Is the UK's special relationship with US dead

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: Is the UK's special relationship with US dead
Alexis 4/1/2010 2:50:22 AM

Here is the link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7078844.ece Extracts: "The MPs conclude that British prime ministers have to learn to be less deferential to US presidents and be “willing to say no” to America." "The report calls for a comprehensive review of the use by the CIA of British bases, such as that on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, to carry out extraordinary rendition." "They express regret at “considerable restraints” on the ability of both the government and parliament to scrutinise US activities carried out on British territory."

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

Nichevo I'd like to say 4/1/2010 3:15:37 PM

that people in the UK made a rod for their own backs by denigrating President Bush and calling for the election of Barack Obama; now that President Obama is in office they don't like it. Well, he'll be gone one day, the sooner the better, then hopefully things can get back to normal. Who could have foreseen this cuckoo arising from the nest (well, 48% of America, but that's about it)?

But there may be more to it than that, after all. The attitudes that bred a foreign enthusiasm for this interloper should change; certainly, we here should change to regard them less, but perhaps it is not good for the rest of the world for our response to be indifference to ROW's opinions, so it would help for ROW to have better opinions. Part of the reason he was acclaimed in Europe was because a man with his antecedents (Ayers, Wright et al.) seems quite normal in Europe.

Well he isn't here, and the fact that you swallowed his persona as the Lightworker and are now choking on it is, to use a foreign word, Schadenfreude, except that we suffer too. Whether you really thought he was the best thing for us and for all, or whether you just wanted to give us the shaft, you also get a turn - and I hope you enjoy the taste and feel of Vaseline with sand in it, because that's all the lubrication to which you are entitled.

Quote Reply

flamingknives 4/2/2010 12:19:23 PM

No doubt you would like to say, Nichevo, as it seems to be a common predeliction for Americans to hold forth on the evils of "the other guy".

However, I would be interested to know why it is relevant. Much, if not all, of the issues cited in the article refer to an earlier period or pre-existing behaviours.

Quote Reply

Panther 4/2/2010 7:01:55 PM

I'm not a bit surprised considering the childish political rhetoric that has been thrown around for a while now. People all over the world and within the borders of the US have been working hard for decades (dare i say... even well into overtime?) at disuniting and destroying the US alliance with it's international allies and partners.

I ask, what would either gain at distancing each other from themselves? Then again if at all possible, what might the US gain by returning to isolating itself as much as possible within the North American sphere and what would be the consequences internationally?

Quote Reply

Nichevo Well, 4/3/2010 12:14:28 AM

I wouldn't have said it about Clinton for all his defects. Carter does not come to mind either as an Anglophobe. Obama is a uniquely malignant, spiteful and petty man who should never have been seriously considered for higher office. At the time of his primary victories I considered that he was performing a useful service in eliminating Hillary Clinton from the running, and I still consider her unfit to run a hot-dog stand, but at least she was an American - whatever his "citizenship," Obama's upbringing, mostly in foreign lands and under the guidance of more or less avowed communists, makes him as foreign in nature as the Man from Mars - and had at least some background in the halls of power.

Obama?

Il potere logora chi non ce l'ha.

And your own system is at fault as well. The nonsense of rendition and so forth is just that and one would expect more sobriety from your people. Cf. Wandsworth Jail. Not to mention, ha-ha, your activities in Kenya which may have fostered Obama's very obvious personal grudge.

Oh yeah, America is definitely the major problem the UK has, and everything would be better for you if we just went away or put up a big high fence and stopped returning your calls. You betcha!

Quote Reply

Nichevo Well, 4/3/2010 12:16:02 AM

Panther, whatever are the attractions of the notion of US isolationism, "gain" for the US is not Obama's aim nor that of his masters. Nor is isolationism for that matter.

Quote Reply

flamingknives 4/3/2010 6:56:37 AM

I guess that I wasn't clear enough.

The vast majority of complaints mentioned in the article relate to activities that occurred or were at least instigated before Obama came to power.

This means that whatever Obama may or may not have done is irrelevant. Nothing to do with this. In fact, bringing the current POTUS is fogging the issue as almost everything relates to the previous incumbent.

But don't let that get in the way of an opportunity to blame everything on the democrats.

Quote Reply

Nichevo 4/3/2010 8:18:21 AM

Yes, more specifically, as I alluded to, anything identifiable seems to blame former President G. W. Bush. Which is clever since you don't kick the guy in power. So Hillary! can send you your very own Overcharge button.

Whatever. Debate Iraq if you must, but at least Bush didn't spit on you.

"Special Relationship" was IIRC coined by your guy. Churchill if memory serves. As a tactic because it was good for Britain. If you can get a better deal from the EU (for the next five minutes) I guess you gotta do what you gotta do. Good, go be France's poodle.

I think a good idea would be to look into the rapporteurs' antecedents, for your part. Bernie Sanders can write any kind of white paper he likes over here, doesn't make it Holy Writ.

Quote Reply

flamingknives 4/3/2010 8:54:41 AM

Don't get me wrong; the UK does well with it's relationship with the US. Probably better than it does with the rest of Europe (Grrr. You can't be mad at the French, that's our job, dash it.). I don't think that we should cut ourselves off completely from either, as some people like to advocate, but equally a bit of distance wouldn't hurt either.

Blindly following someone else's foreign policy isn't going to be in our best interests, especially if it means that we are going to be lax on analysing what suits us best, or let someone else make mistakes on our behalf when had we acted on our own we might have been more rigourous in working out strategy.

We also have to recognise where we stand. We are only ever going to be a small player to the US and we have to plan on that. Other allies are going to act on their own self-interest and will not commit as much as we do, so we have to avoid letting them dictate policy in a similar manner.

Quote Reply

Nichevo 4/14/2010 10:01:55 AM

Don't get me wrong; the UK does well with it's relationship with the US. Probably better than it does with the rest of Europe (Grrr. You can't be mad at the French, that's our job, dash it.).

Well get busy, mate! This place is low on frog jokes.

I don't think that we should cut ourselves off completely from either, as some people like to advocate, but equally a bit of distance wouldn't hurt either.

Well, the Lightworker is surely giving you that.

The question of Britain's strategy depends ultimately on its values, and we see those values are in flux. Being inherently onside is what gives you the access and credibility to know what we know and to tell us what you think so we can hear you. And wasn't it Thatcher who told Bush I originally not to go wobbly? There isn't always a third way, it isn't always right to shut your ears to the screams of the tormented, it isn't always best to sell your birthright for a mess of pottage.

Commitment? We're not AT LEAST as committed to Iraq and AF as you? Or were you speaking of some other ally (like Europe)? Meanwhile, you should at least commit to your own self-interest - despite your successes we have seen feet of clay on your side - your defense spend is low and getting lower in favor of chips for chavs and harems for hajis. And sometimes, as with Basra, you are too damn clever for your own good. Britain has never relied on being alone in the world. I think Churchill's advice for you is still sound.

Quote Reply

JTR~~ maybe 5/17/2010 8:39:27 AM

as the article puts it Britain over the years has become Britains "lap dog" or "subservient poodle" to some extent. this country has become increasingly reliant on the US for many things, it has lost all its courage and initiative. We are no longer the entirely independent country that we used to be, it does not do a country well to become this reliant, it is not healthy. Britain had much influence in the world a while ago, it was hihgly respected and could push its weight around (appropriatly of course) when needed, but since the world wars we have lost this to some extent, although we maintain strong global influence it is not as importanat as it once was.

i very much like america and its people (who really are very friendly), but i do not like the way that American politicians treat us as an asset, and then our government simply stands there and takes it, our once proud nation has lost much of its vigour, there was once a time when we would have spoken up for ourselves no matter whom was pushing us around, but now we dont, it is truly sadening.

we should not abandon America, we should maintain close ties with them, it would be mutually benficial to all involved, but first the American government must begin to treat us with the respect we deserve, to learn that we will not be commanded against our will (Iraq, very negative public opinion, to some extent our politicians are scared of America), and we should learn to fight our own battles, to stand up for ourselves and to fight for what we believe in.

In all honesty from a British point of view the "special relationship" is very one sided, but we do not know what goes on behind the scenes.

Our countries can benefit each other but our attitudes need to change.

however, in saying this, our two countries are stronger together, and have worked well with each other in the past, despite the arguments and dissputes that the UK&US goverments have, the people of the two nations will always have the "special relationship" which is what matters most.

Quote Reply

1 2