Or hosting a US missile defense shield base, even?

Anything that helps stop that UTTER FUCKING LUNACY isn't totally bad.

Once, just once, when the US proposes something needing our cooperation, instead of lubing up, I would like our Government to say "OK pal, what is in it for us?"

Exactly.

I am only half joking when I say that I think one of the reasons that our Government instantly bows down and lubes up to the US when it comes to shit like that is because they have incriminating photos of Thatcher sucking off Reagan.

Anything that helps stop that UTTER FUCKING LUNACY isn't totally bad.

Once, just once, when the US proposes something needing our cooperation, instead of lubing up, I would like our Government to say "OK pal, what is in it for us?"

I think the general answer to that question is "we won't smear your economy into the floor, of course, or share any intelligence with your 6th formers. Sorry, MI5. Or is is MI6? Well whatever, they're both shit."

I'd like to see them try. Genuinely. Their army is shite without our help and we can always trade properly with Europe.

You know what I mean, though. There's almost certainly something they're holding over us that they're threatening to withdraw, rather than actually offering us anything in return for support. Stick rather than carrot, so to speak.

We could kick half of their banks out and not make much of a difference.

This is pretty common, Mr Gnomes. An interesting example from recent history is the Russians sort of bombing a Georgian village episode, which was quite funny. In a not very funny sort of way.

I think Russia just enjoys continually putting the shits up Georgia, to remind them that they have one of the world's largest militaries parked next door to them, and so they jolly well better not cosy up to those Western sorts or... well. Oh! Look at all these tanks and aeroplanes, eh? What are those doing there? Nothing about this overwhelming firepower on your doorstep should concern you, comrades. Even if they keep accidentally bombing and shooting at you.

President George W Bush has said the US will use military aircraft and naval forces to deliver aid to Georgia following its conflict with Russia.

Are they delivering aid by bomb, then?

President George W. Bush's pledge to send aid to Georgia means that the U.S. military will take control of the ex-Soviet state's ports and airports, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili said on Wednesday.

However, they are suggesting that the US will send aid via "military aircraft and naval vessels".

This is worrying.

I can't see the yanks sending their transport aircraft over there without running escorts with fighters. So I can just see a bolshy* Russian pilot lighting up a US fighter with their targetting radar just to make a point, a la the Berlin Airlift. However, I can then definitely see a twitchy US pilot going spacko and firing on the Russian, decidedly not a la the Berlin Airlift.

I really, really don't want any US aircraft anywhere near Georgia, as I want to live to retirement.

*Yes. Ha!

Hang on, Ossettian's blame Georgia. So why are the US sending them aid? I'm very confused.

But Mr Medvedev said it demonstrated that Russia's concerns about new systems in eastern Europe were valid.

"The deployment of new anti-missile forces has as its aim the Russian Federation," he said.

...
Mr Rogozin told Reuters news agency the timing showed "the missile defence system will be deployed not against Iran but against the strategic potential of Russia".

Moscow has long argued the project will upset the military balance in Europe and has warned it will be forced to redirect its missiles at Poland.

Putting the missiles there in the first place is a violation of the Anti-Ballistic Treaty signed by both Russia and America back in the 70s, which is part of the reason why Russia is (and always has been) against the Bush Administration's plan to stick "anti-Axis of Evil" missile systems right next to Russia. What the Russians should do, of course, is stick an ABM system outside of Havana...