The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Obama calls for negotiations over Falklands - War with UK imminent?
Glyph
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/10/obama-administration-backs-argentina-over-uk-on-falkland-dispute/
Could something productive actually come of this or are we looking at a possible breakdown in US-UK relations this soon after the President's recent state visit to London? To be sure there's still a bit of controversy over those damnable islands but then there are quite a lot of UK citizens living there as well. It's not as though they can all just get up and move out.
This definitely has the potential to be an opposition talking point come next year's election. Whether true or not, this is going to look like the President threw one of our closest allies under the bus... for Argentina! I'm not entirely sure why we would even involve ourselves in the matter.
The Obama administration once again has sided with Argentina -- and by default, against Britain -- in the ongoing dispute over the island chain at the center of a 1982 war.
In a move one British conservative analyst called "hugely insulting to Britain," the Organization of American States earlier this week adopted a declaration calling for negotiations between the United Kingdom and Argentina over the "sovereignty" of the Falkland Islands.
Could something productive actually come of this or are we looking at a possible breakdown in US-UK relations this soon after the President's recent state visit to London? To be sure there's still a bit of controversy over those damnable islands but then there are quite a lot of UK citizens living there as well. It's not as though they can all just get up and move out.
This definitely has the potential to be an opposition talking point come next year's election. Whether true or not, this is going to look like the President threw one of our closest allies under the bus... for Argentina! I'm not entirely sure why we would even involve ourselves in the matter.
Glyph on
0
Posts
So, meh. The US wants a status quo where it perennially asks for talks and the talks never actually happen. This is pretty much fine for all involved.
I won't be surprised if Fox tries to make an issue out of it, though.
To be fair. All I know of this is from the Eddie Izzard joke.
Looks good to Argentinians and the rest of the Americas and the UK doesn't care enough to make a fuss about it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tuO56KK47c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pujWUlihSAc
So Fox is being Fox. There is your story.
We didn't spend good money assassinating political leaders and supporting dictators to go let the British go stomping unopposed around our "totally pacified" backyard.
/sarcasm
Is the Organization of American states only the US or does it actually mean all the states in North and South America, cause that goes a little beyond the US.
Ha, that's where my mind went as well. Also Tevez.
Sure, it sounds good on paper, but what do the Argentineans get out of it?
Thatcher-Con '12
Think of the tourism boost from the UK!
(She is still marginally popular for some reason right?)
Yes, Sarah Palin recently tried to meet with her. And was quite summarily denied.
Strategic sheep purposes?
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Includes 35 countries with a Chilean at its head.
WHOOOOOOOOOPS
edit: Also I think the article was written to get their forum people up in arms so they have quotes as to what "people are saying".
The US and Canada know and accept this, as I guess will many of the other OAS members. So this is just posturing as usual, at the behest of Argentina
There's nothing to discuss, a military junta attacked British soil and 255 british soldiers died defending our territory.
And Obama's, what, using this for cheap point scoring? I can't speak for the whole of the UK, but I'm sure as shit offended - and I find it hard to imagine that British diplomats won't see it as anything but a snub.
Of course the problem is how did that soil become British? It's easy to assert our right to sovereignty, but the location of a territory and the way that we gained it has to be important too, right?
It's not simple at all.
It's very simple. The Argentinian logic is "It's really close to us, therefore it should totally be ours!!!" which is just pants on head retarded.
And the British logic is 'We took it and colonised it and asked the residents and they say it's ours!' - which is no better.
I see it as really simple: The Falklands belongs to the Falklands. It really should be entirely up to the populace of the isles as to whether to be part of another country or an independent nation, and I'm willing, speaking personally only, to militarily back whatever decision they come to.
Take that!
no not even close
Buried on the third page of the actual 300 page document is the declaration. Hidden between a Declaration of San Salvador on Citizen Security in the Americas (Those MS13 guys are rough) and the Declaration on Haiti (remember Haiti?) is not even two short pages of this;
DECLARATION ON THE QUESTION OF THE MALVINAS ISLANDS
(Adopted at the fourth plenary session, held on June 7, 2011)
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,
CONSIDERING its repeated statements that the Question of the Malvinas Islands is a matter of enduring hemispheric concern;
RECALLING its resolution AG/RES. 928 (XVIII-O/88), adopted by consensus on November 19, 1988, in which it requested the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to resume negotiations in order to find, as soon as possible, a peaceful solution to the sovereignty dispute;
BEARING IN MIND that in its resolution AG/RES. 1049 (XX-O/90), it expressed satisfaction over the resumption of diplomatic relations between the two countries;
RECOGNIZING that the accreditation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, under CP/RES. 655 (1041/95), as a Permanent Observer of the OAS reflects principles and values shared by that country and OAS member states, which facilitate greater mutual understanding;
NOTING with satisfaction that the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland maintain important political, cultural and trade ties, share common values and are also engaged in close cooperation both bilaterally and in international fora;
BEARING IN MIND that, despite those ties and shared values, it has not yet been possible to resume the negotiations between the two countries with a view to solving the sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgias and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas in the framework of resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25 of the United Nations General Assembly, the decisions adopted by the same body on the same question in the Special Committee on Decolonization, and the reiterated resolutions and declarations adopted at this General Assembly; and
HAVING HEARD the presentation by the head of delegation of the Argentine Republic,
WELCOMES the reaffirmation of the will of the Argentine Government to continue exploring all possible avenues towards a peaceful settlement of the dispute and its constructive approach towards the inhabitants of the Malvinas Islands.
REAFFIRMS the need for the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to resume, as soon as possible, negotiations on the sovereignty dispute, in order to find a peaceful solution to this protracted controversy.
DECIDES to continue to examine the Question of the Malvinas Islands at its subsequent sessions until a definitive settlement has been reached thereon.
MALKOR NEWS I KEEP IN CONTEXT, YOU DECIDE! :P
This fight isn't nearly as bad as the Spratly Islands.
I think the UK would be perfectly within their rights to respond with a nuclear retaliation.
MWO: Adamski
The Fox News article does not quote what Obama said, which means the whole thing is up to interpretive nonsense.
From what I understand, a suggestion of 'talks' (I hate that 'talks' is a political action, weird phrase) is the opposite of, "Hey, keep duking it out." Y'know, like, handling things in a civilized manner rather than just brute-forcing everything.
I'm sure that's why Fox has an issue with it and took the time to find the few Brits who would offer supportive commentary.
I don't think anyone in the UK cares who America sides with on this issue, because it will have absolutely no effect. Talk of it being a snub or the decline of US/UK relations is just pure yellow journalism.
Looking through Redstate archives are fun! Redstate Prepping a Dead Horse in 2010.
This is why the story will die. It isn't more relevant now than it was a year ago.