• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Special Relationship Over - Foreign Affairs Committee

#1
"The committee said although Britain and the US still had close ties, the UK's influence had "diminished" as its economic and military power had waned."

Well it seems they have little use for us now, so we're on our own. I blame George Dubya, they do too! Linky
 
#2
Surrey_Trog said:
"The committee said although Britain and the US still had close ties, the UK's influence had "diminished" as its economic and military power had waned."

Well it seems they have little use for us now, so we're on our own. I blame George Dubya, they do too! Linky
I blame the psychotic twerp Brown and his equally noxious and unpalatable predecessor Bliar.
 
#3
There remain certain unique elements that continue special, but the rest has been poodle-shaped for years (notably under Blair). But I suppose "special" doesn't mean "equal"; so business as usual?
 
#4
I think they are right. Certainly the yanks began to seem a lot more 'foriegn' under Bush.

The USA has one very special relationship but it is with Israel, not Albion.
 
#5
lol, there never was a "special relationship"; we brits are the only ones that ever thought that there was. The US press never refer to there being one, not ever.

Special Needs more like!

The US will get in to bed with who it see's fit. Its a bit of an international bitch, goodlooking, fcukable but also a bit of a bully that can pack a hell of a punch.
 
#6
Probably find these bunch of people actually have zero impact on any relationship with the US which will continue no matter what the talking heads say.

I wonder how much money was wasted for them to try and pick low hanging fruit?
 
#7
This is what the chairman of the FAC said. It seems to me an entirely sensible and and balanced view of the 'special relationship'

"The UK needs to adopt a more hard-headed political approach towards our relationship with the US with a realistic sense of our own limits and our national interests.

"Certainly the UK must continue to position itself closely alongside the US but there is a need to be less deferential and more willing to say no where our interests diverge. In a sense, the UK foreign policy approach this Committee is advocating is in many ways similar to the more pragmatic tone which President Obama has adopted towards the UK.

"The UK and US have a close and valuable relationship not only in terms of intelligence and security but also in terms of our profound and historic cultural and trading links and commitment to freedom, democracy and the rule of law. But the use of the phrase 'the special relationship' in its historical sense, to describe the totality of the ever-evolving UK-US relationship, is potentially misleading, and we recommend that its use should be avoided.

"Yes, we have a special relationship with the US, but we must remember that so too do other countries including regional neighbours, strategic allies and partners. British and European politicians have been guilty of over-optimism about the extent of influence they have over the US. We must be realistic and accept that globalisation, structural changes and shifts in geopolitical power will inevitably affect the UK-US relationship. It is entirely logical for the US to pursue relationships with other partners who can provide support that the UK cannot. Having said that, recent minor disagreements between the UK and US do not threaten the relationship. Rather they highlight a need for better understanding between our governments to maintain its strength.

"It is likely that the extent of political influence which the UK has exercised on US decision-making as a consequence of its military commitments is likely to diminish. Over the longer-term the UK is unlikely to be able to influence the US to the extent it has in the past.

"We must be mindful of the FCO's high reputation in the US which is currently under threat through unacceptable financial pressure from the Treasury. Having previously shed fat and muscle, the FCO's US network is now being forced to cut into bone. Any additional cuts will diminish the FCO's ability to exercise influence in the US and have a knock-on effect on the UK's global standing."
C_C
 
#9
Micawber said:
I think they are right. Certainly the yanks began to seem a lot more 'foriegn' under Bush.

The USA has one very special relationship but it is with Israel, not Albion.
I would agree with you Micawber - but this kind of special, often sees Israel hand the US their a** in diplomatic terms, like over the past 2 weeks.

The Israelis like to think they have a special relationship, but don't let it conflict with their own national interest. Sat in Jerusalem for the past week, the talk has all been about this and how Netanyahu was right to slap the US down over demands on building in East Jerusalem....and so it goes on...

Perhaps, we should do same whenever we get opportunity.........
 
#10
Surrey_Trog said:
"The committee said although Britain and the US still had close ties, the UK's influence had "diminished" as its economic and military power had waned."

Well it seems they have little use for us now, so we're on our own. I blame George Dubya, they do too! Linky
Suez was in 1956. Have the great and the good on the Foreign Affairs Committee had their heads up their pin striped arses all this time?

It taken a half century of post-imperial vanity before the Brit policy elite finally understands their place in DCs heart. Somewhere behind the more independently minded French, the richer Japanese and industrious Germans and China, bobbing around at the back with the Italians and Irish.

Toadying to a greater power in the hope that some of its prestige will rub off and impress the other little guys on the cheap is not a way to build up Wasta. It's not surprising we always seem to be getting our iPods nicked by dusky folk even though we are a nuclear power.

The Offshore Balancer asks Where’s the Respect?
...
One way to understand the ‘prestige’ issue is to abandon any notion that nuclear weapons intrinsically generate respect. Rather, we have to look at the broader context.

There are other non-nuclear states that do not receive as many or as glaring ’slights’ or insults that the UK currently does. For example, Australia, Austria, Malaysia or Brazil.

One difference is that those states are not ‘in the market’ for global prestige and extra-regional ’status’ in the way Britain is. The UK strives for a world-wide significance and ’specialness’, and it is this ambitious reach for the respect of others which can paradoxically invite disrespect. By making speeches in India on Kashmir, by involving itself in the cause of NATO enlargement and backing America’s expanding interests in Russia and India’s neighborhood, Britain has made itself a ‘busybody’ power, and in the eyes of those insulting it, a ’satellite’ power. The sense that a country from far away is presuming to adjudicate one’s own affairs is likely to generate hostility, even if that country has a nuclear deterrent.
...
 
#13
alib said:
The Offshore Balancer asks Where’s the Respect?
...
One way to understand the ‘prestige’ issue is to abandon any notion that nuclear weapons intrinsically generate respect. Rather, we have to look at the broader context.

There are other non-nuclear states that do not receive as many or as glaring ’slights’ or insults that the UK currently does. For example, Australia, Austria, Malaysia or Brazil.

One difference is that those states are not ‘in the market’ for global prestige and extra-regional ’status’ in the way Britain is. The UK strives for a world-wide significance and ’specialness’, and it is this ambitious reach for the respect of others which can paradoxically invite disrespect. By making speeches in India on Kashmir, by involving itself in the cause of NATO enlargement and backing America’s expanding interests in Russia and India’s neighborhood, Britain has made itself a ‘busybody’ power, and in the eyes of those insulting it, a ’satellite’ power. The sense that a country from far away is presuming to adjudicate one’s own affairs is likely to generate hostility, even if that country has a nuclear deterrent.
...
Good article - I've heard the view, both from US DOD staffers and from UK diplomats, that the AUS/US relationship on defence and security issues is in many ways better than the UK/US one precisely because Canberra is very realistic about its world role and not burdened with nostalgia for a long gone imperial past.

I do cringe at the delusions of some Brits about their 'specialness' and what they bring to the UK/US party. As an example, I was involved in a thing where the US military invited the UK to become involved in the use of some fairly exotic military capability. One of the UK officers involved was convinced the motive for this unexpected sharing was that the US had realised they were incapable of actually planning and executing the employment of their own capability and had approached the UK for help because they 'admired the British capability for lateral thinking' - an opinion he shared with senior officers at every opportunity. The harsh reality was that the US needed to operate from UK territory and had no option but to share knowledge of the capability. Had the US needed to operate from French territory then their discussions would have been with the French MOD and they would have foregone MODUK's vaunted 'capability for lateral thinking'.

C_C
 
#14
Micawber said:
The USA has one very special relationship but it is with Israel, not Albion.
Spot on.

Just about all the arms the US supplied the UK with during the World War II, we had to pay for and we only recently settled the bill.

Whereas Israel gets around $10 billion dollars a year from the Yanks, which includes all the latest military hardware and none of it will ever be paid back.

To keep this huge amount of cash flowing towards Israel each year, AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee) has the second most powerful Lobby in the US, with a budget of around $20 million dollars a year to see that the Senate and Congress keep onside and the cash flowing.

No American politician dares to speak out against Israel or show support for the Palestinians for fear of AIPAC.

Uri Avnery writing in the Israeli Newspaper Haaretz on the Israeli Lobby in the US:

"It's electoral and financial power casts a long shadow over both houses of the Congress.....Hundreds of Senators and Congressmen were elected with the help of Jewish contributions - resistance to the directive of the Jewish Lobby is political suicide. If AIPAC were to table a resolution abolishing the Ten Commandments, 80 Senators and 300 Congressmen would sign it at once. This Lobby frightens the media too, and assures their adherence to Israel."

Ask Earl Hilliard, the five term incumbent, who committed the above mentioned political suicide when he expressed sympathy for the Palestinians. As did Cynthia McKinney, who called for a proper debate on the Middle East and a real examination of the lead up to 9/11.

On both occasions AIPAC (Jewish) money was showered on their opponents and both were removed from office.

Black Buck One - Out
 
#15
BlackBuckOne said:
Spot on.

Just about all the arms the US supplied the UK with during the World War II, we had to pay for and we only recently settled the bill.
You sure about that? better check your sources again.

BlackBuckOne said:
Whereas Israel gets around $10 billion dollars a year from the Yanks, which includes all the latest military hardware and none of it will ever be paid back.
Actually, if you look where the aid goes to most comes back to the US in purchases of US made items.

BlackBuckOne said:
Ask Earl Hilliard, the five term incumbent, who committed the above mentioned political suicide when he expressed sympathy for the Palestinians.
Earl Hiliard lost to Artur davis because he didn't recieve a Majority in his primarily Black constituency(61%). Davis pointed out that Hillards biggest work for Blacks was in incarcerating them as a prosecutor. Or do Jews now control how Blacks vote as well?


BlackBuckOne said:
As did Cynthia McKinney, who called for a proper debate on the Middle East and a real examination of the lead up to 9/11.
Cynthia moonbat McKinney lost after several embarassing incidents including punching a Police Officer while attempting to bypass a security checkpoint. Which by the way, if she had bothered to wear the special lapel pin she could have easily passed through.


Ahh Evil Jews, are watching you. A Mosad hit team using icelandic Passports is on its way now to slot you and Tubbs, SAS is going to handle Bugsy in a coordinated attack.



Watch out for their Jew Claw.......
 
#16
The British government finally realises what was clear to begin with, we as a nation were the gopping fat chick that the US picked up at 02:45 to satisfy his needs except for us it wasnt a dirty backdoor rattle in the block it was support for the war in Iraq from a member of the security council and a bitch in Europe, now the US has blown its load we have been kicked out the block with the rest of the spent slags........
 
#17
The UK war debt was paid off in December 2006 with a final £45 million payment, so you might want to check your sources goldbricker.

Israel buy US goods because most others do not want too.


As for the special relationship, i know there are euro sceptics, but i don't understand how the UK have been so one sided in terms of following the US around, when we have Europe closer to us and to at least make our bargaining position a little stronger when negotiating with the US as we have an easy way out by backing the Europeans stance instead.

If you look back at the last 10 years the UK have gone over and above anyone else to back the US, it has cost us tens of billions, a lot of lives and a lot of enemies, but at the end of it what have we gained from this?
 
#18
alib said:
Surrey_Trog said:
"The committee said although Britain and the US still had close ties, the UK's influence had "diminished" as its economic and military power had waned."

Well it seems they have little use for us now, so we're on our own. I blame George Dubya, they do too! Linky
Suez was in 1956. Have the great and the good on the Foreign Affairs Committee had their heads up their pin striped arses all this time?

It taken a half century of post-imperial vanity before the Brit policy elite finally understands their place in DCs heart. Somewhere behind the more independently minded French, the richer Japanese and industrious Germans and China, bobbing around at the back with the Italians and Irish.

Toadying to a greater power in the hope that some of its prestige will rub off and impress the other little guys on the cheap is not a way to build up Wasta. It's not surprising we always seem to be getting our iPods nicked by dusky folk even though we are a nuclear power.

The Offshore Balancer asks Where’s the Respect?
...
One way to understand the ‘prestige’ issue is to abandon any notion that nuclear weapons intrinsically generate respect. Rather, we have to look at the broader context.

There are other non-nuclear states that do not receive as many or as glaring ’slights’ or insults that the UK currently does. For example, Australia, Austria, Malaysia or Brazil.

One difference is that those states are not ‘in the market’ for global prestige and extra-regional ’status’ in the way Britain is. The UK strives for a world-wide significance and ’specialness’, and it is this ambitious reach for the respect of others which can paradoxically invite disrespect. By making speeches in India on Kashmir, by involving itself in the cause of NATO enlargement and backing America’s expanding interests in Russia and India’s neighborhood, Britain has made itself a ‘busybody’ power, and in the eyes of those insulting it, a ’satellite’ power. The sense that a country from far away is presuming to adjudicate one’s own affairs is likely to generate hostility, even if that country has a nuclear deterrent.
...
Wasta. Haven't heard that word in a while. Good post Alib.
 
#19
Argee2007 said:
The UK war debt was paid off in December 2006 with a final £45 million payment, so you might want to check your sources goldbricker.
War Debt? or Loans post war?

Anglo-American Loan: 15 July 1946
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4757181.stm
http://www.wymaninstitute.org/articles/2007-1-loanbattle.php

your $650 Million Lend lease was written off. Ever wonder why F4U Corsairs, F6F Hellcats, etc. and such were dumped by the RN so soon after the war ended? Anything you kept, you paid for. If expended it was at no cost to you.


Argee2007 said:
Israel buy US goods because most others do not want too.
right because we can't flog F-16's and M16/M4's, M109's, AH-64's etc. to anyone.

Foreign Military Financing
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/80701.pdf
 
#20
Goldbricker said:
Wrote some very dubious answers and has clearly signed up to the Zionist propaganda machine
First one on the UK debt to the US already dealt with by Argee.

Secondly

The fact remains that Israel still gets around $10 Billion a year from the US, Free, Gratis - the other fact the US gives it to Israel so they can spend it with McDonald Douglas or Lockheed to support US jobs, is neither here nor there - they still get the cash and US politicians are totally subservient and shi-t-scared to cut it off.

Thirdly

Hilliard's opponent, Artur Davis, turned into an outspoken supporter of Israel and raised large amounts of money from the Jewish community, both in Alabama and nationwide. The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz noted that among the names of the first list of contributors to Davis's campaign funds were:

"10 Cohens from New York and New Jersey, but before one gets to the Cohens, there were Abrams, Ackerman, Adler, Amir, Asher, Baruch, Basok, Berger, Berman, Bergman, Bernstein and Blumenthal. All from the East Coast, Chicago and Los Angeles. It's highly unlikely any of them have ever visited Alabama..."

And finally....

It also wouldn't be the first time an incompetent team from Mossad with dodgy passports was dispatched to take out an enemy of Israel......

Oh er, I'm really scared :wave:
 

Latest Threads