>>One could argue that we, like the plucky chaps at the Alamo, saved YOURS, by holding the Hun at bay, for several years, while you armed and grouped (cf. Houston) for the inevitable fight to come.
>>
>>Strange that some Americans recognise this and others are gung-ho "we saved your butts!".
>
>Its not like you did that for our benefit, you did it for your own safety and security.

Similarly it's not as if you did that for our benefit, you did it for your own safety and security.
(Backatcha)

>AFAIK we are still protecting your butts with our missles and submarines.

We do have 4 nuclear subs that, at present, are supposed to be undetectable. OTOH they are Trident subs and so, unlike France, we're reliant on you for supplies, parts and permission to use. But it's not free. We don't actually need enough nukes to destroy a planetary system, like you have - just enough to say "Hey - watch it!". Besides, who are you supposed to be "protecting" us from? Your missiles (Cruise was kicked out of Greenham Common in the 80s, by a bunch of peacenik women) don't stop dirty bombs on the Tube.

>
>>
>>>Not long ago, you guys controlled a good deal of the civilized world, now you don't, and that is your own fault, not ours. ...
>>
>>Er, not all true. It's a well known fact that Roosevelt wanted rid of the BE, and did his underhand darndest to achieve such.
>>
>>http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/lkffdr.htm
>>
>>As I understand it, parts of the lend-lease agreement were that certain empire bases were to be ceded to the States. He even suggested that if Britain should fall then the British carribean bases be handed over to the USA as payment. The Brits found such suggestions an affront, as did many loyal carribeans, all for a few WW I destroyers and Liberty Ships.
>>
>>Of course, after the war, when places like Burma realised that they'd been under one colonial heel, then the Japanese's, they could do without this empire business quite nicely, thank you, and the independence movement began world-wide. We could maybe have held on to parts of the empire, by force and bloodshed, but by the 60s that was no longer de rigeur in the modern age. Britain was broke anyway. The age of empires had gone, but blame the Japanese and Germans for losing it.
>
>The US is constantly trying to undermine countries across the globe, and England was no exception. But, unless we invade you and occupy your country by force (like Iraq), you can hardly say the situation was out of your hands.

To a large extent, yes I can. If it hadn't been for 2 crippling world wars, invasion of empire territory by aliens, reliance on debt to the USA, etc. (the points I already raised) who's to say that the Empire wopuldn't have lasted in a peaceful, stable world.

>Lots of countries/people around the world hate the US now, and rightfully so, but I know our downfall we be our own doing, or our lack of backbone to protect what we have. Some will blame China if they stop buying our bonds, or Iran if they stop oil flow in the gulf, but I will know it's because we did not have our own house in order and borrowed too much and wasted too much.
>
>>
>>Now the USA's empire OTOH was very lucky in that no-one invaded that, and the natives were long subjugated, in a minority, and pushed onto reservations, surrounded by the colonials, emmasculated. Besides, the US had got fat on the war business.
>
>I agree, the Indians, and Mexico got shafted, and being isolated from all the turmoil on your side of the world by two large oceans has definately been to our benefit. We have been lucky in the past, however technology is making the globe smaller and scarier every day, so our time will come. (I hope to see Englands military might come in and save us at that point!)

We're doing that in Iraq and Afghanistan! :-)