I'm side stepping because it's not the issue here.
British opinions of a statement made to Britain about British-US relations are unimportant in gauging its offensiveness or level of respect? I... really don't see how that's the case.
And so far, America has taken action against Britain, specifically telling Russia how many Trident missiles the US was giving to Britain. The British policy of not giving out the number of nuclear deterrents they have is part of their defense policy. By the Obama Administration sharing it, they risk taking away that advantage from Britain. And as America's ally for a long time, there are already countless other secrets in America's files that Obama could give away. It was using these facts that I took the Administration's statements as a threat.
First off: No, it wasn't. It was in a single article choosing to use the word "warn" that you took those statements as a threat.
I read them all, they all seemed to take the statements rather negatively. The use of the word 'warn' means they took the statements as a threat. If they had used a word such as 'suggests' or 'recommends' it would carry a much friendlier tone.
You are saying things that you know are not true, and are proven untrue by this very page. Why?
Second: Okay, that's an example of an action that the US has taken that could potentially harm British interests. Now you need to show a causal link between this and Britain reconsidering its position in the EU. You have a difficult task ahead of you, I'm afraid; Cameron's referendum promise was made on January 23, 2013, the US statements were made on January 18, 2013, the campaign for a referendum started in mid-July 2011, and the US-Russia agreement was made on February 26, 2010.
Failing that, we could try not shifting the goalposts. I asked what the US threatened to do. Please show me any mention, even by implication, of Russia, Trident missiles, nuclear secrets, or defense strategy in the US statements. Any one of the above will constitute acceptable evidence in my eyes. If you can't do either of the above, then I really
question your alleged attempts to stick to the core topic, as this example is completely irrelevant to the actual event we've been discussing.
However, as our British friends have said they haven't heard anything from their news sources, I suspect that the British government is moving to prevent that from happening again and that there may be no need for alarm.
All that says is that the one person who identified as British and spoke up hasn't seen any articles. What exactly are you trying to claim, here? That the British government is trying to keep a lid on this? That they're moving to curry favour with the US to prevent more secrets leakage? Something else I'm not getting?
As I said before, I have changed my stance on this and admitted that I made a mistake posting this so early.
You did? Could you provide a quote, please? I certainly don't remember seeing it, and I just searched all of your posts for "change", "stance", "position", "mistake", and "wrong" and came up empty. The closest I see you coming is "Maybe I let this get overblown", which is a far cry from "My position on these statements has changed, and I should not have posted this.", and is in fact pretty wishy-washy as an admission of error of any sort.
While we're at it, what exactly is
your current position? I certainly haven't seen you articulate a new one, and have in fact seen you continue to argue that the US is aggressively out of line here.