Who's Got The Guts To Take This...
News3 mins ago
Uk-Usa Special Relationship?
27 Answers
Do you believe in such a thing and if so why?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by lightbulb247. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No, not as originally understood. In the past we were the most powerful and influential country, the USA excepted, in the world, or, at least in the West. Now, we do not even have that status in Europe. All that remains is history, the language, and some elements of a shared culture. That does not merit the term 'Special Relationship'.
I just find this so funny, how the USA when they do not have British support, quickly rush to the next available country, being France. It reminds me of children fighting with each other.
http://
http://
Depends on what you mean by the term Special Relationship really. If you are talking about a relationship in which the US and UK preferentially treat with each other economically, who are like minded and operate upon a diplomatic and political platform based upon a foundation of mutual and equal participancy, then no, that kind of special relationship does not exist.
But I do think there is a kind of special relationship borne out of some shared cultural values, a shared language, a modern history of alliance and a somewhat shared view of foreign and economic relations with countries around the globe.
Its not a relationship that merits fawning column inches in the newspapers though,or is something that politicians should wistfully mourn as being fatally compromised if the UK does not always march in lockstep to the US military drum.
But I do think there is a kind of special relationship borne out of some shared cultural values, a shared language, a modern history of alliance and a somewhat shared view of foreign and economic relations with countries around the globe.
Its not a relationship that merits fawning column inches in the newspapers though,or is something that politicians should wistfully mourn as being fatally compromised if the UK does not always march in lockstep to the US military drum.
I agree old geezer, what i mean is that France and Britain, while allies, have always had a bit of a rocky relationship through History. It almost seemed like the USA was rubbing it in Britain's face by calling France its "oldest ally", as if to get Britain worked up and maybe to persuade them to join, as not to look like cowards when compared to France.
Many media commentators and analysts have chosen to see John Kerrys comments about the French being the USAs "oldest allies"- and his lack of any reference to the debate in the UK HoC over an attack on Syria - in his recent, impassioned speech as to why military action in Syria is justified as a snub towards the UK, and they are probably right.
I would imagine that the USA were somewhat taken aback at the outcome of the vote in the HoC, and probably angry and dismayed that their regular partner no longer wanted to come out and play.
It is too simplistic though to view international diplomatic relations through the lens of the school playground.
But I do not think this will severely compromise UK-US relationships in the medium to long term. Indeed, the fact the Obama is taking the case to congress mirrors the actions of Cameron over here, albeit in a far more measured and far less hasty and reckless way. Public opinion counts for a lot in the US, and the latest polls show the US general public are equally split on the need for a missile strike and overwhelmingly in favour of getting congressional approval for any military action.
I would imagine that the USA were somewhat taken aback at the outcome of the vote in the HoC, and probably angry and dismayed that their regular partner no longer wanted to come out and play.
It is too simplistic though to view international diplomatic relations through the lens of the school playground.
But I do not think this will severely compromise UK-US relationships in the medium to long term. Indeed, the fact the Obama is taking the case to congress mirrors the actions of Cameron over here, albeit in a far more measured and far less hasty and reckless way. Public opinion counts for a lot in the US, and the latest polls show the US general public are equally split on the need for a missile strike and overwhelmingly in favour of getting congressional approval for any military action.
because of the negotiations going on between Churchill and FDR, not to mention the American people who weren't exactly in favour, seeing the men they lost in WW1. They saw it initially as a European conflict, the deal breaker was supposedly Pearly Harbour, however if you look at the information on lend lease think that was already in the pipeline before they finally jumped in. US were training for a long time before they joined the fray, in UK particularly
bit of plagiarism but this is a good enough response
http://
http://
It's a bit of a vague soundbite to be honest. The UK has a history of both engagement and disengagement from U.S. foreign policy, largely at the choice of which countries any particular government chooses to align themselves with. Of course, the last generation of politicians has by and large chosen to align itself with America - largely because most of them have followed Thatcher's legacy rather slavishly.
But no, I don't think there's an innate connection between the two countries other than language.
But no, I don't think there's an innate connection between the two countries other than language.
many Britons seem to think there is one. Most Americans think their only special relationship is with Israel.
Kerry is right: revolutionary France was America's ally when it was rebelling against Britain. Britain's oldest ally is Portugal, I believe. It's the sort of phrase national leaders bring up when they're praising each other; it doesn't necessarily mean all that much.
Kerry is right: revolutionary France was America's ally when it was rebelling against Britain. Britain's oldest ally is Portugal, I believe. It's the sort of phrase national leaders bring up when they're praising each other; it doesn't necessarily mean all that much.
Yes, they do – for the reasons LG gave. I don’t think our reluctance to become involved in Syria has damaged the relationship, but I do think it has caused the US to step back and take more time to consider the issue. I get the impression they are not so keen to go in there with only the French as allies. Personally, I'd rather have the US as allies than anyone else.
During the war, the US eventually became an ally against a common foe, the Germans. In the 1950s, the Soviet Union became our common enemy, and, trying to rekindle the wartime success, Winston Churchill coined the phrase while speaking in the US. Ever since, whenever we have a common interest, or same goal, the phrase 'Special Relationship' is trotted out.
Reagan an Thatcher famously revived it, (but it didn't stop him invading a commonwealth country without telling her). Bush Snr and Major over the Gulf War. Blair and Bush W over Afghanistan and Iraq.
It exists in as much that we do share common objectives with the US. We share a vaguely similar language and culture, so we express our likes and dislikes in a similar way.
The desire to change the regime in Syria has long been the wish list of the British. Obama was fearful of repeating past mistakes of his predecessor and so has stayed out of Syria too long. He has dithered for 2 years, and in the void, all kinds of nasty elements have joined the rebel side. It has turned into a monster.
So we now find something to dislike on both sides. It is unclear why Obama has changed his mind (if he has) but he appears to now want to help the rebels even though they now include, al qaeda, mujahadeen, the muslim brotherhood, Jhiadists and other undesirables.
So in summary, the 'Special Relationship' is just a convenient tag line when both countries have a common purpose. A different tag line is used on different peoples when forming a coalition. 'Our oldest ally' is France. 'Our trusted ally in the east' for Turkey etc.
Reagan an Thatcher famously revived it, (but it didn't stop him invading a commonwealth country without telling her). Bush Snr and Major over the Gulf War. Blair and Bush W over Afghanistan and Iraq.
It exists in as much that we do share common objectives with the US. We share a vaguely similar language and culture, so we express our likes and dislikes in a similar way.
The desire to change the regime in Syria has long been the wish list of the British. Obama was fearful of repeating past mistakes of his predecessor and so has stayed out of Syria too long. He has dithered for 2 years, and in the void, all kinds of nasty elements have joined the rebel side. It has turned into a monster.
So we now find something to dislike on both sides. It is unclear why Obama has changed his mind (if he has) but he appears to now want to help the rebels even though they now include, al qaeda, mujahadeen, the muslim brotherhood, Jhiadists and other undesirables.
So in summary, the 'Special Relationship' is just a convenient tag line when both countries have a common purpose. A different tag line is used on different peoples when forming a coalition. 'Our oldest ally' is France. 'Our trusted ally in the east' for Turkey etc.
As I mentioned somewhere else I think 'Special Relationship' is largely code for sharing of certain types of intelligence.
Anything else is just sentiment or opinion.
Kerry's remarks about France, apart from being factually correct, were probably part pointed at the UK and part intended as encouragement to the French president - possibly a reassurance after problems between France and the previous administration
Anything else is just sentiment or opinion.
Kerry's remarks about France, apart from being factually correct, were probably part pointed at the UK and part intended as encouragement to the French president - possibly a reassurance after problems between France and the previous administration
countries of any sort are allies when they want to be. Eisenhower (rightly) would have nothing to do with Suez. Britain steered clear of Vietnam. But the two countries remained allies in the Cold War against the USSR, as Gromit points out.
There's nothing "special" about any of this, it's just normal diplomacy.
There's nothing "special" about any of this, it's just normal diplomacy.
Latest Posts
This Is Really Desperate Stuff.
News4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Should There Be Age Limits In Politics?
News8 mins ago
Crosswords11 mins ago
