Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Apparently there are reports that the "special relationship" we have with the US is at threat due to the Lockerbie bomber release. Am I the only one to think that this is a little bit over the top considering we were at the side of the US in the 1st & 2nd Gulf Wars and we are along side them in Afghanistan. We've lost hundreds of young men in these conflicts and had to suffer grief on the international stage for our support of the US, but because a single bomber is released (who maybe actually innocent) there are threats being thrown around from across the pond.

If this is the case, shouldn't we as a nation be telling the US government (not having a pot shot at the US posters here) to go shove the special relationship up their a e?

At times I believe America can go stuff itself. (Probably my years in Dubai, believe me, Yanks are not at all liked over there).

So...America has Guantanamo bay, and just becuase England let's a dying (mabye innocent) bomber go, USA get's in a tiff?

Me no likey America.

So a (maybe) bomber guy has prostate cancer and is released from prison so he can die in 3 months.

As an American, I say... ok. He was not held in our prisons or tried by our courts, so I can't really be that peeved about it.

Also, where are those "special reports" you mentioned Wolfstan? I'd like to read what my elected officials said about it.

Cheers,

This was the headline I saw that inspired my post:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6128060/Special-relationship-at-risk-over-bomber-Brown-warned.html

I also remember overhearing something on the BBC news that mentioned politicians in the areas that the victims came from are also kicking off about it.

Funny how America would get into a tiff over THIS. *shake head and luagh*

Thanks for the link.

However, I wouldn't worry about our "special relationship" (which sounds a little bit more wrong every time i type it).

Obama condoned it but didn't drone on about it. It was the newspapers that went to town on this, and even then that is a small group of reporters and editors. They do have an influential newspaper, but most intelligent people will give the headline and first paragraph a quick glance and then head to the comics section.

In short, I can't apologize for the words of my leader and I won't try. All I can say is that I, personally, still thing Britain is quite nifty.

And seriously, we need to find something other than "special relationship" to describe that. Its creepin me out.

Cheers

Yep, it's a little unsettling

BFF's?

Emperors Faithful wrote:BFF's?

Meh, too teen girl sounding.

Hows about just 'Buds' or 'Mates' or something similar?

Edit: I got it.... Chums.

(just listed synonyms for friends and that was a good one. There was also crony, familiar, and spare, but those didnt sound right)

IDK, my BFF, Jill?

Bro's?
Ho's?

Perhaps it's bromance:



As for the actual incident,do you really think such a thing that could upset the relationship that has been thus far a long standing and good one?(that sounded better in my head)

Wolfstan wrote:Apparently there are reports that the "special relationship" we have with the US is at threat due to the Lockerbie bomber release. Am I the only one to think that this is a little bit over the top considering we were at the side of the US in the 1st & 2nd Gulf Wars and we are along side them in Afghanistan. We've lost hundreds of young men in these conflicts and had to suffer grief on the international stage for our support of the US, but because a single bomber is released (who maybe actually innocent) there are threats being thrown around from across the pond.

If this is the case, shouldn't we as a nation be telling the US government (not having a pot shot at the US posters here) to go shove the special relationship up their a e?

It's way over the top. The media is blowing something out of proportion to get people talking and sell papers. It's just meaningless political posturing. The same thing happened here with a recent election where all of a sudden the US-Japanese alliance was in jeopardy because of the new government. It doesn't matter how much or how often the new PM reassures everyone that the alliance is the cornerstone of Japan's foreign policy, the papers whip it up like he is about to kick the US out and then a) switch sides and through the lot in with North Korea and China or b) start a second Empire and attack North Korea and China. I'm not up on the Lockerbie-UK-US "scandal", but if it's one politician or a handful, this won't amount to much. The politicians are trying to make names for themselves and their brand, or image. Now, if the masses were out in the street beating Britons up on sight and burning Union Jacks, that'd be a different story.

Also, I remember when Khaddafi was US public enemy #1, but now he is one of their buddies. Saddam and Osama were both their buddies, but then got themselves on the gak list. The whole oil contract connexion thing may as well be cast in 100% irony. Basically, I think you're taking something very seriously that the powers-that-be are pretending to, but really aren't.

I'll be honest. I think releasing the Lockerbie bomber was wrong. It evidently was in line with Scottish law, and was therefore legal; however I fail to see where the compassion is suppossed to come into the equation given his crimes. As far as possibly being innocent; the appeals processes are there for a reason. It is unfortunate that he had a terminal illness that would have prevented him from fully exploring his legal avenues; however it is ALWAYS unfortunate when a terminal illness prevents you from doing things in this life! On these grounds, I think the guy should have died in a prison, not come home to a hero's welcome.

However, I similarly fail to see the relationship US-UK being in any kind of serious jeapordy. I think that is kinda silly.

Wolfstan wrote:Apparently there are reports that the "special relationship" we have with the US is at threat due to the Lockerbie bomber release. Am I the only one to think that this is a little bit over the top considering we were at the side of the US in the 1st & 2nd Gulf Wars and we are along side them in Afghanistan. We've lost hundreds of young men in these conflicts and had to suffer grief on the international stage for our support of the US, but because a single bomber is released (who maybe actually innocent) there are threats being thrown around from across the pond.

If this is the case, shouldn't we as a nation be telling the US government (not having a pot shot at the US posters here) to go shove the special relationship up their a e?

Thats true. I'm ok with that. Of course that means we go our own way.
If you don't honor your commitments to NATO, like the other European countries aren't, there's no reason for NATO is there?

EDIT: I don't think there's an issue with the special relationship.
I blame the Obama administration for not throwing a fit about this privately and stopping it. I blame the UK administration for doing this for money. I blame Libya for the celebration, and think we need to revisit our relationship with them now. I think an accidental gas leak need to occur in the killer's hospital room, and then later his grave is mysteriously dug up with his remains drenched in pig carcass parts, with the sign "So end all terrorists" in Arabic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:At times I believe America can go stuff itself. (Probably my years in Dubai, believe me, Yanks are not at all liked over there).

So...America has Guantanamo bay, and just becuase England let's a dying (mabye innocent) bomber go, USA get's in a tiff?

Me no likey America.

NO they let one of the killers of hundreds of innocents go so they could get a better commercial deal with Libya.

I blame the Obama administration for not throwing a fit about this privately and stopping it.

and how were they supposed to do that then ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/sep/02/special-relationship-us-britain-lockerbie

Ambassador
-If you do this you'll hurt our special relationship (realistic).

up to
Those vehicles now sitting across from whitehall that look like tanks. Well they are tanks. Congratulations on now being the 51-55 states. Now for Mexico...

up to (zombie Reagan)
You've ticked us off. As we speak the elite 102,103,and 103 air divisons comprised of lawyers with briefcases (the Fightin' Bloodsuckers) are dropping as we speak.
EDIT: I am not saying it would be a fight, but no one, and I mean no one, can withstand the might of 45,000 US lawyers on a legal rampage...

Frazzled wrote:
NO they let one of the killers of hundreds of innocents go so they could get a better commercial deal with Libya.

cough, cough... Oliver... cough... North... cough, cough

Wolfstan wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
NO they let one of the killers of hundreds of innocents go so they could get a better commercial deal with Libya.

cough, cough... Oliver... cough... North... cough, cough

cough...cough...do you even know what you're talking about cough..cough here my turn cough cough Queen Elizabeth cough cough hey this is fun cough cough Princess Diana cough cough cough cough Fergie cough cough cough cough Lord Mountbatten cough cough Count of Basey cough cough Sir Ossis of the Liver cough cough

Any more random names you want to pop up?

Frazzled wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
NO they let one of the killers of hundreds of innocents go so they could get a better commercial deal with Libya.

cough, cough... Oliver... cough... North... cough, cough

cough...cough...do you even know what you're talking about cough..cough here my turn cough cough Queen Elizabeth cough cough hey this is fun cough cough Princess Diana cough cough cough cough Fergie cough cough cough cough Lord Mountbatten cough cough Count of Basey cough cough Sir Ossis of the Liver cough cough

Any more random names you want to pop up?

I would imagine that Olley's wheeling and dealing cost innocent lives? Soooo, giving terrorists weapons for hostages was deemed ok by the administration at the time, but releasing a man who is dying (and could be innocent) is out of order? Please remind your politicians & media that their past isn't that clean either.

Imagine-so no fproof of anything

Two things to bear in mind:

1. It's only tory newspapers saying the 'special relationship' will suffer.

2. US politicians don't go around telling their constituents to suck it up.

Both us and the US are too deeply mired in Afghanistan to screw up the special relationship.

-If you do this you'll hurt our special relationship (realistic).

Yes, which was said, considered and then not seen as sufficient to ignore the law of the country. Or are you now suddenly claiming that Govts. don't have to obey their own laws ?

I have no idea WTF Princess Diana has/had to do with terrorism.

I can't believe you're even attempting to claim that the weapons given to Iran or the funding sent to Contras and "Freedom Fighters" in SA never hurt or killed innocent people.

Much like those stinger missiles, guns, ammunition and training you gave to those heroic "freedom fighters" in Afganhistan. How'd that relationship work out again ?

reds8n wrote:

-If you do this you'll hurt our special relationship (realistic).

Yes, which was said, considered and then not seen as sufficient to ignore the law of the country. Or are you now suddenly claiming that Govts. don't have to obey their own laws ?

It was not done. If it had been, the release swould not have occurred. Just as if the UK had come to us in a similar situation.

Khornholio wrote:Basically, I think you're taking something very seriously that the powers-that-be are pretending to, but really aren't.

That. While this is a survey of one, no one I know is talking about this story. I really don't think it's on the average American's radar. It's just political games by the politicians. So people need to lighten up about it.

Frazzled wrote:

reds8n wrote:

-If you do this you'll hurt our special relationship (realistic).

Yes, which was said, considered and then not seen as sufficient to ignore the law of the country. Or are you now suddenly claiming that Govts. don't have to obey their own laws ?

It was not done. If it had been, the release swould not have occurred. Just as if the UK had come to us in a similar situation.

Except it was. See the details in the letter here.

And you really do have an odd view of things if you think a British protest over X/Y/Z would have achieved much more than feth all.

EDIT : other link suddenly disappeared. Duggan also provided notes of a July 9 teleconference between MacAskill and some victims’ relatives, an emotional exchange in which family members told stories of their loved ones and implored MacAskill not to return Megrahi to Libya.

victim's relatives are irrelevant to whether or not severe pressure is applied.

It wasn't you have no proof that a real message was sent. A l;etter is political cover, nothing more.

British protest, funny.

Wait..the goal posts appear to have just jumped to the right..how unusual.

So we've now gone from them saying "-If you do this you'll hurt our special relationship (realistic). " to applying "severe" pressure.

..against Scotland.

During a recession.

But you're not counting letters from the USA Attorney General, the head of the FBI, and the chairman of the Joint chief of staff and public condemnation from Billary ..then what do you expect them to have done ? Bombed Scotland ?

Like anyone would have noticed. Well..it might make it look a bit tidier but...

Bombing=Love so just give us an excuse.

Just look at that one hacker we're trying to extradite and this. I mean the hacker defaced military computer programming and we can't sentence him?

That's the proof of our "special relationship", mainly because there aren't U.S flags waving over buckingham palace.