WASHINGTON (AP) -- Prime Minister Gordon Brown traveled to the United States on Sunday, saying he planned to use the official visit to strengthen what Britain already considers its "most important bilateral relationship.""It is a relationship that is founded on our common values of liberty, opportunity and the dignity of the individual," Brown said in a statement. "And because of the values we share, the relationship with the United States is not only strong, but can become stronger in the years ahead."Brown, making his first visit to the U.S. as Britain's new leader, also denied speculation that the bilateral relationship was cooling.His predecessor, Tony Blair, was often accused at home of being too compliant with the policies of President Bush, especially regarding the Iraq war. Some analysts have urged Brown to be more like Prime Ministers Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill, who had close ties with the U.S. but remained frank about their own goals and policiesBrown makes his first major overseas trip buoyed by a surprising degree of public support after a first month in office in which he impressed with his sober handling of the terror plots in London and Glasgow. Brown, who arrived at Andrews Air Force Base east of Washington just before 5 p.m. EDT, was traveling with British foreign secretary David Miliband.Many observers expected Brown to flop because of a personality often derided as dour and brooding -- yet these very traits have helped him appear serious and statesmanlike.Britons actually seem pleased with the contrast to the kinetic Blair. But questions abound over whether the intellectual Brown will kindle Blair's chemistry with Bush.Brown arrives with some thorny issues to manage, not least the fate of Britain's remaining soldiers in Iraq.In Washington, officials expressed optimism about warm ties between Bush and Brown, but there have already been frictions.Junior foreign affairs minister Mark Malloch-Brown raised eyebrows in Washington recently when he said Bush and Brown would not be "joined at the hip" -- a jab at Blair's close relationship with the U.S. president.In London, The Sunday Times reported that Simon McDonald, Brown's chief foreign policy adviser, recently traveled to Washington to meet with U.S. officials ahead of the prime minister's visit and discussed the possibility of an early British military withdrawal from Iraq.Brown's spokesman Michael Ellam told reporters on Sunday that McDonald had made it "very clear" to U.S. officials there had been no change to British government policy over Iraq.Military chiefs in London have said Britain is likely to hand over control of the southern Iraqi city of Basra to local forces by the end of the year.Around 500 of Britain's 5,500 troops in Iraq are due to hand over the Basra Palace city center base within weeks, defense officials have said. Brown has not outlined plans for the remaining 5,000 personnel, stationed at an airport on the fringes of the city.Ellam said there was no plan to withdraw British troops before the Iraqi army is deemed capable of maintaining security.Asked whether Brown intended to discuss with Bush plans for British troops once they withdraw to the fringes of the city, Ellam said: "Clearly decisions have to be made on all of these matters."Other difficult issues include the American push to build a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, the Iran nuclear showdown, Darfur and the status of the breakaway Serbian province of Kosovo.Aides said the British leader aimed to secure Bush's help in restarting the stalled Doha rounds of World Trade Organization talks, which seek to help poorer countries develop their economies through new trade. He also wanted to discuss a stiffer international response to the violence in Sudan's Darfur region.
I agree that a few US soldiers have done some horrible things to Iraqis. This is in turn should naturally make some Iraqi fearful of US troops and that's perfectly fine.
...and when you're old enuff, we hope you enlist to go help your brothers-in-arm too grim!
Well, America has been in the business of installing governments that suit its interests for a long time.What's one more right?
Indeed...what better way to support Bush than to fight yourself. I trust you'll enlist as soon as possible
especially when those interests include the control of oi... *alllllllll*....*oyeeelllllllll* *cOIugh*...l
I will have to disagree with you on the part with installing government's that suit the interests of the US. The people will of course, fairly select their new government with elections regardless of American interests.
Why yes of course, I wouldn't dream of not serving my country. I have my share of family military history and I will serve my great nation at one point or the other. Glory to the US, the world's one true Hyperpower!I will have to disagree with you on the part with installing government's that suit the interests of the US. The people will of course, fairly select their new government with elections regardless of American interests.
Oh, you say you are willing to give up all...but come today or tomorrow are YOU willing to go and fight...leave yor cushy life and go out to dodge landmines and roadside bombs? No? I didnt think so. I dont call that giving my all.
As with most conspiracies, the conspirators are pretty good at erasing all traces of the conspiracy that leads back to them...after all...Bush and them aren't TOTAL idiots...(although some might disagree and say they are)...So the wind is blowing, but everything is secured tightly...just because nothing's moving youre gonna tell me that wind doesnt exist? COme better than that nah mannnnn
My friend, If you believe that, you are sadly mistaken. America has, over the years, directly and indirectly interfered in the internal politics ofmany nations of the world. Latin America in particular. You are certainly too young to remember the Sandinista rebels of Nicaragua in the 1980s.They took power from the Somoza regime in 1979, but because of their ties to the Soviet Union, America deemed this new regime 'a threat to stability in the region'. A particularly favourite phrase that the US State department likes to use. It is a known fact that the US supported the Contrarebels in their war against the Sandinistas, who were eventually removed by proper elections.
Here we have the US actively funding a rebel organisiation against a sovereign government, and why, because that government was a supporter of the Soviet Union. When Congress found out that Oliver North helped SELL WEAPONS SECRETLY TO IRAN (the SAME Iran that is now part of America's 'Axis Of Evil')to fund the Contras, he was raked over the coals on international TV. I remember watching this as a child. Didn't understand it then, but that changed once I began to read and free my mind from the 'matrix' created by the US propaganda machine.Say what you will about the Sandinista regime, but this is only one example of US interference. There are many more.So to say that 'The people will of course, fairly select their new government with elections regardless of American interests'is being less than honest.
Now I have read quite a bit of what you have been writing, but this post has prompted me to ask this:If you were not from the United States, and have seen what they are and have been doing for so many years, will you really be saying "Glory to the US"? Put yourselves in the place of some of the people from these other countries, where they view the American influence as being self-serving, where they aid forces that oppose themselves, your view would be nowhere as supportive. You will be saying "Death to America" just as loudly as many of these other 'terrorists'.
The phrase "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" comes to mind. Which one it is depends on whose outlook you choose to support. Osama Bin-Laden was once considered a "freedom fighter" when it served the needs of the US, but once he turned his back to the US, he was promptly branded a "terrorist".
Also, the fact that there should even be a "hyperpower" is disturbing to say the least. No one country should be able to forcibly seize control over a country and dictate for a period of time, without a general majority. The US has shown time and time again, that they will do whatever means to achieve such control, even down to lying over Iraq, with regards to their supposed WMDs.
As for freely selecting a government...Have you ever looked up on the Platt Amendment with regards to Cuba, as part of the resolution of the withdrawl of direct US control of Cuba after the Spanish-American War? That allowed them to effectively place who they want into power, and brought about one of the most brutal regimes of that era (Batista), that was allowed to freely do as he wished, simply because he gave the US what they wanted, and the US simply turned a blind eye.
"If man does not learn from history, he is doomed to repeat it". The US is an eerie embodiment of this statement, for what happened almost a century ago, is being repeated once more in Iraq.
can someone please tell me why the hell we arguing about the US, last I checked we should be arguing about Manning and Panday....
So you can admit that the US interferes where it shouldn't, but its OK because its for the 'safety of the US'. So what if that'interference' is not safe for the citizens of the country involved.Why is it right when the US does it, but not when another country does it. America and the USSR almost came to blowsover the Cuban Missile Crisis, and why? Simply because America did not want them 'evil commie bastards' (their words)having offensive nuclear weapons in Cuba, yet there were American missile bases in several eastern european countriesat the time.I ask again, why is it right for America to interfere when it feels like, and other countries cannot, to 'protect their interests'.
Debating a budding US fundamentalist is fun.
