We are at war with many countries in the Middle East.

Today our president met the David Cameron PM and The Queen of England.

The First Lady was at Oxford and addressed the girls as her own children.

What history what pagentry.

Are we part of a very special relationship.

do we need them or do they need us more than them?

what are your views?

Totts : well unless im mistaken america is not at war with any middle east countries...Im confused,youre picture is thatcher yet youre american?
i was impresed that when obama signed the visitors book at the uk parliament he dated the year as .08
lol.
the us-uk relationship seems to be purely military,to get the rest of europe to side with them in the un and nato the us needs a strong member from the eu.(european union)given the uk is the 2nd biggest nation in the european parliament and the bigest military on the european continent, i think is why the u.s government keeps the uk close.
personaly im getting tired of all these pointless wars,as soon as we leave the middle east the governments will become completely corrupt.

thenumberone : Afghanistan. Iraq. Mainly, I think she means the UN bombing Libya thing.

Welcome to the main thing a President does most of the time: travel and diplomacy. It is always like that, each side talks about how nice the other is, gestures are made, etc. Each side gets a boost by showing their people that they have a strong ally, everyone is happy.

Now, the U.S. and the U.K. do actually have a fairly strong relationship and have had one at least since WWI... I forget how soon after the War of 1812 the two kissed and made up. But considering that America was originally a British colony, I would say that we do indeed have a special relationship. I don't think that we need them any more than they need us, we are ideological allies and in global politics those are important.

My views are that a TV dinner holds more importance and power then the queen and obama combined. No one in the UK cares about USA and no one in the USA cares about anyone in the UK. That doesn't mean we don't hate one another, it means we dont give a crap cause we got better things to do then fight over relationships that never existed in the first place.

If people were not in such high positions of power there probably would be no more wars. Wars need a following, wars need money, and wars need weapons. I have neither so I could care less how good or bad their relationships are I care about me and America, not Pakistan and the Queen.

Its like your own father or mother caring about another persons family more then their own. Obama cares more about Pakistan and the Queen then he does with his relationship with the American people. That is why people hate politics, government and wars. None of it has to do with the people, it only matters to those in power.

Elara : well the afghan and iraqi government support the operations there so its not a war as such,as for libya thats actualy on the african continent and there is no formal war.

thenumberone : If you don't think the U.S. involvement in Iraq along with the support of a viable Israeli culture counts as "Wars in the Middle East" than I give you credit. Those military actions are the Middle East.

I count Afganistan as Asia since it is more likely to spill into Pakistan and trigger conflict with India. It is less likely to head towards Iran.

I think Obama was a doofus for toasting the queen during the playing of the English National Anthem. He also signed the guest book with an entire page and put 2008 as the date. I laughed.

The United States and the U.K (with or without Northern Ireland) have a strong military bond. It is not trade-based. It is based on the military. This makes absolutele sense and we are their closest military allies. I have no problem with that.

We don't need each other but we can get along because we generally have the same backgrounds. I support a military alliance with England.

warmaker : no offence but you havent read my post properly,neither the uk or usa are at war with the middle east.saying we are at war with afghanistan has 2 problems.1,we were invited in by there government and 2,aplicable to iraq we are meant to be protecting the people so how can we be at war with them?id be insulted if i was an afghan and heard people not knowing the difference.there is a war,but its against extremism,not middle eastern people(george bush once stupidly said we were on a crusade in the middle east,that offended many good muslims)
I dont like the queen but shes the head of state,obama had to show respect(something i wouldnt do)or else he would have offended many people.
The united kingdom includes northern ireland,if you dont include ireland then its great britain.
See there is one of the main reasons many scotts dont like this alliance,you just said the alliance with england.
Many americans do this and its very disrespectfull.
Throughout history despite being a 10th of the total uk population scotland has provided around 12% of the armed forces and 20 % of the officers.
In ww2 when france and britain were retreating across the channel entire scotts regiments stayed behind to buy them time,in the middle east its scotts that were given the job of holding helmand province,the most deadly province the uk held in the country.
Thousands died in the ww's and Hundreds more have died in afghanistan,it is infuriating that they are overlooked,discarded as insignificant,there deaths mean nothing?
They probably do,this wawas pointless,many more will die before its over.

thenumberone : We were not invited in by the Afghan government when we invaded, their government was the Taliban and they most certainly did not want us there. However, it does bear pointing out that we put the Taliban in power in the first place long ago. The current government does want us there, because we are keeping the Taliban from retaking it while they try to stabilize so that they can hold their own, and that is good. We created the chaos, we should fix it. I agree completely with you that Bush's comment about a crusade was a really stupid comment (and honestly one that probably cost us hundreds of lives... you don't mention the Crusades around Muslim extremists, it is just asking for a violent reaction). Also, as you mention, you have to respect Queen Elizabeth, especially in her own country... just like any foreign leader must show respect to a head of state during a visit. Also, you forgot the offense towards the Welsh, but otherwise you are correct in the difference of Great Britain and the United Kingdom.

I take it that your are very proud of being Scottish? I have never seen someone stick up for them like that... not that it is a bad thing in the slightest (my family is largely Scottish as well).

Elara :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29
after the assasination of the opposition leader the government forces not in power invited us in, and supported us on the ground.The main government forces may not have wanted us there but unlike iraq a huge amount were calling for us to enter the country.


edit(about the uk covering wales)of course, and the irish, even the republicans, who fought bravely in the first world war, although they were very nazi sympathising in the 2nd ww which im not impressed about.

it isnt so much about being proud to be scottish but being annoyed by disrespecting countrys like that, for example saying we are at war with the middle east, we had brief wars with the people in power but if we still see these nations as hostiles how can we hope to become friends?
i dont so much go for nationalism because people arent all the same in countrys,for instance i dont assume that everything our government says is true, no one should be as blindly loyal as that, its dangerous. But by the scale of what your country achieves you can judge whether its systems are good and i am proud of scottish systems certainly.The fact that scotland was, for over a hundred years refered to as the athens of the north, and that even today we have around the 3rd or fourth best education system in europe, better than france or england i might add,(another fact most people dont realise, that scotland has seperate education laws,rules,methods and certificates from england as well as plain old different legal laws)shows that The system works.
however the major reason i dont like people refering to the uk as england is its not fair on the people who died protecting this country.i mean, seriously, one in 4 ships on the sea were built in scotland during the first world war, and it was a scott who created radar detection systems, which without, britains airforce would certainly have been destroyed.)
I like england very much, just because i support independence dosent change that, and i have no problem until that point(should it come to pass)being refered to as british or a member of the uk but im not english anymore than your canadian(not that canada isnt awesome).
I doubt you talk to many scotts though, because most get really(i mean really)offended when you refer to them as england, i was moderate there.
and im not surprised you have scottish familly, 60 million people in north america alone are from scotland originally, more than are irish despite common misconceptions(there are 80 million people around the "world" of irish descent)

i never supported the wars in the middle east but not that we are there we have an obligation to fix the mess we've caused, im actualy annoyed we are all trying to pull out now, talk about abandoning a friend.