It's not our ground to cede, the brits were our enemy for longer than they've been an "ally " (parasite) and our government would never actually win that war, only waste lives pointlessly like the last 20 years.
Destroying the jihadis is a different conversation than saving the brits, too. If we were actually going to do it, the former is good policy. The latter is a waste of time. We don't want them as a state and allowing them self governance leads to their current problems. The britfags sending agents to meddle in our elections recently also marks them as hostile.
Britain was not our ally until we bailed them out in the world wars. They were a threat the entire 19th century and have provided net negative value as an ally. Their government is corrupt - so is ours. We have million strong protests against government corruption and threats of rebellion frequently. They roll over and beg to be stepped on by their "lords". Their nation is culturally dead and all that's left is the willing serfs. They have no value. I will not support spending the lives of my people on serfs that will never stand for themselves - either we save them and they let it happen again, and again, or we conquer them and they bring negative value culturally because they are cowardly serfs.
British people that want to live free can pick their shit up and move (all ten of them left).
I reject this out-right, and I will not cede ground to the Mohammedians, when we didn't cede Spain either (and that took 400 years).
What? No.
I'm talking about the West generally.
You're a race communist. I don't even consider you part of the West.
Pot kettle, fagbot. Go be a gay race commie on the gay race commie board you came from.
It's not our ground to cede, the brits were our enemy for longer than they've been an "ally " (parasite) and our government would never actually win that war, only waste lives pointlessly like the last 20 years.
Destroying the jihadis is a different conversation than saving the brits, too. If we were actually going to do it, the former is good policy. The latter is a waste of time. We don't want them as a state and allowing them self governance leads to their current problems. The britfags sending agents to meddle in our elections recently also marks them as hostile.
Britain was only an "enemy" for a few decades. The Special Relationship has been going on for 130 years or so.
I don't think there is a difference between destroying Jihadism and saving Britain.
And yes, the Labour Party is the enemy, obviously. But not all random British people.
Britain was not our ally until we bailed them out in the world wars. They were a threat the entire 19th century and have provided net negative value as an ally. Their government is corrupt - so is ours. We have million strong protests against government corruption and threats of rebellion frequently. They roll over and beg to be stepped on by their "lords". Their nation is culturally dead and all that's left is the willing serfs. They have no value. I will not support spending the lives of my people on serfs that will never stand for themselves - either we save them and they let it happen again, and again, or we conquer them and they bring negative value culturally because they are cowardly serfs.
British people that want to live free can pick their shit up and move (all ten of them left).
They have been our vassal since the 2nd World War, and The Special Relationship starts in the late 1800's.
I'm not saying invade Britain. I'm saying help them.