Given the UK’s support for your wars in the Middle East over the last ten years the current US position on the Falklands seems insulting and stupid.
If the Americans continue to allow the Argentinians legitimacy on the issue as far as I can see the UK’s least reaction should be to pull out of all conflicts in the Middle East. Further the replacement for Trident should be with a system independent of American influence and we should return to spending our limited defence budget on things that help us defend our own interests.
Can any Americans on here begin to justify basically stabbing your only real ally in the back AGAIN? How? Why should we continue to help you in the Middle East?
(BTW the background for the current Argentinian shit stirring is rather similar to that before their previous defeat. Then we had just discovered that the Falklands have the geological potential for oil. Now we have just started to think about exploiting it. As far as I know we are talking ~20 billion barrels. This is a very very significant field- for comparison the Saudis total reserves from when pumping started to when their fields stop working are ~150 billion barrels)
[quote]lou21 wrote:
Would anyone care to defend or explain the US position?[/quote]
Can you link up some sort of article sharing what the US position is? This is not reported here, so something other than tell me your position would help.
[quote]lou21 wrote:
Would anyone care to defend or explain the US position?[/quote]
Can you link up some sort of article sharing what the US position is? This is not reported here, so something other than tell me your position would help.[/quote]
As of last wednesday
Ie a fairly regular squabble unlikely to lead anywhere. The Argies don’t really have the military capability to threaten the Falklands in the way they did in 1982.
[quote]lou21 wrote:
Would anyone care to defend or explain the US position?[/quote]
Can you link up some sort of article sharing what the US position is? This is not reported here, so something other than tell me your position would help.[/quote]
As of last wednesday
Ie a fairly regular squabble unlikely to lead anywhere. The Argies don’t really have the military capability to threaten the Falklands in the way they did in 1982.
I can’t think of anything she could have said that could be more efficient at escalating a conflict.
I can’t believe your press hasn’t reported the possible loss of your only reliable ally![/quote]
The press probably has not commented on it because it would be another black eye for Obama, and they love Obama. I can not believe Clinton and Obama would sell you guys out. You guys are our closest allies and we should be on your side or stay neutral. I will say on the one hand Clinton was in their country, and being on their turf you might not want to upset them, or they might arrest you on the spot. On the other hand she needs to stand up and side with our allies.
Other than oil as we now know, why does Britain and Argentina want the Falklands? I am not 100% in the know on the History there other than there was a war between you two in the 80’s.
first off, Britain didn’t join the fight in the Middle East to help their old buddy the U.S.A, Great Britain joined the fight in the Middle East out of their own self-interest. Geez no wonder people hate the U.S when theyve convinced themselves their soldiers are dying to help America out.
So America is not stabbing Great Britain in the back, Americans look out for Americans first and that doesn’t mean rushing into Great Britain’s business as soon as they have a disagreement, and vice versa.
Spyoptic
I can’t believe you’re really that self serving. Any concept of honour in you at all? If your friend is being threatened do you help him or go and speak to the aggressor saying something along the lines of ‘sort it out amongst yourselves I don’t care’? Especially if your friend has altered his entire defence set up in order to be a better ally to you ignoring things like new aircraft carriers etc.
Anyway if America really thinks like that the British should look after ourselves first then! We have no interest in Iraq or Afghanistan other than staying the course and helping our allys. We have no interest in having US troops and planes stationed on our soil. And if you guys only look out for what you need right now we certainly have an interest in maintaining a nuclear deterent independent of US influence (as I understand it our current system couldn’t really be used on you guys). I would support these actions. It would of course mean one more country potentially pointing nukes at your cities (we only have about 30 deployed at any one time but that’s enough to cause some damage).
Dmaddox
It’s British territory and has been since 1833?0? British people live there. There was no ethnic cleansing of first nation peoples so it wasn’t a violent land grab. If a plebisite were to be voted on today the people there would vote to stay as British. I think looking after our own people is reason enough to have an interest irrespective of oil.
In the 80’s the Argentinians invaded some undefended British territory. Regan stood on the sidelines and watched. The British leadership (whilst otherwise ahem questionable) at least had the balls and integrety to defend our own people. British service people lost their lives. As did Argentinians. This could have been avoided with a statement as simple as recognising British sovreignty over the islands.
(sorry for any spelling problems dyslexia and no spell checker don’t mix)
Oh and what was Clinton doing there at all? This thing has been ticking along for a couple of weeks (the British press were pretty queit for a good while).
[quote]lou21 wrote:
Spyoptic
I can’t believe you’re really that self serving. Any concept of honour in you at all? If your friend is being threatened do you help him or go and speak to the aggressor saying something along the lines of ‘sort it out amongst yourselves I don’t care’? Especially if your friend has altered his entire defence set up in order to be a better ally to you ignoring things like new aircraft carriers etc.
[/quote]
Ah, you think relationships between nations follows schoolyard rules, or even worse, honor.
I like his realism better.
Can you vote in American elections? Do you finance American politicians?
So why would the US government care what the UK thinks?
You are as much of an ally as a dog is allied to his master.
[quote]lou21 wrote:
Spyoptic
I can’t believe you’re really that self serving. Any concept of honour in you at all? If your friend is being threatened do you help him or go and speak to the aggressor saying something along the lines of ‘sort it out amongst yourselves I don’t care’? Especially if your friend has altered his entire defence set up in order to be a better ally to you ignoring things like new aircraft carriers etc.
Anyway if America really thinks like that the British should look after ourselves first then! We have no interest in Iraq or Afghanistan other than staying the course and helping our allys. We have no interest in having US troops and planes stationed on our soil. And if you guys only look out for what you need right now we certainly have an interest in maintaining a nuclear deterent independent of US influence (as I understand it our current system couldn’t really be used on you guys). I would support these actions. It would of course mean one more country potentially pointing nukes at your cities (we only have about 30 deployed at any one time but that’s enough to cause some damage).
Dmaddox
It’s British territory and has been since 1833?0? British people live there. There was no ethnic cleansing of first nation peoples so it wasn’t a violent land grab. If a plebisite were to be voted on today the people there would vote to stay as British. I think looking after our own people is reason enough to have an interest irrespective of oil.
In the 80’s the Argentinians invaded some undefended British territory. Regan stood on the sidelines and watched. The British leadership (whilst otherwise ahem questionable) at least had the balls and integrety to defend our own people. British service people lost their lives. As did Argentinians. This could have been avoided with a statement as simple as recognising British sovreignty over the islands.
(sorry for any spelling problems dyslexia and no spell checker don’t mix)[/quote]
If voted on by the people that they want to stay a British Colony and not part of Argentina then that should be it. Jamaica voted to leave British rule and look how that country has faired, and the Caymans voted to stay under British rule and look how they have faired. Both chose a route and look which one has flourished.
[quote]lou21 wrote:
Would anyone care to defend or explain the US position?[/quote]
The American position is the British are weird to care about a cold, wet, island in the Atlantic. [/quote]
They dont know any better.
[/quote]
The British have small islands all over the world. I think this is very smart and a tactical advantage for both Britian and the US. We can strike anywhere in the world with large scale airial bombardments with in a couple of days. Why do you think Argentina wants the Falklands? They want Britian out so they do not have to worry about air strikes if the piss off Britian too bad.
[quote]lou21 wrote:
Would anyone care to defend or explain the US position?[/quote]
The American position is the British are weird to care about a cold, wet, island in the Atlantic. [/quote]
They dont know any better.
[/quote]
The British have small islands all over the world. I think this is very smart and a tactical advantage for both Britian and the US. We can strike anywhere in the world with large scale airial bombardments with in a couple of days. Why do you think Argentina wants the Falklands? They want Britian out so they do not have to worry about air strikes if the piss off Britian too bad.[/quote]
That was just a joke about cold, wet islands in the Atlantic.
To the English that must feel like home.
They never found an island where they could not at least put a few sheep on.
[quote]lou21 wrote:
Would anyone care to defend or explain the US position?[/quote]
The American position is the British are weird to care about a cold, wet, island in the Atlantic. [/quote]
They dont know any better.
[/quote]
The British have small islands all over the world. I think this is very smart and a tactical advantage for both Britian and the US. We can strike anywhere in the world with large scale airial bombardments with in a couple of days. Why do you think Argentina wants the Falklands? They want Britian out so they do not have to worry about air strikes if the piss off Britian too bad.[/quote]
That was just a joke about cold, wet islands in the Atlantic.
To the English that must feel like home.
They never found an island where they could not at least put a few sheep on.
[/quote]
I understand it was a joke, but you have to admit it does give them a tactical advantage.
[quote]lou21 wrote:
Would anyone care to defend or explain the US position?[/quote]
The American position is the British are weird to care about a cold, wet, island in the Atlantic. [/quote]
They dont know any better.
[/quote]
The British have small islands all over the world. I think this is very smart and a tactical advantage for both Britian and the US. We can strike anywhere in the world with large scale airial bombardments with in a couple of days. Why do you think Argentina wants the Falklands? They want Britian out so they do not have to worry about air strikes if the piss off Britian too bad.[/quote]
That was just a joke about cold, wet islands in the Atlantic.
To the English that must feel like home.
They never found an island where they could not at least put a few sheep on.
[/quote]
I understand it was a joke, but you have to admit it does give them a tactical advantage.[/quote]
Do they haven an airfield there?
If not they would simply use their carriers which is why they have them after all.
[quote]lou21 wrote:
Would anyone care to defend or explain the US position?[/quote]
The American position is the British are weird to care about a cold, wet, island in the Atlantic. [/quote]
They dont know any better.
[/quote]
The British have small islands all over the world. I think this is very smart and a tactical advantage for both Britian and the US. We can strike anywhere in the world with large scale airial bombardments with in a couple of days. Why do you think Argentina wants the Falklands? They want Britian out so they do not have to worry about air strikes if the piss off Britian too bad.[/quote]
That was just a joke about cold, wet islands in the Atlantic.
To the English that must feel like home.
They never found an island where they could not at least put a few sheep on.
[/quote]
I understand it was a joke, but you have to admit it does give them a tactical advantage.[/quote]
Do they haven an airfield there?
If not they would simply use their carriers which is why they have them after all.
[/quote]
To my knowledge they do have an airfield, but the first war there in the 80’s the Argentinians invaided and took control of the islands so they had to use the carriers at first. Second it takes 2 days for carriers to make it to another part of the world while a plane can make it there in less than half the time. Land does not dissapear, unless nukes are used, but there is still something left and it takes a much longer time to repair or build an aircraft carrier if one is damaged or sunk.
What is the British island in the Indian Ocean that the US has used during the War in Iraq and Afghanistan to fly the stealth bomber and B-52 our of.
â??This is a case of a lost girlfriend,â?? said Federico Mac Dougall, an economist and political analyst at the University of Belgrano in Buenos Aires, referring to the Falklands. â??Argentina lost its girlfriend, and now she is going out with somebody else, and together they may very well strike it rich with oil.â??
The Washington Post commented, “You know that an Argentine leader must be in political trouble if the subject of the Falkland Islands has come up again.” It said Fernandez “has lost the support of most of the country.”
This is one case in which the US gov may be acting with some savvy. Kirchner is pretty much adrift politically in a desperate country. She’s looking to start a fight with a bad guy (that would be you) to win points with Argentine voters.
By refusing to mediate, the US is screwing Argentina and giving a wink and nod to Britain. If your 200 pound friend takes a kindergardener’s lunch money, are you being disloyal if you don’t hold the kid down?
If Britain ever truly needs help, I’m sure we will come to the rescue (see WWI and WWII). I think y’all can handle this one.
Don’t take the shit so serious, mate.
[quote]lou21 wrote:
Would anyone care to defend or explain the US position?[/quote]
The American position is the British are weird to care about a cold, wet, island in the Atlantic. [/quote]
They dont know any better.
[/quote]
The British have small islands all over the world. I think this is very smart and a tactical advantage for both Britian and the US. We can strike anywhere in the world with large scale airial bombardments with in a couple of days. Why do you think Argentina wants the Falklands? They want Britian out so they do not have to worry about air strikes if the piss off Britian too bad.[/quote]
That was just a joke about cold, wet islands in the Atlantic.
To the English that must feel like home.
They never found an island where they could not at least put a few sheep on.
[/quote]
That is because once it is known there are sheep to be had, it is no problem getting lonely Welshmen to move there.