>I think when the UK paid 1/20th of the cost to R&D Trident 2, but got 1/5 of the orders, I'd say yeah that was pretty heavily subsidized by the US to have an ally country with stealth-nuclear capabilities.
"Subsidized to have an ally country" is completely different to "subsidized" (as in, "we did them a favor"). Plus, did they get those 1/5 of the orders for free? If not, I can't see how the fact that they paid 1/20th of the cost of the R&D comes into play at all. Do you expect them to pay the R&D on top of the price they buy the stuff?
Plus, the UK is not "Europe". Heck, they're considered mostly US lackeys down in the "continent", what with Blair and all.
>I also think you have absolutely no clue who international politics works by your blatant naivety.
I don't think Americans not in the government have any clue of international policy. For one, their access to good information is extremely limited, and most of their coverage (from news to books) comes from officially sanctioned party lines (with some faux-heretics thrown in for good measure). Even the american leftists have very mediocre analysis and take for granted a lot of ideology.
>There's a lot more at stake than "access to oil". (...) The War in Iraq was less about getting our hands on Iraqi oil, but getting their Regimes hands off of Iraqi oil.
So the well known situation with Saudi Arabia aside, that people in Europe (where we actually read newspapers and discuss international politics all the time, and not just what our government wants to bring into the spotlight to prepare the public consensus for some aggressive foreign policy) know even in High School, you wrote all that just to come around to that it's all about "access to oil"?
>Had they been left alone since before the first gulf war, allowed to buy Russian hardware and build a military superior to that of Saudi Arabia, the region would be under their thumb and so would a massive chunk of the western worlds oil supply for military purposes. Not to mention they would have been well within the budget range to develop nuclear weapons without ever having to test like North Korea
And that makes the business of a sovereign country something the US has any say in it because?
>The US also didn't sit around and leave Europe high and dry in conflicts like the Kosovo War, because following your logic why should the US be dragged into a purely European conflict.
The US shouldn't have been involved at all in the Kossovo war. They just wanted to establish Kosovo as a protectorate, and have a solid base in the Balkans. If the European people had their say (instead of our governments) they would have told the US to go and shove their participation in this conflict.
>So when NATO countries have a vested interest in keeping a country down (Iraq) because it developing a military will support an old adversary (Russia), you can bet they'll tell the public whatever they fucking want to justify a situation like the Cold War never gets the opportunity to arise.
We really hope something like the Cold War does arise. The Cold War was an era where none of the two bloody superpowers could do as it pleased. The so-called "balance of terror" worked in the favor of smaller countries (hence the tons of sovereignty and anti-colonial fights all around the third world). Now we just have one global cop, which does as it pleases, invaded who they like, takes care of its interests by stepping down on sovereign countries and such. Let's hope China can play the counter-balance in the future. (Sure, China has it's flaws. But the counter-balance does have to be totally progressive or democratic. Just as the US is not. It just have to be there, and stand as a limit to the other's power0.
>It's a sad state of affairs that crippling the development of foreign countries is in our own best interest, but personally I enjoy my way of life
Sure. Who wouldn't, if his country fucked up the world for him to enjoy cheap gas, financial domination, et al?
Thanks for the point by point there, but you basically just confirmed my initial opinion that you really have no clue beyond your own media-infused bias of the situation.
I don't think we have to introduce your head to your ass, because I think they're well acquainted with each other.
>Thanks for the point by point there, but you basically just confirmed my initial opinion that you really have no clue beyond your own media-infused bias of the situation.
Ironic, coming from a citizen of the same country where 80% of the people believe in "miracles" ( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1240075... ) and a large percentage cannot point their country on a map, much less a foreign country. Heck, it's the country the Presidents and political candidates are even know to do grave mistakes on international affairs, even confusing whole countries with others on camera.
>Boo hoo, US evil, blah blah.
I don't believe in "evil". I'm rational. US is just ruthlessly pursuing it's interests, and fuck everybody else (literally). Including fuck them with illegal and unethical means (from invading a sovereign country to drone murders). You can afford it when you are top dog. It's not like European colonial powers on their day behaved any better.
No the irony here is you again completely proving my point by you assuming I'm American just by my "defending" them. I'm British, and I live in Canada. But again, your head has already met your own ass very intimately.
That's a complete non-answer, which is usually done by a person with the same issue you're accusing the parent of.
Trident is a sore point for the UK for several reasons:-
> It's not an independent nuclear deterrent, we're on a US leash even if we try to sell it otherwise.
> They're based in Scotland, a country within the UK which has fairly low support for nuclear weapons, which the primary elected party are dead against having them, going as far to make it a platform for the independence vote in 2014.
> We need to buy them and pay for upkeep. Theres talk of £100bn costs to renew the things, and I believe the lions share of that goes right back to the US.
I can't tell you whether or not it was subsidised, but I doubt it was when you get down to it and the comparison you are making isn't completely apt.
"Subsidized to have an ally country" is completely different to "subsidized" (as in, "we did them a favor"). Plus, did they get those 1/5 of the orders for free? If not, I can't see how the fact that they paid 1/20th of the cost of the R&D comes into play at all. Do you expect them to pay the R&D on top of the price they buy the stuff?
Plus, the UK is not "Europe". Heck, they're considered mostly US lackeys down in the "continent", what with Blair and all.
>I also think you have absolutely no clue who international politics works by your blatant naivety.
I don't think Americans not in the government have any clue of international policy. For one, their access to good information is extremely limited, and most of their coverage (from news to books) comes from officially sanctioned party lines (with some faux-heretics thrown in for good measure). Even the american leftists have very mediocre analysis and take for granted a lot of ideology.
>There's a lot more at stake than "access to oil". (...) The War in Iraq was less about getting our hands on Iraqi oil, but getting their Regimes hands off of Iraqi oil.
So the well known situation with Saudi Arabia aside, that people in Europe (where we actually read newspapers and discuss international politics all the time, and not just what our government wants to bring into the spotlight to prepare the public consensus for some aggressive foreign policy) know even in High School, you wrote all that just to come around to that it's all about "access to oil"?
>Had they been left alone since before the first gulf war, allowed to buy Russian hardware and build a military superior to that of Saudi Arabia, the region would be under their thumb and so would a massive chunk of the western worlds oil supply for military purposes. Not to mention they would have been well within the budget range to develop nuclear weapons without ever having to test like North Korea
And that makes the business of a sovereign country something the US has any say in it because?
>The US also didn't sit around and leave Europe high and dry in conflicts like the Kosovo War, because following your logic why should the US be dragged into a purely European conflict.
The US shouldn't have been involved at all in the Kossovo war. They just wanted to establish Kosovo as a protectorate, and have a solid base in the Balkans. If the European people had their say (instead of our governments) they would have told the US to go and shove their participation in this conflict.
>So when NATO countries have a vested interest in keeping a country down (Iraq) because it developing a military will support an old adversary (Russia), you can bet they'll tell the public whatever they fucking want to justify a situation like the Cold War never gets the opportunity to arise.
We really hope something like the Cold War does arise. The Cold War was an era where none of the two bloody superpowers could do as it pleased. The so-called "balance of terror" worked in the favor of smaller countries (hence the tons of sovereignty and anti-colonial fights all around the third world). Now we just have one global cop, which does as it pleases, invaded who they like, takes care of its interests by stepping down on sovereign countries and such. Let's hope China can play the counter-balance in the future. (Sure, China has it's flaws. But the counter-balance does have to be totally progressive or democratic. Just as the US is not. It just have to be there, and stand as a limit to the other's power0.
>It's a sad state of affairs that crippling the development of foreign countries is in our own best interest, but personally I enjoy my way of life
Sure. Who wouldn't, if his country fucked up the world for him to enjoy cheap gas, financial domination, et al?