US mocked Britain over 'special relationship'



myhonorisloyalty666

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
304
The British are far more interested in the special relationship that the United States.

For America would not got involved with the Dayton talks that brought the Bosnian war to a conclusion and the subsequent Kosovo War and the overthrow of Milosevic without British influence.

The Yanks wanted to leave it to France, Germany and Britain and the EU to sort Yugoslavia out until Blair pressured Clinton to get the finger out and use military force.

The French are intensely jealous of the American-Anglo relationship.
 

Scipio

Well-known member
Joined
May 3, 2010
Messages
936
This, like the fact that a large amount of American commanders view the British military performance in Iraq and Afghanistan as bordering on the abysmal, has long been in the public domain.

America could care less about Britain save for when she proves herself moderately useful, diplomatically speaking. Britain, now bereft of even second-rank power status, is clinging desperately to the US's coattails to prove that she's still, somewhat, "up there"'.

A la Dean Acheson, Great Britain has lost an empire and still not yet found a role.

The French are intensely jealous of the American-Anglo relationship.
I must ask, have you ever lived in France? What exactly is your evidence for proferring that claim? The principal view the French have of the "special relationship", as far as I can see, is one of bemusement.
 

evercloserunion

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
804
Who does a Briton vote for if they don't want their country to act as America's lapdog? Blair gets a lot of stick for following the US into Iraq but does anyone think for a second that the Tories would have done it differently?
 

Capt Blah

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,242
Website
www.mehearty.blogspot.com
We live in particularly lean times, politician-wise.

The craven, no political philosophy, no ideals, no principles, "third-way" (God help us), middle-management - style politicians we have had to contend with for the past 15-20 years have brought us to our knees.

Things were particularly bad during the Blair / Ahern era. In the absence of a political philosophy, or any sort of personal morality, this pair were capable of doing anything so long as they could justify itself it to themselves.

I am not at all sure that Cameron is as bad as Blair - perhaps he would have a little more dignity and steadfastness. Obviously we are still on a steep gradient in this regard in Ireland.

Interestingly both Britain and Ireland see themselves as being of special importance to America. The Brits have "the special relationship" which has always had military connotations and Ireland has had a, sort of, diddly-eye position with the yanks.

The way in which these relationships is played-out is very much a matter of the players. With Thatcher and Regan it was a meeting of minds, for example. Blair and Bush initially didn't have much common ground (apart from toothpaste) but forged a relationship with a power gradient so steep that Britain became ridiculous in its attempts to appear an equal partner.

It remains to be seen how this will be played-out with the new kids on the block - most likely is that America will wind itself in considerably over the next decade. But we'll have to wait and see.
 

mistercrabs

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
621
This is just one symptom of the bizarre psychology of Britain as a nation today. I think Britain is still suffering from an imperial hangover - they simply can't bear the fact that they're a third rate power and they will be forevermore. This is why you can't turn on the TV in Britain without seeing nostalgic TV programmes about the war or the 50s or Victorian times, or any generic past when Britain was great and things were rosy. This is why you constantly hear people harping on about what 'made Britain great', and 'the way things used to be'. Among the symptoms of this illness is complete madness and hysteria about football, because somehow the 1966 World Cup has become wrapped up with those fantasies of greatness and hosting the World Cup and winning it are illogically associated with a return to halcyon times. And, of course, the special relationship is a symptom, because bizarrely British politicians have a sense of some of the cachet and illustriousness of Empire rubbing off on them if they can ingratiate themselves with the current Anglophone empire as much as possible. If they're involved in wars and imperial intrigues, then it gives their archaic foreign and commonwealth office and secret service something to do, and parliament can continue to debate great global affairs. It's a bit like former US presidents becoming advisers or envoys for later presidents because being close to the seat of former glories and the accompanying sense of being intimately involved with power evokes nostalgic feelings.
 

Green eyed monster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
2,429
Who does a Briton vote for if they don't want their country to act as America's lapdog? Blair gets a lot of stick for following the US into Iraq but does anyone think for a second that the Tories would have done it differently?
The wikileaks revelations have revealed that Cameron suffers from poodleitis as well...

WikiLeaks cables: Conservatives promised to run 'pro-American regime' | Politics | The Guardian

"Conservative party politicians lined up before the general election to promise that they would run a "pro-American regime" and buy more arms from the US if they came to power this year, the leaked American embassy cables show."

It's almost like Saudi Arabia - US relationship except the Saudis have to be 'pressured' into buying US military equipment they don't really need (and they have the spare cash you could argue).
 

Aspherical123

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
2,579
This, like the fact that a large amount of American commanders view the British military performance in Iraq and Afghanistan as bordering on the abysmal, has long been in the public domain.

America could care less about Britain save for when she proves herself moderately useful, diplomatically speaking. Britain, now bereft of even second-rank power status, is clinging desperately to the US's coattails to prove that she's still, somewhat, "up there"'.

A la Dean Acheson, Great Britain has lost an empire and still not yet found a role.



I must ask, have you ever lived in France? What exactly is your evidence for proferring that claim? The principal view the French have of the "special relationship", as far as I can see, is one of bemusement.

The US have just taken over Helmand, we will see if they do any better, I very much doubt they will.

They are trying the same tactic as in Iraq, buying local warlords and giving them money and power to fight the Taliban.

But Afghanistan is very diffrerent then Iraq.
 

needle_too

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
918
This, like the fact that a large amount of American commanders view the British military performance in Iraq and Afghanistan as bordering on the abysmal, has long been in the public domain.
Really?
I'd say the British are far better at containing situations than the yanks.
Low intensity operations and all that.

Youve got a dose of fathead jockitis if you think the american bomb-the-sh!t-out-of-everything strategy is anything to aspire to.

Britain, now bereft of even second-rank power status, is clinging desperately to the US's coattails to prove that she's still, somewhat, "up there"'.
Nonsense.
Britain still leads a commonwealth whose forces and political classes it has trained and educated and it remains in the top 10 economies in the world.
Your comments are just wishful thinking.
 

Aspherical123

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
2,579
Really?
I'd say the British are far better at containing situations than the yanks.
Low intensity operations and all that.

Youve got a dose of fathead jockitis if you think the american bomb-the-sh!t-out-of-everything strategy is anything to aspire to.


Nonsense.
Britain still leads a commonwealth whose forces and political classes it has trained and educated and it remains in the top 10 economies in the world.
Your comments are just wishful thinking.

His not intrested in rational debate, rather Brit bashing. The British strategy in Iraq of keeping the established Iraqi security forces would have been far better then the American one of letting local militas become the Police.

Further, there were only 5,ooo foreign Al Qaeda in Iraq, who were easily wiped out from the ghettos they controlled. The Taliban are are a different ball game, they have vast support in the south.
 

Scipio

Well-known member
Joined
May 3, 2010
Messages
936
Really?
I'd say the British are far better at containing situations than the yanks.
Low intensity operations and all that..
Is that why their performance in Basra elicited this response from U.S. commanders? Or why an Afghan woman begged Hamid Karzai 'take the British away and give us back the Americans'?

If that's "far better", I'd hate to see what brilliant looks like.

Youve got a dose of fathead jockitis if you think the american bomb-the-sh!t-out-of-everything strategy is anything to aspire to.
It would seem that, beyond blanket platitudes, you don't know the first thing about U.S. strategy in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Britain still leads a commonwealth whose forces and political classes it has trained and educated and it remains in the top 10 economies in the world.
Your comments are just wishful thinking.
The Commonwealth. LOL.

Britain is now a mid to low mid ranking world power. And nothing wrong with that of course.
 

Kev408

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
5,026
I fail to see any shock value in this 'revelation'. I thought everyone knew that the uk are mere lickspittles to the US.
 

jimmyfour

Active member
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
195

cry freedom

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
2,338
Is that why their performance in Basra elicited this response from U.S. commanders? Or why an Afghan woman begged Hamid Karzai 'take the British away and give us back the Americans'?

If that's "far better", I'd hate to see what brilliant looks like.



It would seem that, beyond blanket platitudes, you don't know the first thing about U.S. strategy in Afghanistan or Iraq.




The Commonwealth. LOL.

Britain is now a mid to low mid ranking world power. And nothing wrong with that of course.
The yanks would much prefer a bowl of Shamrock to a well trained military ally any day. :rolleyes:
Trident nukes not withstanding.
I mean, seriously, in a time of international crisis you would be hard pressed to find better than the auld bowl of Shamrock.:confused:
 

Scipio

Well-known member
Joined
May 3, 2010
Messages
936
The yanks would much prefer a bowl of Shamrock to a well trained military ally any day. :rolleyes:
Trident nukes not withstanding.
I mean, seriously, in a time of international crisis you would be hard pressed to find better than the auld bowl of Shamrock.:confused:
I don't think you'll find anyone who claims they would prefer a "bowl of shamrock" (sic) to a "well trained military ally".

Why exactly would you feel the need to try to compare a country the size of South Carolina to one with 60 million people and a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council? :confused:
 

Tedkins

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
6,648
From the cables I read the Americans actually seemed to value the "special relationship" more than I thought they would. The Tories, especially Liam Fox and William Hague, did seem embarrassingly lovestruck though.
 

cry freedom

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
2,338
I don't think you'll find anyone who claims they would prefer a "bowl of shamrock" (sic) to a "well trained military ally".

Why exactly would you feel the need to try to compare a country the size of South Carolina to one with 60 million people and a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council? :confused:
It was merely a reaction to the anti Brit crowing that you and your friends so often indulge in on this site.
 

Aspherical123

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
2,579
Is that why their performance in Basra elicited this response from U.S. commanders? Or why an Afghan woman begged Hamid Karzai 'take the British away and give us back the Americans'?

If that's "far better", I'd hate to see what brilliant looks like.



It would seem that, beyond blanket platitudes, you don't know the first thing about U.S. strategy in Afghanistan or Iraq.





The Commonwealth. LOL.

Britain is now a mid to low mid ranking world power. And nothing wrong with that of course.


Britain has the worlds 3rd largest defence budget and is the worlds 4th largest economy in the world and is on the UN security council. It has huge political sway.

How is that a mid ranking power ?


The US has just taken over in Helmand, we will see if surge tactics work there, I doubt they will its very different then Iraq. The US has 3 x the troop numbers the UK had in Helmand.

I cant see the Taliban being defeated by paying local warlords to change sides.

The reality is the US does not have the manpower to control the ground around towns it has taken.

Afghanistan has more in common with Vietnam tactically then Iraq. It has a large number of motivated insurgents able slip away and come back into the frey at will, with huge local support, unlike Al Qaeda in Iraq.

The Tory govt has realised Afghanistan is an unwinnable war.

British troops fought extremely gallantly in Helmand, only a f******wit who has never picked up a rifle would attempt to be little them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMm0i3ktxBU

An example of a classic section attack, the US would have simply relied on an air strike here.
 
Last edited:


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top