Comments on: Support the British

By: cctruckston

cctruckston — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:21:29 +0000

Yes, of course. The English-speaking countries that are, or were, part of the Empire.

By: Backofanenvelope

Backofanenvelope — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 08:35:49 +0000

UK, Canada, NZ, Australia – in no particular order.

By: cctruckston

cctruckston — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 21:40:30 +0000

Absent a choice between whites and blacks, Americans tend to elect politicians based superficialities such as their looks and their promises, because they are ignorant of issues. Many just vote for a candidate because of his party affiliation.

Presented with a choice between a black candidate and a white candidate, an overwhelming majority of blacks will vote for the black candidate because of his race; some whites will vote for the white candidate because of his race; and some whites will vote for the black candidate because of his race. In such a choice, if issues come into play in any of the voters’ minds, it likely will be only issues associated with race or “political correctness.” Sorry to be blunt, but there it is.

By: cctruckston

cctruckston — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 21:27:25 +0000

I am very suspicious of Obama’s loyalty to the U.S. (judging by his eager willingness to ignore and/or subvert the Constitution), much less his thinking that Britain is a friend. He seems to think that if he makes friends with countries that have majority Muslim populations, that will solve our foreign relations problems; and to that end, he must appear cold to America’s real friends. However, when push comes to shove, I’m sure most non-politician (the politicians in the majority party in this country will be sucking up to Obama unless they perceive his popularity among the majority of Americans to wane) American government officials realize the reality that there are few countries that we can depend on because our interests coincide.

Britain, of course, is one, but I’m not sure what others you think we can depend on. Perhaps Australia, Canada, Poland, the Czech Republic and New Zealand in some situations, and Germany and France in other instances. The truth is that, for the most part, if a country’s government seems to befriend the U.S., its people perceive that to be a case of their government kowtowing to the U.S. Perhaps it is so, more often than not.

By: bellagerens

bellagerens — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:11:25 +0000

Cognitive dissonance.

By: Backofanenvelope

Backofanenvelope — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:45:04 +0000

In the run up to the recovery of the Falkland Islands I was visiting Washington. The US president was wavering, and his National Security Advisor and the US representative at the UN were being as unhelpful as they could be.

But when I got to the CIA, they were as helpful as they could be. In fact, they were better organised than we were back in London. Lots of unofficial help was forthcoming and lots of support.

So I can differentiate between US people and US politicians. But why do you elect them?

By: bellagerens

bellagerens — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:27:55 +0000

Just because Obama thinks nothing of snubbing the British Prime Minister and blaming all of America’s currently ills on the UK, it doesn’t mean all, or even most, US politicians are so careless of the special relationship. If it came to a choice between Britain and anywhere else in the world (especially these bloody Islamist dictatorships Obama loves to bow to), Americans would back the British every time. We hugely admire you as a people and a country, even if much of what we admire is the culture of Empire which British progressives now repudiate.

By: Backofanenvelope

Backofanenvelope — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:20:22 +0000

I spent 13 years in various bits of the British intelligence services, so I know how intertwined they are with the US services.

As I said, I think it is our soppy approach that is the problem. I think that our alliance is vital to both sides, but it seems that US politicians view things differently. Do they realise that there are only 4 countries they can depend on?

By: cctruckston

cctruckston — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:53:41 +0000

I am an American, and of British heritage, as are many of us. The “special relationship” was most evident to me when I was in the military, as British and U.S. intelligence agencies shared data, and there was a significant amount of cooperation among defense agencies. That is still the case, I think. That’s good for both nations, so long as it is in the interest of both. The SR, I suppose, existed (and exists) because a great deal of the time our cooperation is in the best interest of each. But I agree with your point: A nation’s self-interest–not any sentimentality–should govern its relationships with other nations. It’s just difficult to know what is in one’s best interest, and therein lies the problem, don’t you think?

By: Backofanenvelope

Backofanenvelope — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:04:39 +0000

Well, I agree that we have a special relationship based on our common history. But it is between countries and people; not governments.

If you are American, then I don’t blame you – I blame our (the UK) sentimental approach to our relationship.