Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
The Falkland Islands: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Tell Argentina to STFU
Posts
Maybe, maybe not. Their support may go as far as simply staying quiet on the whole the whole thing but I doubt even that. If anything I expect any more word on the subject to be what they've already said, that the UK should go to the negotiating table, which I find hard to take in any other way than them tacitly supporting Argentina.
Still it's already been said, the US government can get fucked. If we have to give away the Falklands then they have to give back their entire fucking country.
Basically. Saying "the UK should go to the negotiating table" is the polite way of saying nothing cause they know the UK is just gonna tell the Argentinians to get stuffed in so many words.
It's a polite way of not alienating the South American states, and essentially hinting to everyone that U.S. sorta kinda supports Argentina here a little bit. It is essentially one of the more neutral responses the U.S. government could've made, but when the issue is between Argentina holding no rights, or holding rights, even acknowledging that negotiations should happen tips the U.S. response towards supporting Argentina through the indirect acknowledgment that Argentina has any claim whatsoever worth negotiating over.
So really, while they might think they're saying nothing, they're actually supporting Argentina, no matter how miniscule that support is, it still acknowledges the claim instead of dismissing it.
I think that if things keep heating up, the President should just make a statement about the "rights of the people" and then never touch it again.
It's probably best for everyone if we keep our noses out of it, unless the UK asks for assistance (which we should gladly give).
It is annoying that Argentina is receiving next to no condemnation for their actions though.
Haha the US has been happy dicking over their allies since the revolutionary war, and has pretty much laughed off any British protests or requests on military actions or trade policy since WW2. Heck we can't even get the US embassy to pay the congestion charge whilst our embassy pays all the tolls they get.
The US is involved in everything. You really think that having even the smallest amount of support from the US won't strengthen the Argentine position?
Exactly, all of this.
Right. I just don't think this is a particular moment to blame Obama that is all. For all his anti colonialist thought, it is pretty normal behaviour for the US
I agree, he just gets the stick cause he's the butt in the seat you know?
Took major effort to get them to see that supporting Britain was more important for US national security then a few south american dictatorships. Even then it was a major diplomatic operation to get them to agree to give the british forces access to the AIM-9L missiles for their aircraft.
By contrast the french where supportive from day one and gave the british secret specs on the Exocet missiles.
America tends to see alliances as "what can you do for us".
Which is, in my view sadly, quite true.
What the UK can do for the US is continue to die in Afghanistan along with the rest of us.
Indeed so. It's not impossible that UK support for US-led operations might have to make some... difficult choices. Followed by the usual US "Y JOO HATE?" when it turns out their allies have their own interests. (Freedom fries with that?)
But really, why are we discussing this when we've already been through it? The possibiliy that there might be a shooting war in the Falklands is very remote, and the Islands are hugely better defended now than they were in the early 80s. This is going to be a "soft" war.
On top of that, Argentina's Govt. now are not a crazy Junta with nothing to lose.
We could just sum up this thread right now by saying "there isn't going to be a war and the UK is extremely unlikely to concede to Argentinian diplomatic pressure to hand over the islands", but that wouldn't make for particularly interesting debate & discourse.
Argentina pursuing policy of confrontation, says No 10
Why the rest of the world thinks this is ok is beyond me.
But it's clearly the UK being imperialist here.
No idea what she's doing, but I'm guessing it looks good in the Argentine press.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17227792
OP, with that attitude, we could also say that Tibet belongs to the Chinese. More than half the population is now Han, thanks to outbreeding efforts sponsored by the government. Same goes for these islands, the Argentinians were replaced through colonization. So I have to shake my head when I hear anglo-saxons trying to take the moral high ground as in this case.
Which Argentinians were replaced by colonisation?
And using the word Anglo-Saxons rather than British people comes off as pretty racist, by the way.
The inhabitants before the british claim
(and since when is anglo saxon a racist word??)
You are an uneducated idiot, no need for me to dress that up, you need telling just how dense you are.
Argentina was not a country when Britain claimed the UNINHABITED islands, the Spanish had some folks there at some point but they had gone.
But it's the same situation. The only reason the inhabitants are now british is because the islands were captured and british settlers were sent there. Same thing with Tibet, it was captured and Han Chinese were sent there. They did not even need to have a specific policy, settlers flooding in was just a consequence of the invasion. Tibet is just one example out of many of people getting booted out. So when OP said that argentina was being imperialistic because the local population wants to remain british is a fallacious argument, since the british aren't supposed to be there in the first place. Centuries of colonization don't erase the fact that there was an occupation.
What Argentine inhabitants? And using ethnicity rather than nationality does sound racist, yes.
The islands were devoid of human habitation prior to the british colony. Granted, there was a spanish jail at one point, but it apparently was abandoned 3 months after it was built.