Should We End the Special Relationship with Great Britain?

lotr10 said:
I never said "sever ties" I said end a unique special relationship that sees us interact with Britain on a level we don't with any other country. Nothing about ending this special relationship means we can't still work with Great Britain when our interests align.
Click to expand...
Marxist dialectic clown gonna binary-brain. It's what they do in the name of constant division.
 
lotr10 said:
Yes I would as the alliance is no longer relevant to American security in the 21st century. But this thread is not about putting NATO to rest as a result of its passing it's "best use" date by a couple of decades. We're talking about the unique special relationship with Britain which is outside of and beyond NATO.
Click to expand...
This brings up I point I think about often.

The stated mission of NATO is to protect Western Europe from Russia. Russia has always been terrible in regards to conventional warfare. Bad equipment, bad leaders, bad soldiers, and bad tactics. They only win because they are willing to send as many as it takes through the meat grinder. The giant of the nation Russia was absolutely slaughtered by Germany in WW1 & WW2 (would have much different outcomes if both weren't two front wars). Even today, they can't get the job done in Ukraine. So, from a conventional warfare standpoint, the advanced societies of Western Europe should easily be able to keep Russia from being aggressive. Nuclear war is a different animal all together and it doesn't much matter what the combatants conventional forces are. So why does the US supply arms, keep a standing force, and lead NATO from a conventional warfare standpoint? Couldn't we have just set some nukes up to counter Russia's nuclear threat and let Western Europe handle the conventional side?

I've always been of the opinion that unspoken reason that the US puts so much effort into NATO is to save Western Europe from itself. WW1 was started by a bunch of inbred monarchies and inept politicians not for some major strategic reason. It was a convoluted web of alliances all built for nationalistic pride, distrust, and to increase the personal image of Western European leaders. The family tree across the monarchies was a circular branch for God's sake. And the war started and got out of hand because of technology and 17-million died in hellish conditions. Whole towns lost their entire population of young men. And what did Western Europe learn? They didn't make the peace terms fair. They didn't set up the proper diplomatic processes to stop this from happening again. They let nationalistic pride and incompetence dictate the terms of peace and through the resulting apathy in Germany the Nazi regime came to power and 73-million perished a couple of decades later.

So I actually think that our leadership in NATO keeps Western Europe in check. Even though their individual countries are a gnat on the rear end of the world, they still really think that they are something. Ever spend real time in Europe? Not tourist time, but work time. There is nothing more nationalistic or racist than a true Englishman, German, Frenchman, Spaniard, etc. If left to their own, I really think these dumb bastards would find a way to start another war based on nothing more than national pride.

I think we are kind of the regulating force so that no one European nation can build up unilaterally and put the world on fire again.
 
bob22 said:
Gotta hand it to Putin. His troll farms are uber effective.
Click to expand...
And all the useful idiots said -

comp-2.gif
 
John74 said:
This brings up I point I think about often.

The stated mission of NATO is to protect Western Europe from Russia. Russia has always been terrible in regards to conventional warfare. Bad equipment, bad leaders, bad soldiers, and bad tactics. They only win because they are willing to send as many as it takes through the meat grinder. The giant of the nation Russia was absolutely slaughtered by Germany in WW1 & WW2 (would have much different outcomes if both weren't two front wars). Even today, they can't get the job done in Ukraine. So, from a conventional warfare standpoint, the advanced societies of Western Europe should easily be able to keep Russia from being aggressive. Nuclear war is a different animal all together and it doesn't much matter what the combatants conventional forces are. So why does the US supply arms, keep a standing force, and lead NATO from a conventional warfare standpoint? Couldn't we have just set some nukes up to counter Russia's nuclear threat and let Western Europe handle the conventional side?

I've always been of the opinion that unspoken reason that the US puts so much effort into NATO is to save Western Europe from itself. WW1 was started by a bunch of inbred monarchies and inept politicians not for some major strategic reason. It was a convoluted web of alliances all built for nationalistic pride, distrust, and to increase the personal image of Western European leaders. The family tree across the monarchies was a circular branch for God's sake. And the war started and got out of hand because of technology and 17-million died in hellish conditions. Whole towns lost their entire population of young men. And what did Western Europe learn? They didn't make the peace terms fair. They didn't set up the proper diplomatic processes to stop this from happening again. They let nationalistic pride and incompetence dictate the terms of peace and through the resulting apathy in Germany the Nazi regime came to power and 73-million perished a couple of decades later.

So I actually think that our leadership in NATO keeps Western Europe in check. Even though their individual countries are a gnat on the rear end of the world, they still really think that they are something. Ever spend real time in Europe? Not tourist time, but work time. There is nothing more nationalistic or racist than a true Englishman, German, Frenchman, Spaniard, etc. If left to their own, I really think these dumb bastards would find a way to start another war based on nothing more than national pride.

I think we are kind of the regulating force so that no one European nation can build up unilaterally and put the world on fire again.
Click to expand...

A lot of good points there but I'm more cynical than you. I think at the end of the day, our involvement in NATO, just like our involvement in the middle east later, was/is about dollar supremacy and protecting financial interests.
 
TylerDurden said:
A lot of good points there but I'm more cynical than you. I think at the end of the day, our involvement in NATO, just like our involvement in the middle east later, was/is about dollar supremacy and protecting financial interests.
Click to expand...
Agree. But they are interlinked. Europe sets itself on fire for the second time in WW2, the US military industry grows exponentially. First through lend-lease, then through direct involvement, and finally as the conventional and nuclear bulwark against "Mother Russia". Lots of cash to be made.

Not saying it's all bad. Military spending translates eventually to consumer technology and a better life. And the US was pretty much an isolationist, safe, sleeping giant all of the way until WW2. Who knows how the world would look if either war didn't happen?

There likely would be no Soviet Union. The US probably would still be a regional power. The middle east would be who knows what?
 
Thavoice said:
"Britain’s armed forces would be ready to fight Russia “tonight” if Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded another eastern European country, according to a top UK military official."


and this is why we keep our relationship with GB
Click to expand...
Words are cheap. By their actions the British government has for decades steadily reduced their ability to wage war on anyone, let alone the Russians hundreds of miles from the English border.
 
John74 said:
This brings up I point I think about often.

The stated mission of NATO is to protect Western Europe from Russia. Russia has always been terrible in regards to conventional warfare. Bad equipment, bad leaders, bad soldiers, and bad tactics. They only win because they are willing to send as many as it takes through the meat grinder. The giant of the nation Russia was absolutely slaughtered by Germany in WW1 & WW2 (would have much different outcomes if both weren't two front wars). Even today, they can't get the job done in Ukraine. So, from a conventional warfare standpoint, the advanced societies of Western Europe should easily be able to keep Russia from being aggressive. Nuclear war is a different animal all together and it doesn't much matter what the combatants conventional forces are. So why does the US supply arms, keep a standing force, and lead NATO from a conventional warfare standpoint? Couldn't we have just set some nukes up to counter Russia's nuclear threat and let Western Europe handle the conventional side?

I've always been of the opinion that unspoken reason that the US puts so much effort into NATO is to save Western Europe from itself. WW1 was started by a bunch of inbred monarchies and inept politicians not for some major strategic reason. It was a convoluted web of alliances all built for nationalistic pride, distrust, and to increase the personal image of Western European leaders. The family tree across the monarchies was a circular branch for God's sake. And the war started and got out of hand because of technology and 17-million died in hellish conditions. Whole towns lost their entire population of young men. And what did Western Europe learn? They didn't make the peace terms fair. They didn't set up the proper diplomatic processes to stop this from happening again. They let nationalistic pride and incompetence dictate the terms of peace and through the resulting apathy in Germany the Nazi regime came to power and 73-million perished a couple of decades later.

So I actually think that our leadership in NATO keeps Western Europe in check. Even though their individual countries are a gnat on the rear end of the world, they still really think that they are something. Ever spend real time in Europe? Not tourist time, but work time. There is nothing more nationalistic or racist than a true Englishman, German, Frenchman, Spaniard, etc. If left to their own, I really think these dumb bastards would find a way to start another war based on nothing more than national pride.

I think we are kind of the regulating force so that no one European nation can build up unilaterally and put the world on fire again.
Click to expand...
Great points.

The Russians are counter punchers - their greatest military successes over the centuries has been to absorb an invasion and then strike back at an exhausted enemy that has penetrated deep into Russia.

There was an old saying about what NATO was for that went along the lines of: "keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”
 
lotr10 said:
Great points.

The Russians are counter punchers - their greatest military successes over the centuries has been to absorb an invasion and then strike back at an exhausted enemy that has penetrated deep into Russia.

There was an old saying about what NATO was for that went along the lines of: "keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”
Click to expand...

They've mastered the art of retreating and letting the Russian winter do it's thing. lol
 
Gh0st said:
If you’re talking military and intelligence sharing, we operate on the same level with New Zealand, Australia, and Canada. It’s so integrated it would probably be impossible to undo it.
Click to expand...
I read an article from a smart historian who asked the reader to do the following mental exercise to show us just how deeply and quickly things can change on the International Scene. He said let's start in 1900 and make a list of what the world looked like at that moment and then jump forward 20 years and make another list until we reached 2000. The change we have experienced in only that century was staggering.

My point, in history nothing is impossible to undo.
 
Thavoice said:
"Britain’s armed forces would be ready to fight Russia “tonight” if Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded another eastern European country, according to a top UK military official."


and this is why we keep our relationship with GB
Click to expand...

The Brit’s have been down with every idiotic adventure we’ve gone on over the last thirty years.
 
Cubsandtigers said:
The Brit’s have been down with every idiotic adventure we’ve gone on over the last thirty years.
Click to expand...
Which begs the question were these adventures ours alone or a cocktail of Britain reliving it's Imperial past through the United States? After all Britain is the architect of the modern Middle East.
 
Considering that since 2012 the most popular name given to male born babies in London is Mohammed, I'd say it's the Brits that have ended their Special Relationship with Great Britain. Of course, Soros and Schwab went to work on England about a decade before they tried their crap on the U.S. Normal folks in the U.S woke the hell up, before our country was totally over run and destroyed. The folks in England hardly recognize themselves anymore.
 
JUSTGOPLAY said:
Considering that since 2012 the most popular name given to male born babies in London is Mohammed, I'd say it's the Brits that have ended their Special Relationship with Great Britain. Of course, Soros and Schwab went to work on England about a decade before they tried their crap on the U.S. Normal folks in the U.S woke the hell up, before our country was totally over run and destroyed. The folks in England hardly recognize themselves anymore.
Click to expand...

Part of the issue in the UK is that the conservative government went along with ALL of this. They not the liberals passed all of these laws that have led to this situation.

They also stalled the economy and presided over the decline of the British military. The Torries have truly done an awful job of governing and were rightly tossed on their rear ends.
 
Cubsandtigers said:
Part of the issue in the UK is that the conservative government went along with ALL of this. They not the liberals passed all of these laws that have led to this situation.

They also stalled the economy and presided over the decline of the British military. The Torries have truly done an awful job of governing and were rightly tossed on their rear ends.
Click to expand...
Britain is what happens to a country that is ruled by the Global Uniparty.
 
UK has one of if not these best intelligence services and university system to feed it with home grown and they will always be the physical guardian of the gap. They continue to hit way above their weight as they keep their eye on developing american policy through their infiltration of our entertainment and capital investment industry. Sun Tzu and his protego' Michael Corleone told us. /t
 
eastisbest said:
UK has one of if not these best intelligence services and university system to feed it with home grown and they will always be the physical guardian of the gap. They continue to hit way above their weight as they keep their eye on developing american policy through their infiltration of our entertainment and capital investment industry. Sun Tzu and his protego' Michael Corleone told us. /t
Click to expand...

Well, the Brits are damn sure keeping their enemies closer. In fact, they've got their enemies so close they are running their government and dictating policy. Our English cousins are toast, and if anybody dares to speak up they throw their arse in prison. We think the Leftists in this country weaponized our judicial system, the Brits have unleashed the thought police on steroids. It would take someone bigger than Trump, and a movement more powerful than MAGA to save Englanistan.
 
eastisbest said:
UK has one of if not these best intelligence services and university system to feed it with home grown and they will always be the physical guardian of the gap. They continue to hit way above their weight as they keep their eye on developing american policy through their infiltration of our entertainment and capital investment industry. Sun Tzu and his protego' Michael Corleone told us. /t
Click to expand...
I would agree that this was true in 1980; probably true in 2000 but I don't believe it is true today and am certain it won't be true going forward.
 
JUSTGOPLAY said:
Well, the Brits are damn sure keeping their enemies closer. In fact, they've got their enemies so close they are running their government and dictating policy. Our English cousins are toast, and if anybody dares to speak up they throw their arse in prison. We think the Leftists in this country weaponized our judicial system, the Brits have unleashed the thought police on steroids. It would take someone bigger than Trump, and a movement more powerful than MAGA to save Englanistan.
Click to expand...
Yea I want to see how long Ellen Degenrate lives in the UK before she realizes the grass isn't always greener.
 
MoeDude said:
I don't know lotr10 he was being kind of an @$$ Plus we don't know exactly what led up to that point.

You are right about Canada being lost under Trudeau but this scene I think is a poor example. When he told the police officer "I'm your boss!" I think he sealed his fate.
Click to expand...
Here's the problem though, if pro Hamas or any protesters of any left wing cause were doing much worse to a right wing protest the police would not have arrested them or even confronted them. It's the two standards of reaction, one for those on the right and another for those on the left, that is at the bottom of the rot inflicting western society.

And remember all he was doing was video taping them on a public street.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top