The Royal Navy to lose at least four Destroyers

[fantassin]

Warships are first casualty as spending cuts hit Navy
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 06/01/2004)


The Royal Navy is to lose at least four destroyers in the next three months, taking the number of surface warships to below that of the French navy for the first time since the 17th century.

It will now have only 28 escort ships compared to the French navy's 32 and will no longer be able to mount major operations unless it is fighting alongside either the Americans or the French.


HMS Cardiff will be mothballed well before its decommission date
Four Type-42 destroyers are to be mothballed as part of a series of cuts over the coming months as the MoD struggles to keep within Treasury-imposed limits on its budget.

They are only the first of a number of cuts foreshadowed by last month's defence White Paper but will be a deeply demoralising blow for the Navy. At the height of its power in the mid-19th century it was the size of the seven next biggest navies combined and even as the US and German navies grew at the start of the 20th century it remained twice as large as its nearest rival.

The Opposition denounced the assumptions behind the cuts as "lunacy". Nicholas Soames, the shadow defence secretary, said: "It is a genuinely very bad decision and a slap in the face for the Navy.

"These are vital air defence ships. Our whole military doctrine is based on expeditionary warfare. This will expose the fleet to considerable hazard."

The Liberal Democrats said the cuts were the result of "poor management and over-deployment of UK forces". Paul Keetch, the party's defence spokesman, said they would leave the Navy dependent on the US navy "every time it puts to sea".

The four warships to be axed are Newcastle, Cardiff, Glasgow and Liverpool. They are the oldest of the surviving Type-42 destroyers but Glasgow and Liverpool were not due to be decommissioned until 2010. Cardiff was due to go in 2008 and Newcastle in 2007 when the first of the Navy's new destroyers, the Type-45, is expected to enter service. It cuts the number of destroyers to seven.

The loss of their air defence capability compounds the difficulties caused by the decision to scrap the Fleet Air Arm's Sea Harriers, leaving the fleet with no air cover until the introduction of the Joint Strike Fighter in 2012.

But it also means that the Government will be forced to drop its commitment, made in the 1996 Strategic Defence Review, to keep 26 destroyers and frigates available for operations at all times.

The maximum number of destroyers and frigates the Navy could now keep at sea, at a time when the war on terror is dramatically increasing its workload, would be 23.

The Type-42s' Sea Dart missiles play a vital role in escorting and protecting the carriers and amphibious fleet.

But for the past six months they have also been assigned to support units from the Special Boat Service carrying out anti-terrorist duties around the British coast and the North Sea oil platforms.

Senior Navy sources said that more Type-42 destroyers, as well as at least two of the Navy's minehunters and even some Type-23 frigates, which date only from the early 1990s, could also be axed.

Ministers appeared to see the loss of the four destroyers, each of which has a complement of 266 men, as an easy way of virtually eradicating the Navy's manning shortfall of 1,200, the sources said.

But one senior Navy officer with 20 years service said he was sickened by the way in which the fleet was being cut ship by ship. The defence White Paper had sent the wrong message to young sailors and many were ready to quit.

He said: "Hoon doesn't realise, and probably doesn't care, but many youngsters see no future in the Navy and are getting out. When I ask them: 'Why are you leaving?', they say: 'Why stay?' The Navy is just getting smaller and smaller, and that means less opportunity.

"We need to retain these destroyers until the new ones arrive, the replacements are not expected to arrive for another three years, getting rid of these ships will leave us with a handful of destroyers."

The MoD said that it could not go further than it had in the White Paper which said air defence and escort vessels were "less likely to be at a premium" and reductions in the number of older ships "will be necessary".

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/449.html

[fantassin]

To complement the previous article:

Navy blues
(Filed: 06/01/2004)


What would Nelson have said? The mothballing of four Type-42 destroyers will leave the Royal Navy with a smaller fleet than the French for the first time for centuries. So much for the Defence Secretary's repeated promises that his new White Paper would not mean cuts in front-line strength. In a letter to this newspaper published some six weeks ago, Geoff Hoon blithely reassured readers that the MoD did not face a financial crisis - had, indeed, secured "the largest sustained increase in defence spending plans in 20 years". Yet it is a safe assumption that yesterday's cuts are only the first of several to be announced over the coming months. Tony Blair enjoys photo-opportunities with the Armed Forces, but it is Gordon Brown's Treasury that is in supreme command.

Does it matter that the Navy will soon have fewer escorts than the absolute minimum number (26) hitherto deemed necessary to carry out its core duties in peacetime? It depends how those duties are defined. Naval patrols in the Gulf, the Atlantic and Mediterranean are not purely military in purpose: by policing the sea lanes, intercepting traffickers in illegal drugs or arms, they contribute to global law and order. The need for escorts to provide air defence for large surface ships, such as aircraft carriers, may also have diminished. While gunboat diplomacy still has its uses - off China, Korea or Sierra Leone, for example - it may be more effective to fly in troops rather than sending a warship. Often, the two are complementary.

If sea power is obsolete, however, why does America set such store by it? Why does Japan, a comparable island nation, maintain a larger surface fleet than Britain, merely for coastal defence? Why does France, with a lesser global role than Britain, still keep a strong navy? It is not good enough for Mr Hoon to reply that he can envisage future warfare only in partnership with the Americans. The value and influence of Britain as an ally is proportional to the capacity of our Armed Forces to act independently. In a dangerous, uncertain world, sea power remains an indispensable method of projecting force, deterring aggression and protecting sea lanes. Now is not the time to be consigning the Royal Navy to the dustbin of history.

Why does France, with a lesser global role than Britain, still keep a strong navy? It's a matter of opinion, of course....

[oldsoak]

Unfortunately they refuse to see a Navy capable of power projection without it being tied in with the USN. In a sense, our ally the US is our worst enemy. Right, before anyone gets excited let me explain. We cannot see ourselves getting involved in situations that would require sophisticated ships without the US being present. Therefore, we will rely on the US to provide a lot of the hardware. Which suits the bean counters just fine - we dont have to buy it, hell, we'll just freeload of the US when we need it. The view in the MOD seems to be one where there are two instances in which we would fight - low level peace keeping type conflicts like Sierra Leone - the other a major punchup like Iraq. The first we can handle without recourse to guided missile destroyers, the second we would'nt attempt without the backing of the US/NATO.

[marktigger]

Easy the Blair governement know the cost of everything and the vale of nothing.
Their unoffical policy is to integrate into a european defence force by stelath.

[Kitsune]

I do not think so, Mark. In all things European the British are notorious for hitting the brakes were they can. Sad.
But anyway...even the more pro European members of the EU are NOT seriously planning an "Euro Defense Force". I think what we finally should have (Date:2020+) is a confederation like strucure: Each of the larger European nation has its own armed forces, capable of some degree of independent action. But structured and equipped to be able to cooperate and to easy build European Task Forces. Communication and friend/foe identification are unified and a supranational command structure similar to NATO does exist. The most expensive military projects (future aircraft, satelite systems...) are done on an European level (to share the expenses and prevent double and triple spending of money, it is not very cost efficient if 3 or more European nations develope expensive things parallel, after all). Smaller nations could decide to specialize their contribution instead of retaining "round" armed forces.
What ever happens, the time of single European states acting independently on a global level is over. Even the British have to realize this sooner or later.

I think there are only 3 choices:

1)Concentrate on an alliance with the USA...and end as American auxiliary troops. The US is simply to big...every bilateral partner will be totally dominted by them.

2)Concentrate on European cooperation and integration. Perhaps Britain will be dominated by the EU...but since she is one of the most powerful nations of Europe this means she can dominate herself to a large part.

3) Do neither. Stay independent. And become insignificant. In a future world with the US still around, a much more powerful China, a growing India, a probably more self conscious Japan, a recovering Russia, a very probable European Union (in this case without the UK) and possibly even other powers (Brazil, Mexico, SE Asian nations...) an independent Great Britain will play only a minor role.

Although Britain will be temptet to choose 1) or even 3)...and very likely will try to position herself somewhere between 1) and 2) (Tony's choice), I think in the long run a definite decision for 2) would be the best for the UK.


In any case, naval warfare will be of extraordinary importance in the future and the decision to reduce the British navy is not good. Perhaps if Great Britain would be more pro European already instead of relying so much on the USA the humiliating thought to have less surface ships than the French would take precedence, and would prevent decisions like this...

My 200 cents...

p-)

[mustamato]

Kitsune, good post.

De Gaulle once said (upon british membership in EC), "The British is the trojan horse for american interests in Europe". I always find that quote appropriate when it comes to Great Britain for some reason... :| It is almost as if they want to be dependent of the americans.

[fantassin]

Let's hope other European bean counters don't take the British decision as an example to mothball or scrap elements of their fleets.

I can see it from here; "Since the British, an old maritime power, sees it fit to reduce its navy, why shouldn't we do the same....."

[marktigger]

we're doing the usual new labour of huge grand projects eg the 2 carriers or the enhanced amphibious but having no infrastructure to spport them. without surface escorts the carriers can't go anywhere.

[Kitsune]

Yeah fantassin, I hope this will not be the case.

I must say the one of the European nation, who has a lot of homework to do is Germany...Bundeswehr was always a traditional conscription army for home defense only...but since now even our eastern neighbours are NATO members we need a professional, intervention-capable army. This is a 180 degree turn for the German Armed Forces, and while things are evolving it is still difficult at times. Those who fear to loose something are trying blocking or at least hinder this developement. And then there are the Greens :roll: for them the term "intervention capable" is like some offensive word.
The UK made the decision for professional-only Armed Forces decades ago. And British Forces were always intervention capable because of the Empire history.
Would be a shame to loose this.

[fantassin]

Being in contact with German officers from time to time, I have noticed that many of them are at a loss because for the first time since WW2 the USA and Germany don't agree. Those officers hate that situation in which a 56 years old stalemate has been broken.

That and the fact that the German army keeps on seeing its budget reduced (mothballing of LeoIIs, years of hesitations on the A400M...) added to the not very glamorous mission that is now tying down, ie the guarding of the US barracks in Germany really doesn't help morale.

Finally, the fact that Germany is now one the main (the main, maybe?) contributor to ISAF in Afghanistan and KFOR in Kosovo will make an adjustment to the format and missions of the Bundeswehr necessary if this steady rhythm of operations is to be maintained. An extension of the all-regular force would help.

[Kitsune]

True fantassin,

in fact Germany and especially officers of Bundeswehr have always been seen as "loyal vassals" of the US by the French. The outlook was similar to the British one: Germany is part of two alliances, a European one and a transatlantic one. Our politicians always tried an balancing act between this two and for a long time this was no problem. So naturally German army personnel feld very close to US army personnel. The first time the US lost sympathy with our army leadership was back when during the airstrikes against Serbia the Germans, although participating, did not get any of the satellite reconnaisance data...that showed how far the "partnership" really went. British got some, Germans none. The Germans drew a face and the French smiled of course p-) .

But now with the Iraq-war Germany, Britain and the other European nations had to make a choice to...Britain chose the US (a difficult decision) and Germany - surprisingly - chose the European way (but an even more difficult decision). In fact...everyone was surprised: The Americans, the French even many Germans. And not all agree.

But I think it was the correct decision. I for myself find it difficult too...I have quite a lot of contact to the states (my uncle is American) and I certainly do not enjoy this discontent but in the long run we are Europeans, not Americans. Since the time to make this decision would have come anyway sooner or later, its good to have made it, so that everyone knows where we stand...especially we ourselfs do. In Bundeswehr some may take it hard, but they better get over it soon...since it is not the end of US-German cooperation or friendship, and not the last of the changes that are to come, either. And our defense budget has to rise, too.

And Britain? They of course have their special relationship and want to keep it (who would not?) but now they will have to prove their loyalty EVERY time. The first time they don't do this they will be "Old Europe", too. Same with the Polish, the Spanish, the Italians, the Dutch...and these do not even have a special relationship (whatever they may believe). That's hardly a good basis for independence. So Germany was perhaps a bit early with this positioning. But sooner or later anyone in Europe has got to do it.
The US will see to it.

[fantassin]

I agree from A to Z !

[duck]

Once AQ manages to detonate their first nuke, be it in the US or Europe, you might change your mind. To me the War on Terror (not necessarily OIF) is about survival of the Western world.

[Loco]

Excuse me, but it doesn´t exist an "european way", an european choice, if you consider the german/french ¿policy? about Irak the true "europen way". You forget that the most of europeans countries supported USA, so the european choice was supporting USA.

[marktigger]

at the end of the day we should not be relying on either. we should be building forces that can fit into a bigger structure or coalition or work independentley. European countries should be doing the same. why because our national interest may not agree with the majority or minorities with in a bigger body like the EU may veto action because it affects their national interests. replacing 12 type 42's with 8 type 45's with much improved capibility is fine but a ship can only be in one place at a time so its numbers that are important.

[Kitsune]

@Loco

1) One important point was wether European powers would dare to choose a way of their own, instead of following the US. This is something new. (Except for the French of course...)

2) And one can call it the European way with justification. You may have forgotten it...but 70%-80% of the European poulation was against the war. This is what polls said and not only in France or Germany but also in Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain, Greece and ESPECIALLY SPAIN. In Poland the majority was also sceptical. The results of these polls were surprisingly homogenous all over Europe and decidedly un-American.

And another thing...Loco...Do you really believe that Aznar chose to support the US because he believed that Iraq had to be attacked? Against the will of a majority of his Population?

Let us assume the following alternate reality:
Suppose terrorists destroy the Eiffeltower and the Louvre. 3000 French are killed. A year later France claims that Iraq had WMDs. That France present the same proofs as the US have in our version of reality :roll: . Germany and Russia declare their support...but out of some reason the Bush led USA strongly oppose this...they fear that the powder keg "Near East" could explode and they see in an attack a dangerous breach of international law. But the French led "Coalition" doesn't care...although the US veto an UN resolution to support this war they nontheless attack Iraq.

Do you think that Blair or Aznar would support them??? DO YOU REALLY????!!!!

Well...I don't. I think one of the main reasons for Blair to support the American cause was to keep his standing with US. And Aznar wanted to ingratiate himself with the US. Because they are so important. In our alternative reality he would supporte Bush. So would Blair. But I think I made one mistake: Germany would have not sided with France in this reality. It would support the US, too.

Who showed more courage: Spain or Germany? Who truly stood up for its beliefs?
How many soldiers did Aznar send? :lol:


p-)



Afterthought: Would the alternate Budanksi support the French? What do you think? Hmmmmm.....

[Chris1]

Once AQ manages to detonate their first nuke, be it in the US or Europe, you might change your mind. To me the War on Terror (not necessarily OIF) is about survival of the Western world.
rofl
Riiiight

[duck]

Remember the old plans to bring down 12 trans-pacific flights simultaneously, the 1993 WTC attack, the plans to use WMDs against London, Paris, Milan, major American cities, nuclear plants? The attack on the french supertanker? What if...

[OnTheRocks]

Rule Britania, Britania rules the waves! rofl

[California Joe]

The Admiralty has run for years on rum, buggery and the lash......

[cut]

Kitsune, good post.

De Gaulle once said (upon british membership in EC), "The British is the trojan horse for american interests in Europe". I always find that quote appropriate when it comes to Great Britain for some reason... :| It is almost as if they want to be dependent of the americans.

charles de gaulle was a fool. The European Union is an american creation, and very much in americas own image. The UK is either likely to get closer to the EU or the US. It is not big enough to act how it would like to. The only reason it did for 300 years was because of it's technological advantage, the white man's burden put an end to that, as the NWO will do the same for the US. I for one, am happy to be in an ever closer union, Brits, Europeans & Americana are all the same, despite what national media try an make you think.

[fantassin]

charles de gaulle was a fool


Yes, of course, and you are a genius.

A man who escapes from a beaten France with 100,000 francs and a few thousand volunteers in June 1940, claims he IS France, says in June 1940 that WW2 is already won since Germany is bound to attack Russia, that if Russia is in the war Japan will attack the USA and that from the moment the USA is in the war on the side of the democracies, then the war is won.

Then, in spite of US support to Vichy where Admiral Leahy was left as US ambassador until 1943 (!) because Roosevelt hated de Gaulle, he became president of France by popular demand. Left gvt in 1947 on his own accord; came back in 1958 and stayed until 1969 when he left on his own accord once again because he had said he would do so.

Time magazine man of the year and so on and so forth....yes, you are right, he was definitely a fool and you are definitely a genius

[Seiyuuki]

Didn't the French Foreign Legions try to assassinate Charles de Gualle?

[Seiyuuki]

Who showed more courage: Spain or Germany? Who truly stood up for its beliefs?
How many soldiers did Aznar send? :lol:


Remind me...which one inform the U.S. that they have his support for any actions toward Iraq, but in order to win an election, did a 180 and became adamant in opposition to U.S.s' actions?

[fantassin]

Didn't the French Foreign Legions try to assassinate Charles de Gaulle?

Not the foreign legion as such but renegade deserters, some of whom originating from the 1er REP, a FL unit which had rebelled against the French Gvt after de Gaulle had announced that, in spite of military victory on the ground, France would grant Algeria its independance because colonization was a thing of the past.

Some of those guys did not agree with that and created the OAS (secret army organization) to try and destabilize the legal French Gvt and kill de Gaulle. In spite of many, many attempts, he was always lucky and always escaped without a scratch, even when his car, which was travelling without a motorcade, was subjected to machine-gun fire!

The 1er REP was of course disbanded

[martinexsquaddie]

de gualle was a genius but like many brilliant politicos stayed in the game way to long see churchill
the yanks have the right idea you get 3 terms and thats it leave on a high rather than stay on too long

[aeternum]

which one inform the U.S. that they have his support for any actions toward Iraq, but in order to win an election, did a 180 and became adamant in opposition to U.S.s' actions?

Germany did never say that! For Germany, the war on Iraq is not part of the global war on terrorism, like the Afghanistan war was. Iraq is a US-intervention for their own profit. Geo-strategical benefits, Reashapeing the region, oil.. whatever.

[Kitsune]

@Seiyuuki:
Not true, Schröder never said he would support a war against Iraq. One only can accuse him of making good use of his anti-war stance during the final days of his election-campaign. But not of changing his course by 180 degrees.
In that case it would have been much easier to promise the Germans not to go to war AND THEN change by 180 degrees and support the USA. After all the Americans can trouble him even after election, the German people hardly can un-elect him...they have to wait 4 years. ;)

@cut
The EU isn't exactly an American creation. To say that would stress the term "create" to much. And if you do, then the USA are a European creation. ;)
Charles de Gaulle was certainly no fool. I am sure one can say many things about him, even negative things. But I cannot remember that anyone has ever called him a fool or a coward.

[Loco]

@Loco

1) One important point was wether European powers would dare to choose a way of their own, instead of following the US. This is something new. (Except for the French of course...)

2) And one can call it the European way with justification. You may have forgotten it...but 70%-80% of the European poulation was against the war. This is what polls said and not only in France or Germany but also in Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain, Greece and ESPECIALLY SPAIN. In Poland the majority was also sceptical. The results of these polls were surprisingly homogenous all over Europe and decidedly un-American.

And another thing...Loco...Do you really believe that Aznar chose to support the US because he believed that Iraq had to be attacked? Against the will of a majority of his Population?

Let us assume the following alternate reality:
Suppose terrorists destroy the Eiffeltower and the Louvre. 3000 French are killed. A year later France claims that Iraq had WMDs. That France present the same proofs as the US have in our version of reality :roll: . Germany and Russia declare their support...but out of some reason the Bush led USA strongly oppose this...they fear that the powder keg "Near East" could explode and they see in an attack a dangerous breach of international law. But the French led "Coalition" doesn't care...although the US veto an UN resolution to support this war they nontheless attack Iraq.

Do you think that Blair or Aznar would support them??? DO YOU REALLY????!!!!

Well...I don't. I think one of the main reasons for Blair to support the American cause was to keep his standing with US. And Aznar wanted to ingratiate himself with the US. Because they are so important. In our alternative reality he would supporte Bush. So would Blair. But I think I made one mistake: Germany would have not sided with France in this reality. It would support the US, too.

Who showed more courage: Spain or Germany? Who truly stood up for its beliefs?
How many soldiers did Aznar send? :lol:


p-)



Afterthought: Would the alternate Budanksi support the French? What do you think? Hmmmmm.....
Some points:
1. I repeat by nºtime: there are a many europeans countries with differents circumstances and history behind them. In the case of Spain, we have or own way towards USA, and spanish people are ambivalent with USA: Many spanish don´t like USA as power, as government, being democrats or republicans, but the same spanish usually like american people, the Joes and the Nancy, we like the way they are. Spanish attitude toward USA is strong influenced by USA policy in Latinoamerica, usually a ****, and Latinoamerica is the world area we´re more interested by a huge numbers of reasons this is not the place to explain. We haven´t this kind of Stockholm symdrome some europeans like you, the germans have with USA. We don´t owe any cent to USA, nor USA owes us a cent. We share, like the rest of europeans, fundamental values with them. We like american people but we don´t admire them, perhaps it´s a nonsense but things are like this here. The 100% of spanish aren´t proud of having american bases here, like perhaps are polish or british, and we haven´t any inhibiton in saying this things face to face. You don´t know that Spain get into NATO without consulting people, just before elections, in 1982. In fact, the new government had to make a referendum, and gubernamental publicity was to vote YES to NATO because they said it was the only sure way of entering in UE, and UE was something of course the most of spanish were interested, and the referendum finally aproved remaining in NATO by a little difference of votes.
2. A lot of europeans were agaisnt the war, I was agaisnt the Irak war in the way it was, but this isn´t unamerican, and it doesn´t mean I supported France or Germany because I wasn´t agaisn´t the war. In fact, the role played by France and Germany in UN security council wasn´t clean. First I thought they were genuines, but soon it was evident they didn´t want in anyway the Security Council aproved USA´s propositions, in fact France threatened with veto if members of Security Council voted USA propositions. I answer you that: Who in the hell is France to threaten with veto the votes of Spain, Chile, Mexico, Germany...and the others members of Security Council if the propositions didn´t like him? I can tell you I felt frustrated and angry about France. I would understand France was agaisnt the war, but I don´t understand France says if everybody support war they´ll veto the democratic decission.
3. I think Aznar supported USA in the war because he thought it was right, even he knew this stuff about Weapons of mass destruction was a crap. And the right thing for a prime minister is the interest of his country. We have a disturbing neighbour, Marroq, who always is blackmailing Spain in all kind of matters: policy, economy, inmigrants, drugs and security. In the summer of 2002 Marroq occupied a spanish rock with a lot of publicity, threatening with future and more serious actions and even the moor secretary of state making fun of us. In fact, you can spit since Marroq coast and hit the rock because is very close and for me the marroqies can put the rock themselves in their as$#, but they can´t break any treaty or law when they want. A lot of newspapers across Europe joked about "europe being invaded by moors since 1000 years ago" and about spanish protests of this fact. Denmark was the president of EU that year and supported spanish protests, but France stopped a EU action for protecting spanish interests in this matter: Note we are talking about integrity of borders, the most important thing an state must protect. Well, France behaviour was simply a treachery to Spain. We know France has a lot of influence in his former colony, Mohamed VI is a french puppet, and France could influence in Marroq for not being hostile with Spain, but the way FRance acted only gave more force to Marroq. The french behaviour has like a frozen shower for spanish. Spanish foreing minister talked with USA, namely Colin Powell, who supported the respect of international legacy. Well, spanish soldiers recovered the damned rock without spliting blood and knowing we have the approval of Big Brother. But we would prefer our europeans "brothers", namely France, used his diplomacy to force Marroq to respect the borders of an EU member and not to stop a declaration of EU supporting Spanish claims, that´s what France did. Regarding Irak, Aznar, and Spain, payed the favour to USA.
4. If terrorists would blow up the Eiffel tower or the Munchen Olympic Stadium, I´d be able of blowing up the black tent in La Meca, I don´t say more. But I´m sure USA but first of all europeans´d support France in any action to get the terrorists wether if they are in Afghanistan or in the moon.
5. Nor Germany nor Frace showed more courage than Spain. What did risk Germany?? Or Schroeder? Nothing, since USA isn´t going to bomb Berlin agins or calling back american ambassador. What Schroeder did is what the most of german people wanted to do. Spain didn´t showed courage supporting USA, only payed a favour back, Aznar DID SHOW courage taking an unpopular decission, that´s all, btw Aznar was ingratiated before with Bush, althoug we all know Spain is not a very important allied of USA because of our strength and size, we are the little of the bigs in europe, or the big of the littles as you prefer. I´m wonder if Spain is showing courage saying with strong voice that tacit and clear threatens of Schroeder or Chirac to Spain are a ****, or that we are against this politics clean their as## with EU rules. It´s amazing that FRance and Germany accuse USA of being bully and they act bully with their european partners.
Kitsune, please, answer this question, are spanish showing courage in this matter and are we risking anything for saying NOT to Paris and Berlin????
6. Remember, perhaps because of our past, Spanish don´t want to be THE BEST FRIEND(vassal) of nobody, and if we are, we aren´t going to applaud. In life sometimes you´ve to choose between being, it´s an spanish saying, the tail of a lyon or the head of a mouse. Well, spanish were many years the head of a lyon, and if we´ve to be now the tail, we´ll do it only if it´s necessary, but we won´t be proud of that, really we´d prefer the mouse´s head better than the lyon´s tail, but first of all we´ll do what we signed. And in the case of USA, as I told you before, we haven´t inhibitions german people have because of the recent history: We aren´t and we don´t want being the Washington´s puppet, if not, we wouldn´t be spanish, we only want being loyal friends, and we usually are loyals with friends, we demand same attitude with us. Regarding Latinoamerica, Spain many times had a different policy of USA, and we´ll have it for sure. The case of Cuba is a sample, we never followed USA in this case being Franco alive and now: we were against any interference of USA agaisnt Castro, we don´t want USA rule any more Cuba, we have cleaned our as@# with the Helms Burton Law the same germans do with stability pact, and we ressited strong pressure of Washington in this case and they know our opinion in this matter, it´s not a question of showing courage or looking more "macho", it´s simply we care 0 what Whitehouse can say about this matter. And that´s all, I think France, Germny, Spain, USA and the rest of europe must be in the same side, we can have different opinions but first of all we must play clean. Fair play.