Comments by "RiteMo LawBks" (@ritemolawbks8012) on "CNBC International" channel.

  1. Rather than just assuming both countries are best friends and will always be nostalgic from the alliances during both world wars, a better way to explain it would be from the perspective of a foreign nation (outside of the Anglo-American sphere) avoiding conflict-of-interest issues while engaging in diplomacy with either nation separately. The US and Britain have nearly identical systems of economics and law, and since the time of the Atlantic Charter, they've created agreements on mutual-defense and intelligence sharing. They don't spy on each other because they have no reason to. Since the Special Relationship is official foreign policy of both nations, it would be an avoidable conflict of trying to covertly negotiate with either nation separately; e.g., if the European Union wanted a free-trade or security agreement with the United States, and the deal could potentially harm UK's business interests, then it would be unethical conflict-of-interest because the US has to share the information with Britain. During the Falkland's War, the US's official stance was one of neutrality and to support a diplomatic solution to the conflict. Had Argentina decided to seek military assistance from the US, the effort would be futile because the US can't be both neutral and a strategic security partner with Britain.
    2
  2. That's your one opinion. The US wisely decide to develop close ties to the British Empire.
    2
  3.  @pa7447  We're a nation of 330 million people. You're one, and entitled to that one opinion. Fortunately, the people in power made the correct decision, and the American people have continued to re-elect them. We our a Republic based off the legal and economic system that was made and developed in Britain.
    2