Chilling newscast this morning. The British and US representatives in the UN apparently had something of a major disagreement. Not good.
The US ambassador to Norway is not happy either. Not good either. On the other hand, he seems to have missed out on a lot of history classes. Apparently he has held a speech or similar saying that the US are disappointed in Norway’s attitude to the war on Saddam. The US, he says, have always come to Norway’s support, and think that maybe they could, reasonably, expect some support in return when their own security is threatened. ‘Scuse, me, but when, excactly, have we had help from the US when our security has been at risk? During the napoleonic wars, Norway, being under Denmark, suffered from the British naval dominance in that imports were largely cut off and a lot of people starved. Granted, the US was, for a time, at war with Britain and allied with France, but I don’t think we saw much benefit, to be honest. At other times, the US was neutral or even in half-alliance with Britain, which certainly did us no good. WW2 (see, Norway hasn’t been involved in all that many wars lately), yeah, so, ok, you chipped in. It took you a couple of years to do so, however, and I seem to remember something about a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour being the deciding factor in bringing you into the conflict. That was December 1941. We’d then been under occupation since April the year before.
What else, oh yes, the Marshall Plan. Well, we’re very grateful. I fail to see that it has much bearing on the current issue, however.
And don’t even try to tell me that the main point of NATO, from the US point of view, was, for many years, anything but preventing the Soviet Union from getting any bases nearer US territory than they already had.
I’m sorry. We’re just not buying it.