Does The Special Relationship Between the UK & USA Exist?

[Steway]

I've been reading this thread with some interest, and I really despair at how it transpired into a war of words between two nations that should have the upmost respect for each other. I'm British, and I truly respect everything about the US, from the current US president to their kind, honest and generous people. At the end of the day, we have our connections, the US people are a descendant of the British people and that should be the special relationship we share. Hell, American's speak the English language, how can that not be special? Yes, I agree with your points, the US did bail out Britain in the two World Wars, in a way. But from what I was taught, the one event that brought the US into World War 2 was Pearl Harbour. If I stand corrected, I apologise.

But you cannot use this against Britain when it comes to the "Special Relationship". We've supported the US in everything in recent history, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan being prime examples. Yet you don't hear us twisting arguments against us. Our servicemen die on a daily basis in these two countries, all in support of what the US and our country believe in. Just as yours do. Our country also had a major terrorist attack, 7/7, as yours did. Just as devastating. Our fight against terrorism, the evil powers that be in this world, our economies, our mutual interests, all of these contribute greatly to our Special Relationship.

I'm rambling on. But the point I'm trying to make is that I, as do many other Britons, respect the relationship and history we share with the US, and would appreciate this respect to be reciprocated. Jesus, I'd love to live in a country like yours. You fight for what you believe in and share a real national bond. If we had that in our country, we'd be much better off. But we all know that what I have just said is the real reason the US exists today.

 

[Annie]

Analysis:

Barack Obama 'too tired' to give proper welcome to Gordon Brown - Telegraph

Barack Obama 'too tired' to give proper welcome to Gordon Brown
Barack Obama's offhand approach to Gordon Brown's Washington visit last week came about because the president was facing exhaustion over America's economic crisis and is unable to focus on foreign affairs, the Sunday Telegraph has been told.

By Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 10:03PM GMT 07 Mar 2009

Sources close to the White House say Mr Obama and his staff have been "overwhelmed" by the economic meltdown and have voiced concerns that the new president is not getting enough rest.

British officials, meanwhile, admit that the White House and US State Department staff were utterly bemused by complaints that the Prime Minister should have been granted full-blown press conference and a formal dinner, as has been customary. They concede that Obama aides seemed unfamiliar with the expectations that surround a major visit by a British prime minister.

But Washington figures with access to Mr Obama's inner circle explained the slight by saying that those high up in the administration have had little time to deal with international matters, let alone the diplomatic niceties of the special relationship.

Funny, this wouldn't have worked with Reagan, much less Bush...

 

[tigerbob]

Xenophon

Hey you really know how to hold a grudge! We did after all provide many of the founders of your fine country, what if we say we are sorry for burning Washington will you forgive us?

If you are going to be xenophobic can you at least get the parties involved correct if I am not mistaken it was Great Britain or the United Kingdom which went to war and not England on its own.

Far from abandoning the Commonwealth it is is alive and well, google it.

Yes the USA made a significant contribution to both WW1 & WW2 but as has been so eloquently stated the UK has been paying through its backside for the USA bailing us out with "Lease Loan", we only paid this off in the last 10 years.

Have you heard about people in glass houses not throwing stones, the USAs hands are not very clean having dabbled in a raft of other countries business, destabilizing democratically elected governments, holding prisoners in secret prisons, torturing them............. I could go on but hey we all make mistakes.

How about getting back on thread and moving into 2009. The original question related to the alleged "Special Relationship" between the US & the UK irrespective of its historical beginings.

While Obama and Brown appear to have kissed and made up I do not believe that this is a healthy relationship with a series of sycophantic British Prime Ministers cow towing to US Presidents, this is not a relationship built on respect. There are several examples of the US administration riding roughshod over mutual understandings and agreements e.g. the CIA transporting "prisoners" through UK airports despite assurances and denials, the US shipping weapons to Israel through a civilian airport in Scotland despite agreements that this would not occur.

No its time for us to re-evaluate our relationship, to co-operate when its mutually beneficial and stand alone when the other behaves in a way which is contrary to our own national interests. Its worth while remembering that all empires come to an end in time.

Does this mean, for example, closing the USAF bases in Britain?

 

[tigerbob]

Now back to the special rellationship.

Gordon Brown was given a warm reception. Does this mean the special relationship can be saved?

Not everyone sees it that way...

GAFFNEY: Farewell to Britain
The Washington Times
Tuesday, March 10, 2009

The British are understandably mystified. Long accustomed to a "special relationship" with the United States, they are trying to figure out why the latter's likable new president would go to such lengths to distance himself from the country that has for generations been America's closest ally.

First, there was Barack Obama's decision to return the Churchill bust that had graced the Oval Office since then-Prime Minister Tony Blair gave it to George W. Bush as a post-Sept. 11, 2001, gesture of solidarity. Then, there were the successive affronts during the visit by Mr. Blair's successor, Gordon Brown, to Washington last week: A seemingly thoughtless official gift (a set of DVDs of popular American films); a painfully chilly and brief press availability before the start of the two men's private meeting; and no formal joint press conference of the kind George Bush afforded Mr. Blair on all but one of numerous visits to Washington (the exception a hastily arranged trip right after the September 11 attacks).

The British press has offered several face-saving explanations for these serial rudenesses. Perhaps Mr. Obama is "exhausted." Alternatively, he is simply "focused elsewhere" in the midst of cratering capital markets, collapsing automakers and skyrocketing unemployment.

The real answer, however, was supplied by an unnamed State Department official whom London's Sunday Telegraph reported on March 8 "reacted with fury" when asked by the paper why the Brown visit was so, er, "low-key." According to the Telegraph, "The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship. 'There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment.'

Washington Times - GAFFNEY: Farewell to Britain

 

[tigerbob]

World War I was a disaster for Europe. None of Europe's Monarchs wanted it, and few of its ministers wanted either.

Except for Churchill, of course. He was hot to trot much like Bush II was hot to be a WAR TIME PRESIDENT.

I'd be interested to know what information has given you that impression. I had always thought that he, more than anyone, was acutely aware of the inherent dangers of a Europe-wide conflict, and had been making that case for years. In fact, as far in advance as 1901, at age 26, he made this speech to the House of Commons...

A European war cannot be anything but a cruel, heartrending struggle, which, if we are ever to enjoy the bitter fruits of victory, must demand, perhaps for several years, the whole manhood of the nation, the entire suspension of peaceful industries, and the concentrating to one end of every vital energy in the community....a European war can only end in the ruin of the vanquished and the scarcely less fatal commercial dislocation and the exhaustion of the conquerors.

If you've got a quote/source that provides another side of the coin I'd love to read it.