Usa + Uk = Rip

[Aptrgangr]

USA + UK = RIP

Geopolitics: The "special relationship" linking America and Britain was key to defending the free world in the 20th century. Disturbing signs on both sides of the Atlantic suggest the alliance might soon end.
After serving as a lonely backbench voice who warned against appeasing Germany, Winston Churchill led Britons through the dark days of Nazi bombers and rockets showering London with death. But it was his longtime friendship with Franklin Roosevelt that, long before U.S. entry into World War II, provided Britain with the food, oil and military hardware that helped it survive the early years of that conflict.
Four decades later, Ronald Reagan insisted on treating the USSR as the Evil Empire it was, and more than 70 years of communist tyranny soon ended as a result. But without Margaret Thatcher allowing U.S. cruise missiles protecting Western Europe to be located in Britain, and helping Mikhail Gorbachev achieve power in the Soviet Union by declaring she could "do business with" him, history would have been much different.
Today, the philosophical common ground between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bush has meant military cooperation and intelligence sharing vital to fighting the war on terror. The two governments worked closely, for instance, in foiling last summer's trans-Atlantic airline plot, which could have destroyed as many as 10 jets en route from London to the U.S.
Will this unique partnership in world affairs end before too much longer? The signals are not encouraging. As much as Blair's heir apparent chancellor, Gordon Brown, has given assurances of being a "Blairite," it's hard to imagine another Labor Party PM being as supportive of U.S. foreign policy as the current one.
A more disturbing omen is the current leadership of the British Conservative Party. Speaking at a party conference last year, Tory leader David Cameron promised not to be "slavish" to the U.S., spoke of his skepticism of Bush foreign policy, and declared "I'm not a neo-conservative. I'm a liberal conservative."
It's on this side of the water, however, where the worst portents for the future can be found. Before visiting Syria to meet with the president of that terrorist state, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to let the House vote on a resolution condemning Iran for holding 15 British sailors and marines hostage.
The Democratic majority in the Senate did pass a resolution supporting Britain against Iran last week. But as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich noted in an appearance on Fox News, we don't see Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Pelosi or the "various Democratic presidential candidates speaking emphatically about their commitment to the British, their alliance on the side of civilization, their opposition to hostage taking."
With the possibility of a Democratic president taking office less than two years from now, will there continue to be a trans-Atlantic alliance in defense of freedom and the civilized world? Or will a "liberal conservative" or outright socialist in Westminster be paired with a U.S. commander in chief who believes diplomacy is the way to confront terrorist threats?
You can almost hear Churchill warning from the grave of the trouble ahead.

Source

[Errigal]

This is more Churchill worshiping junk likely written by an American Jew.

[Franze]

I doubt a lot that this alliance suffers something. I doubt a lot.

[Marulus]

This is a neo-con bullshit obviously, with expressions like free world (makes me puke) and similar, but nevertheless worth reading, in order to penetrate the psychological profile of such ideologists.

If a worshipper of the war criminal and mass-murderer Winston Churchill's ass says that UK and USA friendship and alliance is in its death throes, it must mean something important. Maybe they will pretend in future to be in a kind of feud, dispute, not being strategic allies any more, but that will just be a game of deception. Maybe USA will leave UK to continue doing its share of damage in Europe, carrying out the Angloamerican ideology, but with other sort of rhetoric and officially and verbally being "anti-American" (a heinious code-word).

Reminds me a bit of European lefties who are very anti-American in words, but fully operate in the American system and use American vocabulary to describe their "anti-Americanism.

Or maybe of the Communist Romania, which pretended to be unobedient towards the Soviet Union in the eighties, just to trick the west and get more financial loans. That "inobiedence" was fully allowed by the USSR then.