[tonyrockyhorror]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nileg ... t-britain/

Is this also the feeling of the populus?

[wakeyboy]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100027838/barack-obama%E2%80%99s-top-10-insults-against-britain/

Is this also the feeling of the populus?

I think some journalists have been obsessed with this issue, but I dont think its an issue much with the general public. The DVDs gift is about the only thing brits would consider a 'gaffe' but not many people were genuinely upset by it. I think people were amused by it at Gordon Brown's expense.

I think the Fawklands point is utter bollocks. It doesnt upset me in the slightest. I'd have found it odd if America DID get involved.

People are probably more interested in domestic issues right now than what Obama allegedly thinks about Britain or not.

Also, that point about the Conservatives fighting the EU tooth and nail, is a bit far-fetched. The Tories are broadly in favour of Europe, they just have a different opinion on the direction compared to Labour.

Generally speaking Obama is still popular among most people, though people are a little disappointed at the pace of change. But hey, theres 3 years still to go.

[mr dragon]

Too many issues the Gardner bought up to discuss in one post. And Nile Gardiner can be a bit of an idiot sometimes. Sorry, long post.

The truth is Britain can sometimes be sidelined or treated 'badly' by US Administrations, and this goes back historically through several administrations- the issue has always been there. Sometimes it becomes frustrating for the Brits because the political 'relationship' is not always an 'equal' one, or rather, doesn't always go both ways. However, it's not ALL bad- and in many ways Britain should be very grateful for the US's support on many issues historically. I had a bitch about it on another thread because I'm sick and tired of having our country's moral character trashed by certain politicians in the US, over the NHS, for no reason. I don't mind American citizens doing it so much- it's free speech, but I do mind US politicians doing it when we have political relations with that country- and our politicians don't sink quite that low. Sometimes the frustration boils up. On the other hand, on many occasions, the US has acted very graciously towards Britain in terms of political diplomacy and also with many (though not all) Americans themselves towards the UK. Britain's one of the few countries in the world that the US will listen to (sometimes- not always) on a political level, and British Prime Ministers do get asked to address Congress from time to time- which is actually a great honour.

However if you look back through history, here are a few pertinent examples of frustration the Brits have in terms of sometimes 'US political attitude- that doesn't seem to go equally' towards the UK:

Suez (though part of the blame for that also rests on Anthony Eden's shoulders for going about the whole Suez operation so idiotically- and also not respecting the US in the first place by telling them what 'they' - UK, France, Israel - were all up to), but what the US and The Soviets did to Britain over this issue at the time I doubt very much most Americans would support today given their feelings over the ME after 9/11 if it were an American issue; a LOT of the issues with the IRA during 'the Troubles' particularly circa the 1970's regarding over fifty per cent of the funding for IRA terrorism coming from the US (this money was used by the IRA to slaughter mostly innocent British people in horrendous terrorist acts (two thousand innocent Brits were brutally murdered by the IRA- I grew up experiencing that), and even arms caches were frequently shipped from US soil to the IRA during that era (we even had to 'experience' Teddy Kennedy coming over to NI in support of Republicanism - even though two thirds of Irish NI citizens in the Six Counties had fully democratically opted to remain British in NI during that time 'lecturing' British soldiers on UK soil that they should 'go home' which is hilarious coming from an American traveling in Britain- that is until an Irish politician in NI explained to him what was actually going on *sigh* (Kennedy got a lot better after that)- it then got better after Reagen came to power (though it was still not good enough- still more IRA funding coming from the US when it should have been totally outlawed and shut down) and better when Clinton later came to power (but even then still not enough- we had major troubles in the 1990's trying to extradite IRA terrorists from the US who needed to be tried here in the UK for murdering innocent British people, and the funding for the IRA was still going on in the US quite openly); the initial Falklands invasion by Argentina in 1982 for two reasons- 1/ the initial assessment by the US Government was that Britain could not win the war (they were wrong- and thanks for the thumbs up, and respect for British military capabilities, from an ally!) and 2/ initially the US refused to let Britain use Ascension Island for strategic operations (which is a total joke because Ascension Island is a Overseas British Territory of which Britain leases to the US for military operations!!!) but to be fair that changed quite quickly when Thatcher had words with Reagen about it- and after that the US became an ally in the war (though standing on the sidelines) merely strategically; the US invasion of Grenada- whatever was going wrong in Grenada at the time it was still a British Commonwealth Realm, and out of respect to Britain it might have been a good idea to tell the British Government FIRST that the US was going to invade a member of the British Commonwealth- but the US Administration didn't, and did it behind Britain's back (that was the one time Margaret Thatcher blew her top and went ballistic at Ronald Reagen- she also opposed the invasion on the international stage quite publicly afterwards despite the fact that both her and Reagen were very close- it was one step too far though for her and the UK); the 'war on terrorism' - when 9/11 happened Britain was the first country to fully stand behind the US under the Blair Government. The commitments Blair made right at that time to the US were well and above, and well beyond, anything the US has ever done for Britain initially in a moment of crises. I actually think he was right to do that- the US is an ally of Britain and we also owe (as a country) the US a debt for coming to our aid in WW2 and also standing with Britain against the threat of communism after the second word war and supporting us on this side of the Atlantic during those times. However, even after Britain fully came on side with George Bush's Administration, following those days, and then partnered with the Bush Administration in the initial Afghanistan Operations- the Brits were running aerial bombing operations with the US even before 'we' went in to remove the Taliban, it got really messy politically and 'we', alongside the rest of the world, were told by the US Administration of the time - 'you're either with us, or against us'. Which meant you either do what we tell you, or you're not with us. That's no way to treat a partner whose come directly to your aid and is offering help. It's not good enough. When we got to the whole issue of Iraq, much later, Britain was totally sidelined when it came to post invasion planning- despite the fact the the UK committed over 45,000 troops (the largest amount after the US- and just to give you a picture; 45,000 British troops from a country 'our' size is the equivalent of about 240,000 American troops for a country the size of America- ie a very big commitment by the UK!) to remove Saddam Hussein's regime. It was a shoddy to treat the UK in that way as an ally. And it ALL went tit's up afterwards BECAUSE everything the British military experts had said at the time wasn't listened to. They weren't considered 'important enough' to know what they were doing and already knew from previous historical experience- Britain has a long historical military history in Iraq going back to the 1920's (and the entire region even before that time) and has ALREADY learned from the same mistakes that were THEN made once AGAIN! However the attitude was: 'shut up, we're running the show- go and defend Basra in the south'. And, we all know what happened after about 2005 in Iraq...

I don't expect Britain to be taking the lead when it comes to stuff like that, when the US's military commitment is obviously much higher, but I do expect the US to at least LISTEN to Britain, as a partner, if our country is going to make commitments like that with the US. It's my fellow countrymen/women putting their lives on the line out there, and my tax payer cash that's also paying for it. I could go on about the whole shebang, and how all these cock ups then lead to British troops having to then go out of Iraq and back into Afghanistan three years ago, as front line troops in the most dangerous part of the region and largely on their own in operations (when the operation in Afghanistan should have been finished FIRST) and were under resourced in terms of numbers when it came to holding down territories that they'd fought tooth and nail for to gain- and then had let go off again because they had no back up, all because off the mess that was created by going into Iraq (under major pressure from the US Government at the time) before finishing the job there first. However, these are gripes against the politicians involved. As far as I can see the US military has an awful lot of respect for the UK military, and vice versa. They both try to look after one another out there, and partner by and large very well despite minor hiccups along the way from both sides. I'm not complaining about the US military's attitude to the UK at all. I think there's a lot of respect from both sides there- equally. I could go on, but I just wanted to highlight why we get pissed off sometimes. Britain isn't always perfect either, but it can very much be a one way relationship politically sometimes. The US gets a lot more out of Britain, as a partner politically sometimes, than the UK gets back in return. And I'm not even going to go into the one way (US direction....>) judicial extradition treaties, or the fact that the US secretly has been using US military leased British territories for 'rendition', without officially telling the British Government about it.

Re Niles' article in the Torygraph.

I haven't noticed any major negative change in the UK's attitude towards the US regarding Obama as a President. At least not currently. That may change, and there's been some questions- like why did it take so long to come up with a 'surge' strategy from the US? But currently I personally don't have any serious gripes as a Brit. The Afghanistan surge has begun, there seems to be quite a lot of involvement with British Commanders and joint operations between the US and the British, and also NATO as a whole. Mark Sedwill, the British Ambassador to Afghanistan, has been put in charge of civilian operations alongside Gen McChrystal in charge of military operations (as a double act)- and they both seem to have a lot of respect for one another. It all seems to be good so far, but I think it's early days yet. I can't comment to much on how that will all turn out because I'm just a bloke who lives in London. At least, thus far, the attitude between the US and the UK in terms of military operations seems to be a lot better. So, we shall see how the whole thing turns out as an operation. Personally, I think McChrystal's a good guy.

The Falklands issue has no serious bearing right now regarding the US, or the wider international community. It's an issue between Argentina and Britain- and the Kelpers (Falkland Islanders) of course. America has to remain neutral currently because it has diplomatic relations throughout South America- and this is merely a British/ Argentinian sovereignty dispute currently (Argentina hasn't invaded- they're just acting like arseholes over the issue and complaining about it). America was neutral over the issue back in 1982, before the Argentines invaded then. There's no difference between now and then currently. IF Argentina DID invade again, then we can judge the US political Administration in regard to the response, as a comparison. If Obama refused support to Britain following an invasion- then there would be MAJOR problems between the UK and the US. The attitude in the UK would generally be- 'fuck this, we've just spent the last ten years supporting the US militarily all throughout the middle east, with our blood and treasure, after they got attacked on 9/11- and yet we get sweet FA in return when we need some support'. However, that isn't the current situation, and Argentina hasn't invaded the Falklands again- and say they want to resolve the situation diplomatically instead (good luck with that Argies!). If they're following that line, the US is right to remain neutral in the issue at the moment (being rapidly dogmatic in support of the UK is probably not in everyone's interests as it will be used by countries like Venezuela and Argentina for anti-western historical left wing revisionist propaganda) - but also the US should let it be known that the US stands by international legal agreements, and also supports the current UN agreements on this issue- which completely favour self determination of the Falklanders and the UK's support and territorial rights.

With the EU- I don't really care about it in relation to what the US thinks, or wants, either way. I never have. It's Britain's business regarding how 'we' deal with the EU. America has nothing to do with it. When the US was less pro the UK joining the EU- I didn't care; and now that it's more pro the EU- I still don't care. It's not America's business how we in Britain decide what's best for the UK in regard to our relations with Europe. It's a non issue for Britain on a general level regarding international trade and sovereignty agreements with Europe- when it comes to the US. That's a Britain/Continental Europe issue. Currently, we aren't sliding into some kind of uber- Federalist EU nightmare as it did 'appear' might be the case a few years ago. The major powers in continental Europe- France and Germany, have now moved to centre-right Governments that aren't interested in some kind of major Federalist Socialist 'utopia' with the EU. They want more integration that the UK does, but most of it is on an operational level to make things run better. We need to decide how we're going to deal with that as a nation ourselves. It has nothing to do with America. In fact, right now there's a major crises brewing in the EU because of the 'bankrupted by the recession' EU nations- what they currently 'jokingly' call the P-I-G-S EU economies: Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain. Germany, in particular, is having serious doubts about having to bail out these countries screwed up economies, because they're all Euro currency nations. Fortunately Britain isn't. A fair amount of Europeans have serious doubts about the EU right now because of all this. Regarding Obama's attitude re national security in Europe- if that's what Gardiner may be alluding to? That, I don't know. I very much doubt the European nations could ever agree on a common European security force, or make it effective. However, I also think NATO has become somewhat outdated. I really don't know what the answer to that possible issue is going forward. The US would be unwise to let go of the UK in terms of a military partner, to Europe. Basically Britain is the US's closest military partner- and even more so after the last ten years of working together and integration between our military services in operations. I'm very much FOR closer economic and cultural ties for Britain with Europe, but very much AGAINST closer military ties with the EU for Britain currently. Let's face it, France and Germany, with Britain, can't even operate on one level in Afghanistan together in unison, and those two countries have been fucking awful at coming to our aid and helping out with our operations on the front line out there. The US hasn't been that way, and neither has Canada or Australia (and some of the smaller countries in the EU like Denmark, Netherlands, or even Poland). I'd pump for the Anglosphere ANY time when it comes to military togetherness - and a common understanding over what needs to be done regarding national security - despite my complaints about Iraq with the US. If Obama decided to let the UK go when it comes to the connection between both our military forces, he'd be making a very big mistake. Not only for Britain, but also for the US.

Lastly. I'm not that bothered about what 'busts' the US President keeps in the Oval office, and the fact Obama sent Churchill's bust back to the UK embassy when it was on loan. It's a little bit of a sleight to see Churchill go from that place, but we are just talking about a marble statue sitting in another countries Presidential office. I AM, however, much more bothered about US politicians lying about my countries national character, by slanging the British NHS, with an awful lot of disingenuous mis-information merely for their own political gain for their own partisan political purposes. Particularly when the NHS has no relation to what they are talking about in their own country. That fucking seriously pisses me off. It makes me want to ask our troops to come home. TOTALLY out-of-order.

I'm not having MY countries character and soul, as a nation, being trashed and lied about by one of our closest allies, when MY fellow countrymen (and MY hard earned cash that I pay as tax) are putting their lives on the line to support that country, as brothers, when it was wrongfully attacked. Have SOME bleeding respect!

[Natasha]

I love how the comments section of the blog have turned into a birther conspiracy fest.

[mr dragon]

I read the first few comments on the Torygraph comment section, and got bored. As always in Newspaper online commentary sections, it can be a bit of a freak show.

[eddie2003]

Obama seems to be anti-Britain...which I find a little odd actually.

Remember the Gordon Brown DVD fiasco?

I wonder if the WH is looking at the drop of popularity of British people among Americans, and that isn't factoring in.

[mr dragon]

I don't think Obama is 'anti- Britain'. I haven't really got that impression in his dealings, so far, with the UK (I'm not going to start whining about gifts- it's pointless), though that may change and I don't have a solid view on it yet. One way to determine how this is, is how he deals with the country in a crises, in terms of 'our' relations with the US. For example, if there were another Falklands conflict (I doubt there will be), or if Argentina tried pushing their so called 'sovereignty' issue on the international stage, and he came down on the Argentine side- then people would have very good grounds to say he is anti- British. Or, if there were major issues with the US's dealings with the UK on general political issues, or if he sidelined the UK unfairly, repeatedly, then I might change my current view. Therefore, we shall see...

However, something I noted. Nile Gardiner is a regular Fox News contributer in the US. Fox News has an agenda with Obama. Therefore I'm not convinced, as of yet, of the voracity (and balance) of this piece in the Telegraph.

[bll]

Number 6 is an out and out lie. The bust was on loan at the request of President Bush and his staff returned it to the embassy as his administration was preparing for the transition of power. Bush's own administration shot this rumour down when Fox brought it up just before Obama took office.

[mr dragon]

I like the way Gardiner 'described' that- ie that it was apparently 'flung' out of the Oval Office. What did Obama do? Walk into the Oval Office on his first day and throw Churchill's bust out of the window, and onto the White House lawn?

[JuanaLaLoca]

I like the way Gardiner 'described' that- ie that it was apparently 'flung' out of the Oval Office. What did Obama do? Walk into the Oval Office on his first day and throw Churchill's bust out of the window, and onto the White House lawn?

That was the picture that came to my mind, too! "What's this damn thing doing here?" - crash!

I think (although my memory may not be accurate) that the bust was replaced by one of Abraham Lincoln. No offense to Churchill, but I can understand why Obama might prefer Lincoln a bit more.

[mr dragon]

I think (although my memory may not be accurate) that the bust was replaced by one of Abraham Lincoln. No offense to Churchill, but I can understand why Obama might prefer Lincoln a bit more.

Aye, for sure. Churchill's a major historical figure, and also rightly much loved by many Americans as well. But he is a British historical figure. He's one of ours. I wasn't offended in the slightest by Obama wanting one of his own American historical figures represented in the Oval Office while he's in term- instead of Churchill. I think it's churlish to even complain about it. If people want to bang on about insulting 'sleights' to other countries, by political figures anywhere in the world, I think there are much more relevant issues or prescient things to reference.