Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Abuse of "Special Relationship" |
Post Reply 
|
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
||
nuvolari 
Earl 
Joined: 14-Jul-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 269 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Abuse of "Special Relationship"Posted: 29-Jul-2008 at 11:22 |
||
|
How is it that when the USA needs to extradite and prosecute three Brits. for their alleged involvement in the Enron scandal, they are flown over there so fast it made their ears bleed, but when the the UK government require assistance from the USA in order to investigate the death of a British journalist at the hands of the US military, they tell us to go spin on it !? What hapened to fairness and reciprocity and all that bollo. ?
|
|||
 |
|||
|
Peteratwar
Colonel 
Joined: 17-Apr-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 591 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jul-2008 at 11:38 |
||
|
Basically it was sheer incompetence on the part of the British Authorities when this agreement was set up. The British believed naively that it was only to handle terrorist threats.
The US believed it certainly wasn't unless the British tried to extradite people back to the UK.!!!
|
|||
|
|||
|
Al Jassas
Arch Duke 
Joined: 07-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1810 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jul-2008 at 15:00 |
||
|
Maggie the great did exactly the same thing tailing the US where ever it went while the US publically allows the financing of the IRA terror machine. Mutual respect died when Heath begged France for entry to the EU and Britain, once the world financier took a loan from the international Bank.
Al-Jassas
|
|||
|
|||
|
nuvolari
Earl
Joined: 14-Jul-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 269 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jul-2008 at 19:23 |
||
|
|||
|
|||
|
nuvolari
Earl
Joined: 14-Jul-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 269 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jul-2008 at 19:35 |
||
I also think that all of the UK's dealings with the USA are heavily influenced by the long established and oft declared US foreign policy objective of dismantling the British Empire. It became overt at the time of Woodrow Wilson's "Fourteen Point Declaration" in 1917, which, as a pre-condition for offering assistance to the UK during WW1 stated that "All the smaller nations will be entitled to achieve their independence".
This was reinforced by Roosevelt's "Lease-Lend" agreement, whcih when drafted by US Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau back in the early days of WW2 was put before Roosevelt for his signing with Morgenthau's phrase "If this doesn't bankrupt the British Empite, then nothing will" ! ringing in Roosevelt's ears.
And lastly, Eisenhower screwing the British at the time Egypt stole the Suez Canal from them. This was when the US de-stabilised the £ sterling, and put severe embargoes on Great Britain for fuel oil and raw materials ( exactly what the US did to Japan 30 years earlier and caused Japan to attack the USA). The loss of the Suez Canal, being an essential lifeline for the UK and what remained of it's Empire, was wholly caused by the US, with the US pressure on GB (later admitted by Eisenhower to have been the biggest mistake of his presidency ! ) being the key cause.
|
|||
|
|||
|
ulrich von hutten
Tsar 
Court Jester Joined: 01-Nov-2005 Location: Germany Online Status: Offline Posts: 3638 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jul-2008 at 19:56 |
||
|
moved to current affairs for traceable reasons..
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
red clay
Administrator 
Tomato Master Emeritus Joined: 14-Jan-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 10226 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jul-2008 at 22:44 |
||
You betcha! And considering the British were once the premiere practitioners of that attitude, you could say we learned from the best.
|
|||
|
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown. |
|||
|
|||
|
Al Jassas
Arch Duke
Joined: 07-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1810 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jul-2008 at 23:07 |
||
|
The 14 points were a scam and you know about it first hand. Only Ireland and European nation-states were meant by it. The entire middle east went from being a province of the Ottoman empire to a colony with the approval and support of the US. Did you think a Klansman like Wilson was ever sincere about giving coloured people their rights? As for the Suez canal, the US returned Panama canal for free despite losing thousands of US nationals building it. The same thing can't be said about Suez where over 20k poor egyptians were literally enslaved and forced to work. And the sale of the Canal to British corporations was also illegal and you can return to the real story behind it. The canal was on Egyptian land and Egypt didn't even get royalties from using the canal and the entire staff were Franco-Brits.
Al-Jassas
|
|||
|
|||
|
Peteratwar
Colonel
Joined: 17-Apr-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 591 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jul-2008 at 09:09 |
||
The US's right to the Panama Canal was not legally watertight anyway. So giving it up was hardly a grand gesture.
The Suez canal was built by the French by agreement with the ruler of Egypt. A legitimate company was formed and Britain legall acquired shares in the company. Furthewr developments were undertaken and confirmed by various treaties
|
|||
|
|||
|
nuvolari
Earl
Joined: 14-Jul-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 269 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jul-2008 at 10:52 |
||
And I am hugely pleased that we taught and you learned ! What sticks in my craw is that the USA screwed us for no other reason than to demolish the British Empire, and at times when the "Special Relationship" was at it's best. Not only that, but in 1956 when Egypt stole the Suez Canal from it's rightful owners, the British and the French, the USA should have been enlisting the aid of those countries to prevent Russia from invading and occupying Hungary. But, no, out came all of those rotten anti Imperial characteristics of the USA................only for it to have been ( extremely unsuccessfully) trying to build an empire for itself ever since.
|
|||
|
|||
|
nuvolari
Earl
Joined: 14-Jul-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 269 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jul-2008 at 11:04 |
||
You make an interesting argument, but I have never seen the "14 Points" as being a scam, as perhaps you do. Insofar as Wilson is concerned, in common with every other US President (to a greater or lesser degree) he had the destruction of the British Empire in mind as much as he ever had giving any country their indepenedence. Not only that, but I suspect that as a Klansman ( if indeed he was), he'd let coloureds into the Arkansas branch of the KKK if it were to prove useful in breaking up the British Empire !
Re the second part of your statement, I am afraid to say that you are so wrong in every fundamental point of your argument, and that being the case, I have no wish to offend you by putting forward a total contradiction. However, I will be charitable and say that I expect that you are confusing the building of the Pyramids with the building of the Canal.
|
|||
|
|||
|
nuvolari
Earl
Joined: 14-Jul-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 269 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jul-2008 at 11:06 |
||
You got that right, bro !
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 511 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jul-2008 at 11:09 |
||
I think USA also wanted to get rid of Nasser, but they were against aggression. So when Britain and France made aggression against Egypt, USA couldn't appear publicly as appeasing open military aggression. So USA opposed the war. ...The British had been stunned when Nasser legally nationalized the
Suez Canal on July 26, 1956. The takeover gave Egypt oversight of the
principal oil flow between Middle Eastern wells and Western Europe, as
well as Britain’s easy access to its interests east and south of Suez.
Outwardly the paragon of unruffled British dignity, handsome Anthony
Eden actually was nervous and short-tempered, refusing to accept his
country’s declining world role. The prime minister also was suffering the chronic aftereffects of less-than-successful bile duct operations, and was taking amphetamines and other drugs that probably affected his judgment. France, which had initiated the secret meetings with Israel in June 1956, was motivated by the belief that Nasser was behind the nationalist-inspired war that was then agitating Algeria, her North African possession. One thing the three conspirator nations had in common was the conviction that Nasser, who was upsetting the Mideast balance of power by accepting Soviet military and economic assistance, had to go. The trio did not expect the United States, which had clashed politically with Nasser over his recognition of Communist China and acceptance of Soviet Bloc arms, to pose a major problem. Furthermore, 66-year-old President Dwight D. Eisenhower had
his hands full with an election campaign sure to be influenced by the
strong Jewish vote. The plotter nations ignored the fact that as much
as Eisenhower wanted Nasser out, he was dead set against the use of
direct force. The Soviet Union, meanwhile, was busy putting out fires in its satellite states. Poland had ousted its Soviet defense minister on October 19 and installed its own choice in the premiership. By October 24, Soviet tanks were in Budapest, trying to suppress a Hungarian uprising... http://www.historynet.com/suez-crisis-operation-musketeer.htm It was the same story as Germany aggression against Poland. As much as Britain didn't care about the fate of Poland and themselves wanted polish corridor and Danzig to be German, they rejected open military aggression. So when Germany attacked Poland on 1 September, Chamberlain had no choice but to oppose it and declare war against Germany. He himself didn't care about Poland or had any intent to fight Germany. Eisenhower didn't care about Nasser's regime or want to oppose cold war allies Britain and France, but he couldn't appear to be siding with military aggressors in the eyes of the world. Edited by Bankotsu - 30-Jul-2008 at 11:19 |
|||
|
|||
|
Al Jassas
Arch Duke
Joined: 07-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1810 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jul-2008 at 11:14 |
||
|
Actually the deal was illegal from the beginning. The land was property of the Ottoman empire which did not concent to the deal. And even if it was legal, the land and the canal was leased for 99 years beginning from 1856. Egypt was the majority shareholder in the company that operated the canal but it was forced to illegally sell the stocks for a fraction of its price after it was occupied by the British depiste the fact the stocks were the property of the Ottoman empire not the Khedevi who sold the stocks for his own profit. Britain accepted in 1954 Egyptian sovriegnty over the canal in treaty but the company continued to operate despite it didn't renew the lease in 1955 and thus Egypt made a fully justified legal action whenit nationalised it. I believe Sparten could shed some light on this issue since Egypt uses english common law in commercial areas.
Al-Jassas
|
|||
|
|||
|
Guests
Guest 
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jul-2008 at 11:37 |
||
|
The issue about common law is moot, post war the UN declared that the canal belonged to Egypt. The 1956 invasion was adjudged to have been illegal. One of the reasons that the Ike went againts it, he was told that it was illegal.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 511 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jul-2008 at 11:43 |
||
|
Interesting bit of info here:
...You can scarcely talk with an English -- or French man who knows about this subject without him becoming very, very emotional about the negative American role in it. The other side of it that's quite interesting, is that the French have perfected an underground service (such as we were developing during our trip and before) for clandestine activities that was very effective. It was a commando unit under the French navy. The leader of this was an admiral named Ponchardier, the youngest admiral in the French fleet. Admiral Ponchardier and his underground commandoes were actually in Cairo -- and actually at the palace. Had they been given a few more hours, they obviously would have captured Nasser. In fact, Ponchardier said to me later in Paris that the object of their attack was to put Nasser's head on a plate. They were there. They were in Arab costume, Arab clothes, those French Foreign Legionaires were a professional underground organization. They melted back into the crowds and they left Cairo, one by one, down different trails, and rejoined the Foreign Legion and disappeared... http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/USO/chp1_p2.html#pgfId=3518 |
|||
|
|||
|
Peteratwar
Colonel
Joined: 17-Apr-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 591 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jul-2008 at 11:49 |
||
|
Chamberlains wish or not is irrelevant to this thread and in any event is/has been dealt with elsewhere. Why are you so obsessed with it that it has to be dragged into a totally different era ?
Edited by Peteratwar - 30-Jul-2008 at 11:51 |
|||
|
|||
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 511 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jul-2008 at 11:57 |
||
|
I think the motivations on why Britain and USA opposed certain military aggressions were similar, so I brought up that analogy as an example.
|
|||
|
|||
|
gcle2003
King 
Suspended Joined: 06-Dec-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 7035 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jul-2008 at 13:30 |
||
|
I think the emphasis of the US wanting to dismantle the British Empire is somewhat misplaced. The US was seeking growth and to extend its areas of economic control. That, in the conditions of the time, meant replacing British interests, because that meant most of the world (apart mainly from the Americas, which were already largely controlled by the US).
So there was nothing really anti-British about it, just pro-American. After all Kipliing had already quite famously asked the US to take over Britain's role.
With regard to Suez, actually a large proportion of the British public was against the attack - about the same as opposed the Boer War. This was especially in view of the timing, which meant it was impossible to take advantage of Soviet problems in Hungary.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Post Reply
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.
