Special relationship UK & US (a myth?)

[suarezguy]

But those examples are exactly the point being made (possibly except Brown and Obama), they aren't cooperation, they are supplication, UK leaders following US lead in the hope of gaining good favour. That's not a "special relationship", it's being a lapdog and public support was low throughout.

The British leaders I mentioned seemed to be trying to enact similar domestic policies as their American counterparts at the same times and not in order to impress the U.S. counterparts but due to having similar principles and preferences/ideology.

Regardless, yes joining on military interventions probably has contributed to a lot of alienation and desire to not have a lot of closeness and more following.

 

[Spot261]

The British leaders I mentioned seemed to be trying to enact similar domestic policies as their American counterparts at the same times and not in order to impress the U.S. counterparts but due to having similar principles and preferences/ideology.

Regardless, yes joining on military interventions probably has contributed to a lot of alienation and desire to not have a lot of closeness and more following.

Appeared. To an American. Again with the patronising and trying to tell us about our own attitudes and feelings toward you.

Thatcher was admittedly pretty far right but as UK leaders go she was an outlier and infamously so. She's now almost without exception a hate figure except in tory strongholds, when she died there was a release of "the witch is dead" as a single to celebrate the fact. It was a massive chart success.

Blair and Brown enacted policies nothing like Bush, they were polar opposites in fact, whereas the only way in which there were parallels with Obama was in terms of him being an equivalent but opposite outlier on US soil.

Our countries are fundamentally very different indeed and I'm not even going to try to reiterate the list. If you genuinely believe there's anything other than the most superficial similarities I'm afraid you just aren't very familiar with the UK, whereas I am in fact very familiar with the US.

Again, you are literally acting as a living, breathing demonstration of exactly what we are saying, making declarations to inform us of our own beliefs and attitudes instead of simply listening to the actual British people speaking to you. I and several others are telling you as representatives of the British public we are pretty much overwhelmingly skeptical of the "special relationship" and are resentful of the things that have been done in the name of pretending it exists. It's not your place to disagree and tell us we do and that smug attitude of American superiority assuming the mantle of teaching someone else about themselves is exactly the issue so many have with American foreign policy and posture.

 

[MacLeod]

Are us Brits just sceptical or more sceptical than other nations as a rule? The special relationship if there is one between the US and the UK seems a touch on the cool side at the moment, it's one thing to say there is one but actions of our leaders on both sides of the pond demonstrate how warm that relationship is.

 

[Spot261]

Are us Brits just sceptical or more sceptical than other nations as a rule? The special relationship if there is one between the US and the UK seems a touch on the cool side at the moment, it's one thing to say there is one but actions of our leaders on both sides of the pond demonstrate how warm that relationship is.

Interesting thought and not one I have an immediate answer to.

Would that imply a national character of cynicism?

 

[Refuge]

From the outside the USA and the UK are always front and centre when it comes to having a say over everything. They always pay a bigger price (often in lives) in the process. Both have more conservative leaders in power at the moment. Both have decided to pull away from various unions. Brexit for example.

 

[Spot261]

Maybe so, but can you really imagine the UK wielding that power or entering those conflicts alone? That's the rub for me in many ways, the idea so many terrible decisions are made in our name seemingly for no other purpose than to show support for the US.

@suarezguy, I'd like to apologise for the tone of my last post, it was unfair to you and personalised a question that is about whole nations and their political postures, not individuals who have no control over that.

I think it comes as a surprise to many Americans the extent to which our perspectives differ and how many Brits view the nature of the relationship between our countries. It seems your media gives the impression of us being your unwavering allies, solid in common cause to defend shared values. That, frankly, simply isn't quite so clear cut and a great many of us resent the fact no one felt the need to ask our opinions on the matter.

That's not your fault and I'm sorry for lumping you in with another poster here who was distinctly guilty of the accusations I laid at your door by association.

 

[Refuge]

Maybe so, but can you really imagine the UK wielding that power or entering those conflicts alone? That's the rub for me in many ways, the idea so many terrible decisions are made in our name seemingly for no other purpose than to show support for the US.

That is the nature of being an ally. We may kid around or may have our ethnocentric differences but I believe there are commonalities. I certainly don't want to offend... example those from China or Russia for example, but for me my upbringing, lineage and many values find common ground with the UK and the USA. It is in part why my Grandfather was part of WWII supporting Great Britain. Why my father went to Vietnam, which was a big deal for him. NZ didn't participate like Australia so he had to be attached to an Australian unit. When you speak of resentment it has gone back in regard to your homeland too... but it has also been overcome.

 

[Spot261]

That is the nature of being an ally. We may kid around or may have our ethnocentric differences but I believe there are commonalities. I certainly don't want to offend... example those from China or Russia for example, but for me my upbringing, lineage and many values find common ground with the UK and the USA. It is in part why my Grandfather was part of WWII supporting Great Britain. Why my father went to Vietnam, which was a big deal for him. NZ didn't participate like Australia so he had to be attached to an Australian unit. When you speak of resentment it has gone back in regard to your homeland too... but it has also been overcome.

An ally is an equal, at least in principle if not firepower. We are no such thing, we are lackeys and I personally hate that. We repeatedly find ourselves being the instrument of US foreign policy in spite of strong public opinion against it. I know you don't like me personally but I think you'd struggle to make a serious claim I'm not a creature of principle, even if you disagree with the principles I choose. I'm deeply resentful of having actions in my name which so clearly contradict those principles, regardless of the expediency.

Not once in that time has the US directly come to our aid, despite our having fought wars in defence, yet we have time and again sallied forth in the name of causes which are patently immoral simply to remain in good faith with various American administrations. The idea we share common values beyond the bare basics of some form of democracy and a language is an outright lie and you'd be surprised how many people here resent being associated so closely with a country whose imperialism and intolerance is so reminiscent of our own historical mistakes.

 

[Refuge]

An ally is an equal, at least in principle if not firepower. We are no such thing, we are lackeys and I personally hate that. We repeatedly find ourselves being the instrument of US foreign policy in spite of strong public opinion against it. I know you don't like me personally but I think you'd struggle to make a serious claim I'm not a creature of principle, even if you disagree with the principles I choose. I'm deeply resentful of having actions in my name which so clearly contradict those principles, regardless of the expediency.

Not once in that time has the US directly come to our aid, despite our having fought wars in defence, yet we have time and again sallied forth in the name of causes which are patently immoral simply to remain in good faith with various American administrations. The idea we share common values beyond the bare basics of some form of democracy and a language is an outright lie and you'd be surprised how many people here resent being associated so closely with a country whose imperialism and intolerance is so reminiscent of our own historical mistakes.

Oh... I don't diminish this to a personal matter of co-existing say between posters like ourselves in particular. I genuinely believe that the common values shared with our Nations are almost reflective like in our friendships and discussions within this forum. I actually thought it went without saying that philosophies and friendships here were an example of those. That is coming from someone who is often on the opposite political side of many here but there IS common ground.

The US was instrumental in our region's interests during World War II. Our men, our women, our people were in Europe and Africa supporting Mother England. That is what allies do. We were vulnerable being your ally and if not for the USA we would have been more so. War and allegiances are complicated and quite often no one asks the every man/woman. Yet I am inclined to believe certain Nations would come to our aid more than others.

 

[Spot261]

Oh... I don't diminish this to a personal matter of co-existing say between posters like ourselves in particular. I genuinely believe that the common values shared with our Nations are almost reflective like in our friendships and discussions within this forum. I actually thought it went without saying that philosophies and friendships here were an example of those. That is coming from someone who is often on the opposite political side of many here but there IS common ground.

The US was instrumental in our region's interests during World War II. Our men, our women, our people were in Europe and Africa supporting Mother England. That is what allies do. We were vulnerable being your ally and if not for the USA we would have been more so. War and allegiances are complicated and quite often no one asks the every man/woman. Yet I kind of believe that I am more inclined to believe certain Nations would come to our aid more than others.

Remind me why the US entered WW2?

 

[Refuge]

Remind me why the US entered WW2?

You mean Pearl Harbour?

 

[Spot261]

You mean Pearl Harbour?

Yup.

Any intervention during the Blitz?

Any assistance with the German troops occupying our soil prior to PH?

So what was the motivating factor there? Solidarity with an ally or direct provocation by an aggressor?

 

[Refuge]

It's history... "Churchill considered the Pacific a secondary theater - part of his lobbying the US heavily for a "Hitler first" strategy - it was woefully under-prepared to defend against Japan. With the US out of the picture, far more of Japan's considerable military might would be dedicated to its blitz through the South Pacific.

Singapore and Burma would fall more rapidly, and Australia, having been effectively sidelined by Churchill (almost all of Australia's trained soldiers had been sent to the Middle East) and without American reinforcements, would almost certainly be invaded".

Bottom line is that people fight and defend and the UK allies did that. The USA was attacked and they extended their interests to a region, our region. Churchill had other priorities and they were not the Pacific. I certainly do not criticise the USA for protecting ours.

 

[MacLeod]

Now to be fair there where a few American pilots who fought in the Battle of Britain though they were individual actions rather than actions of the US government. The US did set up the Pan-American security Zone which went about as far east as Iceland with US ships providing convoy escort.

 

[Refuge]

Now to be fair there where a few American pilots who fought in the Battle of Britain though they were individual actions rather than actions of the US government. The US did set up the Pan-American security Zone which went about as far east as Iceland with US ships providing convoy escort.

What's fairness got to do with it? Poor wittle UK has never caused any bloodshed and never had any support

 

[Spot261]

It's history... "Churchill considered the Pacific a secondary theater - part of his lobbying the US heavily for a "Hitler first" strategy - it was woefully under-prepared to defend against Japan. With the US out of the picture, far more of Japan's considerable military might would be dedicated to its blitz through the South Pacific.

Singapore and Burma would fall more rapidly, and Australia, having been effectively sidelined by Churchill (almost all of Australia's trained soldiers had been sent to the Middle East) and without American reinforcements, would almost certainly be invaded".

Bottom line is that people fight and defend and the UK allies did that. The USA was attacked and they extended their interests to a region, our region. Churchill had other priorities and they were not the Pacific. I certainly do not criticise the USA for protecting ours.

And prior to being attacked?

 

[Spot261]

What's fairness got to do with it? Poor wittle UK has never caused any bloodshed and never had any support

Of course we have, please actually read my point before reverting to your usual antics.

I'm not claiming the UK has never been the aggressor, has never been an imperialist power. Clearly we have but that has absolutely nothing to do with the point being made.

I'm making a very specific point about the alleged "special relationship" and how it simply doesn't exist except as a convenience.

 

[Refuge]

I don't think you have backed up such a point. War, alliances, NATO, history don't speak for convenience - a little more effort is usually involved.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

What's fairness got to do with it? Poor wittle UK has never caused any bloodshed and never had any support

Whataboutism alert!

 

[Spot261]

I don't think you have backed up such a point. War, alliances, NATO, history don't speak for convenience - a little more effort is usually involved.

" War, alliances, NATO, history don't speak for convenience", the problem is for each and every one of those things you have (in your own words) been referring to an outside perspective.

From this end they look very different indeed, much less balanced, much more a matter of convenience and self serving with little given in return.