Monday, 10 November 2014

US Arms industry needs a new enemy

The kings of global corporatism, the US arms industry, is desperate in its need for a new bogeymen enemy. Islam just doesn't cut it; you can't justify a $50bn development programme for stealth ramjet drones on the basis that they're needed to take out Toyota Landcruisers carrying large calibre machine guns designed in the 1950s. And while China and Russia are both big players, their kit is largely old fashioned stuff turned out by metal bashers rather than by silicon savants. Besides, domestic feeling in the US is now strongly against foreign adventuring - meaning the US now only needs main battle tanks to defend itself from invasions from Mexico or Canada. And there's little justification for expensive fleets of warships and transports. Unless, of course, they're needed in Yewp*

The US arms industry always rediscovers NATO and SEATO when times are lean. And if real threats don't exist, they'll do their doggone best to create them. So I expect we'll be back this winter to low level attritional conflict in Ukraine to prove that Russia is a bogeymen and some action in the Pacific to boost the Chinese badddies. And given the pork-barrel relationship between the arms industry and politics in the US, each dead Ukranian means another job saved in a missile plant in New Mexico and a dozen saved votes for their congressman.

*'as in 'Newkyular' when they mean nuclear.


Bloke In Italy said...

Raedwald - depressing, and almost certainly bang on the case.

It really is enough to make one want to start throwing heavy ordinance around the chancelleries of the world ('cos they're all at it).

Ed P said...

Cynical but fair.

Americans seem unable to pronounce the English "u", like in dune (djune) or tune (tjune): they say doon & toon. I think the way they say Europe is more accurately phonetically Yurp or Yerp, and nuclear, nooclar.

Mike Spilligan said...

What we shouldn't be doing is just "going along" with such plans - why can't we learn to say "no"? What actions Obama will take over the next 18 months are still a mystery, but he's always quick to look to us for moral support (except when France suddenly becomes his best / oldest friend) and it could help the Dem's choice for next Pres.

Sceptical Steve said...

They don't actually need anyone to fight wars with their weapons. I was talking to a defence contractor and a soldier last week and both confirmed the widespread destruction of time-expired weaponry by the forces as they left Iraq and Afghanistan.
The "piece de resistance" in Afghanistan was the detonation by the US forces of over 100 tonnes of surplus munitions in a single explosion. Far batter than enything I got to see on bonfire night, but I could understand the US taxpayer being none too pleased!

Cascadian said...

I have always considered the US pronunciation Euro-peons very accurate.

You are the "go-fers" the "office boys" of the world unable and usually unwilling to project force. All mouth and no trousers since the Falklands.

The Euro rapid reaction "force" describes best the Euro-peon mentality. It is NOT rapid, it never reacts and there is no force it is just a bunch of office boys running around in hysterics, shouting "something must be done".

The USA has many faults, not least its current leadership's unwillingness to use it's military properly, but without its willingness to rescue Europe from itself in two wars and then protect you during the cold war you would undoubtedly be in a far less comfortable position.

As Europe remembers the centenary of the first world war it might do many well to reflect how unpreparedness and lack of weaponry can affect your continent. A little bit of reverence for the USA (and commonwealth countries) would not go amiss either.

Anonymous said...

Apart from being too partisan about the US role in anything (and note, the US has lost just about every war they have been involved in since WW2. Korea? Vietnam?), Cascadian has some points. Britain has always been a country with a small military (Yep, despite the contents of the book 'All the countries we ever invaded' ... which is most of them), and we usually come off badly at the beginning of every conflict as a result. Our forces are usually poorly equipped and too small for the task.

The lesson to learn is to spend more on defence and less on such fripperies as foreign aid (bribes to foreign dictators, more like). They don't need to be equipped with the latest gadgetry, as I suspect we won't come up against the Yanks or the Israelis, and we certainly shouldn't be putting all our eggs in single baskets.

Anonymous said...

What a mean spirited, conspiratorial and paranoid post, Radders. Normally I enjoy your stuff, but this is OTT.

Ask yourself: would you prefer your freedom to be protected by
The Royal Navy (who can't)
The US (who can)
Someone else (who won't)

Sebastian Weetabix said...

I like Cascadian's counter-factual bollocks. The USA didn't come to save us. They bled us dry in return for shit aircraft and time-expired WW1 destroyers and would never have become involved AT ALL if Hitler hadn't declared war on them. They stayed for the cold war because they preferred to have nuclear warfare in Europe rather than at home and they wanted to halt the spread of the angry pink menace of socialism. The USA does not have friends, it has interests, and it pursues them more ruthlessly than anyone else. That's fair enough but they could at least spare us the sanctimonious moralising.

I just wish we were equally self-interested. We actually pay the EU to patronise us and tell us what to do.

G. Tingey said...

The Royal Navy would love to, but have been successively betrayed by the Madwoman, Major, Blair, Broon & Camoron - who have all cut our forces .....

Disagree re "Ukraine" though - Putin wants to pick a (small)fight he can win, to look tough - his posturing is a dead give-away.
Fortunately, he may run out of money soon .....

anon 2 said...

The US is a vile, despicable place. It's full of ignorant, arrogant, drug-pickled authoritarians (and -esses) who think they're improving a world they never even knew about in the first place. You see, the rest of the world doesn't really exist, as far as they're concerned; and when faced with bits of it --, well they just re-sculpt them in their own image.

Their law epitomises their hypocrisy: officially it espouses "Innocent until proved Guilty." The true practice is "Guilty until proven Innocent" - Their Justice reclines at the feet of Fama. And for the deprived, the only way out from under is to satisfy wealthy and powerful egos - especially those from Chicago (cf smarmy Obarmy).

They're kermits 'n krauts controlled by the mafia; they're puffed up chaos on stilts.

As for what they do to the English language* - well, that's because they were illiterate in their original languages when they got to Vespucci-land. They compound the effect by developing their hatred of the British.

That's why civilisation has fallen apart on their watch.

*Yes, R - you're right about the re-inscription of 'nuclear' to 'Newkyular.' They've also got a special line on rootn, tootn pootn.

Thud said...

Did I end up at the Guardian by mistake?

Bill Quango MP said...

Seb: you are wrong.

get tired of pointing it out. The UK myth of our tiny island fighting Europe alone just won't be shed.

the USA was unable to enter into a European conflict BY LAW.

Laws that came about precisely because they felt Europe conned them into joining in the First World war, borrowed loads of cash, ordered war material by the boatload and then never paid for any of it.
The ramping up, then down of US production coupled with Europe not paying up drove US business bankrupt.

US citizens said never again! and voted into law an acrt that forbade their governments from having anything to do with us on pain of huge fines and imprisonment.

When we say " no more US led foreign, pointless, costly, wars!" that is only the exact reaction we got from the 1918 USA.

cake and eat it ?

Cascadian said...

It's always good to rouse the likes of Sebastian Weetabix and anon2, note they never respond to the factual claim that the USA rescued Europe from itself.

In WW1 the allies were stuck in their trenches fighting an attrition war that they could not win. Eventually the USA joined them and turned the tide-fact.

In WW2 you got lucky and as SW correctly states the lunatic Hitler declared war on the allies through its proxy Japan. At the time the UK were penned in on their own island, starving and unable to manufacture enough war materiel. Were the USA to ignore Germany and fight the Pacific war Britain would still be under blockade of the Germans-fact. A cursory look at D-day materiel should convince you that Britain could never have fielded such a force, so D-day would have never happened without the USA-fact.

During the cold war, you sat under the nuclear protection of the USA like every other country-fact.

I do not see much counter-factual bullshit there SW! Perhaps it is you who have your history wrong, a bit too much of Boys Own comics perhaps.

If yUK did not want the outdated destroyers and planes then yUK could have easily refused them and the lend-lease programme that funded them, fact is Churchill had to beg for them, and was mighty glad to have them.

If you wish you can ignore facts, and continue to believe you are a world force at its peak of Empire.

The next war you fight will be an insurgent war on your own shores, as usual you are ill-prepared and your politicians deny the obvious. Good luck-I don't think the USA will come to your rescue in that situation.

Timothy Davis U.S. of frakken A said...

Radders. Lay off the Bushmills.

Have a good day Sir

anon 2 said...

See what I mean?
What an ass**.

Ooops. Espanol se hablara, en los estados unidos....

**The displaced euro thinks that word means something other than it does: He can't tell the difference between mispronounced O/ME and a Latin-based word. My apologies to the dear creature my comparison insults, btw.

anon 2 said...

Mr. Davis - our posts coincided; mine does not refer to you.

To my last, I may add...

"....especialmente en cascadia".

anon 2 said...

Las personas que viven en casas de cristal no debería arrojar piedras.

Which can also be read as ..."people who live in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones."

Bloke In Italy said...

Cascadian, sw

calm down dears.. the US was jolly helpful, but what saved us in the second ww was Uncle Joe - now he may have been (and was in fact) a paranoid mass murderer of the first degree, much like Hitler, but as soon as H turned East the game was up. Stalingrad more or less coincided with AL Alemein but Stalingrad it was which marked the turning point.

The Yanks were late to the second WW but if they hadn't come at all we'd have muddled through anyway.

And by the way, as any fule kno, the Versailles armistice was a major factor in laying the foundations for the second WW, and Woodrow Wilson it was who more than anyone dictated the terms thereof (ignoring the wiser British counsel) so there is a strong argument that was the yankees (and the f. frogs) fault that it kicked off at all.

Anonymous said...

Woodrow Wilson believed that unless a sustained and agreeable peace could be worked out future war was inevitable.

Your WW1 history is exceptionally faulty, bloke in Italy.

Sebastian Weetabix said...

Cascadian, BQ: the Red Army provided the lives and destroyed the Germans but we provided the time by not losing in 1940. America provided (eventually) the industrial capacity. But we were not alone in 1940 - we had the resources of the Empire, 1/4 of the world's population and a similar share of world trade; the US was implacably dedicated to the destruction of the Empire, it was one of their war aims.

In our desperation, with the customary genius for negotiation exhibited by the British ruling class, we gave the USA (for nothing!) inter alia the jet engine, the cavity magnetron, enigma, the seeds of the A-bomb programme. In return they emptied our pockets. And all through the war Standard Oil, IBM and many others continued to do very profitable business with the Nazis, busting the trade embargo with the full knowledge and connivance of the US government. Indeed, without IBM computing and card indexing systems the near eradication of European Jewry would not have been possible.

The US played a very clever game in WW2. They achieved many strategic goals - they became undisputed #1 through the Bretton Woods system establishing the dollar as the global reserve currency. They've been fucking everybody else over ever since and I cannot understand why we are supposed to pretend they were doing us a favour. They weren't. Any help we got was not disinterested aid in a moral cause; they more than got their pound of flesh.

Bill Quango MP said...

Seb .. How much did the US charge for the four years of war that we carried out?

What bill did they give us for the grain that fed the home nation? Or the oil from Venezuela that 80% of our forces and 100 % of our airforce used?

Every browning machine gun in every turret in every bomber from Lend - lease to surrender was free. As was every bullet that went into it. As was the fuel to fly them the instruments to use them, the explosives in the bombs and much of the steel the bombs were made from. Every wheel and rubber tyre came from the USA. In us ships, crewed by us citizens, protected by us navy and aircraft from us harbours.

And it was all free.

50 destroyers! Which you well know was a political deal. We brought 1000 Thompson machine guns from the us police force to equip 1 in every sergeants in each home guard platoon. That was how far our cash went. Nowhere!

How many Grumman f4 planes did we get for free? Or kitty hawks? Or transport planes?
Or, Sherman tanks?

If the USA had not said they would pick up the ran for The commonwealth, the Soviet Union, and the Chinese nationalists, then WW2 would have need in 1942 in the west and 1943 ish in the a East.

That they drained us dry before, is quite true.
Why they did, you seem to be ascribing to malice.
Which might be true.

But we never paid for the first European war and used their troops to win our war. And then pretty much ignored anything they had to say afterwards.

I ask you.. Is that any different to our modern reaction to a call to go into Syria.?

No. Because we didn't like how it turned out before.
And in1938 most Americans, the vast majority had no intention of getting involved with idiot Europeans and their thousand year conflicts.

Why demonise the US for not rushing in to shower us with everything we ever wanted when,

1 it was a war with fuck all to do with them.
2. We never pay our bills. Neither did the French.

Sebastian Weetabix said...

Who is demonising? I merely point out they acted in their own self-interest, not out of altruism. I wish we were more like them and looked after no.1 rather than putting up with bullshit from Johnny Foreigner, paying Brussels so Germans can sell us Mercedes and ex(?)-communist apparatchiks can decide what we put in our bins.

What is popularly called lend-lease was actually "An Act to Further Promote the Defense of the United States". The clue is in the fucking name. It wasn't an 'Act to help the free world'. And it was not free. We didn't finish paying off our share until 2006. And, by the by, the 50 time expired WW1 destroyers were otherwise scrap value only, surplus to US requirements, slowly rusting away in dockyards.

We literally GAVE in return radar, sonar, proximity fuzes, gyroscopic gunsights, the cavity magnetron, solid fuel rocketry, superchargers, discarding sabot ammunition, plastic explosive, self-sealing fuel tanks, jet engines, the computer, and so on and on. $21 billion of war materiel in return for the Tizard mission was the best and hardest bargain the USA ever struck. It wasn't charity.

Sebastian Weetabix said...

You may be interested to note the U.S. department of state agrees with me.

"Although British Prime Minister Winston Churchill later referred to the intiative as 'the most unsordid act' one nation had ever done for another, Roosevelt's primary motivation was not altruism or disinterested generosity. Rather, lend-lease was designed to serve America's interest in defeating Nazi Germany without entering the war"

In the end of course they did enter the war in the European theatre because Hitler declared war ON THEM after Pearl Harbor. The USA did not declare war on Germany.

Cascadian said...

SW , like many you do not understand the concept of negotiation, yUK gave up nothing. You came to the negotiation threadbare, with your arse hanging out of your trousers. You had no army after Dunkirk, your airforce was pitiful, your navy overextended, you were starving and your industry was being bombed every night. You were in no position to negotiate and certainly in no position to develop the technologies you list.

Luckily, first the commonwealth and then the USA assisted you, otherwise its Dads army and "we will fight them on the beaches" with broomsticks.

Conveniently you mix up the period before USA entry into the war and the period after.

Of course none of this registers with you, because you prefer your xenophobic rants and ignorance of facts.

And while you scream it was not charity, perhaps you should acquaint yourself with how the commonwealth countries were treated regards war debt, it was in fact very much charity, for which little if any thanks was given.

Sebastian Weetabix said...

Yes, I can see how quoting the U.S. State Department is Xenophobic ranting.

Cascadian said...

Unfortunately I am a very poor and slow typist, so my comment of 17:42 was in reply to yours of 17:12. Your comment of 17:30 was not visible to me before I commenced my 17:42 comment.

My comments on lend-lease stand, Churchill entered it with eyes open and was glad of any materiel at a time of dire need and industrial stagnation due to (mostly)bombing raids but also British unpreparedness. Indeed wartime production did not get rolling until a Canadian took charge.

From the Cambridge dictionary

xenophobia......extreme dislike or fear of foreigners, their customs, their religions, etc.

As in your comments concerning Belgium, Germany, USA and in general "Johnny Foreigner". In fact the whole world seems to be at blame for British unpreparedness, poor negotiating skills and often dismal leadership.

I admire your allegiance to your country, but blind acceptance of it's popular propaganda does you no service. The facts are out there, Bill Quango seems to have found them, perhaps it is up to you to further educate yourself on this critical part of your history instead of seething at others.

Bill Quango MP said...

Seb .. I don't want to side with the damn Yankee .. But we never paid for lend-lease.

Our war loans were for all the stuff we ordered BEFORE THE LEND-lease act.

That is our 1939 to novemberish 1940.

After that it was all gratis. And we paid back those 1940 loans at 2% fixed interest over 50 years. Inflation had a big bite out of those loans. And even then we didn't make all the payments on time.

And none of this includes the Marshall Plan aid. Which again, was foreign aid and was free and for which the UK received about 2/3 as much as France and Germany combined...and paid back not 1$ for.

we could never have hung on without US loans. Not even with the resources of the Empire. It's evidenced by how quickly we lost the Far East against Japanese troops who were worse equipped than the Italians.

We had stripped our empire bare of weapons and troops and cash.

If a different president had said .. Get stuffed Limeys...we would have had to seek terms.

The UK rightly has 1st place in the toll of nations that stopped fascism. But we could never have done it without the United States unstinting support.

( and btw .. We played the exact same role as the USA in 1914. Bankrolling the French, Russians and Italians.
And they are about as grateful for us doing that as we are towards the US for WW2.. Ie ..not grateful at all.)

Sebastian Weetabix said...

Jesus H. Christ. Truly this is a dialogue of the deaf. I don't dispute we needed the help. I dispute it was a) selfless, or b) free. I adduce in evidence the official views of the US state department. Perhaps they are all British xenophobes too.

In return for lend-lease the USA got all the technology and the acquiescence of all the allies in setting up today's US-dominated global order with the exorbitant privilege of the dollar as global reserve currency. For the life of me I do not see how saying so is xenophobic. It is simply a fact. Similarly the continued highly profitable trading of Standard Oil, IBM, ITT and all the US banks et al with the Nazi regime right up to the end of the war with the connivance of the US government. That's a fact too, no matter how uncomfortable it may be for modern US sensibilities. How can the truth be xenophobic?

This small minded xenophobe btw has lived and worked in the USA, Germany, Japan and China and also served very happily alongside US guys while in the RAF, and enjoyed their company very much. I actually respect and admire US pursuit of their own interest. I just wish we were equally robust; and I truly wish English Tories would wake up and smell the coffee and realise there is no special relationship. As one of my US friends put it, late one night over a bottle of whisky 30+ years ago, "it's special right up to the moment you stop doing what we tell you - then it's a case of fucker and fuckee".

Which seems fair enough to me. But let's not pretend otherwise.

anon 2 said...


So Hitler was no threat to the Yanks?

Not trans-Atlantic (naval+u-boats, air via northern bases)?

Not over polar routes (if he'd succeeded with Russia)?

Not from the south via S. America?

Of course Roosevelt saw that reality looming, especially once he realised the Japanese could get across the even bigger Pacific (TYO-HNL still takes over 9 hours flying - then they have to get to west coast US). He had enough sense not to wait for invasion from all sides.

And as for their saving us from starvation: well, let's not forget the Battle of the Atlantic. In that we deployed a Merchant Navy which, at great cost to men and ships, brought in food from other countries (e.g. in S. America). I know men who got sunk at least 3 times, because convoy protection was often insufficient for the unarmed ships. This wasn't charity from yanks.

So. We also held the Jerries off with the Battle of Britain. That left a good place for the yanks to get a pre-emptive foothold. And when they brought their men ("over-paid, over-s***d, and) over here --- well, they had to have air bases didn't they? And sometimes it was farmers like my uncle who provided the land, so close to Germany.

And, really, it was much easier and cheaper to launch a D-Day spectacular from Britain, wasn't it -- than from the US coast?

Furthermore, let's not forget the women: who played their part in keeping factories going. Yes, they made munitions and uniforms too; they played their part for the wounded in the hospitals; and they kept society going through all the bombardment, whatever Lord Haw-Haw said to deter them.

But on this Remembrance week, we're supposed to sit back and take insults about the part our fathers and mothers played? So that post-moderns and yanks, who never walked past a single bomb-site on their way to school, can play. At bean-counting.


Cascadian said...

SW please do not ascribe words to me that I did not use-I never called you a small minded xenophobe. I did point out your antipathy to many foreigners, a very British trait. If you dislike being called a xenophobe then I suggest you moderate your language.

You seem to wish to move the original discussion away from the USA rescuing Europe on three occasions to whether the negotiations for provision of essential materiel and food was fair. As I suggested before, Churchill seemed to think it was so, and when you have no negotiating position you get what you can.

Cascadian said...

So on to anon2, who at least is making some sense now. Thank you for the geography lesson, I tend to think I have a rather better appreciation of long distances than you but I could be wrong.

Let me reveal that I am NOT and never have been a citizen of the USA. I was born and educated in England, I no longer live there.

Since you wish to give examples of personal courage and sacrifice for the nation by your relatives.
My father was in the Royal Navy and served at the relief of Malta when SS Ohio barely made it to harbour (google operation Pedestal) once again an instance of USA co-operation. My mother lived in Canning Town very close to the Royal Docks in London during the blitz, was never evacuated (google Hallsville School for example) and endured 40 consecutive nights of bombing, she was 12 years old at the time and the experience forever gave her a fear of enclosed spaces. So don't come the old acid about "never walked by a bomb-site" and let us not claim greater bravery because our relatives did something.

You give some examples ascribed to the the British only, let me add, Roosevelt was well aware of a German threat but as Bill Quango has already said he was legislatively forbidden to enter a war until the USA was attacked.

The British Merchantmen were indeed very brave, but perhaps you can spare some time to remember the Royal Canadian Navy who provided much of the convoy protection. The Royal Canadian Air Force providing submarine protection and hunting as far out as they could, and the very many Canadian Merchant Marine bringing foodstuff and war materiel. Many of them died. You may also wish to research if you paid for those goods and if so at what generous price.

Once again the Battle of Britain is oft cited, please consider the numbers of Australian, New Zealand, South African, Rhodesian, US, Polish, Czech and Canadian flyers (sorry for any I forgot). You Brits are very good at ascribing victory only to your own efforts, the reality is rather different, a little humility would go a long way.

I see you ignore the efforts of Bomber Command except to snub the US flight-crews. When "fortress" Britain could not do anything except sit tight and await the day that they were properly-provisioned for an invasion and I will stress once again-with materiel and food from the USA and the commonwealth-the only way to keep in the war (at least in Europe) was the bombing campaign. The British effort carried out by fliers from all the countries above were trained (mostly) in Canada, you should perhaps not be surprised that at the end of the war yUK quibbled about the cost. The USAAF air force provided daytime bombing at tremendous human cost, and yet you quibble about airbase construction.

Your comments on D-day are beneath contempt.

Lets acknowledge the women's contribution to the war by all means, you will be surprised to learn that women on the other side of the Atlantic contributed too, as well as women in every commonwealth nation.

You will find "on this remembrance week" that Raedwald started the insults, I merely responded in sarcastic fashion.

Also you will find that Mr Weetabix intruded the bean-counting into the argument, but it gives the opportunity to summarize yUK's thankfullness to the valuable assistance of many nations-"you know the cost of everything but the worth of nothing", and yUK's writing of the history and their populations understanding of it, is deplorable.

If anybody should think I have derided the veterans of any nationality a reread of my comments are due.

Anonymous said...

"you Brits" "born and educated in England"

What the fuck are you then? One of George Orwell's self-hating pansy left, where everything English is wrong?

Cascadian said...

Anonymous, it is possible to change one's citizenship. I did so, gladly.

What the fuck I am, as you so lucidly declare, is my business. Though I doubt I fulfill your description, neither do I think everything English is wrong, just most of their self-pitying and aggrandizing war fables.

Attempting to correct wide-spread misconceptions is not a leftist trait, nor do I go in for self-hatred. I admire George Orwell's works. Pansy is a loose term, but I dare to say that if you approached me aggressively my East End/Essex upbringing might kick in, which you would regret. So please be careful with your intemperate language.

Good day sir.

Anonymous said...

Top comedy! Somehow I can't quite see the hard men of Glasgow cringing in fear as someone announces their hard Essex upbringing.

Cascadian said...

That explains the ignorant post, the deplorable syntax and the need for friends to assist you.

You can have the last word, I'm done wasting my time.

anon 2 said...

Talk about a pot shooting at any vessel within range!!

Typical American arrogance and presumption. Note the completely baseless assumptions that I am ignorant of world distances, and that I speak only of my own relations when I cite specific cases. Or, furthermore, that I am incognisant of Empire/Commonwealth contribution to either WW.

As to my supposed lack of awareness of Bomber Command/RAF .... whom should I imagine fought the Battle of Britain? A flock of sparrows?

Just because I'm British, apparently - I must never have travelled, or have met any of those wonderful people. How logical is that, about a proud citizen of the Commonwealth!?!

And how hypocritical coming from a Vespucci-lander. This week, I've taken the trouble to check internet postings from their media: and I find practically no reference to, or respect for, worldwide Remembrance ceremonies. All they know about is "celebrating" their own Veterans' Holiday.

Still. It's really quite entertaining -- to be told what I know and think by some emigrant stranger. One who's obviously been torn to shreds by the talons of his Raptor hosts. Birds of a feather it seems, who've themselves been beaten into shape in brain-crunching units run by their very own krauts 'n kermits.

But ... anonymous; here's a thought. He clearly never grasped the awfulness of his own parents' experiences. Indeed, he sounds like a kind of evacuee himself, with his "East End/Essex" appellation, followed by a transplant to enemy territory. Overall, I suspect he deserves our pity.

The poor thing.

Cascadian said...

That's wonderful stuff anon2.

I see English Comprehension as well as History was not on the syllabus at your junior school. It seems doubtful judging by your output that you progressed beyond junior school.

Anonymous said...

I think deracinated is the word we are looking for. Having rejected his nation and chosen another he seeks to validate that choice by denigrating all things British and bigging up the Yanks. How sad. Because deep down he will never be one of them; not really. Expats are always running away from something.

anon2 said...

Vespucci's children are a rootless lot.

You are so right, Anonymous.

Cascadian said...

That's your best ladies, really?

It's all very Ena Sharples and Minnie discussing that colonial, or is it US lout(anon2 still has not figured it out) down at t'Rovers isn't it? Some amateur analysis by Ena (who is far more fearsome than the Glasgow hardman), and some "yes Ena, you are so very right Ena" from Minnie.

Not really worth getting your knickers twisted, was it?

I leave you with a thought:

Proper planning and practice, prevents piss poor performance.

Remember it. Perhaps even send it to camoron.