Why does it exist. I mean, we Brits fecked up the US and we had a war with them. Why, now do we have this special relationship irrespective of the politics of the government?

I love it, but am interested in why it exists.


Ozzy

One hates to be pedantic but we did not feck up the US,THE USA did not exist,we fecked up a colony and they rebelled,it was not a war it was a rebellion.
:rolleyes:
Incidently after they won the rebellion and started calling it the War of Independence, some of em rebelled again agin the the US Guvmint, ie the previous rebels.
See Daniel Shay.
:rolleyes:

Because we're all such jolly decent chaps.

For a few of us, you're still the Mother country.

Mr D is of course correct, the UK fecked with a bunch of colonialists, the USA came after that. They did indeed have a civil war after that. But the question still stands. We imposed taxes without representations and we did unspeakable things prior to 1776, but we still have a unique relationship that transcends time. Why?

Ozzy

Ya learned a little bit from the rebellion.

Now the sequence of events is

Step 1. Take away the guns
Step 2. raise taxes.


When previously tried in other order, land escaped the empire...

Cheers
Wino

Ye overlooked the re-decorating of the White House ....and a sound kicking at a place called New Orleans fellas.

Quote... "We imposed taxes without representations and we did unspeakable things prior to 1776".

Actually, while the lack of representation was indeed an issue, the tax on tea that supposedly sparked the Boston Tea Party had actually been repealed prior to the aforesaid party. John Hancock, who famously signed the Declaration of Independence first, was a tea smuggler and it was he who planned the Boston Tea Party. He did so because officially imported tea, now with the tax repealed, could undercut the price of his smuggled tea.
Most of the "revolutionaries" wanted a fairer deal from the Crown rather than independence, and in any case they were very much a minority within the 13 colonies in 1776.
As for the "unspeakable things", there really wasn't much done by the Brits that was reprehensible. They generally kept to their treaties with the aboriginal population, and taxation from the colonies didn't even cover the cost of providing an army to defend the colonies from the French.
Speaking of the French, the revolution would have failed without them. It was the French who won the Battle of Yorktown and whose blockade prevented a withdrawal by the British army.
The "unspeakable things" started once the revolution was well underway, with Tories (supporters of the Crown; nothing to do with current British or Canadian political parties!) being hounded, sometimes murdered, by their neighbours. A huge influx of loyalists boosted the English-speaking population of Canada, as Tories fled in fear of their lives.
More unspeakable things occured when the Americans, as they now called themselves, expanded westward into aboriginal lands and broke pretty much every treaty ever signed.
The current special relationship started with the friendship between Sir Winston Churchill and Franklin D Roosevelt. Prior to WW2, even after fighting on the same side in WW1, the Washington Naval Conference (setting the maximum number of battleships in each fleet) was predicated on the notion that Britain and the USA were rivals, hence their fleets being allowed equal numbers of battleships.
Since WW2, and more so since the North Atlantic Treaty formed NATO, Britain and the US have been close allies. It is claimed that the UK is the only country in which the CIA do not operate field agents. Not sure if it's true...
It's a reasonable assumption that Blair's decision to go to war in Iraq was designed to keep the unique relationship (among EU nations at any rate) with the US alive, especially since he was seen as a close friend of the Clinton administration which was so despised by the Republicans.

Not sure if it's true...

Yep. We caught 'em all.:)

The special relationship manifests itself more in the intelligence and military research fields than diplomacy. In fact we have often been on the short end of the stick when it comes to shared interests abroad.


Due in effect to common shared values and common goals, and often to the simple fact that the two premiers like each other.

Its usually overstated.

and sadly, in spite of this relationship, citizens of the UK are not permitted to enter the US Green Card Lottery ... :{

It is claimed that the UK is the only country in which the CIA do not operate field agents

We also pulled the last CIA field agent from Andorra in 1997.

By which, presumably, you mean you still have field agents in places like the Vatican (that must be some undercover job), San Marino and Monaco? I take it those states are such a danger to the national security of the mighty US of A.:rolleyes:

Why not ? the Vatican has agents all over the place as well, theres one at the end of my road you can spot them a mile off they wear long black dresses and dog collars.
Dunno who they think they are fooling.
:rolleyes:

Drapes... that really made me chuckle! :p

We also pulled the last CIA field agent from Andorra in 1997.

Out of interest... why Andorra? Purely cos nowt happens? (that I know of)

Mr D, some of us have been warning of the prefidious men in 'black dresses and dog collars' for years. We just get shouted down as swivel eyed sectarians! Their evil I tell you. ;)

Monaco, that seething hotbed of terrorist funding, remains. San Marino is Italian jurisdiction. We did outsource the Vatican, Burkino Faso, Congo (Brazzaville), and Fiji to India with promising results. ;)

Cheers,

CIA field agent Is that what they're called these days?

I might have guessed that. Office cleaners have become sanitation engineers and road-sweepers are highway technicians.

People who engage in dirty work shouldn't be embarassed by it.

Please excuse me, I'm merely feeling a little retarded today, uhmmm, mentally challenged then. ;)

You know Lock n Load every time I hear about how the U.S. could have never won the War of Independence without the help of the French, it always amuses me that the fact that the English had a great number of German mercenaries helping them, the English, to keep the American colonies under English rule is never pointed out.

Why is that do you suppose?

:confused: :) :uhoh:

Con Pilot

I think you'll find they were Hessians, but we gave them the sack !! :p :ugh:

True, them be Hessians allright! Same part of the world.:ok:

Think yourselves lucky,had we brung Sharpe and his Chosen Men along you buggas would still be drinking tea and eating cucumber sarnies, opining on whether or not Beckum is a prat and watching cricket instead of that girly rounders game baseball.
Incidently, Beckum is indeed a pratt.
:rolleyes:

Were the Hessians actually mercenaries?

I've a feeling that King George III was the ruler of Hesse at the time.

I'll check it out later.

He wasn't.

Mercenaries is such an outdated term. Let's call them Contractors. That sounds so much better.

con-pilot;
the French were more reliable mercenaries (in that they were fighting on behalf of someone else) than the Hessians! The Hessians deserted in droves.
You missed the point somewhat, in that the majority of people in the then 13 colonies did not want a war and did not want independence. Having got it anyway, of course Americans must claim it as a victory. Who wouldn't? The fight for independence was a bandwagon on which it was natural to jump when the outcome became clear. Incidentally, George Washington would have fought on the other side had he not been severly p*ssed off about being passed over for promotion in the British Army.
Also, the people from whom that independence was won were "the English". The monarchy became a British one, under the Scottish crown, in 1603, and the United Kingdom was formed in 1707 by the Act of Union.

To the rest of you, I accept that the CIA may have a limited presence in Lichtenstein but I bet they have someone in Andorra. It's near to Basque country.... They probably have someone in Monaco too, if only as a plum posting when the Grand Prix is in town.

"England and America are two countries separated by a common language."
George Bernard Shaw.


Underlying the special relationship has been a continuous understated rivalry between the 2. Along the lines of "Americans may drive bigger cars but British ones are more economical"...if you get the drift.


Or from the movie Patton:

Capt. Oskar Steiger: [I]Sir, the Americans have taken Palermo!

General Alfred Jodl: Damn!

Messenger: [after pulling up to Monty's command post] Sir, Patton's taken Palermo!

Field Marshal Sir Bernard Law Montgomery: Damn!

What nationality were the folks fighting for their Independence in the American Revolution? Many of them were colonists from Europe including the UK. I don't know how many of the Founding Fathers were in fact born overseas, but many were. The fact that a number of the British Forces were of German origin has more to do with the ties of the British Royal family and German Troops fighting in the British Army was not limited to the continent of North America. It would be interesting to see the proportion of French Troops fighting with the revolutionaries. The outcome of the final battle in the War of Independence had a great deal to with the presence of the French Navy.
More recently, the US Navy was built up after WW1 to deal with the largest perceived threat, that threat was seen by the USA as being the Royal Navy. .
The USA held off entering both WW1 and WW2 until they had bled the UK dry of its wealth, its' empire and its place as a major power. The USA left the UK it with just enough to survive and we are now left in the position we find ourselves in now.
There is no special relationship. The relationship exists because the USA require influence in Europe. That infuence is exercised partly through the UK. Look at the Suez Crisis. The USA did not want it to happen. They called in debts which we could not pay and the UK were forced to withdraw. Should the USA no longer wish to have a Special Relationship, then they will drop us like a hot potato, let us not be under any misconception about that.
I have nothing against the American people, but their politics and their politicians do leave a great deal to be desired, and don't even start me on Joseph Kennedy!

Temps.

I'm glad someone has mentioned US enmity towards Britain. Most people seem to have forgotten it or never known it.

One of the aims if the US government in WW2 was the weakening or, better, destruction of the British Empire. This was not conceived from any high-minded political stand-point. It was concieved in order to handicap or remove Britain and the Empire as a business and industrial rival. In the course of the war the British populace was subverted by American largesse and American popular culture to such an extent that few would entertain any thought about what the US was actually seeking. It succeeded.

Special relationship?

During our more recent trouble with the IRA many in the US were actively raising funds so that the IRA could carry out its foul deeds here. The US government did little to stop them. Furthermore, the US refused several times to extradite wanted terrorists to face justice in Britain.

Special relationship?

During the run-up to the Falklands War, there were plenty people in the US government who advocated siding with Galtieri.

Special relationship?

What do you think?

"One hates to be pedantic but we did not feck up the US,THE USA did not exist,we fecked up a colony and they rebelled,it was not a war it was a rebellion."

Uhmmm...I believe you guys did burn down our Capitol in 1814...

That was a different war pwendell, that one we were fighting the USA.
:cool:

Pwendell,
Yes the Brits did burn down your Capitol in 1814. But, what is often not mentioned is that it was in retaliation to you crossing into Canada and amongst other actions, burning down their Parliamnet building. I am not saying that two wrongs make a right, but what I am saying is that if you are going to quote history, make sure you quote the background as well.

Temps

Wingswinger,

And there are plenty of other examples.... Particularly guttingly in the Middle East with regards to the oil there...

On a military and intelligence basis there really is a special relationship, if anything though the economic side sees us as the whipping boys every time.

..crossing into Canada and among other actions, burning down their Parliament....

Could you pease come back and burn the :mad: place down again? Preferably with all the Honourable Members inside. ;)

During the run-up to the Falklands War, there were plenty people in the US government who advocated siding with Galtieri.

I got this from a RN Lt. Comm. who served during the Falklands War. During the time that Mr Haig was going back and forth between London and Buenos Aires on his peace missions, the US Navy had a carrier ready in case one of the Brit's carriers sustained damage, or got sunk. He inssists it's totally 100% true.

Belive me, we in the USA love the Brits. Especially Chelsea FC, Auf Wiedersehen Pet, Lotus Cortinas, Thunderbirds (the puppets, not that dreadful movie), Fullers London Pride, Tommy Cooper, and the Virgin flight attendants! But thats for a different post!

It was certainly offered Flyrr100, though after Al Haig's diplomacy had failed.

The terms which Haig offered the bargies were very preferential, despite the Falklands strategic value. All they had to do was withdraw their forces and they could have had the Falklands, with a little scheming. We were under great pressure to accept a diplomatic solution.

In fact the Junta rejected the proposals which led to the assistance from the US.

Wingswinger, your analysis of US motives in WWII is totally wrong. We were committed to saving GB. Though our entry into the conflict was delayed, we lost a lot of tonnage and men supplying the war effort and feeding the people prior to Pearl Harbor. Shouldn't discount that to zero as is often done. After the war, we blocked British aspirations for empire retention. We are by definition anti-empire.

As for the IRA, you are right. An Irish cousin once took me into an Irish pub in Boston where I saw a collection bowl 'for the cause' out in the open during the bombing era (I'm an eighth Irish and a quarter Scots-Irish). I think more IRA terror funding came out of Boston than Dublin. It didn't help that the Boston Irish were the constituency of the Kennedy machine. Although the terrorism was as wrong then as it is today, there is some justification for the bad blood between Irish and English.

As for support of Galtieri, I suppose you are right. There are Americans who support Bin Ladin, too. But the US openly, officially, and indisputably sided with GB during the Falklands War.

The relationship is special because we jointly carry the torch of democracy, world order, rule of law, and opposition to tyranny.

Nah, it's because other than Spanish, Americans are generally notmuch good at European languages, so they need the UK to translate for them.

Interesting thought about the US being anti-empire BenThere, I guess it's down to semantics and whose empire it is. By the strictest definition you are quite right of course (though I think Emperor George does have a certain ring to it) but I think there is an argument to be had regarding Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada, Panama, Vietnam, South Korea etc.

Whilst I'm not sure about some of the finer detail in Wingswinger's argument I think we are all kidding ourselves if "What's in it for us" isn't numbers 1, 2 and 3 on the policy making checklist of most countries these days. Only difference is that the US is so big that it stands out rather more starkly than with most countries. As examples:

Kyoto - you can argue the science all day long, but Bush stated last week that he wasn't going near it as it would damage the US economy. No pretence of either the longer term or world views.

Iraq - freezing out of all non-US companies in the rebuilding effort apart from a few crumbs here and there.

Don't know the detail of the Falklands in the context of US policy, but it wouldn't surprise me if they had at least as much of an eye on the money to be made by currying favour with South America against the benefit that a small country like Britain could offer.

Though our entry into the conflict was delayed Only after Germany declared war (Dec. 11, 1941). Until then isolationism dominated the US foreign policy. Latin America was the main focus. The Neutrality Act prohibited American citizens from selling arms to belligerents in international war. There were Neutrality Acts until 1939. After the war, we blocked British aspirations for empire retention. After the War? The Brits didn't got the support for nothing; the Lend-Lease Act allowing Britain to "lease" huge amounts of military equipment on the basis of a promise that they would be paid for after the war. Britain was also forced to agree to dismantle preferential trade arrangements that kept American exports out of the British Empire.