King Blair is Gone! Long Live King Brown!

...What?!

 

Christ, is that how you approach people who ask questions? by calling them a skeptic?

If you don't ask questions you don't get answers.

You aren't very good at this whole convincing people thing, are you?

 

uh... WWII hasn't even been mentioned up till now smartarse.
unless you hadn't worked it out already, we're not discussing WWII.
keep it to the present day.

you can repeat yourself as much as you want, I STILL DON'T BELIEVE IT.
give me some hard evidence of this supposed secret clause and i'll belive you.
OH WAIT?? YOU DON'T HAVE ANY.

uh, no... no-one said it was fine for america to abrogate any international treaties.

i never said i supported the war.
i just don't like you insulting my country like you are, so i'm obviously going to argue against you.

well, Britain has been a target of terrorism for so long now, i've stopped caring, to be honest.

 

Furthermore, I get the feeling that many will resent your choice of terms when it comes to US assistance in the second world war.

Although I concede that it would make sense for the US to attempt to make such an agreement after the UK refused to participate in Vietnam, and the Trident may have been the first chance they got to force the issue. Still, this proves nothing about our government. If this secret clause was forced by the US government, taking advantage of our need for Trident capabilities before the Falklands conflict began (I'm assuming the Trident agreement was due to that), all it proves is that we were desperate enough to deal with those who'd stab us in the back.

 

AH YES, because his hands are tied by a "secret clause" that doesn't exist.

why, because the Americans are really vocal themselves aren't they?

 

ignore me all you want, but just because you don't love your country, doesn't mean i can't love mine.

even though you haven't yet proved that is does?

 

YOU STILL HAVEN'T PROVED THIS "SECRET CLAUSE" EXISTS!

 

You're using the same argument that religious people use for proving God doesn't exist. You're failing miserably with defending your theory of this clause. If you can give us hard facts about it, then I'll apologise and admit you were right. Can you honestly say that this treaty is a fact backed up by legit sources?

Also, in regards to that quote by Einstein:

That quote is from his essay called 'The World As I See It'. It was published in 1934. This quote is actually a criticism to the National Socialists (Nazi's) of Germany who were already in control of Germany by this time. The term 'Nazi' wasn't used to describe them throughout the Third Reich, it was mostly National Socialists or just Nationalists.

So, I think this quote is actually in regards to Nazism, rather than patriotism.

 

It's a logical impossibility to prove a negative, that's why the burden of proof is on those making positive claims!

Nor did the US. The threat from Saddam was largely a fabrication to facilitate going to war, but this has nothing to do with proving the existence of this secret clause...

www.stopwar.org.uk
A million of us marched against the war in 2003 and we still regularly kick up as much fuss as we can in demonstrations throughout the country. The anti-war platform had a lot of stuff going on in the Leftfield in Glastonbury the other week ( http://www.leftfield.coop/ ). We have a massive movement against the horrendous tragedy of Iraq and have had for years. A majority of the population is opposed to the debacle of Iraq.

 

Actually, I was trying to see your point of view. I could see the US trying to get the pact forcing the UK to assist the US with wars after their refusal to assist in Vietnam, but getting a Prime Minister to agree to the secret clause? Are you fucking kidding me?

All I'm doing is trying to figure out WHY Thatcher would agree to sign such an agreement. "To use as a possible threat against another army" seems a little more plausible than "to tie the hands of future Prime Ministers, which hypothetically includes those of her own party". A lame guess? Possibly, but we're talking about a lame guess regarding a ridiculous sounding secret clause that you can't even prove exists beyond "IT'S ON THE INTERNETS SO IT MUST BE TRUE LOL".

Hang on, what were you talking about before this became a mess about some secret clause? And are you trying to steer this argument ANOTHER way? I only mentioned the Falklands because it was the chronologically closest conflict to the British Trident agreement. As I said before, a lame prediction, but it's like bringing a switchblade to a broken-sword fight.

 

That phrase is horribly mangled. The correct use is "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". The proof of the secret clause is in the evidence. While current events may not contradict the possibility of the secret clause, there is still no reason why Thatcher would be desperate enough to sign the secret clause (my attempt to rationalise it was labelled "lame", which I fully accept, but understand that that reflects on the rest of this secret clause theory).

 

Wow...I give in...You're a real pain in the arse to have a decent debate with, because you never think of things from different perspectives. And that, my friend, is called 'narrow-mindedness'.

I tried thinking of it from your point of view, but I just came to the same conclusion as Power_13.

And, like, Jon (Lithium) said:

"It's a logical impossibility to prove a negative, that's why the burden of proof is on those making positive claims!"

 

have you noticed no-one so far has believed in your "secret clause"?

and why should i prove to you it doesn't exist if you haven't even given me a teeny tiny pit of evidence to prove it DOES?

well i could ask you the same question actually.

 

She asked her question first. Answer it, then she'll answer yours. Where is the irrefutable proof of this secret clause?