Special relationship between UK and US is over, MPs say

[Skybird]

I agree that the term was massively hijacked under Bush/Blair. But even without Obama'S coldy calculated pragmatism, it would be relatively overloaded with meaning today. The Iraq wars 03 and 99 saw the US leading, and making use of the UK, and the UK obediently following. In case of Blair, the willingess to use him (by Bush) met the willingness to be used (by Blair), which now really is an exceptionell display of home-grown folly. On the political level, that is no special relation on same eye level, but the relation between hegemon and vasall. But I strongly assume that in the intelligence and sub-political military level, ties remain to be close between indivual persons - the famous "private wires" people have to somebody in the other camp.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8590767.stm

Committee chairman Mike Gapes said: "We must be realistic and accept that globalisation, structural changes and shifts in geopolitical power will inevitably affect the UK-US relationship.

"Over the longer-term, the UK is unlikely to be able to influence the US to the extent it has in the past."

I don't think they care for the new subserviant perception of the relationship.

[Jimbuna]

I should imagine that whatever state the UK-US relationship status is...in times of conflict they will be as strong as they've always been in the past.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

I should imagine that whatever state the UK-US relationship status is...in times of conflict they will be as strong as they've always been in the past.

Maybe not putting too much money on it, for four - no, five reasons.

1. Some weeks or months ago, higher ranks in the British military expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the way America handled the Iraq war and the relations with the British army, I think we have had a thread on it.

2. Plus the statement made now specifically aims at preventing Britain falling into an automatism to just say Yeah again.

3. And finally, not only America's focus is shifting, but Britain is changing itself too, and very massively. The political parties start to reflect changing demographic and cultural realities in Britain. Britain has set sail to become less and lesser Western, with most of the continental europe set to follow with some delay only.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...our-Party.html

4. Lack of money. The British finance policy is even worse than that of Greece. And wars cost money.

5. Military shrinking in Britain. Projection of effective major combat forces for major action under conditions of fullscaled wars become more and more questionable. Again, that shrinking is linked to the money argument. Defence industry is just reported to eventually shrink by 70pc, the navy'S number of units is being reduced too, shortcomings in queipement for the troops in Iraq have been reprted repeatedly over the past 12 months, and just one or two weeks ago a former highranlking milurtary of the British said in an interview that although the budget spending had been increased, inflation has eaten up those increases and made the buying power of the budget actually falling.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Maybe not putting too much money on it, for four - no, five reasons.

1. Some weeks or months ago, higher ranks in the British military expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the way America handled the Iraq war and the relations with the British army, I think we have had a thread on it.

2. Plus the statement made now specifically aims at preventing Britain falling into an automatism to just say Yeah again.

3. And finally, not only America's focus is shifting, but Britain is changing itself too, and very massively. The political parties start to reflect changing demographic and cultural realities in Britain. Britain has set sail to become less and lesser Western, with most of the continental europe set to follow with some delay only.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...our-Party.html

4. Lack of money. The British finance policy is even worse than that of Greece. And wars cost money.

5. Military shrinking in Britain. Projection of effective major combat forces for major action under conditions of fullscaled wars become more and more questionable. Again, that shrinking is linked to the money argument. Defence industry is just reported to eventually shrink by 70pc, the navy'S number of units is being reduced too, shortcomings in queipement for the troops in Iraq have been reprted repeatedly over the past 12 months, and just one or two weeks ago a former highranlking milurtary of the British said in an interview that although the budget spending had been increased, inflation has eaten up those increases and made the buying power of the budget actually falling.

I think you could draw up a list of not too different similarities during the two major world war periods earlier last century.

It was in that context I posted....times of wholescale war, threat of invasion etc.

I should imagine that whatever state the UK-US relationship status is...in times of conflict they will be as strong as they've always been in the past.

Like during the Suez crisis?

And finally, not only America's focus is shifting, but Britain is changing itself too, and very massively.

Oh no its the muslims again, taking over the world with their secret global conspiracy.

[nikimcbee]

That's okay, I still love Jim anyway, regardless of what the politicians do.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

That's okay, I still love Jim anyway, regardless of what the politicians do.

You guys will always have a "special" relationship!

[nikimcbee]

seperated at birth

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

seperated at birth

Perhaps for good reason just imagine the damage it could have caused on the continent you happen to live on, when both of you where together at all times

HunterICX

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

I should imagine that whatever state the UK-US relationship status is...in times of conflict they will be as strong as they've always been in the past.

I think all former English colonies will always remain pretty close to each other in a number of ways, as well as staying close to the mother country.

I feel that politicians in Canada, the UK and perhaps in Australia at times have claimed a "Special Relationship" with the USA as a sop to the masses. Some might even believe that there is such a thing but its existance is a national delusion perpetuated for political reason at home and abroad.

Self-interest is at the root of any effective foreign policy and any percieved "Special Relationship" with America (or any other sovereign independant nation-state) exists only as long as the side with the whip hand makes it so.

Blair could easily have kept the UK out of Iraq militarily and probably not caused any negative long term Anglo-American issues since bilateral self-interest trumps hurt feelings every time. In the worst case the city fathers of Lake Havasu AZ might have renamed historic London Bridge and "Freedom Bridge" or some similar jingoistic moniker.

Unless the long-term strategic goal was to restore UK political power east of Suez, his reaction throughout 2002-03 did bare more than a superficial resemblance to that of vassel state striving to prove worthy of the master.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by TarJak

You guys will always have a "special" relationship!

Weren't those taken at the auditions for the next Shrek movie?

[HunterICX]

going for the roles of Shrek and Fiona

HunterICX

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

going for the roles of Shrek and Fiona

HunterICX

LOL