How much do you value the UK-US 'relationship'?

[Will Hay]

I'd be interested to learn from people how much they value the apparent mutual friendship that exists between the US and the UK.
In the wake of the terrible events of Sept the 11th and the never-ending battle against terrorism it would appear (to me at least) the mutual respect that exists between our nations has increased to a level not seen since WW2.
I was over there recently for three weeks and was genuinely surprised at the level of warmth I encountered - although why do you think we're all Australian - we don't all speak like the Queen!
Will Hay

[pacmania_2001]

Yeh, it's obvious that Australians are much funner and better looking people than their British counterparts

[MOVIEGEEK]

In college I had a couple of Aussie chums,those blokes and me had a lot
of fun with the betty's.
Seriously,as an American I appreciate any help in our fight against terrorism.

[Treebeard]

I voted that its vital.

Even though the US is one of the most powerful nations it can not defeat evil by themselves (give me gun). I'm from the US and think its important for the rest of the world to be on the same page against terrorists. I also cant stand it when some tree huggers march on our capital against war. Do they realize that without our governments protection we would all be subject to events such as 9/11 all the time. War can be good and some idiots are too dense to see that. okay my rant is over

[rhegedus]

I voted that it's vital too.

The fight against terrorism isn't really a fair fight when you consider all the countries that try to block your path for their own reasons: France has too many fingers in the pie, as does Russia; Germany cannot be relied upon since aggression is forbidden by their constitution; Italy, well, more than one change of government a year - what do you expect? Then there's the rest of the EU states who are only there to make up the numbers....

However, just because it suits the UK's purpose to side along with the US at the moment, don't think that the US can rely on UK support:

1) there has been a dramatic reduction in the armed forces' capabilities in the past 20 years - the Falkland's War was probably the last that the UK will be able to fight alone.

2) Don't trust Tony Blair: he's just after votes, so don't expect him to support you when the shit hit's the fan! Re: the recent Afganistan campaign - the UK Marines were ready to go in in November but didn't go in until March, by which time it was all over. Work it out....

3) The 'Brit's' still haven't forgiven the US for saving our asses in WW2. We still won the War single handed........ despite having the most humiliating retreat in military history - Burma, anyone?
You had Patton (I'll put my boots on the desk of that Russian bastard!), we had 'Monty'.....enough said...

While the UK still has Members of Parliament like George Galloway (burn in hell, you baby kissing bastard ), there will still always be someone to plunge the knife in your backs. Unfortunately, a biased media doesn't allow for a pro-US view to be made.

Good luck!

Rob

[sterno]

It's interesting to see somebody from another country saying the same things about the "allies" of the US that I've been saying for years. As far as I can tell, the main thing you can say about most of them is that they're always there when they need us. It seems like they're just as fast to publically condemn the US for any action they disagree with as are the nations that are openly hostile to the US.

But as soon as they want to see something done they're our close friends, willing to send one soldier for every thousand American troops in a "multinational" task force. Of course, they don't want to settle for 1/1000th of a vote in what that force does, they just want the US to foot the bill in both dollars and lives.

Our government has a bad tendency to just let it happen, though it's been a bit less lately. I don't agree with everything the US gov't does, but I disagree a lot more with bending over backwards to satisfy nations that do nothing but criticize and use the US.

[pacmania_2001]

You have to remember that most allies don't have the same military power as the US so whilst America can afford to put in hundreds of thousands of troops a country like Australia may only be able to provide a small fraction of that number.

It would be hypocritical to think that the U.S itself does things without mutual gain. Take the East Timor situation for example, the U.S didn't help in that situation because they were no possible gains.

I do think that the alliance of nations in the war on terror is vital however.

[Will Hay]

It's interesting to see somebody from another country saying the same things about the "allies" of the US that I've been saying for years. As far as I can tell, the main thing you can say about most of them is that they're always there when they need us. It seems like they're just as fast to publically condemn the US for any action they disagree with as are the nations that are openly hostile to the US.

In the curent climate I believe that to be a wholly inacurrate point.
I don't doubt in the past, and speaking for my country only of course, the UK has been just as quick to object to US intervention as anyone else but let's not forget, we maybe a smaller nation but we're no US lapdog.
Perhaps, and I acknowledge this might be slightly controversial yet not meant to offend, the US has been the slowest to admit it's mistake's in the past.
As for the second world war, the US stood firm in not intervening until they suffered their first mainland attack (ever, I think), but I'm 100% condifent if a similar thing occured now in mainland Europe we wouldn't have to ask for intervention, and the troops would be on our doorstep faster than a nun's first curry.
It's also ridiculous to suggest "...I disagree a lot more with bending over backwards to satisfy nations that do nothing but criticize and use the US", I'm of the opinion that the US is the first to show it's contempt for the actions of dictator's and despots around the world, no matter where they are (and rightly so). The smaller European nations don't go cap in hand seeking an assurance of troops and weapons from the US, nations such as the UK believe the allies they formed years ago have a part to play in any negotiations for peace.
The choice the US has to go to war is not taken by anyone else but the US.
Will

[rhegedus]

It's interesting to see somebody from another country saying the same things about the "allies" of the US that I've been saying for years. As far as I can tell, the main thing you can say about most of them is that they're always there when they need us. It seems like they're just as fast to publically condemn the US for any action they disagree with as are the nations that are openly hostile to the US.

In the curent climate I believe that to be a wholly inacurrate point.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,873141,00.html

Of the EU players:

France
President Jacques Chirac continues to call for a diplomatic solution to the crisis. He appears to be preparing public opinion for a possible conflict and recently cautioned military leaders to be prepared for all eventualities of war. A new survey indicates three-quarters of all French citizens oppose a war on Iraq.

Germany
Chancellor Gerhard Schröder took a strong anti-war stand during his campaign for re-election in September 2002, claiming that 'under my leadership Germany will not take part in a military intervention'. Since then he has granted US forces the use of German bases and airspace in the event of a war. Germany will also send missile defence systems to Israel to defend against attack from Iraq. Schröder cited 'moral and historic reasons' for helping to protect Israel. Despite this, Schröder maintains an anti-war stance and Germany will not become involved in military action.


Who's not mentioned?

Italy and Greece were both strongly opposed the US intervention in Yugoslavia, so much so that neither allowed the use of their air space when bombing began. There's no change this time around.

Has any EU country, apart from the UK, said it would support the US with troops if there was to be a war with Iraq?

Regards,

Rob

[pacmania_2001]

I believe Turkey (EU Member I think, or proposed member) has said that the US forces can use their airspace/bases in the case of war. I think the rest (apart from Germany) are waiting to see if the United Nations sanctions the military action or whether the United States will unilaterally attack.

Already in Australia the government has supported the U.S, sending ships and personnal to the region as well as what many believe will be a deployment of the Australian SAS Special Forces squadron if war breaks out whether UN sanctioned or not.

As for my stance on the Iraq situation I fully believe that Saddam and his regime are hiding/building nuclear/chemical/biological weapons however I am wary of America's plans after a victory in Iraq as there previous track record isnt good for installing governments/leaders/dictators in the world's hot spots.

[Will Hay]

Of the EU players:

France
President Jacques Chirac continues to call for a diplomatic solution to the crisis. He appears to be preparing public opinion for a possible conflict and recently cautioned military leaders to be prepared for all eventualities of war. A new survey indicates three-quarters of all French citizens oppose a war on Iraq.

Germany
Chancellor Gerhard Schröder took a strong anti-war stand during his campaign for re-election in September 2002, claiming that 'under my leadership Germany will not take part in a military intervention'. Since then he has granted US forces the use of German bases and airspace in the event of a war. Germany will also send missile defence systems to Israel to defend against attack from Iraq. Schröder cited 'moral and historic reasons' for helping to protect Israel. Despite this, Schröder maintains an anti-war stance and Germany will not become involved in military action.


Who's not mentioned?

Italy and Greece were both strongly opposed the US intervention in Yugoslavia, so much so that neither allowed the use of their air space when bombing began. There's no change this time around.

Has any EU country, apart from the UK, said it would support the US with troops if there was to be a war with Iraq?

Boy that is one sly way of putting a point across, have you considered diplomacy yourself?
I was responding to the point made in which sterno 'generalised' that "...the main thing you can say about most of them is that they're always there when they need us. It seems like they're just as fast to publically condemn the US for any action they disagree with as are the nations that are openly hostile to the US".
He never mentioned Iraq when making that statement.
More importantly, sterno seemed to be nudging towards the point that the EU countries are quite happy to seek assistance when it suits them, but are quite happy stand up and oppose anything the US does when they feel like it. What so have so eloquently failed to mention is any evidence of when these specific EU countries have *ever* sought US intervention for their own gain.

Will

[rhegedus]

I believe Turkey (EU Member I think, or proposed member) has said that the US forces can use their airspace/bases in the case of war. I think the rest (apart from Germany) are waiting to see if the United Nations sanctions the military action or whether the United States will unilaterally attack.

from the link:

Turkey

Some fear that tensions between Turks and Kurds could be reignited by a conflict. On Friday, Prime Minister Abdullah Gul sent a letter to Baghdad appealing to Iraq to comply with UN resolutions. A survey showed that 83 per cent of Turks said they would not let the Americans use their bases to attack Iraq. However, the US is one of Turkey's closest allies, a position that would be seriously threatened if Turkey did not support the invasion. America is trying to persuade Turkey to back an attack, and has promised to assist in its application for EU membership in return.


As for the other comments regarding Australian invlovement, the Aussies have never flinched from supporting the US in any of its fights. Three cheers!

Regards,

Rob

[rhegedus]

Boy that is one sly way of putting a point across, have you considered diplomacy yourself?
I was responding to the point made in which sterno 'generalised' that "...the main thing you can say about most of them is that they're always there when they need us. It seems like they're just as fast to publically condemn the US for any action they disagree with as are the nations that are openly hostile to the US".
He never mentioned Iraq when making that statement.
More importantly, sterno seemed to be nudging towards the point that the EU countries are quite happy to seek assistance when it suits them, but are quite happy stand up and oppose anything the US does when they feel like it. What so have so eloquently failed to mention is any evidence of when these specific EU countries have *ever* sought US intervention for their own gain.

Will

Don't play the naive card, Silky.

Your initial post mentioned 'the never endaing battle against terrorism'. The weapons inspections in Iraq are part of this, are they not? You further pointed to Iraq when you made the remark about the 'current climate'.

As for EU countries seeking US intervention for their own gain, what do you think would have happenned to western europe in the face of the Soviet Union (who's aim was global communism) had the US not maintained a military presence after WWII (and to date)?

Regards,

Rob

[Baldrick]

Please follow our off topic rules
- No politics

Topic closed.