PDA

View Full Version : Can you guys talk to Obama for me plz.



Cullion
26th February 10, 05:15 AM
He's refusing to support our claim over oil drilling in Falkland Island waters against Argentina. I know we shouldn't have mentioned the torture thing, but we did provided the second largest military force in Iraq and Afghanistan when most of the rest of the world told you to f*ck off.

I don't think our Navy is big enough any more to fight a second Falkland's campaign and we could really use that oil money right now. Kthnx.

Lebell
26th February 10, 05:22 AM
just invest in green sources for energy.
you guys got a lot of useless immigrants, slavelabour!
problem solved.

EuropIan
26th February 10, 05:23 AM
Leave Argentina alone!
http://www.podcastingnews.com/content/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/leave-britney-alone-guy.jpg


makes you wish a despot-type dictator was still in power so you could "win hearts and minds", eh?

Lebell
26th February 10, 06:16 AM
we should do something about libia.
srsly.
i should be the supreme ruler of libia.
colonel lebell and his merry mujahedeen.

we would bring the innocence and humor back into international terrorism.

Cullion
26th February 10, 07:04 AM
Look guys, we really could use that money right now. I promise not to make fun of American football for a whole year if you can swing this.

bob
26th February 10, 07:09 AM
One of the conspiracy theory/urban myth/rumours of recent times that I find most interesting is that American mercenaries served on the Argentinian side in the Falklands war and were summarily executed when captured.

Cullion
26th February 10, 08:12 AM
Yes, I've heard that British paratroopers took some prisoners after one battle and found three of them to speak perfect English with an American accent, and a sergeant then gunned them down because he saw them as 'traitors' or something like that. Here's an article about it from the 90s:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/falklands-war-crimes-claim-mod-investigates-allegations-that-paras-shot-argentine-prisoners-1540755.html

I wouldn't class it as a conspiracy theory as such, because I don't think it's claimed that these 'American mercenaries' were working on order from the US govt. at the time. That wouldn't really make sense.

The US secretary of defence at the time (Weinberger) offered us the use of any pretty much military hardware we requested "up to and including the USS Eisenhower". We didn't take the US up on the offer of that help, probably for reasons of national pride. We did make use of lots of American spy satellite data that the their government passed to us though.

If there were Americans involved they were probably of Argentinian ancestry or just working for the Argentian govt. as straightforward for-profit mercenaries.

Fearless Ukemi
26th February 10, 09:45 AM
What makes you think he would listen to the common people? He would have to run it by his globalist, corporate masters first anyways.

Cullion
26th February 10, 10:00 AM
Well, if you could ask them too, that would be great. We're getting short on cash here.

Fearless Ukemi
26th February 10, 10:28 AM
Aren't we all?

Been digging around my school's library these past few weeks and it looks like the top 1% wealthiest people currently own more than half the world's wealth now.

Divide and conquer is the game and it's a game we are losing bad. Real power is people.

Commodore Pipes
26th February 10, 11:33 AM
Isn't this how we got into that whole Iranian mess?

jkdbuck76
26th February 10, 12:06 PM
Cullion,

You're European. Mr. Blowbama would rather listen to you than to us anyway.

HappyOldGuy
26th February 10, 12:43 PM
Look guys, we really could use that money right now. I promise not to make fun of American football for a whole year if you can swing this.

If you're expecting a US naval blockade, don't hold your breath.

If you are expecting a carefully worded diplomatic pat on the head, you will probably get that as soon as Hilary gets back from her Latin American summit. This week is not good timing for her to be rubbing salt in south american wounds.

Feryk
26th February 10, 12:58 PM
Not to mention that Obama is probably not all that happy about your helping in Iraq...which he opposed, remember?

Besides, last time you guys wiped the Argentinians without much trouble at all. Why can't you do it again?

EuropIan
26th February 10, 03:50 PM
I thought you Brits owned the Falklands?

Zendetta
26th February 10, 03:56 PM
No, they pwnt the Falklands.

bob
26th February 10, 04:04 PM
Yes, I've heard that British paratroopers took some prisoners after one battle and found three of them to speak perfect English with an American accent, and a sergeant then gunned them down because he saw them as 'traitors' or something like that. Here's an article about it from the 90s:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/falklands-war-crimes-claim-mod-investigates-allegations-that-paras-shot-argentine-prisoners-1540755.html

I wouldn't class it as a conspiracy theory as such, because I don't think it's claimed that these 'American mercenaries' were working on order from the US govt. at the time. That wouldn't really make sense.

The US secretary of defence at the time (Weinberger) offered us the use of any pretty much military hardware we requested "up to and including the USS Eisenhower". We didn't take the US up on the offer of that help, probably for reasons of national pride. We did make use of lots of American spy satellite data that the their government passed to us though.

If there were Americans involved they were probably of Argentinian ancestry or just working for the Argentian govt. as straightforward for-profit mercenaries.

I also like the fact that the Brits sunk an Argentinian ship based on info from a Soviet spy sattelite by way of Norway and the Argentinians sunk a British ship with a French missile. It's like a Benneton shirt except with munitions.

Robot Jesus
26th February 10, 06:13 PM
Look guys, we really could use that money right now. I promise not to make fun of American football for a whole year if you can swing this.


the pads are so you can attack with reckless abandon, if you tried a football tackle in rugby you would get yourself killed.

Cullion
26th February 10, 08:41 PM
I thought you Brits owned the Falklands?


The Argentines disagree, and now our Navy is less than half the size it was back then.

Look, there's all kinds of complexities we could go into, but essentially.. we really need that oil money bro. You gots to help us out.

Phrost
26th February 10, 11:35 PM
Fat fucking chance my limey homey. Sorry, you should have elected Thatcher's Zombie.

bob
26th February 10, 11:48 PM
Wow. The AMA sucks its fair share of dick and then some.

Ajamil
27th February 10, 12:14 AM
We could set up a challenge match where Argentina and the UK try to show who really loves the Falklands by who really knows them.

Straight up Falklands Jeopardy, bitches.

mrblackmagic
27th February 10, 12:35 AM
Rugby. The way God intended it, no rules.

EuropIan
27th February 10, 02:30 AM
The Argentines disagree, and now our Navy is less than half the size it was back then.

Look, there's all kinds of complexities we could go into, but essentially.. we really need that oil money bro. You gots to help us out.
You don't need a navy to pressure the Argentinians, this isn't the 20th century.

bob
27th February 10, 03:09 AM
It's weird. Argentinians are the most Anglo-Celtic of South Americans. They play rugby and all. Even the Spaniards there came from places like Galicia and the Basque region. If you could pick a country in Sth America most like the UK, it's Argentina. It's almost like going to war with New Zealand.

EuropIan
27th February 10, 03:25 AM
What ^ is saying is, l2exploit brown people.

Steve
27th February 10, 03:39 AM
But but but, a lot of Okinawan/Korean/Chinese people too!

jvjim
27th February 10, 03:55 AM
You're not Israeli Cullion, you get no help.

EuropIan
27th February 10, 03:58 AM
But but but, a lot of Okinawan/Korean/Chinese people too!
http://s-ec-sm.buzzfeed.com/static/imagebuzz/web02/2010/2/17/16/best-ever-shirt-8560-1266441087-46.jpg
"It could be a Chinaman! It don’t matter!"

Cullion
27th February 10, 07:04 AM
If you're expecting a US naval blockade, don't hold your breath.

If you are expecting a carefully worded diplomatic pat on the head, you will probably get that as soon as Hilary gets back from her Latin American summit. This week is not good timing for her to be rubbing salt in south american wounds.

We're not asking for military assistance. We just want Obama to recognise our claim.

Cullion
27th February 10, 07:08 AM
Not to mention that Obama is probably not all that happy about your helping in Iraq...which he opposed, remember?

Besides, last time you guys wiped the Argentinians without much trouble at all. Why can't you do it again?

Our Navy is less than half the size it was back in the early 80s, and quite a lot of that is mothballed in maintenance or waiting for new weapons to be delivered.

Our entire military is now smaller than the US Marine corps, and we're already heavily committed on the other side of the world.

Ajamil
27th February 10, 10:23 AM
Is the US taking a stance against these actions, Cullion? Because I would certainly agree if we won't help with resources, we should at least have the UK's back. I mean, they were our biggest supporters for our silly military excursions. We should do the same for them.

mrblackmagic
27th February 10, 10:34 AM
St. Obama will not bless a war without just cause.

Cullion
27th February 10, 12:29 PM
Is the US taking a stance against these actions, Cullion? Because I would certainly agree if we won't help with resources, we should at least have the UK's back. I mean, they were our biggest supporters for our silly military excursions. We should do the same for them.

It's much more serious than that. US military assistance isn't anywhere on the agenda, Obama won't even say 'The UK has a legitimate claim to drill for oil there'.

I wouldn't expect any US serviceman to risk his life for oil drilling rights near a colony of a few thousand brits but I'm kind of surprised and disappointed when a US president won't even take our side or say something helpful on our behalf in a legal debate at the UN.

Obama is starting to make something of a habit of appearing to actively dislike the UK.

HappyOldGuy
27th February 10, 01:21 PM
I wouldn't expect any US serviceman to risk his life for oil drilling rights near a colony of a few thousand brits but I'm kind of surprised and disappointed when a US president won't even take our side or say something helpful on our behalf in a legal debate at the UN.

Supporting you guys on the sovreignty issue is a bit too much to ask. Since, y'now, we don't. What I might do if I was SoS is to mention that "mediation is really only appropriate if both parties want it" or something similar to pour water on the UN move.

Next week.



Obama is starting to make something of a habit of appearing to actively dislike the UK.

Is it any wonder given all the mean things you've said about him on here?

Cullion
27th February 10, 01:38 PM
Supporting you guys on the sovreignty issue is a bit too much to ask. Since, y'now, we don't.

Why ? They're British territory and the people who live on the Falklands want to remain British citizens. It was okay with you back in the 80s. What's changed?

HappyOldGuy
27th February 10, 01:52 PM
Why ? They're British territory and the people who live on the Falklands want to remain British citizens. It was okay with you back in the 80s. What's changed?

Nothing has changed. (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/jd/16321.htm)

Cullion
27th February 10, 01:55 PM
Nothing has changed. (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/jd/16321.htm)

We're not planning on invading Argentinian territory, we just want to drill for delicious, delicious oil in our own.

Can't you bring Reagan back just until this is dealt with properly? We're going broke over here.

Keith
27th February 10, 02:07 PM
We're not planning on invading Argentinian territory, we just want to drill for delicious, delicious oil in our own.

Can't you bring Reagan back just until this is dealt with properly? We're going broke over here.

Can't you bring Thatcher back?

But really, I think if you just explain to Mr. Obama that if you're busy fighting Argentina, you're not helping us in Afghanistan, he may come around.

HappyOldGuy
27th February 10, 02:39 PM
Can't you bring Thatcher back?


You really need both of em. Most of the reagan cabinet wanted to tell the brits to stay the fuck at home. If ronnie hadn't had such a massive mancrush on maggie, things probably would have worked out alot differently.

Cullion
27th February 10, 03:03 PM
British subjects living on sovereign british territory would've become ruled by a military dictatorship if we'd 'stayed the fuck at home' in the early 80s.

The Falkland Islands aren't some imperial conquest with white upper class brits riding around on horseback hitting natives with riding crops, it's some windswept, bleak moorland not that far from the antarctic circle whose inhabitants are almost entirely of British ancestry and they unanimously want to remain British.

Now the Argentine government are trying to deny their right to drill for oil in their own waters, and their decision to do so is almost certainly linked to the fact that we've been running our (much diminished) military into the ground supporting the US in the middle east.

An equivalent situation (except for the scale and power of the militaries involved) would be if we refused to take the US side in a legal debate over whether it was okay for the Chinese Navy to try and stop you from drilling for oil around Hawaii.

It wouldn't be long before you mentioned WWII, would it?

Ajamil
27th February 10, 03:49 PM
Will the Argentinians be drilling if they win? Because I want our ANWAR oil reserves to become more profitable before we start tearing that land up. So by all means do it to your remote places first, and if the Argentinians are stopping you then I think we should tell them to back off.

Cullion
27th February 10, 03:56 PM
Will the Argentinians be drilling if they win?

I wouldn't expect them to say 'we were just putting on a display of latin bravado, we don't actually want any of that delicious, delicious oil'.

On the other hand, we've been going broke consistently deploying the largest military force out of all your allies for the last 20 years of your foreign policy. What has Argentina done for you lately ?

Do you want to send the message that there's no point supporting Americans in any military action because they don't feel any debt of gratitude and you'll just be left with huge debts and a crippled national defence ?

FickleFingerOfFate
27th February 10, 06:49 PM
What has Argentina done for you lately ?


http://www.fashionscene.nl/images/library/5a/7e/79/09/yesica-toscanini-1.jpg

EuropIan
27th February 10, 07:38 PM
Bring Tony Blair back and have him make a case for the Argentinians trying to hide chemical weapons on the Malvinas. The Americans will listen

Cullion
27th February 10, 07:42 PM
We don't want you to bomb the Falklands from space and then make an action movie about it, but thanks anyway.

We just want Obama to say 'of course they can drill for oil in the Falklands waters, The Falkland Islands are inhabited entirely by people who want to remain British and not become Argentinians'.

EuropIan
27th February 10, 09:03 PM
Where's the fun in that for America.?

Wounded Ronin
27th February 10, 10:12 PM
The British government should totally give all its subjects Lee Enfield bolt action rifles so that they become hardcore marksmen by the time they're old enough to join the military.

Ajamil
28th February 10, 02:16 AM
Why do you need our sayso? Maybe Obama's just trying to get the UK to be more assertive. Stop looking to us for confirmation and just take the islands. We're American; we'll respect you for it.

Hell, while you're at it, make up some terrorist plan in Argentina and bomb them, saying it was to protect your ally, the US. That might just bring us over to your side.

Cullion
28th February 10, 07:35 AM
We don't need your permission, we need your support in a legal dispute.
We already have the islands.

Cullion
28th February 10, 07:35 AM
We don't need your permission, we need your support in a legal dispute.
We already have the islands.

FickleFingerOfFate
28th February 10, 10:50 AM
Possession is nine points of the law,
sack up, boys.

mrblackmagic
28th February 10, 01:12 PM
We don't need your permission, we need your support in a legal dispute.
We already have the islands.

All sarcasm aside. Obama's under a lot of scrutiny from the American public because he hasn't/can't deliver on his promises and supporting a purely financial military action, especially after Iraq, would kick up a Fox News led media shitstorm. He may step up if England squeezes his nuts by threatening to drastically pull troops out of Afghanistan or he may wait until the 11th hour so it seems like he had to do it.

Keith
28th February 10, 01:46 PM
What would happen if you just said "Fuck you UN. Drill, baby, drill!" Falklands II?

According to Wikipedia, Argentina has 13 front line combat ships (4 destroyers, 9 frigates) armed with Exocet anti-ship missiles (fuck you very much France for selling these things to anyone with the money to buy them :mad: ), 3 diesel-electric submarines and 1 amphibious assault ship.

The UK has 2 carriers, 19 combat ships (6 destroyers and 13 frigates) armed with Harpoon anti-ship missiles, 8 nuclear attack submarines and 3 amphibious assault ships.

I think you can take 'em.

Cullion
28th February 10, 02:13 PM
All sarcasm aside. Obama's under a lot of scrutiny from the American public because he hasn't/can't deliver on his promises and supporting a purely financial military action, especially after Iraq, would kick up a Fox News led media shitstorm. He may step up if England squeezes his nuts by threatening to drastically pull troops out of Afghanistan or he may wait until the 11th hour so it seems like he had to do it.

Well it is about the oil, but we're not talking about Britain invading somebody else's territory. We're talking about somebody trying to invade British territory because there's oil and they smell weakness because the British military is a lot smaller than it was back at the height of the cold war and much of what's left of it is busy supporting the US.

Imagine you're a Falkland islander.

A lot of people think it's sentimental and weird that you want to remain British, Britain being thousands of miles away on the other side of the equator, and the other side of the Atlantic, but you just do. It's what you've always been.


You live on this windswept chunk of bleak rock :-

http://www.globosapiens.net/data/gallery/fk/pictures_468/--falkland-islands--id=32924.jpg

And you've been there since 1840. It's 300 miles from Argentina, so not in it's territorial waters. You aren't a conquered south American people suffering from some kind of imperialist 'false consciousness', you're almost all entirely of British descent and the Islands were uninhabited when your ancestors arrived.

Most of you make your livelihood sheep farming on those hills, and it's hard work. But beneath your territorial waters, there's oil, and British companies have sent a platform to drill for it. If it works out, then your local economy is going to look a lot brighter.

If you're about my age or older, you remember Argentinian troops landing and trying to impose military rule during your childhood back in the 1980s. Now they're sending ships into the neighbourhood insisting that people 'register' with them. They obviously want a slice of your oil.

Imagine the Chinese Navy were doing the same thing to Hawaiians, or the Russian Navy were doing it to some far flung Alaskan town.

Is it still just about money, now you can imagine this happening to Americans ?

Nobody wants a war over this. You'd rather not say 'fuck you UN, we can totally Nuke Argentina if we have to'. That would be an insane and barbaric way to handle this.

What would help, if your old allies the British would just help nip any legal dickering in the bud by standing up in the UN and saying 'look, Alaska is American, and the Alaskans all want to remain as Americans. The Russians are out of their minds if they think they're entitled to a piece of that pie, especially as they tried to take it by force in living memory of many of the relatively young people living there'.

After the way you'd helped us out in WWII, that would be the least we could do, right ?

That's what I want Obama to do. No American servicemen in harms way, no free money, just a simple and public recognition of the British title.

Robot Jesus
28th February 10, 02:24 PM
[complete ignorance on the subject] I don't think you navy is too dedicated in Iraq, couldn't you just send that? might be a touch lopsided without ground troops, but a defensive line around the island would work; right [/complete ignorance on the subject]

Cullion
28th February 10, 02:57 PM
The Falkland's first-line of defence is stronger than before (fighter planes, ground troops, a ship and a submarine instead of just a few local reservists like last time).

But our Navy is less than half the size it was last time we had to repel Argentinian invaders and any civilised person would rather not resort to violence at all.

Violence would be a lot less likely if our allies helped spread a consensus in the UN that Argentina had no claim on the Falklands.

Ajamil
28th February 10, 04:35 PM
Huh. So why do you think Obama isn't simply backing you up? Why not ignore the obvious reasoning of oil and couch it in terms of British territory concerned about being invaded?

BTW, I'm doing my part by letting my work crew know. Grass roots, man, grass roots.

Cullion
28th February 10, 05:10 PM
Huh. So why do you think Obama isn't simply backing you up? Why not ignore the obvious reasoning of oil and couch it in terms of British territory concerned about being invaded?

The main theory in the British mainstream press at present regards Binyamin Mohammed.

He's a former guantanamo bay prisoner who turned up claiming asylum in the UK. Our Court of Appeal ruled that he'd been subjected to "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the United States authorities" and ordered intelligence files to be released. Basically our super-liberal immigration system and judiciary have compromised classified US intelligence sources and some commentators think Obama's lack of support over the Falkands is a kind of rebuke for that.

It sounds a little bit.. unreal to me.

I think it's more of a long-term and general thing.

Firstly, Obama has quite valid personal family reasons to dislike or at least distrust Britain, because his grandfather was detained and beaten by British authorities during the Mau Mau uprising when Kenya was still a British colony. I will make no excuses for that.

But it was a long time ago and it doesn't really have anything to do with the property rights of some sheep farmers living in a cold patch of the South Atlantic.

Secondly, he really doesn't seem to have a very good personal relationship with our Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, which is also understandable, because he's a complete asshole and he doesn't even have Tony Blair's superficial charm.

Thirdly, I think, like most non-Brits, he probably hasn't got much interest in the Falkland Islands, and unless he was given a very detailed briefing involving an overview of the history for the last 2 centuries, he probably just has a vague idea that they're some kind of colony like Hong Kong that should rightly be returned to the motherland now that the 'white man's burden' is over. This seems to be the 'go-to' assumption regarding British colonies, for good reason, even if often misinformed in the detail.

He probably doesn't know that they're hundreds of miles away from Argentina and were completely unpopulated until British settlers built the first towns there hundreds of years ago.

I don't see any reason not to talk about the oil. It's obviously the main interest to both sides, and it would just look dishonest to pretend it wasn't. The question is, whose oil is it ?

It's the Falkland Islanders, and they have expressed a clear wish to remain British. If they declared independence, they'd get it, but given their tiny population and their cultural trust of the British military over anybody else in the region we'd probably end up still using our navy to defend them and charging them for the service.

Angry Mandrill
28th February 10, 05:20 PM
But really, I think if you just explain to Mr. Obama that if you're busy fighting Argentina, you're not helping us in Afghanistan, he may come around.

yes, leverage. in the run-up to the invasion of iraq, us diplomats had been giving a lot of shit to russia about the chechen war. russia's price for supporting the invasion was the us shutting the fuck up about chechnya, refusing visas to chechens, and allowing russia to declare chechnya a terrorist state. poof, goodbye chechnya.

make it clear to the obama administration that they need to support you or else you'll be pulling out of iraq and torpedoing their next adventure.

Cullion
28th February 10, 05:23 PM
We're mostly out of Iraq now, but we still have a heavy commitment to Afghanistan.

Wounded Ronin
28th February 10, 10:54 PM
The Falkland's first-line of defence is stronger than before (fighter planes, ground troops, a ship and a submarine instead of just a few local reservists like last time).

But our Navy is less than half the size it was last time we had to repel Argentinian invaders and any civilised person would rather not resort to violence at all.

Violence would be a lot less likely if our allies helped spread a consensus in the UN that Argentina had no claim on the Falklands.

Fuck, man. You're going to have to Pearl Harbor the Argentine navy. It's the only way. Even though Britian's navy is apparently now tiny, Britian can't lose a naval engagement without totally destroying part of her legend.

Jesus, dude. Pearl Harbor the Argentines, and then unload all your chavs from the amphibious transports. Give the chavs nunchaku and Lee Enfields and let them go to town.

Robot Jesus
28th February 10, 11:18 PM
no matter who loses, we win!!

Ajamil
1st March 10, 12:03 AM
This is why you don't ask Americans for diplomatic solutions to problems involving anyone's military.

HappyOldGuy
1st March 10, 12:27 AM
Point 1, Argentinas only hope for getting anything out of this is to force it before the UN.

Point 2. The US position, as a permamnent security council member, is that this is strictly a bilateral problem.

Point 3. Profit. Seriously.

I mean do we have to blow you in public? Isn't a quickie under the table enough?

EuropIan
1st March 10, 12:34 AM
Fuck, man. You're going to have to Pearl Harbor the Argentine navy. It's the only way. Even though Britian's navy is apparently now tiny, Britian can't lose a naval engagement without totally destroying part of her legend.

Jesus, dude. Pearl Harbor the Argentines, and then unload all your chavs from the amphibious transports. Give the chavs nunchaku and Lee Enfields and let them go to town.
You can't use navies in the traditional vs non-3rd word countries anymore.

They are more for bullying nations with no real means of fighting back.

Feryk
1st March 10, 01:22 PM
Cullion;

You are kidding yourself if you think that Obama will give the UK a unilateral vote of confidence like that. This guy is the Great Concilliator remember? He never met an issue where he couldn't straddle both sides.

If you ask for his involvement, he'll get the British and Argentine envoys together, and start negotiations. By the time you are done, there will be a British oil refinery on the Falklands, staffed entirely by Argentines, with the oil going to the US.

And he'll expect you to thank him, btw.

resolve
1st March 10, 06:56 PM
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Feryk again.

Cullion
1st March 10, 07:13 PM
I mean do we have to blow you in public? Isn't a quickie under the table enough?

Have to? No. But I think you owe us one.

We never did our quickies on the down low, we strolled out in public with your cream all over our chins.

To be practical, I think, just for now, you should treat us like you owe us one and then this can be cleared up real quick without any violence. We need some verbal muskle here, and we've done everything you said we had to do to deserve it.

HappyOldGuy
1st March 10, 07:19 PM
Have to? No. But I think you owe us one.

We never did our quickies on the down low, we strolled out in public with your cream all over our chins.

To be practical, I think, just for now, you should treat us like you owe us one and then this can be cleared up real quick without any violence. We need some verbal muskle here, and we've done everything you said we had to do to deserve it.

Tough. We are endorsing a status quo that gives you everything you want as long as you don't actually make us spell it out. Ask Taiwan how good we are about that.

Cullion
1st March 10, 07:19 PM
Cullion;

You are kidding yourself if you think that Obama will give the UK a unilateral vote of confidence like that. This guy is the Great Concilliator remember? He never met an issue where he couldn't straddle both sides.

If you ask for his involvement, he'll get the British and Argentine envoys together, and start negotiations. By the time you are done, there will be a British oil refinery on the Falklands, staffed entirely by Argentines, with the oil going to the US.

And he'll expect you to thank him, btw.

That's not what I was hoping for. Come on guys, give me something to work with.

Cullion
1st March 10, 07:22 PM
Tough. We are endorsing a status quo that gives you everything you want as long as you don't actually make us spell it out. Ask Taiwan how good we are about that.

Taiwan hasn't ground it's army into the dirt for you in the Middle East. If that's just a geopolitical abstract to you, well, that tells us something about how modern Americans think. It tells us something we hoped wasn't true.

Is that how you personally think HoG, or are you just trolling ?

I guess your opinions are closer to Obama's than many of the other Americans here.
How do the rest of you feel about this ?

HappyOldGuy
1st March 10, 07:31 PM
Taiwan hasn't ground it's army into the dirt for you in the Middle East. If that's just a geopolitical abstract to you, well, that tells us something about how modern Americans think. It tells us something we hoped wasn't true.

Is that how you personally think HoG, or are you just trolling ?

I guess your opinions are closer to Obama's than many of the other Americans here.
How do the rest of you feel about this ?

I feel that of course the falklands are British, and that it is reasonable for our closest friends to ask us to make sure they stay that way. It is not reasonable for them to ask us to piss off our 2-30th closest allies for a symbolic pat on the head that will actually hurt you on the substance.

I am also 100% positive that the way this story is getting told at home, forcing the issue at a time when it was impossible for the US to respond and blaming the whole thing on an issue guaranteed to deliver max votes, is a blatant partisan political play and they have you humming like a fiddle.

I am relatively annoyed that well educated brits like yourself insist on infantalizing your leaders and won't take responsibility that maybe, just maybe, they got you involved in these difficult things because they really believed in them. I guess it's easier to think of your leaders as tools rather than incompetents. Must be nice to have the option.

Cullion
2nd March 10, 08:07 AM
I feel that of course the falklands are British, and that it is reasonable for our closest friends to ask us to make sure they stay that way. It is not reasonable for them to ask us to piss off our 2-30th closest allies for a symbolic pat on the head that will actually hurt you on the substance.

In what sense is it impossible for you?

It's as if you think being ambiguous with the Argentinians about whether or not they have a legitimate claim is less likely to make them try something stupid.



I am also 100% positive that the way this story is getting told at home, forcing the issue at a time when it was impossible for the US to respond and blaming the whole thing on an issue guaranteed to deliver max votes, is a blatant partisan political play and they have you humming like a fiddle.

Gordon Brown arranged for the Argentinian government to protest about oil drilling and send their navy into the area? Gordon Brown arranged for this:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8533860.stm

You think we're forcing the issue? Seriously?



I am relatively annoyed that well educated brits like yourself insist on infantalizing your leaders and won't take responsibility that maybe, just maybe, they got you involved in these difficult things because they really believed in them. I guess it's easier to think of your leaders as tools rather than incompetents. Must be nice to have the option.

HoG, this isn't about Tony Blair. This is about a few thousand sheep farmers being told that a country 300 miles away which invaded their island in the 80s is somebody they need to sit down and discuss sovereignity with again. I was simply hoping that the recent commitment of British lives and vast amounts of money against the strong objections by most of our neighbours might underscore who your real friends are.

This is what your secretary of state recently said:

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/03/02/falkland.clinton/

What do you personally think needs to be discussed here?

Are you seriously saying 'look I see what you're saying, but don't make a fuss when Argentina tries to make another claim on what they couldn't take by force 25 years ago, because Obama and Hilary don't want to feel awkward when they're on tour, you know?'

If Russia just decided that it was owed a slice of Alaska one day, would you be disappointed if a British Foreign secretary said 'well, we don't want to take sides here, they should sit down and talk about Alaskan sovereignity' ?

This is not a geopolitical popularity contest for Ivy league lawyers.

Robot Jesus
2nd March 10, 01:21 PM
as prime minister of Canada I offer you the support of the Canadian Rangers.

HappyOldGuy
2nd March 10, 01:34 PM
But you don't want the oil. You want to feel special and know mama loves you.

No, I want the oil without having any violence occur. I think that's more likely to be avoided if we're firm and unanimous at the beginning.



I said that it was being spun for partisan political advantage by the morons trying to link it with your unpopular involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and the current government.

Who do you think these people are HoG? I'd be delighted if you graced me with your vast insight into British politics.



The crisis is real, and does require negotiations. Since even if sovereignty is totally off the table, there is still a legitimate dispute about drawing the border lines for each countries economic zone.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/twitpic/photos/full/66961593.gif?AWSAccessKeyId=0ZRYP5X5F6FSMBCCSE82&Expires=1267556739&Signature=qW1f7ZE%2BX%2BitF6lSa4d1b%2FXryn0%3D

Any questions?

Cullion
2nd March 10, 01:52 PM
Oops, I just edited your post without meaning to. Sorry HoG.

This is the map I was trying to show, anyway.

The falklands are shown enlarged. The exploration zone is entirely within Falklands waters. Argentina is 300 miles away.

http://twitpic.com/show/thumb/13v7w9.gif

There is nothing here to negotiate.

HappyOldGuy
2nd March 10, 02:05 PM
A countries exclusive economic zone for mineral rights extends 200 nautical miles or to the limits of the continental shelf, whichever is greater. So yeah, there very definetely is something to negotiate. Right now, the entirety of the waters surrounding the falklands outside the 3 mile limit are disputed waters.

Of course as long as there is an independent permanent security council member to keep the SC from intervening, possession is 10/10ths of the law.

Cullion
2nd March 10, 02:23 PM
A countries exclusive economic zone for mineral rights extends 200 nautical miles or to the limits of the continental shelf, whichever is greater. So yeah, there very definetely is something to negotiate. Right now, the entirety of the waters surrounding the falklands outside the 3 mile limit are disputed waters.

This was the text of the Argentine submission to the UN:-


The Argentine Republic has never recognised the illegitimate British occupation of the southern archipelagos, as the presence of the United Kingdom derives from the usurpation in 1833 of a part of the Argentine national territory, which was immediately protested and never consented by Argentina

Their argument rests on the idea that there isn't another sovereign country on that bit of continental shelf 300 miles away because it's all theirs really. They think they're entitled to stop drilling in this area, and their navy has been harrassing and turning away civilian ships:-

http://www.rpsgroup.com/getfile/6ac0499d-6192-4415-a4e3-3b7e1be2e5cb/falklands.aspx

They shouldn't be enabled in these delusional beliefs.



Of course as long as there is an independent permanent security council member to keep the SC from intervening, possession is 10/10ths of the law.

Unfortunately, it didn't stop them doing something last time. I know Argentina isn't a military dictatorship any more, but they're still convinced that an island outside their territorial waters, which was uninhabited until settled by Brits in the early 19th century is somehow 'theirs'.

Commodore Pipes
2nd March 10, 02:50 PM
This isn't like Iran at all, actually. I don't know why this is an issue, other than Argentina is apparently making it an issue.

I'll call 'Bama tonight, see what his perspective is. I mean, the guy has used 'enormity' to denote scale, so he isn't perfect.

bob
2nd March 10, 03:34 PM
Didn't America relatively recently go close to precipitating the end of human existence because they didn't recognise the rights of a sovereign nation on their own doorstep to do what they wanted (or what the Russians wanted)?

HappyOldGuy
2nd March 10, 03:43 PM
Didn't America relatively recently go close to precipitating the end of human existence because they didn't recognise the rights of a sovereign nation on their own doorstep to do what they wanted (or what the Russians wanted)?

Having your neighbors stage WMD for your enemies is an act of war. Sovereign countries are allowed to perform acts of war against eachother, but they aren't allowed to whine about the pesky war part afterwards.

Cullion
2nd March 10, 03:45 PM
Of course, Hugo Chavez is calling for the 'indigenous people' of South America to unite and 'sink the British fleet'. I hope he doesn't do anything stupid.

Cullion
2nd March 10, 03:48 PM
Having your neighbors stage WMD for your enemies is an act of war.

So is harassing shipping. This would be over really quickly and peacefully if Hilary Clinton just told Kirchner 'look, there's no way there's any dispute over the sovereignty of the Falklands, especially after you tried and failed to take them by force in living memory. It's time you made a choice between the world of sanity, and the world of Hugo Chavez.'

HappyOldGuy
2nd March 10, 03:57 PM
So is harassing shipping. This would be over really quickly and peacefully if Hilary Clinton just told Kirchner 'look, there's no way there's any dispute over the sovereignty of the Falklands, especially after you tried and failed to take them by force in living memory. It's time you made a choice between the world of sanity, and the world of Hugo Chavez.'

I'm not sure what planet you live on where you think that having the yanqui imperialists back your historic claim to your colonial possesions is going to make latin american leftists shut up about it.

bob
2nd March 10, 03:58 PM
Having your neighbors stage WMD for your enemies is an act of war. Sovereign countries are allowed to perform acts of war against eachother, but they aren't allowed to whine about the pesky war part afterwards.

Good point. Guess that's why the Russians were so pissed about you guys having WMD in pretty much every one of their near neighbours you could reach.

HappyOldGuy
2nd March 10, 04:01 PM
Good point. Guess that's why the Russians were so pissed about you guys having WMD in pretty much every one of their near neighbours you could reach.

Yep, sucks to be slow.

Cullion
2nd March 10, 04:04 PM
I'm not sure what planet you live on where you think that having the yanqui imperialists back your historic claim to your colonial possesions is going to make latin american leftists shut up about it.

I'm fairly sure it's more likely she'll shut up about it if the 800lb gorilla on her continent tells her she's being a dick than if your secretary of state tells her she's got a point.

The Falkland Islands are less a 'colonial possession' than Argentina itself is. There were no natives to oppress in the settlement of the Falklands. The people who live there are unanimous in their wish not to be ruled from Buenos Aires.

I don't see what good's being served by letting them think they might get away with something stupid.

HappyOldGuy
2nd March 10, 04:18 PM
I'm fairly sure it's more likely she'll shut up about it if the 800lb gorilla on her continent tells her she's being a dick than if your secretary of state tells her she's got a point.

The Falkland Islands are less a 'colonial possession' than Argentina itself is. There were no natives to oppress in the settlement of the Falklands. The people who live their are unanimous in their wish not to be ruled from Buenos Aires.

I don't see what good's being served by letting them think they might get away with something stupid.

If this was about them thinking about military action, you would be right. But it isn't and can't be. They don't have the army, air force or navy that they had, and probably most importantly, you guys have a significant military presence on the islands.

This is about diplomacy. And you can have everything you want as long as you let us pretend not to give it to you. If you make us spend political capital on this, then all you are doing is encouraging all the folks who don't like us to make your life as difficult as possible.

Cullion
2nd March 10, 04:21 PM
Who are these enemies ? The muslim world ?

Oh, we better not piss them off.

HappyOldGuy
2nd March 10, 04:23 PM
Who are these enemies ? The muslim world ?

Oh, we better not piss them off.

Most of Latin america, France, Russia, China, most of sociocide. Anyone who feels that diminished US power is a good thing will find it in their interests to interfere if the US gets directly involved.

Ajamil
2nd March 10, 04:33 PM
Yay! I get to piss Cullion off more! Wall Street Journal is printing this news from Argentena's side. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703795004575087853956679086.html)

To paraphrase, the UK is evil and should give back the islands because EVERYONE LIVING IN ARGENTINA THINKS SO. They make no mention of those people actually living on the islands.


Juan Tripolone, 36 years old, recalled being swept up in patriotic enthusiasm for the war as a boy. "I remember my aunt donating money to the troops," he said. "Now I wonder if the money ever really made it to them. The soldiers were badly led and died like dogs."The UK should print this on thousands of flyers and blanket Argentina with them.

Cullion
2nd March 10, 04:41 PM
France won't, because it's explicitly bound by the Lisbon treaty assist us militarily if the Falkland's territorial integrity is interfered with, as are the other signatory nations.

Most of sociocide? r u srs ?

US Power wouldn't be diminished by you being seen to stand firmly with a close military ally.

I'm not worried about wounded pride in the other South American loonocracies.

Cullion
2nd March 10, 04:47 PM
Yay! I get to piss Cullion off more! Wall Street Journal is printing this news from Argentena's side. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703795004575087853956679086.html)

To paraphrase, the UK is evil and should give back the islands because EVERYONE LIVING IN ARGENTINA THINKS SO. They make no mention of those people actually living on the islands.

The UK should print this on thousands of flyers and blanket Argentina with them.

The article is hardly offensive. They just report a common Argentinian irrational belief that some islands 300 miles from their coast, which no Argentine has ever lived on, were 'stolen' from them in 1833, and then go on to point out that Kirchner is pretty unpopular and that most ordinary Argentines are more worried about things at home.

<shrugs>

Feryk
2nd March 10, 04:50 PM
You are more afraid of Argentina than you should be. Let them rattle their sabres and gnash their teeth. You know damn well that if their military mobilizes, the US will send down a carrier in about ten seconds flat.

Build a drilling rig and get to it. Park a couple of subs nearby.

Cullion
2nd March 10, 04:55 PM
We've built one which has started drilling, and sent subs. I just don't understand why the current US administration thinks there's anything to be gained by enabling Kirchner's delusions about Falkland's sovereignty. This thread's not about being scared of the Argentine military, it's about wondering why our ally's government isn't being more proactive about stopping it coming to that.

The US wouldn't be asked to send a carrier. The Reagan administration offered to lend us equipment and ships (which we would've had to crew it ourselves and our people wouldn't have been trained to operate them) and satellite imagery.

I just don't think there would be any need for any kind of force if the response was crisp and unambiguous now.

Feryk
2nd March 10, 05:13 PM
You are making the mistake of assuming that Britain will control how the US will respond. If the Argentines decide to make a play for the Falklands, they won't do it alone. They'll want to rally support from like minded South American countries - who want a slice of that oil revenue. I'm thinking Venezuela, for example. Possibly Bolivia.

That happens and the US will have the excuse to slap the shit out of Chavez that they have been waiting for. And they don't even have to invade. All they have to do is show up in overwhelming force, splash his navy and the F-16s he's threatening to sell to Iran. Then they can sit back and let the civil war begin.

Cullion
2nd March 10, 05:19 PM
You are making the mistake of assuming that Britain will control how the US will respond.

I'm assuming that whilst Obama could easily sell 'diplomatic recognition of Falklands' sovereignty for our allies the British', 'going to war with several South American countries at once to protect british oil rigs in the south atlantic' is not likely to fly with most Americans.



If the Argentines decide to make a play for the Falklands, they won't do it alone. They'll want to rally support from like minded South American countries - who want a slice of that oil revenue. I'm thinking Venezuela, for example. Possibly Bolivia.

Chavez has already threatened to 'sink the British fleet' over this. I suspect he dresses up as Napoleon in private.



That happens and the US will have the excuse to slap the shit out of Chavez that they have been waiting for. And they don't even have to invade. All they have to do is show up in overwhelming force, splash his navy and the F-16s he's threatening to sell to Iran. Then they can sit back and let the civil war begin.

I don't think it will go anywhere near that far. Obama and Hilary trying to be neutral on the issue might waste a lot of time with Argentine vessels interfering with the oil drilling by stopping ships and asking for permits etc..

Lights Out
2nd March 10, 06:05 PM
Well, first of all, Cullion, there's something about latin character you're missing: we like to talk our mouths a lot. Chavez is particulary good at that. While he doesn't mind opressing his own people (at least those who don't support him) he's like your neighbourgh's small dog who yaps and shows its theeth at you knowing that you don't even intend to cross the fence. Chavez talks because he likes the sound of his voice and also to raise the spirits of his supporters. I really doubt he'd raise a finger to directly attack the UK or its interests (militarily speaking).

Also, the argentineans fancy themselves as the most european of all south american countries. Do not expect them to involve themselves much in the affairs of their neighbours, save from some commercial treatises, and also don't expect the other south american countries to jump on their defense quickly. Argentine is pretty much alone on this one.

I'm not sure what Argentine wants from all of this, maybe abit of that oil or something, but I'm betting a war is the last thing they want.

Cullion
2nd March 10, 06:40 PM
Kirchner doesn't sound very popular in Argentina, and this is a populist issue for her.
Last time this happened their neighbours in Chile were on our side. It's where escaping British pilots and special forces guys headed for.

Chavez is a clown, for sure. I expect if he annoys the US too much they'll organise another revolution or something.

If Argentina wasn't so delusional about this issue, they could probably make some money from it via their ports. But no, it has to be all 'mine, mine, mine!'

It would be nice if she was humiliated in public and deposed by her own people.

Lights Out
2nd March 10, 06:43 PM
Maybe instead of crying to big papa USA you should sit with the argentineans and ask "all right, folks, seriously, what do you want?".

I don't know how reaterded the argentineans are exactly, but I'm sure they will be better satisfied with a piece of the cake than getting pwned in a war that, I'm sure, no sane argentinean wants.

HappyOldGuy
2nd March 10, 06:51 PM
It would be nice if she was humiliated in public and deposed by her own people.

Given that this whole mess is about her getting reelected next year...

But no, let's hand her the anti-american vote on a platter.:soapbox:

Cullion
2nd March 10, 06:52 PM
Maybe instead of crying to big papa USA you should sit with the argentineans and ask "all right, folks, seriously, what do you want?".

They've already said what they want, and they can't have it. They can scream all they like. The Obama administraton acting like this will prolong the whining.



I don't know how reaterded the argentineans are exactly, but I'm sure they will be better satisfied with a piece of the cake than getting pwned in a war that, I'm sure, no sane argentinean wants.

They can't have any of the cake. You cannot have a slice of other people's wealth simply by whining about it, especially after you've already tried to take it by force.

Lights Out
2nd March 10, 07:21 PM
They can't have any of the cake. You cannot have a slice of other people's wealth simply by whining about it, especially after you've already tried to take it by force.

While I've already said I doubt the argentineasn want to go to war, what would be more costly to the Uk if that could happen? A war or parting with a piece of said cake?

Cullion
2nd March 10, 07:27 PM
Parting with said cake, because it would be an invitation for others to try it. There are enormous possible costs to backing down to attempted robbery.

Cullion
2nd March 10, 07:28 PM
Given that this whole mess is about her getting reelected next year...

But no, let's hand her the anti-american vote on a platter.:soapbox:

Let's make her look impotent.

Lights Out
2nd March 10, 07:34 PM
Parting with said cake, because it would be an invitation for others to try it. There are enormous possible costs to backing down to attempted robbery.

The way I see it: you both sit and get to an agreement. Most probably the argentineasn will be more than happy with any scrap they can get from this. If properly managed, both parties can save face and present the agreement as a victory for them, while at the same time giving the opportunity to the USA to pat you both on the head and congratulate you for being good kids and making up.

Everybody saves face, and we can be all friends again and go down to the playground to play some soccer.

Lebell
3rd March 10, 05:16 AM
don't listen to lights out.
last time you kicked major ass, it's time to do it again.
this time firebomb buenos aires too to really put the fear of god in em.
there's old nazi's living there so its not they're not used to it.

Feryk
3rd March 10, 12:14 PM
Let's make her look impotent.

Then by all means agree to talks - hosted in Buenos Ares. Have your Foreign Minister show up for the meeting by surfacing the HMS Vengeance in their harbor. Park the fleet just outside in international waters. Disrupt all their shipping traffic by asking for permits.

Nothing says 'impotence' like parking a nuclear sub in their backyard without them knowing about it first.

Cullion
3rd March 10, 05:30 PM
The way I see it: you both sit and get to an agreement. Most probably the argentineasn will be more than happy with any scrap they can get from this. If properly managed, both parties can save face and present the agreement as a victory for them, while at the same time giving the opportunity to the USA to pat you both on the head and congratulate you for being good kids and making up.

Everybody saves face, and we can be all friends again and go down to the playground to play some soccer.

You sound like the kind of guy who carries a few Euros in his pocket in case anybody tries to mug him so you have something to give to them.

Sometimes the best way to stop a fight is to be too overwhelmingly in the right, and too well armed for them to want to risk it. I'd like America's verbal support on that score now. We'll handle the submarine and commando side of it.

EuropIan
3rd March 10, 05:41 PM
You seem to think it's Americas job to settle your dispute.


America is not gonna help you guys talk shit just so you can get free drinks.

EuropIan
3rd March 10, 05:47 PM
well that's because Reagan hated South America.

Feryk
3rd March 10, 05:48 PM
Actually NoB's right. If Raygun were still Pres, this would've already happened. The Republicans always knew who their friends were.

Lights Out
3rd March 10, 05:57 PM
I'd refer to a previous HOG's post and the text submited by Argentine to the UN you yourself posted.


The Argentine Republic has never recognised the illegitimate British occupation of the southern archipelagos, as the presence of the United Kingdom derives from the usurpation in 1833 of a part of the Argentine national territory, which was immediately protested and never consented by Argentina

Besides, it's not like the UK has ever stolen someone else's land before, right?

If there's a dispute, you should either sit and talk about it or fight about the isse, that's all I'm saying. That, and considering that the war is probably more costly than any settlement.

I don't know if Argentina is going to give up this subject. Hell, I don't know if they are gonna drop the Flaklands issue sometime, or if it's gonna be something that will arise once in a while forever.

Cullion
3rd March 10, 07:36 PM
You seem to think it's Americas america owes you one after joining in with their stupid fucking adventures

Yes, we do.



America is not gonna help you guys talk shit just so you can get free drinks.

America will help, or America won't help. We'll still get what we want, it's a question of how you want your potential allies to see you. And when I see 'your', I don't actually mean 'you', I mean real Americans, who work for a living.

I'm just pointing out that Obama's a faggot. I know people like you and HoG are kind of enamored with the whole 'OMG he's Black!' thing still, but you actually need to shut the fuck up. He's a disappointment and a loser.

Jimmi Hendrix and Mr T. were black, and they were fucking cool. You need to re-live the 80s the right way and not be so pathetically submissive to niggercommies, homo.

And you can tell him I said that.

p.s. Aerosmith:-

NMNgbISmF4I

bob
3rd March 10, 07:49 PM
You're at least ten years and an assault conviction away from making this persona work Cullion.

EuropIan
3rd March 10, 08:06 PM
Yes, we do.

http://www.aimfundraising.com/images/lollipop-fundraiser.jpg



America will help, or America won't help. We'll still get what we want, it's a question of how you want your potential allies to see you. And when I see 'your', I don't actually mean 'you', I mean real Americans, who work for a living.

I'm just pointing out that Obama's a faggot. I know people like you and HoG are kind of enamored with the whole 'OMG he's Black!' thing still, but you actually need to shut the fuck up. He's a disappointment and a loser.

Jimmi Hendrix and Mr T. were black, and they were fucking cool. You need to re-live the 80s the right way and not be so pathetically submissive to niggercommies, homo.

And you can tell him I said that.

p.s. Aerosmith:-


http://cdn0.knowyourmeme.com/i/29358/original/umad.jpg
P.S. Rolling Stones

X_Ji83e4mUA

bob
3rd March 10, 08:18 PM
...an island outside their territorial waters, which was uninhabited until settled by Brits in the early 19th century is somehow 'theirs'.

whoa, back up. That's not actually true you know.

HappyOldGuy
3rd March 10, 10:45 PM
whoa, back up. That's not actually true you know.

Hush, don't you know this is really about Cullions unrequited love for Maggie Thatcher.

And Barack Obama.

Ajamil
4th March 10, 12:21 AM
What's not true? The islands were inhabited? That would change a lot, but not much. I really need someone to convince me why we should care about Argentina not recognizing the UK's claim on these islands. Unless Cullion is giving misinformation, the islands are out of their coastal zone and have no Argentinians living there and never had any.

What they think about the Falklands belonging to Britain matters as much as their opinion on who should own the Bahamas.

bob
4th March 10, 12:34 AM
There was an Argentine settlement there immediately before the Brits. Supposedly it was trashed by an American warship after a dispute over whaling rights.

Cullion, this is like that scene in Dark Knight where the Joker throws a pool cue on the floor and tells the guys to fight for a place in his gang. Think of this as one of America's little tests for you. Except this time they're going to sell pool cues to both sides and still pretend to seek a peaceful solution. Asking them for help means you've failed the initiation.

HappyOldGuy
4th March 10, 01:36 AM
There were a number of failed or temporary colonies there before the brits finally set up to stay. including France, Argentina, and Spain.

Another thing that Cullion isn't going to tell you is that before the Falklands war, the falkland islanders were not really citizens.

But neither thing is really here nor there, we're way past the statute of limitations on anyone elses claim, and the islanders are full fledged subjects of her majesty these days and seem to like it.

And as long as they want to stay that way, the US will make sure that they can. We just won't necessarily do it the way that a Tory MP looking to trash the current gov in an editorial suggests we should.

Cullion
4th March 10, 09:43 AM
There was an Argentine settlement there immediately before the Brits. Supposedly it was trashed by an American warship after a dispute over whaling rights.

It was a penal colony that lasted 2 years and the soldiers stationed there mutinied. Many of them were British mercenaries, ironically.

Our plaque claiming sovereignity was up first.

Cullion
4th March 10, 09:52 AM
There were a number of failed or temporary colonies there before the brits finally set up to stay. including France, Argentina, and Spain.

And the British were there first. Permanent settlements, children being raised, farming, all British.



Another thing that Cullion isn't going to tell you is that before the Falklands war, the falkland islanders were not really citizens.

You really don't understand British law, so don't try and play this game.

They were a crown dependency, not a part of the UK, in much the same manner as Hong Kong was, except the land wasn't being leased from another country and the inhabitants were not conquered 'natives'. Their current legal status is based on their right to self-determination, and they've unanimously chosen to remain under the British Crown. UK passports aren't relevant to whether or not Argentina has a right to their territorial waters. You're simply confused about the distinction between 'British' and 'UK'.



And as long as they want to stay that way, the US will make sure that they can. We just won't necessarily do it the way that a Tory MP looking to trash the current gov in an editorial suggests we should.

Don't pretend you understand some great machivellian plan on Obama's part. You don't. He's simply failing to defuse the situation decisively and insulting an ally in the process again.

HappyOldGuy
4th March 10, 11:15 AM
Actually the french were there first.

But they surrendered.

And the machiavellian plan is the tories for the election. To rub salt in the wound about Iraq and Afghanistan by suggesting that they haven't entitled you to help from the US which your government has never actually asked for and doesn't need. This is a made up controversy. It's your version of our death panels debate.

And you are sucking their dick like a no tooth alchoholic on 2$ shot night.

Cullion
4th March 10, 11:35 AM
Actually the french were there first.

John Davis, 1592.



And the machiavellian plan is the tories for the election. To rub salt in the wound about Iraq and Afghanistan by suggesting that they haven't entitled you to help from the US which your government has never actually asked for and doesn't need.

The tories are not attempting to get any kind of electoral boost by playing the 'we didn't want to go into Iraq' card. They were in favour of the invasion almost unanimously, there was more dissent on the Labour back benches.



This is a made up controversy. It's your version of our death panels debate.

Death panels actually exist in the UK you know.



And you are sucking their dick like a no tooth alchoholic on 2$ shot night.

Damn your eyes. I'm going to make you pay one day. Yes I will.