The Special Relationship between the US and Britain

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Its also true that Kosovo was conditioned by Rwanda.

I'd add that is was most heavily conditioned by the other Balkan wars before. /pedant

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, thats why Canadian troops joined the invasion of Egypt in '56, and why Australian troops landed in the Falklands, and why British troops came to the assistance of Australian troops in Viet Nam, and why Australia and New Zealand see eye to eye on naval and nuclear matters - oh, wait a minute, never mind.

The funny thing about those examples is that only in the Falklands does the US-UK relationship seem better than the Commonwealth relations. While Canada didn't send troops to Egypt, the US actually MADE Britain, France, and Israel give the land back in one of President Eisenhower's rare angry moments. The Brits never backed the US in Vietnam, even though LBJ was desperately hoping they would (and, of course, we went into Vietnam in the first place for the French).

Yes, the US-UK relationship isnt as strong as the UK-Canada-Australia relations were pre-WW2 - the dominions had only just become effectively sovereign.

But its stronger than any relationship the US now has.

How does "stronger than any relationship the US now has" = "special relationship"? Because I don't see it. Being the closest ally and being in a "special relationship" are equivocal, IMO. Like I stated, a "special relationship" is a bit more than good friends to me.

Its also true that Kosovo was conditioned by Rwanda. There was a real sense of the tragic mistake the West made in Rwanda, that had to not be repeated. Just as Rwanda was conditioned by Somalia. And as Darfur today is conditioned by Iraq.

Thats the problem with comparing situations for consistency as if they had all happened at the same time, ignoring history and the way events changed the parameters of the possible over time.

Oh please... Iraq is so time consuming that we can't do ANYTHING in Sudan? So saying we'll never let Rwanda happen again means, if we don't have anything else happening, we don't let Rwanda happen again?

I mean here we are threating Iran with military action and we can't spare anything for Sudan? Really?!

I don't buy that BS for a second.

And perhaps DD is correct... Africans just don't matter as much.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[q]Oh please... Iraq is so time consuming that we can't do ANYTHING in Sudan?

Dammit Imran, I think ive posted more about Darfur than anyone at this site, ive written congressmen, Ive attended a rally on the mall. My daughter directed her religious school class Bat Mitzvah gift (given to a charity of the 13 YOs choice) to SaveDarfur. Of course I think we can do SOMETHING, and ive tried to keep up with whether the admin is doing ENOUGH.

But the Darfuris need troops on the ground. If we CANT send in the third infantry, then we HAVE to get UN/AU troops. And we HAVE to do what we can to enlist international help to get that to happen. And yes, we also have to deal with the Darfuri insurgent groups, which arent all as sweeet as roses.

If YOURE so concerned about Darfur, lets join in pressing for action on Darfur. Or is this about PR wrt to Blair, Brown and Bush?

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=151647&perpage=30&pagenumber=1

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
We'll never forgive you for the Spice Girls though.

Yeah, you got us there. But at least we can both unite in our hatred of Canada for Celine Dion, a far greater evil

[Ecthy]

The article quoted is as astute as the so-called synopsis of French military history that has become so popular on the internet. I wonder if the authors' mindsets are as selective as their world views.

[Dauphin]

Commonwealth relations are far stronger given the ease with which Australians, Kiwis, Brits etc can and do work and live in each other's countries - at all degrees from temporarily to permanent residency. If the ability to get jobs in the US and vice versa was as great I think there'd be a greater feeling of closeness.

For anecdotal purposes I've worked with more South Africans, Zimbabweans, Australians and Kiwis in London than other Europeans, let alone Americans.

[Provost Harrison]

Yeah, it is pretty silly to judge the Anglo-US relationship doomed because of events that are out of the lifetime of anyone alive This country has changed a lot since then. Like Germany too I suppose. We may as well hold a grudge against the Italians for the invasion of Britain. Or the French for the Norman invasion...oh wait, we still do

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Or the French for the Norman invasion...oh wait, we still do

We are descended from the invaders.

'cept you, you came over with Ghengis.

[Provost Harrison]

Genghis. Obviously the brains came over with that invasion

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by lord of the mark "this was no time to go wobbly!" [25]"


Did Robin ever speak to Batman like THAT?

Only in the bedroom

[Dr Strangelove]

Re: The Special Relationship between the US and Britain

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It has what? The senator’s “200 years” would take us back to the early years of the 19th century, or let’s say to 1812. What was special about the relationship that year was that the two countries were at war. Some of us take modest patriotic pride recalling the day that our brave lads burned the White House. And when he sings “The Star-Spangled Banner,” can Senator McCain have forgotten that it was a British rocket’s red glare?

Yet trade relations with GB were so important to New England that New England nearly succeeded rather than make war against England. It's also true that trade with America had been crucial to GBs war effort. By 1812 the majority of the royal navy had been built with Yankee wood.

For the next century the two countries were decidedly more often on bad terms than good. A large part of the British Army was stationed in Canada to protect it from its southern neighbor, and with good reason. Before the Civil War, Sir Robert Peel warned Parliament about the grave danger of an American war; during it, the secretary of state, William Seward, wanted to declare war on England and was supposedly restrained only by Lincoln himself (“One war at a time, Mr. Seward”); after it, there was a bitter dispute about a Confederate warship built in England.

What 'large part of the British Army'? I'd like to see some proof of that. Remember that India was under the control of the East India Company until 1854, and many of the troops stationed there would have been counted as Company troops. During the dispute over the "Alabama' there were riots in the industrial towns over the possibility that the British government might engage in hostilities with the US government. Abolition was still a popular issue in the industrial areas of England even if the disruption in cotton sipplies might mean hardship.

In 1895 the two countries nearly went to war over a trivial border dispute in South America, and it was recorded at the time that in America a war with England would be the most popular of wars.

Doesn't that pretty much apply to the entire "civilized" imperialistic world at the time? The US and Germany almost came to blows during the Spanish-American War. The timely appearence of a British squadron kept the Germans from interfereing in US activities in the Phillipines. There were literally conflicts between every imperial power during that era.

And again in 1914: not only did Woodrow Wilson worry that he might need to intervene on the German side because of the British naval blockade but it was reckoned that more Americans would have wanted to fight against England than for it.

You can't deny the strong cultural ties which evolved between the US and Britain after 1812. By the late 19th century rich Yankees were marrying into British nobility frequently and the US had become Great Britain's most lucrative area of investment.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Dauphin
We are descended from the invaders.

Not really, unless you're an aristo.

The Normans became the ruling class, and the popular hatred for them as a ruling class still inflences and distorts class relations today.

The only people we hate more than the Normans are the fackin Saxon Popular Front. Splitters!

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
We'll never forgive you for the Spice Girls though.

This is a good point. To which I can only reply that I don't really classify The Spice Girls as music, so much as a commercial product masquerading as music.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

just as powerful reasons, as well, which made it better to go in there and wasn't there for, say, Rwanda.

The fact the people in Kosovo were white?

Nothing to do with their whiteness. Everything to do with their PR.

A quarter of a million plus non-albanian Kosovans have been permanantly displaced. They have no PR, and no-one gives a toss.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
We overthrew Mossadegh to protect BRITISH oil interests, at long term cost to our position in the region.

Not true. Mossadegh was overthrown and the U.S. acquired substantial oil interests thanks to the new Iranian regime.

Gulf Oil, Standard Oil, Texas, and Mobil acquired a 40% share of the Iranian oil business whereas previously it had been a British concern.

This is the Eisenhower period, when coups were orchestrated for the benefit of directors and board members of companies who also happened to be in Eisenhower's cabinet or related to members of the government (see also United Fruit, the Dulles Bros. , Arbenz and Guatemala).

Of course nothing like that could happen now...