Is there a special relationship between the US and UK?

[Banquo's Ghost]

This comment piece (http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/matthew_norman/article2631308.ece), stridently anti-American though its undertone is, got me reflecting on an issue that I have always wondered about.

I have always held the view that the "special relationship" lauded by many British Prime Ministers has been a sham. The US has always had her own agenda as the dominant superpower, and a compliant Britain has been useful but not integral to her foreign policy.

The UK on the other hand, seems to have hung desperately onto the myth to avoid the reality that her future is European - in much the same way the Republic of Ireland allowed deValera to convince us for so many years it was all the Brit's fault we were poor.

Mr Blair has been the apogee of this misguided nonsense and has caused immeasurable damage to the UK's standing in foreign affairs.

Is it time for the new Prime Minister to snap the apron strings - not rudely, but with a sense of independence? Surely M Sarkozy at the Elysee brings a prime opportunity to make new alliances? To play on the big stage of creating a strong Europe, rather than an aspiration to be a vassal state with less influence that Rhode Island?

Matthew Norman: The special relationship is a sad joke

In return for destroying himself by joining the Iraq invasion, Mr Blair has received less than nothing
Published: 08 June 2007

To the last, he sustains the fantasy with a crazed fortitude verging on the heroic. Admittedly, Tony Blair has downgraded his bullishness day by day, his early week certainty gradually giving way to cautious optimism that he will, by the end of the G8 summit, have persuaded George Bush to make a meaningful commitment to reduce US carbon emissions. Yet still, at the eleventh hour and 59th minute of his period in office, with the removal vans literally outside No 10, he continues chirpily to insist that he has real leverage with the President of the United States.

That Mr Bush has no intention of making such a commitment, and that the entire world understands this, is irrelevant. After all, Mr Blair understands it better than anyone, because however delusional we may think him, he is neither an imbecile nor an amnesiac. He knows that the US refusal to enter a binding agreement without China is a de facto veto on specific targets to cut emissions, since China is no more prepared to subdue its economic growth than America.

The conceit that the Big Oil front man gives a toss about climate change isn't worth bothering with. Nor will Mr Blair have forgotten the results of all previous efforts to cajole Mr Bush into doing the right thing, most notably regarding a more even-handed approach to the Palestinians. In return for destroying himself by joining the invasion of Iraq, Mr Blair has received less than nothing. He couldn't even dissuade the President from imposing damaging steel tariffs on the EU.

Yet the charade that the British PM has serious influence in Washington must be sustained in the interest of the "special relationship", even now, when the salient points of this phantasmal entity's history have become so familiar that they feel like old, and rather tedious, friends.

Even before Churchill coined the phrase in 1946, the US had struck a hard bargain in return for lend-lease, and sent battleships to Cape Town to collect British gold in part settlement of the debt. This brutal, almost Mafiosi expression of power set the tone for all that followed. As Andrew Marr recounted in his BBC2 series, when the summary withdrawal of American aid propelled Britain towards post-war bankruptcy, Attlee sent Milton Friedman to Washington to beg an interest-free loan of $8bn. All the US gave him was $4bn, with interest. We made the last repayment only late last year.

So it went on. While Germany and Japan paid for their aggression with booming economies, Britain, economically ravaged by two world wars, had no choice but to yield sovereignty, allowing US air bases on its soil and nuclear submarines in its waters, becoming a kind of client kingdom in return for sporadic and costly US economic assistance.

The first attempt at major independent military action ended the moment Eisenhower expressed his understandable fury over Suez. When the next came, Reagan remained studiedly neutral in public over the Falklands. In between, the absolute reliance on US support to keep sterling from collapsing prevented Harold Wilson condemning the Vietnam war, to the dismay of naïve colleagues who affected not to appreciate what an epic achievement it was to avoid sending British troops.

As the senior State Department adviser, Kendall Myers, pointed out a few months ago, there never was a special relationship ("or at least not one we noticed"), and the myth has now completed its mutation into a sad joke. Soon after Britain signed a wilfully unequal extradition treaty that saw us handing over the NatWest Three without a shred of prima facie evidence of any crime, the Pentagon contemptuously disdained the inquests into the friendly fire killing of Lance-Corporal Matty Hull, threatening to prosecute papers that published transcripts of the cockpit recordings it had to hand over.

So much for the potted history of the "special relationship", but what of its future? With opinion polls capturing the British public's fatigue at the obeisance (64 per cent believe our future lies more with Europe, according to Populus, and an almost identical number want Anglo-American ties loosened), it seems expedient for Gordon Brown to waste no time easing Downing Street out from "right up the White House's arse", to borrow the navigational instruction to Christopher Meyer when he became Ambassador in Washington.

Obviously this needn't involve re-enacting the Love Actually scene where Hugh Grant tells the President to bugger off, pleasing as that would be, let alone the subplot of A Very British Coup, in which leftie PM Harry Perkins peremptorily tells the Americans to remove their air bases and finds alternative funding from the Kremlin.

All it means is publicly acknowledging the realpolitik that Britain, far from close to bankruptcy any more, has nothing to gain from ingratiation, because the Americans have never given us a carrot for it, and they never will; and that national self-interest demands not supplication but the sort of candour and independence that may begin the arduous process of rebuilding Britain's reputation.

Brown could easily send out a message within weeks of taking office. He could repeal that extradition treaty, and request the return of the Nat West Three pending hard evidence that they committed anything that constitutes a crime in Britain. He could pop into the Larry King studio en route to the Oval Office, and spell out the danger inherent in America failing to cut oil use in the vague hope that some miraculous technological advances arrives, like some hydrogen-based deus ex machina, to make everything all right. He could even ask the Americans to reverse their desecration of Grosvenor Square, where the concrete ramps, steel railings and Portakabins stretch ever further from the embassy building to paint a depressing, hideous portrait of arrogant colonial might.

He'll do no such thing, of course. The idea is almost as fantastical as the special relationship itself because, apart from his innate caution, Gordon is at least as fervent an Atlantacist as Mr Blair, and seems no less convinced that Britain's play-acting at being a major power depends as much on subservience to Washington as the permanent seat on the UN Security Council and the shamefully profligate decision to upgrade Trident.

So it won't be long before he's standing beneath the imperial eagle at one of those twin lectern White House press conferences, intoning: "Mr President, I'm sure you know how deeply we value the special relationship between our great nations." And when Mr Bush reciprocates the sentiment, his valiant fight to suppress the scornful Frat Boy smirk will be all the carefully nuanced commentary this outmoded ritual strictly demands.

[Strike For The South]

I think your veiw is a rather pro European one. If the UK decides they like there relationship with the US more, why should they join a union that is going to suck up all there money and send it east. I would also like to point out many Americans veiw the UK as sort of a big brother and if you asked any American on the street who there favorite and best ally was they'd say Britian (okay they would say England but thats for another thread:laugh4: ) As of right now keeping there relation with America is allot beter than being pushed around by France and Germany

[Papewaio]

:coffeenews:I always thought the special relationship was like a prostate exam ~:wave:, necessary for the recipient :shame: but leaving them feeling less then special :sweatdrop:...

[Don Corleone]

Wow. Just plain wow. We engage in joint tactical maneuvers. The US and the UK share military secrets on an unprecedented level. We share technology, we have preferential trading relationships. And because you don't like George Bush, you think the UK should turn its back on the US?

Sorry, BG, Pape, I thought the two of you were more rational than that.

[Pannonian]

I think your veiw is a rather pro European one. If the UK decides they like there relationship with the US more, why should they join a union that is going to suck up all there money and send it east. I would also like to point out many Americans veiw the UK as sort of a big brother and if you asked any American on the street who there favorite and best ally was they'd say Britian (okay they would say England but thats for another thread:laugh4: ) As of right now keeping there relation with America is allot beter than being pushed around by France and Germany
We can hold our ground in a dispute with France and Germany. We can't do so in any dispute with America, therefore the most we can hope for is that Big Boy will listen to our advice, indebted to the unquestioning service that we have offered. This hasn't been the case during the Bush administration, which has taken all we have given and given nothing in return.

We're starting to realise that, despite the closeness of our mentalities, when it comes to the fundamentals of power politics, America will never be obliged to take our line. And since America's cultivation of its real "special relationship", with Israel, is directly detrimental to our interests, we might as well stop deluding ourselves that we have any influence over Washington, and start finding a new playground to play in.

The EU has considerable influence, sufficient to help pursue our interests, and we'll have considerable influence within the EU as one of the "Big Three". At the very least France and Germany would have to bargain with us, instead of riding straight over us as if we don't exist, as America has been doing for the past 7 years.

[Odin]

Wow. Just plain wow. We engage in joint tactical maneuvers. The US and the UK share military secrets on an unprecedented level. We share technology, we have preferential trading relationships. And because you don't like George Bush, you think the UK should turn its back on the US?

Sorry, BG, Pape, I thought the two of you were more rational than that.

Come on Don, let them have thier anti U.S. banter, its to the point of reduntancy and amusing :laugh4:

Yet again, more opinion pieces of why they should move on look for another direction in thier alliance structure, perhaps its best for all concerned to encourage them to do just that.

I mean wasnt the EU Mr Churchill's idea in the first place? Lets see them have a go at getting it done, and we can post our newspapers op ed pieces that dress them in glory for thier efforts in that vein. :2thumbsup:

[Don Corleone]

What exactly would make Brittons satisfied that you had us 'brought to heel', as it were? How many issues would we need to take orders from you before you would accept that we truly want to be allies, mutual partners, with you?

So far, I've heard your demands:

-Do whatever you say on global warming
-Abandon Israel to whatever fate its neighbors have in store for it
-(From the article) give back all the money we received from lend/lease, with interest and add to that an appropriate Marshall Plan payout, again with interest.

Is there anything I'm missing?

[Odin]

We're starting to realise that, despite the closeness of our mentalities, when it comes to the fundamentals of power politics, America will never be obliged to take our line. And since America's cultivation of its real "special relationship", with Israel, is directly detrimental to our interests, we might as well stop deluding ourselves that we have any influence over Washington, and start finding a new playground to play in.



Here, Here !

Once you guys elect officials who will steer you toward that end, can we discuss disolving the UN as well? I'm up for it, the antiquated alliances of the past coldwar era dont serve anyone much anymore, although somehow Nato ended up in Afghanistan.

But once you pull the EU together we can dissolve Nato as well, I for one will be curious as to how the EU handles defense along with socialist programs.

Please, have at it !

[InsaneApache]

Is there anything I'm missing?

Yeah. Your footballs rubbish s well. :smash:

[Pannonian]

What exactly would make Brittons satisfied that you had us 'brought to heel', as it were? How many issues would we need to take orders from you before you would accept that we truly want to be allies, mutual partners, with you?

So far, I've heard your demands:

-Do whatever you say on global warming
-Abandon Israel to whatever fate its neighbors have in store for it
-(From the article) give back all the money we received from lend/lease, with interest and add to that an appropriate Marshall Plan payout, again with interest.

Is there anything I'm missing?
Any of the advice we offered on Iraq? A war that served US and Israeli interests but not Britain's, despite Britain's participation but not Israel's. An occupation where the US followed Israeli advice but not Britain's, despite Britain's participation. If that's how America is going to think and act, we might as well look after number one and let America find whatever allies for whatever venture they might be currently planning. If the Clean Breakers want to enact their plan to make Israel-America the hegemonic power in the middle east, they should find the bulk of their strength from those two countries, without involving us.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Just another case of jealousy. Nothing to see here folks just move on. The main gripe seems to be we are more powerful than you . therefore its a losing proposition for you since you would rather tell us what to do. And you did for a long time along with much of the rest of the world. As has been said most Americans still think of the British as our sort of relatives. If we took a poll on who our best allies are it would be Britain and Australia hands down The US wouldnt be what it is without you. It is reality that every nation takes care of itself first.

[Don Corleone]

Any of the advice we offered on Iraq? A war that served US and Israeli interests but not Britain's, despite Britain's participation but not Israel's. An occupation where the US followed Israeli advice but not Britain's, despite Britain's participation. If that's how America is going to think and act, we might as well look after number one and let America find whatever allies for whatever venture they might be currently planning. If the Clean Breakers want to enact their plan to make Israel-America the hegemonic power in the middle east, they should find the bulk of their strength from those two countries, without involving us.

Hmm, the invasion of Iraq didn't serve UK's interest? Interesting assessment. You've been occupying Basra out of the goodness of your heart and desire to please us for the past 5 years? Oil field leases have nothing to do with it?

Okay, right, listen to the man on the street in London regarding our foreign policy. Gotcha. Do me a favor... when you're out at the pubs this afternoon, find the guy you want as a spokesman to dictate our foreign policies for us, would you?

I mean, your elected government was involved in the planning, execution and follow up in Iraq. So you must mean your average joe on the street should have the ability to determine our foregin policy.

-So kill Israel and the Jews over there.
-Send you gobs of cash: returning lend lease and extending the Marshall plan.
-Pull out of Iraq. Create an advisory council of British citizens to determine future US foreign policy.
-Shut off anything in the US that emits Carbon Dioxide, including the people.

Anything else we can do for you, to prove our loyalty?

[Odin]

Any of the advice we offered on Iraq? A war that served US and Israeli interests but not Britain's, despite Britain's participation but not Israel's. An occupation where the US followed Israeli advice but not Britain's, despite Britain's participation.

That was Britains fault.

It find the lack of responsibility by some UK members to be rather hypocritical. The UK made the decision to go to Iraq, and made the decision to -follow- the U.S. lead.

Have you listened to Blairs speeches regarding Iraq? There almost identical to Bush in theories. That isnt the U.S. fault, thats Blair's fault, and his governments inability to take the course of action that seemingly the UK voter wanted.

Nows your chance to take responsibility for your choices in government, and thier policies, make a change and move on.

We wont stand in your way, because we cant the U.S. dosent have a great deal of leverage over the UK, at least not that I can tell.

[Pannonian]

Just another case of jealousy. Nothing to see here folks just move on. The main gripe seems to be we are more powerful than you . therefore its a losing proposition for you since you would rather tell us what to do.
Erm, it's more a case of "Since you're not going to follow our advice on not going down patently idiotic paths, there's no reason for us to follow you down said paths." I never cared whether or not the US was going to invade Iraq. I only cared that my country was accompanying you, despite the folly that most of us could see it was. Blair's argument was that you were going to do so anyway, so the best thing we could do was to try our best to help you make a success of it. I see no merit in this argument. If the US wants to play Russian roulette with an automatic pistol, I see no reason for Britain do play the same game out of solidarity.

[Pannonian]

That was Britains fault.

It find the lack of responsibility by some UK members to be rather hypocritical. The UK made the decision to go to Iraq, and made the decision to -follow- the U.S. lead.

Have you listened to Blairs speeches regarding Iraq? There almost identical to Bush in theories. That isnt the U.S. fault, thats Blair's fault, and his governments inability to take the course of action that seemingly the UK voter wanted.

Nows your chance to take responsibility for your choices in government, and thier policies, make a change and move on.

We wont stand in your way, because we cant the U.S. dosent have a great deal of leverage over the UK, at least not that I can tell.
And now we hope that the new PM will take a different line from Blair, and if he doesn't, we'll kick him out in 2009. The decision to follow the US to war was the fault of the British government, but we see the underlying problem beneath it, the delusion of the "special relationship". I don't want to see us in the same situation again, so I'd rather move away from this "special relationship", and towards a partnership with countries more equal to us, who'd have to bargain with us. It's the story of the despotic King versus the rule of law. A despot may behave kindly and rule justly, but there is no guarantee this situation will last. The rule of law at least guarantees we are all equals under its roof, however imperfect it may be.

[Odin]

And now we hope that the new PM will take a different line from Blair, and if he doesn't, we'll kick him out in 2009. The decision to follow the US to war was the fault of the British government, but we see the underlying problem beneath it, the delusion of the "special relationship". I don't want to see us in the same situation again, so I'd rather move away from this "special relationship", and towards a partnership with countries more equal to us, who'd have to bargain with us. It's the story of the despotic King versus the rule of law. A despot may behave kindly and rule justly, but there is no guarantee this situation will last. The rule of law at least guarantees we are all equals under its roof, however imperfect it may be.

You know I have had some bloody message board battles in the past with Europeans, so I am always hesitant to dive into these conversations. My main gripe has always been the seemingly lack of responsibility taken by europeans as a whole to acknowledge thier governments complicity.

I think we are moving beyond that now, and the "special relationship" I feel was played out during the coldwar, we both got our benefits from it. My personal opinion is that Britian no more needs the U.S. to be successful going forward, then the U.S. needs it.

I am hoping for a strong EU that can act as a global power in its own right to finally take the economic pressure off the U.S. for our seeming need to be involved everywhere in the world.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Erm, it's more a case of "Since you're not going to follow our advice on not going down patently idiotic paths, there's no reason for us to follow you down said paths.

Yes like WW1 and 2



, there's no reason for us to follow you down said paths.

You are entitled to that opinion however your government seems to disagree.

[Marshal Murat]

I think Churchill proposed the EEC, which was formally changed at the Maastricht Treaty to the EU.

Oddly enough, the UK didn't want to join the EEC because it would force them to give up their Commonwealth associates in SA (at the time), Australia, NZ, and any other colonies the Brits hadn't released.
I want to spin this another way, what if Australia disliked the 'special relationship ' with the UK, would you be okay if they decided to joined an Asian co-operative?

I think that the EU might work, but then again, the continent has five 10+ major languages, and multiple minor ones, dialects, and Esperanto (the whole 100 of them). The Germans wouldn't care, the French want to take over the world by language, and English is an acceptable medium. I say the EU goes French, and then it gets rough because the Danish rep said j'ai pas instead of je n'ai pas.

[Pannonian]

I think Churchill proposed the EEC, which was formally changed at the Maastricht Treaty to the EU.

Oddly enough, the UK didn't want to join the EEC because it would force them to give up their Commonwealth associates in SA (at the time), Australia, NZ, and any other colonies the Brits hadn't released.
I want to spin this another way, what if Australia disliked the 'special relationship ' with the UK, would you be okay if they decided to joined an Asian co-operative?
We still have a practical relationship? AFAIK we're both part of the Commonwealth, which is mainly a discussion forum for ex-colonies, and which can sometimes be a useful vehicle for haranguing Britain about its past excesses. We have mutual voting rights when resident in each other's countries, and we share a head of state who, by this point in time, is purely nominal. Other than this, what's to stop either of us from joining whatever local power groups we desire? We gave up our right to complain when we joined the EEC.

[Zaknafien]

Hmm, the invasion of Iraq didn't serve UK's interest? Interesting assessment. You've been occupying Basra out of the goodness of your heart and desire to please us for the past 5 years? Oil field leases have nothing to do with it?

Okay, right, listen to the man on the street in London regarding our foreign policy. Gotcha. Do me a favor... when you're out at the pubs this afternoon, find the guy you want as a spokesman to dictate our foreign policies for us, would you?

I mean, your elected government was involved in the planning, execution and follow up in Iraq. So you must mean your average joe on the street should have the ability to determine our foregin policy.

-So kill Israel and the Jews over there.
-Send you gobs of cash: returning lend lease and extending the Marshall plan.
-Pull out of Iraq. Create an advisory council of British citizens to determine future US foreign policy.
-Shut off anything in the US that emits Carbon Dioxide, including the people.

Anything else we can do for you, to prove our loyalty?

wow, could you possibly be more beligerent?

Its not just Britain on the global warming thing--its the entire world. Our leaders have ignored the facts for years until just recently.

Why should we favor Israel over any other nation? They all have a right to exist. OH right, its the Israeli lobby in Washington.

And is there any American who still thinks we should actually STAY in Iraq? lol:idea2:

[Odin]

wow, could you possibly be more beligerent?

I suspect He could be.


Its not just Britain on the global warming thing--its the entire world. Our leaders have ignored the facts for years until just recently.

Maybe, but the thread is about the special relationship between US and UK.


Why should we favor Israel over any other nation? They all have a right to exist. OH right, its the Israeli lobby in Washington.

Isnt there another thread for this Zak, come on man your screwing up a great chance for me to pat some European friends on the back and encourage them to move on :inquisitive:



And is there any American who still thinks we should actually STAY in Iraq? lol:idea2:

As much as I would love to read 10-15 more posts from you Zak on the evils of Bush and his Iraq policy, someone just burst into my office and told me there was a dog in the parking lot chasing its tail.

[Don Corleone]

wow, could you possibly be more beligerent?

Its not just Britain on the global warming thing--its the entire world. Our leaders have ignored the facts for years until just recently.

Why should we favor Israel over any other nation? They all have a right to exist. OH right, its the Israeli lobby in Washington.

And is there any American who still thinks we should actually STAY in Iraq? lol:idea2:

I'm certain I could if I tried a little harder. My intention was not to be belligerent. My intent was through the proper application of irony, certain aspects of the arguments being presented might make themselves more apparent.

I think British citizens are entitled to their own opinions. Similarly, I think the British government not only should, but is ethically bound to act in a way that most benefits its own citizens first. For the record, on several of the issues presented, I'm actually sympathetic to their viewpoint.

But I don't see a 'boy do we feel neglected' thread. Nor do I see a "you really ought to listen to us more" thread. Quite the opposite, the purpose for this thread is to advocate for disengagement and severing ties. What's more, the rationale being proffered was the seemingly random assortment of complaints arrayed against us. The validity of said points is not the issue. The reaction to their lack of fulfilling resolution is. As I said, I actually hold sympathetic views on several of the points raised.

Allies don't say "Do what I want you to or I'm going to end our allegiance and seek a better deal with somebody else". They say "look, we're on the same page on most items, but you've got to do a better job listening to us on this." What's more, the nefarious tone and attribution of malevolent intent towards the United States by our British friends frankly, stings a little. Disagreements? Sure. But every time we have one we must be out to screw them? Not just government to government, but people to people, even person to person? Surely not.

By the way, Zak. Belligerent? ::phonecall: Hello pot, this is kettle. You're black.

Edit: And yes, I'm well aware that Banquo is Irish, not British and that Pape is Australian. Though given the fact that either can vote in British parlimentary elections :rolleyes4:, I imagine corralling them in with Britons proper isn't such a great error.

[Odin]

By the way, Zak. Belligerent? ::phonecall: Hello pot, this is kettle. You're black.

:2thumbsup: Not bad for a Hiller (no its not hitler, its a regional reference Don should get). I almost choked when Zak made the "belligerent" comment.

[Zaknafien]

Heh :2thumbsup:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Its not just Britain on the global warming thing--its the entire world. Our leaders have ignored the facts for years until just recently.

Global warming is a theory not a fact and not even a very good theory . But again thats a topic for another thread.


Why should we favor Israel over any other nation? They all have a right to exist. OH right, its the Israeli lobby in Washington.


And you claim not to be a liberal. Yet here you are with this moral equivilency garbage. All nations dont have a right to exist or were we wrong to rid the world of Hitler? And there are lots of reasons to favor Israel over any number of countries.


I imagine corralling them in with Britons proper isn't such a great error.

Arent they both British subjects?

[Zaknafien]

uh, we rid the world of Hitler, not of Germany.

And how could you possibly disagree with the overwhelming amount of evidence about global warming?

[JR-]

i think Matthew Norman is a cretin, and i strongly disagree with the foolish notion that Britain's future lies more with the EU than the US.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

uh, we rid the world of Hitler, not of Germany.

And here I was thinking we split it in two. How many countries have come and gone? Now all of a sudden they all have the right to eternal life? Is that so of people as well?

[JR-]

And how could you possibly disagree with the overwhelming amount of evidence about global warming?
i don't want to put words in his mouth, but i suspect he may be talking about anthropogenic global warming. it is patently obvious that the world is warming as a result of entering an interglacial period, how much (if any) of that total warming results from humans is very much up for debate.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
And how could you possibly disagree with the overwhelming amount of evidence about global warming?
i don't want to put words in his mouth, but i suspect he may be talking about anthropogenic global warming. it is patently obvious that the world is warming as a result of entering an interglacial period, how much (if any) of that total warming results from humans is very much up for debate.

Sorry I missed that and thanks thats exactly what I meant.

[Pannonian]

Allies don't say "Do what I want you to or I'm going to end our allegiance and seek a better deal with somebody else". They say "look, we're on the same page on most items, but you've got to do a better job listening to us on this." What's more, the nefarious tone and attribution of malevolent intent towards the United States by our British friends frankly, stings a little. Disagreements? Sure. But every time we have one we must be out to screw them? Not just government to government, but people to people, even person to person? Surely not.

We've been trying the persuasion and charm route for years now. Blair staked his credibility on his ability to influence Washington into making sensible choices, and he's become a joke over his absolute lack of success. One idiotic decision after another comes out of the White House, and Blair tags along with each one as if it's the greatest stroke of genius ever seen in history. Now I'm aware that American governments aren't usually like this, but the Bush administration has shown how insubstantial this "special relationship" is. We can cross our fingers and hope that the next administration won't be quite as knuckleheaded as this one, or we can take steps towards finding a better bargaining position, in case we should ever need the stick.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

OK so how many of you Brits want out of our alliance then?

[Pannonian]

OK so how many of you Brits want out of our alliance then?
I'd have us stay in NATO, honouring its terms, but no more than that. If there's another 9/11 or similar, I'd expect us to offer up our troops again for America's disposal. But if America wants to invade another country on joke pretexts, I want out.

[Don Corleone]

If America wants to invade another country on joke pretexts, I want out.

Nobody is saying that you don't have a right to act in ways you deem beneficial to Great Britain, even at the expense of the United States (remember the whole steel tariff issue a few years back?) Similarly, the United States is going to pursue what's in our best interests. At least theoretically. How well our leaders are executing policy in a manner that benefits the country at large is the subject of at least two other threads.

But ending an alliance, or a 'special relationship' implies something else entirely. Nobody put a gun to your head and said 'go to Iraq or we're no longer allies'. Were that the case, Australia and Canada would be feeling some repercussions right about now. You are always free to act as a sovereign nation, you always have been and you always will be.

The severing of ties advocated by Banquo, Pape, Zak and your self goes beyond that. It's a strategy of isolating the United States, at the international level and at the individual level. It implies that you wish to reduce communication and reduce interface, that you wish to look for opportunities to take a more antagonistic stance.

Again, such is your right. If you want to isolate the United States, start treating its citizens like pariahs and embark on antagonistic trade and diplomatic initiatives, we cannot stop you. It seems rather spiteful to me, as surely you'll suffer from the severing of ties as much as we will, with the only possible benefit being the satisfaction of having told us where to go. Bully for you, but don't expect me to be thrilled about it.

And for all this blather I hear from Europeans that they wish Americans would come abroad and visit more often, topics such as this one don't give me the warm fuzzies and make me want to pack a trunk. If this is how you express yourselves in an electronic gaming message forum, I can only imagine how welcome I would be made to feel in a pub on a Friday evening after a few pints.

[Don Corleone]

And oh, by the way, while we're talking about how the UK never gets anything out of the deal, somebody really ought to have a discussion with your admiralty, and determine how it was that this (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23399926-details/Britain+launches+nuclear+sub+that+can+hear+a+ship+from+across+the+Atlantic/article.do) was created... you now have underwater surveliance capabilities that exceed our own (at least for now) and you did it with large numbers of General Dynamics submarine developers on loan to you. I know this because my father and my brother-in-law were two of them.

[Pannonian]

And oh, by the way, while we're talking about how the UK never gets anything out of the deal, somebody really ought to have a discussion with your admiralty, and determine how it was that this (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23399926-details/Britain+launches+nuclear+sub+that+can+hear+a+ship+from+across+the+Atlantic/article.do) was created... you now have underwater surveliance capabilities that exceed our own (at least for now) and you did it with large numbers of General Dynamics submarine developers on loan to you. I know this because my father and my brother-in-law were two of them.
Was there a hat?

[Pannonian]

The severing of ties advocated by Banquo, Pape, Zak and your self goes beyond that. It's a strategy of isolating the United States, at the international level and at the individual level. It implies that you wish to reduce communication and reduce interface, that you wish to look for opportunities to take a more antagonistic stance.

Why on earth would I want to take an antagonistic stance towards the US? I want us to have access to a stick, not because I want to use it, but because sometimes one needs it as a backup. It's been a thread running through my posts here that I far prefer discussion and negotiation to comparing manhood sizes. However, as in the case of the steel tariffs that you mentioned earlier, where would we have been without the economic threat of the EU to back us up? The answer: Washington would have ignored our whining, as they've always done whenever we've raised our voice without substantial backup.

[econ21]

Hmm, the invasion of Iraq didn't serve UK's interest? Interesting assessment. You've been occupying Basra out of the goodness of your heart and desire to please us for the past 5 years? Oil field leases have nothing to do with it?

Basically yes. Yes, it didn't; yes, we have; and yes, they don't.

Do we have oil field leases? If so, it would be news to me and the average Brit in the street. Are we making money on the occupation? We, as in the British government? Is the US government making money on it? Given the defence costs, I doubt it, whatever the value of the leases.

And even if we do have leases, Tony Blair has many faults but I am 100% sure he did not support the invasion and occupation of Iraq for such leases. Just as GWB didn't, right? (non-rhetorical question - looking for reassurance here). I don't really understand why they did support invasion, but I am pretty sure it was not for oil field leases.


If this is how you express yourselves in an electronic gaming message forum, I can only imagine how welcome I would be made to feel in a pub on a Friday evening after a few pints.

Talk global politics in a British pub and there might be a lively exchange of views, but I would not take it personally. (You've seen how our MPs debate in Parliament, yes? Political debate in the UK is less decorous than on Capitol Hill.) You might even enjoy it, if you did not take it personally (perhaps as some enjoy debating in the Backroom). But beyond that I doubt American visitors to the UK would be treated in an unfriendly way. I suspect Brits, by and large, are good at being polite with strangers and avoiding tricky subjects. See how you get on when you visit Scotland and report back.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I want us to have access to a stick, not because I want to use it, but because sometimes one needs it as a backup

And whos fault is it you dont have one? Ours? You used to have the biggest stick on the block and I didnt hear any complaining about that. Come on . Admit it your just jealous your not as powerful as you once more and we have taken you place. Thats what it all boils down to. Your not going to find a bigger stick than we have in the near future either unless you do something drastic. Blame yourselves not us. You want to be a super power again then do something about it. In other words poop or get off the bowl.

[econ21]

The biggest question mark for me over the Special Relationship was the Falklands War. The US took a neutral stance in the conflict between Argentina and the UK, trying to intermediate. In Mrs Thatcher's autobiography, she reveals that at one stage, the British told the chief US intermediator, Alexander Haig, that we were about to attack the Argentinians (I think it was at South Georgia, a minor outlying island). Haig said he felt honour bound to inform the Argentinians of this information. It took the solidly pro-Brit Caspar Weinberger to persuade him out of it.

In the end the US did help Britain in some subtle ways, but to me it was a bit of a wake-up call. The Taskforce could quite easily have failed and the US's strongest ally at the height of the Cold War been humiliated by some aggressive and useless military junta. Given that, I am not even sure the US stance was in her own best interest - Britain's interest be damned. I think a more muscular US stance - sailing a carrier group down there, providing AWACS cover, tough sanctions etc - would have been in order.

BTW, Mrs T herself was very relaxed about the US attitude in her biography - in fact, it is interesting reading her book to find she was much more pragmatic and thoughtful in private than her gung-ho handbag waving image.

[Don Corleone]

Basically yes. Yes, it didn't; yes, we have; and yes, they don't.

Do we have oil field leases? If so, it would be news to me and the average Brit in the street. Are we making money on the occupation? We, as in the British government? Is the US government making money on it? Given the defence costs, I doubt it, whatever the value of the leases.

And even if we do have leases, Tony Blair has many faults but I am 100% sure he did not support the invasion and occupation of Iraq for such leases. Just as GWB didn't, right? (non-rhetorical question - looking for reassurance here). I don't really understand why they did support invasion, but I am pretty sure it was not for oil field leases.



Talk global politics in a British pub and there might be a lively exchange of views, but I would not take it personally. (You've seen how our MPs debate in Parliament, yes? Political debate in the UK is less decorous than on Capitol Hill.) You might even enjoy it, if you did not take it personally (perhaps as some enjoy debating in the Backroom). But beyond that I doubt American visitors to the UK would be treated in an unfriendly way. I suspect Brits, by and large, are good at being polite with strangers and avoiding tricky subjects. See how you get on when you visit Scotland and report back.

I'm not saying you do have oil field leases, and I'm certainly not saying that was your primary motivation of your involvement (the maintenance or the acquisition of such leases). I'm saying that oil is frequently offered as a 'fringe benefit' if you will that United States enjoys from the invasion. Ifwe do, you're sitting on the richest part of the country, so it stands to reason you do as well. Personally, if the White House and 10 Downing Street knew a priori that the information they presented to justify the invasion was false, I have no idea why they would have embarked on this fiasco.

And my point regarding visiting Britain is tone. I actually do, occasionally. I'm suggesting that telling citizens of another country that you find irreconciable differences with them and wished you had less to do with them, rather than more, is not exactly going to inspire increased communication and contact. Do you see that perhaps Americans might feel a little threatened by a statement such as "We need to cut ties with America"? Not to mention, at least here in the USA, I have always felt the term 'special relationship' much more refers to the likeness of culture and outlook, the affinity the two peoples have for one another than a cutesy term for a military or political alliance.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

In fact most Americans look to Brits as not even being from another nation. Almost another state. Hey theres your solution :laugh4:

[Don Corleone]

Was there a hat? No idea. My mother is being held incommunicado. Only there's a differnt sort of water-boarding going on. :drunk: ~:cheers: :drunk: :stars: I haven't heard from them since they landed, but it would appear Her Royal Highness, the Duchess of Cornwall made it, based on the photo in the article.

[Don Corleone]

The biggest question mark for me over the Special Relationship was the Falklands War. The US took a neutral stance in the conflict between Argentina and the UK, trying to intermediate. In Mrs Thatcher's autobiography, she reveals that at one stage, the British told the chief US intermediator, Alexander Haig, that we were about to attack the Argentinians (I think it was at South Georgia, a minor outlying island). Haig said he felt honour bound to inform the Argentinians of this information. It took the solidly pro-Brit Caspar Weinberger to persuade him out of it.

In the end the US did help Britain in some subtle ways, but to me it was a bit of a wake-up call. The Taskforce could quite easily have failed and the US's strongest ally at the height of the Cold War been humiliated by some aggressive and useless military junta. Given that, I am not even sure the US stance was in her own best interest - Britain's interest be damned. I think a more muscular US stance - sailing a carrier group down there, providing AWACS cover, tough sanctions etc - would have been in order.

BTW, Mrs T herself was very relaxed about the US attitude in her biography - in fact, it is interesting reading her book to find she was much more pragmatic and thoughtful in private than her gung-ho handbag waving image.

Personally, I find our stance in the Falklands to be the one inexcusable act from the Reagan presidency. We really did let you down there, and it was monstrously disloyal of us. We should have made our entire arsenal available to you and I have no idea why we didn't. Beyond the points you make, there's the whole argument to be made that Argentina could have interpreted our neutrality to mean that we were disinterested in their aggression in other areas. We could have really botched things with our approach.

[Pannonian]

And whos fault is it you dont have one? Ours? You used to have the biggest stick on the block and I didnt hear any complaining about that. Come on . Admit it your just jealous your not as powerful as you once more and we have taken you place. Thats what it all boils down to. Your not going to find a bigger stick than we have in the near future either unless you do something drastic. Blame yourselves not us. You want to be a super power again then do something about it. In other words poop or get off the bowl.
I'd be jealous if I felt envious that the US was able to compete on the world stage, while we were not. But I don't. I don't want us to compete on the world stage. I want us to mind our own business, instead of playing at being the superpower's best buddy. Is this jealousy?

[Strike For The South]

How is the non intervention of the Falkands inexcusable? The Monore doctorine supercedes any alliance.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I don't want us to compete on the world stage. I want us to mind our own business

So you are an isolationist like me. Sorry my friend but we have been left behind in this ever shrinking world of ours.

[Don Corleone]

How is the non intervention of the Falkands inexcusable? The Monore doctorine supercedes any alliance.

Technically speaking, the Monroe doctrine was concluded 50 years prior to the Falkland Islands conflict.

Second, I'm pretty sure that's not the argument Haig & Weinberger would have been making. In its last invoked form (under TR), the Monroe Doctrine would have been appropriate if we intended to force Argentina to leave the Falklands while subsequently telling the Brits to leave the Argentinians alone until we accomplished their eviction. At the very least we would have had to interject ourselves as the moderator of the conflict. Neither of those scenarios played out.

[econ21]

In fact most Americans look to Brits as not even being from another nation.

I recall a US Orgah saying that America no more worried about British nukes than he worried about the collection of sharp knives in his grandmother's kitchen drawer. There may be a symmetry here - Brits may regard the US somewhat as the vigorous son or grandson that grew up. Maybe he is a little brasher than she is, but I guess that comes with youth and strength. (As George Bush said about swaggering - in Texas, we call that walking).

I am not sure it is a matter of jealousy exactly, but asymmetry in power does create differences in perception and approach.

[Don Corleone]

I'm not certain I understand your last post Econ. Are you attempting to say that perhaps we feel more warmly towards you than you towards us, based on the fact that we hold greater military power?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Are you attempting to say that perhaps we feel more warmly towards you than you towards us, based on the fact that we hold greater military power?
I didnt get that impression at all. In fact thats exactly what I meant. They think were just a bunch of rambunctious kids and we will grow up sooner or later.:laugh4:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Shared technology? That's a joke. The Hellfire missile was developed to defeat British armour plating which had been given to America. America refused to give up the Hellfire so that we could engineer armour that was proof against it. We did it anyway and that armour is not on American tanks.

The flow has always been east to west, jet engines, nuclear, missile silos.

Then there's listening to out advice. Most recently the American government ignored the advice of the British army, highly experienced at peacekeeping, and the end result is Iraq as you now see it.

Britain managed to keep a lid on the violence a lot longer than America did, so we must have been doing something right.

America, never listens and never shares. The relationship is almost completely one way. Tony anf George may get on great but George doesn't hear a word Tony says.

Belief that we could influence things from inside the tent led us into Iraq and it's still got us there.

[Don Corleone]

Did you miss that link that I posted? Do you understand that your nuclear submarine capabilities now exceed our own?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The Hellfire missile was developed to defeat British armour plating which had been given to America.

Isnt that pretty much standard procedure? Some one invents new armor , the first thing you do is look for a way to defeat it. Do you think we were doing it because we planned on attacking you guys?


Britain managed to keep a lid on the violence a lot longer than America did, so we must have been doing something right.

Only after you ran out of steam :laugh4:

[Odin]

America, never listens and never shares.

:no: I could post numerous links to american taxes being "shared" but whats the point.

But hey, Im on the extreme of the issue. Dont let the door hit you on the @#$ when the "special relationship" ends.

The best thing that could happen to the U.S. is to actually give the, what is it 70% who dislike us what the want and move on.

No hard feelings, and thank you for the mutually benefical relationship of the last 100 years or so.

[JR-]

OK so how many of you Brits want out of our alliance then?
not me.

[Zaknafien]

hm, Phillipvs makes a good point. Look at Afghanistan where the Brits and Canucks have alternately been in charge and things are going rather well.

[AntiochusIII]

Gee. The flames. :dizzy2:

(Some of) My fellow Americans ought to be ashamed of their being all puffed up, arrogant, and quite frankly rude here in this thread, hate-worthy if I may say so myself. After all, arrogance is one of the biggest reasons people hate each other, and there's much being thrown around here, from calling every criticism jealously to telling other posters to essentially **** out. And the Brits ought to also really calm down. No, America as a people does not want you out; yes, we do look at you with friendliness as our closest ally; and no, I don't think Washington's pragmatic attitude/occasional (?) idiocy is The People's to blame. Americans value Great Britain (or "England" for the controversial shorthand) as the closest in outlook and culture outside of North America and for good reason.

Me? I look into this attitude as an almost direct result of the Iraq War. That war pretty much ruins people's opinion of America worldwide after all -- including the average British, er, subject.

I also read Banquo's opening post in a much less offended manner: I think he mainly questions the existing diplomatic and political relationship, not the cultural relationship of the average citizen-to-subject. And I think he has a point. America kisses Israel's butt every time there's a controversy, even when Israel is clearly in the wrong [No, I'm not advocating abandoning Israel by any means] but ignores or even opposes Britain far more often -- from the Suez crisis to Falklands and Iraq...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

from calling every criticism jealously to telling other posters to essentially **** out.

If everyone were to post as you just have this place would be no fun. The written word does not convey thoughts as well as the spoken and much is lost without being able to hear the voice inflection. You are too hard on us sir.A smiley is the best we can do. This is often taken the wrong way.

[AntiochusIII]

If everyone were to post as you just have this place would be no fun. The written word does not convey thoughts as well as the spoken and much is lost without being able to hear the voice inflection. You are too hard on us sir.A smiley is the best we can do. This is often taken the wrong way.I see, then. My apologies for misinterpreting you to be more harsh than you really are. :bow:

[Beirut]

"Is there a special relationship between the US and UK?"

Not sure about that, but there is one between the US and Canada - We're bigger and we're on top.

~:smoking:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

We're bigger and we're on top.


But you are still getting ........................NVM:laugh4:

[econ21]

I'm not certain I understand your last post Econ. Are you attempting to say that perhaps we feel more warmly towards you than you towards us, based on the fact that we hold greater military power?

I guess I was making two points - firstly, just pursuing Gawain's point about Americans regarding Brits as part of the same nation, I was suggesting that the special relationship may have elements of a grandparent to (grown up) grandson relationship.

But the other, slightly related, point was about military power. Because the US can project military power across the world in a way that neither Britain - nor indeed any other country - can, that does tend to colour the way the two look at international problems.

For example, with Iran going nuclear, the US may make bellicose soundings because America does have the capability to take military action (however unlikely it is that she would want to). Whereas, force is not on the agenda of the Brits and the other Euros, because there is absolutely nothing of that sort they could do against Iran (as the Iranian kidnapping of the British sailors illustrated).

The slight relation between the two points being that grown up grandsons usually are more handy in a fight than grandparents and may have a slightly different approach to street confrontations etc.

[Odin]

Gee. The flames. :dizzy2:

(Some of) My fellow Americans ought to be ashamed of their being all puffed up, arrogant, and quite frankly rude here in this thread, hate-worthy if I may say so myself.

Sounds arrogant to me, but then again feel free to instruct those who participated in the thread how they should feel. :)

The beauty of the web is (and its weakness) we dont have tones of voices, or body language to help convey the message. Additionally, its for the most part accepted (so far as I can tell) that this is mostly for entertainment, it is a fan site for a game, so I dont think its taken to personally, I mean I dont take it personally.

Even when other posters are being hypocritical.

[Strike For The South]

"Is there a special relationship between the US and UK?"

Not sure about that, but there is one between the US and Canada - We're bigger and we're on top.

~:smoking:

Americans pride ourselves on being able to look past outer beatuy and seeing whats on the inside...or we could just be really hammered.

[King Henry V]

Personally, though I still think that Britain has more in common with Ameirca than with Europe, the proof of the value of the special relationship was seen at Suez: when Britain acts on its own without US approval and those actions somehow conflict with America's interests (in this case, it would not have allowed the US to condemn the USSR's invasion of Hungary - fat lot of good that did in the end), the US will pull the plug-whole out quicker than you can say "special alliance".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In fact most Americans look to Brits as not even being from another nation. Almost another state. Hey theres your solution :laugh4:

This notion is almost universally considered to be offensive in Britain. If you're ever on a visit don't even hint at it.


Isnt that pretty much standard procedure? Some one invents new armor , the first thing you do is look for a way to defeat it. Do you think we were doing it because we planned on attacking you guys?

You missed the point, we gave you our armour, then you didn't give us your missile. It's one way and has been since before WWII.


Only after you ran out of steam :laugh4:

Sorry? When we first took Basra we were walking around with our berets on whilst US soldiers were calling in Air Strikes.

While many of the US servicemen and ex-servicemen I have met have seemed quite intelligent and aware the US Army in particular is seriously broken in some fundamental way.

Every British serviceman I have met has nothing good to say about the American Forces and I've heard plenty of stories first hand of Landrovers racing down a road in Iraq with a Union Flag flapping out the back whilst being pursued by American soldiers.

Until last year American troops were not taught to recognisee British hardware as part of their pre-deployment training. As of last year it is done in theatre by British officers.

[Papewaio]

Sorry, BG, Pape, I thought the two of you were more rational than that.

Have you seen the free trade agreement between Aus and the US? It really is a prostate exam, but with both hands on the shoulders. I'm sure some of the Aussie posters will be able to quote a few of the choicer parts.

Little more seriously. The relationship is not exactly two way and sometimes the US can act more as a bullying big brother then a protective one. There are quiet a few issues that Australia could have done with a more active and outspoken US behind them... Zimbabwee has been a major issue lead by our PM for awhile now with not a lot of enthusiastic support, East Timor was a bit more then a token effort but not exactly enthusiastic (I think we will paint the ceiling beige moment)... and that did highlight at the time the lack of major two way effort... Australia is in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment...not many but for a small country with a relatively by capita small military we are doing ok... particulary when East Timor, Solomons and potentially Fiji are all added into the equation for local trouble spots needing troops and federal police... and then Indonesia/South East Asia with Tsunamis and other natural disasters... not to mention the Bali Bombings and a few other issues that are diverting our attention from commiting more to Iraq/Afghanistan. Also if the relationship was special and mutual we would expect more backup over Japan's whaling efforts... particlularly their bribing of small 3rd world countries to swing the vote.

Britain hasn't exacly had a relationship of mutual respect either... after all if it existed I doubt that special relationship would have allowed fostering of the IRA in the US now would it.

[macsen rufus]

Yet more allegations of "jealousy" from US bluster-mongers. To balance the books a bit, here's a NON-EUROPEAN (and probably even quite well informed) opinion to the effect that the "special relationship" is nothing of the sort:


Comments by Kendall Myers, US State Department official, at the SAIS lecture in Washington DC on 28th November 2006
# Britain's special relationship 'just a myth'
# Toby Harnden's blog: An American View of Tony Blair

On 'the myth of the special relationship':

"There never really has been a special relationship or at least not one we've noticed."

"As a State Department employee, now I will say something even worse: it has been from the very beginning very one-sided."

"The State Department and the American Embassy in London, by God they'll be pushing the special relationship till the end of time."

"The last prime minister to resist American pressure was Neville Chamberlain who was a much more brilliant figure in British diplomacy [than Winston Churchill]."

"We typically ignore them and take no notice. We say, ‘There are the Brits coming to tell us how to run our empire. Let's park them'. It is a sad business and I don't think it does them justice."

On what happens next:

"It's hard for me to believe that any British leader who follows Tony Blair will maintain the kind of relationship he has. There'll be much more of a distant relationship and certainly no more wars of choice in the future."

On Vietnam:

"Harold Wilson was a great deal more clever in my opinion than Tony Blair. He managed to fool us all on Vietnam."

"The deal was not one cent, not one Bobby, not one Johnny, nobody, not one participant in the Vietnam war. Wilson succeeded by sounding good but doing nothing… Blair got it the other way round and in the end joined in this Iraq adventure."

On Tony Blair's legacy:

"I would have to say that one of the most brilliant prime ministerships of modern times was brought a cropper by the Iraq war. He'll never recover in my opinion. It's been ruined for all time. That is tragic."

Why did Blair go into Iraq?

"You would have to say that the key fact was the British perception of the special relationship that when the Americans decide a major issue of national importance the British will not oppose. The way that Iraq developed it would have been extremely difficult for Tony Blair to have done a Harold Wilson."

"Tony Blair's a modern Gladstone. He really believes it. He may not have believed WMD – I don't know anybody knew that – he essentially believed this was in the West's interest to remove this evil dictator."

"Unfortunately, Tony Blair's background was as an actor and not an historian. If only he'd read a book on the 1920s he might have hesitated."

"I think it was probably a done deal from the beginning. It was a one-sided relationship and that one-sided relationship was entered into I think with open eyes. Tony Blair perhaps hoped that he could bring George Bush along, that he could convince him but of course George Bush has many other dimensions politically and intellectually."

What did Blair get from the Iraq war?

"I can't think of anything he got on the asset side of the ledger."

On Blair's verbal skills versus those of Bush:

"I suppose he [Blair] explained the war better than us. Whenever the two…would appear together it was always Tony Blair who sort of made sense. When Tony said it, at least the words were strung along eloquently."

On David Cameron

"He's taken some distance from the US and politically it's a shrewd, astute move."

"This one sounds right and looks good and even sounds a bit like Tony Blair, shockingly."

On Rumsfeld's March 2003 comments that British military help was not essential:

"That was sort of the giveaway. I felt a little ashamed and a certain sadness that we had treated him like that. And yet here it was – there was nothing, no payback, no sense of a reciprocity of the relationship."

On Britain's 'fundamental ambivalence' towards Europe:

"The more serious issue that confronts Britain is not the strength of the special relationship but the strength of ties to Europe."

"In a certain sense I hope they break it with us because rather personally I want to see the British more closely attached to Europe."

"Tony Blair could sound European on a good day, could occasionally pronounce French well and he wears blue jeans with the best Americans. I just think the role of Britain as a bridge between Europe and the United States is vanishing before our eyes."

"What I fear is, and what I think is, that the British will draw back from the US without moving closer to Europe. In that sense, London's bridge is falling down."

On Blair and the Labour Party:

"The Conservative party has a long and distinguished tradition of knifing its leaders in the back the moment a leader looks like a liability. Otherwise they remain absolutely loyal. While the Labour party belittles, attacks its leaders in and out of power from day one to the end as it turns out they'll never remove a leader."

"I would say that Tony Blair will become the Ramsay McDonald of the Labour party and the legacy will go on for a long time. But the difference is that the Labour party lacks the sense of the jugular. They will not remove him."

"He stood up to the Labour party and they haven't had the courage or audacity to remove him, to do what the Conservative party did when Margaret Thatcher became a liability. She had to be removed and they did it."

On the ascendancy of Scots in British politics:

"It's like Sicily taking over Italy."

When accused by an audience member of sounding negative:

"We're talking about post-Iraq and it's very difficult if one is being realistic not to sound pessimistic. This is a bad moment, let's face it. To be realistic we have not only failed to do what we wanted to do in Iraq but we have greatly strained our relationships with others."

"If you're looking at this from the moon it's Iraq, Iraq, Iraq and it does not look too pretty."

The silver lining:

"There is one quite brilliant achievement. It's Northern Ireland."

"Clinton delivered on it with Sinn Fein and I think in a way Bush is helping to deliver the Protestants."

"Northern Ireland is a success story of Britain and Anglo-American policy."


Link (http://www.ladlass.com/intel/archives/cat_special_relationship.html) as there's more interesting stuff in the blog.


or is Mr Myers another jealousy-racked freedom-hating cheese-munching Euro-weenie??

Unfortunately I couldn't find a reference on Google, but I did hear once the tale of a British PM turning up in the Oval Office, to be told by the incumbent "We don't have a special relationship". Can't recall which Pres this was, the quote has to be out there somewhere....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Have you seen the free trade agreement between Aus and the US? It really is a prostate exam, but with both hands on the shoulders. I'm sure some of the Aussie posters will be able to quote a few of the choicer parts.

Little more seriously. The relationship is not exactly two way and sometimes the US can act more as a bullying big brother then a protective one. There are quiet a few issues that Australia could have done with a more active and outspoken US behind them... Zimbabwee has been a major issue lead by our PM for awhile now with not a lot of enthusiastic support, East Timor was a bit more then a token effort but not exactly enthusiastic (I think we will paint the ceiling beige moment)... and that did highlight at the time the lack of major two way effort... Australia is in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment...not many but for a small country with a relatively by capita small military we are doing ok... particulary when East Timor, Solomons and potentially Fiji are all added into the equation for local trouble spots needing troops and federal police... and then Indonesia/South East Asia with Tsunamis and other natural disasters... not to mention the Bali Bombings and a few other issues that are diverting our attention from commiting more to Iraq/Afghanistan. Also if the relationship was special and mutual we would expect more backup over Japan's whaling efforts... particlularly their bribing of small 3rd world countries to swing the vote.

Britain hasn't exacly had a relationship of mutual respect either... after all if it existed I doubt that special relationship would have allowed fostering of the IRA in the US now would it.

I'd say our current extradition treaty with the US is more like full blown anal rape than a prostrate exam, to be honest.

Oh, and Don: Consider this; our Subs are our only nuclear detterent. No ICBMs.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

This notion is almost universally considered to be offensive in Britain. If you're ever on a visit don't even hint at it.

You are offended we consider you to be the same as us, almost a father figure? I was joking about the another state part. That I can understand you being upset about.


You missed the point, we gave you our armour, then you didn't give us your missile. It's one way and has been since before WWII.

Your right we havent done a thing for you since WW2 . Its been a one way street. And you really believe this? We havent done anything for you in over 60 years but leech of you?


Sorry? When we first took Basra we were walking around with our berets on whilst US soldiers were calling in Air Strikes.

Im talking 60 years ago you ran out of steam not now.

[Don Corleone]

Right okay, stay away from Australia and the UK. Got it. I think I'm done here.

[InsaneApache]

Right okay, stay away from Australia and the UK. Got it. I think I'm done here.

I'll buy you a pint if you ever get to Yorkshire. :yes:

Let's consider this; If two of the USA closest allies (Aus and the UK) are feeling gypted by the US, then it does not bode well for the future. As it's been said before on here, the problem is one of the US governments foreign policy (if it has one!) and the nature of your political system. Very extreme to UK eyes. Your left wing, the democrats, are more right wing than our conservatives, and the current admin goes right off the right wing scale over here.

That apart, person to person, I would be more than happy to have American friends, blimey, we have two in the family. :laugh4:

As for a special relationship? I thought we'd sorted that one out in 1812. :smash:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Let's consider this; If two of the USA closest allies (Aus and the UK) are feeling gypted by the US, then it does not bode well for the future.

But is perception reality? Are you being gypted? Heck many here think we help abroad way too much and its we who are getting gypted.

[InsaneApache]

But is perception reality? Are you being gypted? Heck many here think we help abroad way too much and its we who are getting gypted.

A bit of both I think. After 1945 when WWII ended the Yanks went back on an agreement to share nuclear secrets with the UK. Even though a lot of UK academics helped work on the Manhattan Project. It took the UK seven more years to perfect the process.

Then there is the issue over the Chobham armour that the UK shared with the US.

The extradition arrangements with the US are appalling. No need to show any evidence at all, all it takes is a request from the US government and hello orange boilersuit. Laws passed in respect to international terrorism are being used to circumvent the due process of law over here.

Then there's gitmo. If the US could have done anything to destroy its prestige as a beacon of liberty, this is it. :thumbsdown:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Well, this has got a little out of hand.

First off, I should apologise for any feeling provoked among US posters that I was criticising their country. I think I have always made it clear that have the highest respect for the US and especially her people, but consider the present administration to be a carbuncle on the face of all that I admire in that country. I do not conflate the two.

My post was actually directed at the British. It is there that the myth of a special relationship makes most impact. In my original post, I thought I made it clear that I understood that the US has many "special" relationships that wax and wane as political necessity demands. There is nothing wrong with this. In the UK however, the political class seems to think that they have a divine right to some sort of first-born hearing, a place at the top table.

This attitude is, IMO, damaging to Britain's interests. As a someone who has great faith in the European project, and would like to see the UK take its proper place at the great table where they can influence matters, I see the misguided adherence to solely a trans-Atlantic relationship to the exclusion of progress on this former one, damaging. I think the US would be much happier to see Britain as a more integral player in Europe too, bringing a more anglo-centric viewpoint to bear. The two relationships are not mutually exclusive, but British politicians avoid European questions by clinging to the skirts of the US. As noted, I doubt that the US is happy with this state of affairs either.

Re-reading my original post, I can see that this paragraph:


Is it time for the new Prime Minister to snap the apron strings - not rudely, but with a sense of independence? Surely M Sarkozy at the Elysee brings a prime opportunity to make new alliances? To play on the big stage of creating a strong Europe, rather than an aspiration to be a vassal state with less influence that Rhode Island?

can be interpreted as advocating cutting ties altogether. Not at all my intention. The apron-strings metaphor is supposed to illustrate a step out of dependence, into a properly adult relationship. But the infantile nature of the relationship at present is not the fault of the US, but of successive British Prime Ministers.

The article (which I highlighted as an opinion piece with strong anti-American undertones, not as my personal view) illustrated rather well the childish hurt that is felt in some circles that there has been no "payback" for loyalty. This is as foolish for critics of Tony Blair as for the PM himself.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You are offended we consider you to be the same as us, almost a father figure? I was joking about the another state part. That I can understand you being upset about.

Oh, don't get me wrong, the idea that we're part of the same family has currency over here too. Plenty of Americans do see Britain as "The 51st State" though, so you have to be careful about saying it in jest.


Your right we havent done a thing for you since WW2 . Its been a one way street. And you really believe this? We havent done anything for you in over 60 years but leech of you?

Yes, I do believe this, certainly the balance goes that way. As you can see IA agrees with me. What have you done for us since WWII? In fact, lets be honest, WWII was better for you than for us. Hitler was never going to invade the US but the war was used to presure us into giving up our Empire, if it didn't actually nail the lid on the coffin it certainly speeded up the process.


Im talking 60 years ago you ran out of steam not now.

Well for some reason we were on the wrong side in the Great War, no idea why. Pity the Kaiser didn't go in for that wrestling match, would have saved everyone a lot of grief.

In any case were learned counter-insurgency in Northern Ireland, not in the colonies.

[JR-]

Then there's gitmo. If the US could have done anything to destroy its prestige as a beacon of liberty, this is it. :thumbsdown:
why, we didn't want them back either because we couldn't prosecute them, and we sure as hell didn't want them roaming the streets! this was admitted ages ago, we could have had our gitmo boys back.................... if we wanted them.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Can any of you tell me what weapons system is deployed on British ICBM subs?

And hers a hint and a little more


Lockheed Martin Helps Keep British Nukes In Working Order


Your right its a one way street.

[Kuni]

I wish I had a special relationship with my government. -_-

I think the americans and british are lucky to feel a connection so strong to their own government, that when it is under fire, many feel personally insulted - as evidenced by this thread and others.

Anyway, on topic:
At least here in my corner of the world, there is a perception of a special relationship between the UK and US. Certainly, the UK explained the War on Iraq much better to the world than the US ever did.

[Duke of Gloucester]

This is an interesting thread. The idea that the relationship between the US and the UK is not that special an old one. I, like BG, see it as case of the British deluding themselves about how well the US regards us rather than the Americans acting in an unfair way. There are ties involving shared history, language (sort of) and culture, but that doesn't stop the US acting, as it should, in its own interest. America is a good ally, but an ally is not the same as a friend.

Since the US is much more powerful than we are, they can and do ignore us and sometimes push us around. Obviously we resent this. However we should not forget that it is in our interests as well as the interests of the US to maintain friendly relations.

There are some myths on this thread that need busting:


Lend-Lease was a way of exploiting the British - wrong. It was in fact unprecedented and very generous support for a belligerent country from an officially neutral one.
The US forced the UK to dismantle the British Empire - no. We held on to an empire for as long as it gave economic benefits. Once it became too expensive to hold on to, once it cost more than it provided we dismantled it. After all we are a nation of shopkeepers.
The US "got rid of Hitler" - wrong again. If any one nation could claim this it would be the Russians (and even they would be wrong - it was a joint effort).
We shared technology with the US in the expectation that they would share back and they went back on the deal - no. Any technology we "shared" with America was done out of necessity.
The US failed to help the UK in the Falklands War - wrong. The US was friendly to both countries and technically should have been even handed. However the intelligence and logistic support they provided to Britain was essential in mounting the re-invasion. Had they wanted to force Britain to back down they could have done. They chose not to.


Over the last 60 years or so two things do stand out where the UK could feel the US was less supportive than it should have been. Firstly the Suez crisis and secondly the some support of the IRA both in terms of allowing funding from organisations like NORAID to flow unchecked across the Atlantic and refusing to extradite Irish terrorists.

What interests me about this thread is that I always thought that the British believed in the "Special Relationship" and the Americans realised it was all about mutual self interest and that the UK was just another of its allies. If, as the comments on this thread seem to suggest, Americans believe that they are being very generous to us and get upset if we suggest they could be better allies, then mutual disappointment will probably increase, possibly to a point where there is a big falling out. Perhaps the UK/US relationship will come to resemble the Franco-American hostility.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Lend-Lease was a way of exploiting the British - wrong. It was in fact unprecedented and very generous support for a belligerent country from an officially neutral one.
The US forced the UK to dismantle the British Empire - no. We held on to an empire for as long as it gave economic benefits. Once it became too expensive to hold on to, once it cost more than it provided we dismantled it. After all we are a nation of shopkeepers.
The US "got rid of Hitler" - wrong again. If any one nation could claim this it would be the Russians (and even they would be wrong - it was a joint effort).
We shared technology with the US in the expectation that they would share back and they went back on the deal - no. Any technology we "shared" with America was done out of necessity.
The US failed to help the UK in the Falklands War - wrong. The US was friendly to both countries and technically should have been even handed. However the intelligence and logistic support they provided to Britain was essential in mounting the re-invasion. Had they wanted to force Britain to back down they could have done. They chose not to.1. True, but we only finished paying back the post-war dept last year.

2. True but the US was jumping with glee as we bankrupted ourselves in both wars and irrc we had to give up several trade monopolies to them afterwards. I also suspect that between wars in particular the US fostered resentment in the colonies. If they didn't provide some form of support to various rebel groups I would be very surprised. America became a Power after WWI and despite the way they treated the blacks in their army* they went on and on about how evil our Empire was.

3. True

4. It wasn't technology they paid for, which they could have, and we didn't get anything back. So it was a gift freely given which was not reciprocated.

5. True.

None of this however changes the events of the last ten years or so, which is what most Brits are upset about.

[Don Corleone]

I don't think anybody is diagreeing that we couldn't be a better partner, DG. That's not what got me upset. Hell, the American government is doing a crappy job representing the interest of Americans right now, how on Earth could you expect them to represent yours?

What I'm taking offense to is the tone I'm reading between the lines. IA, I'd love to have a beer with you mate, and if you'd ever care to compare the New Hampshire to the old one, the drinks (and the lobsters) are on me. But this isn't about that either, really. My point wasn't that I can't get along with you or with any of your countrymen in a one-on-one discussion. It has more to do with right now, were I traveling abroad, I would declare myself to be Canadian. It's been that way on the continent for some time, but Britain was always the exception (even more hospitable than Ireland, surprisingly). In the course of this thread, however, I'm sensing a latent hostility that suggests to me were I not already acquainted with an individual, perhaps I would do best to keep to myself.

Why do I say that? It seems like you all have a pre-formed resentment and no amount of evidence presented to the contrary is going to sway you. Such is your right, but it's rather telling. I gave you an example of where we helped you develop technology that outclasses our own. With it, should you desire, you could hunt down and destroy any ship in our Navy, including our Seawolfs (our top of the line submarine). Gawain pointed out that the missile complement your boomers carry are Tridents. I know you've received a lot of Electronic Counter Measure (ECM) technology from Boeing and Northrop Grumman, but that sort of thing is really supposed to be hush-hush. Should I spend some time this morning, I could visit a couple of defense sites and find more examples.

But at the end of the day, I don't suspect it would sway anyone. Your minds are made up. We're a bunch of backstabbing, two-timing theives, and you'll not be convinced otherwise. Could we be better? Absolutely. But it was just 7 years ago you were wishing you had a Clinton of your own, don't forget (not that I'm that fond of him). And here we are, 7 years into a presidency that most people in America have sicked up on, let alone globally, and your answer is its time to sever ties. From that, I'd have to say Banqo's initial postulate is correct, from your perspective at least, there is no special relationship.

[Pannonian]

Don, look at it this way. Britain is too weak to stand on its own. We used to stand alongside the US, but Bush's administration has shown us we can't rely on that. I don't like standing with the EU, but it is a power bloc at least as strong in economic strength (the only one I'm interested in) as any other, and we'll have at least a significant voice in that, which we don't have in the "special relationship" (or at least haven't had those past 7 years).

Given this, what kind of outlook would you expect from us? Even most of the Europhiles feel closer to America than to Europe, but shouldn't policy be based on national interest rather than sentiment?

Also, about the impression that the British call you thieves and worse: you should hear what we call each other.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Great post Duke except for this part


If, as the comments on this thread seem to suggest, Americans believe that they are being very generous to us and get upset if we suggest they could be better allies,

Where did you get that idea? Its the Brits who are complaining we arent good allies not the other way around. Of course we could use improvement on both sides we always can. I think anyone who lets the war in Iraq destroy such a relationship is silly. Its not like were attacking you and its not like we made you invade with us.

[Productivity]

But at the end of the day, I don't suspect it would sway anyone. Your minds are made up. We're a bunch of backstabbing, two-timing theives, and you'll not be convinced otherwise. Could we be better? Absolutely. But it was just 7 years ago you were wishing you had a Clinton of your own, don't forget (not that I'm that fond of him). And here we are, 7 years into a presidency that most people in America have sicked up on, let alone globally, and your answer is its time to sever ties. From that, I'd have to say Banqo's initial postulate is correct, from your perspective at least, there is no special relationship.

Let me look at this from an Australian point of view. I don't for a moment regret the relationship that our nations have, because that is a utilitarian relationship. It benefits Australia to be aligned with a powerful nation, it benefits the US to get some strategic positions, some diplomatic credibility everynow and then (ie. more nations backing you up) etc. I'm sure someone with a pol. sci. degree could do a better job of fleshing it out, but essentially it benefits both nations to have a relationship.

What frustrates me is any insinuation that it's an extraordinarily strong or unusually friendly relationship (which we hear from our PM and everynow and then from your President). If that's the case, why do we get the standard one way FTA etc. All the things Pape mentioned. If it was unusually good/friendly I'd expect the US to actually weigh in on Australia's behalf sometimes, when it doesn't benefit them, because we're friends. If the relationship is strictly utilitarian, I don't mind. Just don't tell me it's more than that.

I can wear that Australia in order to closely align itself with the US has to routinely commit to Iraq, Afghanistan etc. with utterly minimal support for our favored causes. The big partner always sets the agenda - that's the way the world works in utilitarian relationships. But if you expect that to generate warmth for America? That's asking a bit much. If America were to turn around and back Australia against the Japanese whaling lobby, then you're going to start to generate the goodwill. As it is, we're just unequal strategic traders, not friends who do things for each other because they are valuable to the other.

That's not to say you will be hated here etc. I work for a large American oil firm and we have plenty of expat Americans and I haven't heard of any one of them ever needing to refer to themselves as Canadian etc. but on teh other hand, Americans aren't going to get everyone running up to them proclaiming our eternal thankfulness etc.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Er, this ...


Wow. Just plain wow. We engage in joint tactical maneuvers. The US and the UK share military secrets on an unprecedented level. We share technology, we have preferential trading relationships. And because you don't like George Bush, you think the UK should turn its back on the US?


and this ...


And oh, by the way, while we're talking about how the UK never gets anything out of the deal, somebody really ought to have a discussion with your admiralty, and determine how it was that this was created... you now have underwater surveliance capabilities that exceed our own (at least for now) and you did it with large numbers of General Dynamics submarine developers on loan to you. I know this because my father and my brother-in-law were two of them.

[Don Corleone]

I think you misunderstand me, DoG. I'm not saying that we've behaved admirably, selflessly and we have no room for improvement. I'm saying that it hasn't been as one-way as some of you would have us believe.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What you're missing is that most Brits are not offended by America's conduct but by it's rhetoric.

Colin Powell saying how the US really appreciated the way we stood by them after 9/11, something we hear from AMerican pundits and politicians and then being shafted on the extradition treaty, or being told we might not get the codes for the F-35, or the Hellfire, or the HUD for the Apache.

If the US is a stategic ally it's a good one, but as a friend it's lousy, to say the least.

Yet despite this we still stand by you, look at Lebennon last year. The UK lost considerable credability as a pro-democtratic or humane power in order to support the US.

Then there's the history, prior to WWI we were hardly allies but many Americans, particually on the net, seem to think this "special relationship" goes back to time immemorial and that we should be greatful for America's good will. The less well informed also think the US was always the senior partner and that the current state of affairs between our nations is as it always was.

Beyond all this there is a real distaste for certain American cultural influences and your spelling habits, though I'll grant that you punctuate better.

Then at the root of it all the British will always see America as an upstart colony, a view not helped by the way many Americans present the War of Independance.

I don't have anything against any ordinary American but it irks me when we are told that we're such good friends and then not treated as such.

It offends my sense of fairness.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

but many Americans, particually on the net, seem to think this "special relationship" goes back to time immemorial and that we should be greatful for America's good will.

Then we must have some of the most ignorant americans in the nation on these boards. Who the hell did we fight to gain our independance? Who burned the Whitehouse ?


The less well informed also think the US was always the senior partner and that the current state of affairs between our nations is as it always was.

How many times have i mentioned you used to carry the big stick? Why did we declare war on you in 1812? What about your helping the south in the ACW. Im afraid your making a lot of false accusations here.

The biggest beef i see is you complaining you gave us armor but we didnt give you the bomb. I ask you is that a fair exchange? Dont we have missiles in your nation? Do you think we will, aim them at you? Do you want them to aim at us?

We have had a special relationship ever since ww1 however. Nobodies saying you should be greatful for our goodwill. We claim its a two way street. You claim its one way. When we try to show you that we contribute to you as well you accuse us of bragging. Im sorry we are more powerful than you at the moment. We are working at remedying the problem.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Why did we declare war on you in 1812? What about your helping the south in the ACW.


I am afraid you these two are on a par with "The Americans did not help us during the Falklands War". The ostensible reasons for the 1812 war impressment of sailors who claimed to be Americans, trade restrictions and British support for Native Americans. The real reason was the ambition of America to expand its territory especially Northwards. The conflict gave war-hawks in the administration a chance to try this.

Had Britain really wanted to support the South during the Civil War then the outcome would have been different. They would have recognised the Confederacy, encouraging Napoleon III to ally with Jefferson in return for his non-interference in a planned invasion of Mexico. The Royal Navy would have smashed the blockade. Trade with the Federal states would have been banned. In fact, in spite of the fact that the UK and US were hostile to each other at this stage (don't forget one suggested solution to secession was that all Americans join together and fight the British in Canada) the British dealt pretty even-handedly with both parties, much to the disappointment of the slave states.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The ostensible reasons for the 1812 war impressment of sailors who claimed to be Americans,

So unlike those in Gitmo when you guys do it you always correct and they were all really british . No americans were ever taken. Nevermind stopping american ships on the high seas. How does that compare with us not helping you in the Falklands? Here let me quote you


The US failed to help the UK in the Falklands War - wrong.


Had Britain really wanted to support the South during the Civil War then the outcome would have been different.

Conjecture. Are you denying that you were friendly to their cause? Dont get me wrong I wish they had won.

And my point was no sane american could believe what you posted earlier.

[JR-]

In the course of this thread, however, I'm sensing a latent hostility that suggests to me were I not already acquainted with an individual, perhaps I would do best to keep to myself.

Why do I say that? It seems like you all have a pre-formed resentment and no amount of evidence presented to the contrary is going to sway you.
not from me.

i do recognise what you describe however, and i personally attribute the phenomenon to inadequate brits & euros with too much time on their hands which causes them to seek a scapegoat for the inner voice that whispers the truth of their own inadequacy in their ears.

there are still some sane brits left.

[JR-]

Don, look at it this way. Britain is too weak to stand on its own.
at what point is the fourth largest economy, paying for the second highest (official) defence expenditure, with a huge global presence/influence, not a nation that i capable of standing on its own?

[Pannonian]

at what point is the fourth largest economy, paying for the second highest (official) defence expenditure, with a huge global presence/influence, not a nation that i capable of standing on its own?
What will happen if the US, China, or other giants decide to start a trade war with us? Don's already cited the example of the steel tariffs, when the US was forced to back down against the threat of a united EU. How the heck would we do that without that kind of muscle? And that was with the US, to whom we are very much alike. Russia's been threatening to cut off the gas, and China will be flexing their considerable muscles as well when it suits them. How do you envisage Britain standing up to them?

[Duke of Gloucester]

So unlike those in Gitmo when you guys do it you always correct and they were all really british . No americans were ever taken. Nevermind stopping american ships on the high seas.
.

American citizens were pressed. Some of those had been British citizens so the Navy thought they had a right to take them. The Royal Navy were not very careful at observing strict rules when it came to impressment. Stopping American ships on the high seas was in line with International Law at the time - the same International Law that the Federal Navy used to blockade the southern states. After the declaration of war the British government offered to relax the trade barriers that the RN was enforcing but the US refused this offer and persisted with the war because they wanted to invade Canada and take more territory.


How does that compare with us not helping you in the Falklands?

Let me express it more clearly. The idea that Britain supported the Confederacy is wrong in the same way that the idea that the US did not support the UK in the Falklands war is wrong. Although the US did not openly support the UK in 1982, behind the scenes they gave essential logistic and intelligence support. Had they truly not given support, the UK would have lost (or not reached the Falklands in the first place). In the same way, British support for the Confederacy was lukewarm to non-existent. Had they wanted to throw their weight behind the Southern States then the confederacy probably would have succeeded in becoming independent, not because they could win militarily but they came very close to political triumph without strong British support. Yes this is conjecture but the lack of support for the Richmond Government is a fact. In both cases if the parties concerned had acted in the way that people claim, their actions would have had a significant impact on the outcome, making it different from the actual turn of events. That is why they are similar.


Are you denying that you were friendly to their cause?

Depends what you mean by friendly. There was some sympathy for the Confederacy and a feeling (by the ruling classes) that their culture was similar to ours. There was also plenty of glee that a potential enemy casting greedy eyes at Canadian territory was suffering serious internal divisions that promised to keep them busy, but precious little support. There was, however, lots of hostility to the institution of slavery.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Then we must have some of the most ignorant americans in the nation on these boards. Who the hell did we fight to gain our independance? Who burned the Whitehouse ?

How many times have i mentioned you used to carry the big stick? Why did we declare war on you in 1812? What about your helping the south in the ACW. Im afraid your making a lot of false accusations here.

Oh, believe me, I've met them on the streets and in the pub. Plenty of Americans think Iran is near Mexico if you ask them to point to it on a map.

The biggest beef i see is you complaining you gave us armor but we didnt give you the bomb. I ask you is that a fair exchange? Dont we have missiles in your nation? Do you think we will, aim them at you? Do you want them to aim at us?

No, the most illustrative example I have is Chobbnam I armour given to you and then your developement of the Hellfire missile which you refused to sell to us, along with the Apache HUD; BAE developed what some say is a better HUD btw.

Clearly there's a missunderstanding here. The Hellfire is an anti-armour missile designed specifically to penetrate Chabbnam I armour which is what your M1A2 Abrams tanks wear. We went on to develope Chobbnam II based on the supposed cabability of the Hellfire, so it had to be over-engineered, and refused to give you the resulting armour. As a result our tanks carry armour a generation ahead of your tanks. In fact your tanks can't hurt our tanks but ours can blow holes in yours because of our supperior cannon.

[/quote]We have had a special relationship ever since ww1 however. Nobodies saying you should be greatful for our goodwill. We claim its a two way street. You claim its one way. When we try to show you that we contribute to you as well you accuse us of bragging. Im sorry we are more powerful than you at the moment. We are working at remedying the problem.[/quote]

We have not had a special relationship since WWI, unless that included plans to invade each other.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Oh, believe me, I've met them on the streets and in the pub. Plenty of Americans think Iran is near Mexico if you ask them to point to it on a map.

I doubt it. Find one on these boards.

I think you need to worry about your own nation

a third of all 11 to 18-year-olds think that Oliver Cromwell fought at the Battle of Hastings

fewer than half know that Nelson's ship at Trafalgar was called HMS Victory

Recent studies have revealed that 30 per cent of 11- to 18-year-olds do not know in which century the First World War took place while one in 10 Britons thinks that Hitler was not a real person.

[Incongruous]

Either way you want to eatn that piece of cake, it's the same.
Britain does not want to be America's special little friend. You guys angry at that? You have treated Britain like crap fro about half a century, you reckon she wants more?

There is no need to expand this argument into some Israel or Global warming clash, it's simply a "Britain got done by the US, and now wants to be rid of it" thread. Britain's future is with Europe, it's just that Murdoch has not yet caught on to it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Britain does not want to be America's special little friend.

Again you better tell your government that.


You guys angry at that?

Do you get mad when your best friend says he dont wanna hang with you no more? Hey you dont want to be friends again tell your government. I wish you luck without us.


You have treated Britain like crap fro about half a century, you reckon she wants more?

Thats your opinion and your entitled to it right or wrong.


Britain's future is with Europe

Again your opinion so at least we know your an EU fan. Again be my guest see where it gets you. Maybe you can snuggle up to China I hear their the next big thing.

[Incongruous]

Best friend?
Here is the bump in the Anglo-American Highway. I know we are talking about polotics so friendship is not something to be taken literaly, but close allies. America basically hamstrung Britain by it's post war policy. Yeah, here you go Germany and Japan, oh don't worry Japan keep you're Emperor, you're wargraves to war criminals its okay! Oh and we will give nice booming economies too.
Britain, aahhh, um well thanks for holding put against Germany on you're own and being bombed and what not. Oh and for that penecillin. But ahh were going to need alot of money as repayment. Oh. what it might bakcrupt you? Do you not realise what it is to be in a special relationship with the USofA?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Actually, they lent us money after the War and we never had to pay back lend leese.

We only repaid the loan last year though.

[Incongruous]

Oh, I'm sorry.
We did not in fact draw the short straw after World War Two.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, Germany got split in two, so I'd say we didn't draw the shortest. Poland didn't do great either.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Oh, I'm sorry.
We did not in fact draw the short straw after World War Two.
Thank you


Britain makes final World War II debt payments
From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

January 4, 2007

Great Britain has paid off the last of the loans it received to rebuild the country after World War II, sixty years ago. The last payment of US$83.25 million was transferred electronically to the United States on the last business day of 2006, along with an additional US$22.7 million to clear a similar debt owed to Canada.

The original loan of US$4.34 billion, equivalent to about $27 billion in today's dollars, was negotiated in 1945 by John Maynard Keynes to protect the country from bankruptcy. Canada contributed US$1.2 billion, or an equivalent of about $7.5 billion today.

The loan was required after the U.S. terminated grants in aid to Britain under the Lend Lease Act, signed by then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1941. On 2nd September 1945, with the decision to terminate aid, some of the goods were still in transit and it was necessary for Britain to arrange new loans to finance reconstruction.

The loan was negotiated at a 2% interest rate, payable over 50 years starting in 1950. The final payment was actually six years late, the British Government having suspended payments due in the years 1956, 1957, 1964, 1965, 1968 and 1976 because of financial difficulties at those times.

My it certainly is a one way street.


Well, Germany got split in two, so I'd say we didn't draw the shortest. Poland didn't do great either.

Or any nation under Russian domination or even dare I say Palestine?

[Incongruous]

Well, Germany got split in two, so I'd say we didn't draw the shortest. Poland didn't do great either.

You do not think I am aware of the trouble which Eastern Europe got into after WW2? My great grandparents felt the full brunt of the commies, my grandparents were forced to flee after the uprising.

Germany, was the agressor, anything Germany suffered was deserved. Poland was why Britain went to war, and if there is any regret I or my family has about the war its for Eastern Europe.

However we are talking about Britain, who stood up to Germany, then got a kick in the balls afterwards.

[JR-]

Either way you want to eatn that piece of cake, it's the same.
Britain does not want to be America's special little friend. You guys angry at that? You have treated Britain like crap fro about half a century, you reckon she wants more?

There is no need to expand this argument into some Israel or Global warming clash, it's simply a "Britain got done by the US, and now wants to be rid of it" thread. Britain's future is with Europe, it's just that Murdoch has not yet caught on to it.
Britain's future is international, just like its present and its past, not with europe.

If you wanted me to identify those power blocks with which i believe the UK should identify and ally with, it would be the following in order of importance:

1) The anglosphere
2) The Commonwealth
3) NATO
4) billy idol
5) courtney love
6) bob the builder
7) jack bauer
8) EU
9) enemy states

[Gawain of Orkeny]

then got a kick in the balls afterwards.

By who? We helped you rebuild as well as Germany and the rest of Europe.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes, but you did terminate the grants and make us take out a loan. That's not "friendly" it's not nasty either, though.

Remember, our eceonomy took a massive hit far beyond what you were put through. Not only was a lot of our infastructure destroyed what was left was totally devoted to producing bare essentials and military hardware, the latter of which was all out of date by the end of the war.

Add to that the serious shortage of able young men and the fact that our money was basically all gone and you have to admit that the "friendly" thing for the US to do would be to at least foot part of the bill to get us up and running, rather than loaning us the money.

If that doesn't float your boat you could have re-enburced us for all the technology we shared in wartime.

At the end of the day America only acter in her own interests.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yes, but you did terminate the grants and make us take out a loan. That's not "friendly" it's not nasty either, though.

We stopped giving you stuff and lent you money instead . How horrible of us. We were lending money to everyone and rebuilding half the world and this is the thanks we get. Its the best we could do at the time. I must say my opinion of Brits has suffered teribly from this thread. I always thought and I think most Americans feel this way, that when push comes to shove you are like a brother to us. Anyone who messes with you messes with us. I know that was the feeling here during the Falklands no matter what the governments policies were. I am seriously disappointed in this turn of events.

[InsaneApache]

Let's talk about the French. :sweatdrop:

[Zaknafien]

Gawain you certainly take a very pro-American view of history... try a more neutral stance and see how you view things then.

[Incongruous]

Gawain you certainly take a very pro-American view of history... try a more neutral stance and see how you view things then.

Gawain is gonna have you're balls for that...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Gawain you certainly take a very pro-American view of history.

You think so? I dont. I say we messed up all over the place and that we dont even resemble what the founding fathers intended. I say we should have stayed out of both world wars and the ME. Im an isolationist remember. Or should i say was.

[English assassin]

I say we should have stayed out of both world wars and the ME.

Well, you couldn't actually have stayed out of WWII, as you were attacked by one belligerent and the other then declared war on you. I guess you could have de facto stayed out of the war in Europe, although that would have been a doubtful strategy as Germany was by far the more capable of your adversaries, and the end result would have been soviets controlling continental Europe.

WWI I agree with you (or I would if I was a US isolationist). Middle east, I really don't know. Presumably the main reason for you to be engaged was as part of the general cold war ******* match that was going on at the time. I guess the fear was that to appear weak and allow a western aligned state to go under at the hands of soviet clients was not in your overall interests, especially in a region producing so much oil. Of course we know now that it is produced a whole heap of pooh but within the logic of the cold war at the time I don't know if you had too much choice?

As for whether there is a special relationship, IMHO not really. Broadly, our national interests align. When they do we seem to be able to work fairly well together. When they do not, we don't. There is n o recent evidence of the UK being able to exert any material influence on US foreign policy, for example. The same could be said of the relationships between the UK and France or Germany. Historically there have been some close connections with the US but I don't think they count for all that much any more. A bit of shared inteligence, a radar base or two, real but ultimately not terribly significant things.

TBH I think the special relationship exists mainly in the minds of UK politicians who imagine it gives the UK some special status on the world stage. Rather like an OAP boasting that his son is someone very important. I don't think its really fooling anyone and although I don't see any call for going to the other extreme, I rather wish we would stop.

[Odin]

You think so? I dont. I say we messed up all over the place and that we dont even resemble what the founding fathers intended. I say we should have stayed out of both world wars and the ME. Im an isolationist remember. Or should i say was.

Every once and a while Gawain you post something like this that makes me appreciate you as a poster.

At this point the past is gone, dwelling on it only brings up old nationalist tendancies. I'm with the English (some of them) lets move on, and opt out of any special relationships we had with Britian.

Clearly they have had it (well thier public anyway) so the less entanglements we have abroad with alliances that no longer seem to be in the best intrest of all members, the better for everyone.

And Gawain, you can still be an isolationist, the EU and Britian have more then enough resources, and will to take care of thier own business.

As do we.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well, you couldn't actually have stayed out of WWII, as you were attacked by one belligerent and the other then declared war on you.

We goaded them into it.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Anyone who messes with you messes with us.

Unless it's the IRA~;)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Unless it's the IRA

Most of the US is protestant not Catholic. There never was any state support by the US for the IRA only from misguided catholics.

[InsaneApache]

:wall:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

:wall:

What you want us to do declare war on them ?

[Incongruous]

What you want us to do declare war on them ?

On whom? The French!?
Well then, we have reached an accord!:2thumbsup:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

For once Im with you :laugh4:

[Incongruous]

I motion that our nations armies be deployd with Longbows, stakes, shaving cream, wax strips and female razors!
Oh and some good old decent soap.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Most of the US is protestant not Catholic. There never was any state support by the US for the IRA only from misguided catholics.

Your government refused to allow the etradition of even one IRA killer.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The United States has designated the Real IRA, a splinter group of the Irish Republican Army, a "foreign terrorist organisation", meaning financial and other sanctions.

Any assets the Real IRA has in the United States are now frozen, it is illegal to support the group financially and members are not eligible for US visas.

The US government included organisations identified as aliases for the Real IRA, which engineered the 1998 Omagh car bombing that killed 29 people and wounded 300 in Northern Ireland's single worst atrocity.

LINK (http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425822/40263)


Your government refused to allow the etradition of even one IRA killer.
Now just how many of these dudes do we have here?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

LINK (http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425822/40263)

Now just how many of these dudes do we have here?

Lots, and 2001 is about 4 years after the IRA itself officially ended it's armed strugle, members of Sinn Fein are usually invited the Saint Patrick's Day celebrations at the White House.

The Real IRA was a fairly pathetic splinter group that refused to recognise the Good Friday Agreement. The article you posted makes that all quite clear.

It was an empty gesture. Tell me, are the IRA themselves a proscribed terrorist organisation in America?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Lots,

Well give me a list and Ill write my congressman.


ell me, are the IRA themselves a proscribed terrorist organisation in America?


Terrorism
August 12, 2005
Current List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Other Terrorist Organizations

Harakat ul-Jihad-I-Islami/Bangladesh (HUJI-B)

Hizb-I Islami Gulbuddi

* Hizb ul-Mujahedin

Irish National Liberation Army (INLA)

Irish Republican Army (IRA)

* Islamic Army of Aden (IAA)

* Islamic International Peacekeeping Brigade

I only gave you a partal list of Hs and Is

[Pannonian]

Lots, and 2001 is about 4 years after the IRA itself officially ended it's armed strugle, members of Sinn Fein are usually invited the Saint Patrick's Day celebrations at the White House.

The Real IRA was a fairly pathetic splinter group that refused to recognise the Good Friday Agreement. The article you posted makes that all quite clear.

It was an empty gesture. Tell me, are the IRA themselves a proscribed terrorist organisation in America?
Philipvs mate, you're pushing it here. The support of some US citizens for the IRA was annoying, but the IRA even at their height were never a realistic threat to us as long as we kept our nerve. It's something to moan about, but it's hardly something to bear a grudge over. In 50 years' time it'll probably be at the same level as our burning of the White House - material for one side to tease the other with, but not exactly taken seriously. With the range of grievances we could whinge about, it's good to rotate them lest one takes oneself too seriously, which I've noticed you have a habit of doing. A most unEnglish habit, I'd have thought.