Is the "Special Relationship" over

[erebus]

From that I take it that Britain is in process of a massive military build up buying up every piece of weaponry possible.

 

And here's me thinking that the British military have been downsizing for over a decade. Duh!

 

---------- Post added 31-08-2013 at 17:23 ----------

 

 

Britain didnt need much help anyway. It's military forces were quite capable of dealing with the Argentinian army alone.

 

The Royal Navy could have used an AWAC system though. That might have prevented the sinking of HMS Sheffiled by an Excocet.

 

The US wont need any help dealing with a short limited air war against Syria.

It should be just a matter of taking out WMD and a few air defence sites and avoiding civilian casualties as much as possible.

 

Obama would have liked to have had Britain and France aboard if only for political reasons

 

---------- Post added 31-08-2013 at 17:27 ----------

 

 

I know quite a few Iranians living here. They are intelligent, well educated people and for that reason it's why they left Iran in the first place.

 

Many Iranians in Iran hate the Ayatollahs. These mobs you see chanting "death to America" are just staged shows for the media

 

 

Well you would think as you do, and I understand your limitations so lets spoon feed the puzzled one, with so many interesting ideas.

 

We are constantly buying weaponry from the USA its an ongoing system of tribute. No we are not buying them all at once, like in a fire sale, but I can understand how you thought this was possible. The child in the toyshop approach is common in some, but his is a grown up state of paying tribute, not a bargain basement deal, or a Christmas load of goodies, in fact we pay dearly for our Trident.

 

By the way we could not use it, Trident that is, NUKES…cannot use it, its a weapon that cannot be used ever. I realise how silly this might seem, but just imagine if someone did use one, even by accident. You can guess the fallout, pun intended of course. They would be hated, never trusted, and marginalised, never mind the legal consequences for the morons that Ok'ed the idea. It deters non one with a brain. A bit like coming across someone with a bazooka in the high street demanding repayment for a loan. Impressive equipment it is true, but what would happen if they pulled the trigger???... so all show and no possible bang.

 

Taking out the WMD in Syria, ... you really do not think things through, maybe the tabloid medication??? What would happen if the chemical dumps were blow up?? What if there was a wind blowing at the time? What if people lived near, remember Bhopal?? So much from saving people from chemical weaponry if we then killed thousands…get it???

 

On the basis you are right, and the weapons, hundreds of tons have and are arriving through Turkey, Israel of course, and other helpful nations against tyranny, Syria will end up like Libya for example, what might happen next. Is there any similarity between what Libya is today, and say for instance…Iraq ? See any similarities? Anything come to mind? Well we have those factions that blow things and people up in both Libya and Iraq, so it would seem Syria just might end up like them. A sort of civil war with many faction fighting each other, its what we do divide and grab the resources. I assume you think the rest of the population are partying in Libya and Iraq, both something the west created, for its own needs??

 

So with all them weapons, including chemical, and maybe biological, the germ type in case you did not know the difference. All those heavy and ligh weaponry, in fact tons and tons of the stuff? Did you know Israel is near Syria, might ther be some fallout somewhere? In Libya the weaponry has destabilised the area, and what do you think the MALI thing was about, a French and British summer outing, with cocktails?

 

So many Iranians hate the Ayatollahs, and why not, you did the survey yourself did you?? And we all love Cameron over here and his cuts> Thatcher was loved by one and all??? You really do have opinions, and they are very impressive for someone without much of a clue, so keep taking the tabloids, we all need a laugh, and your opinions based on your local prejudices, brighten up the conversation like fireworks in the afternoon.

 

Keep taking the tabloids, you know they tell the truth and can be relied on.

[buck]

I suppose you're rightt

First of all there never was a 'special relationship'. Allies yes, but no more, or less, than other friendly countries. As Lord Palmerston said 'Nations have no permanent friends or allies they only have permanent interests'.

 

It has always been like that. When Britain was 'top dog' it behaved in exactly the same manner. If another country - no doubt acting in it's own self interest - is prepared to shed blood & spend treasure helping you out, then let them.

 

The 'special relationship' didn't prevent the USA invading Grenada, a Commonwealth Realm in 1983 without bothering to inform Britain of it's intentions.

This at a time when Reagan was President & Thatcher PM & I seem to remember a lot of none- sense at the time as to what a close relationship they enjoyed, yeah right.

 

On the front page of today's Times the main article is headed 'US leaves 'unreliable' British out in the cold'.

The article goes on to report how British military chiefs have been ejected from US meetings regarding Syria.

About 30 British military experts were working alongside US & French personnel planning strategy for the Syrian situation. According to a former British officer Britain is now 'non-reliable as far as this operation is concerned.' The US & France are proceeding together.

 

So much for 'special relationships'. No doubt we'll all be best mates again next time we agree to do as the US says. That is the way 'realpolitik' works & always has.

 

And yes, the French are the Americans oldest allies. Without their support the War of Independence may have had a different outcome.

I suppose you're right when push comes to shove. I think it's good when two countries can talk to each other in the same language. But at the same time there is a tendency to be competitive with each other. America became Britain's ally during WW2, mainly because America would need a starting off point to open a second front. There was friendship there, but resentment too.There was no friendship at all between Britain and the Soviet Union. The Anglo/ Us alliance has stood the test of time and kept the world out of WW3 since 1945. But UK has always had a right to not become involved with America's fights and vice versa. Britain stayed out of Vietnam, the US out of Malaya, Kenya, Cyprus, Rhodesia and others without breaking up the alliance. If there ever was a special relationship, it doesn't exist today, and if there are Americans so incensed as to enjoy a new special relationship with France, they are fools. France is trying to drive us further apart.

[Harleyman]

You made that first two paragraphs up didn't you, you little rascal .

 

As for relationships during the War, well if your fighting against a common enemy you kind of have to have some kind of co-operation don't you?

 

Everyone was cozy with Uncle Joe Stalin even though he was a mass murdering Psychopath weren't they? Needs must when the devil drives they say.

 

Point is, not only do I not believe that there was ever a 'special relationship'. I also don't believe it matters in the slightest.

 

Countries look out for their own self interest that's what politicians are elected for, what's the problem?

 

What annoys me somewhat is all the bullshyte they try to get us to swallow.

Humanitarian reasons, Weapons of Mass destruction, Moral obligation crap. Why didn't we do something about Rwanda or Zimbabwe if the West is so determined to 'do the right thing'?

 

We are allies of America, & I cannot see a scenario where that will change, but is there any chance we can be spared all the fake moralizing garbage?

 

We, like everyone else, are out for what we can get. I would like to think we try to do it whilst causing as little harm as possible, but that's probably me just being a little naive.

 

The American-British alliance during WW2 was anything but smooth. We now know that but at the time it was all glossed over.

 

Churchill and Roosevelt had far different opinions on how the war against the Germans should be fought.

 

There was a difference where an invasion of Europe should be carried out and then there was strife at the lower levels.

 

Both Patton and Montgomery despised Eisenhower as well as each other.

 

Eisenhower and Montgomery were at logger heads as to how the allied advance across Europe should be carried out. Montgomery was for a strong single thrust into the heart of Germany to reach Berlin while Eisenhower took the broad front strategy. As Eisenhower was Supreme Commander I suppose his view prevailed.

 

The Big Three meetings went far from well also. Churchill was dismayed at what he saw as Roosevelt's naivety when dealing with Stalin.

 

Somehow though they muddled through and that's what counted

 

I think the war generation both sides of the Atlantic in the years that followed felt something of a kinship with each other which lasted a few decades but as time went on and British and American leaders of that generation gave way to leaders born after WW2 that sense of kinship more or less disappeared.

 

I've never known any American speak bad of Britain. Those who have visited the country are more than eager to discuss their experience. Those who haven't still dispaly a strong curiosity.

 

Many colleges now organize exchange visits. One of our local colleges regularly have exchange visits with students from China, Korea, Japan, Britain, Spain and Italy

[LeMaquis]

I think the war generation both sides of the Atlantic in the years that followed felt something of a kinship with each other which lasted a few decades but as time went on and British and American leaders of that generation gave way to leaders born after WW2 that sense of kinship more or less disappeared.

 

The mutual hatred between Blair and Bush is clear evidence of that.

[Harleyman]

The mutual hatred between Blair and Bush is clear evidence of that.

 

I guess were doomed to keep on hearing about Bush and Blair, Bush and Blair, Bush and Blair the Forum's broken record

[mjw47]

I guess were doomed to keep on hearing about Bush and Blair, Bush and Blair, Bush and Blair the Forum's broken record

 

I'm afraid you are Harleyman, it's pretty clear those two, & their advisers -Cheney & Rumsfeld in particular -concocted a lie to involve their respective countries in an unnecessary war which has left thousands of innocent people dead & Iraq in a worse position than it was under Saddam.

 

Lets face it, that took some doing but they managed it!

[Hillpig]

I think Reagan did make a courtesy call to Maggie but due to the time difference between Washington and London Maggie was tucked up in bed sleeping soundly after her glass of warm milk.

 

Dennis took the call instead but he was already in the first stages of Alzheimers so forgot to tell her

 

I think there was something like a special relationship which took root during the war years but when China, Japan and south-east Asia began to open up for trade then the Auld Lang Synes began to fade [/QUOT

 

When the Auld Lang Syne finally dies, and the US returns to its inward looking navel gazing tradition, when the American Empire gasps its last, it will one day need real friends.

 

You mention the "opening up of markets in China Japan and south east Asia. You have not opened up markets, you have exported all your wealth creating jobs and effectively given your money to China.

 

By any definition the US is bankrupt, your politicians have no idea what to do next except spew out meaningless rhetoric.

 

The US became a great nation very quickly, unlike other world empires it never had the opportunity to properly develop a matured outward looking world view. Events, and the attitude of its politicians and the majority of its population tends to indicate it will contract as quickly as it expanded.

 

---------- Post added 04-09-2013 at 10:33 ----------

 

I'm afraid you are Harleyman, it's pretty clear those two, & their advisers -Cheney & Rumsfeld in particular -concocted a lie to involve their respective countries in an unnecessary war which has left thousands of innocent people dead & Iraq in a worse position than it was under Saddam.

 

Lets face it, that took some doing but they managed it!

 

 

I second that, we should keep playing the Bush Blair record until they are arrested and charged with war crimes.

[buck]

I guess were doomed to keep on hearing about Bush and Blair, Bush and Blair, Bush and Blair the Forum's broken record

What more can you expect from the French Resistance.

 

---------- Post added 04-09-2013 at 08:17 ----------

 

I think Reagan did make a courtesy call to Maggie but due to the time difference between Washington and London Maggie was tucked up in bed sleeping soundly after her glass of warm milk.

 

Dennis took the call instead but he was already in the first stages of Alzheimers so forgot to tell her

 

I think there was something like a special relationship which took root during the war years but when China, Japan and south-east Asia began to open up for trade then the Auld Lang Synes began to fade [/QUOT

 

When the Auld Lang Syne finally dies, and the US returns to its inward looking navel gazing tradition, when the American Empire gasps its last, it will one day need real friends.

 

You mention the "opening up of markets in China Japan and south east Asia. You have not opened up markets, you have exported all your wealth creating jobs and effectively given your money to China.

 

By any definition the US is bankrupt, your politicians have no idea what to do next except spew out meaningless rhetoric.

 

The US became a great nation very quickly, unlike other world empires it never had the opportunity to properly develop a matured outward looking world view. Events, and the attitude of its politicians and the majority of its population tends to indicate it will contract as quickly as it expanded.

 

---------- Post added 04-09-2013 at 10:33 ----------

 

 

 

I second that, we should keep playing the Bush Blair record until they are arrested and charged with war crimes.

You know as well as I do, Hillpig, that that is never going to happen. No use flogging dead horses.

 

---------- Post added 04-09-2013 at 08:32 ----------

 

What more can you expect from the French Resistance.

 

---------- Post added 04-09-2013 at 08:17 ----------

 

You know as well as I do, Hillpig, that that is never going to happen. No use flogging dead horses.

For all your statements about the US,how many Americans do you know to be so certain of their attitudes and opinions. For all the maturity and seniority of your nation, why is it in such a sorry state, it's people sad and dissatisfied, it's political parties easily as bad as ours. I know, blame America. But when America goes down, you will have gone down first.

[mjw47]

The problem with that Buck, is that Blair won't shut up & go away. He's been banging away in an article in the Times advising the country on how he believes it should become involved in the Syrian situation.

 

He's an unrepentant warmonger, & what really pee's me off is that this is a man who would no doubt run a mile if confronted with physical force himself, but has no problem demanding that other mothers sons & daughters spill their blood for his views.

 

The same goes for dubya, a man who hid away in the Texas national guard rather than turn up in Vietnam, but who has no problem spilling other peoples blood in his bid for personal glory.

[Mecky]

I'm afraid you are Harleyman, it's pretty clear those two, & their advisers -Cheney & Rumsfeld in particular -concocted a lie to involve their respective countries in an unnecessary war which has left thousands of innocent people dead & Iraq in a worse position than it was under Saddam.

 

Lets face it, that took some doing but they managed it!

 

Oh right, do you have any evidence of a lie?