British folk across the pond, question for you:

[Coito ergo sum]

Since the special relationship consisted largely of us bending over and grabbing our ankles, I'm rather pleased if the cooling of relations means this will no longer happen as much. Maybe we'll get to rip up the entirely one-sided extradition treaty too.

I'm interested - as I noted above, I had no idea that this was the perception that Brits have of the US, that we're fucking you up the ass.

Could you expand on that a little? What has the US done to the UK that would be described as making the UK bend over and grab its ankles?

[CJ]

Since the special relationship consisted largely of us bending over and grabbing our ankles, I'm rather pleased if the cooling of relations means this will no longer happen as much. Maybe we'll get to rip up the entirely one-sided extradition treaty too.

I'm interested - as I noted above, I had no idea that this was the perception that Brits have of the US, that we're fucking you up the ass.

Could you expand on that a little? What has the US done to the UK that would be described as making the UK bend over and grab its ankles?

Atomic blackmail for one. During WWII British scientists were heavily involved with the US atomic program. As soon as the war ended this relationship was closed unilaterally by the US. Nuclear cooperation only restarted on the basis that British nuclear weapons were based on US designs. The patent for the jet engine was held by the British, the US paid peanuts for it.

While its possible to trust an American (with huge caveats on the cultural differences) on a 1-to-1 basis it should not possible to trust America any more than it is to trust any other nation state. However our common ancestry and nominally democratic world view do allow for a closer diplomatic relationship than would be the case with most other nation states except the English speaking Commonwealth or ex-commonwealth nations.

[Coito ergo sum]

Since the special relationship consisted largely of us bending over and grabbing our ankles, I'm rather pleased if the cooling of relations means this will no longer happen as much. Maybe we'll get to rip up the entirely one-sided extradition treaty too.

I'm interested - as I noted above, I had no idea that this was the perception that Brits have of the US, that we're fucking you up the ass.

Could you expand on that a little? What has the US done to the UK that would be described as making the UK bend over and grab its ankles?

Atomic blackmail for one. During WWII British scientists were heavily involved with the US atomic program. As soon as the war ended this relationship was closed unilaterally by the US. Nuclear cooperation only restarted on the basis that British nuclear weapons were based on US designs. The patent for the jet engine was held by the British, the US paid peanuts for it.

Patents don't last forever, and the Whittle patented his jet engine in 1930. Ohain, the German who invented the jet engine separately, invented his in I think 1936. The US didn't fly one until the well into the 1940's after the war, so I'm not sure what "payment" you'd need for the jet engine. I mean, did everyone pay the Wright Brothers for their invention of the airplane? I'm not sure about British patent law, but American patents traditionally lasted about 7 years (I think they extended that recently). But, I'm sure British patents were not perpetual, and did not last 15 years. And, remember, after WW2 nobody - not the Brits, French or Americans, or Soviets, paid one dime to any German inventor. They took Ohain's jet engine designs for nothing.

I am not clear on what you mean by "atomic blackmail?" You said we had a British scientists involved in the atomic program. O.k. Then after the war the US "closed the relationship." And, then the US said it would cooperate again if the British nuclear weapons were based on US designs. I presume the UK agreed. How is that "blackmail?" How is that "grabbing ankles and bending over?"

While its possible to trust an American (with huge caveats on the cultural differences)

What does that mean? What "cultural differences?" Americans can only be trusted with "caveats?" Can you give an example or a hypothetical example?

on a 1-to-1 basis it should not possible to trust America any more than it is to trust any other nation state.

That I will agree with you on. Nations have interests, and they behave generally in their own best interest.

However our common ancestry and nominally democratic world view do allow for a closer diplomatic relationship than would be the case with most other nation states except the English speaking Commonwealth or ex-commonwealth nations.

I agree with you here too. The US law is largely based on English common law, and its culture grew out of English culture. Obviously, over time the cultures diverged and evolved. The common language does make it easier to communicate and avoid misunderstandings, and both countries, I think, are of the mind that expansion of individual liberty and representative government - the principles espoused by the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights (which were restated/reformulated in the American founding documents) - are in their national interests. Neither country is, of course, averse to supporting, for expediency's sake, a dictator who does our bidding, but I think overall our preferences are for representative republics with democratic elections.

[ficklefiend]

The American constitution is a noble and vital document. With much to admire in it. It just seems, to my poor biased perception, that people have forgotten the aim of it. Educate the citizens so they may understand it.

Really? It's always seemed to me that the fetishism of the constitution mires the US in a 200 year old zeitgeist.

[Coito ergo sum]

The American constitution is a noble and vital document. With much to admire in it. It just seems, to my poor biased perception, that people have forgotten the aim of it. Educate the citizens so they may understand it.

Really? It's always seemed to me that the fetishism of the constitution mires the US in a 200 year old zeitgeist.

It's not a fetish. The Constitution is the founding document of the union of separate states, so it sets out the structure of the federal government, how representatives are elected, and what their powers are. It serves to separate powers among branches of the government, and also impresses upon the government the importance of protecting or at least not infringing upon fundamental individual liberties. It also sets out a general concept of "federalism" whereby we have a separation of powers of the overarching federal government vs. the State governments themselves.

As a legal document, it is of fundamental importance to the United States. Without it, there is no "United States" as a legal entity.

[ficklefiend]

The American constitution is a noble and vital document. With much to admire in it. It just seems, to my poor biased perception, that people have forgotten the aim of it. Educate the citizens so they may understand it.

Really? It's always seemed to me that the fetishism of the constitution mires the US in a 200 year old zeitgeist.

It's not a fetish. The Constitution is the founding document of the union of separate states, so it sets out the structure of the federal government, how representatives are elected, and what their powers are. It serves to separate powers among branches of the government, and also impresses upon the government the importance of protecting or at least not infringing upon fundamental individual liberties. It also sets out a general concept of "federalism" whereby we have a separation of powers of the overarching federal government vs. the State governments themselves.

As a legal document, it is of fundamental importance to the United States. Without it, there is no "United States" as a legal entity.

I'm still not seeing what's so amazing about that.

[Coito ergo sum]

The American constitution is a noble and vital document. With much to admire in it. It just seems, to my poor biased perception, that people have forgotten the aim of it. Educate the citizens so they may understand it.

Really? It's always seemed to me that the fetishism of the constitution mires the US in a 200 year old zeitgeist.

It's not a fetish. The Constitution is the founding document of the union of separate states, so it sets out the structure of the federal government, how representatives are elected, and what their powers are. It serves to separate powers among branches of the government, and also impresses upon the government the importance of protecting or at least not infringing upon fundamental individual liberties. It also sets out a general concept of "federalism" whereby we have a separation of powers of the overarching federal government vs. the State governments themselves.

As a legal document, it is of fundamental importance to the United States. Without it, there is no "United States" as a legal entity.

I'm still not seeing what's so amazing about that.

What do you mean "amazing?" It's not "amazing." I never said it was amazing. I said it wasn't a fetish. It's the fundamental legal document of the U.S. It's something that one must be familiar with if one is to understand, at all, the American form of government. One can't opine intelligently about whether this law or that law is a permissible or appropriate exercise of governmental authority in the US, without having an understanding of the Constitution and how it works. So, while no more "amazing" than any other foundational political document, it is quite important to the United States and consequently to Americans.

Kinda like the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights are (or used to be) important to English folk.

[FBM]

We don't gots no Queen. We're stuck with an old piece of parchment. Waddaya gonna do?

[Pappa]

We don't gots no Queen. We're stuck with an old piece of parchment. Waddaya gonna do?

It's not that old though, is it.

[FBM]

We don't gots no Queen. We're stuck with an old piece of parchment. Waddaya gonna do?

It's not that old though, is it.

For a piece of paper, it's getting on, eh? It's probably 100 years old by now. I'd have to look that up, tho.

[Pappa]

We don't gots no Queen. We're stuck with an old piece of parchment. Waddaya gonna do?

It's not that old though, is it.

For a piece of paper, it's getting on, eh? It's probably 100 years old by now.

1787?

Old-ish.

[Coito ergo sum]

We don't gots no Queen. We're stuck with an old piece of parchment. Waddaya gonna do?

It's not that old though, is it.

For a piece of paper, it's getting on, eh? It's probably 100 years old by now. I'd have to look that up, tho.

Naw, I think it's the Queen that's getting on towards 100 years old....

[FBM]

1787?

Old-ish.

Wow, it's almost 200!

Naw, I think it's the Queen that's getting on towards 100 years old....

She's hawt for her age, too.

[The Red Fox]

Since the special relationship consisted largely of us bending over and grabbing our ankles, I'm rather pleased if the cooling of relations means this will no longer happen as much. Maybe we'll get to rip up the entirely one-sided extradition treaty too.

I'm interested - as I noted above, I had no idea that this was the perception that Brits have of the US, that we're fucking you up the ass.

Could you expand on that a little? What has the US done to the UK that would be described as making the UK bend over and grab its ankles?

In my time the Iraq war and Afghanistan certainly did it for most people in the country. These wars had little support at the outset, we were more vocal with our government than we'd been since, I would argue, the Chartists marched on London. Yet, we were still ignored by our politicians who favoured America over the electorate.

The US clearly has far too much influence over our politicians when they become more accountable to Washington than the British public. American foreign policy overruled our democracy (or what we have which is supposed to pass for democracy anyway...), it was a foreign policy we did not support and we feel fucked over by that.

[ED209]

Since the special relationship consisted largely of us bending over and grabbing our ankles, I'm rather pleased if the cooling of relations means this will no longer happen as much. Maybe we'll get to rip up the entirely one-sided extradition treaty too.

I'm interested - as I noted above, I had no idea that this was the perception that Brits have of the US, that we're fucking you up the ass.

Could you expand on that a little? What has the US done to the UK that would be described as making the UK bend over and grab its ankles?

In my time the Iraq war and Afghanistan certainly did it for most people in the country. These wars had little support at the outset, we were more vocal with our government than we'd been since, I would argue, the Chartists marched on London. Yet, we were still ignored by our politicians who favoured America over the electorate.

The US clearly has far too much influence over our politicians when they become more accountable to Washington than the British public. American foreign policy overruled our democracy (or what we have which is supposed to pass for democracy anyway...), it was a foreign policy we did not support and we feel fucked over by that.

And I already mentioned the extradition treaty - how many US citizens (ideally mentally vulnerable, and having done nothing worse than guess a few passwords to access computers the US govt completely failed to secure) should we expect to be surrendered over to us, without us having to produce a shred of evidence of criminal acts beforehand? And if the UK built an illegal prison for the purposes of storing indefinitely without trial and torturing people we picked up on modern-day imperialist adventures, but are unable to charge due to a total lack evidence against them - how many US citizens could we keep in it while maintaining the total acquiescence of your government? If a USian were somehow inclined to apply for a passport and visit the UK, does he have to provide us with ten fingerprints which become the permanent property of our govt, be stored electronically and transmitted to any country on Earth, and would we routinely deny him entry right up until the final second with no prior notification because his name sounded similar to someone we don't like?