Is there a special relationship between the US and UK?

[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.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

We're bigger and we're on top.

But you are still getting ........................NVM

[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.

(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.

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

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

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 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.

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.

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

[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.

[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.

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.