I think I meant a number of things. We are certainly not as religious, and also we have a wider view of the world, we get more actively involved in a number of world issues. There are many times when we get the impression this is not the case in the US.

 

You do understand that I wasn't supporting or condemning the Falklands war. It was simply a statement of fact.

Your background (about it creating a distraction from UK woes at the time - which I agree with), simply adds to my point: Women in authority, given a chance, will be just as horrible as men at declaring war. Her purpose was self serving. Bush's purpose was self serving.

I don't trust a woman in power any more than a man.. or any less. It's an equal opportunity thing.

 

It's harder to put a face on the enemy. In Iraq, we're fighting some Iraqis with the help of others; Afghanistan is the same way. Korea and Vietnam were both North/South civil wars, as well. The first gulf war we had a clear ally in need (Kuwait) and a clear enemy (Iraq) - and the war was "popular" as wars go.

 

OIC...

...We are certainly not as religious

I agree. I mentioned my perspective as a Canadian moving here I think. Canadians have their various faiths and are devout but not in such a public way. The society however, much as it is in the UK, is not always pointing to and talking about religion. (This is more secular but you have clarified my confusion.)

Here in the US you see these fish stickers on cars and people are always talking about 'church' this and 'church' that. It's odd that I've heard pundits talking about how Islamic militants abhor the 'secularization' of American society. This is nonsense except to say that Christianity overwhelms any other failth and sort of tramples it.

My previous personal experience is a society that is far more acceptance of other faiths.

and also we have a wider view of the world

No question about it. Here in the US it's bigger news that the highschool football team won, or Kobi gets off scot free, than an assasination attempt on the Afgan VP. I haven't gotten used to this yet.

On the other hand the focus of the US pop'n on what's up with the US is fairly reasonable. (only fairly). There's no question about it that every country focusses on it's own affairs more than anyone else. It's also true that all countries focus on what's going in in the US (because for good or bad it's so important in world events). So for Americans that's the US and the US. It kind of makes sense but it's still no real defense.

we get more actively involved in a number of world issues. There are many times when we get the impression this is not the case in the US.

MMmmmmaybe. I'm not sure the UK is particulary involved in the world scene. HOWEVER, the US is and pretty much always has tended toward isolationism.

More to the point: The UK is more actively involved in world issues particularly the rest of europe. Obviously. That's hardly a reasonable comparison... i.e the US is far more involved in Mexican affairs than the UK is. But how about this?... The US is far more involved in Canadian affairs that the UK (now). "Of course" you say. But Canada is (nominally) part of the British Commonwealth. The Queen is the Queen of Canada. UK influence or even involvement in Canada is a thing of my childhood. Why?

I enjoy these dialogues and welcome your feedback. Sorry if I've come off like I'm getting up your nose in any way. Not my intention. Just having a great exchange of ideas.

 

I'm agreeing that we are not disagreeing!

War serves a purpose for a country, whether it be instigated by a female or male leader.

 

You're coming close to stating the obvious skin colour differences. That may not be your intention but it is a notable fact. Much easier to 'put a face on the enemy' if they are racially different.

 

I enjoy these dialogues too.

I find your perspectives interesting, based on the fact that, I, as a foreigner will live in the US in the next 5-10 years.

I think that the big reason that the UK is currently more involved in world affairs is that Prime Minister Blair will one day no longer be PM. Unlike the US, our elected leader can lead for as long as they like, or until either the country (Major), or their own party (Thatcher) vote them out of office.

Blair, at 50 has a life ahead of him and it is speculated that he sees the next few years (it is assumed they will win next years General Election) as his audition for a wider statesman job for the UN etc.

It would appear that the respect and kudos gained from leading the UK is sadly no longer a 'be all and end all' ambition.

 

I'm not sure I was stating that, even unintentionally, John.

Think of it this way:

In WW2, we were fighting Germany and Italy with the help of UK, France, Russia, and countless other nations. For me, racially, while being white I'm equal parts Ally and Axis based on WW2. But I could easily relate to "if you see a German, shoot him, because he's the bad guy." It's easy to give the enemy a face when its an entire nation and they're all "bad guys".

In Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq (2nd time around), we were/are fighting some of the countrymen with the help of some of the same countrymen. In other words, if I saw an Iraqi, he may be a bad guy, but he may be an ally helping me too. When you start looking at who the enemy is, while obviously it's mostly Muslim terrorists/fundamentalists in Iraq, it's harder to put a face on them because they're no different in outward appearance than our allies.

Does that make any sense?

 

It does. I didn't see you headed that way but it does make sense.

Oh and... you came to join the fight of the Germans and Italy to help UK, France, Russia, and countless other nations. The distinction is fine but no less important. The war started in '39 not '42.

 

You're coming here to live? Where? You'll find it a great place to live and very interesting. I like it a lot and could choose to live anywhere in NA or Europe and, for now, have chosen here.

Same rule (no limit) for the Cdn PM. 8 years max is an interesting twist.