Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If Western Europe (as in us mainly) had disarmed, I think the USA's commitment to Nato could have been sorely tested. Not so long before they let Hitler do it.

 

Height of arrogance. Ignoring the French's nuclear deterrent, Western Europe (not just us) is of huge strategical and political importance to the US, especially compared to places like Korea and Vietnam, which they wasted 1000s of lives on. Face it, had we disarmed, we would not have been speaking Russian now, guaranteed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If Western Europe (as in us mainly) had disarmed, I think the USA's commitment to Nato could have been sorely tested. Not so long before they let Hitler do it.

 

Height of arrogance. Ignoring the French's nuclear deterrent, Western Europe (not just us) is of huge strategical and political importance to the US, especially compared to places like Korea and Vietnam, which they wasted 1000s of lives on. Face it, had we disarmed, we would not have been speaking Russian now, guaranteed.

 

 

And you know that as a fact - how ????

 

I said earlier - "although giving up the foothold would have been strategically disasterous"

 

It is not inconceivable that the USA would have withdrawn, unlikely, absolutely, but not inconceivable.

 

There were, periodically, stories at the time that the yanks were going to withdraw ground forces from Europe, caused a flap every time it reared it's head, and we had our deterrent, can't see why those reports would have been any less if we'd dissarmed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because someone doesn't agree with your right-wing reactionary bollocks doesn't make them Anti-West.

 

just because someone doesn't agree with your anti west do gooder bollocks doesn't make them a right wing reactionary

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because someone doesn't agree with your right-wing reactionary bollocks doesn't make them Anti-West.

 

just because someone doesn't agree with your anti west do gooder bollocks doesn't make them a right wing reactionary

 

 

Touche :icon_lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because someone doesn't agree with your right-wing reactionary bollocks doesn't make them Anti-West.

 

just because someone doesn't agree with your anti west do gooder bollocks doesn't make them a right wing reactionary

:icon_lol:

Which anti west do gooder posting of mine do you mean exactly, you addled old tart?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because someone doesn't agree with your right-wing reactionary bollocks doesn't make them Anti-West.

 

just because someone doesn't agree with your anti west do gooder bollocks doesn't make them a right wing reactionary

 

 

Touche :icon_lol:

 

 

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because someone doesn't agree with your right-wing reactionary bollocks doesn't make them Anti-West.

 

just because someone doesn't agree with your anti west do gooder bollocks doesn't make them a right wing reactionary

 

 

Touche :icon_lol:

Leazes'd

;):blush:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I only ever remember Foot as a wurzel gummidge looky-likey, whose delivery and intonation was so bad, his sentences were almost nonsensical. I recall hearing him speak on the telly and he made 'the' and 'and' the most important words in his sentences. he looked and sounded completely mad, although my Dad said he was a very clever bloke (he also referred to him as a 'communist traitor' mind you!).

 

His disastrous image in his latter days may well be responsible for the rise of Blair and Cameron, media savvy soundbite politicians more concerned with their poll ratings than policy. Doesn't matter what you say, as long as it sounds good and you don't look as mad as a box of frogs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I only ever remember Foot as a wurzel gummidge looky-likey, whose delivery and intonation was so bad, his sentences were almost nonsensical. I recall hearing him speak on the telly and he made 'the' and 'and' the most important words in his sentences. he looked and sounded completely mad, although my Dad said he was a very clever bloke (he also referred to him as a 'communist traitor' mind you!).

 

His disastrous image in his latter days may well be responsible for the rise of Blair and Cameron, media savvy soundbite politicians more concerned with their poll ratings than policy. Doesn't matter what you say, as long as it sounds good and you don't look as mad as a box of frogs.

Lembit Opek, take note.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I only ever remember Foot as a wurzel gummidge looky-likey, whose delivery and intonation was so bad, his sentences were almost nonsensical. I recall hearing him speak on the telly and he made 'the' and 'and' the most important words in his sentences. he looked and sounded completely mad, although my Dad said he was a very clever bloke (he also referred to him as a 'communist traitor' mind you!).

 

His disastrous image in his latter days may well be responsible for the rise of Blair and Cameron, media savvy soundbite politicians more concerned with their poll ratings than policy. Doesn't matter what you say, as long as it sounds good and you don't look as mad as a box of frogs.

Lembit Opek, take note.

 

Career politician. Which should have ruled him out for standing for parliament on grounds of insanity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I only ever remember Foot as a wurzel gummidge looky-likey, whose delivery and intonation was so bad, his sentences were almost nonsensical. I recall hearing him speak on the telly and he made 'the' and 'and' the most important words in his sentences. he looked and sounded completely mad, although my Dad said he was a very clever bloke (he also referred to him as a 'communist traitor' mind you!).

 

His disastrous image in his latter days may well be responsible for the rise of Blair and Cameron, media savvy soundbite politicians more concerned with their poll ratings than policy. Doesn't matter what you say, as long as it sounds good and you don't look as mad as a box of frogs.

Lembit Opek, take note.

 

Career politician. Which should have ruled him out for standing for parliament on grounds of insanity.

 

That and going out with the weather girl with the huge head, Sian wotsit

Link to post
Share on other sites
I only ever remember Foot as a wurzel gummidge looky-likey, whose delivery and intonation was so bad, his sentences were almost nonsensical. I recall hearing him speak on the telly and he made 'the' and 'and' the most important words in his sentences. he looked and sounded completely mad, although my Dad said he was a very clever bloke (he also referred to him as a 'communist traitor' mind you!).

 

His disastrous image in his latter days may well be responsible for the rise of Blair and Cameron, media savvy soundbite politicians more concerned with their poll ratings than policy. Doesn't matter what you say, as long as it sounds good and you don't look as mad as a box of frogs.

Lembit Opek, take note.

 

Career politician. Which should have ruled him out for standing for parliament on grounds of insanity.

 

That and going out with the weather girl with the huge head, Sian wotsit

That Sian bird always reminds me of Terence & Philip from South Park. It's the way her head also seems hinged at the mouth.

For that same reason, whenever poor Lembit shows up , I automatically get " Uncle Fukka" in my head as background noise

 

Who said smoking dope has no long term effects?

Link to post
Share on other sites
If Western Europe (as in us mainly) had disarmed, I think the USA's commitment to Nato could have been sorely tested. Not so long before they let Hitler do it.

 

Height of arrogance. Ignoring the French's nuclear deterrent, Western Europe (not just us) is of huge strategical and political importance to the US, especially compared to places like Korea and Vietnam, which they wasted 1000s of lives on. Face it, had we disarmed, we would not have been speaking Russian now, guaranteed.

 

 

And you know that as a fact - how ????

 

I said earlier - "although giving up the foothold would have been strategically disasterous"

 

It is not inconceivable that the USA would have withdrawn, unlikely, absolutely, but not inconceivable.

 

There were, periodically, stories at the time that the yanks were going to withdraw ground forces from Europe, caused a flap every time it reared it's head, and we had our deterrent, can't see why those reports would have been any less if we'd dissarmed.

Given their actions in Korea and Vietnam - neither of which were of anything like the strategic importance of Western Europe - and their general post-war (or more specifically post-Iron Curtain) policy of opposing Communism spreading to any countries that weren't already Communist, I think the notion the US would have abandoned all of Europe to the Soviets over Britain getting rid of the bomb is extremely far-fetched. That's irrespective of whether or not it would have been the right thing to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I only ever remember Foot as a wurzel gummidge looky-likey, whose delivery and intonation was so bad, his sentences were almost nonsensical. I recall hearing him speak on the telly and he made 'the' and 'and' the most important words in his sentences. he looked and sounded completely mad, although my Dad said he was a very clever bloke (he also referred to him as a 'communist traitor' mind you!).

 

His disastrous image in his latter days may well be responsible for the rise of Blair and Cameron, media savvy soundbite politicians more concerned with their poll ratings than policy. Doesn't matter what you say, as long as it sounds good and you don't look as mad as a box of frogs.

Lembit Opek, take note.

 

Career politician. Which should have ruled him out for standing for parliament on grounds of insanity.

 

That and going out with the weather girl with the huge head, Sian wotsit

 

The WELSH weather girl with the huge head and FLAT CHEST. Why would he do such a thing?????

Link to post
Share on other sites
I only ever remember Foot as a wurzel gummidge looky-likey, whose delivery and intonation was so bad, his sentences were almost nonsensical. I recall hearing him speak on the telly and he made 'the' and 'and' the most important words in his sentences. he looked and sounded completely mad, although my Dad said he was a very clever bloke (he also referred to him as a 'communist traitor' mind you!).

 

His disastrous image in his latter days may well be responsible for the rise of Blair and Cameron, media savvy soundbite politicians more concerned with their poll ratings than policy. Doesn't matter what you say, as long as it sounds good and you don't look as mad as a box of frogs.

Lembit Opek, take note.

 

Career politician. Which should have ruled him out for standing for parliament on grounds of insanity.

 

:icon_lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
If Western Europe (as in us mainly) had disarmed, I think the USA's commitment to Nato could have been sorely tested. Not so long before they let Hitler do it.

 

Height of arrogance. Ignoring the French's nuclear deterrent, Western Europe (not just us) is of huge strategical and political importance to the US, especially compared to places like Korea and Vietnam, which they wasted 1000s of lives on. Face it, had we disarmed, we would not have been speaking Russian now, guaranteed.

 

 

And you know that as a fact - how ????

 

I said earlier - "although giving up the foothold would have been strategically disasterous"

 

It is not inconceivable that the USA would have withdrawn, unlikely, absolutely, but not inconceivable.

 

There were, periodically, stories at the time that the yanks were going to withdraw ground forces from Europe, caused a flap every time it reared it's head, and we had our deterrent, can't see why those reports would have been any less if we'd dissarmed.

Given their actions in Korea and Vietnam - neither of which were of anything like the strategic importance of Western Europe - and their general post-war (or more specifically post-Iron Curtain) policy of opposing Communism spreading to any countries that weren't already Communist, I think the notion the US would have abandoned all of Europe to the Soviets over Britain getting rid of the bomb is extremely far-fetched. That's irrespective of whether or not it would have been the right thing to do.

 

History shows it's far fetched, my point is that it is not inconceivable. I was around back then and several times there appeared a real threat that the US would withdraw it's land forces from Europe - those events/arguments really happened, usually over Europe not spending enough to defend itself from the "red menace", why is it so inconceivable that IF we'd dissarmed those events might have had a different outcome.

 

The strategic importance of Europe is overblown, IMO, especially in days when you don't need to be within artillery range to strike devastatingly at an "enemy"

 

Korea and Vietnam are not relevant to the argument IMO (which I can't be arsed to drag out much longer) The US has always had a huge interest in the asia/pacific theatre.

 

Korea was partitioned at the end of WW2 between the USSR/USA, mainly because Stalin got in quick as Japan's empire crumbled, much to the disgust of the US. The north invaded the south (a US protectorate) and US troops were already there,it was a UN war (not specifically a US war). Vietnam started off as a French colonial war, US peacekeepers/advisers subsequently got involved and it snowballed from there, after terrorist attacks and US casualties.

 

Neither were cut and dried cases of America going to war to confront communism, the yanks were already there and were to an extent attacked by communists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I said it was far-fetched rather than inconceivable. Anything is possible I suppose but I think your scenario is highly unlikely to the extent it can be easily dismissed by myself :icon_lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
If Western Europe (as in us mainly) had disarmed, I think the USA's commitment to Nato could have been sorely tested. Not so long before they let Hitler do it.

 

Height of arrogance. Ignoring the French's nuclear deterrent, Western Europe (not just us) is of huge strategical and political importance to the US, especially compared to places like Korea and Vietnam, which they wasted 1000s of lives on. Face it, had we disarmed, we would not have been speaking Russian now, guaranteed.

 

 

And you know that as a fact - how ????

 

I said earlier - "although giving up the foothold would have been strategically disasterous"

 

It is not inconceivable that the USA would have withdrawn, unlikely, absolutely, but not inconceivable.

 

There were, periodically, stories at the time that the yanks were going to withdraw ground forces from Europe, caused a flap every time it reared it's head, and we had our deterrent, can't see why those reports would have been any less if we'd dissarmed.

Given their actions in Korea and Vietnam - neither of which were of anything like the strategic importance of Western Europe - and their general post-war (or more specifically post-Iron Curtain) policy of opposing Communism spreading to any countries that weren't already Communist, I think the notion the US would have abandoned all of Europe to the Soviets over Britain getting rid of the bomb is extremely far-fetched. That's irrespective of whether or not it would have been the right thing to do.

 

Agree. If Foot had managed to get the UK to get rid of its nuclear weapons. We would have ceased to have been a threat. The flip side of the coin is the situation we find ourselves in today . the cold war has gone but, we still find ourselves at war.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the Obits put it well

 

" he should never have become Leader of the PLP - in fact many of his friends and family believed he was unsuited to lead anything..............."

 

he was indecisive and, because he tried to think things through, had a reputation of being "unreliable" when push came to shove... on the one hand, on the other hand ..etc etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Article on the BBC about the 1983 manifesto - "the longest suicide note in history"

 

Article

 

 

It said: "We must use unilateral steps taken by Britain to secure multilateral solutions on the international level."

 

Probably the key point as the Tories killed them for it - doesn't seem that bad in hindsight.

 

On Europe:

 

The manifesto specifically said: "On taking office we will open preliminary negotiations with the other EEC member states to establish a timetable for withdrawal; and we will publish the results of these negotiations in a White Paper."

 

Interesting that that was "rejected" given its support by a lot of middle england now.

 

 

On Banks:

 

The 1983 manifesto called for, through the Bank of England, "much closer direct control over bank lending. Agreed development plans will be concluded with the banks and other financial institutions."

 

As I've said before, if Brown had tried this at anytime before 2007 he would have been crucified - in hindsight this may have been a good idea.

 

 

 

Overall there was nothing too "loony" about it - but the British people thought winning a war against a third world country and a "donkey" jacket were what mattered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...