The UK-US 'Special Relationship'

[KANEIT]

Let's face up to facts here, the Americans don't like us having territory in their back yard, especially not territory where oil is present and potential Antarctic rights may exist. The rights of the U.S to hold the southern states of their nation are more tenuous than our claim to the Falklands. The U.S has always been interested in reducing the power of other nations while increasing their own, they never offer anything unconditionally. I can't believe how naive the world has been, the sooner we push them all back within their own borders the better.

[ErnestM]

You've got some island in the Virgin Islands as well which are damned closer. Doesn't stop American tourists from visiting (because the service and the beer is better).

As long as it is what the Falkland Islanders want, the people of the US don't care at all about the Falklands being British.

[KANEIT]

The administration, I should add.

[Tadite]

ErnestM said:

Why do you think Reagan publicly supported the UK last time? The American people, that's why. Of course he is going to be seen to encouraging mediation. What would the alternative be? Get on the telly and say that he hoped the Brits kicked the sh!t out of the Argies?

I don't think you can really claim that the American people cared about the Falkland War or had any idea what it was about. I know you can't claim that the American people support the continued existence of the British Empire because if they did it would still exist.... The American people historically were the primary financiers of independence movements throughout the British Empire some of which spent most of their time blowing up London (IRA anyone?).

You like to point to Reagan support as if it was a clear example of US policy. If anything that is the only example nearly in the history of the country the the US supported the UK in a war to hold to its colonial possessions. Something that we have been paying for, politically, for nearly 30 years just so the UK could pretend to still be important fighting a minor skirmish and calling it a war....

ErnestM said:

The people of the United States still drive the direction of the country. That's something that the current administration has forgotten.

They will be reminded. Soon.

Well... yes... this is a democracy and people can vote. People are more then welcome to vote for someone else if they don't like the current administration. Goodness knows the health care situation was a major mistake. Obama should get a little bit more props for having the guts to actually go after the Taliban when that war is also increasingly unpopular and when large parts of his own votes disagree with it. I do, however, think that only the tinniest percentage of them are going to vote for someone because of foreign policy primarily because the differences between candidates and the two parties are almost nothing. Domestic policy has lots of arguments but in foreign policy the US is extremely consistent regardless of president. The only people who like to claim some massive difference are the parties (and the party fanatics) themselves primarily due to the need for marketing.

[Jimbeaux]

KANEIT said:

Let's face up to facts here, the Americans don't like us having territory in their back yard, especially not territory where oil is present and potential Antarctic rights may exist. The rights of the U.S to hold the southern states of their nation are more tenuous than our claim to the Falklands. The U.S has always been interested in reducing the power of other nations while increasing their own, they never offer anything unconditionally. I can't believe how naive the world has been, the sooner we push them all back within their own borders the better.

What an idiotic thing to say. With the ongoing battle to keep Communism in the 80s, and now rampant Socialism, at bay in Latin America, why would we not invite a world power that shares our general views holding territory in the region. Following your logic, we should have invaded Belize, a much closer once-British territory, decades ago.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Thursday 4th March 02:28

[Jimbeaux]

Tadite said:

ErnestM said:

Why do you think Reagan publicly supported the UK last time? The American people, that's why. Of course he is going to be seen to encouraging mediation. What would the alternative be? Get on the telly and say that he hoped the Brits kicked the sh!t out of the Argies?

I don't think you can really claim that the American people cared about the Falkland War or had any idea what it was about. I know you can't claim that the American people support the continued existence of the British Empire because if they did it would still exist.... The American people historically were the primary financiers of independence movements throughout the British Empire some of which spent most of their time blowing up London (IRA anyone?).

You like to point to Reagan support as if it was a clear example of US policy. If anything that is the only example nearly in the history of the country the the US supported the UK in a war to hold to its colonial possessions. Something that we have been paying for, politically, for nearly 30 years just so the UK could pretend to still be important fighting a minor skirmish and calling it a war....

ErnestM said:

The people of the United States still drive the direction of the country. That's something that the current administration has forgotten.

They will be reminded. Soon.

Well... yes... this is a democracy and people can vote. People are more then welcome to vote for someone else if they don't like the current administration. Goodness knows the health care situation was a major mistake. Obama should get a little bit more props for having the guts to actually go after the Taliban when that war is also increasingly unpopular and when large parts of his own votes disagree with it. I do, however, think that only the tinniest percentage of them are going to vote for someone because of foreign policy primarily because the differences between candidates and the two parties are almost nothing. Domestic policy has lots of arguments but in foreign policy the US is extremely consistent regardless of president. The only people who like to claim some massive difference are the parties (and the party fanatics) themselves primarily due to the need for marketing.

You certainly have a bizzare view of reality. I am pleased that it is shared by yourself and only about 9 other people.

[Tadite]

Jimbeaux said:

What an idiotic thing to say. With the ongoing battle to keep Communism in the 80s, and now rampant Socialism, at bay in Latin America, why would we not invite a world power that shares our general views holding territory in the region.

Not totally accurate to be honest. Remember Argentina was under a military dictatorship at the time that was violently anti-communist and was also a reasonably close ally in the fight against Communist Guerrillas throughout Latin America.

If anything we really didn't want this war to destabilize a ally.

[ErnestM]

Well, at least we agree that the American public supported the Brits during the last Falklands war.

There are differences in foreign policy, you just have to study the policies a bit better (Carter versus Reagan anyone?)

and, last but not least...

...I'm too bloody old to give props (whatever that is) That's just how I roll put that bit in just to try to keep those lines of communication open

[Mojocvh]

Jimbeaux said:

KANEIT said:

L Following your logic, we should have invaded Belize, a much closer once-British territory, decades ago.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Thursday 4th March 02:28

And you have your butts handed to you again..

[Jimbeaux]

Mojo, your post above shows my quote as KANEIT's and his as mine.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Thursday 4th March 11:12

[Ayahuasca]

Jimbeaux said:

Following your logic, we should have invaded Belize, a much closer once-British territory, decades ago.

Belize is an interesting parallel with the Falklands in some ways. It was a British colony coveted by a neighbouring Spanish-speaking country (Guatemala) who believed that it had some tenuous claim dating back xx years. Guatemalan maps show (or at least they used to) Belize being another province of Guatemala.

The Belizean people wanted nothing to do with Guatemala and so the British government kept a battalion of infantry and half a squadron of Harriers on standby. This was enough to frighten off the Guatemalans (whose armed forces to be fair were fully employed 'disappearing' their own citizens).

However, the British gracefully handed Belize its independence and since then it has been peaceful (if you ignore the drug trafficking and money laundering).

Of course, the only oil in Belize is inside coconuts.

[s2art]

Tadite said:

Empires are a waste of time and money. The only stable long-term system is nationhood.

Sort of depends what the Empire achieves. The Roman Empire is now credited with bringing civilisation, rule of law, knowledge and education etc to many places that otherwise would have stayed primitive and backward. Though no doubt at the time of assimilation it was exceedingly unpleasant.
Equally the British Empire did similarly. Note that the British ideal was ultimately to make all the nations of the Empire independent self ruling states. Similar to the ideals of the USA, hardly surprisingly since the USA got those ideals from Britain.

[rypt]

Ayahuasca said:

However, the British gracefully handed Belize its independence and since then it has been peaceful (if you ignore the drug trafficking and money laundering).

We do still keep troops there at the governments request afaik

[rhinochopig]

rypt said:

Ayahuasca said:

However, the British gracefully handed Belize its independence and since then it has been peaceful (if you ignore the drug trafficking and money laundering).

We do still keep troops there at the governments request afaik

And the marines / paras / SF are rotated through jungle warfare school there.

[Mojocvh]

Mojocvh said:

Jimbeaux said:

KANEIT said:

L Following your logic, we should have invaded Belize, a much closer once-British territory, decades ago.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Thursday 4th March 02:28

And you have your butts handed to you again..

Indeed Jimbo, quoting seems "odd" these last couple of days on occasion.

Edited by Mojocvh on Thursday 4th March 12:31

[Shay HTFC]

ErnestM said:

Some of the news organizations are doing a good job at keeping the American people informed (not the Obamedia - MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN of course) about this. However, until the Argie special forces hit the island, it will be a page two story (if it bleeds, it leads).

Which news organizations are helping to keep people informed then? And if you say Fox I will laugh out loud.

[Bing o]

Shay HTFC said:

ErnestM said:

Some of the news organizations are doing a good job at keeping the American people informed (not the Obamedia - MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN of course) about this. However, until the Argie special forces hit the island, it will be a page two story (if it bleeds, it leads).

Which news organizations are helping to keep people informed then? And if you say Fox I will laugh out loud.

But Fox News is "fair and balanced"?

[rypt]

I find CNN to be mostly fair personally, not totally up Obama's arse

[Blue Meanie]

Shay HTFC said:

ErnestM said:

Some of the news organizations are doing a good job at keeping the American people informed (not the Obamedia - MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN of course) about this. However, until the Argie special forces hit the island, it will be a page two story (if it bleeds, it leads).

Which news organizations are helping to keep people informed then? And if you say Fox I will laugh out loud.

But where else can Ernest watch Beck, Hannity, and Palin?

[ErnestM]

Blue Meanie said:

Shay HTFC said:

ErnestM said:

Some of the news organizations are doing a good job at keeping the American people informed (not the Obamedia - MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN of course) about this. However, until the Argie special forces hit the island, it will be a page two story (if it bleeds, it leads).

Which news organizations are helping to keep people informed then? And if you say Fox I will laugh out loud.

But where else can Ernest watch Beck, Hannity, and Palin?

For the record, I don't watch any of these (They conflict with my History/Discovery/Military channel time). I was talking about some of the wire services (Reuters, AP et al) and some of the news aggregation web sites that use those services. Also some of the print media sites are not completely biased yet.

I do catch the occasional O'Reilly (especially when he has Dennis Miller on because I find Dennis hilarious)

Also for the record - Beck, Hannity and even O'Reilly are not "news anchors". They don't even suggest that they are presenting an inbiased view. They are commentators. But, obviously, Blue Meanie and Shay watch them all the time because they know, first hand, the views of all of these commentators and why they disagree with them. I mean, certainly, they wouldn't disagree with these folks based soley on what somebody else TOLD them that these folks said. Right?