It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Special relationship between UK and US is over, MPs say

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Reading the title thread actually put a knot in my stomach. This will never happen, or at least I hope not.


The two countries have social differences, but the political atmosphere's are much the same. Not saying that's great, maybe it's a case of misery loves company.

There will always be an alliance between the two countries because we need one another.

The entire idea of the US not supporting the UK in the entire Falklands ordeal was exaggerated. The UK didn't really need us, or get to the point that they actually needed us, so whether or not we would have been supportive if push had gone to shove is speculative. I speculate if needed, we would have stepped up.

On the contrary, it seems at times it is actually the relationship with Israel which is beginning to wear a little thinner.




posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   
I think it's quite clear that Obama has a grudge against the UK. He gives your Queen an IPOD filled with HIS speeches (talk about narcissistic), he gives the PM a set of DVDs that wont run on British TVs, He sides with Argentina vs the UK.

You Brits just bear with us, Barry the Fool will be out of office before you know it. He's already a quarter of the way through his term.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   
The "special relationship" was always mainly about British pride. This was important in Churchill's time, when he wanted to believe that the UK were still at least equal partners in the war. After that, the feeling was that if we could not be equal partners, we could at least be "best friends" with the people who were on top. This makes it a little humiliating if the concept is being pushed from the British side and apparently snubbed from the Anerican side.

Obviously the main factor was the sense that we were "on the same side" in international affairs. This began much earlier than World War One, and can be seen at the time of the Spanish-American war; "Under the common inspiration [of the American writer Mahan] the British and American navies became at this time all but a band of brothers, and when the German Admiral...took up a threatening attitude to the American Admiral Dewey at the battle of Manila Bay, the British commander led the German to suppose that if he fought the American, he would have to fight the British also." (J.A.Spender, "Fifty Years of Europe",1933).
We were "on the same side" in the Cold War, with opportunities, I suppose, for co-operation behind the scenes, sharing of intelligence etc. So the end of the Cold War, and the growing involvement of Britain in Europe went a long way towards undermining that sense of common purpose.

The other factor was the sense of common origin (which may be stronger on the British side if we're less conscious of what the US has absorbed from other countries). A good parallel might be the ancient relationship between the city-state of Tyre, and the great empire of Carthage, which began as a colony of Tyre. Herodotus tells the story that the king of the Persians had thoughts about attacking Carthage, but the people of Tyre prevented him. They were his vassals at the time, and he could not do the job without their fleet. I find it very difficult to believe that British armed forces would willingly attack American ones, even under the orders of a European President. I'm not sure this factor will completely disappear until we're all absorbed by the Russians.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   



new topics

top topics
 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join