Does The Special Relationship Between the UK & USA Exist?

[WilliamC]

A poll in the Guardian Newspaper Web site questions the "Special Relationship" between the UK & the US

Sure, the US and UK share a common language, history and culture. But as Gordon Brown proudly tours Washington, most Americans are offering up a collective yawn. The President could not sqeeze in a press conference but found time to meet the Boy Scouts of America.

Is the alliance just your standard marriage of convenience, or is the trans-Atlantic bond truly special?

The results from the british pollsters thus far:

Yes. Ever since that whole war of 1812 thing, the US and UK have been the best friends – and always will be scores 28.6%

No. Britain is just like any other regional ally – the Japan of Europe 71.4%

Is it time to go our separate ways?

 

[AllieBaba]

I guess we'll only be friends with China, Russia and Iran now.

Bye bye, England. It was fun......but Obamites are committed to "improving" our relationships abroad. So adios!

 

[Diuretic]

The Brits had a choice. France or the US. The "special relationship" or the entente cordiale. For the Brits it's a case of least disliked

I think the "special relationship" is over. It was finally broken by Tony Blair. It had been in a state of disuetude for some time, it was a bit like a failed marriage where the spouses are living separate lives under the same roof, polite indifference. Blair presumed to be able to influence Bush over foreign policy. Bush wouldn't have any of it. That was when the divorce lawyers were called in.

So I think it's over.

 

[AllieBaba]

You are so full of it.

 

[Annie]

A poll in the Guardian Newspaper Web site questions the "Special Relationship" between the UK & the US

Sure, the US and UK share a common language, history and culture. But as Gordon Brown proudly tours Washington, most Americans are offering up a collective yawn. The President could not sqeeze in a press conference but found time to meet the Boy Scouts of America.

Is the alliance just your standard marriage of convenience, or is the trans-Atlantic bond truly special?

The results from the british pollsters thus far:

Yes. Ever since that whole war of 1812 thing, the US and UK have been the best friends – and always will be scores 28.6%

No. Britain is just like any other regional ally – the Japan of Europe 71.4%

Is it time to go our separate ways?

Seems to be the new administration's feelings from all signs.

 

[editec]

Are you kidding?

The USA and England are the love that dare not speak its name.

Did you see Bush II when Queen Elizabeth visited? He was on his very best behavior.

Time to end that relationship?

No, the Brits' masters and our masters are long time great allies.

Plus, we have MIT and Caltech pumping out scientists to make superweapons, and they have Cambridge and Oxford churning out diplomats, geopolitical thinkers and spys who can actually speak Farsi.

Besides, our central banks are joined at the hip, and have been since 1913, when the Bank of England became one of our FEDs major investors.

The Anglos and Americans are really two distinctly different currencies dominated and controlled by essantially same ruling banking class.

And while blood is thicker than water, gold is thicker than blood.

 

[AllieBaba]

Ok, now it really is time to put the pipe down.

 

[Xenophon]

This crap was created during the First world War, when Wilson conned the USA into bailing out the English and french who could not defeat the Germans.

I feel no afinity to the UK, and view them as the founders did, as a government that never has our best interests at heart.

 

[Diuretic]

A poll in the Guardian Newspaper Web site questions the "Special Relationship" between the UK & the US

Sure, the US and UK share a common language, history and culture. But as Gordon Brown proudly tours Washington, most Americans are offering up a collective yawn. The President could not sqeeze in a press conference but found time to meet the Boy Scouts of America.

Is the alliance just your standard marriage of convenience, or is the trans-Atlantic bond truly special?

The results from the british pollsters thus far:

Yes. Ever since that whole war of 1812 thing, the US and UK have been the best friends – and always will be scores 28.6%

No. Britain is just like any other regional ally – the Japan of Europe 71.4%

Is it time to go our separate ways?

Seems to be the new administration's feelings from all signs.

There's no time for sentimentality or appeals to history now, any affiliations or alliances have to be hammered out on the basis of mutual interest. Heck the Brits dumped the Commonwealth countries as quick as a flash when they entered the EU (European Common Market as it as then).

 

[Diuretic]

This crap was created during the First world War, when Wilson conned the USA into bailing out the English and french who could not defeat the Germans.

I feel no afinity to the UK, and view them as the founders did, as a government that never has our best interests at heart.

More revisionism. Or is that what you're taught at school. True, there was a deadlock on the western front. Pershing (who is to be admired) thought his fresh troops could break it, but he wasn't completely correct. But no doubt American troops helped the alied effort. Oh, don't forget the Canadians, they won Vimy Ridge. And don't forget the other Empire forces such as the Australians, New Zealanders and others.

You probably need to revise why Wilson asked the US to go to war with Germany Germany presented a naked threat to US interests in the US sphere of influence.

But Sgt York was a fine film.

 

[Xenophon]

More revisionism.

Revisionism your ass.

The allies were near collapse in 1918, they were out of MONEY and their forces were near the break point.

The USA footed the war bills from 1917 on, THAT is what kept the allies in the war, US forces helped to blunt the first phase of the Kaiserschalt offensives, which nearly forced France into a true armistice rather then the fake one later was turned into a german surrender.

If you want to discuss the subject I'm fine with it, but don't even attempt to try and claim our colonial 'allies' had the upper hand without Uncle Sam saving their sad sack asses from a kaiser win, or the more likely scenario, a draw.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

How about no entangling alliances at all and just trade with everybody who has something to offer? Just a thought.

"Nations don't have friends. They have interests." -DeGaulle

 

[Diuretic]

More revisionism.

Revisionism your ass.

The allies were near collapse in 1918, they were out of MONEY and their forces were near the break point.

The USA footed the war bills from 1917 on, THAT is what kept the allies in the war, US forces helped to blunt the first phase of the Kaiserschalt offensives, which nearly forced France into a true armistice that the fake one later was turned into a german surrender.

If you want to discuss the subject I'm fine with it, but don't even attempt to try and claim our colonial 'allies' had the upper hand without Uncle Sam saving their sad sack asses from a kaiser win, or the more likely scenario, a draw.

Footed the bill? Well of course the US paid its way after it decided that its interests were threatened and it would get involved in WWI. Up until then what do you think was happening? Was the US a charity? Hardly. The US made big money out of selling materiel in WWI (and WWII before entry). $3.2 billion in 1916. Nice work and no risk.

You may want to examine the isolationism of the US during WWI (just in case you forgot, the war began in 1914) and what caused the US to finally drop its isolationist approach (it was national self-interest). I need to make a point here. I understand that a nation should only go to war if its national self-interest was threatened. I'm not decrying that. What does irk me is revisionist bullshit. The US was not a saviour of anyone in WWI and it didn't enter for any other reason other than national self-interest. Again. just in case you missed it, I accept that. What I reject is the sanctimonious bullshit about "saving" anyone. The history is there. What drove the US to join WWI and WWII was national self-interest. What should drive any nation to engage in war is national self-interest.

Now, don't even try and put a scenario to me that suggests that WWI would not have been won without US intervention. Pershing was an impressive general but he wasn't infallible and nor were his forces. He had to re-think his approach and it ended up in an impressive victory in one battle at least. But the whole fucking war was just imperialism using ordinary people to progress imperialist interests. I am not interested in defending a war that involved the slaughter of ordinary people to advance sectional interests. But I do have to take issue with blowhard claims such as yours. As much as I despise the occurrence of WWI I have to take issue with overblown claims about it.

 

[Diuretic]

How about no entangling alliances at all and just trade with everybody who has something to offer? Just a thought.

"Nations don't have friends. They have interests." -DeGaulle

An excellent idea. But it requires the end of imperialism, including economic imperialism. Now we have transnational corporations with more power than nations we may have to think about your proposition a bit harder.

 

[Xenophon]

Footed the bill? Well of course the US paid its way after it decided that its interests were threatened and it would get involved in WWI. Up until then what do you think was happening? Was the US a charity? Hardly. The US made big money out of selling materiel in WWI (and WWII before entry). $3.2 billion in 1916. Nice work and no risk.

Which is irrelivent to the FACT, not 'revision' that the allied powers had litterally run out of money, only US loans kept allied factories running.

You may want to examine the isolationism of the US during WWI (just in case you forgot, the war began in 1914) and what caused the US to finally drop its isolationist approach (it was national self-interest). I need to make a point here. I understand that a nation should only go to war if its national self-interest was threatened. I'm not decrying that. What does irk me is revisionist bullshit. The US was not a saviour of anyone in WWI and it didn't enter for any other reason other than national self-interest. Again. just in case you missed it, I accept that. What I reject is the sanctimonious bullshit about "saving" anyone. The history is there. What drove the US to join WWI and WWII was national self-interest. What should drive any nation to engage in war is national self-interest.

Therein is the rub, the United state's interests were not 'threatened' but in fact there was a cable to get the US in the war on the allied side, their favored tactic was to drum up support by pointing to unrestricted submarine warfare as uncivilized and a threat to US trade. Of course they never mention that the Royal Navy of our 'special' ally routinly stopped and seized ships heading for NEUTRAL European ports on the pretext that the loads might go to germany. The Dutch suffered quite a bit because of this. They finally suceeded with the revelation of the Zimmerman telegram in which Germany promises pieces of the USA to go to Mexico should Mexico declare war on the USA.

Thus, it was NOT in our 'self interest' to enter the war, it was in the interest of a small group of people who manipulated the USA into the war. You should read about public opinion during the war, it was split evenly until the Lusitania episode, germany even sent supply subs to the USA to run the blockade and these were heavily cheered in the USA.

Now, don't even try and put a scenario to me that suggests that WWI would not have been won without US intervention.

If you believe the allies could have defeated Germany without US aide you simply don't know what you are talking about.

Pershing was an impressive general but he wasn't infallible and nor were his forces.

Pershing was a horrible general, so bad and so casualty causing he was nearly relieved, only the war's end prevented it.

He had to re-think his approach and it ended up in an impressive victory in one battle at least. But the whole fucking war was just imperialism using ordinary people to progress imperialist interests.

It was the most pointless war in history, basically what happened is the system they set up to prevent war (alliances) caused the very thing it was supposed to prevent.

I am not interested in defending a war that involved the slaughter of ordinary people to advance sectional interests. But I do have to take issue with blowhard claims such as yours.

Again, blowhard claims your ass, you don't know what you are talking about.

Would you care to battle by battle breakdown of the war, the supply situation and the effects of national moral?

I can do it from memory.

Want to discuss the weapons used, from squad level through army group?

The histories and personalities of the war?

Bring it on.

As much as I despise the occurrence of WWI I have to take issue with overblown claims about it.

The best that could have been hoped for was a stalemate without US intervention.

Trying to claim anything else is THE WORST kind of revisionist history.

 

[editec]

How about no entangling alliances at all and just trade with everybody who has something to offer? Just a thought.

"Nations don't have friends. They have interests." -DeGaulle

An excellent idea.

Two excellent ideas. Two excellent ideas which the USA basically did for the first 150 years or so of its existence.

But it requires the end of imperialism,

An even more excellent idea. Our imperialistic reach is exceeding our economic grasp, anyway.

including economic imperialism.

All business is economic imperialism be it international businesses or national businesses.

Now we have transnational corporations with more power than nations we may have to think about your proposition a bit harder.

Perhaps we should be rethinking our affection for transnational corporations.

After all if they're transnations, their interests are not exactly the interests of the American people, are they?

If they're truly US corporations, then their interests should be first and foremost in the interests of the USA.

No, you say, that not how corporations work?

Why not?

If these so called international corporations get into trouble someplace in the world, whose Marines are going to have to go and bail them out?

The UN's?

I think we all know better than that.

Hell,we just spent a trillion dollars protecting the interests of the petroeum industry in the MidEast, didn't we?

And then what was the USA reward for that service? $4.50 per gallon gasoline?

 

[WilliamC]

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.

 

[Diuretic]

Footed the bill? Well of course the US paid its way after it decided that its interests were threatened and it would get involved in WWI. Up until then what do you think was happening? Was the US a charity? Hardly. The US made big money out of selling materiel in WWI (and WWII before entry). $3.2 billion in 1916. Nice work and no risk.

Which is irrelivent to the FACT, not 'revision' that the allied powers had litterally run out of money, only US loans kept allied factories running.

You may want to examine the isolationism of the US during WWI (just in case you forgot, the war began in 1914) and what caused the US to finally drop its isolationist approach (it was national self-interest). I need to make a point here. I understand that a nation should only go to war if its national self-interest was threatened. I'm not decrying that. What does irk me is revisionist bullshit. The US was not a saviour of anyone in WWI and it didn't enter for any other reason other than national self-interest. Again. just in case you missed it, I accept that. What I reject is the sanctimonious bullshit about "saving" anyone. The history is there. What drove the US to join WWI and WWII was national self-interest. What should drive any nation to engage in war is national self-interest.

Therein is the rub, the United state's interests were not 'threatened' but in fact there was a cable to get the US in the war on the allied side, their favored tactic was to drum up support by pointing to unrestricted submarine warfare as uncivilized and a threat to US trade. Of course they never mention that the Royal Navy of our 'special' ally routinly stopped and seized ships heading for NEUTRAL European ports on the pretext that the loads might go to germany. The Dutch suffered quite a bit because of this. They finally suceeded with the revelation of the Zimmerman telegram in which Germany promises pieces of the USA to go to Mexico should Mexico declare war on the USA.

Thus, it was NOT in our 'self interest' to enter the war, it was in the interest of a small group of people who manipulated the USA into the war. You should read about public opinion during the war, it was split evenly until the Lusitania episode, germany even sent supply subs to the USA to run the blockade and these were heavily cheered in the USA.

If you believe the allies could have defeated Germany without US aide you simply don't know what you are talking about.

Pershing was a horrible general, so bad and so casualty causing he was nearly relieved, only the war's end prevented it.

It was the most pointless war in history, basically what happened is the system they set up to prevent war (alliances) caused the very thing it was supposed to prevent.

I am not interested in defending a war that involved the slaughter of ordinary people to advance sectional interests. But I do have to take issue with blowhard claims such as yours.

Again, blowhard claims your ass, you don't know what you are talking about.

Would you care to battle by battle breakdown of the war, the supply situation and the effects of national moral?

I can do it from memory.

Want to discuss the weapons used, from squad level through army group?

The histories and personalities of the war?

Bring it on.

As much as I despise the occurrence of WWI I have to take issue with overblown claims about it.

The best that could have been hoped for was a stalemate without US intervention.

Trying to claim anything else is THE WORST kind of revisionist history.

Enjoy your views, no doubt they're entirely objective and impeccably sourced. There is of course only every one view of history and since it's yours it must be right. I'll pass on the chance to drearily exchange fact after fact in a vain attempt to persuade you that you have a pre-determined view which you wll cling to like a limpet, fiercely resisting any attempts to show countering evidence. No, that can get very boring very quickly and I can see you arc up pretty quickly so it would turn into a shitstorm. Now don't foget to crow loudly and claim "victory" because this is an internet forum and that's how discourse is carried out.

 

[Diuretic]

How about no entangling alliances at all and just trade with everybody who has something to offer? Just a thought.

"Nations don't have friends. They have interests." -DeGaulle

Two excellent ideas. Two excellent ideas which the USA basically did for the first 150 years or so of its existence.



An even more excellent idea. Our imperialistic reach is exceeding our economic grasp, anyway.



All business is economic imperialism be it international businesses or national businesses.

Now we have transnational corporations with more power than nations we may have to think about your proposition a bit harder.

Perhaps we should be rethinking our affection for transnational corporations.

After all if they're transnations, their interests are not exactly the interests of the American people, are they?

If they're truly US corporations, then their interests should be first and foremost in the interests of the USA.

No, you say, that not how corporations work?

Why not?

If these so called international corporations get into trouble someplace in the world, whose Marines are going to have to go and bail them out?

The UN's?

I think we all know better than that.

Hell,we just spent a trillion dollars protecting the interests of the petroeum industry in the MidEast, didn't we?

And then what was the USA reward for that service? $4.50 per gallon gasoline?

A cogent argument. And Smedley Butler summed it up well, "War is a Racket", he knew what he was on about. The Brits knew all about it too, they made it an art form. Britain's military only developed to advance its imperiastic tendencies, not for its defence. Heck even the colonising companies had their own armies.

 

[GHook93]

Americans biggest Allies are:
UK, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Austraila and Israel.