What's with the US/UK love-in?
Discussion
After the debacle with Zelensky at the whitehouse and Elon's online behaviour, I was amazed to watch Starmer get an easy ride on his visit to the US.
Then we had JD Vance pushing for AFD prior to the German elections when he was supposed to be talking about European security against the backdrop of a Russian invasion.
But apparently he gets on with David Lammy, of all people? And we are spared the brunt of Trumps Tarriff nonsense.
Is this Peter Mandelson weaving whatever political voodoo he's best known for or are we already so under the US thumb that we're viewed as already sibjugated?
Then we had JD Vance pushing for AFD prior to the German elections when he was supposed to be talking about European security against the backdrop of a Russian invasion.
But apparently he gets on with David Lammy, of all people? And we are spared the brunt of Trumps Tarriff nonsense.
Is this Peter Mandelson weaving whatever political voodoo he's best known for or are we already so under the US thumb that we're viewed as already sibjugated?
glazbagun said:
After the debacle with Zelensky at the whitehouse and Elon's online behaviour, I was amazed to watch Starmer get an easy ride on his visit to the US.
Then we had JD Vance pushing for AFD prior to the German elections when he was supposed to be talking about European security against the backdrop of a Russian invasion.
But apparently he gets on with David Lammy, of all people? And we are spared the brunt of Trumps Tarriff nonsense.
Is this Peter Mandelson weaving whatever political voodoo he's best known for or are we already so under the US thumb that we're viewed as already sibjugated?
Eh? So two of the closest allies for at least 100 years and you’re wondering that?Then we had JD Vance pushing for AFD prior to the German elections when he was supposed to be talking about European security against the backdrop of a Russian invasion.
But apparently he gets on with David Lammy, of all people? And we are spared the brunt of Trumps Tarriff nonsense.
Is this Peter Mandelson weaving whatever political voodoo he's best known for or are we already so under the US thumb that we're viewed as already sibjugated?
Biggest load of bulls
t, ‘our special relationship’, makes me want puke every time i hear it
A main reason for them entering the conflict on the allied side (3 years in) was to deliberatly bankrupt the UK and expediate the end of the empire, they gave us nothing, every last bullet was paid for. If you think the Americans are our friends you’re deluded, i’ve dealt with them in business, ruthless cretins sums them up nicely.
t, ‘our special relationship’, makes me want puke every time i hear itA main reason for them entering the conflict on the allied side (3 years in) was to deliberatly bankrupt the UK and expediate the end of the empire, they gave us nothing, every last bullet was paid for. If you think the Americans are our friends you’re deluded, i’ve dealt with them in business, ruthless cretins sums them up nicely.
I think Britain is historically well regarded in that it has been an ally in most things internationally, has upped it’s game regarding NATO contributions (in contrast to some other countries), and is not now part of the EU, of which the current regime has a low opinion.
Nevertheless I don’t think we are as well trusted as we once were and the choice of lefty government will not be sitting well with the current US administration, no matter how pally Vance might appear to be with Lammy.
Nevertheless I don’t think we are as well trusted as we once were and the choice of lefty government will not be sitting well with the current US administration, no matter how pally Vance might appear to be with Lammy.
oddball1313 said:
Biggest load of bullst, ‘our special relationship’, makes me want puke every time i hear it
Old spitting image sketch of Thatcher and Reagan where Thatch points out that we do whatever they want and get nothing in return, and Reagan says “and that’s what’s special about it”.t, ‘our special relationship’, makes me want puke every time i hear itRealistically, sucking Washington dick is about trade.
otolith said:
oddball1313 said:
Biggest load of bullst, ‘our special relationship’, makes me want puke every time i hear it
Old spitting image sketch of Thatcher and Reagan where Thatch points out that we do whatever they want and get nothing in return, and Reagan says “and that’s what’s special about it”.t, ‘our special relationship’, makes me want puke every time i hear itRealistically, sucking Washington dick is about trade.
US/UK love in? Fine by me. I think it's great if we're close allies of the second best (and most powerful military) nation on this planet (second best after us, of course!). That said, I suspect we over estimate quite how much the US actually loves us, and it varies depending on the administration over there.
oddball1313 said:
Biggest load of bullst, ‘our special relationship’, makes me want puke every time i hear it
A main reason for them entering the conflict on the allied side (3 years in) was to deliberatly bankrupt the UK and expediate the end of the empire, they gave us nothing, every last bullet was paid for. If you think the Americans are our friends you’re deluded, i’ve dealt with them in business, ruthless cretins sums them up nicely.
Focusing only on the bolded bit: t, ‘our special relationship’, makes me want puke every time i hear itA main reason for them entering the conflict on the allied side (3 years in) was to deliberatly bankrupt the UK and expediate the end of the empire, they gave us nothing, every last bullet was paid for. If you think the Americans are our friends you’re deluded, i’ve dealt with them in business, ruthless cretins sums them up nicely.
It's demonstrably, factually wrong that "they gave us nothing, every last bullet was paid for". Between 1941 and 1945 Lend-Lease of equipment, materiel, raw materials and foodstuffs to the UK totalled over $30bn in value in 1940s currency. We ended up paying something like 4 cents on the dollar for all of it, and not a cent during the war itself.
The post-war Anglo-American Loan was to cover the Lend-Lease goods we wanted to keep (at a notional value of 10% of its original value when new), new goods - mostly foodstuffs and building materials - needed while we rebuilt our civilian economy and to stabilise the British pound. That loan was for just over $3bn plus $2bn from Canada, representing a tiny fraction of the value of the Lend-Lease sent to the UK. And it was given on incredibly generous repayment terms.
Plus the UK was - by a huge margin - the biggest recipient of Marshall Aid funding (30% more than W. Germany). We just didn't use it very effectively - we spent about 1/3 as much on industrial and infrastructural renewal and development as the Germans did, despite getting much more. And we declined to use a lot of the other funds and schemes that the Americans offered to us such as industrial technology transfers, which our European neighbours used much more readily.
The first two years of the European war when the UK bought war goods and equipment from America on a 'cash and carry' basis were financially ruinous for Britain, but to say that America didn't give us anything or entered the war in 1941 to bankrupt us is simply not born out by the facts. You don't enter a war looking to bankrupt an ally and then give them about $25bn of free stuff during the war, another $3.3bn of free stuff after the war and $3.7bn on incredibly generous repayment terms.
Did the Americans make us give up the Empire in return for assistance? Sort of, but we had mostly made that decision for ourselves before Pearl Harbor. The Americans were not shy about telling their people and their allies that they were not in the business of saving or sustaining European colonial empires, nor really in the business of liberating then from invaders just to give them back to their colonisers.
[Except when preventing those colonies from going communist, of course...]
That played out a decade later over Suez of course. The USA and USSR weren't going to have European nations muscling into the new Cold War balance of superpowers and were not going to give their blessing to colonial ambitions of seizing canals in other countries just because they used them for trade...oh, Panama? Just look the other way...
The Americans are so often completely right, but so often immensely hypocritical about being so.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Sunday 10th August 10:23
Randy Winkman said:
I think that Trump must simply admire/envy the UK for historical/empire reasons and the fact that we aren't in the EU. Plus we have royalty which is fairly "old-style" compared with some other countries that still have kings/queens.
Yes, that's the hand we've been dealt and the government have been playing that hand pretty effectively with the aid of a large smoke machine aimed squarely at Trump's arse. It's not particularly dignified but it's been fairly effective and in the circumstances I can't see a better play.Hants PHer said:
US/UK love in? Fine by me. I think it's great if we're close allies of the second best (and most powerful military) nation on this planet (second best after us, of course!). That said, I suspect we over estimate quite how much the US actually loves us, and it varies depending on the administration over there.
Great but what are they doing it for? They could seriously (further) harm Starmer's credibility if they wanted to and seemingly have no problems pissing off the rest of their allies and threatening annexation of their neighbours. But we're basically left alone. Why question is why? What have we agreed to?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff