UK Media saying relationship between UK and US "Damaged"

Originally posted by Restricted

Originally posted by Misterlondon
I think most of the public here would be pleased with an end to UK USA relationship.. we've been leaning more to being part of Europe this last few years anyway.. the relationship with USA has been on a downward spiral for years now..

Some of us will remember you said that if Britain ever comes under fire again. We've been allies for a long time for a good reason. We don't just speak the same language, all kidding aside.

Does the UK truly want to break ties with the US, or is it that the citizens of the UK are tired of following the US around the globe on forays that benefit no one?

Read the threads and responses. The only people trying to grind this axe are:

-An insulated London media trying to get its head around the fact that the will of the people (through parliament) was carried for once on a matter of war and peace
-Pro EU , anti-US people. A very small minority.

The UK people will stand with the USA whenever they are in trouble. The cultural links are far too deep. This particular war just happens to be the 2nd voluntary arabian adventure in a row and the case for it stinks like rotten fish.

We still have your back. Not that a superpower really needs anybody anyway.

reply to post by stumason


Read your points and don't agree with all of them, but we share an English/British perspective. You are right about one thing in that we have probably the poorest group of politicians currently sitting in parliament, many have stagnated and simply fed for too long on the multi benefits of their parliamentary seats.

I don't see this as a joint USA and UK 'marginal incidental', like our supplying the rebels in Libya - we all know the exact result of what has happened there and I suspect it is steadily becoming yet another ground for Al Quaeda's ever growing followers. How do we know that after all the allies efforts in various ME countries Syria won't simply degenerate into exactly the same situation as Iraq. At least with Assad it had relative peace and people did not feel the need to flee.

Syria is very different because of its allies, Russia, Iran and China who gets her oil from Iran. I feel along with Obama, Cameron when he started wanting to rush our ships over there to shell Assad out of his governmental buildings, hadn't the common sense to see the very dangerous big picture, or in fact the hypocracy of his policy of getting our soldiers to fight Al Quaeda in Afganistan and then arming Al Quaeda in Syria. We have even had the disgusting extremist act of a rebel soldier - who Cameron wanted to arm, eating a governmental soldier's heart.

There is no right or wrong in Syria probably on either side because perhaps they are both as evil as each other. But noone actually knows yet because until we do find out who used those chemical weapons, we aren't in an honourable or justified position to act, not to mention a legal one. Its also against the grain to have hundreds of thousands killed, two million in misery in refugee camps in other countries and then we cut up rough about 1400 odd deaths. The dead are all dead regardless of whether it was a fast or slow death or a bullet. We were all remarkably quiet when chemical weapons first were used in the `ME but it wasn't considered our business then, I suspect our firms simply made money from these earlier wars.

I would like to know exactly what countries have chemical weapons and the ability to release them in Syria because we could also be looking at a third party not yet exposed who is guilty of this atrocity.

I do agree with everyone that chemical weapons are not acceptable and any perpetrator of chemical warfare must be punished, but lets punish the guilty and not any innocent people.

I know this is going to sound cold-blooded, but it seems that the other countries of the world don't mind if chemical weapons are used. middle-eastern people killing other middle eastern people in a country with no oil, or mineral value. no value as a trading partner except for a few hundred million dollars worth of arms.
most of the true wealthy have already left Syria, and if this conflict keeps going, the only ones to blame for all the deaths are the Arabs that are in Syria. as most of us outside that region already know, the west gets blamed for every conflict there, creates new terrorists, and is used for propaganda throughout the middle east.

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by r0nsix
I think this is aimed at the uk public.
they are trying to make us feel vulnerable without usa.

HAHA, good luck if that is what they are trying - They need to study history if they think we cave that easily...

Britain... vulnerable... I don't think so...

"The sun never sets on the British Empire"

- Why? Its because God doesn't trust the British in the dark.

They have been around longer than the US and a whole host of other countries. They have always taken care of business, and for the most part have done so on their own. The media is just as lost when it comes to the people of both nations as the politicians are.

Maybe people on both sides of the pond should be heard by the media to let them know just how wrong they have gotten it.

reply to post by brace22


Hi there.

Yeah, I don't think its damaged. Just MSM spin doctors doing their thing.

I think the relationship has got to that similar stage where there's a married couple who quite simply grunt at each other in the morning during breakfast because they can't be botherd to ask if they want tea & toast whilst watching TV.

It may have it'd frustrations but, the spark and the history is still there. Other wise the press wouldn't care about assuming the relationships damaged.

What I do think is that there is an agenda to the story to try and entice a reaction. A reaction that could be numorous things. (Cameron being bold and fighting harder to go to war, Obama trying to guilt trip UK into action etc)

eee.

http://

I am attempting to link to an article in the Guardian which may give a little more background from the media on the Syrian situation.

At last my instinct is still alive and well. I have always known there was something under the surface of the Syrian war and its Saudi.

The British Media in the form of the Guardian has an article in yesterday's paper which my computer won't pick up the link on. Just google Syrian pipeline and there it is.

In short this war is about an Iran - Iraq - Syria pipeline which would be used to supply Europe with gas from a field that Iran shares with Qatar and Qatar wants the deal which it has now been excluded from as the agreements between Iran, Iraq and Syria are now signed.

According to this article Prince Bandar tried to bribe Putin with the offer that he will not allow any Gulf country to transport gas across Syria to Europe to compete with Russian gas exports. Putin has refused this so Prince Bandar has said that whatever regime replaces Assad it will be under Saudi control.

It also notes that the British have been involved in this - as was already reported from a French source who was told by British Officials that the Brits were involved in Syria a few years ago (presumably when this war started out).
Sounds remarkably familiar nowadays after Libya, there beforehand arming rebels all of whom were doctors, lawyers etc so we were told, definitely not Al Quaeda.

The article states how Assad has been the main instigator of the deaths of thousands of Syrians though but does not link him to the chemical weapon outrage. So the jury is still out on that atrocity but, what if the truth is something we, especially in Britain do not want to hear or is linked to Saudi (why if Assad has chemical weapons should Saudi not have them)?

The article goes on to say that the timing of the bombing threats to kill Assad coincides with the chemical outbreak there and I don't for one believe in coincidence when it comes to serious political manipulation and oil interests. It does explain though why Cameron was so keen to get bombing and whose pulling his strings. He probably decided to wait simply because he knew the pipeline news was about to break in the British media or on the net. The same obviously goes for Obama and the USA's need for Saudi oil also.

A side line to this report is something that has been at the back of my mind regarding British politics,wasn't it us who supplied Sadam with chemical weapons? That's what has been grinding around in my mind about this whole nasty business and our outrage at the chemical weapon usage.

Perhaps we are now getting somewhere near to reality about Syria.

reply to post by Shiloh7


It an opinion piece.. either or here it is.

Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern

Originally posted by Xcathdra


"The sun never sets on the British Empire"

- Why? Its because God doesn't trust the British in the dark.

I had to give you a star. Well said.

reply to post by brace22
That the British and the American people are not going the same direction on Syria, does not mean that the relationship is damaged. The two countries have always been political allies on topical issues but sometimes there have to be disagreement based on the available facts because human lives are involved. Great thoughts leads to useful and important political changes but when these thoughts are not pointing to a unified direction, definitely the desired solution will not be achieved. Most intelligence experts know what goes in and come out of Syria and they also know that the claim of Americans that Syria used chemical weapons on the citizens is false, The british guys are well informed of all the facts and they said No through voting in the parliament. NATO chief also said NO by not giving support, the Russians too said NO to Military Actions. Therefore i am sure that President Obama will not embark on the Military actions as proposed because all the wars fought by the United States and won were fought with the support of the allied Forces like Britain, China and others. Past American leaders like Bush, Clinton, and Jim have never gone to war alone, and i think President Obama should take note

originally posted by: SprocketUK
The special relationship is a load of rubbish.
All it's ever meant was the USA getting what it wants.
When it suits them they just throw us to the wolves just like during the Suez operation, destabilising the Iranian monarchy to install their puppet Shah and any number of other rubbish little deals over the years.

As much as I like the people, the government always seems to suck.

The US did NOT agree to participate in the Suez operation,possibly worried about the Soviets would ALSO joining the fighting.Somehow you equate this fact with being"thrown to the wolves"??Yes,those bloody colonist traitors!Off with their heads for not backing our humiliation at Suez!

a reply to: TDawg61

Sent you a PM.

originally posted by: stumason


My sentiments exactly mate.

I think the West would get much more support domestically and internationally if they weren't so behind the rebels. They should just enforce a UNSC mandated ceasefire and get these idiots to stop killing each other. We'd have the moral high ground then, rather than be seen to take sides in a sectarian conflict...

Sounds like the most reasonable course of action but when have governments acted that way?
Also as a veto power,do you think Russia would vote for a cease fire?

originally posted by: TDawg61

originally posted by: SprocketUK
The special relationship is a load of rubbish.
All it's ever meant was the USA getting what it wants.
When it suits them they just throw us to the wolves just like during the Suez operation, destabilising the Iranian monarchy to install their puppet Shah and any number of other rubbish little deals over the years.

As much as I like the people, the government always seems to suck.

The US did NOT agree to participate in the Suez operation,possibly worried about the Soviets would ALSO joining the fighting.Somehow you equate this fact with being"thrown to the wolves"??Yes,those bloody colonist traitors!Off with their heads for not backing our humiliation at Suez!

The consequence of The US not getting involved in Suez, was Britain's refusal to get involved in Vietnam. However some British mercenaries did go to fight.

This thread was started in 2013.

I didn't want to retype out all the info from my post so I linked to it for the other thread.

Regardless of the special relationship between the British and the Americans, if the elites want to sow discord, they will sow discord. Just look at Eastern Ukraine...