Diplomatic Immunity

Roar87 said:
The UK and Germany aren't the same, we have a much closer relationship with the US than Germany. The Germans are basically reluctant allies in most areas who can't be relied upon, much like France.
Click to expand...
if this docu is anywhere near accurate our special relationship involved churchill being desperate to develop a bomb so america could see how special we are.
so desperate to be special that safety precautions were literally shaved off and caused a bit of a fire to break out and a bit of radioactive material to be blown out over the UK.

then a nuclear power plant was built to provide energy to the grid but in reality it was just to make weapon material for a H bomb that would surely turn americas head, except it didn't actually explode like it should have
very special indeed, what a great relationship.
we are basically the stalker trying to turn a girls head by doing crazy things then claiming out relationship is special.
where's the restraining order at?



kinda seems obvious why more countries don't have nuclear power plants, they are basically only needed if you want to get some material for a bomb
 
Roar87 said:
The UK and Germany aren't the same, we have a much closer relationship with the US than Germany. The Germans are basically reluctant allies in most areas who can't be relied upon, much like France.
Click to expand...

The US really showed us how much we can rely on them with the recent Afghanistan debacle didn't they?
 
There is no friendship, there are only convenient transactions and if it ever becomes inconvenient for the US they will do what's best for them such as during Suez or the lack of help with the Falklands.
 
I can only echo what has been said above, it's easy to do this by mistake.

The first time I ever had to drive in Europe, I got on a plane in the UK, got off the plane in Germany, picked up a LHD hire car and drove for 90km to my destination, did a days work, drove back to the airport and flew home.

I'd been concentrating so much on driving on the right side of the autobahn that I pulled onto the dual carriageway from the airport coming home and onto the right hand lane, the fast lane, the overtaking lane, lane two (whatever you want to call it).

Obviously there was no harm done but it really surprised me.
 
Chris Wilson said:
I still think this woman was allowed to do a runner under DI to protect her husband's job from scrutiny.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall not long after that this blew all up in her husbands face career-wise, he couldn't do much over here without this hanging over him so was reassigned back to the US.

arknor said:
she wasn't even supposed to have diplomatic immunity was she?
Click to expand...

I thought diplomatic immunity was a given to the immediate family of the diplomat.
 
StriderX said:
There is no friendship, there are only convenient transactions and if it ever becomes inconvenient for the US they will do what's best for them such as during Suez or the lack of help with the Falklands.
Click to expand...

Our govts suck up to them because it makes them look important a little bit of reflected glory but in reality we're not important to them. Well it varies with who's in charge ironically for lefties Biden doesn't care for us or is at best indifferent but Trump was a real anglophile.
 
Semple said:
I seem to recall not long after that this blew all up in her husbands face career-wise, he couldn't do much over here without this hanging over him so was reassigned back to the US.



I thought diplomatic immunity was a given to the immediate family of the diplomat.
Click to expand...


I suspect, but of course do not know, that there's a lot more to this than the public on both sides of the Atlantic will be privy to, and that far surpasses a court case over running someone down accidentally, sad though that is. National security takes precedent over most everything.
 
200sols said:
It's just an example of how they only act in their own interest.
Click to expand...

I Googled, did U.S. help Britain during the Falklands War?
This appeared, don’t shoot the messenger.

U.S. Aid to Britain In Falklands War Is Detailed



By Michael Getler
March 7, 1984

The U.S. Navy was willing to lend Britain an aircraft carrier during its 1982 campaign to retake the Falkland Islands from Argentina if the Royal Navy lost either of its two carriers, Defense Department officials said yesterday.

Although an offer to use the USS Guam, a helicopter carrier, was not made because the need did not arise, officials said such discussions took place as part of a large-scale effort to try to ensure that Britain's 100-ship armada did not meet defeat in a battle 8,000 miles from its home waters.

Pentagon officials were asked about the U.S. role in the Falklands campaign--which began with the Argentine seizure of the islands on April 2 and ended June 14 after the British recaptured them--in the aftermath of a detailed report on the extent of U.S. help that appears this week in the respected British magazine The Economist.
The magazine said the Falklands campaign "could not have been mounted, let alone won, without American help."
 
Jean-F said:
The U.S. Navy was willing to lend Britain an aircraft carrier during its 1982 campaign to retake the Falkland Islands from Argentina if the Royal Navy lost either of its two carriers, Defense Department officials said yesterday.

Although an offer to use the USS Guam, a helicopter carrier, was not made because the need did not arise
Click to expand...
so basically America discussed a bunch of possible scenarios internally and one was lending an aircraft carrier British people wouldn't be familiar with or know how to operate, it was never actually offered because the need did not arise.

I'm sure they discussed a whole bunch of stuff probably some not friendly to us since didn't america ask if we could just give them the islands.

another website I found claims
America shared satellite and signals intelligence, plus Sidewinder air-to-air missiles and Stinger hand-held missiles — though this was denied at the time.
The files show Washington believed the Soviet Union was prepared to provide ships, weaponry and ammunition to the Argentinians,in return for cheap grain. One of the first things the US offered was fuel for the British Task Force and aircraft at the mid-Atlantic staging post of Ascension Island, which Britain leased to America.
“The underground fuel tanks were empty when the Task Force turned up in mid-April 1982,” recalls Major General Julian Thompson, then commanding the main Royal Marines assault force. The leading assault ship, HMS Fearless, did not have enough fuel to dock when it arrived off Ascension. The Americans diverted a supertanker to fill up the Navy’s tanks.
Click to expand...
so America basically backed us because they thought the Russians were going to back Argentina.
 
arknor said:
so basically America discussed a bunch of possible scenarios internally and one was lending an aircraft carrier British people wouldn't be familiar with or know how to operate, it was never actually offered because the need did not arise.

I'm sure they discussed a whole bunch of stuff probably some not friendly to us since didn't america ask if we could just give them the islands.

another website I found claims

so America basically backed us because they thought the Russians were going to back Argentina.
Click to expand...

Gimme a break, I didn’t say, “Look, the yanks were willing to help us out in The Falklands.”
I said that I Googled ‘Did U.S. help Britain during The Falklands War?’ and Google came up with what I copied and pasted.
Maybe U.K. sailors had had training on U.S. carriers, I’ve no idea.
Maybe it was all total B.S. and the yanks offered nothing, or maybe the Russia helping Argentina story was true, I don’t know again.
 
Jean-F said:
Gimme a break, I didn’t say, “Look, the yanks were willing to help us out in The Falklands.”
I said that I Googled ‘Did U.S. help Britain during The Falklands War?’ and Google came up with what I copied and pasted.
Maybe U.K. sailors had had training on U.S. carriers, I’ve no idea.
Maybe it was all total B.S. and the yanks offered nothing, or maybe the Russia helping Argentina story was true, I don’t know again.
Click to expand...
all the documents are public and nothing redacted apparently.

I'm guessing some sites jumped on the most exciting sounding parts like potentially lending an aircraft carrier whilst others only posted about what actually was given.

which seems to be mostly Intel, fuel, sidewinders and the use of a base that is basically ours anyway.


we all know who's side france was on, same as always the anti british side
 
Custor said:
Nope. Tiniest effort and you can find out that’s not correct if you really wanted to.
Click to expand...

No fun in that though, posting stuff about cheese eating surrender monkeys goes down better with the cognoscenti, who prefer that kind of grown up stuff.
Defence Secretary Sir John Nott described France as Britain's "greatest ally" during the Falklands War. But formerly secret papers and other evidence seen by the BBC show that was not the full story.
Before the war, France sold Argentina's military junta five Exocet missiles.
At the time, few suspected that the regime's longstanding claim on the Falklands would lead to war and the sale went largely unnoticed.
 
FBi7 said:
www.bbc.co.uk

Harry Dunn: Anne Sacoolas admits causing crash death

Anne Sacoolas pleads guilty to causing death by careless driving after a three-year transatlantic row.
www.bbc.co.uk

So, that coward Sacoolas has admitted causing Harry Dunn's death, and will be 'sentenced' at a later date.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t be surprised to see an agreement for her to serve her sentence in a US prison and her sentence to be drastically and dramatically cut short.
 
I'm not expecting a custodial sentence tbh. The article did say the Dunns don't want to separate her from her children.

I wouldn't be of such lenient opinion if I were in their shoes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom