The UK-US 'Special Relationship'
Discussion
I've got to say that this latest insult to the UK by the Obama/Clinton administration has really pissed me off.
I am sophisticated enough to realise that publicly "encouraging talks between the parties" etc is something that the USA should be seen to be doing. However, Obama and Clinto are hardly politicaly dim, and allowing herself to be filmed with the Argentine president in that way was not an accident.
The Obama administration would have been fully cogniscent of the impact of Hilaries blatant pandering to the Argentine propoganda machine. Far from discouraging conflict, Hilary is more likely to have emboldened the Argentinians into Military action by her manoeuverings.
I'd really like to know how this plays with the average man in the street in the USA. IS anybody even aware of the offence Obama is causing to the USAs oldest ally? Does anyone actually care?
If we cannot rely on our friends to do the right thing then who needs friends like that?
I am a 100% pro American Brit, but this situation sucks and real damage is being done to the relationship between the US and UK, (regardless of whether it was special or not)
Jimbeaux, Ernest, any input from you guys about how this is being viewed in the homes of America?
I am sophisticated enough to realise that publicly "encouraging talks between the parties" etc is something that the USA should be seen to be doing. However, Obama and Clinto are hardly politicaly dim, and allowing herself to be filmed with the Argentine president in that way was not an accident.
The Obama administration would have been fully cogniscent of the impact of Hilaries blatant pandering to the Argentine propoganda machine. Far from discouraging conflict, Hilary is more likely to have emboldened the Argentinians into Military action by her manoeuverings.
I'd really like to know how this plays with the average man in the street in the USA. IS anybody even aware of the offence Obama is causing to the USAs oldest ally? Does anyone actually care?
If we cannot rely on our friends to do the right thing then who needs friends like that?
I am a 100% pro American Brit, but this situation sucks and real damage is being done to the relationship between the US and UK, (regardless of whether it was special or not)
Jimbeaux, Ernest, any input from you guys about how this is being viewed in the homes of America?
andymadmak said:
I've got to say that this latest insult to the UK by the Obama/Clinton administration has really pissed me off.
I am sophisticated enough to realise that publicly "encouraging talks between the parties" etc is something that the USA should be seen to be doing. However, Obama and Clinto are hardly politicaly dim, and allowing herself to be filmed with the Argentine president in that way was not an accident.
The Obama administration would have been fully cogniscent of the impact of Hilaries blatant pandering to the Argentine propoganda machine. Far from discouraging conflict, Hilary is more likely to have emboldened the Argentinians into Military action by her manoeuverings.
I'd really like to know how this plays with the average man in the street in the USA. IS anybody even aware of the offence Obama is causing to the USAs oldest ally? Does anyone actually care?
If we cannot rely on our friends to do the right thing then who needs friends like that?
I am a 100% pro American Brit, but this situation sucks and real damage is being done to the relationship between the US and UK, (regardless of whether it was special or not)
Jimbeaux, Ernest, any input from you guys about how this is being viewed in the homes of America?
It is not sitting well with the public in my region. Then again, public sentiment does not seem to be what this administration pays attention to. I am sophisticated enough to realise that publicly "encouraging talks between the parties" etc is something that the USA should be seen to be doing. However, Obama and Clinto are hardly politicaly dim, and allowing herself to be filmed with the Argentine president in that way was not an accident.
The Obama administration would have been fully cogniscent of the impact of Hilaries blatant pandering to the Argentine propoganda machine. Far from discouraging conflict, Hilary is more likely to have emboldened the Argentinians into Military action by her manoeuverings.
I'd really like to know how this plays with the average man in the street in the USA. IS anybody even aware of the offence Obama is causing to the USAs oldest ally? Does anyone actually care?
If we cannot rely on our friends to do the right thing then who needs friends like that?
I am a 100% pro American Brit, but this situation sucks and real damage is being done to the relationship between the US and UK, (regardless of whether it was special or not)
Jimbeaux, Ernest, any input from you guys about how this is being viewed in the homes of America?
Then again, this is not making huge news yet and not high on the radar. It will get more press and get worse as we go.
Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 3rd March 03:29
Jimbeaux said:
andymadmak said:
I've got to say that this latest insult to the UK by the Obama/Clinton administration has really pissed me off.
I am sophisticated enough to realise that publicly "encouraging talks between the parties" etc is something that the USA should be seen to be doing. However, Obama and Clinto are hardly politicaly dim, and allowing herself to be filmed with the Argentine president in that way was not an accident.
The Obama administration would have been fully cogniscent of the impact of Hilaries blatant pandering to the Argentine propoganda machine. Far from discouraging conflict, Hilary is more likely to have emboldened the Argentinians into Military action by her manoeuverings.
I'd really like to know how this plays with the average man in the street in the USA. IS anybody even aware of the offence Obama is causing to the USAs oldest ally? Does anyone actually care?
If we cannot rely on our friends to do the right thing then who needs friends like that?
I am a 100% pro American Brit, but this situation sucks and real damage is being done to the relationship between the US and UK, (regardless of whether it was special or not)
Jimbeaux, Ernest, any input from you guys about how this is being viewed in the homes of America?
It is not sitting well with the public in my region. Then again, public sentiment does not seem to be what this administration pays attention to. I am sophisticated enough to realise that publicly "encouraging talks between the parties" etc is something that the USA should be seen to be doing. However, Obama and Clinto are hardly politicaly dim, and allowing herself to be filmed with the Argentine president in that way was not an accident.
The Obama administration would have been fully cogniscent of the impact of Hilaries blatant pandering to the Argentine propoganda machine. Far from discouraging conflict, Hilary is more likely to have emboldened the Argentinians into Military action by her manoeuverings.
I'd really like to know how this plays with the average man in the street in the USA. IS anybody even aware of the offence Obama is causing to the USAs oldest ally? Does anyone actually care?
If we cannot rely on our friends to do the right thing then who needs friends like that?
I am a 100% pro American Brit, but this situation sucks and real damage is being done to the relationship between the US and UK, (regardless of whether it was special or not)
Jimbeaux, Ernest, any input from you guys about how this is being viewed in the homes of America?
Then again, this is not making huge news yet and not high on the radar. It will get more press and get worse as we go.
Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 3rd March 03:29
The Falklands is irrelevant to Americans. People are more then welcome to try to make political hay out of this but the idea that the US should get itself into yet another crisis isn't going to have all that much weight.
Tadite said:
To be fair you aren't exactly siting in a region that would be supportive of any Obama plan so that isn't a very good measurement.
The Falklands is irrelevant to Americans. People are more then welcome to try to make political hay out of this but the idea that the US should get itself into yet another crisis isn't going to have all that much weight.
Although the Falklands is an irrelevance to most Americans, I'm trying to figure out the importance of Argieland as well.The Falklands is irrelevant to Americans. People are more then welcome to try to make political hay out of this but the idea that the US should get itself into yet another crisis isn't going to have all that much weight.
Not much in Walmart appears to come from Argieland, so it can't be imports. And seeing as the US exports f-all, can't be that either.
Maybe they are just trying to keep them sweet as thats where old Fords and Chevy's end up?
Tadite said:
Jimbeaux said:
andymadmak said:
I've got to say that this latest insult to the UK by the Obama/Clinton administration has really pissed me off.
I am sophisticated enough to realise that publicly "encouraging talks between the parties" etc is something that the USA should be seen to be doing. However, Obama and Clinto are hardly politicaly dim, and allowing herself to be filmed with the Argentine president in that way was not an accident.
The Obama administration would have been fully cogniscent of the impact of Hilaries blatant pandering to the Argentine propoganda machine. Far from discouraging conflict, Hilary is more likely to have emboldened the Argentinians into Military action by her manoeuverings.
I'd really like to know how this plays with the average man in the street in the USA. IS anybody even aware of the offence Obama is causing to the USAs oldest ally? Does anyone actually care?
If we cannot rely on our friends to do the right thing then who needs friends like that?
I am a 100% pro American Brit, but this situation sucks and real damage is being done to the relationship between the US and UK, (regardless of whether it was special or not)
Jimbeaux, Ernest, any input from you guys about how this is being viewed in the homes of America?
It is not sitting well with the public in my region. Then again, public sentiment does not seem to be what this administration pays attention to. I am sophisticated enough to realise that publicly "encouraging talks between the parties" etc is something that the USA should be seen to be doing. However, Obama and Clinto are hardly politicaly dim, and allowing herself to be filmed with the Argentine president in that way was not an accident.
The Obama administration would have been fully cogniscent of the impact of Hilaries blatant pandering to the Argentine propoganda machine. Far from discouraging conflict, Hilary is more likely to have emboldened the Argentinians into Military action by her manoeuverings.
I'd really like to know how this plays with the average man in the street in the USA. IS anybody even aware of the offence Obama is causing to the USAs oldest ally? Does anyone actually care?
If we cannot rely on our friends to do the right thing then who needs friends like that?
I am a 100% pro American Brit, but this situation sucks and real damage is being done to the relationship between the US and UK, (regardless of whether it was special or not)
Jimbeaux, Ernest, any input from you guys about how this is being viewed in the homes of America?
Then again, this is not making huge news yet and not high on the radar. It will get more press and get worse as we go.
Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 3rd March 03:29
The Falklands is irrelevant to Americans. People are more then welcome to try to make political hay out of this but the idea that the US should get itself into yet another crisis isn't going to have all that much weight.
From a historical perspective, the ‘Special Relationship’ wasn’t between the UK/USA. It was a personal relationship between President Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. This permitted a high level of cooperation between their respective governments.
The ‘Special Relationship’ died with FDR. Anything since claimed as ‘The Special Relationship’ has been nothing more than political rhetoric by subsequent politicians.
Unfortunately FDR died before the war ended and Harry Truman had been kept very much in the background whilst Vice President, preventing Churchill from developing a similar relationship with Truman prior to the death of FDR, although some groundwork had been laid.
Churchill tried to develop a similar relationship with Truman immediately after Truman became President. With election defeat of 1945, Churchill was out of office and Clement Attlee was in. This left both the UK and US with new leaders who scarcely knew each other and had widely divergent political views.
The US government was horrified with the prospect of a Socialist government in the UK. It perceived this as a movement away from the US towards alignment with Stalin and the Soviet Union. Anglo-American cooperation that had been intended was cancelled. Technical assistance with such things as nuclear arms was blocked, fearing this would be leaked to the Communists.
Of greater significance was the UK war debt. The original US law under which the ‘Lend-Lease’ provision of armaments had been agreed included provision for debt forgiveness. The agreement between Churchill and FDR was that the UK debt to the US would be forgiven. This was in the US interest since it would have lifted the UK out of financial crisis and provided the US with a strong ally against Communism, especially in Europe.
It was Churchill that originally proposed the European Union to tie the nations together so tightly that never again could Europe fight internally as it had twice in the World Wars. Had the EU been formed at the end of WW2 by a financially sound Britain, free of debt, Britain would have been the dominant partner. Germany and Italy were in ruins, France was barely liberated and little better. None had established government and all were in debt.
A Europe, effectively led by the UK and imposing an agenda set by a UK government in close consultation through the ‘Special Relationship’ with the US government would have given the US a far stronger influence in Europe than it currently enjoys.
The US reaction to the Labour landslide was to insist upon the repayment of all war debt, something that was completed only relatively recently. This was intended to bring the Labour government to heel and force it to obey US policies. This wasn’t the act of a friend and the ‘Special Relationship’ was patently dead. The financial burden this imposed upon the UK is an important part of the background to the current financial crisis.
The ‘Special Relationship’ died with FDR. Anything since claimed as ‘The Special Relationship’ has been nothing more than political rhetoric by subsequent politicians.
Unfortunately FDR died before the war ended and Harry Truman had been kept very much in the background whilst Vice President, preventing Churchill from developing a similar relationship with Truman prior to the death of FDR, although some groundwork had been laid.
Churchill tried to develop a similar relationship with Truman immediately after Truman became President. With election defeat of 1945, Churchill was out of office and Clement Attlee was in. This left both the UK and US with new leaders who scarcely knew each other and had widely divergent political views.
The US government was horrified with the prospect of a Socialist government in the UK. It perceived this as a movement away from the US towards alignment with Stalin and the Soviet Union. Anglo-American cooperation that had been intended was cancelled. Technical assistance with such things as nuclear arms was blocked, fearing this would be leaked to the Communists.
Of greater significance was the UK war debt. The original US law under which the ‘Lend-Lease’ provision of armaments had been agreed included provision for debt forgiveness. The agreement between Churchill and FDR was that the UK debt to the US would be forgiven. This was in the US interest since it would have lifted the UK out of financial crisis and provided the US with a strong ally against Communism, especially in Europe.
It was Churchill that originally proposed the European Union to tie the nations together so tightly that never again could Europe fight internally as it had twice in the World Wars. Had the EU been formed at the end of WW2 by a financially sound Britain, free of debt, Britain would have been the dominant partner. Germany and Italy were in ruins, France was barely liberated and little better. None had established government and all were in debt.
A Europe, effectively led by the UK and imposing an agenda set by a UK government in close consultation through the ‘Special Relationship’ with the US government would have given the US a far stronger influence in Europe than it currently enjoys.
The US reaction to the Labour landslide was to insist upon the repayment of all war debt, something that was completed only relatively recently. This was intended to bring the Labour government to heel and force it to obey US policies. This wasn’t the act of a friend and the ‘Special Relationship’ was patently dead. The financial burden this imposed upon the UK is an important part of the background to the current financial crisis.
Uncle Fester said:
From a historical perspective, the ‘Special Relationship’ wasn’t between the UK/USA. It was a personal relationship between President Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. This permitted a high level of cooperation between their respective governments.
The ‘Special Relationship’ died with FDR. Anything since claimed as ‘The Special Relationship’ has been nothing more than political rhetoric by subsequent politicians.
Unfortunately FDR died before the war ended and Harry Truman had been kept very much in the background whilst Vice President, preventing Churchill from developing a similar relationship with Truman prior to the death of FDR, although some groundwork had been laid.
Churchill tried to develop a similar relationship with Truman immediately after Truman became President. With election defeat of 1945, Churchill was out of office and Clement Attlee was in. This left both the UK and US with new leaders who scarcely knew each other and had widely divergent political views.
The US government was horrified with the prospect of a Socialist government in the UK. It perceived this as a movement away from the US towards alignment with Stalin and the Soviet Union. Anglo-American cooperation that had been intended was cancelled. Technical assistance with such things as nuclear arms was blocked, fearing this would be leaked to the Communists.
Of greater significance was the UK war debt. The original US law under which the ‘Lend-Lease’ provision of armaments had been agreed included provision for debt forgiveness. The agreement between Churchill and FDR was that the UK debt to the US would be forgiven. This was in the US interest since it would have lifted the UK out of financial crisis and provided the US with a strong ally against Communism, especially in Europe.
It was Churchill that originally proposed the European Union to tie the nations together so tightly that never again could Europe fight internally as it had twice in the World Wars. Had the EU been formed at the end of WW2 by a financially sound Britain, free of debt, Britain would have been the dominant partner. Germany and Italy were in ruins, France was barely liberated and little better. None had established government and all were in debt.
A Europe, effectively led by the UK and imposing an agenda set by a UK government in close consultation through the ‘Special Relationship’ with the US government would have given the US a far stronger influence in Europe than it currently enjoys.
The US reaction to the Labour landslide was to insist upon the repayment of all war debt, something that was completed only relatively recently. This was intended to bring the Labour government to heel and force it to obey US policies. This wasn’t the act of a friend and the ‘Special Relationship’ was patently dead. The financial burden this imposed upon the UK is an important part of the background to the current financial crisis.
I think you are confusing war debt with the subsequent huge loans the Yanks made to us, and on very good terms (2%). We didnt pay it off until recently because it was advantageous to us not to. Where else could you borrow at 2%?The ‘Special Relationship’ died with FDR. Anything since claimed as ‘The Special Relationship’ has been nothing more than political rhetoric by subsequent politicians.
Unfortunately FDR died before the war ended and Harry Truman had been kept very much in the background whilst Vice President, preventing Churchill from developing a similar relationship with Truman prior to the death of FDR, although some groundwork had been laid.
Churchill tried to develop a similar relationship with Truman immediately after Truman became President. With election defeat of 1945, Churchill was out of office and Clement Attlee was in. This left both the UK and US with new leaders who scarcely knew each other and had widely divergent political views.
The US government was horrified with the prospect of a Socialist government in the UK. It perceived this as a movement away from the US towards alignment with Stalin and the Soviet Union. Anglo-American cooperation that had been intended was cancelled. Technical assistance with such things as nuclear arms was blocked, fearing this would be leaked to the Communists.
Of greater significance was the UK war debt. The original US law under which the ‘Lend-Lease’ provision of armaments had been agreed included provision for debt forgiveness. The agreement between Churchill and FDR was that the UK debt to the US would be forgiven. This was in the US interest since it would have lifted the UK out of financial crisis and provided the US with a strong ally against Communism, especially in Europe.
It was Churchill that originally proposed the European Union to tie the nations together so tightly that never again could Europe fight internally as it had twice in the World Wars. Had the EU been formed at the end of WW2 by a financially sound Britain, free of debt, Britain would have been the dominant partner. Germany and Italy were in ruins, France was barely liberated and little better. None had established government and all were in debt.
A Europe, effectively led by the UK and imposing an agenda set by a UK government in close consultation through the ‘Special Relationship’ with the US government would have given the US a far stronger influence in Europe than it currently enjoys.
The US reaction to the Labour landslide was to insist upon the repayment of all war debt, something that was completed only relatively recently. This was intended to bring the Labour government to heel and force it to obey US policies. This wasn’t the act of a friend and the ‘Special Relationship’ was patently dead. The financial burden this imposed upon the UK is an important part of the background to the current financial crisis.
Tadite said:
Jimbeaux said:
andymadmak said:
I've got to say that this latest insult to the UK by the Obama/Clinton administration has really pissed me off.
I am sophisticated enough to realise that publicly "encouraging talks between the parties" etc is something that the USA should be seen to be doing. However, Obama and Clinto are hardly politicaly dim, and allowing herself to be filmed with the Argentine president in that way was not an accident.
The Obama administration would have been fully cogniscent of the impact of Hilaries blatant pandering to the Argentine propoganda machine. Far from discouraging conflict, Hilary is more likely to have emboldened the Argentinians into Military action by her manoeuverings.
I'd really like to know how this plays with the average man in the street in the USA. IS anybody even aware of the offence Obama is causing to the USAs oldest ally? Does anyone actually care?
If we cannot rely on our friends to do the right thing then who needs friends like that?
I am a 100% pro American Brit, but this situation sucks and real damage is being done to the relationship between the US and UK, (regardless of whether it was special or not)
Jimbeaux, Ernest, any input from you guys about how this is being viewed in the homes of America?
It is not sitting well with the public in my region. Then again, public sentiment does not seem to be what this administration pays attention to. I am sophisticated enough to realise that publicly "encouraging talks between the parties" etc is something that the USA should be seen to be doing. However, Obama and Clinto are hardly politicaly dim, and allowing herself to be filmed with the Argentine president in that way was not an accident.
The Obama administration would have been fully cogniscent of the impact of Hilaries blatant pandering to the Argentine propoganda machine. Far from discouraging conflict, Hilary is more likely to have emboldened the Argentinians into Military action by her manoeuverings.
I'd really like to know how this plays with the average man in the street in the USA. IS anybody even aware of the offence Obama is causing to the USAs oldest ally? Does anyone actually care?
If we cannot rely on our friends to do the right thing then who needs friends like that?
I am a 100% pro American Brit, but this situation sucks and real damage is being done to the relationship between the US and UK, (regardless of whether it was special or not)
Jimbeaux, Ernest, any input from you guys about how this is being viewed in the homes of America?
Then again, this is not making huge news yet and not high on the radar. It will get more press and get worse as we go.
Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 3rd March 03:29
The Falklands is irrelevant to Americans. People are more then welcome to try to make political hay out of this but the idea that the US should get itself into yet another crisis isn't going to have all that much weight.
Blue Meanie said:
maybe the plan is afoot to have a huge union of American countries, from Canada to Chile? Like an EU, but for the Americas? 
Simon Bolivar, the liberator who lead the revolution against the Spanish, tried to unify only a few of the countries in South America. The various countries just squabbled like children and Bolivar died a disillusioned and broken man saying 'Those who serve a revolution plough the sea'.Incidentally it is a little-known fact that the British were instrumental in kicking the Spanish out - after the Napoleonic wars a huge number of Brits served in the newly formed revolutionary armies.
On land the battle-hardened men of the "Albion Battalion" were used as shock troops and were crucial in winning key battles.
At sea Admiral Lord Cochrane developed and led the revolutionary navy and defeated the Spanish in the south pacific and south atlantic. He was the basis for the Jack Aubrey character in 'Master & Commander'.
Right (and apologies to Andy for taking so long to reply - needed to cover a lot of stuff)
Man on the street reaction
Currently, in the US, the reaction to this is muted due to several factors (in no particular order)
1. The American public is more concerned right now with Obama's domestic agenda. Specifically with his impending use of a (potentially unconstitutional) procedural trick to pass legislation that he wants passed (healthcare) and that the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose.
2. Americans are, additionally, concerned about all of the spending from DC to "stimulate the economy" and the resultant national debt.
3. National security is also a big concern and the Obama administration's mucking around with civil trials for known terrorists has caused consternation.
4. Finally, (as with the UK I'd imagine) a lot of Americans are concerned with "American Idol", "Dancing with the Stars", "The Real Housewives of Orange County/New York/Atlanta", "Snooki and J-Wow" and the size of Kim Kardashian's arse.
Background to potential for public concern
Cousins
The average American honestly thinks of the British people as close relatives. This is because a good many actually do have cousins (or Aunts, Uncles, Grandparents and cousins-such as myself) or close friends that live there. They don't understand the current UK preoccupation with collectivist navel gazing, but, I daresay neither does a lot of the UK public. That being said, the average American looks upon the UK as an equal relative or, at the least, the closest of friends.
Not of Europe
The average American does not think of the UK as part of Europe (Either as an EU member or otherwise). They see the UK as a completely independent entity with no connection to Brussels whatsoever. Certainly the continued minting of the pound and the independent character of most Brits plays a large part in this.
Respect
The average American has overwhelming respect for Great Britain, it's people and it's institutions (including - believe it or not - a large amount of respect for the Monarchy). This respect has beeen developed over two centuries of contact and observation. Things such as the Battle of Britain and even the last Falklands war have only increased that respect. This is probably best symbolized by a conversation I had with the pilot of a P-51 (one of our car shows had a P-51 demo) a few years back that informed me, "Yes, she's a nice plane, but without that British engine, she wouldn't have been sh!t..."
Facts that most Americans are unaware of
1. Most Americans do not know of the existence of Mercosur or the existance of UNASUR (also I imagine that a few Europeans do not know/care about this entity either)
2. The history of the Falklands
3. The state of the Argentinian government
4. The fact that the Argies are threatening some sort of limp wristed blockade
If it kicks off...
If the Argies attempt military action
1. The reaction from the American public will be loud, unified and angry. The demand for the Federal government to help out will be overwhelming. Lack of action from the current administration would sound the death knell for Democrats for several generations.
2. Obviously, there would be covert assistance (as previously)
3. If Chavez sticks his nose in, there WILL be repercussions against him. The American public have just about had it with him (understatement)
The Current US Administration
1. Jimbeaux and I warned you folks about this lot.
2. This is what drives Obama's personal perception of the British people. The "Chicago way" is that to the victors go the spoils. If he has the chance for a small amount of perceived "personal revenge" against those that he believes injured a family member, he will do it. It will be couched in the language of diplomacy and refrains of Kumbayah, but the net result will be a poke with a sharp stick.
3. Obama is keeping Hillary out of the country on purpose. Any reason to keep her away from the US and the US press suits Obama's agenda (Chicago way: Keep your friends close and your enemies closer - that's why Hillary got the job - so he could tell her what to do). Obama is afraid of the Clinton popularity (with his party) and is relegating the Hillarybeast to foreign visits which a lot of Americans don't pay that much attention to. Additionally, Hillary is pretty savvy regarding foreign policy where Obama is not (understatement). One wonders if the blunders Hillary has made (and she has made a few) are her way of "sticking it back" to Obama.
4. Obama has pretty much resigned himself to being a one term President. Indeed, on January 25, 2010 Barry told Diane Sawyer "I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president." Telling.
5. Obama (like Blair) is more concerned about the world's perception of him than he is about the interests of the American people. You can imagine how he feels about the interests of other countries.
- - - -
The bottom line
Some of the news organizations are doing a good job at keeping the American people informed (not the Obamedia - MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN of course) about this. However, until the Argie special forces hit the island, it will be a page two story (if it bleeds, it leads).
if that ever does happen, the overwhelming support of the American people to those "b
ds that hurt our cousins" will be palpable and unable to be ignored.
- - - -
Final thought concerning the UK media (some of it anyway)
Way back in the dark ages (2001 - post 9/11), when George W. Bush exclaimed to the world that "You are either with us or against us" the UK media (some of the more well known variants) took GWB to task inferring jingoistic rhetoric that has no place in the modern world, etc, etc, blah, blah, ad infinitum. Curious that the same media is (through subtext) making that argument in reverse.
No matter - for the record - and to be perfectly clear - The American public are with you!
Man on the street reaction
Currently, in the US, the reaction to this is muted due to several factors (in no particular order)
1. The American public is more concerned right now with Obama's domestic agenda. Specifically with his impending use of a (potentially unconstitutional) procedural trick to pass legislation that he wants passed (healthcare) and that the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose.
2. Americans are, additionally, concerned about all of the spending from DC to "stimulate the economy" and the resultant national debt.
3. National security is also a big concern and the Obama administration's mucking around with civil trials for known terrorists has caused consternation.
4. Finally, (as with the UK I'd imagine) a lot of Americans are concerned with "American Idol", "Dancing with the Stars", "The Real Housewives of Orange County/New York/Atlanta", "Snooki and J-Wow" and the size of Kim Kardashian's arse.
Background to potential for public concern
Cousins
The average American honestly thinks of the British people as close relatives. This is because a good many actually do have cousins (or Aunts, Uncles, Grandparents and cousins-such as myself) or close friends that live there. They don't understand the current UK preoccupation with collectivist navel gazing, but, I daresay neither does a lot of the UK public. That being said, the average American looks upon the UK as an equal relative or, at the least, the closest of friends.
Not of Europe
The average American does not think of the UK as part of Europe (Either as an EU member or otherwise). They see the UK as a completely independent entity with no connection to Brussels whatsoever. Certainly the continued minting of the pound and the independent character of most Brits plays a large part in this.
Respect
The average American has overwhelming respect for Great Britain, it's people and it's institutions (including - believe it or not - a large amount of respect for the Monarchy). This respect has beeen developed over two centuries of contact and observation. Things such as the Battle of Britain and even the last Falklands war have only increased that respect. This is probably best symbolized by a conversation I had with the pilot of a P-51 (one of our car shows had a P-51 demo) a few years back that informed me, "Yes, she's a nice plane, but without that British engine, she wouldn't have been sh!t..."
Facts that most Americans are unaware of
1. Most Americans do not know of the existence of Mercosur or the existance of UNASUR (also I imagine that a few Europeans do not know/care about this entity either)
2. The history of the Falklands
3. The state of the Argentinian government
4. The fact that the Argies are threatening some sort of limp wristed blockade
If it kicks off...
If the Argies attempt military action
1. The reaction from the American public will be loud, unified and angry. The demand for the Federal government to help out will be overwhelming. Lack of action from the current administration would sound the death knell for Democrats for several generations.
2. Obviously, there would be covert assistance (as previously)
3. If Chavez sticks his nose in, there WILL be repercussions against him. The American public have just about had it with him (understatement)
The Current US Administration
1. Jimbeaux and I warned you folks about this lot.
2. This is what drives Obama's personal perception of the British people. The "Chicago way" is that to the victors go the spoils. If he has the chance for a small amount of perceived "personal revenge" against those that he believes injured a family member, he will do it. It will be couched in the language of diplomacy and refrains of Kumbayah, but the net result will be a poke with a sharp stick.
3. Obama is keeping Hillary out of the country on purpose. Any reason to keep her away from the US and the US press suits Obama's agenda (Chicago way: Keep your friends close and your enemies closer - that's why Hillary got the job - so he could tell her what to do). Obama is afraid of the Clinton popularity (with his party) and is relegating the Hillarybeast to foreign visits which a lot of Americans don't pay that much attention to. Additionally, Hillary is pretty savvy regarding foreign policy where Obama is not (understatement). One wonders if the blunders Hillary has made (and she has made a few) are her way of "sticking it back" to Obama.
4. Obama has pretty much resigned himself to being a one term President. Indeed, on January 25, 2010 Barry told Diane Sawyer "I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president." Telling.
5. Obama (like Blair) is more concerned about the world's perception of him than he is about the interests of the American people. You can imagine how he feels about the interests of other countries.
- - - -
The bottom line
Some of the news organizations are doing a good job at keeping the American people informed (not the Obamedia - MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN of course) about this. However, until the Argie special forces hit the island, it will be a page two story (if it bleeds, it leads).
if that ever does happen, the overwhelming support of the American people to those "b
ds that hurt our cousins" will be palpable and unable to be ignored.- - - -
Final thought concerning the UK media (some of it anyway)
Way back in the dark ages (2001 - post 9/11), when George W. Bush exclaimed to the world that "You are either with us or against us" the UK media (some of the more well known variants) took GWB to task inferring jingoistic rhetoric that has no place in the modern world, etc, etc, blah, blah, ad infinitum. Curious that the same media is (through subtext) making that argument in reverse.
No matter - for the record - and to be perfectly clear - The American public are with you!
Jimbeaux said:
ErnestM said:
Said some damn fine "stuff"
Well put all around Ernest. Much of that was long past due for statement; thanks for taking the time.Edited to Add, Even Jim will change track when we elect The Rt Hon. Jeremy Clarkson as P.M.
Edited by Cooky on Wednesday 3rd March 18:56
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff