RoadWarriorFromLP

The special relationship between the US and the UK certainly exists, but Bush has special relationships only with his cronies in the US, and no one else.

I can appreciate that Blair has been trying to build the UK's place in the EU power triangle, by gaining an advantage with the US that Germany and France don't have, in order to reduce the wedge used by the French and the Germans to dominate the course of EU affairs.

While I can understand that effort with Clinton, I can't see what he was thinking with Bush. Bush has that "my way or the highway" mentality that precludes him from really being a suitable trustworthy ally to anyone, including most Americans, and it's hard to fathom that Blair would have honestly believed himself to be so different from the rest.

"Bush" and "good faith" simply don't belong together in the same sentence unless you are completely in his league and are completely willing to subjugate your own interests entirely for his. He's more of a cancer than he is a compromiser, and I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

jumping doris

But this was preceeded by the question 'Do you have Christmas in Britain?'

Sally

I see

jumping doris

I know this is off topic but...
Before we moved here I read a thread on Expats where someone said they had been asked if their dog understood US dogs and you can guess what I thought.
One of my claims to fame since moving here is that I have been asked that three times
My dog just shakes his head in amazement and gives them the finger.

Seahorse3

I know this may come as a complete shock to some of you. Ok not!
But, some Americans are as ignorant about their own country as any other.
I live in Louisiana. When I visit other parts of the US (outside of the south),
I usually get asked if we all have alligators for pets? Do we have to use boats
to go to school? Is not all of Louisiana water? I hate to tell on my own people
like this, but it seems we are a bunch of dumb a**es. :scared:
But likeable ones.

gardnma

[QUOTE=Seahorse3]......but it seems we are a bunch of dumb a**es........[QUOTE]

Oh, that's saying a bit much isn't it?

snowbunny

So many reasons to hate Bush, why choose just one?

Have a little faith, there are many Americans who see Britons in a very positive light.

Irn-bru

Blasphemer
Mine has a bought black UK passport cover on it to block out that 'E" word!

Tableland

No British prime minister really has any choice in the matter as the UK is totally dependent on the American security guarantee. As for British influence over American policy, as far as we know, the last time the Americans listened to Blair it was when he convinced them to delay proceedings and go to the UN to seek the second resolution, the bid for which they ended up having to withdraw.

Also, the US Government has referred to having a special relationship with, among others, Ireland, Pakistan, Egypt, Canada and Mexico, as well as Britain.

gardnma

[QUOTE=tableland]..........as the UK is totally dependent on the American security guarantee. [QUOTE]

Isn't this the same guarantee that Soviet tanks wouldn't roll up to the French coast and that we might not be nuked by the USSR's ICBM's if we "played ball" with Washington?

For that matter, what is the purpose of NATO now?

Tableland

[QUOTE=gardnma][QUOTE=tableland]..........as the UK is totally dependent on the American security guarantee. It is anchored in the Cold War yes. NATO maintained peace in Europe for the entire second half of the twentieth century. As for its role today, it is centrally important, as are all collective defence initiatives. It's being copied into the Far East as well, where Japan, South Korea and Australia are negotiating with the US for a NATO-style organisation in that region.

Those tanks never did roll up, did they?

gardnma

[QUOTE=tableland][QUOTE=gardnma] SEATO has been around for a bit now hasn't it?
We coudn't have stopped them with ground forces, they just had too much to throw at us. Learned their lessons well against the Wehrmacht.....
Meatgrinder tactics may have churned the first few echelons of Red tanks into the German fields, but, come on they still had T34's in the rear . A burned out Chieftan or Leopard is no threat to a 40 year old, obsolete tank.

It was the nuclear deterrent which stopped them from going shopping in Paris surely? They didn't know where our subs were and MADD was too much of a poker play for either of us.

Its complicated, yeah, but it seems the situation has changed so much from the 80's and yet we hang on to this old model. I'd say intelligence, security, surgical strikes and propaganda are our greatest weapons not mass invasions. At the mo, we have the technological edge on these loons. If we lose that........

Tableland

[QUOTE=gardnma][QUOTE=tableland] The new talks will be to create a more integrated collective defence organisation and has a specifically technical aspect (TMD, etc.). The thing is that the 'old model' is being changed. Strategic nuclear weapons are being reduced in number and US troops are going to get phased out of Germany and redeployed. MAD worked for the Cold War, but today the emphasis has shifted to pre-emptive action rather than deterrence. How can you have a system like MAD when your enemy doesn't have a permanent physical territory?

Rumsfeld's review was about shifting the US policy of being able to fight a major war in two separate locations in the world, to a war machine based more on technological innovation. I agree with you that this is the future, at least until the Chinese and Russians pick up their game again.

gardnma

[QUOTE=tableland][QUOTE=gardnma] I'm fully with you on this then. That last statement is the big wild card, innit?
Lets hope we are not back in the postion we were in in 1941 if that happens.....

What do you think about the US getting a National Service going? Bear in mind some Euro countries till do it. Austria for one....
Personally, I will fight tooth and nail to keep my kids out of the military when they are older.

Tableland

[QUOTE=gardnma][QUOTE=tableland] I'm not American, so I'm not totally up in the debate. I know there has been talk of it as I monitor US news broadcasts. Personally, I don't agree with it. What makes the US army great is that is a volunteer army, and this is the way it should stay. In times of great threats, like 1939 for the British, or 1941 for the Americans, then men must be enlisted for obvious reasons.

Also, National Service means putting young men in a military environment - many of whom are simply not supposed to be there, and it can destroy people like this who would be of much greater use to society in other roles. So, no, I would vote against it if I had the chance.

As for our other point, China will take at least another 50 years before it can even approach American might, and even then there is nothing for it to gain by challenging US hegemony. And Russia is practically a collapsed state tat will take even longer to get up again. For the foreseeable future, the primary threat to US security is that posed by rogue states and terrorists.