Article

2010-03-28 Britain

UK MPs say time to reconsider 'the special relationship'

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Bulldog 2010-03-28 03:13|| || Front Page|| [8 views ] Top

#1 I always thought "the special relationship" referred to intelligence sharing, not policy, which may shift here and there based on the fantasies of some clueless politician.

Posted by Fester Thaiger8930 2010-03-28 07:39|| 2010-03-28 07:39|| Front Page Top

#2 There are also things such as elementary manners, Fester.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2010-03-28 08:50|| 2010-03-28 08:50|| Front Page Top

#3 Relationship going south; Obama triumphs!

Posted by Highlander 2010-03-28 09:51|| 2010-03-28 09:51|| Front Page Top

#4 The special relationship, as far as I can tell, was supposed to be about a brotherly relationship between nations, with Britain as the elder brother advising brash young America in the use of the power it's acquired as the world's superpower.

Posted by trailing wife 2010-03-28 10:08|| 2010-03-28 10:08|| Front Page Top

#5 England obviously has some severe psychological problems. First and foremost, their two main political parties are increasingly the same as far as policy is concerned, and both of them are more than willing to surrender sovereignty to their overlords in Brussels.

Plus, they are now moving against third parties, to lock them out of the political process, so that England's collapse is assured.

So it seems that they could use a dose of either Fawkes or Cromwell, to put their house back in order.

Posted by Anonymoose 2010-03-28 10:15|| 2010-03-28 10:15|| Front Page Top

#6 No, the "special relationship" refers to the special times in our history... like when they tried to destroy us around the close of the 18th century and again in the beginning of the 19th. With friends like that....you know the rest.

Posted by Yo Adrian 2010-03-28 10:25|| 2010-03-28 10:25|| Front Page Top

#7 Like it or not UK is closer to US Than Europe but Bambi does not appreciate this and wants to be closer to Africa and Asia!

Posted by Kofi Thinese2517 2010-03-28 10:32|| 2010-03-28 10:32|| Front Page Top

#8 "First and foremost, their two main political parties are increasingly the same as far as policy is concerned, and both of them are more than willing to surrender sovereignty to their overlords in Brussels.

basically true, which is why so many people are only going to vote Tory through gritted teeth. In the last European elections UKIP came second after the Tories - a result which demonstrates clearly how sick the British voters are of the Brussels steamroller. But in our system, as yours, it's usually a case of having to vote for the lesser of two evils. Obama would happily surrender authority to the UN: does that mean the US has "severe psychological problems"?

...like when they tried to destroy us around the close of the 18th century and again in the beginning of the 19th. With friends like that....you know the rest.

Wow. Yo! Your knowledge of history, American values is almost as impressive as your POTUS's. Who are the US's natural allies if not the likes of the UK and Israel?

Posted by Bulldog 2010-03-28 10:37|| 2010-03-28 10:37|| Front Page Top

#9 It may turn out to be the Asian Century, but that still wouldn't mean that the West should allow itself to dissolve in bickering and old-couple spats. We have far more in common with not just the Brits but with every west European nation than we will ever have with India or China.

To take one not-so-trivial example, the ideas at the heart of our Constitution came from Locke and Montesquieu. For all the pi$$fests between us and the euros, the differences between our and their concepts of individual-state relations are trivial when you consider lovely Asian traditions such as India's caste system, or China's female infanticide tradition, or a pattern of government corruption that's the norm, not an outlier, in every aspect of governance in those nations.

God save us from a century dominated by "asian values." We and the Euros, and especially the Brits, and the Israelis and Aussies, need each other far more than we can imagine.

Posted by lex 2010-03-28 11:14|| 2010-03-28 11:14|| Front Page Top

#10
Never forget that our president (spit) is half-Kenyan.

Posted by Parabellum 2010-03-28 11:14|| http://sidemeat.wordpress.com/ 2010-03-28 11:14|| Front Page Top

#11 THe great irony here is that, at the same time that Barry is dragging this nation leftward and sharply increasing the government's share of GDP-- federal gov't share's going up from 20% to 28% soon-- Sarkozy and other continental European leaders have been REDUCING the tax burden and DECREASING their govts' share of GDP. Likewise, the European populations, especially in northern Europe, are becoming more and more opposed to islamism and multi-culti idiocies.

We and they should cease with the grand transatlantic pi$$match and start exploring ways to bind ourselves more, not less, closely together. Starting with a transatlantic free trade agreement. Imagine how much wealthier and more secure we would be if we were to join forces against the Chinese.

Posted by lex 2010-03-28 11:22|| 2010-03-28 11:22|| Front Page Top

#12 An Afrocentric Obama will NEVER embrace western or north European values or culture. Western culture, Christianity, and it's heritate are an anathema to Obama. Separatist, self governing urban communities have been a reality for years and represent a strong political voting base for Obama and the left. Obama's campaign of "social justice" will, through edict and taxation, sweep the rest of the country under his control. This is about Obama Nationalism and power, nothing less.

Posted by Besoeker 2010-03-28 11:37|| 2010-03-28 11:37|| Front Page Top

#13 Sadly, Besoeker, you're right. Barry's view of the world is essentially that of your average lefty junior college literature prof. The man clearly views the western nations as colonialist usurpers who need to be brought down with insults and stunts like returning the Churchill bust, sending Brown a gift of puerile DVDs, spitting on the Israelis, going out of his way to humiliate the Poles and Czechs (WTF did the Poles ever do to Barry's relatives?), siding with Argentine tinpot thugs vs the UK, etc....

It's really nothing more than Galloway-ism. The enemy of my granddad's enemies-- white imperialists-- is my friend. And every white nation that does not actively oppose or seek to thwart the US is, in Barry's twisted view of the world, an imperialist nation.

For him, this is payback time. What an absurd and foolish little man.

Posted by lex 2010-03-28 12:02|| 2010-03-28 12:02|| Front Page Top

#14 Bulldog: 'Obama would happily surrender authority to the UN: does that mean the US has "severe psychological problems"?'

Well, yes. But that doesn't make England any saner.

Posted by Anonymoose 2010-03-28 12:10|| 2010-03-28 12:10|| Front Page Top

#15 If you wanted to destroy the west what would you do differently?

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2010-03-28 12:50|| 2010-03-28 12:50|| Front Page Top

#16 If you wanted to destroy the west what would you do differently?

I'd not marry Michelle.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2010-03-28 13:27|| 2010-03-28 13:27|| Front Page Top

#17 An Afrocentric Obama

The current president is not Afro-centric, Besoeker. He is, as lex points out, vaguely for little brown people everywhere, but actually against everything the West stands for, so long as he can do it from the comfort of a Western standard of living. He's a classic reactionary Parlour Pink, essentially unchanged since the 1890s. George Bernard Shaw would not have written him into his plays, as -- barring the achievement of power to do the things he and his little friends have been pontificating about for generations -- he is entirely unoriginal and uninteresting.

Posted by trailing wife on the other computer 2010-03-28 13:53|| 2010-03-28 13:53|| Front Page Top

#18 The current president is not Afro-centric, Besoeker. trailing wife on the other computer

Forgive me TW, but just a couple of points, there are countless others....but just how do explain over twenty years of listening to Wright spew his white hate and Black Liberation Theology every Sunday, a spouse that has only recently been proud to be an American, a total indifference to Israel, and daily mentoring from members of the Black Congressional Caucus?

Posted by Besoeker 2010-03-28 14:19|| 2010-03-28 14:19|| Front Page Top

#19 Crypto-communist?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-03-28 14:21|| 2010-03-28 14:21|| Front Page Top

#20 Our list of allies grows thin.

/Elrond

Posted by Alaska Paul 2010-03-28 16:04|| 2010-03-28 16:04|| Front Page Top

#21 The Brits preferred Obama 4:1 over McCain and did many things, some underhanded, to influence the American voters. So excuse me if I don't feel much sympathy for hurt egos?

Over 400,000 Americans have died fighting Britain's war in the past 100 years. That's around 1 million today taking into account the larger population. How may British died fighting in America's wars? Around 2500? The largest in Korea. That's the only unequal relationship that matters.

Posted by ed 2010-03-28 17:02|| 2010-03-28 17:02|| Front Page Top

#22 but just how do explain

Besoeker, President Obama does not care about his African cousins, he needs to be seen caring about Africa. The only people he actually cares about, besides himself and his womenfolk, are the transnational UN types whose good opinion he craves, and he doesn't actually care about them, only about getting (not earning) their good opinion. He only joined that church to get the votes, as so many other things he has done in his life, and he likely only paid enough attention to the sermons to be able to spout the cant as needed. He didn't need to be taught that, he'd learnt the lessons of hatred long since at the knees of his mother and grandparents. In my opinion.

Posted by trailing wife 2010-03-28 20:01|| 2010-03-28 20:01|| Front Page Top

#23 ed,
WWII was OUR war as well as Britain's, and they lost almost as many as we did (way more, as a fraction their population) to win it.

Posted by Glenmore 2010-03-28 20:12|| 2010-03-28 20:12|| Front Page Top

#24 I'm looking forward to the day when the British ambassador says "You know, we have a lovely bust of old Winnie that would be perfect for that corner over there" and President Palin says "We'd love have it, you betcha!".

Posted by SteveS 2010-03-28 20:16|| 2010-03-28 20:16|| Front Page Top

#25 WAFF > ARTIC claims that IRISH MEN are descended from TURKIC + OTHER MEDITERRANEAN EMIGRES from 6000 Yarns ago, via "Y" Chromosome study.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2010-03-28 20:38|| 2010-03-28 20:38|| Front Page Top

#26 Glenmore, Roosevelt was not only shipping arms and ammunition to Britain but was trying to goad Germany into war since 1940. The US Navy was in an undeclared war with the Germans months before Pearl Harbor in violation of US law. There were no US interests at under threat. It was to keep alive a sometime US ally - Britain. W/o the undeclared war against the German navy already under way, there was no reason for Hitler to declare war against the US after Pearl Harbor. Even then, the Germans could do little to the United States. With a slightly different policy, the US could have avoided the European war, and the 300,000 American dead, altogether.

Whether you agree w/ my assessment or not, don't you find it the height of arrogance of the British Left to declare the "special relationship" is over because of 500 British deaths while the US intervention saved British asses twice and the Left's object of throbbing desire, the Soviets, once?

Posted by ed 2010-03-28 20:57|| 2010-03-28 20:57|| Front Page Top

#27 Joe, 6000 years ago the Turks weren't living in the Mediterranean; they were living in Siberia north of the Altai mountains.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2010-03-28 21:33|| 2010-03-28 21:33|| Front Page Top

#28 ed, I don't really agree with your assessment - I don't think FDR should have HAD to do an end-around to fight Hitler. Of course, if Chamberlain et al had faced Hitler down in the first place, a lot could have been avoided. Or maybe Stalin would have conquered all Europe and not lost millions of soldiers in the process. I dunno.
I do agree with your second paragraph.

Posted by Glenmore 2010-03-28 21:39|| 2010-03-28 21:39|| Front Page Top

23:44 trailing wife
23:42 gorb
23:41 Pappy
23:32 trailing wife
23:31 tu3031
23:26 Pappy
23:10 Thing From Snowy Mountain
22:55 wt
22:55 tu3031
22:38 Redneck Jim
22:15 Barbara Skolaut
22:04 crosspatch
21:44 Eric Jablow
21:39 Glenmore
21:37 logi_cal
21:33 Thing From Snowy Mountain
21:32 Besoeker
21:28 gorb
21:13 JosephMendiola
21:06 Barbara Skolaut
20:57 Barbara Skolaut
20:57 ed
20:53 Eric Jablow
20:47 Rambler in Virginia