americans, would hate the alternative he stands so firmly against.

[Kathianne]

THANK YOU, GUNNY ! YOU GET ME.

You understand.

Why Kath doesn't, is beyond me to understand. I've just posted a 'War & Peace' sized epistle aimed at Kathianne, which says things I've already made clear in other posts, on other threads. Hopefully, now, Kath will understand.

The Left has been ruinous to us ... materially so, in decades past, and now, in terms of what they insist they successfully indoctrinate us with. I certainly 'get' that Kath will have no conception of such dangers being manifest in America, but even so, I've explained myself more than once on all this already.

Regardless of what Kathianne may think of Trump, he's one hell of an antidote to all of the evils I have described. He may not be perfect. But, trust me ... you, Kath, so many other Americans, would hate the alternative he stands so firmly against.

Then I'm more confused than ever, why do you stay in such a hell hole?

[Drummond]

So I ask you, you choose to live there. Why?

Maybe it's because I don't want the upheaval of moving away ... I am definitely no youngster, and I've become set in my ways, at least to some extent.

But that isn't all of it. I know how my society is faring, I know why, I've some conception of the road it's not only following, but what its likely destination is. Tell me, why shouldn't I want to stand in opposition to it ?

Why do you think I should find it appropriate to just 'run away' ?

Do you know what they say about rats leaving a sinking ship ?

Some of us don't run. I see no reason why I should ... why it should be 'expected' of me, by you, or anyone.

Am I making myself clear, now ?

[Gunny]

I'm not nostalgic for the past, other than letting kids, be kids. I'm grateful for what was accomplished back then, we enjoy the fruits every bit as much as we do those from 1776, 1885, 1945, etc. We have the good and bad, we don't get to choose.

If we are unhappy, sure bitch a bit, then try to change it. If impossible, be grateful for what you do have or find someplace more to your liking. It's why I am in AZ rather than IL right now. It's how I've made job choices, etc.

I wouldn't quit a job, without a new one. I would not stay longer than I must, but would do my best until the end.

It's the way I was raised.Nostalgic? Maybe. I was thinking more in terms of personal freedom. That's how I was raised :)

[Drummond]

Then I'm more confused than ever, why do you stay in such a hell hole?

Just answered.

Why do you want me to run away ? Please explain that.

Is that what everyone like me should do, by your reckoning ?

Why would you want that ?

[Kathianne]

Just answered.

Why do you want me to run away ? Please explain that.

Is that what everyone like me should do, by your reckoning ?

Why would you want that ?


You write 5-10k words to explain how the US MUST GUARD against becoming UK like. But you stay? At this moment in time, though it seems you fear we could become the UK, the US seems more the way you want. I'm just confused, as your persistent argument is that it seems beyond time for the UK to turn it around and the US seems, in your opinion, to head the same-with a Trump pause.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Kat , you are wrong. Drummond has zero hate for USA. In fact he cares far more for USA than any damn dem politician alive and far more than most ordinary dem voters that constantly betray this nation with their ideology and their damn votes.
I think I may know my friend Drummond far better than any other member here does.
He is certainly pro-american in his thinking.
I too have asked him why he does not relocate to USA, since in my opinion Britain will eventually fall to Islam and be under its control.
He basically refuses to run away-- that my friend is courage. Same as I too, refuse to ever run away from this my home, my nation.
Choosing instead to stay to fight if need be for what I cherish.
His description of Britain and the lunacy of its politicians is spot on. As is his description of what that lunacy has done to its culture.
It may be that we fail to properly understand his words--but I damn sure know for sure that he does not hate this country and does not
think it proper to abandon his own country for what future safety may lie here.
Just my two cents worth my friend.--Tyr

[Gunny]

THANK YOU, GUNNY ! YOU GET ME.

You understand.

Why Kath doesn't, is beyond me to understand. I've just posted a 'War & Peace' sized epistle aimed at Kathianne, which says things I've already made clear in other posts, on other threads. Hopefully, now, Kath will understand.

The Left has been ruinous to us ... materially so, in decades past, and now, in terms of what they insist they successfully indoctrinate us with. I certainly 'get' that Kath will have no conception of such dangers being manifest in America, but even so, I've explained myself more than once on all this already.

Regardless of what Kathianne may think of Trump, he's one hell of an antidote to all of the evils I have described. He may not be perfect. But, trust me ... you, Kath, so many other Americans, would hate the alternative he stands so firmly against.Where I think it all begins? I speak English. You speak English. Kathianne speaks English.

Kathianne and I do not speak the same English you do. Even when we do, it can mean something completely different to one and the other. For instance :): "Lorri" is a girl's name here, not a truck. We wear a boot; we don't keep our "spanner" (tire iron here) and spare in or on it. "Bonnet" is what little girls wear on their heads.

Conservative here is us. Reading above, I get the impression you are behind the guy noir hates for PM, but not Hunt yet Hunt is a "conservative"? Your government is more jacked up than mine is :laugh:

[Kathianne]

Kat , you are wrong. Drummond has zero hate for USA. In fact he cares far more for USA than any damn dem politician alive and far more than most ordinary dem voters that constantly betray this nation with their ideology and their damn votes.
I think I may know my friend Drummond far better than any other member here does.
He is certainly pro-american in his thinking.
I too have asked him why he does not relocate to USA, since in my opinion Britain will eventually fall to Islam and be under its control.
He basically refuses to run away-- that my friend is courage. Same as I too, refuse to ever run away from this my home, my nation.
Choosing instead to stay to fight if need be for what I cherish.
His description of Britain and the lunacy of its politicians is spot on. As is his description of what that lunacy has done to its culture.
It may be that we fail to properly understand his words--but I damn sure know for sure that he does not hate this country and does not
think it proper to abandon his own country for what future safety may lie here.
Just my two cents worth my friend.--Tyr

Tyr, I totally agree. If anything I think he should be here. I think you misunderstood my point. It seems both Drummond and Gunny did too, it is my fault.

[Drummond]

You write 5-10k words to explain how the US MUST GUARD against becoming UK like. But you stay? At this moment in time, though it seems you fear we could become the UK, the US seems more the way you want. I'm just confused, as your persistent argument is that it seems beyond time for the UK to turn it around and the US seems, in your opinion, to head the same-with a Trump pause.

I'm having difficulty in understanding what you say is your confusion. Are you sure it isn't just that you'd rather not understand ?

I don't know what more I can say to make myself clearer. You say it yourself: my argument is a persistent one .. and yes, it is.

My impression is that, for whatever precise reason, you much prefer to stand in opposition to it.

I'd like to know why that is .. truthfully. What is the nature of your real opposition ?

Is it just that you cannot believe what I've described to you ? Because, if that's it, the answer for you would be to do the proper research. I'll offer you subjects for that research, shall I ?

Try checking out, then, literature, websites, photos, critiques, on:



The Three Day Working Week



The Winter of Discontent



Arthur Scargill



Sid Weighell



'Red Robbo'



1976: 26 percent inflation, devaluation of the Pound



Morticians' Strike



Ambulance Dispute



Firefighters' Strikes (we needed Army intervention on that one, as well as the Ambulance one).


Read up on all of this, Kath. And, more ... chart the progress, and statutory implementations of, 'hatespeech' laws. Know that to speak out, publicly, against Islam is actionable in law.

Check it all out.

When you have, mull over the simple fact that Donald Trump and his style of Presidency wouldn't tolerate ANY of this, AT ALL.

And my suggestion, is ... thank your lucky stars that's so.

[Gunny]

You write 5-10k words to explain how the US MUST GUARD against becoming UK like. But you stay? At this moment in time, though it seems you fear we could become the UK, the US seems more the way you want. I'm just confused, as your persistent argument is that it seems beyond time for the UK to turn it around and the US seems, in your opinion, to head the same-with a Trump pause.Sounds about right to me.

Are you asking why he stays?

[Kathianne]

I'm having difficulty in understanding what you say is your confusion. Are you sure it isn't just that you'd rather not understand ?

I don't know what more I can say to make myself clearer. You say it yourself: my argument is a persistent one .. and yes, it is.

My impression is that, for whatever precise reason, you much prefer to stand in opposition to it.

I'd like to know why that is .. truthfully. What is the nature of your real opposition ?

Is it just that you cannot believe what I've described to you ? Because, if that's it, the answer for you would be to do the proper research. I'll offer you subjects for that research, shall I ?

Try checking out, then, literature, websites, photos, critiques, on:



The Three Day Working Week



The Winter of Discontent



Arthur Scargill



Sid Weighell



'Red Robbo'



1976: 26 percent inflation, devaluation of the Pound



Morticians' Strike



Ambulance Dispute



Firefighters' Strikes (we needed Army intervention on that one, as well as the Ambulance one).


Read up on all of this, Kath. And, more ... chart the progress, and statutory implementations of, 'hatespeech' laws. Know that to speak out, publicly, against Islam is actionable in law.

Check it all out.

When you have, mull over the simple fact that Donald Trump and his style of Presidency wouldn't tolerate ANY of this, AT ALL.

And my suggestion, is ... thank your lucky stars that's so.

Nah, I'm not being deflected here. I will take Tyr's word for it, you stay there as the last brick for the corrupt government to crush. I guess that is the answer.

[Kathianne]

Sounds about right to me.

Are you asking why he stays?

Well that was the point, but seems everyone would just rather tell me why Drummond is such a jolly good fellow. So, I've just decided to go with he's set himself up as the last brick left against the tsunami of socialism.

[Drummond]

Where I think it all begins? I speak English. You speak English. Kathianne speaks English.

Kathianne and I do not speak the same English you do. Even when we do, it can mean something completely different to one and the other. For instance :): "Lorri" is a girl's name here, not a truck. We wear a boot; we don't keep our "spanner" (tire iron here) and spare in or on it. "Bonnet" is what little girls wear on their heads.

Conservative here is us. Reading above, I get the impression you are behind the guy noir hates for PM, but not Hunt yet Hunt is a "conservative"? Your government is more jacked up than mine is :laugh:

That's nothing. Try checking out the differences for the word 'rubber' ... here, it's a pencil eraser ... :laugh:

'Sidewalk', here, is the act of (possibly drunkenly) not walking in a particularly straight line. We call them 'pavements'.

I get the impression that your brand of Conservative is, by our standards, far more hardline, far more traditional, than ours. Which only helps to prove what I'm saying, doesn't it ? Ours has to find expression in a society where Left-leaning sensibilities are automatically accepted, so, to have Conservative politicians continue to earn votes, they have to reflect those indoctrinated skewings of social and political belief.

How easily would your Republican 'hopefuls' be elected to office, if, say, they:

Advocated easy abortion ?

Insisted that a UK-style National Health Service was not only preferable, but the mark of a civilised society ?

Stood in total support of gay marriage ?

Shunned all public declarations of being God-fearing ?

Stood in opposition to gun ownership being 'a right' ?

I could go on. You see my point, though ... certain Socialist 'standards' actually HAVE to be advocated ... because the British public wouldn't stand for anything else.

Why is this ?

Systematic indoctrination, by the Left, over decades. That's why.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr, I totally agree. If anything I think he should be here. I think you misunderstood my point. It seems both Drummond and Gunny did too, it is my fault.

Not a fault to misunderstand why he chooses to stay. As it is a male thing-in that one choose fight overflight, IMHO.
I have had the many , many private messages we have both engaged in discussing this topic as well as other topics of similar nature.
Add to that the fact that he prefers to think it is not too late to save Britain...
If I err in my stated views about my very good friend, he can surely correct me and I'd appreciate the correction!
Nobody is at fault, if/when such is due to a lack of understanding-- especially so when one has less information at hand to make judgments from.-Tyr

[Drummond]

Well that was the point, but seems everyone would just rather tell me why Drummond is such a jolly good fellow. So, I've just decided to go with he's set himself up as the last brick left against the tsunami of socialism.

Thank you, Kath. That's a very flattering description of me.

There's hope yet .... :cool:

[Drummond]

Not a fault to misunderstand why he chooses to stay. As it is a male thing-in that one choose fight overflight, IMHO.
I have had the many , many private messages we have both engaged in discussing this topic as well as other topics of similar nature.
Add to that the fact that he prefers to think it is not too late to save Britain...
If I err in my stated views about my very good friend, he can surely correct me and I'd appreciate the correction!
Nobody is at fault, if/when such is due to a lack of understanding-- especially so when one has less information at hand to make judgments from.-Tyr:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Very appreciated, Tyr. Thanks for your comments. You, like Gunny, 'get me'.

Hopefully Kath will take what you say to heart, and see 'the light', as it were.

If she doesn't ... it's her choice, I suppose.

Perhaps if she really does any of the research I've suggested, she might not only begin to see things fully my way, but begin to be fearful of ... IF you don't benefit from the leadership of a 'Trump figure' ... just how awful the alternative can be.

[Kathianne]

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Very appreciated, Tyr. Thanks for your comments. You, like Gunny, 'get me'.

Hopefully Kath will take what you say to heart, and see 'the light', as it were.

If she doesn't ... it's her choice, I suppose.

Perhaps if she really does any of the research I've suggested, she might not only begin to see things fully my way, but begin to be fearful of ... IF you don't benefit from the leadership of a 'Trump figure' ... just how awful the alternative can be.

You really should take the truce as offer. If you honestly believe I don't have a fair grip on the English language and differences between our dialects, you are underestimating. Same with embracing the idea I do not understand socialism, I do.

[Drummond]

Nah, I'm not being deflected here. I will take Tyr's word for it, you stay there as the last brick for the corrupt government to crush. I guess that is the answer.

Since I'm here, and I see no good reason not to ask ... tell me, WILL you do any of the research I've recommended you do ?

I think you'll find it to be something of an eye-opener.

I'm afraid I'm going to be presumptive enough to start you off on your journey of discovery .... see ....

12138

12139

12140

Each of these photographs illustrates the Socialist-driven chaos we suffered before hardline Conservatism, under Margaret Thatcher, remedied it all.

The first just shows a street overflowing with what you'd call 'garbage' .. courtesy of a refuse-collector's strike.

The second shows a starker representation of how bad this became ... you see Leicester Square, in central London, used as a dumping ground for uncollected waste.

The third is of the Grunwick dispute, and you see a 'picket line' there. More accurately ... you see mob rule. Unions bussed in crowds of people, whose task was to make it physically impossible for any Grunwick worker to reach his / her place of work. If they tried, they had mobs to face, intimidating them, or worse.

Mrs Thatcher passed laws, outlawing all of this.

So tell me that hardline Conservative leadership isn't a blessing. Imagine Trump ever permitting ANY of this !!

[Kathianne]

Since I'm here, and I see no good reason not to ask ... tell me, WILL you do any of the research I've recommended you do ?

I think you'll find it to be something of an eye-opener.

I'm afraid I'm going to be presumptive enough to start you off on your journey of discovery .... see ....
...
No, as I said previously, I am familiar with socialism and the consequences. Too bad all the problems that come from populism and nationalism aren't equally recognized.

[Drummond]

You really should take the truce as offer. If you honestly believe I don't have a fair grip on the English language and differences between our dialects, you are underestimating. Same with embracing the idea I do not understand socialism, I do.

I don't need or want any 'truce' from you.

What I want is for you to UNDERSTAND.

See what I've just posted.

Comprehend from my post, if you will, that regardless of whatever opposition you genuinely have against Socialism, you really don't properly get where it could lead you.

My previous post may - perhaps - help make the truth a little clearer for you. As I've said .. I KNOW my beliefs are correct. I lived through witnessing, firsthand, all I'm showing to you now.

[Drummond]

No, as I said previously, I am familiar with socialism and the consequences. Too bad all the problems that come from populism and nationalism aren't equally recognized.

Too bad that you're not really taking any notice of what I'm showing you.

Let's suppose that I had two choices:

1. Revisiting the disgusting depths full-blooded Socialism has visited upon my society ... as you've seen them (the merest taste of their chaos)

2. Welcoming Donald Trump (or a British equivalent of him) as my Prime Minister.

Which should I be more happy to experience ?

[Drummond]

I don't need or want any 'truce' from you.

What I want is for you to UNDERSTAND.

See what I've just posted.

Comprehend from my post, if you will, that regardless of whatever opposition you genuinely have against Socialism, you really don't properly get where it could lead you.

My previous post may - perhaps - help make the truth a little clearer for you. As I've said .. I KNOW my beliefs are correct. I lived through witnessing, firsthand, all I'm showing to you now.

I'm going to make an attempt to make this easier still, Kath.

Consider the photo of the bin-bags (garbage) I've posted in Leicester Square.

OK, now.

Imagine a strike inflicting exactly that, on New York's Times Square. Or, maybe, for most of Central Park to be given over to the storage of uncollected garbage bags.

Perhaps the Washington Monument might be a good location for them ?

Kath. What imaginable Conservative politician, in America, would EVER allow ANY of that ??

It couldn't happen, could it ?

You have decent Conservatives who'd prevent it. But the same could never be said for any Socialist regime.

You have the proof right there, on this thread, in front of your eyes.

Agreed ?

[Kathianne]

I'm going to make an attempt to make this easier still, Kath.

Consider the photo of the bin-bags (garbage) I've posted in Leicester Square.

OK, now.

Imagine a strike inflicting exactly that, on New York's Times Square. Or, maybe, for most of Central Park to be given over to the storage of uncollected garbage bags.

Perhaps the Washington Monument might be a good location for them ?

Kath. What imaginable Conservative politician, in America, would EVER allow ANY of that ??

It couldn't happen, could it ?

You have decent Conservatives who'd prevent it. But the same could never be said for any Socialist regime.

You have the proof right there, on this thread, in front of your eyes.

Agreed ?

There is nothing to agree or disagree with. Are all areas of Britain like this? Or is this an area with your liberals in charge? LA has trash like that, then again, that is not a conservative area. Indeed there have been outbreaks of typhus already and warning of plague.

You see daily posts about such with US cities, electing a President isn't going to change that. People in the area can, if they choose to.

Here's the thing, you don't see anyone here, overwhelmingly of a 'right' mindset, decrying the US system as a whole. Even myself, not in favor of this president, criticizing unrelentingly about everything he does, in fact you will find me giving him or at least the administration credit where due. You will find me posting the unfairness of the press regarding coverage of things like 'the squad,' though haven't a problem addressing his problems-AS I see them. My opinions aren't 'fact,' they are my opinions, that are mixed into decisions and choices I make.

We don't always get our way, sometimes rarely.

[Gunny]

There is nothing to agree or disagree with. Are all areas of Britain like this? Or is this an area with your liberals in charge? LA has trash like that, then again, that is not a conservative area. Indeed there have been outbreaks of typhus already and warning of plague.

You see daily posts about such with US cities, electing a President isn't going to change that. People in the area can, if they choose to.

Here's the thing, you don't see anyone here, overwhelmingly of a 'right' mindset, decrying the US system as a whole. Even myself, not in favor of this president, criticizing unrelentingly about everything he does, in fact you will find me giving him or at least the administration credit where due. You will find me posting the unfairness of the press regarding coverage of things like 'the squad,' though haven't a problem addressing his problems-AS I see them. My opinions aren't 'fact,' they are my opinions, that are mixed into decisions and choices I make.

We don't always get our way, sometimes rarely.Remember when I mentioned what we are NOT seeing?

Anybody giving any thought to just how much salivating Putin is doing over a ME map?

[Drummond]

H'm. I see you've gone a little silent, Kathianne.

I'll interpret that as a good sign; that you're now doing some research on 'recent' British history (I'd recommend anything, say, from the early Sixties onwards).

Yes ?

I'll challenge you to do a good, comprehensive, job with that research.

When you're done ... come back, and tell me that you TRULY understood where Socialism could lead, BEFORE you'd done that research.

You might take it a step further -- and see the Presidency of Donald Trump as being almost infinitely preferable to any / all of the degradation, chaos, sheer harm, that the polar opposite to his political leadership could inflict .. if ever allowed to.

[Kathianne]

H'm. I see you've gone a little silent, Kathianne.

I'll interpret that as a good sign; that you're now doing some research on 'recent' British history (I'd recommend anything, say, from the early Sixties onwards).

Yes ?

I'll challenge you to do a good, comprehensive, job with that research.

When you're done ... come back, and tell me that you TRULY understood where Socialism could lead, BEFORE you'd done that research.

You might take it a step further -- and see the Presidency of Donald Trump as being almost infinitely preferable to any / all of the degradation, chaos, sheer harm, that the polar opposite to his political leadership could inflict .. if ever allowed to.

Sorry, I'm not taking your assignment. You're reality is yours. I do not order you or anyone on scavenger hunts of my choosing. If I have something I think pertinent or interesting, I post it.

Truth is, you like to read your own prolific writings, which there is nothing wrong with. That not everyone jumps at your orders or sees the brilliance in your analysis of the issues from your perspective doesn't mean your name calling is of substance.

[Kathianne]

Remember when I mentioned what we are NOT seeing?

Anybody giving any thought to just how much salivating Putin is doing over a ME map?

Now you've lost me. Not sure what this kerfuffle between Drummond and me has to do with Putin, but ok.

[Drummond]

There is nothing to agree or disagree with. Are all areas of Britain like this? Or is this an area with your liberals in charge? LA has trash like that, then again, that is not a conservative area. Indeed there have been outbreaks of typhus already and warning of plague.

You see daily posts about such with US cities, electing a President isn't going to change that. People in the area can, if they choose to.

Here's the thing, you don't see anyone here, overwhelmingly of a 'right' mindset, decrying the US system as a whole. Even myself, not in favor of this president, criticizing unrelentingly about everything he does, in fact you will find me giving him or at least the administration credit where due. You will find me posting the unfairness of the press regarding coverage of things like 'the squad,' though haven't a problem addressing his problems-AS I see them. My opinions aren't 'fact,' they are my opinions, that are mixed into decisions and choices I make.

We don't always get our way, sometimes rarely.

.... ah ... I hadn't spotted this. 'My bad', as Americans say ...

Answering: NO areas of Britain are like that. Not NOW.

They ONCE were. Why ? Because, back in the days when such outrages were not only possible or commonplace, Britain didn't have any hardline Conservative figure in place to help save us from it. Churchill had not only lost power, he'd even died (his funeral was in early '65, I think).

What we had was a Union-friendly, comparatively hardline, Labour Government, led by Harold Wilson. We had two terms of it, before Ted Heath took power, for the Conservatives.

The Unions were not happy.

A coalition of miners and power workers, between them, went on strike. Industries and offices were starved of power for two working days each week. Homes shivered in the cold of winter, starved of electricity and coal.

Ted Heath called an election. People chose the easy option, and the Unions won. Labour kicked out the Conservatives. Result ... virtually no restraint on wage claims. Inflation rocketed. The Pound was devalued.

Jim Callaghan took over from Wilson, got a measure of control over wages. The economy became relatively stable .. for a while. Unfortunately, Callaghan was only successful because he'd done a deal with Unions. They rebelled. The sheer chaos of the Winter of Discontent, wave after wave of strikes, followed.

With our manufacturing base on its knees .. with other powers calling us 'The Sick Man of Europe' ... Callaghan lost a No Confidence vote in the Commons. We had an election, won by Mrs Thatcher.

HER HARDLINE, HARD-NOSED, CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP TURNED IT ALL AROUND.

To this day, Unions have never again been able to foist ruination upon us.

So, Kath. Persuade me that hardline pro-Conservative leadership is a BAD thing.

Go on. Give it your best shot.

If you doubt anything I've told you .. DO THE RESEARCH.

[Gunny]

Now you've lost me. Not sure what this kerfuffle between Drummond and me has to do with Putin, but ok.Yeah, I was just kinda wondering what this little whatever you called it with you and Drummond has to do with the topic :laugh:

When we were on "that" in one of these threads I made mention of the fact that we were missing something. In this case, someone. Putin.

The arguably 2nd most powerful man on Earth already with a military toe-hold in the region has been dead silent.

[Drummond]

Sorry, I'm not taking your assignment. You're reality is yours. I do not order you or anyone on scavenger hunts of my choosing. If I have something I think pertinent or interesting, I post it.

Truth is, you like to read your own prolific writings, which there is nothing wrong with. That not everyone jumps at your orders or sees the brilliance in your analysis of the issues from your perspective doesn't mean your name calling is of substance.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh2::laugh2:

Correction: you're running away from taking my assignment.

My reality is indeed mine. Ah, but, how did my reality come about ?

Because, Kath, my society gave Socialists the power to win out, to do what they wanted. The result was misery and chaos.

What makes you think that, if Socialism takes hold in America, EVER, that you're immune to 'my reality' ? What convinces you ? Is it smugness ? Is it a belief that 'American Socialism' just can't be as bad ???

I can't make you see a truth you prefer not to see, Kathianne. But at least admit that you ARE refusing to see it.

My truth, and reality, tells me that you're lucky to have President Trump in charge. I know that the alternative is orders of magnitude worse.

... and you choose not to see this. It is your CHOICE.

[Kathianne]

.... ah ... I hadn't spotted this. 'My bad', as Americans say ...

Answering: NO areas of Britain are like that. Not NOW.

They ONCE were. Why ? Because, back in the days when such outrages were not only possible or commonplace, Britain didn't have any hardline Conservative figure in place to help save us from it. Churchill had not only lost power, he'd even died (his funeral was in early '65, I think).

What we had was a Union-friendly, comparatively hardline, Labour Government, led by Harold Wilson. We had two terms of it, before Ted Heath took power, for the Conservatives.

The Unions were not happy.

A coalition of miners and power workers, between them, went on strike. Industries and offices were starved of power for two working days each week. Homes shivered in the cold of winter, starved of electricity and coal.

Ted Heath called an election. People chose the easy option, and the Unions won. Labour kicked out the Conservatives. Result ... virtually no restraint on wage claims. Inflation rocketed. The Pound was devalued.

Jim Callaghan took over from Wilson, got a measure of control over wages. The economy became relatively stable .. for a while. Unfortunately, Callaghan was only successful because he'd done a deal with Unions. They rebelled. The sheer chaos of the Winter of Discontent, wave after wave of strikes, followed.

With our manufacturing base on its knees .. with other powers calling us 'The Sick Man of Europe' ... Callaghan lost a No Confidence vote in the Commons. We had an election, won by Mrs Thatcher.

HER HARDLINE, HARD-NOSED, CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP TURNED IT ALL AROUND.

To this day, Unions have never again been able to foist ruination upon us.

So, Kath. Persuade me that hardline pro-Conservative leadership is a BAD thing.

Go on. Give it your best shot.

If you doubt anything I've told you .. DO THE RESEARCH.

I'm not going to bother with your scavenger hunts, I've told you that already. I did do a quick search to see if Britain is now filth free:

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/north-south-divide-uk-british-education-economy-gender-pay-gap-difference-a7484046.html

https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2016/12/19/12/uk-divide-2.jpg?w968h681


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/trash-girl-norfolk-litter-nadia-sparkes-bullying-a8899821.html

https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2019/01/02/13/rome-litter-5.jpg?w968h681

[Drummond]

I'm not going to bother with your scavenger hunts, I've told you that already. I did do a quick search to see if Britain is now filth free:

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/north-south-divide-uk-british-education-economy-gender-pay-gap-difference-a7484046.html

OK, thanks for those photos.

The context of them, is .... ??

A couple of points:

1. You haven't shown me that strikes are responsible for any of the rubbish shown.
2. One shows a tiny area of refuse ... I reckon around 4-5 trash bins could contain it all .. hardly comparable to the Leicester Square picture I posted (which DID have a strike as its cause) ... is it ? As for the other, what are you showing us ? An area designated as a dumping ground, designed / intended to be one ?

One fact you might want to consider is that refuse collections, in many areas, aren't as frequent as they were decades ago.

... and, yes ... the Unions are, by and large, happy.

Ah, Kath. Where's a Mrs Thatcher figure when you really need one, eh .. ?

[Kathianne]

OK, thanks for those photos.

The context of them, is .... ??

A couple of points:

1. You haven't shown me that strikes are responsible for any of the rubbish shown.
2. One shows a tiny area of refuse ... I reckon around 4-5 trash bins could contain it all .. hardly comparable to the Leicester Square picture I posted (which DID have a strike as its cause) ... is it ? As for the other, what are you showing us ? An area designated as a dumping ground, designed / intended to be one ?

One fact you might want to consider is that refuse collections, in many areas, aren't as frequent as they were decades ago.

... and, yes ... the Unions are, by and large, happy.

Ah, Kath. Where's a Mrs Thatcher figure when you really need one, eh .. ?


It was our economy and both the 'liberals' and 'conservatives' that curtailed unions here-go study! :rolleyes:

The unions went too far regarding violence and salaries. Sort of what we are now seeing currently with the nonsense of 'living wage.' Note Bernie's route. (LOL! Some liberal, some socialist!)

[Drummond]

It was our economy and both the 'liberals' and 'conservatives' that curtailed unions here-go study! :rolleyes:

Remarkable, if true, and I suppose it proves that your 'liberals' are a far softer version of Leftie than our Socialists were (and currently ARE).

But that's to the good. I'm genuinely happy for you. Long may that be so.


The unions went too far regarding violence and salaries. Sort of what we are now seeing currently with the nonsense of 'living wage.' Note Bernie's route. (LOL! Some liberal, some socialist!)

That's interesting. What you call the nonsense of the 'living wage' .. we have our equivalent of, and we've had that for a considerable time. The 'minimum wage' is what we call it.

I recall the time it was first suggested. Many people called it unworkable, and I was one of them. I didn't think our economy could afford it as a long-term measure.

And, yes: it was introduced AFTER we lost our hardline Conservative leadership (in 1999). See this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/1/newsid_2465000/2465397.stm


A legally-binding minimum rate of pay has been introduced in Britain for the first time. From today all adults must be paid at least £3.60 an hour and workers under the age of 22 must get no less than £3 an hour.

A government body has been set up to ensure employers comply with the new wage levels.

Firms face a fine of up to £5,000 for each worker who is paid below the statutory minimum.

Need I say this ? Yes ... it was a LABOUR Government which introduced it. What a surprise .. :rolleyes:

This was one area where I was proved wrong, though. The minimum wage is being afforded, to this day. We've managed it. Not that it 'can't' be, though, because this is one area where our Conservatives dare not tamper. If a Conservative Government tried, it could forget being re-elected.

It's not as though we've a Conservative leader of such strength that he / she could ever win through. Not on that.

[Kathianne]

Remarkable, if true, and I suppose it proves that your 'liberals' are a far softer version of Leftie than our Socialists were (and currently ARE).

But that's to the good. I'm genuinely happy for you. Long may that be so.



That's interesting. What you call the nonsense of the 'living wage' .. we have our equivalent of, and we've had that for a considerable time. The 'minimum wage' is what we call it.

I recall the time it was first suggested. Many people called it unworkable, and I was one of them. I didn't think our economy could afford it as a long-term measure.

And, yes: it was introduced AFTER we lost our hardline Conservative leadership (in 1999). See this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/1/newsid_2465000/2465397.stm



Need I say this ? Yes ... it was a LABOUR Government which introduced it. What a surprise .. :rolleyes:

This was one area where I was proved wrong, though. The minimum wage is being afforded, to this day. We've managed it. Not that it 'can't' be, though, because this is one area where our Conservatives dare not tamper. If a Conservative Government tried, it could forget being re-elected.


It's not as though we've a Conservative leader of such strength that he / she could ever win through. Not on that.


One can keep lamenting how things are; how worse they were, (as you seem to be with work stoppages union related); one can go somewhere better; accept what is; work to change it.

What gets a bit tiresome to me is to constantly tell citizens of another country how they should vote or they are freakin' worthless, and will end up as your country. You assume a mantle of all knowing regarding our country, yet have been shocked most recently how our judicial system works.

I for one, appreciate other's points of view-including yours. What I don't appreciate and have always had a problem with, is your insufferable pomposity of being all knowing regarding our country.

Bully for you on liking Trump, I felt the same about Mrs. Thatcher, but I would not dare tell a Briton they were for the downfall of their country if they didn't vote for her.

[Drummond]

One can keep lamenting how things are; how worse they were, (as you seem to be with work stoppages union related); one can go somewhere better; accept what is; work to change it.

'Lamenting', isn't the point. Learning the lesson from history, is. The point is to learn, ensure that the lesson taught translates into a remedy that sticks.


What gets a bit tiresome to me is to constantly tell citizens of another country how they should vote or they are freakin' worthless, and will end up as your country. You assume a mantle of all knowing regarding our country, yet have been shocked most recently how our judicial system works.

I don't know where 'freakin' worthless' comes from. I don't recall ever saying such a thing.

I do believe that we can teach from example. It so happens that my society has made mistakes, and very bad ones. They are all a matter of record. Latitude exists for others to learn from us and not make the mistakes we made.

I don't see why you don't profit from that. Why shouldn't you ? The incredible thing is, that you've the very strength and style of leadership that DOES offer you immunity from such error, and you don't even appreciate it ! You've superior political leadership handed to you on a plate, and - seemingly blind to seeing what's worse - there are Americans who don't appreciate their good fortune. Some want to actively fight it. Well ... what are they fighting to replace it, with ?

Do they know what they risk ?

Do they care ?

It's up to them. But I for one don't wish for you to one day suffer a disaster that you could so easily have averted, if only you'd cared to, and valued instead what you had !!

As for being shocked at your judicial system: yes, very true. What can I say ? We avoided having judges who think they're above the law [and go on to shape it as they want]. I wish you could say the same.


I for one, appreciate other's points of view-including yours.

SERIOUSLY ???? :rolleyes::rolleyes:


What I don't appreciate and have always had a problem with, is your insufferable pomposity of being all knowing regarding our country.

Your perception of my 'insufferable pomposity' is your own invention. I can't help you with it. Sorry.


Bully for you on liking Trump

Thank you kindly !


I felt the same about Mrs. Thatcher, but I would not dare tell a Briton they were for the downfall of their country if they didn't vote for her.

I don't see why not. You'd be entitled to that opinion, and you'd have good motivation driving you in expressing it .. which I should take time out to appreciate. My failure to listen wouldn't be your fault, it'd be mine, for being so blinkered that I was too arrogant to listen, maybe thinking I had nothing to learn, when the opposite was true.

It would be my choice to make, though. There, you have a point.

[Kathianne]

'Lamenting', isn't the point. Learning the lesson from history, is. The point is to learn, ensure that the lesson taught translates into a remedy that sticks.



I don't know where 'freakin' worthless' comes from. I don't recall ever saying such a thing.

I do believe that we can teach from example. It so happens that my society has made mistakes, and very bad ones. They are all a matter of record. Latitude exists for others to learn from us and not make the mistakes we made.

I don't see why you don't profit from that. Why shouldn't you ? The incredible thing is, that you've the very strength and style of leadership that DOES offer you immunity from such error, and you don't even appreciate it ! You've superior political leadership handed to you on a plate, and - seemingly blind to seeing what's worse - there are Americans who don't appreciate their good fortune. Some want to actively fight it. Well ... what are they fighting to replace it, with ?

Do they know what they risk ?

Do they care ?

It's up to them. But I for one don't wish for you to one day suffer a disaster that you could so easily have averted, if only you'd cared to, and valued instead what you had !!

As for being shocked at your judicial system: yes, very true. What can I say ? We avoided having judges who think they're above the law [and go on to shape it as they want]. I wish you could say the same.



SERIOUSLY ???? :rolleyes::rolleyes:



Your perception of my 'insufferable pomposity' is your own invention. I can't help you with it. Sorry.



Thank you kindly !



I don't see why not. You'd be entitled to that opinion, and you'd have good motivation driving you in expressing it .. which I should take time out to appreciate. My failure to listen wouldn't be your fault, it'd be mine, for being so blinkered that I was too arrogant to listen, maybe thinking I had nothing to learn, when the opposite was true.

It would be my choice to make, though. There, you have a point.


LOL! I do wonder why you don't learn more from the US, regarding our revolution and judicial system and freedom to think what we wish-WITHOUT having to justify it to you by demand?

I do not find anything about your system of government, including judiciary, superior to ours. The only English politicians I've found of interest are Mrs. Thatcher and Winston Churchill, the rest? Nope. I would though love to visit your country, great history.

[Drummond]

LOL! I do wonder why you don't learn more from the US, regarding our revolution and judicial system and freedom to think what we wish-WITHOUT having to justify it to you by demand?

Maybe there's a big difference between us, then. If you think you've got something worthwhile about the US that I could profit from learning, what's stopping you making that effort ? Why do you think I either wouldn't listen, or, had the right to demand not to listen ... when it could only be smug arrogance on my part that stopped me ?

I'll concede one point. When it comes to envisaging judges who tinker with the law, think they're entitled to, thereby placing themselves firmly ABOVE the law, instead, dictating it to others (for, in part, partisan advantage ?) ... I've a hard time not seeing that as an outrage. Find me the Brit who'd think otherwise.

If you think you can make your case, though .. go for it. I'm game.


I do not find anything about your system of government, including judiciary, superior to ours.

You should now ! I've just concerned myself with one such example ... the example being, our judges would never take such extensive liberties with the law they're charged with working with.


The only English politicians I've found of interest are Mrs. Thatcher and Winston Churchill, the rest? Nope. I would though love to visit your country, great history.

To a great extent I think I agree with you ... the two examples cited are easily our most stellar (from 'modern' history, anyway). I wonder what Boris Johnson will bring us, though ? I think he might give a lot of people a very pleasant surprise.

I hope you do visit someday. Some pointers, if you do ...

1. Don't wax lyrical about the joys of gun control. You're bound to get a frosty reception to that from many.

2. For God's sake, never publicly criticise Islam. Worst case scenario, you'll be arrested for it.

3. Likewise, say nothing detrimental about our NHS (no matter how good your argument). Ever see a Conservative politician here try it ... and you wouldn't see that politician for long. S/he would've just committed political suicide.

[Kathianne]

Maybe there's a big difference between us, then. If you think you've got something worthwhile about the US that I could profit from learning, what's stopping you making that effort ? Why do you think I either wouldn't listen, or, had the right to demand not to listen ... when it could only be smug arrogance on my part that stopped me ?

I'll concede one point. When it comes to envisaging judges who tinker with the law, think they're entitled to, thereby placing themselves firmly ABOVE the law, instead, dictating it to others (for, in part, partisan advantage ?) ... I've a hard time not seeing that as an outrage. Find me the Brit who'd think otherwise.

If you think you can make your case, though .. go for it. I'm game.



You should now ! I've just concerned myself with one such example ... the example being, our judges would never take such extensive liberties with the law they're charged with working with.



To a great extent I think I agree with you ... the two examples cited are easily our most stellar (from 'modern' history, anyway). I wonder what Boris Johnson will bring us, though ? I think he might give a lot of people a very pleasant surprise.

I hope you do visit someday. Some pointers, if you do ...

1. Don't wax lyrical about the joys of gun control. You're bound to get a frosty reception to that from many.

2. For God's sake, never publicly criticise Islam. Worst case scenario, you'll be arrested for it.

3. Likewise, say nothing detrimental about our NHS (no matter how good your argument). Ever see a Conservative politician here try it ... and you wouldn't see that politician for long. S/he would've just committed political suicide.


Now all those things you 'recommend' I not do? You can do all those and more here. You won't be arrested, but depending upon your choice of venue, not going to say it would be without incident. Same as the ijits that light up a flag. It's not illegal, but may not be the brightest move to make.

[Drummond]

Now all those things you 'recommend' I not do? You can do all those and more here.

I never doubted it. Examples, unquestionably, of how, in many ways, your society is superior to mine.

I'm not a stranger to visiting, by the way. I've made no recent visits (meaning, this century !) .. but I've visited New York several times (& strayed further afield, to New Haven and Hartford). I've enjoyed every visit.

I've one good piece of news for you. Remember, I've never been vaccinated against anything, ever. It may be that I'll never set foot in the US again, and judging by your past posting, I'd imagine you'll cheer at that.


You won't be arrested, but depending upon your choice of venue, not going to say it would be without incident. Same as the ijits that light up a flag. It's not illegal, but may not be the brightest move to make.

Lighting up a flag, meaning, setting fire to one ? Another difference. Patriotism, valuing your flag ... we've all but lost the equivalent sentiment. I can think of people who'd cheer if anyone set fire to the Union flag. Some even regard its very display as a sign of arrogant nationalism, racist, etc.

Just one of the joys coming from allowing Lefties to indoctrinate people, en masse ...

[Noir]

I think ‘unprepared’ is exactly right - the U.K. political sphere is a mess at the minute, and sudden tensions with Iran adding to the calamity have caught everyone flat footed. There isn’t an appetite for another war that I have seen or heard of here, but if Bolton gets US troops marching on Iran whatever government we have will almost certainly have our troops marching alongside them


isn't just that I hold a view which makes me THINK I'm right: I absolutely KNOW with CERTAINTY that I'm right. It isn't a matter of debate with me, but certain knowledge of being right.

Incredible. To think this about oneself is one thing - but to type it out for the world to see is quite another. Please understand that the embarrassment you should feel about this statement is being felt by me, for you.

[Kathianne]

I think ‘unprepared’ is exactly right - the U.K. political sphere is a mess at the minute, and sudden tensions with Iran adding to the calamity have caught everyone flat footed. There isn’t an appetite for another war that I have seen or heard of here, but if Bolton gets US troops marching on Iran whatever government we have will almost certainly have our troops marching alongside them



Incredible. To think this about oneself is one thing - but to type it out for the world to see is quite another. Please understand that the embarrassment you should feel about this statement is being felt by me, for you.


If it has escaped your notice, Bolton isn't really 'inside' lately. Like most of the generals that once were popular, all has gone quiet. Indeed, Rand Paul was sent and nothing has been heard. The US is not beating any war drums.

[Noir]

If it has escaped your notice, Bolton isn't really 'inside' lately. Like most of the generals that once were popular, all has gone quiet. Indeed, Rand Paul was sent and nothing has been heard. The US is not beating any war drums.

Id missed the Bolton quietening - I did think he was a very weird pick for Trump from the start, maybe that’s come to fruit a little.
And Rand Paul IIRC is about as anti-interventionalist as a mainstream political gets, so I wouldn’t expect him to be recommending deployments anywhere. That may well be a factor in the UKs failure, without America leading Britain starts to look a lot more coy.

[Kathianne]

Id missed the Bolton quietening - I did think he was a very weird pick for Trump from the start, maybe that’s come to fruit a little.
And Rand Paul IIRC is about as anti-interventionalist as a mainstream political gets, so I wouldn’t expect him to be recommending deployments anywhere. That may well be a factor in the UKs failure, without America leading Britain starts to look a lot more coy.

In fairness, Hunt spoke up before it was known about Iran requesting Rand Paul. While it now seems like there's a loose coalition forming for the Gulf, so far nothing official. Bottom line, Europe and President Trump do not trust each other. That's my take.

[Kathianne]

I have to agree with this. Too often the US helps out other countries, then they turn around and call the US a war monger. This seems to be giving clarity to our 'special relationship':

https://www.foxnews.com/world/pompeo-says-uk-must-free-captured-tanker


IRANPublished 2 hours ago
Pompeo on Iran’s capture of British-flagged tanker: Up to ‘United Kingdom to take care of their ships’

The responsibility to free the British-flagged oil tanker seized last week by Iran “falls to the United Kingdom,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told "Fox & Friends" Monday, while warning the “whole world is waking up to the fact that this [Iranian] threat is real.”


The comments from Pompeo come as British Prime Minister Theresa May issued a fresh call for Iran to release the Stena Impero ship and its 23-person crew. The vessel, which was captured Friday in the Strait of Hormuz, currently is anchored outside the Iranian port city of Bandar Abbas.


“The responsibility…falls to the United Kingdom to take care of their ships,” Pompeo said when asked what role the U.S should play in the matter. “This is a bad regime. It’s not honoring the people of Iran. They have now conducted what amounts to national piracy – a nation-state taking over a ship that’s traveling in international waters.”

Pompeo said the “the United States has a responsibility to do our part, but the world’s got a big role in this too – to keep these sea lanes open.”


He added that Iran’s recent behavior should alarm nations around the globe.


“We don’t want war with Iran. We want them to behave like a normal nation. I think they understand that and I think the whole world is waking up to the fact that this threat is real,” Pompeo told "Fox & Friends." “It’s not just a threat against America, it’s not just a threat against Israel. It’s a threat against all of us.”

May, speaking to reporters Monday, again demanded the release of the British-flagged tanker.


"The ship was seized under false and illegal pretenses and the Iranians should release it and its crew immediately," she said, according to Reuters. “We do not seek confrontation with Iran but it is unacceptable and highly escalatory to seize a ship going about legitimate business through internationally recognized shipping lanes."

During the weekend, Iran released video purportedly showing its Revolutionary Guards soldiers in black ski masks and fatigues rappelling from a helicopter onto the oil tanker. Senior Iranian officials have said the ship’s seizure was carried out in retaliation for British forces helping to capture an Iranian tanker off the island of Gibraltar on July 4.


Authorities say that tanker carried oil bound for Syria in violation of European Union sanctions.

[STTAB]

I have to agree with this. Too often the US helps out other countries, then they turn around and call the US a war monger. This seems to be giving clarity to our 'special relationship':

https://www.foxnews.com/world/pompeo-says-uk-must-free-captured-tanker

Other countries hating our guts , but sure expecting us to step in when they get in trouble, has been an issue for decades. This is why I always laugh when someone is like "outside of the US Trump is the least popular President ever" Well yes , because he's cut off the money flow to countries that obviously hate us.

[jimnyc]

My society's history is different to yours. Politically, it's already swung to such extremes, known such stresses and strains, that you've not only not experienced any equivalent of, but probably would struggle to even imagine.

Throughout our society there has been Non-Stop yanking to the left and the right and then back to the left and the right through politics. And absolutely, over time this stresses society as a whole without a doubt. Difficult to please everyone obviously. I'm surprised ours hasn't exploded again.

While I don't not want to go on scavenger hunts or want to learn a lot of new stuff myself we can all obviously learn from both societies. I think major events and milestones and wars and such are easy to research, the problem comes in depending on where the "facts" are coming from. If you were at most colleges in the United States as of today you would be getting it leaning from the left most likely. And as you see with the US media, they're in the can for the democrats, and 90% of the MSM is left leaning. Fox News being the primary I know of.


I argue against the Left, be it my country's version of it, or yours. But with me, it isn't just that I hold a view which makes me THINK I'm right: I absolutely KNOW with CERTAINTY that I'm right. It isn't a matter of debate with me, but certain knowledge of being right.

The left and left appear to be lining up more and more between both countries. And let me assure you they are just as damaging here, at least as of today's standards. At least from what I want out of life they are very damaging and almost every political aspect possible. And from what I want out of life it is not taking any money from a single other person alive. I would not be dependent on our government. (I would be hoping for a limited government overall). I do not want socialism and don't want anything from anybody else nor do I want things taken from me especially money!

And for me I am speaking about politics here mainly the left and the right. And I believe we all know what I mean when I say the left and the right and the decisions they make within politics. I am not trying to say the left or liberals are all bad people, someone can be a good person and still have shit politics. Just like somebody can have very good politics and be a complete asshole at times. But the left, as a political system or political belief in my idea is horrid, and simply bad for America. In my opinion neither side is perfection, but one side is sure as hell a lot better.


I know this: the Left has its worldview, and its political imperatives, and it'll sink to any level, do anything at all, to win through with them. It's intensely propagandist, and will insist its propaganda succeeds. If you're anti-Islam for whatever reason, you're automatically bigoted and racist, and all proof to the contrary is dismissed and subject to hate campaigns.

Well, that sure does sound like you just described American lefties/Democrats.

[STTAB]

Whichever know it all wrote that "failed" opinion needs to get HIS ass on a frigate in the Gulf THEN talk shit and pass judgement. It takes a day with both boilers hittin' it to get from one end of the Gulf to the other. People talk about the Gulf like it's this tiny puddle of mostly land-locked water. One way in and out is true. Little doesn't even come close.

While these EU countries want to leave out the US in dealing with Iran, that's akin to ignoring the elephant in the room. The only way to "be prepared" in this context is to escort each ship individually. I don't see that happening.

Even we don't have the ship power to escort ships individually. What we'll have to do is go old school and start running escorted convoys. Now that runs some dangers of it own as we found out a few time versus German Wolkpacks, but on the whole there is security in numbers and I don't see the Iranians being stupid enough to directly attack a vessel that is part of a convoy that is being protected by any first world Navy.

Either that or we just barricade Iran's Navy in their own docks. You leave port, we sink you, but that kinda defeats the argument that the sea is open to save travel for all LOL

[Kathianne]

Some good news. . .

Europe coalition:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iran-tanker-british-ship-jeremy-hunt-european-task-force-a9016301.html



Iran tanker crisis: Jeremy Hunt announces joint European task force to protect British ships
Foreign secretary accuses Iran of taking part in ‘state piracy’ as he condemns seizure of the Stena Impero

The UK will seek to organise a European-led naval contingent for the Gulf to escort ships following an “act of state piracy” by Iran in seizing a British tanker.


Jeremy Hunt told the Commons that discussions have taken place with a number of allied states in the last 48 hours on the forming of a protection force with further talks to be held later this week.


The foreign secretary said: “It is with a heavy heart that we are announcing this increased international presence in the Gulf because the focus of our diplomacy has been on de-escalating tensions in the hope that such changes would not be necessary.”

...


Drummond or Noir how likely are EU members to join with UK?

[Kathianne]

I do wonder what France & Germany have regarding naval warships, IF they choose to help Britain? Britain seems to be woefully short of being able to go it alone:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/royal-navy-doesnt-enough-warships-18499603




1982: Four aircraft carriers, 13 destroyers, and 47 frigates

2008: Two aircraft carriers, eight destroyers, 17 frigates


2019: one aircraft carrier, which will not have any planes until 2021, six aircraft carriers and 13 frigates

[Drummond]

Incredible. To think this about oneself is one thing - but to type it out for the world to see is quite another. Please understand that the embarrassment you should feel about this statement is being felt by me, for you.

You must be joking.

If, repeat, IF, you come from my part of the world, then you know my society. Its history must be familiar to you, surely ? You know what lessons there have been to learn. You therefore know that I have a good basis for my own mindset.

I learn the lessons there are to learn, Noir .. I'm a realist. I don't cling to a philosophy in defiance of all realism. If someone teaches me a good and valuable lesson, if it's there to learn, I learn it.

Should YOU feel embarrassment, Noir, for doing the opposite ?

[Drummond]

Some good news. . .

Europe coalition:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iran-tanker-british-ship-jeremy-hunt-european-task-force-a9016301.html



@Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287) or @Noir (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=517) how likely are EU members to join with UK?

Impossible to be certain. Given our great difficulties over Brexit, maybe some EU members will feel a show of support for the UK position may dampen enthusiasm for leaving the EU.

Or, they might see it as a bargaining chip: see things more our way, they could say, show us signs of it, then, when it suits you, we'll reciprocate with the support you need ...

There is no definite news on this as yet. My feeling is that Europe will have an interest in agreeing that coalition. It'll be interesting politically, because Iran can interpret it as evidence of EU support for the nuke deal is waning.

[Drummond]

Throughout our society there has been Non-Stop yanking to the left and the right and then back to the left and the right through politics. And absolutely, over time this stresses society as a whole without a doubt. Difficult to please everyone obviously. I'm surprised ours hasn't exploded again.

While I don't not want to go on scavenger hunts or want to learn a lot of new stuff myself we can all obviously learn from both societies. I think major events and milestones and wars and such are easy to research, the problem comes in depending on where the "facts" are coming from. If you were at most colleges in the United States as of today you would be getting it leaning from the left most likely. And as you see with the US media, they're in the can for the democrats, and 90% of the MSM is left leaning. Fox News being the primary I know of.



The left and left appear to be lining up more and more between both countries. And let me assure you they are just as damaging here, at least as of today's standards. At least from what I want out of life they are very damaging and almost every political aspect possible. And from what I want out of life it is not taking any money from a single other person alive. I would not be dependent on our government. (I would be hoping for a limited government overall). I do not want socialism and don't want anything from anybody else nor do I want things taken from me especially money!

And for me I am speaking about politics here mainly the left and the right. And I believe we all know what I mean when I say the left and the right and the decisions they make within politics. I am not trying to say the left or liberals are all bad people, someone can be a good person and still have shit politics. Just like somebody can have very good politics and be a complete asshole at times. But the left, as a political system or political belief in my idea is horrid, and simply bad for America. In my opinion neither side is perfection, but one side is sure as hell a lot better.



Well, that sure does sound like you just described American lefties/Democrats.

What I draw from this is confirmation of what I think is true.

It's totally understandable that you'd not fully 'get' what I'd mean you to understand about the extremes between Left and Right, because the extremes you're familiar with don't match ours. So: imagine facing this reality, for American politics, not mine:

Imagine there's a candidate for the US Presidency who wants to run America in a way consistent with the British Labour Party leader's plans, and his own worldview. OK. In that scenario, the Presidential hopeful would want his Presidency to be defined by the following:



An unshakeable determination, which he'd be content to publicly declare, that there would NEVER be ANY scenario in which he'd ever use your nuclear arsenal against any adversary (goodbye, its deterrence factor !)
The institution of our version of an NHS, with all healthcare run by, fully dominated by, Government control. No alternatives permitted, by law: all healthcare mandatorily paid for out of taxation.
Outlawing any right to speak out publicly against any faith or belief system, and the branding of the tag 'racist' for anyone who tries. Powers instituted for arrests against 'perpetrators' if deemed appropriate to nullify 'public tensions'.
Very tough gun laws. Say goodbye to the right to own a gun.
Official support for the likes of Hamas .. a willingness to share public platforms with its representatives.
Strong condemnation whenever Israel defends itself against Hamas terrorism.
Taking services into public ownership: gas supplies, electricity, water, all rail and public transportation services. Turn them into State monopolies.
Say goodbye to automatically presumed control of what happens to your body after death. Organ 'donation' becomes the mandatory default, unless the deceased has previously taken measures to prevent organ grabs.
A softening of Trade Union controls.


That is just a mere taste of the BRITISH brand of Socialism, Jim (there's more I could add). The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, either has been, or will be, in favour of ALL of the above measures and occurrences. Every one.

Here's my point. Corbyn, with all of this well known, does stand a significant chance of forming a Government after our next election. All I describe is seen by some to be palatable and 'good' for our society. Why ? BECAUSE OUR LEFT HAS WORKED HARD TO CONVINCE PEOPLE OF ITS CORRECTNESS, AND HAS HAD ITS SUCCESSES.

Now, Jim, can you imagine your Left instituting that lot in America ? Of course not. Your Left is far less extreme than ours. You just cannot compare the two, not as matters stand. However .. with enough work, over long enough, a form of Left could come together that would push for such inroads. Trust me, it's coming, unless you prepare for the eventuality. The Left here has got away with far more than it has, so far, where you are. But don't kid yourself that, if it could, your Left would be incapable of being as extreme. No society is immune to such ideological poison.

Ours wasn't ... why would yours be ?

[Drummond]

Other countries hating our guts , but sure expecting us to step in when they get in trouble, has been an issue for decades. This is why I always laugh when someone is like "outside of the US Trump is the least popular President ever" Well yes , because he's cut off the money flow to countries that obviously hate us.

I just wanted to say that I've nothing but sympathy for that point of view, and I've posted on this in years past.

My country has been prone to that sort of attitude in the past (I think it was a factor over the Falklands war, for example, back in the early Eighties; though, happily, Ron & Maggie had a better relationship than many leaders did). I agree. Some of my own people are simultaneously highly critical of aspects of American politics they don't like, but expect you all to instantly forget such judgments when we find it convenient.

It infuriates me. If America is our friend, and one we have expectations of 'rushing to our aid', then it's a friend we should respect and appreciate, not one we'll turn against at other times.

It's one reason why I felt pure disgust at the revelation of Kim Darroch's backstabbing libels. His comments showed him to be unfit for his job, and a national disgrace.

[jimnyc]

What I draw from this is confirmation of what I think is true.

It's totally understandable that you'd not fully 'get' what I'd mean you to understand about the extremes between Left and Right, because the extremes you're familiar with don't match ours. So: imagine facing this reality, for American politics, not mine:

...

Now, Jim, can you imagine your Left instituting that lot in America ? Of course not. Your Left is far less extreme than ours. You just cannot compare the two, not as matters stand. However .. with enough work, over long enough, a form of Left could come together that would push for such inroads. Trust me, it's coming, unless you prepare for the eventuality. The Left here has got away with far more than it has, so far, where you are. But don't kid yourself that, if it could, your Left would be incapable of being as extreme. No society is immune to such ideological poison.

Ours wasn't ... why would yours be ?

I fully agree again. Same with what I replied to. And trust me, I fully get/got what you were saying!! I may not know all the particulars of the overall history, but enough, and enough to have fully understood what you wrote, and continue to.

And while not identical, we have similar issues here. The left has stayed the course on their garbage and lies. Some lies they have told for so long.... some things they yammer on about for years and then people give in, and society goes another millimeter down the societal toilet bowl. And if not reigned in, yes, the bowl will be overtaken & flushed.

We are certainly not immune and already see MANY signs of a weakening structure to America and all of her values. :(

[Drummond]

I fully agree again. Same with what I replied to. And trust me, I fully get/got what you were saying!! I may not know all the particulars of the overall history, but enough, and enough to have fully understood what you wrote, and continue to.

And while not identical, we have similar issues here. The left has stayed the course on their garbage and lies. Some lies they have told for so long.... some things they yammer on about for years and then people give in, and society goes another millimeter down the societal toilet bowl. And if not reigned in, yes, the bowl will be overtaken & flushed.

We are certainly not immune and already see MANY signs of a weakening structure to America and all of her values. :(

Well said, Jim .. & thanks.

There are certain outrageous liberties which the American Left cannot take, which ours can ... BUT ... that's only for now. The Left need time to work to make their ultimate goals possible, then realisable. They have to launch their propaganda offensives, to skew opinions, worldviews, over time. Yes, they'll 'yammer on', because they have to dripfeed their ideas into acceptance. And they'll never, ever, stop ... until their goals are achieved.

They've known great success over here. For example: gay marriage. Social attitudes here, now, have been changed to the point where if you're inclined to oppose it, you're 'a bigot'. Or worse. Compare that attitude to society's attitude to that mere IDEA being suggested three decades ago, and the reality of the Left's terraforming activities becomes extremely clear.

All the more so, in fact, when you consider that it was a British CONSERVATIVE Prime Minister (Cameron) who'd so bought into that social change that HE helped usher it in. He said at the time that he did so, proudly.

The Left corrupts, subverts. It's perhaps THE key goal they have to help 'justify' their very existence. Right now, the Left may be incapable of selling some of their ideas to the American public, and their public face gives no hint of any such agenda being in place. But, then, the same would've been true of the British Left, back in the 1950's, say.

Time, and effort, changes everything. That is, IF this is ALLOWED. I see it as a vital Conservative imperative to make sure the rot doesn't take hold, as the Left would dearly love it to.

[STTAB]

I just wanted to say that I've nothing but sympathy for that point of view, and I've posted on this in years past.

My country has been prone to that sort of attitude in the past (I think it was a factor over the Falklands war, for example, back in the early Eighties; though, happily, Ron & Maggie had a better relationship than many leaders did). I agree. Some of my own people are simultaneously highly critical of aspects of American politics they don't like, but expect you all to instantly forget such judgments when we find it convenient.

It infuriates me. If America is our friend, and one we have expectations of 'rushing to our aid', then it's a friend we should respect and appreciate, not one we'll turn against at other times.

It's one reason why I felt pure disgust at the revelation of Kim Darroch's backstabbing libels. His comments showed him to be unfit for his job, and a national disgrace.

I wasn't even thinking about England when I wrote that. IMHO England is a true friend to this country. Does that mean we always agree, or always get along? Nope. You and I can disagree from topic to topic, does that mean we can't be friends? Of course not. As long as a solid basis of friendship exists.

[Drummond]

I wasn't even thinking about England when I wrote that. IMHO England is a true friend to this country. Does that mean we always agree, or always get along? Nope. You and I can disagree from topic to topic, does that mean we can't be friends? Of course not. As long as a solid basis of friendship exists.:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[STTAB]

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

I'll go even further, shouldn't a friend be able privately communicate that they think a friend is wrong? I don't think what Darroch did or said says anything about the relationship between the US and England

[Drummond]

I'll go even further, shouldn't a friend be able privately communicate that they think a friend is wrong? I don't think what Darroch did or said says anything about the relationship between the US and England

Again ... :clap::clap::clap::clap:

For my money, the best friend you can have is one prepared to do exactly that. None of us is immune to being wrong, and it'd be a good friend who acted in the friend's interests to correct them.

I agree. What Darroch said, or did, should't say anything about the relationship between the US and England.

That said -- there's a real world out there, and some 'non-friends' would very happily use any excuse to place a wedge between those two friendly powers. Darroch's crap isn't exactly immune to such opportunism being attempted.

In case this needs to be addressed, though, and for clarity, what Darroch said was not the act of a 'critical friend'. He went too far for that. An attack is exactly that. Darroch attacked Trump and his Administration, obviously fuelled by some barely-fathomable biases he possessed.

He was as unfit to continue in his job as he was to deserve having it.

[STTAB]

Again ... :clap::clap::clap::clap:

For my money, the best friend you can have is one prepared to do exactly that. None of us is immune to being wrong, and it'd be a good friend who acted in the friend's interests to correct them.

I agree. What Darroch said, or did, should't say anything about the relationship between the US and England.

That said -- there's a real world out there, and some 'non-friends' would very happily use any excuse to place a wedge between those two friendly powers. Darroch's crap isn't exactly immune to such opportunism being attempted.

In case this needs to be addressed, though, and for clarity, what Darroch said was not the act of a 'critical friend'. He went too far for that. An attack is exactly that. Darroch attacked Trump and his Administration, obviously fuelled by some barely-fathomable biases he possessed.

He was as unfit to continue in his job as he was to deserve having it.

I don't know enough about the guy to know whether he was fit for the job or not. Based on my very limited experience with foreign Ambassadors I'm inclined to say he was fit for the job, it's a very low skill job in reality. They barely do any work at all, and that's exactly what most of them are qualified for.

And I definitely won't agree that having an opinion about Trump that we may or may not agree with neither qualifies nor disqualifies anyone for any public office.

[Kathianne]

Again ... :clap::clap::clap::clap:

For my money, the best friend you can have is one prepared to do exactly that. None of us is immune to being wrong, and it'd be a good friend who acted in the friend's interests to correct them.

I agree. What Darroch said, or did, should't say anything about the relationship between the US and England.

That said -- there's a real world out there, and some 'non-friends' would very happily use any excuse to place a wedge between those two friendly powers. Darroch's crap isn't exactly immune to such opportunism being attempted.

In case this needs to be addressed, though, and for clarity, what Darroch said was not the act of a 'critical friend'. He went too far for that. An attack is exactly that. Darroch attacked Trump and his Administration, obviously fuelled by some barely-fathomable biases he possessed.

He was as unfit to continue in his job as he was to deserve having it.


I assume this was a missive that was to remain private. I thought he had a duty to be perfectly honest and opinionated on his take of those he was dealing with. If his judgement was found wrong too often, then he should be dismissed at worst; ignored at best. What wasn't expected was the info to go public, whomever leaked that, was the villain.

[STTAB]

I assume this was a missive that was to remain private. I thought he had a duty to be perfectly honest and opinionated on his take of those he was dealing with. If his judgement was found wrong too often, then he should be dismissed at worst; ignored at best. What wasn't expected was the info to go public, whomever leaked that, was the villain.

Said the same thing now that I said when the phone conversation between Trump and the Prime Minister of Australia was leaked way back when. You can't expect anything to be resolved if these people are lying to each other privately because they are afraid to be honest due to conversations being made public.

In the end, who gives a shit if Trump talked a little tough to the PM of Australia when he first took office, and who cares that Darroch thinks Trump is a moron?

Imagine in your own relationships if you were scared to tell those you were involved in the truth. Is that the basis for any kind of relationship? No.

[Drummond]

I don't know enough about the guy to know whether he was fit for the job or not. Based on my very limited experience with foreign Ambassadors I'm inclined to say he was fit for the job, it's a very low skill job in reality. They barely do any work at all, and that's exactly what most of them are qualified for.

And I definitely won't agree that having an opinion about Trump that we may or may not agree with neither qualifies nor disqualifies anyone for any public office.

Governments, be it mine, or yours, or others, benefit from objective reporting from the Ambassadors posted in the country in question. I don't regard their job as being legitimately one where the Ambassador sends pure vitriol. Darroch made comments so strong that you surely have to conclude they have no acquaintance with objectivity.

Darroch didn't just denigrate Trump. He attacked his entire Administration. If you believed Darroch's rants, you'd have to conclude that the current Administration is so dire that it has no right to exist.

It was certainly bad enough for our Left to take satisfaction from it !! Here's one Leftie newspaper, the UK's Guardian, doing just that:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/07/what-kim-darroch-is-reported-to-have-said-about-trump


This is what Kim Darroch, the British ambassador to the US, is reported to have said in private about Donald Trump.

On Trump’s ‘dysfunctional’ administration

“As seen from here, we really don’t believe that this administration is going to become substantially more normal; less dysfunctional, less unpredictable, less faction-riven, less diplomatically clumsy and inept” – Summer 2017

Comment: Or, to put it another way, the ambassador has read the papers. What Sir Kim Darroch said is not particularly contentious – at least outside Trump circles – but, in the best traditions of the Foreign Office, he states his case with an elegant turn of phrase.

On Trump radiating ‘insecurity’ ...

“For a man who has risen to the highest office on the planet, President Trump radiates insecurity … There is no filter [that prevents Trump making offensive comments] … We could also be at the beginning of a downward spiral, rather than just a rollercoaster; something could emerge that leads to disgrace and downfall” – Summer 2017

Comment: “Radiates insecurity” is another zinger, which appears to reflect personal knowledge of the president. In an interview with the Financial Times last year, Darroch gave a slightly different assessment. “I have met [Trump] seven or eight times and always found him to be absolutely charming,” he said.

On Trump’s state visit to UK

“The president knew from the outset that it amounted to genuinely special treatment … Although initially worried about getting the protocol right, he became more relaxed as it progressed; and by the end, he could not have been happier or more fulsome in his assessment” – 17 June 2019

Comment: In this memo, Darroch says inviting Trump to the UK for a state visit was a “gamble”. But he says from Washington’s perspective it was a great success, earning the UK embassy precious extra goodwill from Trump staffers for whom this was “the hottest ticket of their careers”.

On a Trump rally

“As is standard at these rallies, the language was incendiary, and a mix of fact and fiction – hard to reconcile with [vice-president Mike] Pence’s remarks about governing for all Americans … All that said, there is still a credible path for Trump – but so much rides on who the Democrats choose in July 2020” – 20 June 2019

Comment: Diplomats tend to enjoy trying their hand at reportage, and Darroch’s description of the Orlando rally – “the atmosphere was unique – somewhere between a major sporting event (where only the home team fans are in the crowd) and a mega-church” – would bring credit to any decent foreign correspondent.

On Trump aborting an airstrike against Iran at last minute

“[Trump’s] claim, however, that he changed his mind because of 150 predicted casualties doesn’t stand up; he would certainly have heard this figure in his initial briefing. It’s more likely that he was never fully on board and that he was worried about how this apparent reversal of his 2016 campaign promises would look come 2020 [at the next election]” – 22 June 2019

Comment: This is one of the most interesting memos because it is particularly recent. Darroch says the embassy was in the dark on the night of the aborted airstrike for a while because even its “best contacts” were unwilling to answer calls. He warns that a further Iranian attack, involving the loss of American life, could trigger a U-turn from Trump.

You can conclude the following .. obviously ...

1. The Guardian enjoyed itself ! It not only reported, it included its comments as part of its report ! Leftie 'spin' for you.

2. We're not talking about a 'one off' comment. We're not seeing any positivity at all, either. It's a catalogue of critical comments spanning, literally, years, and painting such an extreme picture that our own Government, if they believe that stuff, couldn't help but be wary or very guarded in its dealings with America !!

3. Note his comment: ' Darroch says inviting Trump to the UK for a state visit was a “gamble”.'. A comment showing a degree of poisoning of the US-UK relationship, because by Darroch's reckoning, having Trump here involved risk !! Where does Darroch express regret for this ??

Even more ... Darroch's Civil Service role meant he was supposed to be politically neutral. So why is he commenting on the political decision his employers had made by issuing the invitation ??

Can you not see that Darroch was disseminating poison, letting his own personal views rule his commentary .. that he had no regrets about doing any of this, & that was so bad that it threatened our whole ability -- IF believed in -- !! -- to maintain a proper political relationship with America !!!

Now .. is that, or is it not, an Ambassador's job to either create, or maintain, rather than try to undermine ???

I don't think I need to say more. My case is made.

[Drummond]

I assume this was a missive that was to remain private. I thought he had a duty to be perfectly honest and opinionated on his take of those he was dealing with. If his judgement was found wrong too often, then he should be dismissed at worst; ignored at best. What wasn't expected was the info to go public, whomever leaked that, was the villain.

Yes, it was meant to remain private. But, the 'commentary' from Darroch was so bad that it created its own diplomatic incident.

I don't agree that Darroch had any right to let vitriol take the place of objectivity. Darroch sent 'reports' back that were so bad, that, if believed in them, we in the UK would have to wonder just how stable any diplomatic relationship between the UK and US could be .. for as long as Trump and his people remained in office.

That is ridiculous, and SURELY, badly violates any diplomat's function !

Darroch should've been dismissed, without question. But until these reports were leaked, Darroch remained secure in his job.

Worse .. much worse .. he still commanded strong support from the UK side, even AFTER the leak !!

Alan Duncan attacked Boris J, very strongly, for failing to give the fullest possible support for Darroch. Jeremy Hunt went on record as saying he'd keep Darroch in his post until Christmas.

Jeremy Corbyn (Leftie Leader) was also unstinting in his support (surprise, surprise).

Meanwhile, the Guardian (Left wing newspaper) made a meal of the whole thing. I've just posted to show how far that went.

The leaker committed a criminal act (a clear breach of our Official Secrets Act). Yes. But .. what was being leaked ?

No, Kath, there's no excuse for what Darroch did. Nor yet for the astonishing SUPPORT our side continued to offer.

Clearly, Darroch's rabid prejudices have had their effect.

[Drummond]

Said the same thing now that I said when the phone conversation between Trump and the Prime Minister of Australia was leaked way back when. You can't expect anything to be resolved if these people are lying to each other privately because they are afraid to be honest due to conversations being made public.

In the end, who gives a shit if Trump talked a little tough to the PM of Australia when he first took office, and who cares that Darroch thinks Trump is a moron?

Imagine in your own relationships if you were scared to tell those you were involved in the truth. Is that the basis for any kind of relationship? No.

Sheer vitriol is not truth. Darroch went so far as to speculate on our future fortunes depending on who the Democrats could counter Trump with, in 2020. Bias, much ? Exceeding your political neutrality, much ... ?

Darroch evidently was not neutral, but his brief demanded political neutrality. That 'diplomat' was a total disgrace.

[Kathianne]

Yes, it was meant to remain private. But, the 'commentary' from Darroch was so bad that it created its own diplomatic incident.

I don't agree that Darroch had any right to let vitriol take the place of objectivity. Darroch sent 'reports' back that were so bad, that, if believed in them, we in the UK would have to wonder just how stable any diplomatic relationship between the UK and US could be .. for as long as Trump and his people remained in office.

That is ridiculous, and SURELY, badly violates any diplomat's function !

Darroch should've been dismissed, without question. But until these reports were leaked, Darroch remained secure in his job.

Worse .. much worse .. he still commanded strong support from the UK side, even AFTER the leak !!

Alan Duncan attacked Boris J, very strongly, for failing to give the fullest possible support for Darroch. Jeremy Hunt went on record as saying he'd keep Darroch in his post until Christmas.

Jeremy Corbyn (Leftie Leader) was also unstinting in his support (surprise, surprise).

Meanwhile, the Guardian (Left wing newspaper) made a meal of the whole thing. I've just posted to show how far that went.

The leaker committed a criminal act (a clear breach of our Official Secrets Act). Yes. But .. what was being leaked ?

No, Kath, there's no excuse for what Darroch did. Nor yet for the astonishing SUPPORT our side continued to offer.

Clearly, Darroch's rabid prejudices have had their effect.

Here's where we see an ambassador's job differently. They are to be the eyes and ears of the executive. They are also to make 'educated guesses' about the administration in general and the leaders as specific as they can. It is both an objective and subjective position. The ambassador's use to their boss, is only worth that boss's assessment of the information given. President Trump and /or his Secretary of State and minions, rely on the ambassadors for what they 'see' and 'how they interpret' both the leaders and those led. They are making judgments for how long the leaders may remain and how the people are going to follow. When they are giving these assessments, they may well be contradictory. Say in Puerto Rico right now, the governor there has been very negative towards the President and now is in a very, very bad position in his country-Our president in all likelihood had a good heads up of what was going to happen. PR certainly isn't the UK and the ambassador there would not be a 1st tier choice-likely just a political payback, big donor. Still, with the help of the staff, President Trump had pretty good intel, along with the NSA info most likely knowing all about the emails. LOL!

Some positions are more important than others. I'd imagine for UK, the ambassador to the US is very important-as is vice versa. Churchill for instance was well aware that FDR had decided that Stalin wasn't going to cause the US to deal with communism immediately after WWII. I'd guess that Churchill had a few words about that. Both the British and American ambassadors heard plenty from both, not to mention both countries ambassadors to USSR. Each knew as much as possible what the other one was thinking, hoping for, etc. That kind of information isn't possible without the ambassadors being able to communicating their own observations and thoughts, they are the ones spending time. It doesn't mean that others from State, (in the case of US) or the executives themselves putting their own judgments from personal dealings into the mix, but the transparent opinions of the ambassadors are also useful.

It is not a requirement that the opinions be those of the executive or of the majority/minority of persons in the country.

It seems that since you vehemently disagreed with what was said, you find the person delivering the information to blame. I'd only agree with that if he were the one who put his opinions out in the open. Now, it may well have been that Ms. May strongly disagreed even if kept quiet, and let him go. That though does not seem to be what transpired.

[STTAB]

Governments, be it mine, or yours, or others, benefit from objective reporting from the Ambassadors posted in the country in question. I don't regard their job as being legitimately one where the Ambassador sends pure vitriol. Darroch made comments so strong that you surely have to conclude they have no acquaintance with objectivity.

Darroch didn't just denigrate Trump. He attacked his entire Administration. If you believed Darroch's rants, you'd have to conclude that the current Administration is so dire that it has no right to exist.

It was certainly bad enough for our Left to take satisfaction from it !! Here's one Leftie newspaper, the UK's Guardian, doing just that:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/07/what-kim-darroch-is-reported-to-have-said-about-trump



You can conclude the following .. obviously ...

1. The Guardian enjoyed itself ! It not only reported, it included its comments as part of its report ! Leftie 'spin' for you.

2. We're not talking about a 'one off' comment. We're not seeing any positivity at all, either. It's a catalogue of critical comments spanning, literally, years, and painting such an extreme picture that our own Government, if they believe that stuff, couldn't help but be wary or very guarded in its dealings with America !!

3. Note his comment: ' Darroch says inviting Trump to the UK for a state visit was a “gamble”.'. A comment showing a degree of poisoning of the US-UK relationship, because by Darroch's reckoning, having Trump here involved risk !! Where does Darroch express regret for this ??

Even more ... Darroch's Civil Service role meant he was supposed to be politically neutral. So why is he commenting on the political decision his employers had made by issuing the invitation ??

Can you not see that Darroch was disseminating poison, letting his own personal views rule his commentary .. that he had no regrets about doing any of this, & that was so bad that it threatened our whole ability -- IF believed in -- !! -- to maintain a proper political relationship with America !!!

Now .. is that, or is it not, an Ambassador's job to either create, or maintain, rather than try to undermine ???

I don't think I need to say more. My case is made.


You are wrong about Ambassadors being subjective. Their entire purpose is to give the home country OPINIONS which the elected leaders than use to form policy.

What if, for example, France elected someone who was truly crazy, don't you think the President of the United States would need our Ambassador to France to give frank honest opinions?

This really was much ado about nothing.

[Drummond]

Here's where we see an ambassador's job differently. They are to be the eyes and ears of the executive. They are also to make 'educated guesses' about the administration in general and the leaders as specific as they can. It is both an objective and subjective position. The ambassador's use to their boss, is only worth that boss's assessment of the information given. President Trump and /or his Secretary of State and minions, rely on the ambassadors for what they 'see' and 'how they interpret' both the leaders and those led. They are making judgments for how long the leaders may remain and how the people are going to follow. When they are giving these assessments, they may well be contradictory. Say in Puerto Rico right now, the governor there has been very negative towards the President and now is in a very, very bad position in his country-Our president in all likelihood had a good heads up of what was going to happen. PR certainly isn't the UK and the ambassador there would not be a 1st tier choice-likely just a political payback, big donor. Still, with the help of the staff, President Trump had pretty good intel, along with the NSA info most likely knowing all about the emails. LOL!

Some positions are more important than others. I'd imagine for UK, the ambassador to the US is very important-as is vice versa. Churchill for instance was well aware that FDR had decided that Stalin wasn't going to cause the US to deal with communism immediately after WWII. I'd guess that Churchill had a few words about that. Both the British and American ambassadors heard plenty from both, not to mention both countries ambassadors to USSR. Each knew as much as possible what the other one was thinking, hoping for, etc. That kind of information isn't possible without the ambassadors being able to communicating their own observations and thoughts, they are the ones spending time. It doesn't mean that others from State, (in the case of US) or the executives themselves putting their own judgments from personal dealings into the mix, but the transparent opinions of the ambassadors are also useful.

It is not a requirement that the opinions be those of the executive or of the majority/minority of persons in the country.

It seems that since you vehemently disagreed with what was said, you find the person delivering the information to blame. I'd only agree with that if he were the one who put his opinions out in the open. Now, it may well have been that Ms. May strongly disagreed even if kept quiet, and let him go. That though does not seem to be what transpired.

I do vehemently disagree with what was said. Yes, I definitely do ! But, WHY do I ?

I don't believe an Ambassador's role includes fomenting tensions, by submitting commentary that can't help but have that effect. You talk of it being part of an Ambassador's brief to be subjective as well as objective. Well ... if this is a well-founded summary of a diplomat's range of duties, doesn't it also follow that professionalism must also be involved ? Do Ambassadors not receive proper training, to ground them in the proper execution of their duties ?

Does it not follow that subjective comment MUST NOT be reckless, so intemperate as to not even have a nodding acquaintance with diplomatic reserve or verifiable, grounded, FACT ?

Does it not follow that reports need to be evidence-based ? That conclusions, partly to serve the cause of sheer fairness, need to be entirely separated from individual (especially doctrinaire) bias ?

I've posted this on another thread; see below. It's a video clip of Nigel Farage (founder of UKIP, and the newer Brexit Party, and therefore a seasoned and experienced UK politician) ... who had dealings with Darroch, in a former role of Darroch's, in Brussels.

Play the clip, from around 45 seconds in (the recording dates back to the moment the Darroch scandal first broke, and before Trump had begun tweeting his responses). See & hear what Farage's assessment of Darroch is. Note his revealing to us that Darroch was candid about thinking he COULD do his job, but in doing it, not - apparently - bother with neutrality. Darroch considered - as you'll hear - his job to be one of promoting a pro-EU agenda, when in Brussels !


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQEClSrmDW8&feature=youtu.be

Farage was one notable figure who called for Darroch's sacking. He considered Darroch's commenting to be a total disgrace.

Point: surely, SURELY, diplomatic reports need to be evidence-based ? That, rather than founded on pure suspicion, for which there are no grounds ? Note from Farage what Darroch had to say on Russians ? Claiming that Trump 'could be indebted to dodgy Russians' was speculation that Darroch passed on, but which he couldn't possibly have backed up !!! As for what it was, well ... and especially from some time ago ... it was prime pro-Democrat propaganda-fodder.

This tells you .. what ?

[Drummond]

You are wrong about Ambassadors being subjective. Their entire purpose is to give the home country OPINIONS which the elected leaders than use to form policy.

What if, for example, France elected someone who was truly crazy, don't you think the President of the United States would need our Ambassador to France to give frank honest opinions?

This really was much ado about nothing.

Opinions ... perhaps. Giving vent to personal bias, masquerading as fact-based opinion ... I don't think so.

If it was really 'much ado about nothing', then how come Darroch isn't still there, in Washington, peddling his vitriol ?

No. Darroch himself realised that the game was up. The leak had 'outed' him, he could see what massive damage his comments had caused, and even HE concluded that he couldn't operate as our Ambassador any longer.

If Darroch had done nothing wrong, and had operated within the proper parameters of his brief, why did even Darroch realise he couldn't continue in his job ?

Darroch offered no opinion (and what would've stopped him, given his record ??) saying that the job of UK Ambassador to the US was impossible to do.

That's because ... it isn't. NOT FOR AN AMBASSADOR DOING HIS JOB RESPONSIBLY.

[STTAB]

Opinions ... perhaps. Giving vent to personal bias, masquerading as fact-based opinion ... I don't think so.

If it was really 'much ado about nothing', then how come Darroch isn't still there, in Washington, peddling his vitriol ?

No. Darroch himself realised that the game was up. The leak had 'outed' him, he could see what massive damage his comments had caused, and even HE concluded that he couldn't operate as our Ambassador any longer.

If Darroch had done nothing wrong, and had operated within the proper parameters of his brief, why did even Darroch realise he couldn't continue in his job ?

Darroch offered no opinion (and what would've stopped him, given his record ??) saying that the job of UK Ambassador to the US was impossible to do.

That's because ... it isn't. NOT FOR AN AMBASSADOR DOING HIS JOB RESPONSIBLY.

The reason he's gone is that for somoene who likes to hurl insults the way he does Trump is a thin skinned baby back bitch . That's the facts jack. The guy resigned b/c Trump threw a fit and this guy didn't want to be a further distraction.


See, I like some of the things Trump is doing, but he flat out sucks in some areas and this is one of them. I learned in like the 2nd grade that not everyone is gonna like you. Shrug that shit off and move on, most people react this way. But Trump isn't one of those people.

[Kathianne]

I do vehemently disagree with what was said. Yes, I definitely do ! But, WHY do I ?

I don't believe an Ambassador's role includes fomenting tensions, by submitting commentary that can't help but have that effect. You talk of it being part of an Ambassador's brief to be subjective as well as objective. Well ... if this is a well-founded summary of a diplomat's range of duties, doesn't it also follow that professionalism must also be involved ? Do Ambassadors not receive proper training, to ground them in the proper execution of their duties ?

Does it not follow that subjective comment MUST NOT be reckless, so intemperate as to not even have a nodding acquaintance with diplomatic reserve or verifiable, grounded, FACT ?

Does it not follow that reports need to be evidence-based ? That conclusions, partly to serve the cause of sheer fairness, need to be entirely separated from individual (especially doctrinaire) bias ?

I've posted this on another thread; see below. It's a video clip of Nigel Farage (founder of UKIP, and the newer Brexit Party, and therefore a seasoned and experienced UK politician) ... who had dealings with Darroch, in a former role of Darroch's, in Brussels.

Play the clip, from around 45 seconds in (the recording dates back to the moment the Darroch scandal first broke, and before Trump had begun tweeting his responses). See & hear what Farage's assessment of Darroch is. Note his revealing to us that Darroch was candid about thinking he COULD do his job, but in doing it, not - apparently - bother with neutrality. Darroch considered - as you'll hear - his job to be one of promoting a pro-EU agenda, when in Brussels !


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQEClSrmDW8&feature=youtu.be

Farage was one notable figure who called for Darroch's sacking. He considered Darroch's commenting to be a total disgrace.

Point: surely, SURELY, diplomatic reports need to be evidence-based ? That, rather than founded on pure suspicion, for which there are no grounds ? Note from Farage what Darroch had to say on Russians ? Claiming that Trump 'could be indebted to dodgy Russians' was speculation that Darroch passed on, but which he couldn't possibly have backed up !!! As for what it was, well ... and especially from some time ago ... it was prime pro-Democrat propaganda-fodder.

This tells you .. what ?


No. Generally ambassadors are not priests, doctors, psychologists, spies, psychics, etc.

Subjective by nature is opinion, not facts.

Opinions are influenced by personal bias and observation, but obviously observations are by 'through the eye of the beholder.'

An ambassador who felt that a person of import to their superior was of bad character, judgment, a liar, cheat, two faced, dangerous, etc. really does need to express why he holds that opinion or judgement. He also needs to report how the person comports himself; if he things that his behaviors are likely to lead to trouble, (for instance seeing a president having lovers being secretly brought in, etc., i.e., things making him open to extortion/blackmail.) Yeah, there's a lot to the job, especially in the countries important to your home country.

[Drummond]

No. Generally ambassadors are not priests, doctors, psychologists, spies, psychics, etc.

Subjective by nature is opinion, not facts.

Opinions are influenced by personal bias and observation, but obviously observations are by 'through the eye of the beholder.'

An ambassador who felt that a person of import to their superior was of bad character, judgment, a liar, cheat, two faced, dangerous, etc. really does need to express why he holds that opinion or judgement. He also needs to report how the person comports himself; if he things that his behaviors are likely to lead to trouble, (for instance seeing a president having lovers being secretly brought in, etc., i.e., things making him open to extortion/blackmail.) Yeah, there's a lot to the job, especially in the countries important to your home country.

Well ... Farage was clear in his own mind as to Darroch's failing, and I agree with him. Darroch, as a Civil Servant, has written into the terms of his service the unshakeable imperative that he must do his job in a politically neutral way. Farage claimed to have personal knowledge of Darroch which said that Darroch was unashamedly anything BUT neutral.

He extrapolates from that his belief that Darroch will happily indulge whatever prejudices are driving him and represent them as 'useful, real-time, information based commentary'.

You're correct. Darroch did need to explain WHY he expressed what he did. But that meant that what underpinning he offered, needed to be evidence-based. But ... WAS it ? How about Darroch's reporting of 'dodgy Russian' intervention ? At absolute best, certainly at the time it was reported, that was pure rumour, and Democrat-serving rumour, at that. Couldn't be substantiated, backed up, at all. YET, he was prepared to tell his British bosses that it was information possessing value.

If our side took it to heart, formed policy from believing the report ... the potential for harm was massive.

But, did Darroch care ? Did he ever believe he'd gone too far ?

Only when he was 'outed' did he change his tune, and then, only because he had to. Because HE had made HIS position untenable.

[Drummond]

The reason he's gone is that for somoene who likes to hurl insults the way he does Trump is a thin skinned baby back bitch . That's the facts jack. The guy resigned b/c Trump threw a fit and this guy didn't want to be a further distraction.


See, I like some of the things Trump is doing, but he flat out sucks in some areas and this is one of them. I learned in like the 2nd grade that not everyone is gonna like you. Shrug that shit off and move on, most people react this way. But Trump isn't one of those people.

Trump's whole history has a combative edge to it ... of necessity. More, he's an American with great pride, great patriotism driving him. From what I understand of him, was he ever likely to be different from what he is ?

If I can see that, I don't see why Darroch wouldn't, and so make the necessary allowances. But I contend that Darroch's biases were such that he had no interest in doing so.

[STTAB]

Well ... Farage was clear in his own mind as to Darroch's failing, and I agree with him. Darroch, as a Civil Servant, has written into the terms of his service the unshakeable imperative that he must do his job in a politically neutral way. Farage claimed to have personal knowledge of Darroch which said that Darroch was unashamedly anything BUT neutral.

He extrapolates from that his belief that Darroch will happily indulge whatever prejudices are driving him and represent them as 'useful, real-time, information based commentary'.

You're correct. Darroch did need to explain WHY he expressed what he did. But that meant that what underpinning he offered, needed to be evidence-based. But ... WAS it ? How about Darroch's reporting of 'dodgy Russian' intervention ? At absolute best, certainly at the time it was reported, that was pure rumour, and Democrat-serving rumour, at that. Couldn't be substantiated, backed up, at all. YET, he was prepared to tell his British bosses that it was information possessing value.

If our side took it to heart, formed policy from believing the report ... the potential for harm was massive.

But, did Darroch care ? Did he ever believe he'd gone too far ?

Only when he was 'outed' did he change his tune, and then, only because he had to. Because HE had made HIS position untenable.

I have a sneaking suspicion that had Darroch been outed in say 2014 as having emailed derogatory remarks about Obama to other British diplomats and resigned over the fallout that you would have been outraged.

Nah, don't bother denying.

[Drummond]

I have a sneaking suspicion that had Darroch been outed in say 2014 as having emailed derogatory remarks about Obama to other British diplomats and resigned over the fallout that you would have been outraged.

Nah, don't bother denying.

Perfectly correct, STTAB.

But as I've said, there's a difference between objective reporting and sheer bias and prejudice. Darroch, in being derogatory about Obama, would, no doubt, be transmitting valuable and accurate information. I can have no quarrel with Darroch for doing that.

I'd have tried to persuade Darroch to stay in his post. As a valuable asset, he would've been needed there.

For example: in British eyes, Obama was something wonderful. Personable, amusing, 'civilised' in his views ... as we saw it. He was greatly liked. Obama himself noted as much.

Then, we had all his critical remarks over the BP oil spill, and his blaming us for damage (... when, even by then, BP was a multinational Company, run by an American !). The British aspect of BP goes some way into its history.

How about, Obama telling us we needed to stay in the EU, and if we didn't, he'd put the UK to the back of the queue for future US trade deals ? That interference, and the sheer arrogance of it, shocked many people profoundly.

Having a Darroch on board to prewarn us as to Obama's true attitude to us would've been invaluable !

[STTAB]

Perfectly correct, STTAB.

But as I've said, there's a difference between objective reporting and sheer bias and prejudice. Darroch, in being derogatory about Obama, would, no doubt, be transmitting valuable and accurate information. I can have no quarrel with Darroch for doing that.

I'd have tried to persuade Darroch to stay in his post. As a valuable asset, he would've been needed there.

For example: in British eyes, Obama was something wonderful. Personable, amusing, 'civilised' in his views ... as we saw it. He was greatly liked. Obama himself noted as much.

Then, we had all his critical remarks over the BP oil spill, and his blaming us for damage (... when, even by then, BP was a multinational Company, run by an American !). The British aspect of BP goes some way into its history.

How about, Obama telling us we needed to stay in the EU, and if we didn't, he'd put the UK to the back of the queue for future US trade deals ? That interference, and the sheer arrogance of it, shocked many people profoundly.

Having a Darroch on board to prewarn us as to Obama's true attitude to us would've been invaluable !

Your reasons for being hypocritical are irrelevant. Liberals try that to "well yeah we should just be reporting the news, but Trump is so bad that we must be proactive"

I can't believe we are even discussing whether an Ambassador should be passing on his opinion of a foreign leader to his colleagues LOL come on.

[Drummond]

Your reasons for being hypocritical are irrelevant.

Ah. I always enjoy a bit of abuse before supper. Thanks, STTAB. Jolly decent of you, old sport ...:rolleyes:


I can't believe we are even discussing whether an Ambassador should be passing on his opinion of a foreign leader to his colleagues LOL come on.

I'll try to make this easy.

Darroch and his ilk have a duty to pass on information and intelligence IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST ... with accuracy, one would hope, but certainly minus prejudices and bias threatening to muddy the waters, rendering their 'information' useless, and worse.

Making this easy, then ... Obama was a force for bad. Trump, by contrast, is a force for good.

Is that an oversimplification ? Maybe.

Is it true ? Well .... YES.

We Brits thought Obama was a good friend, not an arrogant judgmentalist who disliked us a lot more than we disliked him. Now, was it in our national interest to get a 'heads up' about all that ?

YES.

By contrast: Trump clearly believes in being a great friend to the UK. Now, how helpful, or how 'good', is it to have Darroch in place, passing on anti-Trump vitriol, poisoning our chance at the best relationship possible ?

I rest my case. Thank you for your kind attention.

[Kathianne]

Well ... Farage was clear in his own mind as to Darroch's failing, and I agree with him. Darroch, as a Civil Servant, has written into the terms of his service the unshakeable imperative that he must do his job in a politically neutral way. Farage claimed to have personal knowledge of Darroch which said that Darroch was unashamedly anything BUT neutral.

He extrapolates from that his belief that Darroch will happily indulge whatever prejudices are driving him and represent them as 'useful, real-time, information based commentary'.

You're correct. Darroch did need to explain WHY he expressed what he did. But that meant that what underpinning he offered, needed to be evidence-based. But ... WAS it ? How about Darroch's reporting of 'dodgy Russian' intervention ? At absolute best, certainly at the time it was reported, that was pure rumour, and Democrat-serving rumour, at that. Couldn't be substantiated, backed up, at all. YET, he was prepared to tell his British bosses that it was information possessing value.

If our side took it to heart, formed policy from believing the report ... the potential for harm was massive.

But, did Darroch care ? Did he ever believe he'd gone too far ?

Only when he was 'outed' did he change his tune, and then, only because he had to. Because HE had made HIS position untenable.

If his report was to be to the person he was reporting, not to 'the general citizenry' or even Parliament-that would be his superior's role, no? He should not be holding his punches. IF his writings disturbed or confused his superior, then his opinions would not be considered as trustworthy as others.

That it leaked, that should be your concern, whether you agree or not with what he wrote.

[STTAB]

Ah. I always enjoy a bit of abuse before supper. Thanks, STTAB. Jolly decent of you, old sport ...:rolleyes:



I'll try to make this easy.

Darroch and his ilk have a duty to pass on information and intelligence IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST ... with accuracy, one would hope, but certainly minus prejudices and bias threatening to muddy the waters, rendering their 'information' useless, and worse.

Making this easy, then ... Obama was a force for bad. Trump, by contrast, is a force for good.

Is that an oversimplification ? Maybe.

Is it true ? Well .... YES.

We Brits thought Obama was a good friend, not an arrogant judgmentalist who disliked us a lot more than we disliked him. Now, was it in our national interest to get a 'heads up' about all that ?

YES.

By contrast: Trump clearly believes in being a great friend to the UK. Now, how helpful, or how 'good', is it to have Darroch in place, passing on anti-Trump vitriol, poisoning our chance at the best relationship possible ?

I rest my case. Thank you for your kind attention.

Again, your ENTIRE justification for your hypocrisy is based on nothing more than your FEELIINGS "Obama bad, Trump good" what you are missing is that Ambassadors don't give their opinions based on YOUR feelings, they give them based on THEIR feelings. Why on Earth would Darroch or any other Ambassador be obigated to couch their opinions based on YOUR opinions? That's crazy.

Either they are allowed to impart their opinion or they aren't. What that opinion is is irrelevant.

Let me give you an illustration of a similar concept.

Obama used a maneuver called an Executive Order to create a program called DACA that defers prosecution for some non citizens.

Trump used the same maneuver to eliminate that program (though I can't find a single example of his Administration actually prosecuting any of the so called DACA kids, but that's another thread entirely)

Now, the point is this. Stupid liberals argue that because creating DACA was good , the President obviously had the power to create it, but turn around and argue that because getting rid of DACA is bad Trump doesn't have the authority to eliminate it. When the reality is if the President has the authority to create a program another President obviously has the authority to eliminate it. How a person feels about the program in question is entirely irrelevant.

Whether you agree or disagree with Darroch is entirely irrelevant about whether it's okay to give his OPINION to his bosses.

[Drummond]

If his report was to be to the person he was reporting, not to 'the general citizenry' or even Parliament-that would be his superior's role, no? He should not be holding his punches. IF his writings disturbed or confused his superior, then his opinions would not be considered as trustworthy as others.

That it leaked, that should be your concern, whether you agree or not with what he wrote.

So, to summarise your position:

Darroch was entitled to be as vitriolic as he liked, without perceiving a need to 'report' responsibly, just so long as communications remained private ?

Darroch was a diplomat .. requiring diplomacy, I'd have thought ? Fair, unbiased reporting .. candid, sure, but not needlessly inflammatory ? Especially considering that such reports may have the power to sabotage the trust and good relations between the two countries involved ?

Let's say Darroch's activity had never been 'outed' (which it really shouldn't have been). Let's say our side totally believed, without doubts, in the total accuracy of everything our side was being told was true of Trump and his people. By what conceivable measure could we continue with unfettered, trouble free, angst free, distrust free, contact with a President and Administration, both of which we were told were dysfunctional, inept, not by any stretch of the imagination 'fit for purpose' ?

Don't you get the enormous potential here for the wreckage of a so-called 'Special Relationship' .. if we have to be perpetually wary of the very competence of the people we're dealing with ?

For example ... the talk (which Darroch contributed to) of Trump's supposed dealings with 'dodgy Russians'. Shall we trust Darroch's word for it, then stop intelligence sharing ?? Our GCHQ contributes to intelligence gathering which both our countries use. Should we decide that this flow of information dare not continue ?

No. What Darroch did was dangerous and deeply irresponsible. I can barely believe he lasted in his job for as long as he did.

No. Nothing is worth that. Darroch should've been sacked and replaced, with a diplomat more willing to exercise neutrality and actually do the job OF A DIPLOMAT !!

[Drummond]

Again, your ENTIRE justification for your hypocrisy is based on nothing more than your FEELIINGS "Obama bad, Trump good" what you are missing is that Ambassadors don't give their opinions based on YOUR feelings, they give them based on THEIR feelings. Why on Earth would Darroch or any other Ambassador be obigated to couch their opinions based on YOUR opinions? That's crazy.

Either they are allowed to impart their opinion or they aren't. What that opinion is is irrelevant.

Let me give you an illustration of a similar concept.

Obama used a maneuver called an Executive Order to create a program called DACA that defers prosecution for some non citizens.

Trump used the same maneuver to eliminate that program (though I can't find a single example of his Administration actually prosecuting any of the so called DACA kids, but that's another thread entirely)

Now, the point is this. Stupid liberals argue that because creating DACA was good , the President obviously had the power to create it, but turn around and argue that because getting rid of DACA is bad Trump doesn't have the authority to eliminate it. When the reality is if the President has the authority to create a program another President obviously has the authority to eliminate it. How a person feels about the program in question is entirely irrelevant.

Whether you agree or disagree with Darroch is entirely irrelevant about whether it's okay to give his OPINION to his bosses.

Your abuse continues, I see. Can I point out that I finished my supper long ago ? Now is not a good time for that sort of entertainment.

I never said that Darroch had to consider 'my' feelings when he reports. He won't even know I exist ! In any case, I'd much prefer that reports relied on objective commentary, not 'feelings'. If they impart opinions, such opinions need some sort of basis for them, ideally verifiable basis at that.

I'm confused by your DACA example (I've never heard of it). You're confirming that objective decision-making and action was what was required, and not 'feelings' about the program.

Seems fair.

But I'm not getting why you think Darroch had a justification for employing the polar opposite yardstick, one of going with feelings, when reporting back.

Which approach is the more reliable and competent ? If I were a diplomat, indigestion put me in a bad mood, and primed me for a release of pure vitriol aimed at my masters, would that be good or bad ?

You know, my case is so obviously valid that the very fact we're arguing about it is creating confusion for me.


Either they are allowed to impart their opinion or they aren't. What that opinion is is irrelevant.

Hypothetical example: a diplomat has the mere opinion that the people he is reporting on might be preparing a dangerous pre-emptive nuclear strike. Said diplomat has no way of justifying his feelings about that, beyond the bad mood he's been in all day (his curry didn't agree with him, either, and as for the boiled eggs ... !!! ...). But, his 'feelings' count. Our side is worried witless about the report, and it ramps up international tension several knotches. Why ? Because a diplomat had 'a bad feeling' (and needed better food). Nothing he can properly quantify ...

So, no. RESPONSIBLE reporting is a 'must'. It can't be otherwise.

This is so completely obvious that it doesn't merit further discussion.

[Kathianne]

Drummond, I think you may be confusing how your ambassador should talk to President Trump, whom he seems to think the worst of, as opposed to how he should report to his superior, to whom he must be honest with. If he were to speak to Trump or anyone in any way to give away his opinion, yes, he should be fired.

The reports ambassadors make to their superiors is what allows the superiors to act within the diplomatic realm. They must deal with people they do not know well, but must know a lot about. Ultimately, it will always be up to the superior to judge the information-for good or bad-that they receive.

I still see the largest problem in the brouhaha is the leaker.

[Drummond]

Drummond, I think you may be confusing how your ambassador should talk to President Trump, whom he seems to think the worst of, as opposed to how he should report to his superior, to whom he must be honest with. If he were to speak to Trump or anyone in any way to give away his opinion, yes, he should be fired.

The reports ambassadors make to their superiors is what allows the superiors to act within the diplomatic realm. They must deal with people they do not know well, but must know a lot about. Ultimately, it will always be up to the superior to judge the information-for good or bad-that they receive.

I still see the largest problem in the brouhaha is the leaker.

Yes, the ambassador has a duty to report honestly. Prefacing his vitriol with 'I only feel I'm right in what I'm saying, I can't back any of it up with anything concretely objective, but I still feel I'm right, so, that's all OK, then ..'. Yep - he could do that.

I don't think he did, though. He just represented himself as giving comments he expected everyone to believe.

His stuff gave the most dismal picture anyone could imagine. I think it was deliberately designed to achieve an effect that Darroch's biases craved. It just lacked objectivity.

The leaker is a serious problem. A 'diplomat' lacking all diplomacy and given to hate-fests constitutes another, though.

I'd have thought that was obvious.

[Kathianne]

Yes, the ambassador has a duty to report honestly. Prefacing his vitriol with 'I only feel I'm right in what I'm saying, I can't back any of it up with anything concretely objective, but I still feel I'm right, so, that's all OK, then ..'. Yep - he could do that.

I don't think he did, though. He just represented himself as giving comments he expected everyone to believe.

His stuff gave the most dismal picture anyone could imagine. I think it was deliberately designed to achieve an effect that Darroch's biases craved. It just lacked objectivity.

The leaker is a serious problem. A 'diplomat' lacking all diplomacy and given to hate-fests constitutes another, though.

I'd have thought that was obvious.
The bolded, that would only come into play IF he assumed it would be read by anyone other than for whom it was intended.

[Drummond]

The bolded, that would only come into play IF he assumed it would be read by anyone other than for whom it was intended.

Disturbing, isn't it ? Maybe he was acutely aware of just how completely outrageous his comments were ! Maybe he knew they were so extreme that - sooner or later - somebody would HAVE to leak them ?

Could it also be that Darroch was an especially disgusting example of an attention seeker ? Was he chasing notoriety in diplomatic circles ?

[Kathianne]

Disturbing, isn't it ? Maybe he was acutely aware of just how completely outrageous his comments were ! Maybe he knew they were so extreme that - sooner or later - somebody would HAVE to leak them ?

Could it also be that Darroch was an especially disgusting example of an attention seeker ? Was he chasing notoriety in diplomatic circles ?

So you think he leaked on himself?

[Drummond]

So you think he leaked on himself?

I don't think I've said, or remotely hinted, any such thing. Where do you get that suggestion from ?

Could it be that Darroch's vitriol was SO extreme, and SO staggering, that just because of the substance and nature of it (this from a 'DIPLOMAT' :rolleyes::rolleyes:) ... in some peoples' minds, regardless of the correctness of doing so, it just seemed to be begging to be publicly disseminated ?

Maybe Darroch, as I've said, enjoys notoriety. Maybe he wanted to make his mark in the circles he was a part of, and earn a reputation he somehow thought gave rise to cause for 'pride' .. ? There's much difference between publicly releasing text and still having it well known about, say, in the offices receiving it.

[Kathianne]

I don't think I've said, or remotely hinted, any such thing. Where do you get that suggestion from ?

Could it be that Darroch's vitriol was SO extreme, and SO staggering, that just because of the substance and nature of it (this from a 'DIPLOMAT' :rolleyes::rolleyes:) ... in some peoples' minds, regardless of the correctness of doing so, it just seemed to be begging to be publicly disseminated ?

Maybe Darroch, as I've said, enjoys notoriety. Maybe he wanted to make his mark in the circles he was a part of, and earn a reputation he somehow thought gave rise to cause for 'pride' .. ? There's much difference between publicly releasing text and still having it well known about, say, in the offices receiving it.


I thought it because of the things you're writing, like those above. It's like he has something 'jumping out of him squealing 'Trump Hate', that's getting everyone hinky?' I dunno, but it certainly sounds odd.