Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why is Britain so ready to risk all for the USA?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Don't get me wrong, its important to have such a close ally - but why are the British so quick to go to war with the USA when the feeling is rarely, if ever mutual?

I watched a documentary '13 Days' about the Cuban Missile Crisis. One fact that got declassified, and since was classified stayed out of the history books, was that the British were gearing up for war too. I know everyone was practically gearing up, but the RAF Vulcan bombers had already taken off and were on their way to the USSR with Nuclear weapons!!! They interviewed some of the pilots who said that they were told to strike at all costs and to not bother returning home as there wouldn't be a home to return to! (Obviously they were called off when the crisis ended.) It seems that the British were the first strike - Moscow, etc. would have been destroyed, the UK would have been written off the map, and the USA and USSR would then have started talking again thus saving the USA from any hits.

Also, Iraq. Blair was quick to jump the gun and send in the fleet. Korea (though UN sanctioned) and Vietnam also saw British troops serving.

The suez crisis - where the French and British went in to stop the Egyptians from nationalising the French/British owned canal - is another point. We owned the canal and were going in to protect it. The Americans forced us to retreat (the reason why the French still hate the Americans, and why they withdrew from NATO). Also, with the Fawklands. In general, the Americans believed that it should have been left to the Argentines.(Another documentary, though i think slightly less credible - I really should get out from watching all that tv!)

Why do the British support the Americans in so many things, yet where is the return for this? Fingerprinting and biometric data required for its citizens to enter the USA?




posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Regarding the Falklands, the U.S. fully supported the U.K. in the Falklands war. The US provided all kinds of logistics and intelligence support. It was a key factor in the relationship between Reagan and Thatcher.

-koji K.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Yeah - but thats like saying the Blair supported the war in Iraq and is a big buddy of Dubya. That is all true, and is a defining part of their friendship. But a lot of the people in the UK were against it. Just as a lot of Americans were against giving help during the Fawklands.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Since the Second World War, it has been painfully obvious that Britian is very much no longer the most powerful empire on Earth as it once was. But since we still have many of the trappings of imperial supremacy, me need to cosy up to the US in order to feel special... and for practical reasons. Despite having some of the best troops in the world.. without US satallite intel and basic loggistics.. there would have been no way Falklands would have been as quick as it was...



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Its because we like their toys

Did you know they also invaded an island that is a part of the commonwealth? cant rember its name but maggie was abit annoyed with regan we were hardly about to fight them for it though it was sorted out after the yanks had done what they wonted.

also we are two closley linked nations what with there founding fathers being english
i think a fair few people have relitives in the US i know my family has a bloody clan of them over there

[edit on 25-8-2004 by Everlasting England]

[edit on 25-8-2004 by Everlasting England]



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 05:46 AM
link   


cant rember its name



I believe it was called Graneda.




we were hardly about to fight them for it though it was sorted out after the yanks had done what they wonted.


Not much we could have done about it anyway. What did they want to do?

Also, after watching more documentaries, it seems that Churchill had to literally sell the country's soul for help. All companies based in countries other than the main commonwealth members (aus, uk etc.) , private or pulic, were to be handed over to the Americans. For example a company worth around $100m were sold to them at around $40m. They also demanded all our gold and diamond reserves - even going so far as to demand the crown jewels as the diamonds could be used in machinery!!



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Humpy



cant rember its name



I believe it was called Graneda.




we were hardly about to fight them for it though it was sorted out after the yanks had done what they wonted.


Not much we could have done about it anyway. What did they want to do?

Also, after watching more documentaries, it seems that Churchill had to literally sell the country's soul for help. All companies based in countries other than the main commonwealth members (aus, uk etc.) , private or pulic, were to be handed over to the Americans. For example a company worth around $100m were sold to them at around $40m. They also demanded all our gold and diamond reserves - even going so far as to demand the crown jewels as the diamonds could be used in machinery!!


uhh.. that last bit is news to me. can you cite a source for that?

-koji k.

[edit on 26-8-2004 by koji_K]



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 01:04 PM
link   
As far as the Cuban missle crisis, they were in NATO. That is a mutual protection pact, the key word their being MUTUAL. Since the US had done all of western Europe a favor and stationed hundreds of billions of dollars worth of millitar might to protect you guys from the USSR, in return you guys had to fight with us if we were attacked.

You guys weren't the only guys that had bombers scrambled. We had B-52's in the air 24 hours a day all armed with nukes.

Also, if the US attacked Russia, or the other way around, you guys would have been nuked regardless, so at that point Russia was as big a threat to you as the US.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 04:06 PM
link   


uhh.. that last bit is news to me. can you cite a source for that?


The documentary was called 'Churchill's War'. I will try to find a weblink.




As far as the Cuban missle crisis, they were in NATO


After the suez crisis, the French started hating being part of the pact. They withdrew in 1966. Here is the source:[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/1543000.stm]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/1543000.stm[ /url]



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 06:30 PM
link   
It would probably be more surprising if they weren't close allies when you think about all the cultural, lingual and political commonalities.

Admittedly the *special relationship* has had it's ups and downs and it's obvious that the US sometimes ignores it when it suits them but they being the world super power have that as there privelidge. At the end of the day we have them to thank for keeping western Europe a free democracy and that probably goes some way to explaining Britains willingness to throw their lot in with them. I would say though that Americans who get all pissed off and start bringing up WW2 whenever some US policies are questioned should remember that the whole point of that conflict was to have the freedom to do so. The US has done us many favours but it doesn't mean we should or hopefully will go along with anything.



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Ww2 a bad example. WW1 much better.

We didnt want to get involved in WW1, it had nothing to do with us and many Americans were pro Germany at the time anyway. But we ended up in it.

WW2 kinda the same thing. No one wanted to get involved, figuring it was a European issue, they could handle it, ect, hence, our tardy entrance into nthe conflict.

The Cuban missile crisis has been explained. It was NATO. That was the cold war. Self explainatory.

I agree Iraq could have been left alone though. But I cant really think of any major conflicts post WW2 that Britian got involved with on behalf of the US. The first Gulf war was a UN action and alot of countries went in. Afghanistan and Iraq the only two i can think of. Events during the cold war were a NATO pact. Since we had troops in Europe prepared to attack Russia should they attack, so would Europe also throw in and help is a Soviet threat hit our shores.

Id like you to find this documentary where we demanded all the diamonds and stuff. Last time I checked, you guys still have all your gold and wealth, even your own central bank.



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Britain is an ally to the US in Iraq because terrorism is as much a threat to Britain as it is to the US and they weren't in bed with Saddam like France and Germany. SEATO is the reason GB was involved in Vietnam. Allies support one another.



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 09:05 PM
link   
I'd agree with Grady. The politics may be quite different. We have our way of doing things and they have theirs. On the surface the relationship changes, and can be stormy, depending on governments and policies at the time, but ultimately the American people and the British people share almost identical values, language, aspirations etc. and this part of the "special relationship" is more powerful than any government policy. It's also the same special relationship we both share with Oz, Canada, New Zealand etc.. in fact all the english speaking world. The British/US military relationship is the most talked about one i think, simply because us two are the most militarily active.

Also, in purely strategic terms, in case of some future global war, I think we need each other. We need the US as a superpower ally for it's military strength, and the US needs Britain for it's diplomatic links, media and strategic position.

regarding WW2, we couldn't have survived without the US help in terms of shipping, armaments, food etc. The german U boats were devastating our supply routes. Germany would have still lost the war in the end though. It was Russia that played by far the largest role in defeating Hitler. Britain had already scuppered Germany's (admittedly half hearted) invasion attempts alone, during the Battle of Britain.

If the US hadn't got involved, the Soviets would have kept on marching all the way to the the Atlantic, and the whole of mainland Europe would have fallen under Stalin. At that point the US would have most likely had to come in and fight the Soviets, or have to face an overwhelmingly powerful USSR in the 50's and 60's. With it's nuclear weapons, the US might have won that one too, but then the world would certainly been a very different place today.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Yeah, the Russians would have crushed the germans enough. In history when we study WW2 in Europe, almost all of it was focused on the Russians, barely any mention of the western front.

But muppet is right about a few things. Its the anglo-alliance that basically, despite all past conflicts and current independance, is still tight with thier motherland in many ways.

it has worked rather well for both sides. Thr British invent it, we build it. Liek the liberty ships of WW2. They came up with the idea: we had the mass capabilities of production and man power to make it a reality.

They devised the clever tactics and plans for taking on germany, we provided huge numbers of bodies and supplies and junk to make it a reality. Niether the US nor Britian would have succeeded without the other, it was a symbiotic relationship, where both sides have something the other needs, and work better together.

The Brits think it, we make it. pretty much sums it up.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 06:16 PM
link   
the USA is the most powerfull nation in the world, if i was a country i would want to be close allies to them. i think brittian is willing to do anything to not piss off the USA and anything to keep USA such a close ally.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 06:33 PM
link   
We'll piss you off when we want, don't worry about that! Its just we do actually have alot in common (loath as i am to admit it)..

And we will go it alone if necessary (Sierra leone, Falklands etc)

You may be the most powerful, but I would argue that we Brits are the most crafty, devious little buggers about (just look how we got our Empire, very little actuall conquering went on, we just sort of "acquired" land through negociations (sp?) and double dealing), and are quite adept at getting people to do what we want, whilst making them think it is what they wanted all along




[edit on 1-9-2004 by stumason]



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
The Brits think it, we make it. pretty much sums it up.


I think you maybe doing yourself a bit of an injustice there . The US is certainly not short of great innovators, thinkers etc.

One noticeable difference though is our motivation for innovating. We are less financially ambitious here.

There are geographic, cultural and historical reasons for this, but the upshot is we tend to innovate for the sake of it, rather than to get rich. In times gone by, it didn't matter how much money someone made, a working class person could never have got to the "top" because of our entrench Class system. Instead one measured success in other ways; personal satisfaction, being the first at something, inventing something etc.. I think this attitude became part of the British national character; the inventor in his shed, the gentleman amateur, etc.

In the US, the "american dream" culture is more present. Americans are traditionally business oriented. they think in terms of commercial success, founding a business, leading the marketplace etc.

an example? John Logie Baird, and Marconi both invent the television, independently of each other, on opposite sides of the pond. Baird, the Brit (who also invented the forunner to radar, and the thermal sock...we're unpredictable like that.
), gets there first, but his system is an unwieldily mechanical contraption with spinning wheels and a tiny screen. Baird dies broke.

Marconi, the American, spends longer in development, but comes up with a better system, based on the CRT, which was the basis of all modern television for the next 80 years, and builds a thriving international business out of it. Marconi dies rich.

Another example would be Compuserve, an American company, trying to license and make money the .gif format, when they realised it was becoming popular on the WWW. Compare that with Tim Berners Lee, a Brit, who invents the WWW in the first place, gives it to the world for free, and makes not a penny from the most successful computer application ever conceived, and one that has truly changed the world.

Basically two equally valid, but opposite philosophies, which just happen to compliment each other perfectly!




[edit on 1/9/04 by muppet]



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 08:41 AM
link   
The reason that the UK supports the US so much is the same reason Blair switched his allegiance from Democrat to Republican after the 2000 US elections. And the reason is money.

Not money for Blair himself (well maybe a few sly backhanders) but for UK companies. One of G.W.Bush's associates (Irwin Stelzer) had a meeting with Blair in which he explained that it would be bad for UK companies if Blair supported the Democrats any longer. Blair was basically told to get in line and salute.

Link to info. This is the most visually impressive way of showing the info to you.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Hmm.. the Neocon's trying to blackmail Britain? I'd have to admit it's possible. Though it will backfire badly on them if it is true. The British do not respond to threats like this; we never have, but I guess would give the appearance of doing so for a while if necessary.

I have to say I doubt the US is Blackmailing or threatening the UK (though I may be wrong).

Unless the neocons already have something planned which they know will make them public enemy number one anyway, IMHO it would be diplomatic suicide to attempt to threaten or blackmail the British.

Partly because if the UK chose to make such a threat public it would utterly destroy what's left of America's reputation abroad, and it would have a hard time finding anyone to trust it over the next 25 years or so. A reputation for screwing your closest allies doesn't go down too well in the geo-political arena.

I'd like to think that even the neocons aren't that stupid, but I guess, you never just know.

I certainly hope we don't one day come to remember Blair as our latter day Chamberlain.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Britain is an ally to the US in Iraq because terrorism is as much a threat to Britain as it is to the US and they weren't in bed with Saddam like France and Germany.


I seem to recall France being in bed with Iran where as the US was in bed with the Saudis and Iraq. And as far as terrorism goes when did Iraq threaten anyone other than its neighbours, mainly for not paying up on debts (after it fought a war for them). Just wanted to point this inaccuracy out seeing as the in bed and terrorism call couldn't be, as far as im aware, farther from the truth. My guess is cash, the US would be in quite the position to pull cash home(or encourage private recalling of funds) after the Saudis pulled a crippling amount out of the US economy.

[edit on 2-9-2004 by kevinofCanukistan]






top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join