Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html en-gb 30 Tue 16 Sep 2014 16:42:18 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=98#comment73 67. At 00:04am on 04 Apr 2009, cadrolls1 wrote: #63, Simone21:You wrote: "Your problem is that the US presidnet FDR said the USSR was an ally and gave it weapons as an ally."I wish you would give me a source on that. I could find none. I am very familiar with what weaponry the USSR had and their ability to produce it. I am not aware of any of their weapons coming from the USA though. "Well you can't be too familiar. And you need a reference regarding the USSr and US as allies?Are you serious?What do you think was happening at Yalta for example? Tehran? A gunfight? Sat 04 Apr 2009 13:55:37 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=97#comment72 67. At 00:04am on 04 Apr 2009, cadrolls1 wrote: #63, Simone21:You wrote: "Your problem is that the US presidnet FDR said the USSR was an ally and gave it weapons as an ally."I wish you would give me a source on that. I could find none. I am very familiar with what weaponry the USSR had and their ability to produce it. I am not aware of any of their weapons coming from the USA though. Can you give the link?Read Anthony Beevor's books on Barbarossa, anything about the Archangel convoys, the battle of the Barents sea.Bullets, guns, vehicles etc. The supply has been exagerated by some who claim the USSR could not have won without it, not true. Sat 04 Apr 2009 13:51:57 GMT+1 RomeStu http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=95#comment71 60 cadrolls"Because our Government was secretly fightly two wars. One to free Great Britain but another against the USSR."So the USA entered the war to "free Great Britain" ????If the USA was so engaged against the USSR, why did Eisenhower overrule the British generals who could have reached Berlin first, and thus stop the Soviets getting there? Incompetence ???"Why do you think that there was a cold war? Because the USSR found out our true intentions. Of course, don't look for that in your history books but, you can find it on the internet, and the facts to back it up."Please provide some links to these facts on the internet. Sat 04 Apr 2009 06:37:18 GMT+1 Worldcitizen1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=94#comment70 #70. Bere54: "I have a feeling you're going to be disappointed with Holland.:Well, I just won't speak to people who believe it is okay to murder their own flesh and blood (abortionists) then. Otherwise, I will have a wonderful time. Sat 04 Apr 2009 00:53:00 GMT+1 bere54 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=93#comment69 69 -I have a feeling you're going to be disappointed with Holland. Fri 03 Apr 2009 23:57:24 GMT+1 Worldcitizen1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=91#comment68 By the way, I am not anti-semitic, so don't go there. Also, the very word "semitic", as defined by dictionaries everywhere, means ANYONE who speaks a semitic language. That includes the Arabs too. I am against any form of concentration camps, regardless if the inhabitants are/were Jewish, Gypsy, homosexual, Protestant, Catholic, and I was against the concentration camps that were set up in California for the Japanese citizens of our country during W.W.II. Thousands died there.You'd have to come up with something better to make me look bad.In any case, I won't be responding any further. Take care. I'm just looking toward to the day when I move to Holland. It took twenty years to decide on it. How they got so perfect in this un-perfect world is beyond me. I am just glad that they did. A country that actually practices what they preach: REAL freedom. Fri 03 Apr 2009 23:34:07 GMT+1 Worldcitizen1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=90#comment67 Well, I am not going to engage in this topic after this post. Why?Because we could go around and around and around on this issue and still be where we are now. You already have your mind(s) made up. If Roosevelt himself came back from the grave and confirmed that all I wrote was the truth, you would call him a liar too. Then, there are those history teachers all across the USA who have repeatedly told their students to believe in less than 50% of what your history book reads as you have to remember that they are written by the victors who can write what they want.I know, they must be lying too. Yet, when asking people like you if you can name just ONE (JUST ONE) politician who is honest, they cannot come up with a name. Just one. That's all I ask. Where's the logic then in continuing?That is why I'm am witholding further comment on this. I did my homework non-biasedly. That is all that matters to me. Fri 03 Apr 2009 23:19:06 GMT+1 Worldcitizen1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=89#comment66 #63, Simone21: You wrote: "Your problem is that the US presidnet FDR said the USSR was an ally and gave it weapons as an ally."I wish you would give me a source on that. I could find none. I am very familiar with what weaponry the USSR had and their ability to produce it. I am not aware of any of their weapons coming from the USA though. Can you give the link? Fri 03 Apr 2009 23:04:28 GMT+1 Worldcitizen1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=87#comment65 #62, Bere54: Actually, I gave the internet as one source. There are many books that have been written that gave that information too. These books were written by respected members of the society. They had no other agenda but to let the truth be known. Fri 03 Apr 2009 22:49:46 GMT+1 Worldcitizen1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=86#comment64 #63, Simon: For your infomation, the idea of having a "Jewish" state was well underway, and had been, since atleast 1918. Don't confuse the issues. Fri 03 Apr 2009 22:45:13 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=85#comment63 61. At 10:42pm on 03 Apr 2009, cadrolls1 wrote: #59, Bere54:Oh, and by the way, the USSR murdered over 30,000,000 (Thirty million) Christians between 1917 and 1948."!This is fantastic news. You know this for a fact? Here was the rest of the world not knowing the religious faith of all Stalin's victims, but you have some secret knowledge!I take it this strange figure doe s not include Bukharin, Rykov, Trotsky the Petrograd Soviet etc all of who were communists.Then there were the jews, the moslems etcBut according to you these were all christians.Astounding."I would find it a severe stretch to ever call them an "ally"."What would you call them then - the enemy? And if they were what does that make Germany - an ally?"It doesn't matter that their Government was 85% Jewish either. Why do you think the Rosenbergs (Jewish) gave them our nuclear secrets? "They didn't next question."Charity? It just matters that thirty million Christians were exterminated, and I am not even a Christian, but it bothers me. It also bothers me that there is no memorial for those who were murdered either."Wouldn't have anything todo with the fact that the figure is fanciful and any monument would be deeply offensive to the families of victims who were not christians, whatver christian means in this peculiar context. Fri 03 Apr 2009 22:38:03 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=83#comment62 60. At 10:34pm on 03 Apr 2009, cadrolls1 wrote: #59, Bere54:Russia was NEVER an ally of the United States. Even during W.W.II, they had their own agenda."Excellent. And to you allies cannot have their own agenda?Your problem is that the US presidnet FDR said the USSR was an ally and gave it weapons as an ally." They were fighting aginst Hitler as were we."Er yes that's why they were alliesIf they had been fighting for Hitler they would have been enemies.It is a simple distinction."After the war ended, so was any common ground."Well not exactly they agreed to set up Israel and to set up Berlin. Fri 03 Apr 2009 22:31:51 GMT+1 bere54 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=82#comment61 60 -Oh, you get all your information from the internet. That explains a lot. Fri 03 Apr 2009 22:13:41 GMT+1 Worldcitizen1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=81#comment60 #59, Bere54: Oh, and by the way, the USSR murdered over 30,000,000 (Thirty million) Christians between 1917 and 1948. I would find it a severe stretch to ever call them an "ally". It doesn't matter that their Government was 85% Jewish either. Why do you think the Rosenbergs (Jewish) gave them our nuclear secrets? Charity? It just matters that thirty million Christians were exterminated, and I am not even a Christian, but it bothers me. It also bothers me that there is no memorial for those who were murdered either.ALLYS???I think not. Fri 03 Apr 2009 21:42:39 GMT+1 Worldcitizen1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=79#comment59 #59, Bere54: Russia was NEVER an ally of the United States. Even during W.W.II, they had their own agenda. They were fighting aginst Hitler as were we. After the war ended, so was any common ground. Why do you think the our Government sold all the oil that Hitler needed and why do you think that the C.I.A. hired scores of former Nazi officers? Why do you think that G.M. and Ford allowed to have their factories turned into munitions factories for the Nazis? Because our Government was secretly fightly two wars. One to free Great Britain but another against the USSR. Why do you think that there was a cold war? Because the USSR found out our true intentions. Of course, don't look for that in your history books but, you can find it on the internet, and the facts to back it up. Fri 03 Apr 2009 21:34:46 GMT+1 bere54 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=78#comment58 Wow. Someone thinks we should have dropped an atomic bomb on an ally who had just helped us win a world war. That's some gratitude. Hope this person never enters politics. Fri 03 Apr 2009 17:15:52 GMT+1 happylaze http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=77#comment57 57 communism wasn't the problem. it was the leaders. it always is. Fri 03 Apr 2009 17:03:02 GMT+1 Worldcitizen1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=75#comment56 #56, Simone21: That's why I wrote that we should have used the atomic bomb on them instead of wasting it on a country (Japan) who had surrendered 8 days before. Fri 03 Apr 2009 15:51:44 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=74#comment55 55. At 05:58am on 03 Apr 2009, cadrolls1 wrote: 50, Simon21 wrote: You wrote: "Simple. Because the USSR would have defeated you."What makes you so certain of that?Because teh USSR had the biggest, most experienced, army which had fought its way into the heart of Germany.None of the allies had anything to match it. By the time the US would have got its forces to anything like a similar size it would have been thoroughly driven out Fri 03 Apr 2009 09:54:56 GMT+1 Worldcitizen1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=72#comment54 50, Simon21 wrote: You wrote: "Simple. Because the USSR would have defeated you."What makes you so certain of that? Fri 03 Apr 2009 04:58:24 GMT+1 Worldcitizen1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=71#comment53 #53, Gary_A_Hill: No relationship that I am aware of. Fri 03 Apr 2009 03:20:36 GMT+1 Gary_A_Hill http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=70#comment52 cadrolls1 (#49), so it comes down to a question of morality, then. Are you by any chance related to General Curtis LeMay? Fri 03 Apr 2009 01:48:49 GMT+1 Worldcitizen1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=68#comment51 #14, David Cunard: You wrote: "The Queen of England (and all the United Kingdom) is also Head of State of fifteen other countries. Rather more than simply "a rich old lady with a fancy title." I have no doubt that President and Mrs Obama will show the respect that is her due - and vice versa."Well said.#10, Risforme: You wrote: "To an American the Queen is just a rich old lady with a fancy title." Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense !! Fri 03 Apr 2009 01:31:25 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=67#comment50 45. At 6:38pm on 01 Apr 2009, SONICBOOMER wrote: I agree that it would not be appropriate or sensible to include former USSR Republics in NATO - such as Georgia as the previous US administration wanted.But former East European states like Poland, yes, as I said, an element of a debt of honour there."Yes there is a debt of honour, albeit more honoured in the breach than the observance, but unfortunately there issimple practicality.Is any US president any UK prime minister prepared to face possible nuclear war over Poland?Going on past experience this seems unlikely.NATO membership may therefore, be meaningless. As it would be with Georgia.NATO was set up to protect Western Europe and was supposedto invvole some idea of balance betweent he different members. It was not supposed to act as an umbrella and protect the known world. Thu 02 Apr 2009 23:37:25 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=66#comment49 47. At 08:19am on 02 Apr 2009, cadrolls1 wrote: #45, Sonicboomer:You wrote: "I'm sorry but take the likes of Buchanan seriously? He who would have preffered to let Hitler run rampant?"I agree with you there. I just wanted to add that I don't know why we didn't go into the U.S.S.R. after neutralizing Germany and free them from Communism. "Simple. Because the USSR would have defeated you. Thu 02 Apr 2009 23:32:18 GMT+1 Worldcitizen1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=64#comment48 #48, Gary_A_Hill: I think we were in a better position to have succeeded. Although Great Britain was pretty battered toward the end of W.W.II, we were still able to manufacture weapons, along with France, and Germany itself (provided their munition's factories could be rebuilt fast enough). We also lost the chance when we had nuclear arms at a time when the Soviet Union didn't. It's a shame we wasted their use on Japan, a country that had surrendered 8 days before they were nuked. Thu 02 Apr 2009 23:05:33 GMT+1 Gary_A_Hill http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=63#comment47 cadrolls1 (#47) "I just wanted to add that I don't know why we didn't go into the U.S.S.R. after neutralizing Germany and free them from Communism."Are you kidding? Ask Charles XII, Napoleon, and Hitler. Thu 02 Apr 2009 14:51:32 GMT+1 Worldcitizen1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=62#comment46 #45, Sonicboomer: You wrote: "I'm sorry but take the likes of Buchanan seriously? He who would have preffered to let Hitler run rampant?" I agree with you there. I just wanted to add that I don't know why we didn't go into the U.S.S.R. after neutralizing Germany and free them from Communism. So many things in this world would be different now. Talk about wasted chances. Thu 02 Apr 2009 07:19:33 GMT+1 Worldcitizen1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=60#comment45 Justin: Michelle Obama has stated before that her clothing comes from modestly priced stores and are not specially tailored. In other words, "off the rack". She always looks nice though and that is what counts. #23, Risforme; and #36, Cunard: I believe that the Royal protocol of bowing does not apply to non-subjects. As a courtesy to Her Majesty though, I believe those who visit her will do so. When I was brought up, we were taught that at formal affairs, one should ALWAYS bow, if one were a boy, and curtsey if one were a girl, when being introduced to the host or hostess of the event or someone who is a respected leader within the community. It is still considered appropriate to give a slight bow or curtsey to Governors, Mayors, Judges, and people of respect. Although, there are not many in those positions who are deemed worthy anymore. Most of them are just as corrupt as the people they oversee. It's sad. Thu 02 Apr 2009 07:09:28 GMT+1 SONICBOOMER http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=59#comment44 I agree that it would not be appropriate or sensible to include former USSR Republics in NATO - such as Georgia as the previous US administration wanted.But former East European states like Poland, yes, as I said, an element of a debt of honour there.The New Zealand example I don't find valid, also, the Thatcher government behaved badly here, in joining the US, by blocking action in the UN, action wanted by New Zealand against France, after they did a farcical attack on a Greenpeace boat in New Zealand, by a bomb that killed one person.However, New Zealand is not a vital staging post for the US.If the US basically ditched it's long standing agreements through NATO, be sure that they would lose all military links, access to facilities.After all, if they wanted to break all these agreements, why should other NATO nations still play ball?Two can play at that game.Remember, even with it's opposition to the Iraq war, Germany still allowed full US access to it's facilities on their soil.Compare to the US being kicked out of that base in central Asia, after Russia put the pressure on and offered a wad of cash.No long standing agreements or co-operation there.NATO has flaws because it is made up of democratic states, but this is better than alternatives, remember how the US was so keen on the Shah of Iran?Once he went-so did the US influence. Some in the US might not like NATO (like the UN), maybe because they don't click their collective heels to the US, well that's how not how things work in real lifeUnder Bush, in the first term in particular, the US edged towards a more unilateral stance, look where it got them.After the attacks of Sept 11th, NATO activated it's Article 5, any help the US wanted, it could have.With Afghanistan in 2001/2, they chose to mostly not bother, preferring the unreliable anti Taliban warlords, who frequently change sides, who are very open to being bribed.And Bin Laden and much of Al Queda's high command got away - reckon they paid the Northern Alliance troops 'surrounding' them to look the other way?The US did however ask and get, NATO operated AWACS aircraft to help police US airspace, since many of the USAF AWACS aircraft were being deployed abroad.Had they wanted to use them, a whole 800 man Royal Marine Commando was ready, exercising in Oman, acclimatised and ready to go.They'd have not looked the other way around Tora Bora.Nor would the 4000 German Mountain troops offered and also rejected.Still, Rumsfeld and others knew best didn't they, Afghanistan is going great due to their wisdom.I'm sorry but take the likes of Buchanan seriously?He who would have preffered to let Hitler run rampant?With the odd idea that the US would have been unaffected by this?Von Braun might have become known of in the US for different, darker, reasons than what did happen. Wed 01 Apr 2009 17:38:33 GMT+1 Gary_A_Hill http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=58#comment43 OrvilleThird (#43) "... the US abrogated its military obligations to New Zealand after NZ declared itself a nuclear free zone."Which obligation? New Zealand is not a member of NATO. Wed 01 Apr 2009 15:45:53 GMT+1 Orville Eastland http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=56#comment42 A few comments: I am a republican/democrat. I'm not much of a fan of monarchy (or a unitary executive). However, her Majesty is one of the best figureheads ever- and I mean that as a compliment. She is aware of political issues has been mostly free of scandal herself. (Alas, not all her family is as well-behaved as her.) She has changed in some cases with the times for the better. However, her moral compass has not changed. If I met her, I'd be willing to bow to her (or salute, if for some reason I'm in my CAP uniform...). As for NATO, I'm in agreement with Buchanan. To the earlier poster who points out the necessity of using European bases for intelligence, that's not correct. The US can maintain the bases without being in NATO. Further, the US abrogated its military obligations to New Zealand after NZ declared itself a nuclear free zone. However, the US and NZ still trade communications intelligence under the UKUSA agreement. (And, Justin? Much of "The Right" disagrees with Mr. Buchanan on geopolitics (Neoconservatives and militarists control much of the Right's foreign policy) and some economics (While Buchanan is a capitalist, most on the right favor free trade). Wed 01 Apr 2009 03:31:23 GMT+1 bere54 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=55#comment41 38, allmymarbles -That too. Tue 31 Mar 2009 20:16:04 GMT+1 publiusdetroit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=54#comment40 Ref 40 allmymarblesI thought about that after posting my comment. Wonder if Michelle O is thinking the same thing?:-DNow you have my imagination running awry. I see Her Majesty, the Prince, POTUS, and Michelle doing a line dance to "We Are Family" with a command performance guest appearance of Sister Sludge.Joe Six-pack Entertainment Agency Tue 31 Mar 2009 20:08:22 GMT+1 allmymarbles http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=52#comment39 32, publius."My greatest fear is that Michelle O will want to give the Queen a knuckle pop like she did when greeting the panel on "The View" during the campaign."Don't underestimate the queen, or Michelle Obama. Long ago when Louis Armstrong was giving a performance in London and King George was present, Armstrong said, "This one is for you, Rex." Everyone thought that was wonderful, including the king. Tue 31 Mar 2009 18:36:16 GMT+1 bere54 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=51#comment38 32, publius -Re the "knuckle pop" -- Don't you think the Queen might get a kick out of that though? I've always thought she was sort of a good sport. Not that I think Mrs. Obama would be knuckle-headed enough to do that. She seems like a pretty savvy lady in that respect. Tue 31 Mar 2009 18:31:05 GMT+1 allmymarbles http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=50#comment37 29, bere."I think this democracy stuff is way over-rated. I know it's heretical to say so, but there you have it. Too many really dumb people whose dumb congresspeople the rest of us get stuck with."For "dumb" substitute "crooked." Tue 31 Mar 2009 18:29:05 GMT+1 timewaitsfornoman http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=48#comment36 34 SONICBOOMERVery well said. I enjoy your posts, you should try to do so more often. Thank you for mentioning Canada, our troops, our commitment to NATO and our head of state, Elizabeth II officially titled Queen of Canada/Reine du Canada. Tue 31 Mar 2009 18:10:10 GMT+1 David Cunard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=47#comment35 #23. Risforme: "To an American, the Queen is just a rich old lady with a fancy title. That is all she is to me and I'd say most Americans who respect the idea of Republican Governance. She's no different than any other lady her age."To my knowledge there are no other female Heads of State of her age. Today's protocol does not require anyone to bow to The Queen, and in any case, one Head of State never bows to another. You really must check your facts before posting. Tue 31 Mar 2009 18:07:04 GMT+1 Gary_A_Hill http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=45#comment34 SONICBOOMER (#34), I'm with you on the importance of NATO, although I don't see why it should have been expanded to include, for example, the Baltic states. Certainly it wasn't done because they want the opportunity to come to the defense of the US and UK. They don't like the Russians, and they want NATO to protect them from a return to Russian dominance. Tue 31 Mar 2009 17:59:07 GMT+1 SONICBOOMER http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=44#comment33 Have those who advocate ending NATO actually thought it through?(Of course the likes of Buchanan only trade on nationalism).Yes the Cold War is over, but US forces still there are not (helping to) 'defend Europe'.They are supporting US forces worldwide. A large US military hospital in Germany, which last time I looked on a map, is a rather shorter journey from the Mid East than direct to America is.As well as access to numerous ports, airfields, logistics bases and other assets.(Note that the US is being kicked out of a base deemed important, from a non NATO ex Soviet central Asian state).Then there is intelligence gathering.No NATO would mean the expulsion of US bases across Europe, including a major one in the UK, which has very close links to the British counterpart to the NSA, GCHQ.Which also gives access to similar British bases in Cyprus and the Indian Ocean (rather well positioned for the Mid East), as well the Atlantic.This would leave a rather large hole in the US intelligence gathering network.Considering how poor the CIA has always been on 'human intelligence', such a gap in the electronic intelligence would badly affect the area where US intelligence gathering does score heavily.To illustrate the need for intel (human in this case), how did the French intelligence service find out that the hijacked Air France airliner in December 1994, was intended to be crashed on Paris?They had a source within the terrorist group concerned, once he made contact with his handlers, told of the real mission of the hijackers, French commandos stormed the aircraft and ended the hijack.Sadly, the bad guys learned from this, that is no fuel stops after hijacking, the US turning it's back on NATO would inevitably affect it's links with other NATO nations intel services, fancy risking that?The US also seems keen (or at least was by the previous Administration), or a basic missile defence system.I think it's dubious, however, it would be hugely affected by no US radar bases in England, the new Eastern European nations, Greenland, Canada, all NATO nations.Some may say that the US should not be concerned since they should in effect stop being a world power with all that brings in overseas commitments.But that is not going to happen any time soon. A slow decline, maybe, over decades.(We British should know, 'End Of Empire' was a fact post WW2, even so, one of the reasons why only 1968 has not seen UK forces engaged somewhere since WW2, was due the aftermath of Britain no longer being the globe spanning power it was).Also, though they are a shadow of what the USSR was, you cannot discount a more agressive, assertive Russia, consider their interests in the Arctic, where also the US (and NATO member Canada), also have interests.Even a moral case for the new NATO members like Poland, after all, it was the policy of the US in 1945-6 to effectively allow Stalin to take over nations like Poland, despite assurances to the contary.No wonder Poland is a keen new NATO member - which includes them fighting alongside the US in Afghanistan.Think they'd do that if they were not a NATO member?Same applies to Canada, who have proportionally lost more troops in Afghanistan than any other, (does not stop on FOX, so called comedians insulting Canada and her troops recently, one idiot admitting 'I didn't know they were even there').So on NATO, be careful what you wish for. It's not a one way street.As the the 'comments' on our head of state, I recall the lyrics of Bob Dylan, 'don't criticise what you can't understand'. Tue 31 Mar 2009 17:37:49 GMT+1 dceilar http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=43#comment32 Here's some alternative news from Brighton based SchNews re: the G20. I don't think this will be on Faux News ;-) Tue 31 Mar 2009 16:36:51 GMT+1 publiusdetroit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=41#comment31 My greatest fear is that Michelle O will want to give the Queen a knuckle pop like she did when greeting the panel on "The View" during the campaign.That would be a supreme diplomatic faux pas. Tue 31 Mar 2009 15:41:07 GMT+1 Risforme http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=40#comment30 I wasn't suggesting Obama should treat her bad. He should treat her with all the respect he treats Angela Merkel or any other leader of a Country. I object to him treating her as anything more than that. Specifically bowing, which is just silly in the first place. He's the elected Representative of a Republican Government and can't be expected to act as one of her subjects. Tue 31 Mar 2009 15:33:45 GMT+1 frayedcat http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=39#comment29 #25 Ooooops, tho on the other hand I hear "not my queen" from some English (who then go one about tax money), and wouldn't dare call her the Queen of Ireland or Scotland 'round here...I'm not sure whose queen she is really. Tue 31 Mar 2009 14:32:34 GMT+1 bere54 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=37#comment28 28, carolinalady-You possibly forget that Michelle Obama (she of the sleeve controversy) is Chicago born and bred, and does not seem to feel the cold. I imagine an early British spring might seem quite balmy to her. I agree about the raincoat, though. About the rest -- I think this democracy stuff is way over-rated. I know it's heretical to say so, but there you have it. Too many really dumb people whose dumb congresspeople the rest of us get stuck with. Tue 31 Mar 2009 14:17:29 GMT+1 carolinalady http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=36#comment27 Stop, stop, stop!!! We did monarchy v. republican constitutional government already...back in 1776. Americans elect a President for the very reason that we decided we didn't want to be ruled any longer by hereditary idiots who took their raison d'etre as God's will. Thus, electioneering. No do-overs!I am willing to listen to sane arguments regarding the irrelevancy of NATO in the 21st Century. There does not seem to me to be any reason for US military bases in Europe any longer. And -- going back to the wisdom of those fellows in 1776 who chose President over King -- "entangling alliances" are something to be wary of, especially when, as already pointed out, there is no way on earth the US is going to commit military force to recuing some little former Soviet satellite from Russian invasion.Regarding sleeves, you must be joking...it's early spring in London. The cherry trees may be blooming in DC, but northern Europe isn't blessed with our balmy climate. Sleeves, and a raincoat. Tue 31 Mar 2009 13:47:20 GMT+1 bere54 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=35#comment26 20, allmymarbles: "I think we need a monarchy. A real monarchy, not like the one in the UK. Then we would not have people constantly electioneering. I would vote for that in a heartbeat. In fact I would vote for anything that would shut those people up."I second that, as long as it's a benevolent and intelligent monarch. Think of the peace and quiet. Of course, there's the hereditary issue, always a problem. What to do if the son/daughter of a monarch is an idiot? Now, if we elect the monarch . . . there would be electioneering. Oh, I don't know. So frustrating. I vote for benevolent dictator so as not to be held hostage to the ever-changing whims of an uninformed majority. Tue 31 Mar 2009 13:14:09 GMT+1 Hesiodos http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=33#comment25 Obama will arrive with clean hands and a clear conscience - better than most other participants:Blame for Downturn Not Fixed on Obama"6 in 10 Back His Handling of EconomyThe number of Americans who believe that the nation is headed in the right direction has roughly tripled since Barack Obama's election, and the public overwhelmingly blames the excesses of the financial industry, rather than the new president, for turmoil in the economy, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll...."By Jon Cohen and Dan BalzWashington Post Staff WritersTuesday, March 31, 2009; Page A01Eat your heart out, Gordo!Ozymandias ;-) Tue 31 Mar 2009 11:06:18 GMT+1 Hesiodos http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=32#comment24 Publius (6, 18), Sam, Great suggestions!Ms Marbles (7), "Also, as a general rule, once you establish something, it is hard to get rid of."I was taught that the first thing any "institution" does is to write a constitution providing for its perpetuity.Mary (8), Yeah!Frayed (11), "I am proud that the Obamas are representing America to the Queen of England with or without sleeves" There's that Damned "England" again!D Ceilar (24), Spot on! But I would have had trouble in the case of Shrub...;-)Still thou art blest, compar'd wi' meThe present only toucheth thee:But, Och! I backward cast my e'e.On prospects drear!An' forward, tho' I canna see,I guess an' fear!Robert Burns, R.I.P. (To a Mouse) Tue 31 Mar 2009 10:57:41 GMT+1 dceilar http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=31#comment23 #23 RisformeI never liked Bush 2 but I would have always been polite and gracious to him if I'd met him while he was POTUS because he is a Head of State. To have been rude to him would be insulting the Office and State he serves. Likewise for the Queen. I'm a republican, but I would always be polite and gracious to her because she is my Head of State. I would say that is what she is due. Tue 31 Mar 2009 07:53:29 GMT+1 Risforme http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=29#comment22 For David. To an American, the Queen is just a rich old lady with a fancy title. That is all she is to me and I'd say most Americans who respect the idea of Republican Governance. She's no different than any other lady her age. I don't want an elected official operating on my behalf as an American bowing down before any human being. If you choose to honor a person beyond what they're due as a human being that is your right. However Obama will be acting as an official employee and representative of the United States. Part of the founding of our country is based on Equality for All. Acknowledging one person's hereditary title is not fitting for the Representative of a Republican Government. If Obama wants to honor her he should do it in private to uphold the dignity of his office. Tue 31 Mar 2009 06:59:59 GMT+1 KScurmudgeon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=28#comment21 20. At 04:45am on 31 Mar 2009, allmymarbles wrote:I think we need a monarchy. A real monarchy, not like the one in the UK. Then we would not have people constantly electioneering. I would vote for that in a heartbeat. In fact I would vote for anything that would shut those people up.With all respect, go somewhere quiet and take a good rest. We could both be living in Israel.I love the fervid roil of democracy, especially today - 'tho I could do without the spin dervishes.KSCurmudgeon Tue 31 Mar 2009 04:45:13 GMT+1 KScurmudgeon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=27#comment20 12. At 01:48am on 31 Mar 2009, saintDominick wrote:The best thing that could happen to NATO is to dissolve it. It served a purpose, and there was some logic behind it, when the Soviet Union was considered a threat to world peace, but what is its purpose today? Besides serving as a platform to entice Russia to engage in another cold war and forcing Europeans to join us in our crusades, there is no longer a need for this expensive and provocative organization. If the Europeans feel threatened, which it doesn't look like it, they should build their own military and pay for it. It is time to end what is left of the cold war, not expand it. The US should withdraw all its troops from Europe and bring them home.GeorgiaKSCurmudgeon Tue 31 Mar 2009 04:39:26 GMT+1 allmymarbles http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=25#comment19 I think we need a monarchy. A real monarchy, not like the one in the UK. Then we would not have people constantly electioneering. I would vote for that in a heartbeat. In fact I would vote for anything that would shut those people up. Tue 31 Mar 2009 03:45:53 GMT+1 allmymarbles http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=24#comment18 12, saintD."Regarding sleeves, I am sure President Obama will dress appropriately and will not throw up on anybody's lap during his official visits to Europe."Sorry, saint, I felt really sorry for Bush I whe he puked on his host. There was something funny about that visit that I never saw in print. It seems that Bush's elite security guard had to take off their shoes when they entered the residence. When everyone was leaving, they lagged behind because they had trouble finding which shoes belonged to whom. They all had the same shoes.. Tue 31 Mar 2009 03:40:04 GMT+1 publiusdetroit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=22#comment17 Ref 17 SamTyler1969A Jenna James Clockwork Cucumber would be appropriate if served in a studded-leather salad tossed with parafin carrot candles dressed in Killer Queen raspberry vinegarette, served at room temperature in the Royal Suite of the Heartbreak Hotel.Should be served with a Dark Rum and Guiness Stout chasers.This nosh will be served without the presence of the press.Parental discretion is adviced.Joe Six-Pack Catering Services Tue 31 Mar 2009 03:27:34 GMT+1 SamTyler1969 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=21#comment16 Afterthought:What would happen if the Obama's gave the Queen a Jenna James Clockwork Cucumber? What could be more American?Inquisitive Sam Tue 31 Mar 2009 01:36:43 GMT+1 SamTyler1969 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=20#comment15 #6Publius,We should worry though, just in case Harry fills the pipe. Who knows what could happen? But I'm sure everyone would be very mellow . . . .Spliff Sam Tue 31 Mar 2009 01:29:56 GMT+1 dapxin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=18#comment14 when is your arrival ? Tue 31 Mar 2009 01:29:44 GMT+1 David Cunard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=17#comment13 Gioao Diliberto (Huffington Post) wrote "While Mr. Obama is busy at the G-20 economic summit, his wife will join Sarah Brown, Britain's First Lady, and the other leaders' wives on a visit to a London health facility."I can't tell what nationality Ms Diliberto is, nor her credentials for being a newsworthy source (being a novelist hardly qualifies) but she's quite wrong: Sarah Brown is not Britain's First Lady. The position was taken in 1952 and HM The Queen remains Head of State - its First Lady. Mrs Brown is merely that and nothing more, she just happens to be married to the Prime Minister, who was in fact formally appointed to the position by The Queen. The Huffington Post should be ashamed of itself.#10. Risforme: "To an American the Queen is just a rich old lady with a fancy title."Remarkable how someone whose information is so accurate can write for a nation of 300 million people: last December this same poster wrote England hasn’t held a Parliamentary election since 2001. Also the British House of Lords is an unelected hereditary position that can be sold. Wrong on all four counts - England doesn't hold General Elections, the United Kingdom does; the last Parliamentary election was held on 5 May 2005 and the House of Lords is now primarily an appointed body, no longer hereditary - and the positions are not for sale. The Queen of England (and all the United Kingdom) is also Head of State of fifteen other countries. Rather more than simply "a rich old lady with a fancy title." I have no doubt that President and Mrs Obama will show the respect that is her due - and vice versa. Tue 31 Mar 2009 01:20:16 GMT+1 frayedcat http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=16#comment12 How about a signed copy of his autobiographies with a charming note and a decent donation to a much loved charity in her name. Tue 31 Mar 2009 00:48:41 GMT+1 saintDominick http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=14#comment11 The best thing that could happen to NATO is to dissolve it. It served a purpose, and there was some logic behind it, when the Soviet Union was considered a threat to world peace, but what is its purpose today? Besides serving as a platform to entice Russia to engage in another cold war and forcing Europeans to join us in our crusades, there is no longer a need for this expensive and provocative organization. If the Europeans feel threatened, which it doesn't look like it, they should build their own military and pay for it. It is time to end what is left of the cold war, not expand it. The US should withdraw all its troops from Europe and bring them home.Regarding sleeves, I am sure President Obama will dress appropriately and will not throw up on anybody's lap during his official visits to Europe. Tue 31 Mar 2009 00:48:31 GMT+1 frayedcat http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=13#comment10 Thank you for showing some protest footage. I saw on your link the protesters have embraced Obama in some of their official statements, and some adopted a "yes we can" slogan for the summit. Velly interesting.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7951179.stmI didn't see any spicy signs though, just "children first"...things like that.I am proud that the Obamas are representing America to the Queen of England with or without sleeves Tue 31 Mar 2009 00:46:08 GMT+1 Risforme http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=12#comment9 I just hope they don't end up bowing to the Queen. To an American the Queen is just a rich old lady with a fancy title. I'm hoping we don't see a repeat of Bush bowing down and kissing the hand of the Pope. Diplomats have been negotiating the issues at the G20 for weeks now. Everyone knows where everyone else stands on the issues. Every talking point Obama can make will have already been presented and every idea carefully explained. They might announce a plan once the World Leaders arrive but I think it would be naive to say anything will be accomplished by Obama showing up or any of the others. Mon 30 Mar 2009 23:43:29 GMT+1 mary gravitt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=10#comment8 The United States is only part of NATO so it can tell the Eurpeans what to do. Mon 30 Mar 2009 22:49:30 GMT+1 mary gravitt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=9#comment7 You gotta undersand Black folk and lookin' good to know that Michelle is going to be fly all the way. She going to have her hair fried and died and laid to the side, and no "kitchen" issues. She is going to out queen da queen, like Aretha's hat. Sleeves are now passe when Shelly comes to town, like they were when Jacky came to visit.If the Sista' First and only Black First Lady ain't sharp as a tack, then she can't go to church on Sunday when she comes back without goin' to the Mourners' Bench. She will be buked--talked about sure as she's born. She must submit herself Ophrah approval, no Walmart specials or Target rejects and smelling of the cheap stuff. Only designers up fronts.Six feet tall in six inch heel won't do for meeting the Queen at tea, but for the disco afterwards, bring on the noise. Wear the Fink, not the mink. It will only get her picketed and don't try to compete with the Queen by wearing a tiara. That angel's smile that she wears everyday will have to do. Mon 30 Mar 2009 22:47:37 GMT+1 allmymarbles http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=8#comment6 As far as NATO is concerned, it will bealmost impossible to disband it. Think of all the people with a vested interest in maintaining it. Your career NATO-ists, for instance. They would be out of work. Also, as a general rule, once you establish something, it is hard to get rid of. For instance, each president creates more committees and posts. And almost all of them live on. I don't know how Europe feels about NATO. I guess if it banded together to opt out, that would be it. Could that happen? Mon 30 Mar 2009 22:37:02 GMT+1 publiusdetroit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=6#comment5 Ref 5 SamTyler1969Bravo, Sam!I think HM and POTUS should sit down cross-legged with a blanket between them and add their trade souvenirs to the blanket as they parlay. Smoke a pipe when the treaty is struck. It would be so historically romantic.I hope POTUS will hold out for the plastic Corgies before breaking out the pipe. They would display so well at the Smithsonian. I think the glow in the dark Statue of Liberty will catch the eye of HM. Although, the White House snow globe has a strong attraction too.Yes. The possibilities are endless.Joe Six-pack Mon 30 Mar 2009 21:42:27 GMT+1 SamTyler1969 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=5#comment4 Justin,To Sleeve or not to Sleeve is not the question (Royal protocol states sleeves should be worn unless you have 'buff' arms. Michelle clearly has the choice).The real question is whether HM can lower the bar for gifts recently enjoyed between the two nations. Perhaps she could start with some droning Royal documentary about her on a UK format DVD set. Perhaps Simon Schama's 'History of Britain' (though he lives in NYC now so is technically almost American)? Two plastic Corgis for the kids? An inflatable crown and scepter for parties. The Obama's could return the favor with a tasteful plastic white house snow ornament thing for the Royal mantlepiece? An anniversary Barbie? A Washinton DC Hard Rock Cafe beer bottle opener in the shape of a guitar (Isn't HRC British though?). How about a glow in the dark Statue of Liberty or a Washington Crossing The Delaware fridge magnet?The possibilities are endless.Souvenir Sam Mon 30 Mar 2009 21:08:32 GMT+1 dennisjunior1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=4#comment3 Justin:As we head for London and the first stage of this impossibly over-full agenda of meetings, one searches for someone who is saying something just a little bit off-piste about the whole thing. I wish the journalists and everyone else in the U.S. Government who is on the "way" to London...Best Wishes...~Dennis Junior~ Mon 30 Mar 2009 20:54:59 GMT+1 dennisjunior1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=2#comment2 Justin:First, though, we have the economic business and the Obamas' meeting with the Queen - sleeves or not?Fashion tip: Sleeves....~Dennis Junior~ Mon 30 Mar 2009 20:37:32 GMT+1 U13889349 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=1#comment1 Everybody watching everybodySo nothing done, no, no, no Mon 30 Mar 2009 20:26:05 GMT+1 Gary_A_Hill http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/03/looking_ahead_to_the_g20.html?page=0#comment0 The San Francisco Chronicle is my newspaper, so that piece by Patrick Buchanan was in my paper this morning. As much as I dislike Buchanan, I have to say that I agree with him on this subject. Why is NATO expanding? Because tiny states in central Europe want the protection offered by western European powers and (especially) the United States. Why would any American think that US soldiers should go to Ukraine to fight Russians? Nevertheless, both parties in the Senate have supported expansion of NATO to include Ukraine and Georgia. Mon 30 Mar 2009 20:20:08 GMT+1