American-English relations..

[Raithe]

Okay, is it me, or are things being a little weird again... The US senate has attempted to "order" Jack Straw, and a couple of other MP's to appear to answer some questions regarding the release of the Lockerbie bomber.. and are causing a bit of a stink over their refusal to do so (please note, however much I dislike the annoying people who were the Labour government then, they had nothing to do with that.. it was the Scots who decided to conduct the release).

 

However, when the inquest into the legality of Blair stepping into the Iraq War was happening over here and the Americans were invited to attend.. they ignored.

 

For both the Iraq War and the Gulf War a few years before.. when the Americans were asked to come along to the inquests into several "friendly fire" incidents where American troops shot up British troops.. they ignored all requests and never showed up.

 

The moment it's the other way.. then they cause a bit of a fuss because the Brits won't go to America when told to...

 

Don't yah just love it?

[Humodour]

I hope your government has told the Yanks to piss off.

[Monte Carlo]

The Americans seem to favour non-reciprocal relationships.

 

Union Carbide / Bhopal? Silence.

 

Gulf of Mexico / BP? Uproar.

 

The decision to release Al-Megrahi was loathsome and stupid. Indefensible. Then again, the American government makes loathesome and stupid decisions and nobody orders them to attend the political hearings of other sovereign governments. And if they did the Americans would refuse, and quite rightly too. That a handful of senators wish to whip this whole thing up with the BP angle seems to me more to do with the Democrats forthcoming kicking in the November elections than anything else. The presumption that you can summon UK politicians to give evidence betrays the 51st State mentality they have. I'd tell them to bugger off, too. I don't remember the USA being overly helpful around IRA terrorist prisoners and extradition in the 70's, 80's and 90's, for example.

 

There is an occasional anti-British vein in American politics that I will call Mel Gibsonesque - we're all Redcoats / evil imperialists really, despite nowadays being a small and relatively insignificant island that offers nothing but material and political support to the USA. Under Obama, this tendency for some reason has accelerated to the point where I'm beginning to view America in a far less positive way than I did previously.

 

I appreciate that the American government isn't analagous with the American man or woman on main street, and in my many visits to the USA have found them to be friendly and charming. It's just that American governments have a tendency to hubris that under Obama simply keeps increasing exponentially.

[Humodour]

It's just that American governments have a tendency to hubris that under Obama simply keeps increasing exponentially.

 

Really, it seems same-old, same-old - quite consistent.

[Raithe]

To put one possible spin on it, Obama's father did grow up in British Occupied Kenya didn't he? (and with all the fuss and bother, there's the hint that Obama was born there as well.. although that's a whole nother matter... ). So there's that possible reason for his continued snarkyness over the Brits.

 

Of course, I like how all his speeches Obama has made sure to say "British Petroleum" rather then BP. Trying to highlight the british connection mayhaps. Although technically the company changed the name to just BP years ago....

 

And yes, Bhopal.. how many people dead? How many birth defects resulted from it? And which government protected the company owners and refused to extradite the CEO who jumped bail in India?

 

I know a lot of Americans and get on well with them, but frankly, their government does tend to be really quite slapworthy.

[Enoch]

Well, with this request, it's not so much "the Yanks" as it is "the Chairman of one Senate Committee."

 

The U.S. Senate is a very odd body, for one more used to parliamentary systems. A certain amount of egomania attends all those who would seek major public office, but it is incredibly endemic in the Senate. He may purport to represent the Congress or the Party or the whole of the United States (and he does have some legal subpoena powers), but usually he just wants to highlight a pet issue to get himself on the news or embarrass a political opponent.

[Volourn]

"There is an occasional anti-British vein in American politics"

 

Yeah, because that kind of attitude is uniquely Amerikan. There's plenty of anti-Amerikans from many governments including Britain plenty. Heck, one of the main reasons for the creation of the EU is to oppose and overpower the US through sheer number of member countries.

 

 

"The Americans seem to favour non-reciprocal relationships."

 

All countries do if they have the power to get them. Britain, btw, is one of the biggest sinners in this regard. The only difference is the US is one of the few coutnries to have that kind of power nowadays.

[Monte Carlo]

"There is an occasional anti-British vein in American politics"

 

Yeah, because that kind of attitude is uniquely Amerikan. There's plenty of anti-Amerikans from many governments including Britain plenty. Heck, one of the main reasons for the creation of the EU is to oppose and overpower the US through sheer number of member countries.

 

Quel surprise! Vol speaks out of his arse.

 

The primary engine for the EU in the 1950's, out of the European coal and steel stuff, was the fear of another pan-European war. The counter-balance to the US stuff was a French thing and came much later.

 

"The Americans seem to favour non-reciprocal relationships."

 

All countries do if they have the power to get them. Britain, btw, is one of the biggest sinners in this regard.

 

Again, you speak out of your fundament. Look at the generosity of residence & employment rights to Commonwealth citizens several generations after the end of Empire, and our complete acquiesence to EU treaties and law. This, I suspect, would require you to think before posting though so is extremely unlikely.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Monte Carlo

[Humodour]

The U.S. Senate is a very odd body, for one more used to parliamentary systems. A certain amount of egomania attends all those who would seek major public office, but it is incredibly endemic in the Senate. He may purport to represent the Congress or the Party or the whole of the United States (and he does have some legal subpoena powers), but usually he just wants to highlight a pet issue to get himself on the news or embarrass a political opponent.

 

I take issue with your characterisation of this problem as problem with the upper house.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Krezack

[Monte Carlo]

The main thing is that most outsiders view the US political system as more hegemoinc than it actually is, so this move looks like imperialistic arrogance rather than grand-standing.

 

As I said, I am on the whole a big fan of the United States. Lived there, travelled there, like the people there. So why, over the past eighteen months or so, is the USA getting on my **** so much?

[Raithe]

For another classic example.. One of the key reasons why the UK was still having to deal with rationing up until the mid-50's.. was that the UK was the only country that the US demanded repay the war loans they'd given us. Now, I don't object to paying back a loan.. but when the US basically said "don't worry bout paying it back" to every other country they'd given loans to.. but demanded that the UK pay back.. it does kind of smack of a bit of a strange relationship for such "bosom buddies".

 

 

And for a funny point in how things can totally filter through society... The Great Escape.. a classic film, but made during one of those low-points in the American-UK relationship. And all the key English cast get killed off by the end of the movie.. while the Americans survive...

[Wrath of Dagon]

The presumption that you can summon UK politicians to give evidence betrays the 51st State mentality they have.

There's no such mentality. Most people in US see Britain as a close ally, nothing more, nothing less. I do think it's shameful that Obama sent the bust of Churchill back, but this is also the first US president ever to go around bowing to foreign potentates, so who the hell knows what he's thinking? And BP does have a lot to answer for, no matter what their initials stand for. I think a lot of their stock is owned by Americans also, and Exxon certainly didn't get a pass for a much smaller disaster.

[Darth InSidious]

but this is also the first US president ever to go around bowing to foreign potentates, so who the hell knows what he's thinking?

Like most of WoD's posts (and like most of this typically ill-informed and silly one), utter bull****. Bush bowed to both Benedict XVIth and Elizabeth II. I'm fairly sure other American presidents have similarly bowed to both the monarch of the UK and the Pope. They do, after all, outrank the President of the United States by a not inconsiderable margin.

[Wrath of Dagon]

http://my2bucks.com/2009/11/18/how-dare-ob...bush-and-nixon/

 

Bush only bowed his head, not at the waist. It's perfectly appropriate to bow your head as a sign of respect in certain situations, especially to a priest of (almost) your own religion. Although the bow to the Saudi king doesn't look appropriate, but perhaps the picture is out of context. And no, neither one outranks the president of the US. Edit: Actually it looks like the Saudi king is putting some kind of medal on his neck, so nothing wrong with that either, although strictly speaking I would've advised against it.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Monte Carlo]

'Ranks' are a bit of a misnomer, aren't they? There are more Catholics than Americans, which puts Pope Benedict right up there.

 

Unless we are using the Stalin gauge of power 'How many divisions does the Pope have?'

[Wrath of Dagon]

Why wouldn't we? In any case, all leaders of sovereign countries are considered equal as far as showing appropriate respect, if not it's an insult to that country.

[Volourn]

"They do, after all, outrank the President of the United States by a not inconsiderable margin. "

 

Huh? How so? US is an independent coutnry which swears no fealty to any other power in the world. The US President is outranked by nobody outside of the country or inside the country though even the president still has to follow the laws of the US.

 

Leader of any country shouldn't be bowing to anyone, anyways. Bowing is a sign of weakness and subservience; NOT of respect.

[Serrano]

"They do, after all, outrank the President of the United States by a not inconsiderable margin. "

 

Huh? How so?

 

They both have official hats. The Pope has the largest hat so he's in charge. The Queen has a smaller hat but the President has no hat.

Edited July 26, 2010 by Serrano

[Trenitay]

Bowing is a sign of weakness and subservience; NOT of respect.

 

No

[Walsingham]

Again, you speak out of your fundament.

 

LOL 'fundament'. I haven't heard anyone use that in years.

 

I do think it's fair to say that there is a long and enduring cultural thread of anti-Britishness running through US politics. I'd say it is a carnival house reflection of the people in true democratic fashion.

 

1. America rose to it's prosition of pre-eminence by shouldering the UK out of the way

2. The absurd hagiography surrounding the War of Independence demands that the Britsih be seen as fudnamentally vile

3. American popular culture is pants-wetting terrified of anything with pretensions of superiority which can't be bought. It's perfectly expressed in the form of Hannibal Lecter and to a lesser extent Frasier/Sideshow Bob.

[Nepenthe]

They do, after all, outrank the President of the United States by a not inconsiderable margin.

 

Outside the topic itself, but what a load of crock. Ignoring a certain special role religious leaders carry, there's equality between heads of state, whether actual or ceremonial. Always amusing to see our prez with the scandi kings and queens, ahead of the royal princes/princesses.

[Monte Carlo]

It's refreshing, in of itself, that this thread hasn't descended into the usual flame-war.

 

Oh no, look what I just went and said