4 ms·
[citation needed] If this were the case, wouldn't it be better not to have the treaty in the first place? Then no questions are asked at all. And what was wro
by bensummers 17y ago
[citation needed]
If this were the case, wouldn't it be better not to have the treaty in the first place? Then no questions are asked at all.
And what was wrong with the old treaty, apart from the inconvenience of having to produce enough evidence to satisfy a British judge?
- iujhygfbh 17y agoIf you don't have a treaty then you are part of the axis of evil - or at the very least they don't let your soldiers play with their soldiers and your politicians don't get to stand on the Whitehouse lawn looking like a world statesman.
- jrockway 17y agoBS. It's the UK. They have international standing regardless of what the US thinks.
- iujhygfbh 17y agoNot since Suez, the last time the UK got to play at soldiers against the US wishes was the Falklands. The UK has a huge amount of investment in the US, if the US were to treat the UK like it did France after they refused to join the 'coalition of the willing' it would do a lot more harm to the UK economy than boycotting Perrier did to France's
- izend 17y agoCanada refused to join the coalition of willing for Iraq and we are the US largest trading partner.