Sums it up quite well




------------------------------------------------------


One day my mortal body will turn to dust, but the Turkish Republic will stand forever.
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

That is actually pretty realistic.

Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."

Absolutely realistic.

Very true, in fact the UK has elected MP's to the EU with those policies




"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."

And thankfully, with the Treaty of Lisbon, increasingly pushed to the background.


------------------------------
_{I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts}


------------------------------

Very good, and realistic: when I first read a written version of it I thought it was real.

..but doesn't work when France and Germany are friends.

Currently they have all the inconvenients of the EU with no advantage cause they don't know to play it for there profit.

The best way forward for the EU is to have a free-trade type group, and then a subset of countries who want to get EU investment and/or close integration. Obviously countries can't have all the investment but stay out of the integration (e.g Eastern Europe). Of course pro-Europeans don't want this as it dilutes their power, but they will only end up losing everything.


"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."

Actually you are wrong. The EU has three pillars, with only the first one being supranational (EC law). The other two pillars regard the Common Foreign and Security Policy (second pillar) and the Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters (third pillar). All of which will be integrated, once the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified. These areas (integrated or otherwise) are all essential for Europe to retain it's position as an economic superpower, but also to gain military and political influence on the world stage, now and in the future. I know many Brits believe that Britain is still strong enough to hold it's own, but this is mainly an illusion set in the minds of the public. Britan no longer holds the power it once had and it's remaining power is waning quickly (much like the other European countries). Britain doesn't cooperate because it wants to, but because it has to: "United we stand, divided we fall".


------------------------------
_{I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts}



------------------------------

""with the Treaty of Lisbon""

As ouer Fredrik Reinfeldt signed whit out referendum , treason punishment at least 10 in prison , but will he?

This show is bloody brilliant, Yes, Prime minister is one of the best British comedy shows ever produced equal to Blackadder.



http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for
people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

-Noam Chomsky

Its jungle culture?

Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."

Actually you are wrong. The EU has three pillars, with only the first one being supranational (EC law). The other two pillars regard the Common Foreign and Security Policy (second pillar) and the Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters (third pillar). All of which will be integrated, once the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified. These areas (integrated or otherwise) are all essential for Europe to retain it's position as an economic superpower, but also to gain military and political influence on the world stage, now and in the future. I know many Brits believe that Britain is still strong enough to hold it's own, but this is mainly an illusion set in the minds of the public. Britan no longer holds the power it once had and it's remaining power is waning quickly (much like the other European countries). Britain doesn't cooperate because it wants to, but because it has to: "United we stand, divided we fall".

We need only look after our own interests, there's no need for us to be a superpower. Not being in a superpower does not make you have zero voice. The US and China trade, but are bordering being enemies, so simply not being in a union doesn't stop trade.

Militarily the UK only needs be strong enough to defend itself and it's territories against any attacker, this is entirely possible to do should the UK choose to do so, even if it does this primarily through expanding strategic nuclear forces until we can flatten every city in China. Taking the nuclear route with SSBN's would be expensive, but not prohibitively so.


"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."

We need only look after our own interests, there's no need for us to be a superpower. Not being in a superpower does not make you have zero voice. The US and China trade, but are bordering being enemies, so simply not being in a union doesn't stop trade.

==
By being a part of the European Union, Britain is serving it's own interests. But Britain's policy of remaining a second rate power shouldn't intervere with the interests of EU states. Needless to say, Britain always reluctantly DOES agree with further integration: other countries push for it and the alternative is much worse.


Militarily the UK only needs be strong enough to defend itself and it's territories against any attacker, this is entirely possible to do should the UK choose to do so, even if it does this primarily through expanding strategic nuclear forces until we can flatten every city in China. Taking the nuclear route with SSBN's would be expensive, but not prohibitively so.

==
Yes, but by what criteria and over what period of time? You can't always resort to nuclear weapons, particularly if the other state can fully retaliate (with a better chance of survival). Other problems are your geo-political interests (e.g. Falklands), which isn't limited to military intervention. Countries can (and will) challenge Britain, but challenging the European Union is of a different order. Remember, YOUR interst ARE European interests. With a common Common Foreign and Security Policy, if Britain goes to war, the Union goes to war. Something no nation would easily risk.


------------------------------
_{I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts}


------------------------------

Yes, but by what criteria and over what period of time? You can't always resort to nuclear weapons, particularly if the other state can fully retaliate (with a better chance of survival). Other problems are your geo-political interests (e.g. Falklands), which isn't limited to military intervention. Countries can (and will) challenge Britain, but challenging the European Union is of a different order. Remember, YOUR interst ARE European interests. With a common Common Foreign and Security Policy, if Britain goes to war, the Union goes to war. Something no nation would easily risk.

A force that size of SSBN's is fully sustainable, in fact with some cuts it could be funded under the existing budget. That of course is besides the point, as the nuclear forces are paid for directly, not by the ministry of defence. The nuclear force could be sized such that it is capable of making no nation able to survive, assuming we use 500kt W88's instead of W76's, thats 1 megaton per 2 warheads. 400 warheads on this bases equals 200 megatons explosive yield, the only thing's that going to survive that is the cockroaches. Nuclear weapons are very, very cost efficient as a deterrent and if you think the EU has more cities than the UK can sustain of nuclear weapons you need to go back to maths class. Of course we could have some warning shot type air launched weapons, and maintain our offensive forces to provide a conventional counter to any attack rather than going straight for the firecrackers, and as a force for use in non-major war scenario's.

The UK's interests are not all European interests, only some are. If so, why aren't there French soldiers guarding Northern Ireland, The Falklands, British bases in Iraq ect? Because they aren't European interests, that's why. The UK can however defend the Falklands just fine, especially with the two CVF's on order, the SSN's and the existing airfield and RAF base on the Islands. However, what is likely is the EU would dearly love to get it's grubby hands on our forces to carry out its own foreign policy objectives by outvoting us on our use of our own forces. We know the EU's tricks

Your right on one point though, challenging the European Union is much better than challenging the United Kingdom. The UK can deploy the largest forces of any EU country overseas and can deploy the exactly as fits its needs without any other countries interfering. The EU however will infight and argue and the enemy can take a fair chance the EU will either arrive to late or do nothing at all. Of course the EU might well assist the UK, but it's not cast Iron like the UK can provide itself.

IMO the UK should remain 100% independent, but seek to cooperate on an operation by operation bases where it meets the interests of both sides.


"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."

A force that size of SSBN's is fully sustainable, in fact with some cuts it could be funded under the existing budget. That of course is besides the point, as the nuclear forces are paid for directly, not by the ministry of defence. The nuclear force could be sized such that it is capable of making no nation able to survive, assuming we use 500kt W88's instead of W76's, thats 1 megaton per 2 warheads. 400 warheads on this bases equals 200 megatons explosive yield, the only thing's that going to survive that is the cockroaches. Nuclear weapons are very, very cost efficient as a deterrent and if you think the EU has more cities than the UK can sustain of nuclear weapons you need to go back to maths class. Of course we could have some warning shot type air launched weapons, and maintain our offensive forces to provide a conventional counter to any attack rather than going straight for the firecrackers, and as a force for use in non-major war scenario's.

==
That's all very nice, but again: "(...) You can't always resort to nuclear weapons, particularly if the other state can fully retaliate (with a better chance of survival). Other problems are your geo-political interests (e.g. Falklands), which isn't limited to military intervention. (...)"

In other words, if you're counting on British nuclear capabilities alone to deter any type of enemy, you will lose. Nuclear weapons are unproportional, risky and they allow for full scale retaliation.


The UK's interests are not all European interests, only some are. If so, why aren't there French soldiers guarding Northern Ireland, The Falklands, British bases in Iraq ect? Because they aren't European interests, that's why. The UK can however defend the Falklands just fine, especially with the two CVF's on order, the SSN's and the existing airfield and RAF base on the Islands. However, what is likely is the EU would dearly love to get it's grubby hands on our forces to carry out its own foreign policy objectives by outvoting us on our use of our own forces. We know the EU's tricks

==
And I never said that they were. But you again confuse the EU's supranational capabilities (first pillar) with Europe's international capabilities (second and third pillars). Defining Europe's interests doesn't have to intervere with British interests. Britain is always allowed to defend it's personal interests as it pleases, but under conditions (which can be defined by Britain), it can also defend the EU's interests, and in return the EU will do the same for Britain. This is already happening, because the alternative to making concessions (which goes for both sides) is more costly than taking action alone.


Your right on one point though, challenging the European Union is much better than challenging the United Kingdom. The UK can deploy the largest forces of any EU country overseas and can deploy the exactly as fits its needs without any other countries interfering. The EU however will infight and argue and the enemy can take a fair chance the EU will either arrive to late or do nothing at all. Of course the EU might well assist the UK, but it's not cast Iron like the UK can provide itself.

==
Hence, the second pillar must be developed. The EU has all the capabilities it needs, be it technological or logistical, but it also needs the political will to act.


IMO the UK should remain 100% independent, but seek to cooperate on an operation by operation bases where it meets the interests of both sides.

==
100% Independent doesn't exist. You will either have to rely on the US (which wasn't very kind to you), or you will have to rely on the EU (where you play a major role). The days of 100% independence are over, even for the United States.


------------------------------
_{I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts}


------------------------------

That's all very nice, but again: "(...) You can't always resort to nuclear weapons, particularly if the other state can fully retaliate (with a better chance of survival). Other problems are your geo-political interests (e.g. Falklands), which isn't limited to military intervention. (...)"

In other words, if you're counting on British nuclear capabilities alone to deter any type of enemy, you will lose. Nuclear weapons are unproportional, risky and they allow for full scale retaliation.

I said a strong conventional forces, backed by nuclear forces. If the conventional forces should fail, then the nuclear forces can come into play. That will deter any attacker and we can rely on them much more than we ever could Europe. The Falklands are very easily defended now that they have a proper airbase, and thanks to our own logistics fleet can be supplied with further land and air forces if required.

And I never said that they were. But you again confuse the EU's supranational capabilities (first pillar) with Europe's international capabilities (second and third pillars). Defining Europe's interests doesn't have to intervere with British interests. Britain is always allowed to defend it's personal interests as it pleases, but under conditions (which can be defined by Britain), it can also defend the EU's interests, and in return the EU will do the same for Britain. This is already happening, because the alternative to making concessions (which goes for both sides) is more costly than taking action alone.

The EU doesn't defend British interests, the EU just wants to make use of British assets. Military integration is opposed by the population and is off the cards. I see no reason for the UK to join closely with the EU, we don't even feel European.

100% Independent doesn't exist. You will either have to rely on the US (which wasn't very kind to you), or you will have to rely on the EU (where you play a major role). The days of 100% independence are over, even for the United States.

How was the US unkind to the UK? Did it kill millions of our troops and innocent civilians like the Germans did? Nop

The EU is no great friend of the UK.


"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."

I and many other europeans get the impression tha the Brits are rather selfish, they don't want to get into the EU and stay independent while we're trying to work on something big and revolutionary, eventhough it might notw ork instantly, at least we're trying!

I said a strong conventional forces, backed by nuclear forces. If the conventional forces should fail, then the nuclear forces can come into play. That will deter any attacker and we can rely on them much more than we ever could Europe. The Falklands are very easily defended now that they have a proper airbase, and thanks to our own logistics fleet can be supplied with further land and air forces if required.

==
The nuclear capability isn't too much of a problem, but it's use is limited. More importantly, how is Britain going to build strong conventional forces? How is Britain, by itself going to compete with Russia, China, India, Iran or any other country that at one point or another want's the same pie as Britain? Britain doesn't have the same power it had during the Falkland war, and even then it had to approach the US before it could conduct a war with a relatively weak country.


The EU doesn't defend British interests, the EU just wants to make use of British assets. Military integration is opposed by the population and is off the cards. I see no reason for the UK to join closely with the EU, we don't even feel European.

==
Then maybe you should elaborate because I have a distinct feeling that you don't don't understand what the EU is, what it does and how it does it.

How and why does the EU want to make use of British assets?


How was the US unkind to the UK? Did it kill millions of our troops and innocent civilians like the Germans did? Nop

The EU is no great friend of the UK.

==
So you don't want to integrate because of the Second World War over 60 years ago?


------------------------------
_{I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts}


------------------------------

Nukes are only being asked to perform a limited role, detering massive attack against the UK, so that's rather convenient that that you claim they are only useful in a limited role. You didn't think we were going to use them for ATGM's did you? This massive attack defence role is of course the only way in which the EU forces is significantly helpful to the UK, in any projection role the UK can either do it alone, or if the country is capable of beating our projection forces the extra the EU add's will make no difference to that e.g EU amphibious invasion of the US will fail just as much as UK amphibious invasion of the US will fail.

You can go into all the depth about the EU's bureaucratic structure you like, but the fact of the matter from my view is that I oppose all EU use of British military forces, if any countries want to work together they can do so without the EU. The US and UK are not in the EU, yet they still invaded Iraq, which proves that countries don't have to be in the EU to work together as you keep implying.

Regarding the second world war, you claimed the US wasn't very nice to the UK, so I informed you of the fact that some EU countries have been far, far worse to the UK. In fact, what did the US do that was so bad? Lead us into an illegal war in Iraq? Oh no, what a mean thing to do If only they'd have killed millions of our soldiers and civilians and bombed our country flat for a few years, that would have been a much kinder thing to do than lead us into an illegal war

So you want the UK to integrate because the US lead us into an illegal war in Iraq?

"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."

Irrelevant comment: "Yes, minister" is one of the most brilliant series i have ever watched. British people sometimes get me on my nerves but only them can produce such a masterpiece. I recommend everyone to read "Microcosmographia Academica" by Cornford...Brilliant!

Hi guys

This is my first post into Europe & Russia section, but I`m member of this forum from some time and I post in G&T section untill now.

I know some of the fellow WAFFers from the G&T section

The movie, despite a comedy give us complete picture of the british foreign policy desires. The old truth said Great Britain can control the mainland Europe and to secure her supremacy in western Europe only with the might of her brilliant diplomacy. The main resource of this diplomacy is to use the contradictions between the continental states and to create contradictions between them if necessary. After that the british support the weak side of the two (it`s not necessary to be a county: could be liberation movement like the Kosovo example) and after worthy blackmail of the two sides the first great power of western Europe take what she want. Simple, but brilliant and effective (I have no problem with the british foreign policy at all. I mean, if somebody gain victory he deserve it and they make it in the most elegant way).

Now about the british EU policy. IMO the eastern european countries were accepted in the block, in order with this policy. Most of them are in the "soft" control of this great foreign diplomacy and may provide the common EU policy in british favour, even without Foreign office to mention the specific question in public.

We all know that countries like Bulgaria (I`m citizen of Bulgaria) and Romania were not ready to enter the EU, but because this brilliant british foreign policy and the eternal british interests a compromise has been made.

My conclusion is if the common EU policy and constitution may threaten the tradicional british foreign policy, the british diplomacy will send this union into the history. I believe this path is now open with the Lisbon treaty and we can clearly see the conduct of Poland and the Czech republic and the baltic states.

Soon the french project of united Europe will be threaten and maybe destroyed by the most strong diplomacy into Europe...


***The only thing needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing***

Nukes are only being asked to perform a limited role, detering massive attack against the UK, so that's rather convenient that that you claim they are only useful in a limited role. You didn't think we were going to use them for ATGM's did you? This massive attack defence role is of course the only way in which the EU forces is significantly helpful to the UK, in any projection role the UK can either do it alone, or if the country is capable of beating our projection forces the extra the EU add's will make no difference to that e.g EU amphibious invasion of the US will fail just as much as UK amphibious invasion of the US will fail.

==
I understand, but you cannot conduct day to day politics with total annihalation in mind. There are many constant threats, some minor some major, which cannot be solved with nuclear deterence. Besides, war with the United States is by all means unrealistic. But this doesn't take away the threat other countries will pose. Is the UK going to solve all of it's problems by projecting it's military elsewhere? Not only is this extremely costly, but many times contra productive. The role of the military isn't limited to warfare.


You can go into all the depth about the EU's bureaucratic structure you like, but the fact of the matter from my view is that I oppose all EU use of British military forces, if any countries want to work together they can do so without the EU. The US and UK are not in the EU, yet they still invaded Iraq, which proves that countries don't have to be in the EU to work together as you keep implying.

==
And you have every right to do so, but shouldn't it at be a realistic opposition? How can you oppose something you don't even understand? Also the UK is part of the EU, but even if it wasn't, without the US the UK would have never had the capabilities to conduct large scale military operations against Iraq. It doesn't only lack the military capabilites, but the political and economic capabilites as well.


Regarding the second world war, you claimed the US wasn't very nice to the UK, so I informed you of the fact that some EU countries have been far, far worse to the UK. In fact, what did the US do that was so bad? Lead us into an illegal war in Iraq? Oh no, what a mean thing to do If only they'd have killed millions of our soldiers and civilians and bombed our country flat for a few years, that would have been a much kinder thing to do than lead us into an illegal war

==
I was referring to recent history, particularly after the invasion of Iraq. At any rate, if you go back far enough you will see enough wars and problems between the UK and the US. And I find it rather odd that you take the war so lightly.


So you want the UK to integrate because the US lead us into an illegal war in Iraq?

==
I have no how you've come to this conclusion?


------------------------------
_{I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts}


------------------------------

I and many other europeans get the impression tha the Brits are rather selfish, they don't want to get into the EU and stay independent while we're trying to work on something big and revolutionary, eventhough it might notw ork instantly, at least we're trying!

Every nation involved is in there for some sort of selfish perk. The Germans and the French are fighting for control of the entire thing. The little countries like the investment and the 'collective security' and so forth. There is another Yes Minister video about this which i will find later for you...

The little countries like the investment and the 'collective security' and so forth. There is another Yes Minister video about this which i will find later for you...

Do you mean this one?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Xvy1r4Pm8

Yep, beat me too it

I understand, but you cannot conduct day to day politics with total annihalation in mind. There are many constant threats, some minor some major, which cannot be solved with nuclear deterence. Besides, war with the United States is by all means unrealistic. But this doesn't take away the threat other countries will pose. Is the UK going to solve all of it's problems by projecting it's military elsewhere? Not only is this extremely costly, but many times contra productive. The role of the military isn't limited to warfare.

Getting back to the original point, I don't want us to digress too far. The UK, in the event it needed to provide complete defence of itself without allied assistance of the UK against any large attacker could do so by pimraily building up it's nuclear strike forces as an ultimate deterrent, backed by the RAF and RN to provide enough conventional to defend against most forces. The alternative would be to build vast, vast conventional forces, however this is not as cost effective as building a bunch of extra SSBN and nuclear weapons to provide that same ultimate defence.

And you have every right to do so, but shouldn't it at be a realistic opposition? How can you oppose something you don't even understand? Also the UK is part of the EU, but even if it wasn't, without the US the UK would have never had the capabilities to conduct large scale military operations against Iraq. It doesn't only lack the military capabilites, but the political and economic capabilites as well.

No, and I've already explained why. As for Iraq, nobody here wants the UK to invade anyone anyway, so again we don't need EU, but thanks all the same. You're wasted trying to play the 'you're pathetic and weak so you might as well join us and be strong again' line on me, so you can save yourself suggesting it in every other post, gives me less to read and you less to write that way

I was referring to recent history, particularly after the invasion of Iraq. At any rate, if you go back far enough you will see enough wars and problems between the UK and the US. And I find it rather odd that you take the war so lightly.

I do, because they didn't kill millions of British soldiers and civilians and bomb our cities flat for several years, unlike Germany. How do you find that odd? You're blinded by those EU stars my friend

I have no how you've come to this conclusion?

One of your reasons why the UK should join was and I quote you "You will either have to rely on the US (which wasn't very kind to you), or you will have to rely on the EU (where you play a major role)".

And before you ask, the above quote can also serve as a source for the the second paragraph down in my response.

"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."

Best episode of Yes, Prime minister is called the key. a squable over office space turns into a battle for key to the prime ministers office.

I think it is in season 1



http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for
people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

-Noam Chomsky

Chossmelli,

There were 5 seasons of the show. The first three (Yes Minister) where he is the Minister for Administrative Affairs and the last two (Yes Prime Minister) where he inadvertantly becomes the PM.

But yes, The Key is Series "1", episode 4.

@PPP, Damn I had no idea, I had only seen Yes, Prime minister didn't know about the existence of Yes, minister :/ . seen both seasons of the former.

I will have to try and find Yes, minister somehow.

P.S there is an awesome episode I think in season 2 when they want to move the military bases up north, and humphrey persuades the prime minister that there is a plot against him by one of the ministers in order to stop the bill.

Well I guess they where all great tbh =)



http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for
people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

-Noam Chomsky

I'm not PPP mate

Haha, the best episode is the one with the nuclear weapons where they explain to the PM the procedures in a case he must press the red buttons...Brilliant! I hope the episodes are available for downloading somewhere in the net...

@Pax_Britannica, LOL sorry mate :P it was late at night your logo pulled a jedi mind trick on me or something.
------------------------------
@achaios77, haha yea brilliant episode I think that was the very first episode =) Love it when they are explaining the benefits of trident and how long they would stand up to the soviet forces.



http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for
people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

-Noam Chomsky

@Pax_Britannica, LOL sorry mate :P it was late at night your logo pulled a jedi mind trick on me or something.

No worries buddy. Must have been the RAF roundel

But yeah, definitely check out the first three series. I think there is more of an appeal with Yes Prime Minister due to the whole macro overview of running a nation, but he does get into some hilarious scraps with sir humphrey in the others.

One of my favourites episodes however is the visit of the President of Buranda. No clip on youtube but i think you might appreciate this website

http://www.yes-minister.com/ymseas1a.htm#YM%201.2

TV programmes of now aren't as good as the ones before.



**********************************

Remembering the good old days.

Getting back to the original point, I don't want us to digress too far. The UK, in the event it needed to provide complete defence of itself without allied assistance of the UK against any large attacker could do so by pimraily building up it's nuclear strike forces as an ultimate deterrent, backed by the RAF and RN to provide enough conventional to defend against most forces. The alternative would be to build vast, vast conventional forces, however this is not as cost effective as building a bunch of extra SSBN and nuclear weapons to provide that same ultimate defence.

==
They provide GB sufficient support in case of a total war requiring nuclear weapons. Anything else and it's overkill. Not every conflict or potential conflict can be diverted or solved with (the threat of) nuclear arms. And to build a vast, vast conventional force you need a vast, vast economy with a vast, vast amount of resources. Something the European Union has.


No, and I've already explained why. As for Iraq, nobody here wants the UK to invade anyone anyway, so again we don't need EU, but thanks all the same. You're wasted trying to play the 'you're pathetic and weak so you might as well join us and be strong again' line on me, so you can save yourself suggesting it in every other post, gives me less to read and you less to write that way

==
So your argument comes down to: I oppose the EU, although I have no knowledge about it's functioning or abilities. That's a very weak argument. You have every right to oppose the EU, even if you don't have any actual arguments against it. The EU isn't perfect, and it needs a lot of work, but don't blame the EU for things that have no negative impact on British interests. But if you do, substantiate them.

Also you DID invade Iraq and this was only 5 years ago. Something you couldn't have done without the US. But this time your interests and that of the US overlapped, but what about next time?


I do, because they didn't kill millions of British soldiers and civilians and bomb our cities flat for several years, unlike Germany. How do you find that odd? You're blinded by those EU stars my friend

==
Yes thank you for repeating that argument, but it has at least two flaws:
1. This ist 21st century, therefore it would be appropriate to conduct policies with this in mind (something the Britisch government undoubtly understands). For example, at one point GB and the US were at war, and now they are allies (e.g. things change).
2. You seem to have no problem with your government killing hundreds of thousands of innocent others while risking the lives of your troops (who have given their lives as well).


One of your reasons why the UK should join was and I quote you "You will either have to rely on the US (which wasn't very kind to you), or you will have to rely on the EU (where you play a major role)".

And before you ask, the above quote can also serve as a source for the the second paragraph down in my response.

==
Which means that GB no longer is the power it once was. I don't see how you relate this to "integrating with the EU because the US led you into an illegal war with Iraq"?


------------------------------
_{I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts}


------------------------------

Most of the episodes are on youtube:

http://uk.youtube.com/user/nirbateman


The first episode of Yes, Prime Minister:







------------------------------------------------------


One day my mortal body will turn to dust, but the Turkish Republic will stand forever.
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

@Pax_Britannica, thanks for the website bro it will give me a good overview, I am going to order all the seasons I am missing on DVD.

P.S If you know of any other good british shows, please do recommend.



http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for
people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

-Noam Chomsky

You won't be disappointed.

I'd be hard pressed to recommend you anything modern. British comedy has experienced a horrific decline in quality over the past 5 - 10 years. The only thing that springs to mind is Peep Show and The Office. Depending on how dry your humour is I would also take a look at Brass Eye and The Day Today. There are of course the classics, Alan Partridge, 'Allo 'Allo, Dad's Army, Fawlty Towers, Blackadder etc. Father Ted was also a good one, although technically Irish. For more obscurity try The League of Gentlemen. And finally, if you liked the Office then I would also suggest Extras, although it's not as funny. Hope that helps!

Thanks bro, I am actually not really looking for new stuff as I doubt they produce the same type of humor anymore. I have seen some of the series you mentioned, going to google those I don't recognize perhaps I can even watch them online.

P.S Blackadder is my personal favorite, 4th season is the best there is just not substitution for General Melchett and Darling



http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for
people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

-Noam Chomsky

There is also:

- "The New Statesman" starring Rick Mayall as "Alan Bstard" (or some name like that), it's about politics too.

- "Only fools and horses", set in an inner-city South London background, immensely popular here.

There are of course loads of others.

Sasha Baron Cohen is British of course.







He actually looks like an Egyptian guy I know, especially the nose, i.e. semitic connection.

**********************************

Remembering the good old days.

The new statesman.





**********************************

Remembering the good old days.

anyone who wants to download yes, prime minister's 3 season contact to me at atgvarel@gmail.com">gvarel@gmail.com>

-----------------------------

fackin kemalist dog eat my ****

=============================================

P.S If you know of any other good british shows, please do recommend.

If you want a VERY funny sitcom about men/women relationships, try 'Coupling' (UK version, not the horrendous US spin off). At first it may look like a UK Friends, but you'll quickly realise it's nothing like it at all... far more clever and much funnier!

Only a UK sitcom could come up with terms like, "Porn Buddies", "The Giggaloop", "The Melty Man" and "Unflushable"!

If you want a taste, look it up on Youtube.

Enjoy.

Coupling? Are you kidding?! Maaaaaaate!!!!

Thanks guys, but I am really only interested in the old style of British comedy in line with minister/prime minister and Blackadder. Right now I am watching Yes Minister I got my hands on 3 seasons.

------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for
people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

-Noam Chomsky