Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site houxk.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!houxm!houxk!jmg
From: jmg@houxk.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Common interests of countries
Message-ID: <135@houxk.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Nov-83 19:11:28 EST
Article-I.D.: houxk.135
Posted: Mon Nov 21 19:11:28 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Nov-83 03:43:34 EST
Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 73


	Martin Taylor states in his article that the wars in which America
and England found themselves on opposite sides were really only "family spats".
Actually WWI was REALLY a family spat because the king of England, the German
kaiser and the czar (or tsar) of Russia were all first cousins! Pity the poor
commoners who were shoved out onto the battlefield to settle this family
dispute! Please Martin, don't kid us by calling these conflicts "family spats".
It's meaningless and pointless and does nothing to rectify the wrongs that were
committed.
	Martin goes on to try to justify England's support of the South by
saying it would have been just as wrong for England to support the North. The
obvious answer is that England should have supported neither side - stayed
neutral - in other words kept its nose and fingers out of American politics.
Does this seem like asking the impossible? Ask yourself how many other nations
have interfered in U.S. internal affairs as much as England has.
	Martin writes about the "unprovoked agression" of the U.S. How about
the unprovoked agression (during the same period) that resulted in the English
conquest of India, the English conquest of China, the English conquest of
Africa to name just a few? And what about the English conquest of Tibet? When
were they ever a threat to the British Empire? And what about all the native
inhabitants of Tasmania (the smaller island south of Australia) who were
TOTALLY WIPED OUT, ANNIHILATED by the brave soldiers of the British Empire?
People who live in Crystal Palaces shouldn't throw stones.
	Martin brings up the 1956 Anglo-French re-invasion of Egypt and
compares it to the present operations in Grenada. If you ask the people of the
Phillipines which the U.S. first took from Spain in the Spanish-American War
and then set free, they will probably remember the U.S. presence there with
some nostalgia. Phillipine nationals are still allowed to serve in the armed
forces of the U.S. just as if they were American citizens. Yes we took Cuba
from Spain and then set it free. Yes we went into South American countries
and Central American countries, but we never stayed long and were usually
better to the inhabitants than the previous rulers. If you go around the
world and ask any former British colony if the people would like the English
back they'll laugh in your face! And when did the English ever leave a colony
except after a protracted colonial war? Eisenhower knew just as the Egyptians
knew that once established the English would never leave.
	And how did the English ALWAYS gain a foothold in some new colony?
First they send in a "private trading company", then they provoke an incident
and claim that THEY HAVE BEEN WRONGED! Next the British military is sent in
to "protect the lives of British subjects". The inhabitants resist the
invasion and that is the justification for the conquest of the entire country
because the British army cannot rest until it's stamped out the last vestige of
resistance. If you think this applies only to backward nations or "heathens"
then look at South Africa where Dutch-African civilians were placed in
concentration camps at the turn of the century before Germany ever thought of
such a thing!
	Martin writes about the fact that there were many pro-British people
among us. That is a fact, but it has very little bearing on what should be the
correct course of U.S. policy. Ronald Reagan is certainly an Anglophile but
when he or Nancy go to England they are treated like poor relatives. Not that
I particularly admire Ronald Reagan, but he is the President of the U.S. and
when he is snubbed by a foreign head of state it is the same as insulting the
people of the U.S. as a whole. Once while visiting Queen Elizabeth they went
out riding together and when Reagan asked to have his picture taken with the
Queen she simply rode off out of camera range and turned her face away! When
Nancy Reagan went to the wedding of Charlie and Di she was placed in the center
of the church away from all the other guests as if she were a leper and the
British press criticized her vehemently for not bowing to Queen Elizabeth
saying she was "acting like royalty" (you know - those people who don't have
to bow to each other). I don't know what Ronnie and Nancy's IQ's are but I
know they're light-years ahead of anyone in Buckingham Palace. I think they
would do better to turn down any invitations from London in the future.
	And I hear that American servicemen are somtimes stopped on the
street in England and told that England could have won WWII without U.S. aid!
Anyone with half a brain knows that this is pure dreaming. Even with TWELVE
BILLION DOLLARS in U.S. wartime aid to England, there were many times when
the food supply there came dangerously close to being wiped out. And if the
U.S. had not supplied everything for the British during the Falklands War
they would have lost! Even British military commanders concede that if the
Argentinians hadn't had so many duds among the bombs they bought from other
countries they would have sunk so many ships the British would have had to
give up. And Margaret Thatcher would not be as haughty as she is today, nor
as critical of the U.S. while they are busily taking in every cruise missile
they can get their hands on.