[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I disagree entirely. Traditionally Britain is called a close ally, but would the UK come to the immediate assistance of the U.S. in the event of an invasion? Who would? Canada. And I’d also have Saudi Arabia on that list. They’ve been a U.S. ally since Abdulaziz signed oil contracts and turned on the Ikwan leaders.[/quote]
In regard to Canada, only because of its contiguous geography. NATO members would surely assist te US. Yeah, the state that created and propagates Wahhabism and is antithetical to core American values. Let’s tack Pakistan on that list too.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I disagree entirely. Traditionally Britain is called a close ally, but would the UK come to the immediate assistance of the U.S. in the event of an invasion? Who would? Canada. And I’d also have Saudi Arabia on that list. They’ve been a U.S. ally since Abdulaziz signed oil contracts and turned on the Ikwan leaders.[/quote]
I do think UK would come to our defense if there was an invasion. An invasion against the US would be such a significant event it would have to come from a very serious threat, like a China or Russia as they stand today. The UK has a vested interest in the USA running the global order. I don’t think they would enjoy the Russians or Chinese (or any other great- or super-power of the future) usurping the USA’s role via invasion. NATO would be dissolved and then who would be around to defend them if things got that bad.
Is there any indication the UK would flake on the US in a time of serious need? I’m interested in hearing more.
Saudi Arabia being considered one of the closest allies to the US is laughable. The UK is not a close ally, but Saudi Arabia is. Strong statements like that require a little elaboration.
I suppose they are. Queen Liz II is technically the head of state. If we’re considering Canada and the UK as one entity, then there is no other choice than the UK as closest ally.
Canada, Australia, and Germany are not nuclear weapon states.[/quote]
Holy shit you are right. How the fuck don’t Canada and Australia have nukes? As for Germany are they not allowed them because of ww2?[/quote]
None of those states have a need for nuclear weapons, whose primary purpose is establishing deterrence. As de jure allies of the US, those states fall under the American nuclear umbrella. In other words, they can be said to have extended deterrence.
Under international law, the aforementioned states are also forbidden from possessing or manufacturing nuclear weapons by their accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I’m not sure that I’d call Japan an ally of the United States of America. It takes a bit of twisting to call a nation defeated by the only use of nuclear bombs in the history of war and then occupied by nearly 50,000 of the victor’s troops an ally. I think.[/quote]
Some notes from the diplomatic and historical record Nicky.[/quote]
Again, I’m not sure that “ally” is the proper term…at least, it’s not the term that’s used for all such relationships.
[/quote]
It is actually the proper term in international relations. The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security Between the United States and Japan is the latest iteration of a de jure and de facto alliance between the aforementioned states. Alliance members are allies.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I disagree entirely. Traditionally Britain is called a close ally, but would the UK come to the immediate assistance of the U.S. in the event of an invasion? Who would? Canada. And I’d also have Saudi Arabia on that list. They’ve been a U.S. ally since Abdulaziz signed oil contracts and turned on the Ikwan leaders.[/quote]
The Saudi’s are a weak despot regime that almost fell when Juhayman took the Masjid al-Haram, they were almost overthrown by a bunch of ragtag Wahabbi students and Bedouins and an unarmed uprising of Shia on the other side of the country.
Saudi Arabia are a client state, they are hardly a strong, political, economic or military power that shares an ideology. They are always in danger of Shia revolt and Shia powers like Iran through proxy revolt gaining control of Mecca.
As for Canada you make see some good points, ones I agree with somewhat but would still rank GB as high or higher, though obviously Canada would be the greatest help as far as invasion is concerned.
Then again America is in no danger of being invaded.[/quote]
Saudi Arabia has supplied the U.S. with oil since The Second World War and the deals made between Abdulaziz and the British after the Ikwan uprising and the U.S. during WW2, together with the fact that the House of Saud is the only thing preventing the loons taking over makes SA an essential ally. In many ways more so than Israel.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I disagree entirely. Traditionally Britain is called a close ally, but would the UK come to the immediate assistance of the U.S. in the event of an invasion? Who would? Canada. And I’d also have Saudi Arabia on that list. They’ve been a U.S. ally since Abdulaziz signed oil contracts and turned on the Ikwan leaders.[/quote]
I do think UK would come to our defense if there was an invasion. An invasion against the US would be such a significant event it would have to come from a very serious threat, like a China or Russia as they stand today. The UK has a vested interest in the USA running the global order. I don’t think they would enjoy the Russians or Chinese (or any other great- or super-power of the future) usurping the USA’s role via invasion. NATO would be dissolved and then who would be around to defend them if things got that bad.
Is there any indication the UK would flake on the US in a time of serious need? I’m interested in hearing more.
Saudi Arabia being considered one of the closest allies to the US is laughable. The UK is not a close ally, but Saudi Arabia is. Strong statements like that require a little elaboration.[/quote]
I don’t think Britain would or could come to US assistance. They weren’t even much help to France in 1940-1(see phoney war). As for the Saudis see my comment above.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I disagree entirely. Traditionally Britain is called a close ally, but would the UK come to the immediate assistance of the U.S. in the event of an invasion? Who would? Canada. And I’d also have Saudi Arabia on that list. They’ve been a U.S. ally since Abdulaziz signed oil contracts and turned on the Ikwan leaders.[/quote]
The Saudi’s are a weak despot regime that almost fell when Juhayman took the Masjid al-Haram, they were almost overthrown by a bunch of ragtag Wahabbi students and Bedouins and an unarmed uprising of Shia on the other side of the country.
Saudi Arabia are a client state, they are hardly a strong, political, economic or military power that shares an ideology. They are always in danger of Shia revolt and Shia powers like Iran through proxy revolt gaining control of Mecca.
As for Canada you make see some good points, ones I agree with somewhat but would still rank GB as high or higher, though obviously Canada would be the greatest help as far as invasion is concerned.
Then again America is in no danger of being invaded.[/quote]
Saudi Arabia has supplied the U.S. with oil since The Second World War and the deals made between Abdulaziz and the British after the Ikwan uprising and the U.S. during WW2, together with the fact that the House of Saud is the only thing preventing the loons taking over makes SA an essential ally. In many ways more so than Israel.
[/quote]
And we have been paying them for it. Trade does not an ally make. The US supplied the USSR with grain from the lend-lease program past the end of collectivization. No one accused the two superpowers of being allies. Saudi Arabia is ideologically antithetical to core Western values. Saudi Wahhabism is also the fountainhead of Islamist terrorism. It isn’t something the royal family merely tolerated. Rather, the house of Saud has actively supported and propagated the fundamentalist movement. You may as well include Pakistan of all states as an ally.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I disagree entirely. Traditionally Britain is called a close ally, but would the UK come to the immediate assistance of the U.S. in the event of an invasion? Who would? Canada. And I’d also have Saudi Arabia on that list. They’ve been a U.S. ally since Abdulaziz signed oil contracts and turned on the Ikwan leaders.[/quote]
The Saudi’s are a weak despot regime that almost fell when Juhayman took the Masjid al-Haram, they were almost overthrown by a bunch of ragtag Wahabbi students and Bedouins and an unarmed uprising of Shia on the other side of the country.
Saudi Arabia are a client state, they are hardly a strong, political, economic or military power that shares an ideology. They are always in danger of Shia revolt and Shia powers like Iran through proxy revolt gaining control of Mecca.
As for Canada you make see some good points, ones I agree with somewhat but would still rank GB as high or higher, though obviously Canada would be the greatest help as far as invasion is concerned.
Then again America is in no danger of being invaded.[/quote]
Saudi Arabia has supplied the U.S. with oil since The Second World War and the deals made between Abdulaziz and the British after the Ikwan uprising and the U.S. during WW2, together with the fact that the House of Saud is the only thing preventing the loons taking over makes SA an essential ally. In many ways more so than Israel.
[/quote]
And we have been paying them for it. Trade does not an ally make. The US supplied the USSR with grain from the lend-lease program past the end of collectivization. No one accused the two superpowers of being allies. Saudi Arabia is ideologically antithetical to core Western values. Saudi Wahhabism is also the fountainhead of Islamist terrorism. It isn’t something the royal family merely tolerated. Rather, the house of Saud has actively supported and propagated the fundamentalist movement. You may as well include Pakistan of all states as an ally. [/quote]
Common ideology loses out to common interests. Al Saud and US interests have always been aligned with the exception of the 73 oil crisis during the Yom Kippur War.
Even though Iranians probably like Americans more than Canadians do.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
Who would you consider America’s closest and most important ally? And why?
[/quote]
Canada. They are so much our ally that we don’t even think about it. Think about what a nightmare it would be if it were a hostile nation, like Iran, on our northern border?
I guess then we would know what it feels like to be Israel.[/quote]
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I disagree entirely. Traditionally Britain is called a close ally, but would the UK come to the immediate assistance of the U.S. in the event of an invasion? Who would? Canada. And I’d also have Saudi Arabia on that list. They’ve been a U.S. ally since Abdulaziz signed oil contracts and turned on the Ikwan leaders.[/quote]
Saudi Arabia is not an ally, they are business partner. (just like every other middles east country not named Israel)
Besides selling us oil cheap, what else do they do to help us? Anything? They buy military hardware, but really none of those countries would send the USA any aid or help if we needed it.