Gordon Brown to tell the USA to re-engage in the World

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Mar 26, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Absolutely

  2. Mostly

  3. Rather agree

    0 vote(s)
  4. I doubt

    0 vote(s)
  5. Wrong idea

  6. Stupidity

  7. Machiavellian proposition

  1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/26/nspeech126.xml

    The proposition to the USA to re-engage with the World (while our American friends are in fact 'over-engahed') looks senseless only from the first glance.

    Rarely politicians tell what exactly they think (especially such an experienced politician as mr.Brown).

    From my point of view mr.Brown is preparing to the next elections (that could be held this year) and positions himself as pro-American as possible.

    Young (and slightly naive) David Cameron has either to support mr.Brown (that would expose him as a politician without own ideas) or to contest the proposition. In the last case expectable support from Washington would be decisive and the Labour would win the next elections.

    Anyway, should the USA re-engage with the World? In other words, do you agree with mr.Brown?
  2. I think the problem in the first place was the americans 'engaging' with the world.Futher to this exactly who does cyclops think he is?Its all very well gobbing off about american "values and leadership" but where have these qualities in the British political leadership been for the last decade?I think he is going to find that at the next general election the electorate is not going to be as concerned with glamerous photo op's spin ect with the spam's political class.They are more likely going to be be concerned with the fact that Nu liarbore have been fecking the silent majority over for the last decade.
  3. American support could be not only 'glamourous photos' but indirect funding as well. It looks like the Labour bitterly need money. So some British businessmen who seek opportunities in the USA, lucrative contracts in Iraq could be hinted to make donations.
  4. Am I being naive as that seems a little far-fetched, KGB.
  5. So essentially he's become a butt-plug. :roll: Is it possible for him to crawl further up the collective colon of the US administration?! :x
  6. Amazing__lobster, if you mean the proposition made by Rt.Hon.mr.Brown then (from my point of view) indeed it looks far-fetched.
  7. This is Code. Spoken through the current administration to the next.

    It translates as:

    Greetings STOP
    World War IV, on or off? STOP
  8. Why are these speeches always Landmark or Keynote and what makes anyone think that the British Electorate take the slightest notice of speeches our politicians make overseas. At long last I think the electorate are waking up to thye atrocious situiation the Labour party have brought the country into and will punish them accordingly.KGB Resident reads too much into what the cackling political classes and media say and doesn't hear the voice of the common people as heard in the street and thye pub.
  9. Oh and KGB i really dont think that so many options are needed in this poll.I shall simplify it for you:

    Is Gordon Brown:-

    A: A gopping stalinist control freak with no more right or ability to run the UK than A three day old cat turd.


    B: A gopping stalinist control freak with no more right or ability to run the UK than A three day old cat turd.(who also pushes poo).

    Oh and what cnut voted for him?(by the way congrats...first legit vote cyclops has gotten so far).
  10. Hmmm... The Labour likely will win again, at the next ellections. The Tories made the biggest mistake they could ever make, sticking with mr.Cameron. The snob son who can't do anything but, because he went to the right school, and because he played polo with the right people, he gets the top job. Mr.Cameron is the wrong man, he looks as a student compared to a professor (I mean mr.Brown).

    Mr.Browns skillfully fortifies points of possible attacks. Meanwhile, mr.Cameron simply is voided of new ideas.

    Btw, mr.Howard was also the wrong man.
  11. Which polls have you been looking at, Sergey?! 8O

    PS Please, please, please, please, PLEASE will you start writing "Mr." with a capital letter?! It's driving me bonkers! :D
  12. The Russians are eyes the poles again? Oh sh**.
  13. by the looks of things, the only way Cameron could win is by default; unfortunately this looks increasingly likely
  14. Perhaps by 're-engaging' the world Mr Brown means; 'Look up the word diplomacy and FFS consult your allies instead of making unilateral decisions that get you into fixes and tarnish your image around the world.'
  15. Polls? Their numbers are fast changing as weather in March. I guess that mr.Brown is much more experienced (than mr.Cameron) and it is my main argument.

    Singnificant lead in polls provoked the Conservatives to make a big mistake. They declared that there will not be tax cuts if they win. It would be hard for the Tories to revoke this promise. But the Labour could propose tax cuts during electoral campaign freely.

    Also, mr.Brown is a big friend of Israel - small but influental state, whose support would be very important. And young, naive mr.Cameron made unforgivable mistake to call 'a gimmick' Holocaust educational trips of British pupils.

    And don't be idealists. Money (especially big money) vote in any elections along with voters.

    Btw, I sincerely believe that mr.Cameron is much preferable as a British PM for Russia. With newly elected Russia's president mr.Medvedev they would form a pair of young modern leaders. Maybe even they both like 'Deep Purple'?