Posted on 04/03/2010 6:23:01 PM PDT by bruinbirdman
New report shows England's growing disillusionment with its once greatest ally.
British parliamentarians have finally realized that the "special relationship" between London and Washington no longer exists--if it ever did. The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee has published an unexpectedly lively report urging British diplomats and ministers to be "less deferential" to the U.S.
No more groveling, then. Not that it will stop Prime Minister Gordon Brown from being starry-eyed in the presence of President Obama when he visits the U.S. in a few days' time.
The committee, whose members are about to disband before the general election campaign, is hardly staffed by anti-American hotheads and student rabble-rousers. It is chaired by a stodgy Labour backbencher named Mike Gapes, an Establishment man who is pro-Israel and has never done anything naughty or daring in his political life. It is possible to cast one's eyes on Gapes and feel great, rolling waves of ennui, simply by dint of his predictability. For old Gapes to put his name to a report questioning out biggest diplomatic and military alliance is quite something.
Gapes' senior committee members include Sir Menzies Campbell, who once led Britain's third party, the Liberal Democrats, and was long opposed to the Iraq invasion. Sir Menzies, however, is no Yanqui-bashing Hugo Chávez. His skepticism about the U.S. is put with courtly Caledonian politeness, qualifying phrases and regretful tweaking of the neck. His doubts about the State Department are more than balanced by a Thatcherite member of the committee, Heathcoat-Amory, a keen opponent of the mushrooming bureaucracy of the unelected European Commission. "Eurosceptics" are often the most enthusiastic supporters of the transatlantic alliance because they sense that a strong U.K.-U.S. bond reduces the possibility of us being glurped into a United States of Europe.
In recent months, however, the so-called
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Actually Canada was our biggest external supplier of arms and material in ww2, and they gave us $6BILLION in ‘Mutual Aid’, to be paid back AFTER the war.
Also people in Britain and America should remember ‘reverse lend lease’, by which Britain GAVE America £1.2 BILLION in arms and supplies between Jan 1942 and Sept 1945.
DO come, you will be welcome.
‘The British haven’t been able to do jack sh*t since 1917—and no, the Falklands doesn’t count. It’s been a steady retreat since then. They managed to completely fritter away the largest empire ever seen on this Earth in less than 30 years after the death of Victoria.’
Really?. Except win two world wars, and give the world some of the best 20thC culture and many of the greatest inventions of the last 100 years. Climb Everest, win Nobel Prizes etc etc. Hell, we have even won every war we fought since 1917, inc two in SE Asia.
Since 1917, we useless limeys have managed to defeat Fascism in Europe and Asia, stand up to and defeat Communism from Malaya to Greece, defeat terrorism in several continents....
As for the Empire, fighting for freedom I am afraid meant the Empire was no longer financially viable. And of course, as classicists, the British elite knew no power lasts forever (note to you btw). Also the Empire lasted into the 1960’s in strength, not the 1930’s.
‘How you think they’d ever be able to ‘help’ us is beyond comprehension—they can’t even keep their sailors from being taken hostage by Iran.’
As opposed to US Marines being taken hostage by Iran.
‘If anything, we’ll have to pull their nuts out of the fire once again when Islam tries to convert everyone in the UK by sword.’
What is about Americans and pulling others nuts out of the fire. Damn near an obsession if you ask me.
I was being somewhat facetious, you know. But the truth is that Obama blames the Anglos for all of the world’s problems. He’s well aware that we are descended from Anglos, and there is nothing he’d like to do more than sever the ties.
I believe the US was by far the largest “lender” to Britain and the Commonwealth.
Reverse Lend Lease consisted mainly of “rents” not paid by the US for use of British bases.
I like Britain and like the relationship to stay special. ;-]
1—Financially, yes.
2—Not true. Most of reverse lend lease was arms and supplies, from socks to heavy arms.
Thanks for the morning laugh. I just imagined Zero on a horse.
Yes, you are correct about Reverse Lend-Lease. I looked it up and found this:
“Some of the cost of the lend-lease program was offset by so-called reverse lend-lease, under which Allied nations gave U.S. troops stationed abroad about $8,000,000,000 worth of aid.”
Given that the war took place abroad (from America’s perspective) that would make sense.
lol...that is pretty laugh-worthy. Sheriff Bart, he ain't.
"The President is a-n(((gong)))r!!"
*Really?. Except win two world wars, and give the world some of the best 20thC culture and many of the greatest inventions of the last 100 years. Climb Everest, win Nobel Prizes etc etc. Hell, we have even won every war we fought since 1917, inc two in SE Asia.*
The British did not win either world war by themselves and barely contribute to the Second being won. If Hitler han’t let your boys escape at Dunkirk, you’d definitely had lost it all on your own though.
The wars you have fought in since were the equivalent of a backlot brawl. It would be like the US crowing about “winning” in Grenada.
*Also the Empire lasted into the 1960’s in strength, not the 1930’s*
Utter nonsense. By 1947 the Empire was dead and waiting for someone to throw dirt over it. And this nonsense about you “standing up to Communism” is laughable. You couldn’t stand on your own feet after the war unless the crutches were shipped in from the States and you know it. Britain was utterly bankrupt for a decade following the war and lived as a charity case beholden to Uncle Sam.
*What is about Americans and pulling others nuts out of the fire. Damn near an obsession if you ask me.*
If it’s an obsession it’s because we’ve had to do it so many times due to your “Empire” and its idiotic decisions.
Thanks for all that great music, though, old chap.
‘The British did not win either world war by themselves and barely contribute to the Second being won’
Honestly mate, if you think Britain contributed little to WW2 being won, your knowledge is beyond laughable. Nor BTW did I say we won either war alone.
‘And this nonsense about you “standing up to Communism” is laughable.’
Whilst you lot were getting your arses handed to you by a third rate army in ‘Nam, we actually defeated Marxist armies and guerillas. Malaya 1948-1960 and Oman in 1972.
‘If it’s an obsession it’s because we’ve had to do it so many times due to your “Empire” and its idiotic decisions.’
Thanks for your brave support between 1914 and 1917 and 1939 and 1941. Oh, wait a minute....
*Thanks for your brave support between 1914 and 1917 and 1939 and 1941. Oh, wait a minute....*
Yeah, you’re welcome for all that lend-lease that kept your nation solvent while you sat on your asses on the Western Front doing f*ck all except waiting for the Germans to invade France, the Low Countries & Norway. In the end, your moronic leaders went to war to save Poland and ended up giving not only that country but the rest of Eastern Europe over to an even worse despot than Hitler.
Don’t even get me started on your brilliant strategy in the Great War. Your diplomats blundered you into a war with the Germanic people of Europe and even though you had them surrounded COMPLETELY on land and outnumbered about a zillion-to-one on the seas, you still couldn’t get the job done until Uncle Sam sent over a few million of his boys. Way to go.
Silly sniping back and forth aside, talking seriously, even if I was a fellow American, Id think your comment that Britain contributed little to winning ww2 as incredibly ignorant of the IMMENSE British contribution to allied victory. Just as we couldnt have won the war without you, the USSR and Canada, you couldnt have landed in Europe let alone won the war without Britain.
Lend Lease in 1939-40?. Try again, LL didnt start until March 11th 1941 when the LL Act was passed by Roosevelt, and supplies didnt arrive in the UK until late May/early June 1941. There was NO lend lease in 1939-40. Until March of 41, Britain had to buy all supplies from America cash upfront, and transport them to Britain on Royal Navy and Royal Canadian Navy ships. It was known as the ‘cash and carry’ system.
Sorry, but that error is schoolboy stuff on your part.
Oh, and youre welcome for ‘reverse lend lease’, which between Jan 1942 and Sept 1945 saw Britain GIVE America £1.2 BILLION (thats $12 BILLION) in arms and supplies.
As for the Great War, seems you have fallen for the myth. The fact is that the main army in 1918 that defeated the Germans was the British. It was we who threw back the ‘Kaiserschlact’ in Easter 1918, their last gamble to win the war, and it was the British army that drove the German army back into its country over the summer and early autumn of 1918.
American units didnt undertake a solo major attack until Sept 1918 at St Mihiel, just two months before the war’s end.
Whilst American units helped the allies to victory, it is a myth that US troops were the driving force in 1918. The brunt of the allied offensive that won the war was borne by the British and Commonwealth forces, and esp the British.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.