Europe

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

One we didn't elect with one we did would be a obvious improvement.

Two things:

1) America doesn't control Britain. Or Europe. At all. A united Europe will control you by the very definition. That is a huge reason why I'm against the European Union. Right now (or at least before the whole unity mess began) I can (or could) choose to work with America or I can (could) choose to work with Europe, or I can (could) choose to do both. European unity takes that away, and the second your foreign policy goes your national sovereignty is gone. You are relegated to a dominion at best and a state at worst.

2) Who makes the real decisions in the European Union? The Parliament, or perhaps someone else?

Though, on another note, American Imperialism is pretty much a fact, backed up with statistics such as them having military bases in over 100 countries.

My God, drivel is certainly not the weak point of the left.

[Beskar]

1) America doesn't control Britain. Or Europe. At all.

I mean, we didn't jump in bed with America in two wars, fully support anything America says, even if it is just us and America. (See Lebanon war)

There isn't Trident with America having the codes for our own nuclear missiles which we paid for.

There isn't the countless references such as "Special Relationship" other musings.

2) Who makes the real decisions in the European Union? The Parliament, or perhaps someone else?

Now we just need the big lottery hand to come down from the sky and point going "or it could be you!"

My God, drivel is certainly not the weak point of the left.

According to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year 2003, which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries

What on earth are you on about? It is fact, now get over yourself. If having military bases in other countries means nothing, insert every Godwin-ism in having a base in Britain.





Then again, what do you even know about Britain and then again, being in Germany, aren't you even riddled with American bases all over your country?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ons_in_Germany

and yet you pretend that it means nothing?

I mean, having a foreign nations armed forces crawling all over your country has absolutely no influence at all, does it?

[Furunculus]

I mean, we didn't jump in bed with America in two wars, fully support anything America says, even if it is just us and America. (See Lebanon war)

There isn't Trident with America having the codes for our own nuclear missiles which we paid for.

Then again, what do you even know about Britain and then again, being in Germany, aren't you even riddled with American bases all over your country?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ons_in_Germany
and yet you pretend that it means nothing?
I mean, having a foreign nations armed forces crawling all over your country has absolutely no influence at all, does it?

had you considered the possibility that the powers that be deemed it to be in the UK's national interest to join america in those wars............................. no.

now that is foolish. we can unleash buckets of sunshine whenever we want. if we did so inappropriately then america would refuse to service our missiles which would render them inoperative within a year or two.
if they knew before hand then they could switch of the GPS forcing the missiles to rely on inertial navigation which would reduce accuracy from 30 feet to 100 feet.
none of which prevents the UK's strategic nuclear deterrent from fulfilling its purpose.

yes it means nothing, germany could ask america to remove those bases tomorrow, and at such point as leases expired those forces would be gone. and if those leases were set to last one hundred years then germany could just legislate the lease away, that's what being a sovereign nation state means.

do you define yourself by your fear of america?

[Sarmatian]

According to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year 2003, which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries

Wow, I knew they had a lot but I didn't know they had that much. That means that they have bases in about 75% countries in the world... Are you sure about this? Is that source reliable?

[Beskar]

@Furunculus
UK's best national interest doesn't equal the best interest for its people. If I remember correctly, America apparently gave "incentives" to the nation for them to tag along at the cost of our lives.

"America to refuse to service our missiles" Why do we need America too? Does the Iran service our tanks?
"Switch off GPS" why not have our own GPS? Do the Russians use America's GPS too?
"Stop UK's nuclear derrent from fulfilling its purpose" It would really stop America, wouldn't? 'we won't give you the codes lalallala'

I mean, why bother with Europe, we already have our best buddy America telling us what to do anyway, I mean, any hope of sunshine away from American Imperialism is just simply evil. let's worship America. I mean, we don't even need a military, don't we have captain America to protect us all, they seem to have all their bases all over our lands, I mean, it's not like it's a Godwin-ism there.

Really, it is really amusing. Speak of a European Federation with democracy and elections... BOOOO!!! but speak of American Imperialism and look at them go to protect poor America's feelings and saying there is nothing wrong about it. Hypocrites.


@Sarmatian
According to this - http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/BSR_2007_Baseline.pdf
There are around 823 overseas bases, apparently.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Hypocrites.

I'm getting the same feeling now that I get when I watch NDP or Die Linke rallies. Brief shock followed by uncontrollable laughter.

[Beskar]

I'm getting the same feeling now that I get when I watch NDP or Die Linke rallies. Brief shock followed by uncontrollable laughter.

I am getting the same feeling as watching Boris Johnson reading your posts. You have no clue what you are on about.

[LittleGrizzly]

Under a united Europe, it won't. Simple.

Britian will not have a single part of the decision makiong process ?

That doesn't seem right... unless your trying to be technical in which case Britian = British people (or people living in Britian)

Because i think we would have a share of that decision, a much bigger share than we do in the Americans decisions.

Oh, so people aren't, in fact, the same? Thank you.

And yet individual european goverments struggle on regardless, hell China has far far more people to look after, India too. They not even at most of euorpes level of development so it should be a cakewalk..

[Beskar]

Under a united Europe, it won't. Simple.

Britian will not have a single part of the decision makiong process ?

That doesn't seem right... unless your trying to be technical in which case Britian = British people (or people living in Britian)

Because i think we would have a share of that decision, a much bigger share than we do in the Americans decisions.

I am glad you see that blaring fact. I was starting the think people are going blind.

[Furunculus]

@Furunculus
UK's best national interest doesn't equal the best interest for its people. If I remember correctly, America apparently gave "incentives" to the nation for them to tag along at the cost of our lives.

do you mean that america agreed to do things for us if we did things for them, wow, revolutionary!

@Furunculus"America to refuse to service our missiles" Why do we need America too? Does the Iran service our tanks?
"Switch off GPS" why not have our own GPS? Do the Russians use America's GPS too?
"Stop UK's nuclear derrent from fulfilling its purpose" It would really stop America, wouldn't? 'we won't give you the codes lalallala'

i don't know how to put this any other way, what you utter is utter nonsense.

the use of our strategic deterrent is operationally independant, thus is serves its purpose.

[Beskar]

do you mean that america agreed to do things for us if we did things for them, wow, revolutionary!

What on earth are you on about? That has absolutely no relation to my comment.

i don't know how to put this any other way, what you utter is base drivel, unreconstructed nonsense.

the use of our strategic deterrent is operationally independant, thus is serves its purpose.

You have no clue what I am on about? Re-read what you said.

"America to refuse to service our missiles"
"Switch off GPS"
"Stop UK's nuclear derrent from fulfilling its purpose"

This means we do not have a independent strategic deterrent but one dependent on the USA! You have America who services our missiles, we are using their GPS, they have our launch codes. How stupid can you get? What is the point in having nuclear weapons when we can't even use them, how much of a threat are they if America has our codes in their briefcase. What about if America is the threat? Afterall, they control all out "strategic deterrent" so it is not going on work against them, is it?

I wish people actually saw things for what they were, instead of this wrapped reality where Britannia rules the waves when we are basically America's satellite state.

[Furunculus]

the US cannot stop the UK launching missiles. it is operationally independent.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What on earth are you on about? That has absolutely no relation to my comment.



You have no clue what I am on about? Re-read what you said.

"America to refuse to service our missiles"
"Switch off GPS"
"Stop UK's nuclear derrent from fulfilling its purpose"

This means we do not have a independent strategic deterrent but one dependent on the USA! You have America who services our missiles, we are using their GPS, they have our launch codes. How stupid can you get? What is the point in having nuclear weapons when we can't even use them, how much of a threat are they if America has our codes in their briefcase. What about if America is the threat? Afterall, they control all out "strategic deterrent" so it is not going on work against them, is it?

I wish people actually saw things for what they were, instead of this wrapped reality where Britannia rules the waves when we are basically America's satellite state.

They don't have the codes, they service the warheads. Were the US to remove that support the deterrent would remain viable for 14 months. Therefore the deterrent is Operationally independant. The US cannot stop the launch.

[Furunculus]

You have no clue what I am on about? Re-read what you said.

"America to refuse to service our missiles"
"Switch off GPS"
"Stop UK's nuclear derrent from fulfilling its purpose"

This means we do not have a independent strategic deterrent but one dependent on the USA! You have America who services our missiles, we are using their GPS, they have our launch codes. How stupid can you get? What is the point in having nuclear weapons when we can't even use them, how much of a threat are they if America has our codes in their briefcase. What about if America is the threat? Afterall, they control all out "strategic deterrent" so it is not going on work against them, is it?

I wish people actually saw things for what they were, instead of this wrapped reality where Britannia rules the waves when we are basically America's satellite state.

JFYI - everything you need to know about the independence of the UK's strategic nuclear deterrent

Independence of Operation, not independence of acquisition:
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Fr...nalControl.htm

"2. Does the government of the United States of America have any involvement in the use of nuclear weapons by the British government?

No. But in the event of the contemplated use of UK nuclear weapons for NATO purposes,
procedures exist to allow all NATO Allies, including the US, to express views on what was
being proposed. The final decision on whether or not to use nuclear weapons in such
circumstances, and if so how, would, however, be made by the nuclear power concerned.

3. Can the government of the USA prevent, veto or forbid the UK to use its own nuclear weapons?

No.

4. Does the British government have to tell the US government if it intends to use nuclear weapons?

No. But the US would be involved in any consultation process at NATO as described in the
answer to your second question."

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../986/98607.htm

"80. It is important to distinguish between two different types of independence: independence of acquisition and independence of operation. We heard that independence of acquisition is what the French have opted for at a significantly higher cost to the defence budget. Independence of operation is an alternative concept of independence and it is this which the UK has opted for at a lower price.

81. Sir Michael Quinlan told us that the UK's decision to choose independence of operation meant that "in the last resort, when the chips are down and we are scared, worried to the extreme, we can press the button and launch the missiles whether the Americans say so or not".[67] He argued that the decision to fire is an independent, sovereign decision. The United States "can neither dictate that the [UK's] force be used if HMG does not so wish, nor [can it] apply any veto-legal or physical-if HMG were to decide upon [its] use".[68]

82. Commodore Hare told us that "operationally the system is completely independent of the United States. Any decision to launch missiles is a sovereign decision taken by the UK and does not involve anybody else". He told us that the United States does not have a "technical golden key" which can prevent the UK from using the system.[69]

83. The potential disadvantage of the UK decision to forego independence of acquisition is that "if, over a very long period, we became deeply estranged from the Americans and they decide to rat on their agreements, we would be in… great difficulty".[70] Commodore Hare told us that such a risk was, in reality, "very low" and that, ultimately, "one must balance that risk against the enormous cost benefits that we have in procuring an American system to house in our submarines. That should not be underestimated".[71]"

[Tribesman]

if those leases were set to last one hundred years then germany could just legislate the lease away, that's what being a sovereign nation state means.

Tell that to Fidel

not that anyone would ever accuse you of selectively quoting to create an misleading impression

Selectively quoting?
It was the full line, you claimed...we have the second largest official defence budget .....nothing misleading about what I wrote at all .
However your claim was just outright false, which would be a very misleading impression if it wasn't such obvious bollox.

[Furunculus]

Tell that to Fidel

because germany = cuba, right?

[Furunculus]

Selectively quoting?
It was the full line, you claimed...we have the second largest official defence budget .....nothing misleading about what I wrote at all .
However your claim was just outright false, which would be a very misleading impression if it wasn't such obvious bollox.

for anyone else that is interested in a masterclass in pointless obfuscation that dodges every relevant issue in the debate with incorrect nit-picking, i give you Tribesman:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...7&postcount=61

why?

why should britain let fear of a changing world warp its mentality?

we have the second largest official defence budget

we have the joint fifth largest economy

our trade is split 50/50 between the EU and the rest of the world

we have security alliances with our neighbours and the major anglosphere powers

for what reason does britain need to be a part of a federated EU?

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...2&postcount=64

don't you mean 4th , after America China and errrrr.....France.
But don't worry you also spend a smaller proportion of your GDP on defence than France.
What you should be aiming for is defence spending like Ireland , that comes in as 147th in the world .
Or even better go for Icelands approach and spend absolutely nothing

You have the 2nd largest external debt

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...4&postcount=65

i'm going by the International Institute for Strategic Studies: The Military Balance 2008 edition, not wikipedia. i did in fact state that in the original post, but i edited out precisely because i knew i could have so much fun with careless nitpickers, and guess who showed up.

and so what? i'm not saying its great, but times are tough you know and we have just had 12 years of labour throwing money up the wall.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...6&postcount=77

So what . Are you disputing the figures from HM treasury and the French dept. of defence?

And before that you had 18 years of the conservatives not only throwing money up the wall but selling off the countries assets for peanuts

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...8&postcount=80

Defence spending is a very complex thing Tribesman, and very hard to compare.
Does set of figures X include:
> operational expenses
> attrition replacement
> equipment procurement
> R&D projects
> Intelligence apparatus
Then you must ask yourself if figures for nation Y include the same, and they mostly do not.
For example while the Gendarmerie are under the control of the Interior Ministry I believe they are funded from the Defence budget.
So official figures published from their respective nations have little merit for comparative purposes, which is why i went to the trouble of getting the figures pulished by the IISS in the 2008 publication of The Military Balance.

again, so what? how does that relate to having a vast public debt which derives from annual additional public spending which amounts to £200+ billion each year since 97?

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...4&postcount=81

Yeah , new destroyers coming in at 157million over budget wouldn't be in the budget would it.
And you want more of them

somehow this is an adequate response to the issue of how defence budgets can be compared............
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...8&postcount=82

ah, the second rule of tribesman debating; obfuscate in a cloud of nonsense the fact that you picked out point to argue about that was totally irrelevant to the argument in question, and was wrong to boot.

[edit] and the third tactic; where you shroud your comment in derisory smileys in a effort to make your point seem so obvious that no one else need look into the matter further. [/edit]

good going.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...5&postcount=83

Wrong?
Look....
No you have the fourth, simple isn't it . And as you stated "official" then the only relevant source is the official defence budget.

It is obvious, there is no need to look any further.
Your country has huge debts.
It cannot pay for the military it already has.
What it is buying is costing more than it allowed for and is getting delivered late.
And you want them to spend more even though they can't afford it, and buy more even though they ain't getting what they already bought??????

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...4&postcount=84

the word "official" is there to point out that most military think-tanks believe that china massively under-reports its defence budget, so its not a little bit under or over the UK and france, it is probably about 30% higher, if not even higher.

really Tribesman, you do yourself no favours, as surely i am not the only one to notice that the majority of your debating style is to spout ridiculous and irrelevant nonsense, and smothered in smileys, in the hope that no-one looks to deeply at your 'response'.

you're intelligent enough to debate very well on your own merits, you should try it sometime. :)

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=101

So if they under-report their budget does that mean its really bigger?
As they are officially 2nd does that mean they are even more second?
That wierd, still puts Britain in 4th not 2nd.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=107

So if they under-report their budget does that mean its really bigger?
As they are officially 2nd does that mean they are even more second?

not that anyone would ever accuse you of selectively quoting to create an misleading impression, but yes, that's exactly what i said too:

the word "official" is there to point out that most military think-tanks believe that china massively under-reports its defence budget, so its not a little bit under or over the UK and france, it is probably about 30% higher, if not even higher.

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

That wierd, still puts Britain in 4th not 2nd.

that is because you still haven't figured out that comparing national figures of what they consider to be their defence spending is not relevant, but i did try:

Defence spending is a very complex thing Tribesman, and very hard to compare.
Does set of figures X include:
> operational expenses
> attrition replacement
> equipment procurement
> R&D projects
> Intelligence apparatus
Then you must ask yourself if figures for nation Y include the same, and they mostly do not.
For example while the Gendarmerie are under the control of the Interior Ministry I believe they are funded from the Defence budget.
So official figures published from their respective nations have little merit for comparative purposes, which is why i went to the trouble of getting the figures pulished by the IISS in the 2008 publication of The Military Balance.

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

but to return to the core question; what is the point of your pointless (and incorrect) nit-picking, are you leading somewhere with this?

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

truly awesome display there Tribesman.

you are either trolling for fun, or thoroughly deficient of understanding, either way I am happy for you to continue as long as you don't derail the thread, i am having quite enough fun as it is.

[Tribesman]

truly awesome display there Tribesman.

Yeah it displays that you were talking bollox.

But hey you are still at it
Looky.....

because germany = cuba, right?

....more bollox.
Given what people have said about your warped views and how you form them it does appear that my comment the mods deleted was indeed spot on.

[Furunculus]

Yeah it displays that you were talking bollox.
But hey you are still at it

Given what people have said about your warped views and how you form them it does appear that my comment the mods deleted was indeed spot on.

whatever.

go pm it to me, i'm curious.

[LittleGrizzly]

you do realise that flies in the face of common sense as dictated by the whole of recorded history?

Wouldn't most new ideas do that, like free trade (back in the day) but thats not a bad one...

Unless were talking about Napoleon and Hitler, but i don't think i need to point out how they were slightly different.. or do i ?

Edit: I seem to remember some mildly successful union... Scotland and England might have been... did that go badly ?

America doesn't control Britain.

Its not quite outright control... more of a loyal dog, occasionally does its own thing. Whereas in Europe we could be part of the foriegn polcy setting, rather than just going along with one dictated in America...

A United Europe would control europe in the same way a United Britian would control Britian

Making us all the same isn't a con? You're in favour of world government as well, I take it?

When people all live under one goverment they are the same ?!

[Furunculus]

you do realise that flies in the face of common sense as dictated by the whole of recorded history?
Wouldn't most new ideas do that, like free trade (back in the day) but thats not a bad one...
Edit: I seem to remember some mildly successful union... Scotland and England might have been... did that go badly ?

America doesn't control Britain.
Its not quite outright control... more of a loyal dog, occasionally does its own thing. Whereas in Europe we could be part of the foriegn polcy setting, rather than just going along with one dictated in America...

but WHY do it? why take this grand experiment with the welfare of the future world when there is zero need. i just cannot shake the impression that transnational progressivism is the very foolish.
free-trade does not equal political union, to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.
the two nations of england and scotland do not compare to the 27 nations of the EU.

Have you considered that i do not want to tell european nations what to do? equally i do not want them telling us what to do. i simply do not desire that control, and certainly not at the expense of watering down britains ability to choose her own course.

[LittleGrizzly]

but WHY do it? why take this grand experiment with the welfare of the future world when there is zero need.

I wouldn't really say there is zero need. You could have said before the English Scottish union that its a grand experiment, it was. It worked wonderfully.

free-trade does not equal political union, to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

I didn't suggest it was, I merely said at one time that was also a new idea, one that perhaps in some people's view flew in the face of recorded history. Democracy was another example of this... my point being an idea being new and not tried before doesn't make it nessecarily bad...

the two nations of england and scotland do not compare to the 27 nations of the EU.

I would say there are more similarities between mainland britian and western Europe than there where between Soctland and England...


Have you considered that i do not want to tell european nations what to do? equally i do not want them telling us what to do. i simply do not desire that control, and certainly not at the expense of watering down britains ability to choose her own course.

Have you considered that i would rather have some sort of control over a meaningful foriegn policy rather than simply having the choice to follow one of the larger powers foriegn policys. In the same way other people in Britian tell you what to do and you tell other people in Britian what to do just with Europe instead of just Britian..

If your problem is telling others what to do that is understandable but we would have far more control of foriegn policy as part of a meaningful foriegn power so in my opinion the being told what to do part is a moot point, we are already told what to do...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I mean, we didn't jump in bed with America in two wars, fully support anything America says, even if it is just us and America. (See Lebanon war)

There isn't Trident with America having the codes for our own nuclear missiles which we paid for.

There isn't the countless references such as "Special Relationship" other musings.

Britain is a sovereign nation and made those choices of her own free will. It is as if you're comparing rape and consensual sex.

Now we just need the big lottery hand to come down from the sky and point going "or it could be you!"

The common person has a say in the European Union! How's that for a laugh...

What on earth are you on about? It is fact, now get over yourself.

American imperialism is only "fact" to a small segment of the population.

Then again, what do you even know about Britain

Evidently nothing, but seeing as I have another Brit agreeing with me who, according to polling, represents the majority of Britons, I fail to see your point.

and then again, being in Germany, aren't you even riddled with American bases all over your country?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ons_in_Germany

and yet you pretend that it means nothing?

I mean, having a foreign nations armed forces crawling all over your country has absolutely no influence at all, does it?

Of course it has meaning, but is the meaning that America is colonizing us or controls us in any way, shape, or form? Of course not. Have you ever, maybe, considered that American bases are in many of those countries at the invitation of the government of that country or not asked to leave because of benefits they bring? Do you think that America having a base somewhere results in control of that state? Really?

Furunculus' post is also excellent reading material...

Its not quite outright control... more of a loyal dog, occasionally does its own thing. Whereas in Europe we could be part of the foriegn polcy setting, rather than just going along with one dictated in America...

Britain has a choice now. Under a united Europe, it won't. Simple.

When people all live under one goverment they are the same ?!

Oh, so people aren't, in fact, the same? Thank you.

[Beskar]

Britain is a sovereign nation and made those choices of her own free will. It is as if you're comparing rape and consensual sex.

More like "I will lock you in my cellar if you don't have sex with me". Either play ball or your screwed in the really bad way.

The common person has a say in the European Union! How's that for a laugh...

Hahaha, they are fools aren't there? I mean, having a democracy in Europe, what idiots. Let's go to bed with America, we don't get a vote, but hey, who cares? Democracy is for whimps!

American imperialism is only "fact" to a small segment of the population.

Who is your local representative? Majority of people don't even know who their MP or even who their Mayor is. Just because some one doesn't know who their Mayor is, doesn't make the Mayor non-existent and not a fact.

Evidently nothing, but seeing as I have another Brit agreeing with me who, according to polling, represents the majority of Britons, I fail to see your point.

And a vast majority saying otherwise, but they just get ignored by you.

Of course it has meaning, but is the meaning that America is colonizing us or controls us in any way, shape, or form? Of course not.

LOL

Do you think that America having a base somewhere results in control of that state? Really?

We are in your country, patrolling with our army and set-up bases. No influence at all!

Furunculus' post is also excellent reading material...

A shame for you, all the points were actually proving my point...

Britain has a choice now. Under a united Europe, it won't. Simple.

That is a stupid comment. You imply we got a choice now when we don't, while under a federation where we actualyl have a say, we don't?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Britian will not have a single part of the decision makiong process ?

That doesn't seem right... unless your trying to be technical in which case Britian = British people (or people living in Britian)

Of course Britain will have a part, but now Britain controls all of its foreign policy. Under Europe it will control less than a twentieth.

Because i think we would have a share of that decision, a much bigger share than we do in the Americans decisions.

You realize that a unified Europe still won't have a say in America's decisions, right?

And yet individual european goverments struggle on regardless, hell China has far far more people to look after, India too. They not even at most of euorpes level of development so it should be a cakewalk..

Not the point.

More like "I will lock you in my cellar if you don't have sex with me". Either play ball or your screwed in the really bad way.

Right, because when Canada refused to go into Iraq America did...

...next to nothing aside from expressing some disappointment, actually. So no, you're wrong.

Hahaha, they are fools aren't there? I mean, having a democracy in Europe, what idiots. Let's go to bed with America, we don't get a vote, but hey, who cares? Democracy is for whimps!

Have you read my previous two-ish posts?

Who is your local representative? Majority of people don't even know who their MP or even who their Mayor is. Just because some one doesn't know who their Mayor is, doesn't make the Mayor non-existent and not a fact.

Sorry, I should've said that American "imperialism" is only a "fact" to the usual anti-American leftist crowd which can't be bothered to look up actual facts.

And a vast majority saying otherwise, but they just get ignored by you.

You would say that most Britons are pro-EU?

LOL

Sorry, America has no control over Germany.

We are in your country, patrolling with our army and set-up bases. No influence at all!

Hate to break it to you, but America does not run Germany. As Furunculus said...

yes it means nothing, germany could ask america to remove those bases tomorrow, and at such point as leases expired those forces would be gone. and if those leases were set to last one hundred years then germany could just legislate the lease away, that's what being a sovereign nation state means.

A shame for you, all the points were actually proving my point...

Mine wasn't the only post not comprehended then...

That is a stupid comment. You imply we got a choice now when we don't, while under a federation where we actualyl have a say, we don't?

I'm not implying, I'm saying you get a choice now. You have a choice. Britain is not a satellite of America, it does not need to follow America, and it doesn't always follow America. Britain follows America in some areas through Britain's own choices. It has an option - it can say yes or no.

By your definition any ally of a more powerful nation is automatically a satellite of that nation or something.

[Beskar]

By your definition any ally of a more powerful nation is automatically a satellite of that nation or something.

How many foreign owned bases are there in America?
How many checks are in place to prevent American Military from taking action?

Answer: Zero


Except, the UK has both by America... I definitely see an Alliance of equals here...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

How many foreign owned bases are there in America?

Actually, there are foreign units stationed in America. But that is irrelevant, because when most of these bases were established, who was going to defend who?

How many checks are in place to prevent American Military from taking action?

NATO comes immediately to mind.

Except, the UK has both by America... I definitely see an Alliance of equals here...

Ask America to leave her bases if you want. You're aware, also, that America would come to the aid of Britain as Britain has come to the aid of America, right?

It is an alliance. America is more powerful than Britain, but Britain is no puppet of America.