What would happen if the UK stopped supporting the US?

That looks more like a safe route to back down for O'Bwana&co from my perspective. Teh genius made himself trapped withpromising an invasoin and facing high risk being pwnd by his own parlament and public opinion.
So now Obama sort of saved his face and Putin looks like a peacekeeper. PROFIT!
Meanwhile Kerry looks like uber-incompitent fool.

 

Britain already has a strong relationship with India. Both are Member States of the Commonwealth for a start.

 

The US couldn't beat the Viet Cong or the Taliban.

So I don't think the British/Canadians would have anything to worry about when coming up against the US.

 

You simply can't compare the US in Viet Nam or Afghanistan to the US against Canada. Both Afghanistan and Viet Nam were political problems not military ones. Mainly because of the weakness of the national governments put in by the American. This would be the US taking Canada and making it part of the US.

 

All military problems are political problems and vice versa. Invading is easy, occupation is very difficult. There have been some successful occupations of course but I think nowadays they may be few and far between. I think the reasons historically were economic, contemporary reasons may be a mix of economics, ideology and general defensiveness. On the last point I'm thinking of the "Domino Theory" in SE Asia in the 1960s to 1970s. Economics really comes into it when occupation is used to influence a defeated country that has required resources to trade with the conqueror rather than the conqueror's international foes. And even then it's about seeking advantage for private companies.

The US doesn't need to think about invading Canada. There is, economically, a symbiotic relationship between the two countries. Possibly the only reason that the US would force its will on Canada would be over water, but as long as Canada adopted a partnership in trade approach to the precious resource then there would be no invasion.

If there was an invasion you could be assured the Canadians wouldn't roll over and allow it.

 

Of course I am not saying the US has any reason to take Canada. However if it tryed Canada wouldn't last very long. They would but up a good fight for about a week until they runout of supplies, armaments and ammo, much of which is supplied by the US or shipped from Europe. If the Canadians knew the attack was coming and did what they said they would do in thr 1930's if it looked like the US was going to attack then it would take longer but no more than a month.

 

For the Canadians being invaded by the US would be akin to losing the Stanley Cup or getting rolled by the US on the ice in an international game. Heck they did their nut in Montreal when Rocket Richard was benched by the NHL Commissioner! It wouldn't be worth it for the Americans

 

The UK would - at least potentially - be immensely better off, and we could hang our 4-Party-Tory Covernor Generals to five-nation rejoicing. The US itself would soon be supported only by the Nazis occupying Palestine and the over-rich nutters in Saudi Arabia and would collapse into a multi-fronted Civil War which would kill off all but the nuttiest tea-bags, who would live in caves as Nature intended.

 

What would happen if the UK stopped supporting the US?

Ha, ha, ha, ha! Good 'un! Surely you jest, 'ol chap. The Brits have never, ever supported the US. During WWII for example, the senile babbling Winston Churchill and his little brown nosing and incompetent general Montgomery did just about everthing imaginable to get in the way of US General Eisenhower's efforts to save the Brits from themselves. Moreover, the UK made the US pay exhorbitant prices for the "privilege" of land-leasing to set up bases in England to protect their lumpy little lymies.

 

It was mutual support. We did host US soldiers in the UK as well others.

Well Churchill was no military genius and it really wasn't his job. Montgomery was actually very competent in N. Africa.

Actually it's kind of the other way round. Alos it's limey. It comes from the fact that mariners used limes to ward off scurvy on long voyages.

It's not something we like being called unless you yourself would prefer being called something equally derogatory.

 

You mean you whipped in to profit after the USSR beat the Germans? Yes, you certainly did. You entered the European war to steal whatever wasn't nailed down after we'd stood against the Germans and the Russians beat 'em, and that's what you did. Who doubted it?

 

Thanks 'ol chap for the edification reference limey. Seems you Brits are a bit thin skinned, eh? What's derogatory about "limey". Sounds cool to me.

What's "Alos"? Did you mean Alas! English is not my natural language -- I'm still learning.

Cheerio!

Thanks again 'ol man. Chin up! Carry on, I say.

Put a shrimp on the barbie! No worries mate.

 

US/UK's relationship will just be what Canada/US relationship is. UK Politicians will have to be very careful to tow the line between being pro US and pro the people. Politicians here cannot seem too pro USA or offend the US government by being anti American. It's a tough line. Our PMs usually ask the US government to be sort of distant to survive politically. Also US won't ask for military assistance. They'll just ask for political support. Less prestige. But it's good!

 

Moral people usually have this sentiment and it is true. If you have to project your peaceful interests with an army, there's a problem. Usually, these things have histories the people are unaware of an see an agressive reaction from another country as "threatening" when it might actually be defensive.

But, more to the point, the British have never really been "friends" with the US. More like resigned allies. In fact, it's more right to say that no nation really has "friends" but allies. They ally out of mutual interest, but the US has strong-armed Britain and other European nations into agreements often enough, At this moment, I believe the US is trying to keep the world aligned to US interests. It's easy to align the pale side of the world against the dark side, or the Christians against the Muslims, or whatever divisional contraption they can come up with, but if a European nation begins to express, officially, an anti-American sentment like that it is curtains for the US. Especially if they leave the US and seek partnership with China.

Seems more likely the US will do everything to maintain the image of "unified agreement in the world community" on the issue of Syria, even though that is obviously not the case.

 

Quite the opposite. We can put up with alot of stuff and often do.
It's derogatory because it's not what we call ourselves nor is it in common usage here.
I mean you would not like it if we called Spaniards "****'s" for example. I can't say that I take any pleasure in typing that.

I suppose it would be ok if somebody knew somebody else well enough to know that it's being used without malice.

Typo error on my part.

Nobody says that anymore

Aussie. Although we do say "no worries mate"

 

I wouldn't mind it at all. Although I'm a white Hispanic, I nevertheless have a latino appearance and I get called a "****" all the time. No hay problema. I'm proud to be white and to be called a ****, wetback or whatever.

 

Well not everyone has such an easy attitude.
In the UK we can be somewhat reserved and it takes time to relax with one another so remarks like limey are not that well received although we don't normally tell people that in person.

 

That last remark should be directed at Australians. I realise the Brits do have a really great barbecue culture now - the summers must be getting dry - but that was a reference to some tourism ads for Australia back in the 1980s which were primarily aimed at the US market.

 

I just provided a job!!!

 

Is the south of England semi-tropical? Do palm trees grow in England?

 

I would not of said so. Although it is warmer in the south by a couple of degrees.

It only gets comfortably warm in the summertime after that it's fairly cold maybe a bit more than Spanish people would prefer.

It's been a while since I've gone to the south as I'm based in Yorkshire. Was born in London though.

As for palm trees, well not really.

 

The joke from the War I always liked should please the thick skinned Yanks. People used to say, ' I like the Yanks - they're nice. It's those white buggers they brought here with 'em I can't stand'. A lot of us still feel that.

 

They don't have a deep one; India trades more with the Netherlands than Britain, and Britain isn't even in the top 20 of countries importing to India. Plus, the Indians didn't like the British favoring the Muslims over Hindus when they were a colony, and they also didn't like Britain favoring Pakistan, either. The Ghandis didn't bother to show up when Cameron made a PR tour early this year, a sure clue to their relative importance to India's power center. The only thing Britain has to offer India is as a conduit into the Euro markets, and that only happens if Britain joins up.as a full member, which doesn't appear likely for the near future.

 

Not that anybody here cares, but many southerners don't like being called 'yanks'; that was a term for northerners in the unCivil War era.

Are the terms 'ozzie' and 'kiwis' considered offensive? If not, then there is little point in using them, is there?

 

Neither is the Netherlands apart of the top 20.

We never favoured any particular religion in India. Also it was not a colony but a directly ruled territory of Britain most of which was in the south with many of the northern parts united under the Raj.
I don't think we favour Pakistan or India.

The family of M.K. Ghanhi has no power in India only a cultural significance.

And yes we are a member state of the EU.

Also there is nothing to stop India trading with the Eurozone.

It's what they call themselves. I suppose it's kind of a non-offensive slang term.