Ignoring the rather creepy sounding effect of the term, is it valid? I remember sometime ago a couple of newspapers questioning this relationship. They pointed out that in fact there are fundamental differences between the two countries that actually make this concept pointless. My post yesterday make me reflect on this and I have to say I believe that they could have a point.

It's a hard area to breakdown but I will try and put across some of my reasons that I believe our relationship is no different to any other.

From what I've read it would appear this term has expanded from the US involvement in WWII. History appears to forget that FDR had a hell of a job getting the US involved and if it wasn't for Pearl Harbour and Hitler declaring war on it, you may not of been involved that deeply. Added to this the US military had a different view of how to pursue the war than we did. From a British perspective I think we believed that because the US spoke English and was a former colony you'd come running to protect the mother country. We forgot that there was a lot of bad blood between us since the War of Independance and it was arrogant of us to expect automatic help. Anyway WWII appeared to of fixed some pass issues and allowed a new friendship to develop, but I think we overlooked the fact that the US had grown up and developed it's on "personality", kinda like your kids growing up.

I would imagine that sharing a language also compounds this belief. Areas I think that stand out as different:

You have the Democrats & Republicans and maybe a few independants. We have Labour, Tories, Lib Dems, Greens, BNP and few other odds & sods.

Your Democrats & Republicans appear to be fundimentally different to Labour & Tories. I know some of our Tories can be very right wing, but I think the majority aren't as right wing as most of your Republicans. The Democrats? I'm abit confused to them, they appear to get bashed for being too "liberal" but I think they would baulk from most of the policies that Labour believe in.

You appear to have a national fear of government control, whereas we just have a grumble every now & then. Touch the constitution at your peril!

An obsession with firearms that we find perplexing.

When fighting in a conflict your government seems to always have one eye on public opinion when it comes to casualties. Our politicians seem to have more robust approach to military losses.

On the diplomatic front the US has a straight speaking approach to dealing with things. You attack us, we attack you. We on the other hand have a mixed approach.

None of these examples are good or bad, but they do seem to reinforce that the US should be considered a good ally, rather than a best friend. In fact you could use work colleague as a more accurate description. You get on with them and have a laugh, but at the end of the day you have your own life and they have their's.

Hope that I've not been too hamfisted in writing this up

After world war two a friendship statted to develop? Anthony Eden f'd up the US's relationship with Britain beyond all recognition. This "special relationship" is actually much more recent.

I have been to germany, I have been to the netherlands, I have been to the US. The first two I would consider far more similar to british culture.

BTW might want to make it clear what you're on about before two paragraphs into your post.

I know it's a bit rough around the edges, but I was writing it whilst dialing into 2 pc's and fixing various problems and whilst the pc's were rebooting

Wolfstan wrote:

When fighting in a conflict your government seems to always have one eye on public opinion when it comes to casualties. Our politicians seem to have more robust approach to military losses.

Really ? See if anything I think the opposite here. Always struck me as if the USA seems much more prepared for the inevitable harsh sacrifices and the human cost in a war, especially in the last few years. I'll grant you that the mixed feelings about our current military engagements affect this, but I really wonder at times if the country as a whole would stomach even a minor war ala Falklands like we have done in the past. I guess the way the war is talked about in the media and so forth would affect this of course.

I think the genuine friendship between Reagan and Thatcher developed the relationship a lot. Me learned friends who know about such things speak quite confidently that the UK and USA intel agencies, in Europe at least, are almost so intermixed that it would be nigh on impossible to separate them out from each other.

I think you summed it up quite well. I believe that Canada, NZ, even India and Aus have a closer relationship with Britain than America does.

A more 'to the point' summation of the kids is that:
India and Aus went through their stage, but they call every now and then.
Canada and NZ went to college, got a diploma and a job, and NZ settled down with a nice girl called 'Baaaah'. Canada never moved out.

America on the other hand is the one who took drugs, got laid, got pregnant, and moved out.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I think you summed it up quite well. I believe that Canada, NZ, even India and Aus have a closer relationship with Britain than America does.

I'd agree. Not that sure about canada though.

If Canada was any closer, there might have to be some sort of 'national incest' charge or sumfink introduced...

...? I think of all commonwealth countries, or at least the major ones, Canada is probably the least involved with Britain.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I think you summed it up quite well. I believe that Canada, NZ, even India and Aus have a closer relationship with Britain than America does.

A more 'to the point' summation of the kids is that:
India and Aus went through their stage, but they call every now and then.
Canada and NZ went to college, got a diploma and a job, and NZ settled down with a nice girl called 'Baaaah'. Canada never moved out.

America on the other hand is the one who took drugs, got laid, got pregnant, and moved out.

That I like!

whatwhat wrote:...? I think of all commonwealth countries, or at least the major ones, Canada is probably the least involved with Britain.

Compared to..India? Australia? Every Canadian I've met holds a dainty disregard for America, and some hold a subtle respect for England. (most having come from there themselves.)

It's a very different culture, that has more in common with america. Unlike australia. And i can't seem to call any company in Britain nowadays without my call being redirected to somewhere in india.

Canada don't play cricket. end of.

whatwhat wrote:...? I think of all commonwealth countries, or at least the major ones, Canada is probably the least involved with Britain.

You're 1000% correct. The British won at the Plains of Abraham in 1759, turfed the French Government out totally in 1763, and then their descendants decided to hand over control of the country back to the descendants of the French roughly 200 years later. Add to the fact that Canada lives in the shadow of the US and is basically a serf of the US (the economies are so intertwined and the US calls the shots) it is no wonder that Canada has moved further away from the other commonwealth nations. Although we, pardon me, they still do spell properly. LabOUr, colOUr, etc. Canada and the US are extremely similar, with universal healthcare being the biggest difference.

Canada: Leading the world in being just north of the United States.

My personal belief is that the US and UK are fairly close, not only due to (but certainly aided by) a shared language but by the US being a democratic nation founded on a judeo-christian morality and set up mainly by ex-brits.

The cultural mingling that is constantly going on due to shared language further facilitates a close relationship. My girlfriend is american, I travel to the states often and I have to say, with some minor differences, it's no different to the UK overall. From our ongoing discussion on culture, it seem that there is almost as much difference in regions in the US than there is in difference between the US and UK, the average Texan outlook being fairly different to the average New Yorker outlook being fairly different to the average Californian, but then that's a nation the size of a continent.

A major difference? Perhaps as we saw with the (and lets not let this divert the thread pls) release of that bomber, it's that the Americans aren't as world weary as a nation as we Brits, one of the things that really stands out on my time in the states is the flag, the stars and stripes hands on the porch or in the yard of more houses than not over there, Brits don't have the same sense of patriotism (any more maybe) and that pride and belief in right and wrong in clear balck and white terms is viewed by the Brits as a sort of immaturity or lack of insight into the shades of grey in the world. Frankly I found it refreshing that people would be proud of the country they live in, since us Brits are mostly self loathing about our green and pleasant land. It can be perhaps best summed up as a vigour and strong self belief as opposed to the tired and hesitant doubt and pessimism the British have fallen into in the last 70 years.

We are allies, we are naturally disposed to get on better with each other than alot of the world, but there will be clashes of interest since both will also be governed foremost by self interest.

EDIT: @whatwhat;
...?
Frankly, you've got me fairly stumped with that cricket conundrum. But I just can't see Canada walking hand in hand with America.
*sniffle*
Mabye our little boy blue is finnaly growing up?
Let's just hope he doesn't fall in with the wrong crowd...
*cue America*

Khornholio wrote:

whatwhat wrote:...? I think of all commonwealth countries, or at least the major ones, Canada is probably the least involved with Britain.

You're 1000% correct. The British won at the Plains of Abraham in 1759, turfed the French Government out totally in 1763, and then their descendants decided to hand over control of the country back to the descendants of the French roughly 200 years later. Add to the fact that Canada lives in the shadow of the US and is basically a serf of the US (the economies are so intertwined and the US calls the shots) it is no wonder that Canada has moved further away from the other commonwealth nations. Although we, pardon me, they still do spell properly. LabOUr, colOUr, etc. Canada and the US are extremely similar, with universal healthcare being the biggest difference.

Canada: Leading the world in being just north of the United States.

Well you put that better than I did, even if you forgot to mention cricket.

Emperors Faithful wrote:...?
Frankly, you've got me fairly stumped with that cricket conundrum. But I just can't see Canada walking hand in hand with America.
*sniffle*
Mabye our little boy blue is finnaly growing up?
Let's just hope he doesn't fall in with the wrong crowd...
*cue America*

I think you have this whole britain canada thing all wrong.

BTW, all the loyalist Americans at the end of the War for Independance or tea Party or whatever, they all went to canada. All 60,000 or so of them. (a lot back then)

But DAMMIT. It still doesn't answer the cricket conundrum. What DO they play apart from hockey?

Swingball?

eh?

you haven't lived...

http://www.thetoyshop.com/media/toyshop/products/Mookie/Zoom/322727-Zoom.jpg

oh...
Well, we actually have that at our cousins. But we always make the aim of the game to hit the other person with the ball when it swings around.

That's a three match ban in canada.

LOL, no wonder Aus is never invited to the championships. We'z too tough for ya!

reds8n wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:

When fighting in a conflict your government seems to always have one eye on public opinion when it comes to casualties. Our politicians seem to have more robust approach to military losses.

Really ? See if anything I think the opposite here. Always struck me as if the USA seems much more prepared for the inevitable harsh sacrifices and the human cost in a war, especially in the last few years. I'll grant you that the mixed feelings about our current military engagements affect this, but I really wonder at times if the country as a whole would stomach even a minor war ala Falklands like we have done in the past. I guess the way the war is talked about in the media and so forth would affect this of course.

I think the genuine friendship between Reagan and Thatcher developed the relationship a lot. Me learned friends who know about such things speak quite confidently that the UK and USA intel agencies, in Europe at least, are almost so intermixed that it would be nigh on impossible to separate them out from each other.

There is deep public ambivalence about UK involvement in Iraq and considerable public ambivalence about our involvement in Afghanistan. The aversion to casualties arises from this situation.

Indeed, but I do think there is a much more ...hmmm...."squeamishness"...about such things these days.

Not everywhere or in every situation I suppose, looking back at the London bus bombs it did tickle me how the whole country kind of shrugged and just carried on. Which was the right thing to do. I guess perhaps I'm still astonished and embarrassed by the whole Diana's funeral farce.

We've been bombed during the blitz and by the IRA, the Brits are used to it, the US has had the cushioning of two oceans and some fairly non-hostile neighbours. Their civilian population reacts far more extremely to direct hostility when it occurs on the rare occasions (Pearl Harbour, 9/11).

reds8n wrote:Indeed, but I do think there is a much more ...hmmm...."squeamishness"...about such things these days.

Not everywhere or in every situation I suppose, looking back at the London bus bombs it did tickle me how the whole country kind of shrugged and just carried on. Which was the right thing to do. I guess perhaps I'm still astonished and embarrassed by the whole Diana's funeral farce.

That was overblown by the media. There were plenty of grief-stricken mourners, but I never met any of them.

My friend's mother set up a shrine to Diana when she died, she also cried about Jordan and Peter Andre breaking up. My friend takes after his father.

Kilkrazy wrote:

That was overblown by the media. There were plenty of grief-stricken mourners, but I never met any of them.

Odd wasn't it. There were literally thousands of people swept up in this whole thing, yet I have never met anyone who really gave a feth one way or the other.

I can only assume that along with having voted for Thatcher, bought anything by The Darkness, or ever have found Lenny Henry funny, it's one of those things one does not admit to in polite company.

@ MGS...oh yeah... " a friend" is it.... right ......right..... we believe you.

I would imagine the average American sees America's relationship with Britian somewat similar to that friend who isn't really your friend but just follows you around. It's a relationship which seems much more important to the British than the US.

Emperors Faithful wrote:BTW, all the loyalist Americans at the end of the War for Independance or tea Party or whatever, they all went to canada. All 60,000 or so of them. (a lot back then)

But DAMMIT. It still doesn't answer the cricket conundrum. What DO they play apart from hockey?

Road Hockey.

I lived with an Aussie for 3 years and I still don't get Cricket. All day! Seriously? But I did learn the difference between proper Cricket and Pajama Cricket. Apparently, Australia is the best in every sport too. But that is for a different thread...

whatwhat wrote:I would imagine the average American sees America's relationship with Britian somewat similar to that friend who isn't really your friend but just follows you around. It's a relationship which seems much more important to the British than the US.

I think there's a lot of truth in that.

The 'special relationship' has always been more important for the government than the population as a whole.

I think alot of it comes from media as well, folks over here live via American shows on Sky, Virgin etc.

Look at the popularity of the Simpsons, I know thats worldwide as well, but folks see America as closer just because its all over the telly. We have a lot of folks into NFL here, WWE and so on, going by media standards our cultures almost seem merged, but they obviously aren't.

Sport is a bad example, but yes, music and entertainment, very much so.

Well there are alot of differences between the United States and Britian ever since we through those Tories out or tarred and feathered them to the Canadian border. One reason why this is because of fundamental differences in the the development of our country and England. After Quenn Elizabeth's reign the English government launched a campaign to persecute dissent in the Anglican church. They had also tried colonizing America under a corporate profit scheme after witnessing Spain's success in the New World. Of course these settlements were failures because people did not realize how harsh the America wilderness was and were more concerned about finding gold then surviving the winter. Luckily, the Puritians, Seperatists, and Quakers made excellent colonizers because they wanted to build a new society rather than seek profits. This desire made them ready for winter but even then these dissenters almost didnt make it. So fundamentally America is founded on dissent, especially against the government. When our forefathers made the Constitution (we use a big C in America when talking about it, the sole living document which is the eternal king and queen of our land, they did it because they all believed mankind was flawed by sin and were naturally greedy and self serving. Under that premise it would be impossible for a government to govern for the interest of the people, so the Consitution protects us from the government and garuntees us certain rights; like the right to bear arms.

I'm from Texas and I cant understand Brits' adversion to guns and willingness to be controlled by there government. I guess when everything centers around cake and tea that can happen. In the United States most of us drink coffee and its been that way since our last Tea Party in Boston. The reason why we think guns are important is because the only time we had an oppressive government try to bs us with the line that they were doing so for our own good we kicked them out and even when that government existed in the American colonies it went only as far as the custom house. Also, our frontiers only closed about 110 years ago and we still had bandits running across the U.S. and running off to Mexico. Americans dont have an obsession with guns, however, we do believe that we have the right to defend our home's from invaders both foreign in domestic. So this ranges from thiefs, murders, rapists, and an oppressive government. Waiting to be the victim and grumbling later is not the way Americans tend to do things.

marxlives wrote:I cant understand Brits' willingness to be controlled by there government.

What?

marxlives wrote:Well there are alot of differences between the United States and Britian ever since we through those Tories out or tarred and feathered them to the Canadian border. One reason why this is because of fundamental differences in the the development of our country and England. After Quenn Elizabeth's reign the English government launched a campaign to persecute dissent in the Anglican church. They had also tried colonizing America under a corporate profit scheme after witnessing Spain's success in the New World. Of course these settlements were failures because people did not realize how harsh the America wilderness was and were more concerned about finding gold then surviving the winter. Luckily, the Puritians, Seperatists, and Quakers made excellent colonizers because they wanted to build a new society rather than seek profits. This desire made them ready for winter but even then these dissenters almost didnt make it. So fundamentally America is founded on dissent, especially against the government. When our forefathers made the Constitution (we use a big C in America when talking about it, the sole living document which is the eternal king and queen of our land, they did it because they all believed mankind was flawed by sin and were naturally greedy and self serving. Under that premise it would be impossible for a government to govern for the interest of the people, so the Consitution protects us from the government and garuntees us certain rights; like the right to bear arms.

I'm from Texas and I cant understand Brits' adversion to guns and willingness to be controlled by there government. I guess when everything centers around cake and tea that can happen. In the United States most of us drink coffee and its been that way since our last Tea Party in Boston. The reason why we think guns are important is because the only time we had an oppressive government try to bs us with the line that they were doing so for our own good we kicked them out and even when that government existed in the American colonies it went only as far as the custom house. Also, our frontiers only closed about 110 years ago and we still had bandits running across the U.S. and running off to Mexico. Americans dont have an obsession with guns, however, we do believe that we have the right to defend our home's from invaders both foreign in domestic. So this ranges from thiefs, murders, rapists, and an oppressive government. Waiting to be the victim and grumbling later is not the way Americans tend to do things.

I find it humorous that you think our border is closed.

But yes, the A PORTION of the US started as part of Britain. Most of it started as an evil oppressed colony or former colony of somewhere else-Spain, France, Mexico, Russia. Most of the people who came here were not English, so there are similarities but there are big differences as well. Plus the US continues to change. We now have 20mm illegal aliens from Mexico and Latin America here. Some estimates are that 1-3 of the population of Mexico now live here. I am not stating this is bad (chips and Selma Hayak for Maximum Awesome. It just means we're shifting further and further away from Britain on the culture front.

Look at the mutts. I have no comrades who actually descended from the English except someone who's, well English. Again nothing wrong with thats, its just there's a pretty diverse crew over here now.

WW2 and imo more importantly the Cold War really cemented US/GB relations but as mentioned earlier there's a ton of other factors like colonial history and sharing a common language. From Nazis to Commies to Terrorists; we've been a relatively strong military team (NATO ftw). Our economies are also linked together but imo just about every large economic player is strongly linked to America. Society-wise I'd imagine most Americans would view GB as a scary Big Brother, socialist kind of place with a little lower standard of living and in some respects it'd be true especially from all the idiots calling the current administration Nazis. Americans would have a big problem with GB's taxes, healthcare, camera infrastructure, paying an arm and leg at the gas pump which us Americans already think we do; just like some Brits would have a problem with facets of American society.

However the US has a lot of similar relations with all sorts of countries and from personal experience South Korea is definitely one of them. We provide military support for eachother whether its Vietnam or Iraq. Thats not to say there isn't some opposition to this as evident in the numerous Korean protests at international bases stationed there but for the most part the relations are great.

Militarily, politically, and economically the US of A has strong relations with just about every major player in the world today since we helped shape and sustain a lot of economies and continues to do so.

whatwhat wrote:

marxlives wrote:I cant understand Brits' willingness to be controlled by there government.

What?

I think you will find we are more than able to stand up to our government if we want to. Take a look at the last hundred years and you will find plenty of protests and demonstrations. Quite alot of them have been very violent as well.

Oh I also think we're all united in our fear and loathing of haggis. Except Grotsnik but he's special...

The idea that American culture was primarily British has been false for many decades.
The acquisition of Louisiana, New Mexico and Texas introduced other European elements, and during the mid-19th century there was tons of immigration from Europe due to the Irish Potato Famine and the political troubles of 1848.

More Brits also emigrated to the US and still do, of course, and the common language has always allowed for a greater amount of cultural interchange in both directions than between say the US and Japan.

Look at British screenwriters and actors in Hollywood from the early days, for example.

I think also some of Britain has moved more towards continental European culture.

Yeh I used to have a relationship with a girl in berlin, I could swear I felt more at home over there than when I went to vist a friend in florida last year despite the fact they spoke a different language. Although to be fair, in both cases I noticed very different breakfast preferences to our own.

Eh, as a history Major I'm one of the few Americans who remembers we're supposed to hate the British and love the French...

A fact I remind the lone brit in our gaming group of frequently.

You gotta remember just how damn big America is, we have enough divisions and separate cultures that it would be impossible to sum up how we as a nation feel about another nation.

I promise you S. Californian's have a different opinion than N. Californians, who feel totally different than Mid-westerners...and on and on and on

I think Wolfstan was originally refering to the relationship between the US and British governments. This culture talk is just a split off.

whatwhat wrote:Yeh I used to have a relationship with a girl in berlin, I could swear I felt more at home over there than when I went to vist a friend in florida last year despite the fact they spoke a different language. Although to be fair, in both cases I noticed very different breakfast preferences to our own.

The language does make it easy for us lazy Brits There is something about the European way of life that appeals to us, it's just the language that stops us making the most of it. When you think of our past it's no wonder we feel at home, being that we are a mongrel breed of Celt, Saxon, Roman, French/Norman, Norse. In fact there was a report based on DNA tests not long ago that shows the Celts of this fair isle are descended from a fishing region in Spain.

I've been to quite a few places in Euorpe over the years and I have enjoyed my time there... apart from Venice (it was a bank holiday and was heaving & Bari in Italy). Lanzarote is nice in the evening, sitting near beach having some Sangria and no drunks anyway

Emperors Faithful wrote:America on the other hand is the one who took drugs, got laid, got pregnant, and moved out.

And ended up becoming *extremely* successful thanks to a lot of hard work.

Don't forget the oil and slaves part.

Lets not forgot the British Empire *cough* Ruled half the world*cough*

whatwhat wrote:Don't forget the oil and slaves part.

Now now, Britain had a thriving opium trade going on in China at the same time, if we're bringing historical skeletons out of the closet.

I grew up being taught that if it wasn't for Britain standing strong against Hitler, we'd all be in a world of crap right now. It's an idea I still subscribe to
and I know it influences a lot of people if they sit back and think about it for a moment. It's a big debt we all owe to Britain on that one.

I wasn't taught that. I was taught, correctly, that Texas saved the world, thrice

*Germany /Japan
*Germany
*Santa Anna

whatwhat wrote:I think Wolfstan was originally refering to the relationship between the US and British governments. This culture talk is just a split off.

Culture dictates who rules in Democratically elected government....

Honestly I don't think most Americans care about the relationship. To most U.S. Citizens the UK is a minor trading partner, and is useful in the UN security counsel and in NATO as they have similar world views when it comes to voting kinda like that Cousin that moved to NY and is doing well but you never get to see.

I'd be upset if we stopped getting whiskey and beer from the UK. But that's about the extent of it.

Now at the academic level, and the Secretary of State level, its a very important relationship, which could provide many many walls of text worth of information. (Political Science grad here) Especially given the UK's recent influx of Muslim and Polish immigrants and its effect on their local/national politics.

Actually our Muslims are mostly from Pakistan and Bangladesh and they came over in the 50s and 60s.

gorgon wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:America on the other hand is the one who took drugs, got laid, got pregnant, and moved out.

And ended up becoming *extremely* successful thanks to a lot of hard work.

whatwhat wrote:Don't forget the oil and slaves part.

That's why she got pregnant. So the kid could do all the work. (child labour anyone?)

Lord-Loss wrote:Lets not forgot the British Empire *cough* Ruled half the world*cough*

Actually, although Britain dallied in slavery for some time, we cannot forget that they are the ones who abolished it. And, contrary to popular beleif, it was still a profitable a business. How long did it take for America? Another 100 years behind the rest of the world?
(kudos to William Wilberforce, the Ghandi/Mother Teresa/Space Jesus of British Polotics)

The US and UK share one thing.

English.

And even that is a very strenuous link, our cultures are so close but a million miles apart. Our identities, moralities, political ideals, all radically polar.

On a very deeper level, we are not comparable.

The special relationship is still important to us, we just wish Britain would be more like us. It sounds arrogant and probably is, but never forget that US History, especially once edited for public high schools, is basically a litany of how awesome the US is. A good history text reads like a 40k codex: lists of heros and victories and all the amazing things we've done. Defeats are included only to emphasize who we triumphed in the end. The messed up part is that it's not exactly a totally false view of history.

Anyway, the special relationship is best explained through the classic american story: the high school drama. Now, I know British schools are very different, but I'm sure you've all seen enough TV to make sense of the cast and characters.

The US is the coolest, richest kid in the school. He's also the best athlete, the quarterback of the football team (or best Bowler/striker). Now, unlike a lot of schools, this school draws from a very diverse neighborhood. In fact, only a fairly small pocket of students are upper class, most are poorer. The US naturally hangs out mostly with the other rich kids, but slums it now and then with the poorer types.

The UK is an old friend of the US, but they've gone seperate ways. They don't hang out all the time,in fact it seems that the UK prefers to hang out with their new friends in Commonwealth club or even the EU, but the fact remains that they still really respect each other and have each others' backs. Part of what makes the relationship challenging is the way that the power has shifted: once the UK was the big dog, and ruled the school, but the US got a big late growth spurt and Dad got a big raise, while the UK suffered some lean times. They still share a lot of common interests in movies and music, and while the US sometimes takes the UK for granted, it also wished the UK would hang out more with it and go to the really cool parties and stuff that the US throws.

Japan is a neuveu riche out of towner that came in strong, picked a lot of fights, and pissed everybody off. The US beat the crap of him, but now they're really good friends. While the rest of the school still hates Japan, and the US and Japan have very different interests, as the two largest highly deregulated capitilist countries, they have a lot in common so stick together.

Aussie and NZ are two fun guys that are happy to hang out and have a good time. They want everybody to get along, and naturally have a lot more in common with the UK than the US. When they're all together, it's a good time, but there's a bit of tension as the UK knows that Aussie and NZ have tighter affiliations with the US with regards to fighting. Part of it is the inability of the UK to really help defend them, part of it is simply geography, but when another gang steps up in on Pacific Street, they look to the US to fight 'em off.

Canada wants to be friends with everybody, and generally does. They live next door to the US and grew up together, and while they've had their tensions in the past they go back a long way and know they won't really have a problem. The US gets annoyed because it wishes canada would help it a little more, while Canada sees the US as a bit of a bully. Of course, the US tries to point out that as it's had as it's best two friends the toughest kid in school at all times, it has an overly inflated sense of it's own security and importance.

The US is friends with all of these, but since it knows that it has Japan, Aussie and NZ, and Canada more or less locked up as solid allies for various reasons, it's goal is to keep the UK from joining the European Club, which would give that club enough social status to start setting more trends around the school.

Nice explanation Polonaius, it made me laugh when you said the US is basically the coolest kid in school.

Polonius wrote:Stuff.

That was awesome . You, Sir, win the Interwebz.

Not a bad summary, pretty accurate actually, lol.

I think you shouldn't forget the German kid who had a mental, psycotic rampage but after he was taken to a psyciatrist he calmed down.
China's still a bit pissed off at America only beating up Japan when they wanted to, instead of when China was getting beaten up.
Russia was 'the other tough kid' but he fell in with the wrong crowd, made some bad bets, and had to skip town for a while. He's back in bussiness though. (Mabye he's the older kid who hangs outside the school and sells drugs?)

So who's the hot girl that's kind of bitchy that the US is dating? China?

Emperors Faithful wrote: (Mabye he's the older kid who hangs outside the school and sells drugs?)

Na, If drugs is communists then only upto 1924, which was when Lenin was alive and in command, he wanted to spread Communist to other countries, Stalin didnt.

So he can be the drugged up kid, who wont share the drugs.

@Lord-Loss: And recently went through a withdrawal stage?

@avantgarde: I would say that it's actually Japan, (as in they pretended to hate each other, but they actually like each other) but USA is cheating on her with Mexico.

Polonius wrote:
The US is friends with all of these, but since it knows that it has Japan, Aussie and NZ, and Canada more or less locked up as solid allies for various reasons, it's goal is to keep the UK from joining the European Club, which would give that club enough social status to start setting more trends around the school.

This is something that rarely gets touched on, and you're completely correct. It isn't in the long-term interests of the US to allow the EU to become a strong, federal state; as doing so forces us to either look elsewhere for a Eurasian partner (unfortunately the idea of playing splendid isolationist with China, India, and Japan doesn't really jive with classical American sensibilities), or accept a subservient role in the great geopolitical game.

Of course there are other ways of disrupting EU politics. For example, a stable, friendly Iraq can help relieve Kurdish pressure on Turkey; allowing them to make a stronger bid for EU membership (an action which also links Europe to the Middle East in a way which forces the EU to work in opposition to Iran). But leaning on the UK is the least strenuous option by a large margin.

Incidentally, the thing that's going to kill the 'special relationship' isn't any single diplomatic action, but technology. Previously America and the UK could bank on possessing at least some form of common perspective due to their similar geographic situation. However, air power, nuclear weapons, and communications technology have increasingly made the Channel irrelevant from a strategic standpoint. The Cold War artificially acted to maintain the relationship because both states had a common interest in preventing France from dominating the European order. However, now that the EU is becoming a more significant actor, I think we'll start to see the UK's ties with the US fade organically over time.

Keep in mind, that doesn't mean there will be an 'off' switch as the US will need to remain relevant within the European power calculus, and the UK will need the US in order to prevent being overtaken by France or Germany in terms of influence.

There is always a danger to stretching a metaphor too far, but this seems to have some legs, so let's play with it a bit.

First off, there are no women in the school. It's an all boys school, for two reaons. First, no nation is really feminine, and there's no real analogue to dating in foreign policy. Second, as anybody who went to such a school will tell you, reputation and saving face matters quite a bit. (BTW, I didn't go).

High school students generally have several circles of colleauges: classmates, teammates, old friends, current social friends, and club mates. Looking abroad, I think the following comparisons can be made:

Military alliances are teams. The US is the quarterback of the football team, the NATOs, which is the most successful team at the school. There is the European Alliance, which competes in Track and Field, but that's mostly the result of everybody training alone, and coming together to use their abilities together. It's a team, just not as cohesive as the football team that is NATO. The US also is on the golf team, which is an odd little team but does well thanks to it and the ANZACs. The US won't let Japan join the football team, but everbody knows it's competing on it's own in high level gymnastics. It doesnt' get a lot of cred at school, but those in the know not to take it lightly. Finally, the US does just enough beach volleyball with South Korea to keep that program winning. It used to be full court volleyball, but nobody in the leauge could keep the interest in fielding full teams.

The problem comes when the US wants to start a new team and play a new sport. In it's mind, now that Football season is pretty much over, the NATOs should play other sports, like Hockey. The problem is that Hockey is expensive, a lot of people get hurt, and can only be played in inconvenient places at inconvenient times. Also, most people don't understand hockey, and even a good general athlete might not succeed on the ice. The US went ahead, even as the school board seemed to send mixed signals about it's support, and keeps playing despite some serious complaints. The US is really glad that at least the UK joined the hockey team with it, as the US likes to win, and wished the UK still had a more competitive spirit.

USA gonna get aids from mexico (Swine Flu!)

Russia is currently in Rehab.

dogma wrote:

Polonius wrote:
The US is friends with all of these, but since it knows that it has Japan, Aussie and NZ, and Canada more or less locked up as solid allies for various reasons, it's goal is to keep the UK from joining the European Club, which would give that club enough social status to start setting more trends around the school.

This is something that rarely gets touched on, and you're completely correct. It isn't in the long-term interests of the US to allow the EU to become a strong, federal state; as doing so forces us to either look elsewhere for a Eurasian partner (unfortunately the idea of playing splendid isolationist with China, India, and Japan doesn't really jive with classical American sensibilities), or accept a subservient role in the great geopolitical game.

Of course there are other ways of disrupting EU politics. For example, a stable, friendly Iraq can help relieve Kurdish pressure on Turkey; allowing them to make a stronger bid for EU membership (an action which also links Europe to the Middle East in a way which forces the EU to work in opposition to Iran). But leaning on the UK is the least strenuous option by a large margin.

Well, I quietly cheer a little whenever a nation rejects the EU constitution for exactly that reason. The US, and to greater than people realize extent the UK, have learned the very hard way how to make large federal systems work. The EU has some growing pains in it's future, and the UK might not want to jump completely in the pool with them. In my concept of the Anglosphere, Britian wouldn't be the third banana it would be in the EU, but second to the US. Given Britain's influence over the rest of the lot, it has a lot more muscle. the US also respects Britain for the things that continental Europe tends to dislike.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well, Mexico is the troubled middle class kid from a broken home that just cant' put it all together. He's a good kid compared to most, but the US and Mexico's relationship isn't based on shared interest, mutual admiration, or having a common goal: it's about money.

Money in this example is both literal money, and also the things that money buys high school students: influence, drugs, parties, etc.

Mexico isn't invited to the parties because it's cool (even though it's really just as cool as, say, Turkey or Egypt), but because it can score good weed and it's step dad will let us party in their backyard. It's simply beneficial for both sides.

Russia is like the stud pitcher for the Baseball team, the Pacts, that was almost as successful as the football team some years. The problem is that Russia hurt it's arm, and while it should be able to recover, it can't. It's dad lost a ton of money but he still has a nice care (oil reserves), that still make it a bit of a rich kid. And while injured, Russia can still compete, particularly for short bursts.

Polonius wrote:
Well, I quietly cheer a little whenever a nation rejects the EU constitution for exactly that reason. The US, and to greater than people realize extent the UK, have learned the very hard way how to make large federal systems work.

The unfortunate thing is that reality is likely working against us. The world is progressing towards and age of multinational, federal states. We may well be forced into a choice between the devil we know, and the devil we don't. Whether the devil we know is Europe, or China depends on how much emphasis one places on cultural commonality. There's also the twin wild cards of Iran (with its hegemonic designs) and Russia (with its dreams of a resurgent empire).

Another scary thought: there aren't any 'unoccupied' territories to fight over this time.

Polonius wrote:
The EU has some growing pains in it's future, and the UK might not want to jump completely in the pool with them.

For the most part the concentration of power in Western Europe should mitigate any potential conflicts. Tension will only become a real problem should Turkey be allowed to join (what's that former Ottoman territories? You now feel very much empowered?), or in the event of conflict/friendship between Germany and Russia. That isn't to say there won't be problems, but that the really big problems only seem to arise in the wake of those two scenarios.

Polonius wrote:
In my concept of the Anglosphere, Britian wouldn't be the third banana it would be in the EU, but second to the US. Given Britain's influence over the rest of the lot, it has a lot more muscle. the US also respects Britain for the things that continental Europe tends to dislike.

I expect a similar partnership.

whatwhat wrote:I would imagine the average American sees America's relationship with Britian somewat similar to that friend who isn't really your friend but just follows you around. It's a relationship which seems much more important to the British than the US.

While it would be stupid for me to be able to claim to speak for anyone else in this massive and diverse country, I will say that I do not believe this is the case. I grew up with a tremendous amount of respect for the UK and most of it came from reading history books and watching documentaries, some of which were originally form the BBC. I was in high school when 9/11 happened and it really touched me when you guys broadcast a singing of our national anthem as a symbol of sypmathy. When I heard you guys were going to war with us, honestly it cemented a feeling like.... brotherhood.. to me.

It was a few years after that I learned my biological grandfather was from England, so im at the very least 25% english, probably more since my grandmother's side has been here since the colonies. Which makes sense because the only other place ive been able to find people who share my last name (Fookes) is in the UK.

That being said, I'm dissapointed with the way your government has given ground, however little, to islamification, and the whole, banning imports of AIRSOFT guns because they RESEMBLE a fire arm... well thats just lame.

And no matter how hard she tries, my scottish girlfriend cannot get me to appreciate british comedy. Red dwarf was alright, black adder was lame.

The one thing that annoys me is that Americans (my experience thereof) have this sense of superiority over the British; to suggest that we owe THEM for something.

On the contrary, most British people (from my experience) can't stand Americans, for their brash and arrogant and bombastic behaviour. Something reflected right back to the colonies, the civil war, and the fighter pilots coming over and stealin' our wimminz.

We've this relationship that's kept, but hasn't been evaluated in recent years. The British Language, and most certainly, it's folk identity, and it's respective celtic cousins is slowly being diluted in the wake of giants of consumerism and capitalist gain and it's a sad thought to think we're losing our heritage to Big Macs, Obesity, The Jonas Brothers, and apple pie.

But this is a thread for another day.

Apple pie was invented in Britian in 1381 by Geoffrey Chaucer.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Actually, although Britain dallied in slavery for some time, we cannot forget that they are the ones who abolished it. And, contrary to popular beleif, it was still a profitable a business. How long did it take for America? Another 100 years behind the rest of the world?
(kudos to William Wilberforce, the Ghandi/Mother Teresa/Space Jesus of British Polotics)

You don't need slaves when you have the entire sub continent of India doing all that work for you (Spice, dye, cotton leading to textiles and light manufacturing) Slavery still exists today in places like east Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. Then of course there is "wage slavery", which I'm sure many on Dakka are familiar with.

Here's one thing never to forget about Americans: we don't have our own ancient culture to fall back on. We grab what we like, stuff it all together, and constantly move forward rather than dwell on what we were. I'm not sure if it's good or bad, but it's what we do.

In many ways, that's why American's don't understand why the rest of the world thinks we're arrogant. The french think that if you're not french, you're less tahn them, but they won't let you become french.

Anybody can become American, just by moving here and embracing the way of life. Even legal citizenship is pretty easy, at least if you're from a developed nation. And yes, if we have a fault it's that we can't really see why anybody would not want to be an American.

Polonius wrote:
Anybody can become American, just by moving here and embracing the way of life. Even legal citizenship is pretty easy, at least if you're from a developed nation. And yes, if we have a fault it's that we can't really see why anybody would not want to be an American.

What about immigrants from, say, Mexico? They may be illegal, but aren't they trying to find a better life in your country? Yet they are regarded with disdain and thrown out or locked up?

Cheese Elemental wrote:

Polonius wrote:
Anybody can become American, just by moving here and embracing the way of life. Even legal citizenship is pretty easy, at least if you're from a developed nation. And yes, if we have a fault it's that we can't really see why anybody would not want to be an American.

What about immigrants from, say, Mexico? They may be illegal, but aren't they trying to find a better life in your country? Yet they are regarded with disdain and thrown out or locked up?

Well, as I said, that really only applies to developed countries. We have our prejudices to be sure. And illegal Immigrants aren't second class citizens or some horribly maligned social class: they are people who are in the country illegally. Now, I'm sympathetic to why they came and view a lot of our immigration policy with Mexico to be poorly thought out (especially since they only come over because there is demand for illegal labor by american businesses, which is the under reported and investigated problem here), but they are still breaking the law.

I live in Texas, no one actually cares about busting illegals and everyone turns a blind eye toward hiring them. Illegal immigration is mostly noise people make when they want to scapegoat someone for economic problems.

Lord-Loss wrote:Apple pie was invented in Britian in 1381 by Geoffrey Chaucer.

Yeah well knickers were invented in 44 BC by George Jefferson.

avantgarde wrote:I live in Texas, no one actually cares about busting illegals and everyone turns a blind eye toward hiring them. Illegal immigration is mostly noise people make when they want to scapegoat someone for economic problems.

Lord-Loss wrote:Apple pie was invented in Britian in 1381 by Geoffrey Chaucer.

Yeah well knickers we're invented in 44 BC by George Jefferson.

"Hamburgers were originaly made from Ham in Hamburg Germany in the early 1800's. Americans changed the ingredients to ground beef between slices of bread. Australians added the salads to make a hamburger a real meal."

Hamburgers have brought this world together

Now.Who added the cheese!?

Wolfstan wrote:From what I've read it would appear this term has expanded from the US involvement in WWII. History appears to forget that FDR had a hell of a job getting the US involved and if it wasn't for Pearl Harbour and Hitler declaring war on it, you may not of been involved that deeply.

Being a nation born of revolution and a conservative mindset, it's a little different here in the States than in Great Britain. You come from a tradition of monarchism and doing as the royal family tells you, of government having that 'loving father' thing that monarchies sometimes have; so if the PM and the Queen tell you it's time to go fight, I think you're more likely to say "Okay."

Whereas in the U.S., we don't trust the government as a whole, and we learned from centuries of European conflict that getting involved over there was probably a pretty bad idea. The Founding Fathers were quite clear on that. Too bad we didn't listen to them after 1945...

So, yes, America's isolationism was still very much in effect during the early years of the war, but there are some who suggest that FDR ordered the blockade of the Philippines, the main source of Japanese oil, knowing full well that the United States might come under attack but perhaps that was the spur the U.S. needed for the populace to get behind the war effort.

The ships that the Japanese destroyed at Pearl Harbor were old rather old ships...all our aircraft carriers, which would prove so vital to the war in the Pacific, just happened to be away from the island when the attack hit. All of them.

Wolfstan wrote:Added to this the US military had a different view of how to pursue the war than we did.

Indeed. Eisenhower should have told Monty to shove it when he proposed Market Garden and supplied Patton instead. The U.S. believed that brute force and attack would be the best way to pursue the war...the British liked to be more sneaky...didn't quite work out.

Wolfstan wrote:From a British perspective I think we believed that because the US spoke English and was a former colony you'd come running to protect the mother country.

I am curious...is this a British tack on history? I've never heard anything like this ever said before. I can't believe the British would have thought we'd have come running to "protect the mother country." I don't know if Americans felt that way at all after the War of 1812, ever.

Wolfstan wrote:I think we overlooked the fact that the US had grown up and developed it's on "personality", kinda like your kids growing up.

I don't think the British ever thought that the U.S. had anything in common with them from the very beginning. If you look at the mid-19th century, the British clearly had the perception of Americans all being overly-passionate, prone to anger mavericks who weren't properly cultured. Rough around the edges. Even our upper classes still weren't looked at equally by the British upper class. We were decidedly our own animal a long time ago.

Nowaday noone gives a flying gak what the queen does. She only sits on her arse anyway, lazy bitch.

There is value in having a non-political head of state. There's all kinds of excitment because Obama is going to speak to school kids on tuesday, and the right is all up in arms because they think it's indoctrination and what not.

We're one of the few nations with a unified head of state and head of government, and some of the lightweight ceremonial stuff could really be shucked off to a figurehead monarch. Admittedly, we like to use the VP for that (and attending funerals).

The whole "English Speaking Special Relationship" (UK, US, NZ, AUS, Canada) is based on the universal starting point of ol'blighty and a common heritage of language, customs and politics. In essence, we basically watch each others' backs in case anyone gets in our faces, individually or collectively. Just like if your cousin rang you up to tell you your uncle or aunt had been roughed up by some goons, you show your support with cash (economic) or muscle (military) or both (pure awesome high 5).

History has shown that neighbours of our relatives can turn into total d!cks from time-to-time (France, Germany, Japan, Russia, etc), so we close ranks and get ready for some smackdown. Grant it, just as our flesh and blood relatives can be total a$$holes, like the cousin who drinks and drives or owes you cash, so can our global relatives. Sure the US pisses everyone else off, but it's nice to know if the gak hits the fan, they'd be there. Sure they might not take their shoes off when they enter the house and use the plates as ashtrays, but isn't that better than having Jerry, Pierre, Kentaro or Ivan burn your car and Fething your sister?

I personally have lived in three of the countries mentioned above and visited Oz as well. I've never met anyone from any of these countries and thought "what a D-bag...because he's NATIONALITY ENTER IT HERE." The person is a D-Bag because they just are. To quote Robert DeNiro in the film Brazil, "We're all in this together."

Our Special Relationship might not be as strong as the Scandinavian Special Relationship, where they can move freely between borders and immigrate or emigrate without really heavy bureaucratic headaches, but it is strong nonetheless. Seriously, if Oz was attacked or dropped the gloves (a Canadian euphemism for fighting coming from Hockey fighting where opponents remove their gloves to fight) with Indonesia, or whatever, don't you think the rest of the group would be there throwing chairs in from ringside, distracting the ref and eventually coming over the ropes to dish out some sweet, sweet chin music? We owe it to one another to help each other out. over

Some videos kind of related to the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watchv=LysxbVZ1DNM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_mkwB9ayK4&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04f2UJOPJfQ

If you've lost family or friends through 9/11, I wouldnt watch this next video cause you WILL be offended, this women is a complete pycho:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XkgOdb8tdA&feature=related

Polonius wrote:There is value in having a non-political head of state. There's all kinds of excitment because Obama is going to speak to school kids on tuesday, and the right is all up in arms because they think it's indoctrination and what not.

If I hadn't found this thread 3 pages in I maight say more but I don't want to create a wall of text to crush everyone so I will be brief.

Though I agree with your first point, the second one is slightly misleading. The 'right' aren't upset that he is talking to kids but with the questionnaire passed out to go along with it containing questions like "What can you do to help the President". I can see where they can sorta, kinda think of it as propoganda but I think it is more bi-partisan blinders than anything else.

As for the US having bad blood with the UK after the War of Independence, that isn't quite right either. Many in the US still wanted to have friendly relationship with Britain, they just didn't want Britain in charge anymore. Now when the British Navy started kidnapping our sailors (impressment) we got a tad upset and helped lead to the War of 1812. Even then we still got over it fairly quickly.

It is funny that we have gone to war with England twice and still like them better than the French!

I read an article today that said that something like 90% of democrats approve of Obama, while 85% of republicans disapprove. At this point, nearly anything he does is going to make half of america swoon and the other half angry.

And Reagan went on air to school kids to talk about lowering taxes, so there's precedent.

@Lord Loss: That was one scarily wierd b*tch.

A good article to show that perhaps the "special relationship" is stil going stong amongst the everyday joes:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/we-pity-the-brits-the-view-from-the-marines-1782093.html

Polonius wrote:I read an article today that said that something like 90% of democrats approve of Obama, while 85% of republicans disapprove. At this point, nearly anything he does is going to make half of america swoon and the other half angry.

And Reagan went on air to school kids to talk about lowering taxes, so there's precedent.

I never disagreed in the first place. I was just pointing out that the cover argument is not that he is talking to the kids per se, but worksheets. The real complaint of course is that he is Obama.

Polonius wrote:Here's one thing never to forget about Americans: we don't have our own ancient culture to fall back on. We grab what we like, stuff it all together, and constantly move forward rather than dwell on what we were. I'm not sure if it's good or bad, but it's what we do.

In many ways, that's why American's don't understand why the rest of the world thinks we're arrogant. The french think that if you're not french, you're less tahn them, but they won't let you become french.

Anybody can become American, just by moving here and embracing the way of life. Even legal citizenship is pretty easy, at least if you're from a developed nation. And yes, if we have a fault it's that we can't really see why anybody would not want to be an American.

Bill Bryson mentioned this in one of his books on America. He said that any exchange student or homestay would eventually be asked which they liked better, their home country or the USA. When they answered their home, people would look at them a bit mystified.

I think one of the main problems with foreigners' perceptions of the US is that there is a feeling in the US that it's the best country in the world, in fact it's perfect and everything it does or wants to do is right, so anyone who disagrees is on the side of the devil.

Cairnius wrote:
Whereas in the U.S., we don't trust the government as a whole, and we learned from centuries of European conflict that getting involved over there was probably a pretty bad idea. The Founding Fathers were quite clear on that. Too bad we didn't listen to them after 1945...

They were? Because I was under the impression that the Founding Fathers accepted aid from the French, signed a treaty with a former Ottoman subject, signed a treaty with Prussia, and accepted Spanish colonial boundaries. Seems like they were quite content to involve themselves with Europe, despite the infamous Adams quote (he counts as a Founder?).

Cairnius wrote:
So, yes, America's isolationism was still very much in effect during the early years of the war, but there are some who suggest that FDR ordered the blockade of the Philippines, the main source of Japanese oil, knowing full well that the United States might come under attack but perhaps that was the spur the U.S. needed for the populace to get behind the war effort.

The ships that the Japanese destroyed at Pearl Harbor were old rather old ships...all our aircraft carriers, which would prove so vital to the war in the Pacific, just happened to be away from the island when the attack hit. All of them.

Why thank you, Chalmers Johnson.

Cairnius wrote:
I don't think the British ever thought that the U.S. had anything in common with them from the very beginning. If you look at the mid-19th century, the British clearly had the perception of Americans all being overly-passionate, prone to anger mavericks who weren't properly cultured. Rough around the edges. Even our upper classes still weren't looked at equally by the British upper class. We were decidedly our own animal a long time ago.

And yet they underwrote the Monroe Doctrine.

Also, when did the mid-19th century become 'the very beginning'?

Polonius wrote:I read an article today that said that something like 90% of democrats approve of Obama, while 85% of republicans disapprove. At this point, nearly anything he does is going to make half of america swoon and the other half angry.

[bad joke] I know, its so black and white. [/bad joke]

Ahtman wrote:
It is funny that we have gone to war with England twice and still like them better than the French!

Actually, I have yet to see any Frenchmen (or at least recall any Frenchmen) being present on this board. Speaks for something if the question is one of culture.

Falconlance wrote:That being said, I'm dissapointed with the way your government has given ground, however little, to islamification, and the whole, banning imports of AIRSOFT guns because they RESEMBLE a fire arm... well thats just lame.

Who told you that? Airsoft guns are not banned, you're just not allowed to carry them around in public where they are visable, not in a box etc. For obvious reasons.

edit: Just searched it and you're right, as of 2007. Missed that one. ...fair one. But still I don't really have a problem with that. I think the main problem would be their use in hold ups.

Shamfrit wrote:

On the contrary, most British people (from my experience) can't stand Americans, for their brash and arrogant and bombastic behaviour.

Hmm..I don't agree with this. I'd agree there's a certain type of American tourist whom we can't stand. But that's more to do with them being rich arrogant arseholes who just happen to come from America rather than them being American specifially. Add to that the fact that we can actually understand what they are saying as they speak english I doubt they're any ruder or more arrogant than people from other countries.

The septic students at the uni where I work are all sound enough.

Even the Republican ones !

I do think they seem shocked by many aspects of British culture, like in the excellant Indy article above all of the American students are amazed at how often we swear, or at least the variety and colour of the words we use, whilst they tend to use the word "gak" almost exclusively. The american guy i used to argue over comics book with said it took him a while to get used to being greeted by his friends with the phrase "ya alright, ya daft witch ?"

whatwhat wrote:

edit: Just searched it and you're right, as of 2007. Missed that one. ...fair one. But still I don't really have a problem with that. I think the main problem would be their use in hold ups.

That's less a problem here. The way the laws are structured, as long as you have a reasonable belief that the guy robbing you has a gun, you can use your gun. Doesn't matter if you're a cop or a liquor store owner. Every year the stories come out of guys shot dead by the police after pulling a fake gun. It's sad, but totally legal.

whatwhat wrote:

Falconlance wrote:That being said, I'm dissapointed with the way your government has given ground, however little, to islamification, and the whole, banning imports of AIRSOFT guns because they RESEMBLE a fire arm... well thats just lame.

Who told you that? Airsoft guns are not banned, you're just not allowed to carry them around in public where they are visable, not in a box etc. For obvious reasons.

edit: Just searched it and you're right, as of 2007. Missed that one. ...fair one. But still I don't really have a problem with that. I think the main problem would be their use in hold ups.

It's still completely legal to obtain and use airsoft guns but they have to be painted a silly colour, it is illegal to repaint them (that'll stop the crims,) and you have to be a member of a club for several months to get a licence to buy one.

Anyone aged 17 can buy a far more dangerous air gun (e.g. 0.22 calibre pistol or rifle) over the counter for cash though. Modern air pistols are a lot more similar to military pistols than the old-fashioned Webley Tempest style, which you can't buy anymore.

Why, Oh Why? does the government not make it illegal to do armed robberies with real or pretend weapons?

The situation is the opposite in Japan. Anyone can easily buy the most realistic looking airsoft guns -- apart from specialist shops they are also sold is the toy sections of any decent department store. However air guns and real guns are tightly controlled. It's very hard to get a licence.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Why, Oh Why? does the government not make it illegal to do armed robberies with real or pretend weapons?

It's not armed robbery in the UK if you use a fake weapon? I'm not sure about all states, but in Ohio it's Aggravated robbery if you have a deadly weapon, and Robber if you use or threaten force (which a fake weapon would count as), while Theft doesn't involve any force at all. I can't check case law anymore, but the Ohio Revised Code says that "“Deadly weapon” means any instrument, device, or thing capable of inflicting death, and designed or specially adapted for use as a weapon, or possessed, carried, or used as a weapon." That can be read that an airsoft gun, carried as a weapon, is a deadly weapon, but probably not.

Sorry, I should have put in the </sarcasm> tag.

Yes, it is illegal to do an armed robbery in the UK with fake guns. In fact I think the penalty is the same whether the weapon is fake or real.

Kilkrazy wrote:Sorry, I should have put in the </sarcasm> tag.

Yes, it is illegal to do an armed robbery in the UK with fake guns. In fact I think the penalty is the same whether the weapon is fake or real.

Ok, I figured it would be. Robbery is an old, old common law crime.

See, in the US the legal penalties are the same (although Armed robbery is about the worst crime for sentences that doesn't involve murder, rape, or kidnapping), but you also run the very real risk of the 75 year old man running the counter shooting you with the .45 he keeps under the counter.

reds8n wrote:

I do think they seem shocked by many aspects of British culture, like in the excellant Indy article above all of the American students are amazed at how often we swear, or at least the variety and colour of the words we use, whilst they tend to use the word "gak" almost exclusively. The american guy i used to argue over comics book with said it took him a while to get used to being greeted by his friends with the phrase "ya alright, ya daft witch?"

I was going to start with something I over heard in Borders one day but I will pause for a moment and ask "am I missing something with the quote button?" The reason I ask is that when I clicked on the quote button to use reds8n quote, the word "witch" had changed to something shorter and ending "t" (I've changed it back on my post! Is this a free feature of the board?"

Anyway back on track. I was in Borders once (large book store) and I over heard some young Americans getting their knickers in a twist over magazines such as "Nuts", "Loaded", "FHM" etc. They seemed quite shocked that such publications were on the lower shelves