user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
smile bank:
similiar ballots:
92467. Which of these do you think is most responsible for world: United States, United Kingdom, European Union, G8, G8+5, OPEC, oil nations or none of them?
50687. Actually, which country makes better TV: United States or United Kingdom?
45330. If the United States stopped it's unconditional military and financial support for Israel, would there be less terrorism directed at the United States
51744. AMERICANS: "All for the United States, nothing outside the United States and no one against the United States." Agree/disagree?
92742. United States citizens can claim islands for the United States government.
67808. Should the United States conquer Canada, Mexico... and all of South/Latin America to form the Super United States of America?
95508. United Nations angry ath the US for its free press: Should the United States censor views in the media that are anti-UN?
21273. what do you like most about the United Kingdom (UK)?
93962. Is blasphemy illegal in the United Kingdom?
92625. I know several people in Scotland. Does that mean I can judge the whole United Kingdom?
|
|
COMMENTS:
I think we would, hopefully if that ever happened, we would have already gotten our heads out of Iraq's ass.
Which reminds me..I want to get a shirt that says 'I love the British'
=)
What do you mean by "loyal"? That is a phrase more likely to be used in reference to colonies.
Would the US support the UK or come to their assistance? Most of the time. But the US has not always done that (in the past 50 years).
The US strongly disagreed with the UK and France when they tried to retake the Suez Canal from Egypt after Egyptian President Nasser tried to nationalize it. This didn't sit well with the British and French companies which "owned" it. It was US pressure which got France and the UK to back down.
of course we would. no doubt in my mind.
I should add that the US was initially somewhat hesitant in supporting the UK on the Falkland Islands war.
Absolutely. There would be no reason not to.
About the Suez it was absolutely right for the US not to take part in that usurpation. Just as it was right that the UK didn't go to the wall in Vietnam.
^ as for the falklands, the u.s was in a tough spot because argentina is in our hemisphere, and we have a relationship with them -- it was a matter of treading very carefully, so as it did not look like we were taking sides between two allies. simple as that. that was a difficult position to be in.
I'm not talking about the countries that the UK attacks. I'm talking about the UK being attacked itself. Do you think the U.S.A. would come to it's assistance?
Based on the treaty obligations of NATO alone yes.
Don't you think that is the case? We may not have helped as quickly as some in Europe have liked in WWI and WWII but there is the treaty now, and I think that the US and the UK have a much closer relationship than ever in history right now.
The main reason of a handshake is to keep the opponent from cutting your throat with his right hand while he reads you his proclamations from the left hand!
After all the fighting and weapons gathering the two strongest opponents reach the top and find that it's easier to play King of the Hill if they stand "back to back" while kicking everyone else off!
Thats brilliant Murster.
Yes, we would help. And they would help us. God willing, always.
USROCKS the Argies invaded British territory, not the other way round (though I would suggest that bitch Thatcher was made up when they did).
But if there's enough oil involved as an incetive, or an excuse to get the economy driving war machine out of mothball, I would presume that the US would have beaten the UK to whomever was causing the problem in the first place.
In my own oppinion the U.S. government would but its people wouldnt but then again I have seen many other people with loyalties to other countries such as britain
Voted : Yes
The U.S. would defend the U.K. in a heartbeat!
Voted : No
No they repeatedly take part n tech sharing where the UK come up with some good stuff, then the US takes it and say
"Yeah, we'll get back to you on that, or something. Maybe it's in the post, I dunno."
Sorry, I only read the title question.
Yes, they would, the UK is acceptable to the US and not a threat.
China is seen as a potential threat (economically/ideologically) and therefore it'd be unacceptable for them to make any gains esp. if they impinge on US interests (e.g. missile defence/other military assets in the UK) or allies.
p.s. a shout out to Firefox 2's input box spell checking for making me look literate!
(even though it doesn't recognise its own name as a word)
Voted : No
I seriously doubt it.
Voted : Other way around.
We don't have anything up to the UK. We're the one who was trying to get away from them.
|
|
