Falklands

If Argentina decides to start another Falklands war, I think perhaps after the UK gets done spanking the Argentines, the Brits should annex Terra Del Fuego just to piss them off a little more.

Just to point out UK will never invade Argentina over the Falklands again mainly cos Brazil the new regional power in South America would not be best pleased that either side started throwing stones at each other.

This type of political posturing is likely to increase now that Britain is seen as fading in a military sense. Argentina is not able to press it further but having a powerful Brazil next door allows them to shout behind them so to speak at the other party.

The UK is likely to find it will have to engage in diplomacy in a very serious manner in this region sooner or later there is a possibility of being pushed aside by Brazil. This outcome is not something I believe Brazil crave's although Argentina would be over the moon it is possible it could happen if the UK ignore the situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Patriots are not nationalists.

---

One might think that would be the reason why I said "nationalists" and not "patriots".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

In any case, the indiginous population also want the islands to remain British, and hold British citizenship.

---

Indigenous people...? You mean the animals or what?

Look it up HoreTore, 25% of the population are pre-colonial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thermal Mercury

The only way this will truly be resolved is if England conquers over Argentina, or just gives Argentina the islands, both seem unlikely, lol.

---

Or if the UK asked the EU for help, and the EU as a whole put sanctions on Argentina until it abandoned it's claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Or if the UK asked the EU for help, and the EU as a whole put sanctions on Argentina until it abandoned it's claim.

---

Never happen Spain and Portugal would never allow it they have too many business links with there former colonial possessions to help UK

That would only be a problem with Spain, and Portugal if Brazil throws a hissy fit. Besides, we would certainly have the support of France, and if we dangled a promise of greater integration, then you could probably get everyone else on board.

Would it be sensible to dangle greater integration with the EU over the Falklands?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Look it up HoreTore, 25% of the population are pre-colonial.

---

There was no human habitation of the Falklands prior to European settlement. 70% of the native-born population is of British descent. These are the legendary 'kelpers'. The other 30% percent are nearly all recent immigrants from Britain, and then a very small percent of the population is people from other countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Would it be sensible to dangle greater integration with the EU over the Falklands?

---

Sure. Britain conquers Argentina and integrates it as part of the UK of Britain, Northern Ireland and Argentina, then they'll become an integrated part of the EU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Indigenous people...? You mean the animals or what?

---

About 90% of the Argies are also "European immigrants" (now, the question is when an immigrant turn into a native).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

About 90% of the Argies are also "European immigrants" (now, the question is when an immigrant turn into a native).

---

Living slap bang in what was known as the danegeld, I reckon about 1000 years. :laugh4:

I'll give you a clue. I have blond hair and blue eyes and a Norse/Germanic surname. So, am I English? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

About 90% of the Argies are also "European immigrants" (now, the question is when an immigrant turn into a native).

---

You need special clothing and a phonebooth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I'll give you a clue. I have blond hair and blue eyes and a Norse/Germanic surname. So, am I English? :inquisitive:

---

Well, it is no wonder you got a Norse name when you are living in Jorvik

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Well, it is no wonder you got a Norse name when you are living in Jorvik

---

:laugh4:

Not quite but near enough. I also use 'flat' vowels and use the Norse word for thankyou every day.

Ta -Tak. :juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Pft.

You'll notice the Britons here bite their tongue over my provocations.


That is because they don't have a Navy deserving of that name anymore and will be dependent on Paris' mighty fleet for maintaining their Empire. I will have my fun for my tax money. In fact, it is the best €8500000000000000 I've ever spend. Washington is not going to help them. It didn't last time, nor will it want to upset Latin America this time - what with the Latino vote etc.
Britain will come running to us. So looking forward to their grovelling. From behind my large mahogany desk, I shall threat the Briton with due reservedness and natural aloofness. I'll wear my dark suit I imported from Milan, its tone reflects well in my eyes, gives them a natural authority.

*dreams*

---

lol, reminds me of the joke about the early tornado fighter bombers that had a concrete weight in the nose instead of the blue-vixen radar that was too far behind in development to be installed.

led to the joke about Britain's secret war-winning technology dubbed the blue-circle radar.

seriously though, the main reason why the falklands is a desirable to Britain outside of the oil is because it is a strategic lauch point.

if you want to project power into the middle east you stage from Cyprus

if you want to project power into the south america you stage from the Falklands

if you want to project power into the south asia you stage from Diego Garcia

if you want to choke movement into the med you stage from Gibralter

as long as we have military installations on those parts of the world we are the strategic partner of choice outside of the US. France could make the same claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

No, Fleet Air Arm got an upgrade:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Force_Harrier

The F2 was ancient anyway, about 3 generations behind the GR9.

---

The Harrier GR7 and 9's primarily provide close air support to ground troops. They can carry a couple of Sidewinders but (again) to save money the powers that be decided not to put the Blue Vixen radars from the FA2's into the upgraded Harriers leaving them without a dedicated Air-to-Air radar and only relatively short ranged missiles. To say the GR9 is an upgrade over the FA2 in providing air cover for a naval task force is just completely off-target! In 2005, just before they were retired, the FA2's were kicking the butts of F15's in an exercise at Lakenheath, hardly a sign of an ancient, outdated aircraft. The GR9 could do an adequate job (they did ok against some Gripen's over Norway last summer) but the FA2 would still be far better.

The sad fact is that, due to purely financial reasons, Britain now lacks any significant naval air cover and, as the JSF is looking increasingly unlikely to appear anytime soon, the problem will continue on our brand new carriers. Luckily, we haven't needed any naval air cover recently and we need to hope that continues until they either finish the JSF or they decide to bin it and make a navalised Eurofighter instead (or just buy some F18's from the Yanks).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boohugh

The Harrier GR7 and 9's primarily provide close air support to ground troops. They can carry a couple of Sidewinders but (again) to save money the powers that be decided not to put the Blue Vixen radars from the FA2's into the upgraded Harriers leaving them without a dedicated Air-to-Air radar and only relatively short ranged missiles. To say the GR9 is an upgrade over the FA2 in providing air cover for a naval task force is just completely off-target! In 2005, just before they were retired, the FA2's were kicking the butts of F15's in an exercise at Lakenheath, hardly a sign of an ancient, outdated aircraft. The GR9 could do an adequate job (they did ok against some Gripen's over Norway last summer) but the FA2 would still be far better.

The sad fact is that, due to purely financial reasons, Britain now lacks any significant naval air cover and, as the JSF is looking increasingly unlikely to appear anytime soon, the problem will continue on our brand new carriers. Luckily, we haven't needed any naval air cover recently and we need to hope that continues until they either finish the JSF or they decide to bin it and make a navalised Eurofighter instead (or just buy some F18's from the Yanks).

---

GR7/9 can carry 6 AARRM. The lack of radar is an issue, but the increased range and loiter time count in it's favour. The Harrier has always been a dedicated-to-nothing fighter/bomber and the GR9's are perfectly adaquate for dealing with the Argantine Air Force. Not to mention, we have 45 of them, vs the 18 we had in 1982.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Would it be sensible to dangle greater integration with the EU over the Falklands?

---

A good question, actually.

To be fair, I do not expect any hostilities. This all bears the stamp of ritual posturising, combined with the eyes of both parties firmly fixed on the possibility of oil.

The UK's point of view does not automatically generate Europe's sympathy. A silly, obsolete game of 'let's play Empire' I think is the commonly held view. Spain, Hispanophone, trying to be the gateway between Europe and Latin America, plus itself having a similar dispute over Gibraltar, clearly sides against the UK. The overriding sentiment in the other countries is neither sympathy nor antipathy, but mostly an overwhelming sense of 'could not care any less about something than about some godforsaken Islands in the South Atlantic'.
In this sense, closer EU co-operation in defense, closer political integration, and an active European policy by Britain could help London to gain support for its position.

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

The UK receives EU support in two ways:

Quote:

---

Relations with the EU
Under the 9th EDF, € 4,547 million (i.e. the 9th EDF territorial allocation of € 3 million + transfers from decommitted funds for an amount of € 0.047 million) and € 1.500 million from the MTR) is allocated to the Falkland Islands by means of a single programming document (SPD). The SPD identifies capacity building in the area of trade development with a view to encourage trade growth and increased value added in the Falklands Islands main production sectors of fisheries, agriculture and tourism as focal sectors.
Under the 10th EDF Falklands islands will receive 4.6 million euros.

---

Some €1.500 per Falklander per year in direct EU subsidies.
Combine this with the British expenditure on defense - 1000 men for 3000 inhabitants, and the Falklanders could well be Europe's most expensive citizens.

The other point, very important, and it would actually be interesting to see if it gets tested, is:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Article 42, Section 7 of the Lisbon Treaty

"If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power".

---

That's right. Since two months, all of Europe is obliged to come to Britain's assistance in the case of attack.

Whether the Falklands counts as 'territory', I am not entirely sure. My Google-fu is failing me. Does anybody know whether NATO's similar article five was invoked in 1982?


Edit: my fu is back:
NATO, article 5: The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.

No NATO obligations then.

Well, given that France is the only other country with any Force-Projection I don't see that it matters. Unless we're going to stick German or Dutch troops on British/French transports.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Look it up HoreTore, 25% of the population are pre-colonial.

---

I suggest you look up the facts before you speak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

:laugh4:

Not quite but near enough. I also use 'flat' vowels and use the Norse word for thankyou every day.

Ta -Tak. :juggle2:

---

I saw it said "Grand Duchy of Yorkshire" so I had to comment. I like York, I would install the North England assembly/parliament there, if we ever get one. I am even saying that as an Lancastrian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I saw it said "Grand Duchy of Yorkshire" so I had to comment. I like York, I would install the North England assembly/parliament there, if we ever get one. I am even saying that as an Lancastrian.

---

Regular posters here know that I am also a Lancastrian. Born in Manchester 1960, when half was in Lancashire and t'other bit (the poofty southern lot :laugh4:) in Cheshire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Regular posters here know that I am also a Lancastrian. Born in Manchester 1960, when half was in Lancashire and t'other bit (the poofty southern lot :laugh4:) in Cheshire.

---

Ah, you are one of our brothers who have invaded the Jorvick infidels and their silly white rose. Red Rose forever!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Regular posters here know that I am also a Lancastrian. Born in Manchester 1960, when half was in Lancashire and t'other bit (the poofty southern lot :laugh4:) in Cheshire.

---

i lived with the poofy southern lot for eight or more years. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

That's right. Since two months, all of Europe is obliged to come to Britain's assistance in the case of attack.

---

lol, i wait with baited breath to discover if our glorious continental comrades will ever make good on that defence arrangement!

I was just reminded of this
Giving up our claim to Chubut Province in return for recognition of the Falklands as British seems like a fair deal to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Which would be that the USA would do nothing and the UK would be well within its right to slap Argentina should it invade. Monroe doctrine specifically limits its scope to asserting the right of (former) colonial territories to independence and the US' god given right to remove any such independence in whatever America; it does not include the right of former colonies to do a land grab with USA support.

---

Yeah, that's pretty much the policy interpretation Reagan used to explain our "hands off" approach last time. I vividly remember sitting on the tarmac at MacDill AFB for a tense 3 days back then; where we might go was clear, but who, exactly, we were confronting... not so much, 'til Ronnie & Maggie ironed it out and we stood-down.

It's official!

The US tells its closest ally, the country with which it enjoys a teary-eyed Special Relationship and Civil Union: 'Up Yours, Britain'.

Quote:

---

Washington refused to endorse British claims to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands yesterday as the diplomatic row over oil drilling in the South Atlantic intensified in London, Buenos Aires and at the UN.

Despite Britain’s close alliance with the US, the Obama Administration is determined not to be drawn into the issue. It has also declined to back Britain’s claim that oil exploration near the islands is sanctioned by international law, saying that the dispute is strictly a bilateral issue.

http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-i...s-oil-dispute/

---

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

Quote:

---

Kevin Casas-Zamora, a Brookings Institution analyst and former vice-president of Costa Rica, said that President Reagan’s support for Britain in 1982 “irked a lot of people in Latin America”.

The Obama Administration “is trying to split the difference as much as it can because it knows that coming round to the British position would again create a lot of ill will in the region”, he said.

---

Latin America has awoken. a lot of this sabbre-ratlling is to do with new economic might, shifting demographic balances, and the need for Latin America to express newfound confidence and solidarity at last week's Latin american summit. Always good to have a foreign scapegoat or enemy to emphasise internal closed ranks.

Not to be mean or anything, but the very surname of the Brookings Intitution analyst is a hint to the other reason why the US does not back Britain this time round. The world changes.

If anything did happen, the US would almost certainly do what it did last time - no official support for the UK and no signs of cooperation, but it would actually provide significant intelligence support and also some subtle logistical support (easing the passage of ammunition/missile purchases, etc).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

It's official!

The US tells its closest ally, the country with which it enjoys a teary-eyed Special Relationship and Civil Union: 'Up Yours, Britain'.

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

Latin America has awoken. a lot of this sabbre-ratlling is to do with new economic might, shifting demographic balances, and the need for Latin America to express newfound confidence and solidarity at last week's Latin american summit. Always good to have a foreign scapegoat or enemy to emphasise internal closed ranks.

Not to be mean or anything, but the very surname of the Brookings Intitution analyst is a hint to the other reason why the US does not back Britain this time round. The world changes.

---

that is because saint obama wants a EUropean superstate to prop up a declining american hegemony in the 21st century.

to achieve this he needs a europe that is powerful (i.e. Britain is in it), and anglophile (i.e. Britain is in it).

thus saint obama needs to 'wean' the UK of its US dependancy, because like it or not 21st europe has become a strategic backwater so having the UK as its unsinkable aircraft-carrier off europe is no longer the advantage it once was, we can be of more use to the yanks as a leading light in a federal europe.


but here's the thing Louise*, just because saint obama would have it thus does not mean that Britain should roll over and 'take' it thus. saint obama will be gone one day, and the US will once again realise that an ally that can project power (presuming we still can post May 2010) is an invaluable thing.

the fact that america wants something inimical to the soveriegnistas of Britain is not the cause of a crisis, it's realpolitic, but at the end of the day Britain is still going to have more in common with the anglosphere than it ever will with old-europe. our problems are not yours**.


* post done in a Scrubs style Dr. Cox rant (no offence intended)
** https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2064955
** https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2065209
** https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2065918

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boohugh

If anything did happen, the US would almost certainly do what it did last time - no official support for the UK and no signs of cooperation, but it would actually provide significant intelligence support and also some subtle logistical support (easing the passage of ammunition/missile purchases, etc).

---

Probably, sure.

But I don't think any war will be coming any time soon. Argentina has embarked on a diplomatic Bltizkrieg, not a military one.

Even as we speak, the Argentine foreign minister is adressing the UN, seeking 'mediated negotiation'. Or, seeks support for diplomatic pressure on Britain. This has been Britain's message to the US yesterday: no mediated negotiation from Washingtonnor support from Washington for this. What America's stance is, today, I do not know. I expect the US will not support mediated negation. Will be fun to find out though. The US is in a difficult position, trying to maintain neutrality.

Maybe America's neutrality/support can be ensured if Britain politely indicates it can't afford both an increase in troops in the Falklands and the maintainance of the second largest force in Afghanistan?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

It's official!

The US tells its closest ally, the country with which it enjoys a teary-eyed Special Relationship and Civil Union: 'Up Yours, Britain'.

---

Hmmm... I think that's somewhat of an exaggeration. The US is only neutral because the UK doesn't need our help, diplomatically or militarily, to deal with the Argentinians. Since the UK is perfectly capable of hanlding the situation on their own, there's no point in us barging into the situation. I guarantee you that if for some reason Argentina captured the islands and the UK was unable to get them back, the US would begin actively aiding the UK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

But I don't think any war will ne coming any time soon. Argentina has embarked on a diplomatic Bltizkrieg, not a military one.

Even as we speak, the Argentine foreign minister is adressing the UN, seeking 'mediated negotiation'.

---

I agree that military conflict is pretty unlikely and almost certainly wouldn't happen in the short term at least. It's worth noting, however, that Argentina and the UK were engaged in 'mediated negotiations' at the UN for a few years prior to outbreak of hostilities in 1982 too and look how that ended for the Argies! :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Hmmm... I think that's somewhat of an exaggeration. The US is only neutral because the UK doesn't need our help, diplomatically or militarily, to deal with the Argentinians.

---

Yes it does. The UK does need help. Militarily, no. But there probably won't be a war to begin with.

Diplomatically, yes. Today, Argentina appealed to the UN for mediated negotiation and immediate cessation of the British drilling for oil and gas that started this week. This is the bone of contentment. The US could, arguably, should, have issued the statement, public or through diplomatic channels, yesterday that the US will not support this.
That Washington didn't, indicates a shift in the US policy, a tilt towards Argentina / Latin America.
(Come to think of it, I suddenly realise I am not an expert on US foreign policy about the Falklands. I gather is indicates a shift. I am quite willing to stand corrected.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

...That Washington didn't, indicates a shift in the US policy, a tilt towards Argentina / Latin America.
(Come to think of it, I suddenly realise I am not an expert on US foreign policy about the Falklands. I gather is indicates a shift. I am quite willing to stand corrected.)

---

We've always been of two minds on this one. The USA treasures the Monroe Doctrine (even though our efforts to 'enforce' it were mixed), so there's some "Europe shouldn't mess with the New World" sentiment at play. At the same time, its a God-awful ways away from us, we have no direct interest (at least since we stopped whaling), and since WW2 we've had the special relationship. Reagan's solution was to be "neutral" (but not yelp at the UK using satellite info and other NATO resources). Obama wants to take a more pro Latin America stance, but can't afford to screw up the alliance too badly. He'll do the same thing, stay neutral. Obama's neutral is likely to be a little quieter and maybe a hint more pro-Argentina, but that's about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

That Washington didn't, indicates a shift in the US policy, a tilt towards Argentina / Latin America.
(Come to think of it, I suddenly realise I am not an expert on US foreign policy about the Falklands. I gather is indicates a shift. I am quite willing to stand corrected.)

---

Well, I certainly am not privy to the decision-making process, but I have a great deal of difficulty believing that the Obama administration would ever actually provide diplomatic support to Argentina on this issue. Not only is the US-UK alliance very strong (even amongst us pinko-liberals), as has been noted above the Falkland Islanders want to be part of Britain. The situation might be different if they wanted to join Argentina or be independent, but as it stands I just cannot conceive of any American administration backing Argentinian sovereignty over the islands. At the moment, the neutral line is the best for our interests because it doesn't tick off our southern neighbors and the US-UK alliance is strong enough to withstand neutrality on this issue. If the situation changed such that the US had to make a choice (either diplomatically or militarily) between Argentina and the UK, there's really no question of which way it would go. Not only are the UK our strongest allies, international law is strongly on their side. That said, I'm a huge anglophile and I'm probably biased; I'm very pro-Obama, but that would change overnight if he actively backed Argentina on this issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Hmmm... I think that's somewhat of an exaggeration. The US is only neutral because the UK doesn't need our help, diplomatically or militarily, to deal with the Argentinians. Since the UK is perfectly capable of hanlding the situation on their own, there's no point in us barging into the situation. I guarantee you that if for some reason Argentina captured the islands and the UK was unable to get them back, the US would begin actively aiding the UK.

---

I dissagree. I struggle to remember a time the US has supported Britain without it's own interests being directly threatened. Reagan could (and perhaps should) have sent a Carrier Group as soon as the Argantine Junta invaded. This would have massively reduced the loss of life and probably the laying of mines. That he didn't is just one of many examples of Washington being unwilling to decisively intervene on the behalf of it's most faithful ally.

Obama deserves far more censure given Britain's support of two on-going American Imperial wars (rumour has it 22 Regiment is still in both countries doing the dirty).

In actual war, I think Washington will back the UK.

But in diplomacy? In the the tussle over who gets to enjoy the spoils of the sea?


The US policy has not simply been one of neutrality, but of deafening silence in this past week. Meanwhile, British flags are being burned on the streets of Buenos Aires. Brazil has urged Britain to negotiate. The entire Rio Group declared its support for Argentina on Monday. Argentina's foreign minister had talks with the UN secretary General today, pressing Ban ki-moon to intervene, to urge the UK to negotiate.

Is silence 'neutral', under these circumstances? If the world has changed, is the same US policy still viable? What if the secutiry council will be forced to a resolution?
(Of course, if I were Obama, I'd be silent about it all too for now)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Auntie Beeb

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/999999.gifThe higher profile the Argentine government has recently managed to give the Falklands/Malvinas dispute reflects the greater support Buenos Aires has over the issue these days.
Following backing for Argentina's claim by the Rio Group of Latin American countries, the matter is being raised by Argentina's foreign minister with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.
Of course, the background is completely different today, compared with 1982 when the war over the islands took place.
There has been a democratic revolution across South America and the old antagonisms (especially between Argentina and Chile, which supported Britain in 1982) have died down.

Grandstanding
Despite dismissing it as another round of grandstanding that will lead nowhere, the British government is having to work harder than usual diplomatically to justify its refusal to discuss sovereignty.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8534901.stm

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Torygraph

It is highly likely that the Falklands dispute will gain considerable momentum in the coming weeks, and the possibility of another military confrontation between Britain and Argentina, as well as Venezuela, cannot be ruled out. Britain has rightly warned Argentina that the future of the Falklands is non-negotiable, and that the islands will be defended against any attempts to blockade them.

If the Obama administration does not take a clear position in support of London, the Anglo-American Special Relationship will be significantly damaged. It is imperative that in the coming days the White House issues an unequivocal statement backing UK sovereignty over the Falklands in the face of Argentinian bullying, and sends a clear signal that it stands united with Great Britain.

President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cannot remain neutral and sit on the fence over an issue of vital national interest to the United Kingdom. While British and American soldiers fight side by side on the battlefields of Afghanistan, the United States must stand shoulder to shoulder with the British people as they once again confront Argentine aggression and defend their own kith and kin.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ni...the-falklands/

---

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

In other news, the new EU 'foreign minister', the very British Baroness Ashton, has been spotted in a photograph of....

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

...nuclear disarmament protesters in 1982, demanding that Thatcher repeals the British Naval Task Force she just dispatched to the Falklands.

An English language Argentinian Newspaper that may be of interest
http://www.buenosairesherald.com

*****

And who knows? Another war might kill 1,000 people, but it may save Gordon Brown's career :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

And who knows? Another war might kill 1,000 people, but it may save Gordon Brown's career :yes:

---

Lulz, it saved Thatcher, but you would think a Tory is more suited for war than the Labour...

You're a bit late to the party on Cathy Ashton Louis. As a europhile I'm amazed that you aren't aware that she isn't allowed to see confidential defence plans. Not even secret or top secret or even FYEO.

Still, she scrubs up well for a former commie. :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

In actual war, I think Washington will back the UK.

But in diplomacy? In the the tussle over who gets to enjoy the spoils of the sea?


The US policy has not simply been one of neutrality, but of deafening silence in this past week. Meanwhile, British flags are being burned on the streets of Buenos Aires. Brazil has urged Britain to negotiate. The entire Rio Group declared its support for Argentina on Monday. Argentina's foreign minister had talks with the UN secretary General today, pressing Ban ki-moon to intervene, to urge the UK to negotiate.

Is silence 'neutral', under these circumstances? If the world has changed, is the same US policy still viable? What if the secutiry council will be forced to a resolution?
(Of course, if I were Obama, I'd be silent about it all too for now)

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

In other news, the new EU 'foreign minister', the very British Baroness Ashton, has been spotted in a photograph of....

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

...nuclear disarmament protesters in 1982, demanding that Thatcher repeals the British Naval Task Force she just dispatched to the Falklands.

---

Irrelevant.

They can scream and cry to the UN all they want and get all those really great allies like Venezuela to back them, nothing will happen.

Their claim to the Falklands and the area surrounding it simply doesn't hold up under international law. China owns Tibet and parts of Kashmir, Chinas claim to these areas is far weaker than Britain's claim to the Falklands yet do you think they're ever going to give these areas up? Do you think there's going to be any real pressure ever put on them to give up these areas? The answer is no.

Argentina need to go cry some where else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Lulz, it saved Thatcher, but you would think a Tory is more suited for war than the Labour...

---

what you mean to say is; Thatcher did the right thing, achieved the right result, and thus won the gratitude of the electorate.

the way you frame the statement makes it sound like thatcher started the war in order to divert public protest outside, which she did not, and which argentina notably did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

Irrelevant.

They can scream and cry to the UN all they want and get all those really great allies like Venezuela to back them, nothing will happen.

Their claim to the Falklands and the area surrounding it simply doesn't hold up under international law. China owns Tibet and parts of Kashmir, Chinas claim to these areas is far weaker than Britain's claim to the Falklands yet do you think they're ever going to give these areas up? Do you think there's going to be any real pressure ever put on them to give up these areas? The answer is no.

Argentina need to go cry some where else.

---

agreed.

Louis is insinuating that a crisis is brewing, america is failing us, and only the EU stands between the Falklands and Argentina, and weren't we shortshighted selecting such a non-entity for the foriegn-affairs position.

Not only is that not true, it is laughable, contemptible even.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

interestingly, James Corum blames the collective lack of yanky backbone on the inexperience of Clinton:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...-policy-drift/

I find it hilarious when I see pictures in my daily of Argentinian leftists calling for the conquest of the Falklands. Aren't lefties supposed to be opposed to irredentism?

As for U.S. neutrality, I'm not sure but I think Washington was studiously quiet in 1982 as well.

If he follows his usual modus operandi on Foreign Policy and Military matters, Obama will study the issue for about 90 days, gathering input, after which he will issue a statement. Or not, as the issues at-hand may be overcome by events (he would hope). ...all the while whispering to the Brits "we're on your side".

It's my guess that he won't try to resurrect Monroe; rather he'll most likely kick it to the UN. Meanwhile, the boys in Florida (home of CentCom) will have already dusted off the '82 OpPlans for updating, and have the Navy, MilAirliftCmd & a brigade of 82d Airborne on heightened alert (quietly).

Seeing as how the UN have (of course) done nothing but almost stand up and nearly be heard, they're going to run to Ms Clinton for help...

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Louis is insinuating that a crisis is brewing, america is failing us, and only the EU stands between the Falklands and Argentina, and weren't we shortshighted selecting such a non-entity for the foriegn-affairs position.

Not only is that not true, it is laughable, contemptible even.

---

Louis never insinuates. Louis speaks his mind outright.


So I'll be frank. Your analysis is correct. Having thus been found out, no need for us to keep up the charade anymore: marxist Obama will indeed be the first Secretary-General of the EUSSR, yes.
That's what this whole crisis has been all about. Lady Ashton's in on it as well.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

that is because saint obama wants a EUropean superstate to prop up a declining american hegemony in the 21st century.

to achieve this he needs a europe that is powerful (i.e. Britain is in it), and anglophile (i.e. Britain is in it).

thus saint obama needs to 'wean' the UK of its US dependancy, because like it or not 21st europe has become a strategic backwater so having the UK as its unsinkable aircraft-carrier off europe is no longer the advantage it once was, we can be of more use to the yanks as a leading light in a federal europe.


but here's the thing Louise*, just because saint obama would have it thus does not mean that Britain should roll over and 'take' it thus. saint obama will be gone one day, and the US will once again realise that an ally that can project power (presuming we still can post May 2010) is an invaluable thing.

the fact that america wants something inimical to the soveriegnistas of Britain is not the cause of a crisis, it's realpolitic, but at the end of the day Britain is still going to have more in common with the anglosphere than it ever will with old-europe. our problems are not yours**.


* post done in a Scrubs style Dr. Cox rant (no offence intended)
** https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2064955
** https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2065209
** https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2065918

---

Argentina threatens BHP with sanctions if they continue with falklands drilling:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...lands-oil.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Argentina threatens BHP with sanctions if they continue with falklands drilling:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...lands-oil.html

---

:laugh4:

Are they not aware that any sanctions will probably hurt them more than us?

I say keep on drillin'.

You don't believe that this evolution is necessary? Europe needs to prop itself up strategically. Europe and North America as a loose confederation of states with a quasi-joint military - all doing their part - is a must have imho.

Falklanders are narked that British official history is too pro-argentinian:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...Argentina.html

Quote:

---

Official British history of the Falklands War is considered too pro-Argentina
Falkland Islanders have criticised the Government's official history of the 1982 war, claiming that it contains a series of "serious" errors which make it too sympathetic to Argentina's claims to the territory.

By Jasper Copping

The critics say that several apparent statements of fact in the book are "nonsense" and "seriously defective", making Buenos Aires's historical claim to the South Atlantic archipelago "appear stronger than it actually is".

The legislative assembly on the islands has written to the Cabinet Office, which commissioned the work, to complain and to ask for the errors to be corrected.

Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman, the book's author and also a member of the Chilcot Inquiry panel which is investigating the 2003 Iraq war, said he was "happy to accept the corrections".

The episode comes as Argentina is stepping up diplomatic pressure over its claim for sovereignty, after a British oil rig arrived in the territory's waters last week.

The factual mistakes contained within the book, The Official History of the Falklands Campaign, have been detailed by historians writing in the latest newsletter of the Falkland Islands Association, a British-based group set up to support the islanders.

Dr Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper say the errors are contained in the first chapter of the book, covering the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

They say the work misrepresents treaties between Spain and Britain and repeats a false claim that the Argentines established a penal colony on the islands.

They say the book gives a "seriously misleading" account of events in the 1820s and 1830s, when the islands were first claimed in the name of Argentina. The events of that era are central to the South American country's current claim to the islands.

Mr Pepper said: "This work has the stamp of official history. That is the problem. If it was just another history book, then it wouldn't really matter. We wanted to put the record straight."

Mike Summers, spokesman for the Islands' legislative assembly, said: "If this was a normal history book it might just be part of a healthy historical debate, but being an official history gives it a certain prominence that it wouldn't otherwise have.

"We have contacted the Cabinet Office pointing out there were inaccuracies and suggesting it should be amended.

"Given who [the author] is and given that it was supposed to be an official history of the war you wouldn't want inaccuracies to have gone unchallenged."

Colin Wright, honorary secretary of the Falkland Islands Association, said: "There are a number of errors which the Argentine government would be able to look at and which could be all part of undermining and chipping away the status of the islands and in strengthening their own claims."

Prof Freedman's account of the 1982 war itself is not contested and both editions have otherwise been generally well received.

Two volumes have been published. Volume one, containing the contentious chapter, was first published in 2005 and was reprinted in 2007, when the errors were repeated.

The full response from Dr Pascoe and Mr Pepper has only now been published, in the Falkland Islands Newsletter, in the form of a pull-out errata slip to be inserted into copies of the book.

Prof Freedman, a vice principal at King's College, London, also writes on the errata slip.

He said: "It was not a part of my remit to do a lot of original research into the eighteenth century.

"I was trying to explain the nature of the arguments. I was not looking at any primary sources. I couldn't claim to be a historian of that period. My remit was to write about 1982.

"At no point do I give any indication of support for the Argentine claim on sovereignty.

"It is a question about history rather than support for Argentina. It happens. It is the nature of the job. I don't feel I have been caught out in a fundamental misdeed.

"There is interesting new research that has been done that has shed new light on the issue."

The Cabinet Office declined to comment.

Some of the errors

Official history: When Spain returned the settlement of Port Egmont, on the islands, to Britain in 1771, the Spaniards made a declaration in the treaty with Britain in which "it reserved its position on sovereignty".

Correction: This claim was not made in the treaty's final text.

Official history: Another treaty between Spain and Britain "clearly prevented Britain from occupying the Falklands".

Correction: The treaty allowed the establishment of a settlement if another power (such as Argentina), made such a settlement.

Official history: When a British sailor Captain Onslow of HMS Clio arrived on the islands in 1833, he told the captain of an Argentine warship there that "the Islands belonged to no one".

Correction: The whole point of Onslow's voyage was to sustain Britain's claim, which dated from their base on the islands 60 years earlier. He told the Argentine commander as much.

Official history: After Onslow's arrival, convicts from an Argentine penal colony which had been established on the islands were forced to leave.

Correction: There was no such penal colony. Onslow told the Argentine garrison to leave but asked civilians to stay, as most of them did.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

You don't believe that this evolution is necessary? Europe needs to prop itself up strategically. Europe and North America as a loose confederation of states with a quasi-joint military - all doing their part - is a must have imho.

---

What's your point. The only country to have seriously threatened Britian in 100 years is Germany, and that is largely a result of us fighting them in the last war when (honestly) they weren't really a problem for us so.... no, I don't believe political union with Europe is necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

What's your point. The only country to have seriously threatened Britian in 100 years is Germany, and that is largely a result of us fighting them in the last war when (honestly) they weren't really a problem for us so.... no, I don't believe political union with Europe is necessary.

---

kind of the point i have been trying to unsuccessfully hammer into various peoples heads for some time now: "we understand why the continent might be willing to go federalism, but Britain doesn't need it, and we certainly don't want it, but please by all means go right on ahead if that's what you want to do, just don't try and drag us into it."

to which i typically recieve mystified replies stating that Britain is no different to the continent, and bizarre threads like:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...-not-an-Island

If there's going to be a war, I'll place $ 1000 bet on British Victory! :wink:

The Brits are giving away territories?

Put us down for claims:
Shetland
Orkney
Caithness
Outer Hebrides
Isle of Man
Jorvik

Heck! as long as we are doing claims...
Iceland
Faeroe Islands
Jämtland
Herjedalen
Bohuslän
Dublin
Erik Raudes land ... eh let's just grab the entire Island (Greenland)
Vinland
Markland
Helluland

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

The Brits are giving away territories?

Put us down for claims:
Shetland
Orkney
Caithness
Outer Hebrides
Isle of Man
Jorvik

---

Don't you also have some claim to England?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wiki Heresy

However, Harold Godwinson was not prepared to give up his throne. At the Battle of Stamford Bridge, outside York, on 25 September 1066, Godwinson's forces met with Harald's. Godwinson's forces were heavily armed, heavily armoured, and heavily outnumbered Harald's. Although one of Harald's men single-handedly blocked the English from the bridge for some time, when he fell, Harold Godwinson's better armed and better equipped forces easily cut through Harald's. Harald was killed by an arrow through his eye. Earl Tostig was also killed.

---

LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

LOL

---

You are laughing at what? Men made weak by Christendom or one true Viking of Odin blocking the path of the mighty Anglo-Saxons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

You are laughing at what? Men made weak by Christendom or one true Viking of Odin blocking the path of the mighty Anglo-Saxons?

---

Hard bastard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

You are laughing at what? Men made weak by Christendom or one true Viking of Odin blocking the path of the mighty Anglo-Saxons?

---

The idea that the Fyrd was better armed and armoured on average than the Vikings is laughable, nor do I think the Norsemen were "heavily outnubered", not to mention the Fyrd's forced march.

Nice to see you around again, btw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The idea that the Fyrd was better armed and armoured on average than the Vikings is laughable, nor do I think the Norsemen were "heavily outnubered", not to mention the Fyrd's forced march.

Nice to see you around again, btw.

---

Nuber

buy nuber mugs, tshirts and magnets
A person that has perma-fried their brain through either drugs or alcohol. Stems from the latin root numer, meaning number, shows that an individual has destroyed a large number of brain cells

It's quite probable that the Norse were heavily nubered, and with the average young Briton's fondness for chemically assisted nights out, it's quite likely the Norsemen were heavily outnubered as well. Of course, a Finnish army would easily outnuber them all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

What's your point. The only country to have seriously threatened Britian in 100 years is Germany, and that is largely a result of us fighting them in the last war when (honestly) they weren't really a problem for us

---

Thats a bit of an overstatement, for a long period of the war we were on the ropes, it was only with the start of war with the USSR that things started to change.

Re the Falklands: It's just a bunch of sabre rattling by an unpopular Argentine leader to distract from problems at home (again), if anything its Argentina that will lose out in the end, as they could have made a lot of money providing port facilities and equiment if anything was found.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

Thats a bit of an overstatement, for a long period of the war we were on the ropes, it was only with the start of war with the USSR that things started to change.

---

You misunderstand, the "last" war was WW1, where Britain provided huge resources to help defend France, take Britain out of the picture or haver her side with Germany (as is more historically logical) and WW1 turns out very differently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

You misunderstand, the "last" war was WW1, where Britain provided huge resources to help defend France, take Britain out of the picture or haver her side with Germany (as is more historically logical) and WW1 turns out very differently.

---

After Versailles, we should have turned on the French, just to see which of the victors was best. It was an affront to tradition to join a war involving the French, and not fight the French at some point. We corrected that the next time round, as we demonstrated our superiority in North Africa and the near east. Pick a neutral ground, fight it out, and the winner gets bragging rights until the next time we go to war.

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I probably am but I swear I remember my secondary school History teacher telling me that during the first world war, in strategic planning sessions etc. the British commanders still referred to the French as "The Enemy" i.e "Our 4 battalions will advance to face the Germans with The Enemy protecting our right flank"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

After Versailles, we should have turned on the French, just to see which of the victors was best. It was an affront to tradition to join a war involving the French, and not fight the French at some point. We corrected that the next time round, as we demonstrated our superiority in North Africa and the near east. Pick a neutral ground, fight it out, and the winner gets bragging rights until the next time we go to war.

---

Aye, Mers-el-Kébir was a great show of British skill. Almost as good as the daring British naval raids on Hamburg and Bremen earlier that June.

Quote:

---

=AP]You misunderstand, the "last" war was WW1, where Britain provided huge resources to help defend France, take Britain out of the picture or haver her side with Germany (as is more historically logical) and WW1 turns out very differently.

---

Erm, do you have any idea why the UK opposed Germany? Why the Entente cordiale came about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Erm, do you have any idea why the UK opposed Germany? Why the Entente cordiale came about?

---

Policy, but opposition to France should have been preferable. France was the other overseas power, and therefore Britain's main Imperial rival. Germany was interested in dominating the Continent which was something of relatively little interest to Britain. Also, Germany was a monarchy closely tied to Britain whilst France was a politically volatile and unstable historical enemy which was a Republic at the time, peddling such rot as Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Policy, but opposition to France should have been preferable. France was the other overseas power, and therefore Britain's main Imperial rival. Germany was interested in dominating the Continent which was something of relatively little interest to Britain. Also, Germany was a monarchy closely tied to Britain whilst France was a politically volatile and unstable historical enemy which was a Republic at the time, peddling such rot as Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.

---

Wilhelm was the cousin whom everyone disliked. He had a personal jealousy of Britain's overseas dominance, and wished to build up German naval strength. Unlike the Anglo-French rivalry, which was largely stable, Germany was an unpredictable player. With Wilhelm's antagonism towards everyone else, this pushed Britain towards France, aided by the francophilism of Edward VII. In Diplomacy terms, Germany was the unpredictable player whom no-one trusted, for he played without regard for logic or strategic understanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Wilhelm was the cousin whom everyone disliked. He had a personal jealousy of Britain's overseas dominance, and wished to build up German naval strength. Unlike the Anglo-French rivalry, which was largely stable, Germany was an unpredictable player. With Wilhelm's antagonism towards everyone else, this pushed Britain towards France, aided by the francophilism of Edward VII. In Diplomacy terms, Germany was the unpredictable player whom no-one trusted, for he played without regard for logic or strategic understanding.

---

Quite correct. I have always wondered how the world would have turned had Germany not been so avid at buildling its fleet up to levels that threatened the UK. I don't think the entente cordiale would have materialized (certainly not so explicitly) and I think there would have been little coordination with the French. Had that been true, then the British would have intervened when Germany hit Beligium, but would likely have done so in Antwerp, helping to make it a fortified camp along with the Belgians. But there would have been nobody at Mons Canal who wasn't working for the Kaiser. Given the disaster France suffered at the battle of the Frontiers, would France have had the time to ready a riposte to Von Kluck or would Schlieffen have been vindicated.

Meanwhile in the South Atlantic...


Argentina is winning, is still gaining ground. The sabre-rattling is having the desired result.

The British oil rigs will arrive together with the military. This creates the image, the perception, which Argentina seeks: that of a militaristic Britain, of aggressive plunder, that of brutal neo-colonialism. 'And aren't the British doing the same in Iraq?', is this not the same old 'Anglo plundering tof he resources of the weak by massive military force'.

Meanwhile, a Spanish ship has just left to search and drill for oil, in Argentinean waters. Peacefully. Without military accompany. Will it be chased away by force? Will the 'hypocritical British' apply 'double standards'?

There will be the image of Britain as the aggressor, and of Argentina as the reasonable party. Because Argentina is merely applying diplomacy, and Britain is forced to resort to flex its muscles, to prepare its military, in response to Argentinean provocations.

Argentina can push this a whole lot further yet. War is not the goal, not an option. Argentina is merely trying to provoke Britain, to create an image of perceived British aggression and hostile posturising. While peaceful Argentina is meanwhile asking the world to mediate, is only using civilized diplomatic means. Either Britain doesn't agree with talks, which makes it look like a bully, applying only brute force. Or Britain will negotiate. Which is Argentina's goal in the first place.





Edit: and in ninety year's time, people will claim that Argentina never lost the first Falklands war in the first place because the British never managed to invade Argentina proper, merely succeeded in driving them out of the Falklands.
This the duplicitous Brits followed up with a disastrous peace. Which they should've known was a humiliation to the militaristic Junker...erm, Junta mind.
The sneaky subsequent annexation by Britain of the Falklands in 1982 then caused economic hardship in Argentina, which explains why they tried again in 2010. A renewed conflict in which began because the stubborn, arrogant British refused to negotiate, refused to mitigate the duplicitous treaty of 1982 which left Argentina nothing.

Oh! The power of perception!

Heh, Mon Ami... you are my favorite fellow conspiracy-theorist *slash* strategist. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Argentina is winning, is still gaining ground. The sabre-rattling is having the desired result.
The British oil rigs will arrive together with the military. This creates the image, the perception, which Argentina seeks: that of a militaristic Britain, of aggressive plunder, that of brutal neo-colonialism. 'And aren't the British doing the same in Iraq?', is this not the same old 'Anglo plundering tof he resources of the weak by massive military force'.

Meanwhile, a Spanish ship has just left to search and drill for oil, in Argentinean waters. Peacefully. Without military accompany. Will it be chased away by force? Will the 'hypocritical British' apply 'double standards'?

---

they are only winning if Britain decides to give a damn what argentina or south america thinks. it would be British weakness that allowed negotiations on the status of the Falklands, nothing else.

if they drill in argentinian waters then of course they will be left alone, but if they get any bright ideas about drilling in Falklands territorial waters.............. that will be another matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

conspiracy-theorist strategist. :)

---

Argentina has won this round in South America. And it has won it in Washington.

Not since a certain cigar has a Clinton shoved something up someplace this deep as Hillary/Obama did:

Quote:

---

Argentina was celebrating a diplomatic coup yesterday in its attempt to force Britain to accept talks on the future of the Falkland Islands, after a two-hour meeting in Buenos Aires between Hillary Clinton and President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.

Responding to a request from Mrs Kirchner for “friendly mediation” between Britain and Argentina, Mrs Clinton, the US Secretary of State, said she agreed that talks were a sensible way forward and offered “to encourage both countries to sit down”.

Her intervention defied Britain’s longstanding position that there should be no negotiations unless the islands’ 3,000 inhabitants asked for them. It was hailed in Buenos Aires as a major diplomatic victory, but condemned in the Falklands.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Britain insisted there was no need for mediation as long as the islanders wanted to remain British. “We don’t think that’s necessary,” a Downing Street spokesman said.

What began as a last-minute change to Mrs Clinton’s itinerary on her five-day sweep through Latin America has snowballed into a major diplomatic incident that has emboldened Argentina and caught the US largely un- awares. It could force Britain to reassess the level of international support for its efforts to develop a hydrocarbon industry in the Falklands basin.

When Mrs Clinton left Washington at the weekend she was scheduled to spend just ten minutes with Mrs Kirchner on the fringes of the inauguration of the new Uruguayan President in Montevideo. Argentina was not on her itinerary. The Argentine leadership lobbied hard for more respectful treatment and was rewarded with one of the most closely watched American visits since President Bush attended a summit in Buenos Aires in 2005.

The timing, days after Argentina secured unanimous backing from South American leaders for its demand for talks on the Falklands, meant that Mrs Clinton’s words were bound to be studied for any sign of a shift from America’s traditional stance on the islands — which has been to stay out of the argument over sovereignty but offer Britain vital logistical support.

Mrs Clinton’s meeting with the flamboyant but vulnerable Argentine leader ended amid smiles and laughter. She gave no sign of backing the British position on negotiations, saying instead: “We would like to see Argentina and the UK sit down and resolve the issues between them in a peaceful and productive way. We want very much to encourage both countries to sit down. We cannot make either one do so. We think it is the right way to proceed, so we will be saying this publicly.”

US officials said privately that British fears of being abandoned by the US over the Falklands were wildly overblown, but any hope on the part of the Administration of staying on the sidelines looked forlorn yesterday.

Héctor Timerman, the Argentine Ambassador to the US, said he had never seen “such substantial support” from Washington for his country’s claim. Mrs Clinton had not only offered to mediate but had also signalled that talks should be in line with existing UN resolutions, he insisted, referring to non-binding UN General Assembly resolutions from the 1970s that urge both sides to negotiate.
Ruperto Godoy, the official Argentine government spokesman on the islands, said the new pressure from Mrs Clinton was “very significant, very important” and would help Buenos Aires to force Britain to the negotiating table.

In the Falklands, reaction to the meeting ranged from dismay to fury. “It’s outrageous after all the support we have given the United States,” said Hattie Kilmartin, a sheepfarmer’s wife. “They are not looking at the people who are actually living here and what they want, and it’s crazy that they are even contemplating going against us.”

---

Louis, Louis, what has it actually won?

Nothing of any substance.

The fact that Brits are peeved is because we expect the support of our friends, not because the lack of support has any consequence in an issue where:

Our claim de-jure is as good as anyones.
Our claim de-facto is incontestable.
Our claim on self determination is overwhelming.

And, according to Louis, none of that really matters to the Argetines if you "blink" enough to get them a piece of that nice black "pie." I do love greed as a point of analysis, it's so refreshingly human a quality.

I think we have two idiots competing for the Peace Prize again...:embarassed:

Britain is right but with friends like that...

It might be good if Obuma were to visit the Falklands and hear what the people say...:tomato:

I wouldn’t blame Britain for making it warm for the US in foreign affaires after this one.


:laugh4:

Well, all this demonstrates what I have been saying for years. The US is a bully that treats its allies without respect and, in particular, expects British support without having to give anything in return.

I don't believe anything will come of this, because Britain knows the Argentine government will accept nothing less than a complete capitulation. Backing down is more likely to lead to another invasion than anything else. In the mean time, I suggest we begin withdrawing from Afganistan and innuring those boys to the cold by training in Norway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Well, all this demonstrates what I have been saying for years. The US is a bully that treats its allies without respect and, in particular, expects British support without having to give anything in return.

---

The problem is, Argentina is a strong U.S. Ally too. If the Argentinians were Reds, then the USA would have no trouble with telling Argentina to get lost. It has to walk a fine fine fine diplomatic tight rope. From the point of the USA, I imagine it sees a permanent solution in Argentina gaining control of the islands, regardless of the legal status of the Falklands and the opinions of the Kelpies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

The problem is, Argentina is a strong U.S. Ally too. If the Argentinians were Reds, then the USA would have no trouble with telling Argentina to get lost. It has to walk a fine fine fine diplomatic tight rope. From the point of the USA, I imagine it sees a permanent solution in Argentina gaining control of the islands, regardless of the legal status of the Falklands and the opinions of the Kelpies.

---

So, like I said then?

The US is not a good ally; after all, Britain is of far greater value globally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

So, like I said then?

The US is not a good ally; after all, Britain is of far greater value globally.

---

Britain is also of significant value locally. There are numerous groups who have a grievance with us, so Brit-bashing can get quite a few votes. Or if that's too overt, just staying quiet while Third World alliances rev up their anti-colonial rhetoric will do just as well, as brown people, Irish people, Revolutionaries, and others puff out their chests and glory in our arse-kicking in the 18th century. I suppose all we can do is suck it up, and be proud of how we've managed to upset so many people.