Does the 'special relationship' between US/UK exist?

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Elle
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#81
Report 16 years ago
#81
(Original post by Tednol)
Why do GCHQ and NIA work as closely as they do? Why does the US have Airforce bases in the UK and on Diego Garcia?
Why did Bush drop Blair in it over the 40-minute claim? Bush doesn't care about Blair- and the "special relationship" was more a Clinton thing.
0
Nafisa
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#82
Report 16 years ago
#82
(Original post by Elle)
Why did Bush drop Blair in it over the 40-minute claim? Bush doesn't care about Blair- and the "special relationship" was more a Clinton thing.
There has always been a so called special relationship between US and UK throughout history some people suggests it stems from the Manhattan project in the 40s (i think!)......
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#83
Report 16 years ago
#83
(Original post by Elle)
Why did Bush drop Blair in it over the 40-minute claim? Bush doesn't care about Blair- and the "special relationship" was more a Clinton thing.
i dont think lying and weakening ur political credibility constitute a special r'ship.
0
Elle
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#84
Report 16 years ago
#84
(Original post by Nafisa)
There has always been a so called special relationship between US and UK throughout history some people suggests it stems from the Manhattan project in the 40s (i think!)......
I guess it all comes down to what your definition of "special" is..
0
Tednol
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#85
Report 16 years ago
#85
(Original post by Elle)
Why did Bush drop Blair in it over the 40-minute claim? Bush doesn't care about Blair- and the "special relationship" was more a Clinton thing.
Blair dropped himself in that lets not pretend any different.
0
Elle
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#86
Report 16 years ago
#86
(Original post by Tednol)
Blair dropped himself in that lets not pretend any different.
true.. but Bush let it hit the fan
0
Tednol
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#87
Report 16 years ago
#87
(Original post by Elle)
true.. but Bush let it hit the fan
Hehe and it made interesting viewing!

How about this... maybe because the US feel so "close" to the UK, they are trying to dispose with Tony Blair as he is doing so much damage to the UK that the US loves so much?! You never know!
0
winorloose
Badges: 0
#88
Report 16 years ago
#88
(Original post by waiting2smile)
the Russians only wanted to install missiles on Cuba as a defensive measure to perhaps deter an american invasion. That's all plausible since the US policy was aggressive towards them.
Washington's problem with nukes on Cuba was that they could launch a strike that could take out the US's entire command structure without retaliation (due to low orbit missile being less detectable on radar/satellites). Also there was a fair amount of public hysteria whipped up by the media as usual (I think).

The 'special relationship' is special when the US wants it to be special; ie, when it's in their interest.
0
Meeps
Badges: 0
#89
Report 16 years ago
#89
(Original post by Howard)
So, you think that when the uprising failed the Americans should in fact have invaded. Never mind that this would have assuredly seen the start of WWIII, at least America would have "kept it's promise" and could stand aloft the moral high ground.

Threats were not overstated. A hostile Soviet Union places a nuclear capability 90 miles from Miami. Just how threatened do you want to feel exactly?
not gonna start a argument but the reason for why the USSR placed nukes on Cuba was the fact that America had done the same in Turkey or Greece....The US were threathening the RUssians with nukes as well, so on the whole it was an equal two way threat.

ps i agree with winorloose, the special relationship is only there when the US require something from the UK
0
Howard
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#90
Report 16 years ago
#90
(Original post by Meeps)
i agree with winorloose, the special relationship is only there when the US require something from the UK
Erm....no. I think the US is rather less dependent on the UK than the converse is true.
0
Meeps
Badges: 0
#91
Report 16 years ago
#91
(Original post by Howard)
Erm....no. I think the US is rather less dependent on the UK than the converse is true.
thats why i said 'when'. i know that US dont need help from the UK all the time, but im saying they use the UK only to benefit their own needs.
0
yOUR_dESTINY
Badges: 0
#92
Report 16 years ago
#92
I think the only way it exists is in parliament,

We do everything for them and they dont do anything for us!!!
0
yOUR_dESTINY
Badges: 0
#93
Report 16 years ago
#93
The only way it exists is in parliament

they do nuttin 4 us and we do it all for them
0
Pearly
Badges: 0
#94
Report 16 years ago
#94
Well the UK always thinks that it exists.
The US mentions it when it becomes useful to them.
0
waiting2smile
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#95
Report 16 years ago
#95
(Original post by winorloose)
Washington's problem with nukes on Cuba was that they could launch a strike that could take out the US's entire command structure without retaliation (due to low orbit missile being less detectable on radar/satellites). Also there was a fair amount of public hysteria whipped up by the media as usual (I think).
I felt i won that argument Howard...okay we came to a sort of agreement. But i still say the threat was greatly exaggerated. When the presidents admit it in their memoirs it's a bit obvious the Russian spreading their sphere of influence was overstated.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling ahead of results day?

Very Confident (2)
5.13%
Confident (6)
15.38%
Indifferent (2)
5.13%
Unsure (7)
17.95%
Worried (22)
56.41%

Watched Threads

View All