Special relationship

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Chris 62
The relationship that is special in only one way, the two nations are the only two willing to take chances to effect positive change, the rest of the world can't be arsed to do jack without excessive whining.

Countries around the world have risk the lives of their soldiers in peacekeeping operations for decades. Many of these operations have created "positive" change.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Countries around the world have risk the lives of their soldiers in peacekeeping operations for decades. Many of these operations have created "positive" change.

I don't seem to recall usuing the word "peacekeeper", did I?

I see you missed the point, the question was what is the relationship between the US and Britain, that was it, not UN contingents used by the UN, of which Britain and the US have contributed.

I'm sure you made yourself feel good with the silly lols, it would nice if you said something pertinent or constructive (or factual, for that matter) for a change.

[Tingkai]

I was laughing at your comment that the US and UK are "the two nations are the only two willing to take chances to effect positive change."

Such egotism is funny.

And just to spell it out for ya, the bit about the peacekeepers was to show that many countries are willing to take chances to create "positive change."

[Chris 62]

Not "egotism" at all, not that you would understand that.

There isn't a nation on Earth that wants to send forces to do the right thing, the UN often has problems dragooning forces for missions.
A perfect example is Rwanda (sub-sahara Africa is an area where Europe has ties, and has acted in the past), yet no nation, even with UN promting wanted any part of it.

The Gulf war is another example, the US (acting on a UN mandate) had to twist arms for support, except of course, for Britian.
That is another example of the relationship the nations share.
At one time France would act, but that time has passed.

This has nothing to do with posturing and chest beating.

[Dauphin]

Chris, I think its more a case of "can't help, won't help" for some European nations.

I wonder sometimes what actions Americans expect of European nations. European armies are designed for defence of Europe, and specifically their home nation. A couple of nations such as Britain and France can project force, but nowhere near the scale the US can.

Only a combined European armed forces could hope to acheive anything meaningful. Ideally it would be a British led force, at least to start with.

[Chris 62]

For my view point, all we want is moral support, and sometimes financial, as the US can no longer afford all these comittments without help.

Ground forces or other assets would actually be a hindrance in a shooting war, due to langauge, doctrone, and supply differences.
Most of that doesn't exsist between US and British forces, the langauge and doctrone are similar, only the supply is really different.

[Dauphin]

Some countries have given lots of financial aid for US wars.

I heard that the US actually made a profit out of the Gulf War.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Only a combined European armed forces could hope to acheive anything meaningful. Ideally it would be a British led force, at least to start with.

I think to be really effective, any EU force would have to be that - a EU force. This would imply that EU had transitioned to being the sole and exclusive representative of its member states in international affairs. National armies would be little more than national gaurds as they are in the United States. There would be no "English" contingent in a EU force.

That'll be the day, won't it? I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The special relationship goes both ways. Remember the Falklands war?

Wasn't that Reagan and Thatcher having a romantic dinner followed by Argentina getting screwed?

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
I wonder sometimes what actions Americans expect of European nations. European armies are designed for defence of Europe, and specifically their home nation

And the US is pushing for a rearrengament of NATO members' armed forces in order for them to become more attack - oriented.

There would be no problem with that if the nations in question faced no danger.

For Greece, there has been a new "doctrine": after the fall of the SU, there will be minimum army in the northern borders. There would be the border guard though (checking for immigrants, drugs etc).

But the army at Greece's east border will stay there since the army of Turkey at its western border stays there too.


Now I couldn't care less about the US or the UK.

But sometimes I think that the Greek teams that go around the globe with NATO really get the short end of the stick.

First, there is no real media exposure about them in Greece, in part since they can be seen by some people as fighting for the US. (whereas other matters of importance to Greece remain unresolved). Also because Greece is not "army crazy" except when in relation to her neighboors.

And you can forget about exposure from other countries.

Still, talking cold and objectively, they do a great work and very dangerous.

For example in Afganistan they cleared up mine fields (as well as reconstructing facilities such as hospitals and schools - the Afganis renamed one of the central squares of Kabul "Alexander the Great" in their honour).

In the end all they get is their experience (which some people fail to realize that it will be useful for the Greek army in general) and their big paychecks.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Chris 62
There isn't a nation on Earth that wants to send forces to do the right thing, the UN often has problems dragooning forces for missions.

That's because countries like the US have traditionally refused to take part in peacekeeping missions. As a result, countries like Canada get stretched to the limits serving in more than a dozen peacekeeping missions. Our guys are serving six-months on peacekeeping, back home for six-months and then back out again.

There are dozens of countries who routinely send troops out for peacekeeping missions. They do so of their own accord. They are not dragooned into doing it.

Originally posted by Chris 62
A perfect example is Rwanda (sub-sahara Africa is an area where Europe has ties, and has acted in the past), yet no nation, even with UN promting wanted any part of it.

The Belgiums were there and paid the price with 10 soldiers killed. They then pulled out (not unlike the US in Somalia).

The Canadian general leading the UN peacekeepers there was calling for more help.

But the US was lobbying to end the peacekeeping mission.

In a message to the US mission to the UN, the US State Dept. wrote the "department believes that there is insufficient justification to retain a UN peacekeeping presence in Rwanda and that the international community must give highest priority to full, orderly withdrawal of all UNAMIR personnel as soon as possible," the confidential cable said. The UN Security Council voted April 21, 1994, to pull out the troops.

Another great example of how the US and the UK are "the two nations are the only two willing to take chances to effect positive change."

Originally posted by Chris 62
The Gulf war is another example, the US (acting on a UN mandate) had to twist arms for support, except of course, for Britian.

This destroys your own argument. Canada willingly provided troops. No arms needed twisting.

Originally posted by Chris 62
This has nothing to do with posturing and chest beating.

It most certainly does, and more than that, it shows a selective memory.

Every example you provided destroys your own argument.

[Bereta_Eder]

When asked by a journalist whether they were "merceneries" they replied "professionals".

As to why they were there (in Afganistan) they replied because the Greek parliement wants us here.

So I guess they're alright with their conscience.

Still a large part of the Greek people sees all this as another man's war. Namely the Americans'.

As 17N pointed out in one of their proclamations "the 'brave' Greek government sends young Greeks to die for the Imperliasts when it doesn't do a thing to free Cyprus".

Now 17N can die (actually it did) but that's what a large portion of the people feel. (in some cases erroniously)

[Bereta_Eder]

In the gulf war one (or was it two) Greek frigates took part.

The right wing government which was then ruling did the mistake IMO of sending drafted kids and not volunteers along with the officers and permanent staff and naturally there was an uproar.

[Capt Dizle]

I remember the uproar and it had nothing to do with draftees. The two Greek frigates accidentally bombarded a French tugboat, the captain of which was so amused at the fact that the Greek's kept missing that he forgot to surrender.

[Bereta_Eder]

Right. At least the american bombs going astray and hitting Bulgaria and Albania were a real fact.

(edit: which reminds me of a very funny episode of a well known satyre program about american "efficiency" and "accuracy". It involved a constipated american pilot and a misunderstood order he received. The order was "let it go". The whole satyre was based on the real fact that an american pilot bombed a bus full of people because he had mistaken it for a tank).

The uproar was of course from the families of the yound kids who were sent, without their will, in the Gulf war.

One of them actually and very bravely refused to go "and fight for the imperialists" I think he said. Actually I think it was an officer.