MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Britain should leave the United Nations Security Council suggests Argentine Ambassador
In his response to the British Prime Minister’s Christmas address to the Falkland Islanders, Argentina’s Ambassador at the United Nations, Jorge Arguello, makes the strong suggestion that Britain should lose its place on the UN’s Security Council. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesKeep it up Argies, you're doing a great job of making yourselves look stupid.
Dec 29th, 2010 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +1One can expect ignorant commentators on here to spout garbage about the 'implanted population' of the Falklands but this is in a different league, open your eyes and engage your brain Jorge, as for demanding that Britain is expelled from the security council what can one say? get a grip man.
The time is coming when the international community may ask itself whether having won a war sixty years ago is sufficient to ensure a place on the Security Council
Dec 29th, 2010 - 08:49 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Well the French are on it and they lost
English babies are crying, again! The time is coming when the international community will poop all over the UK. We're getting reaaaaaally tired of you people.
Dec 29th, 2010 - 09:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Well the French government is hated by the French people.
Here's a link for you, with “Facts about poop” to be acquainted with before it's too late:
http://www.smellypoop.com/facts_about_poop.php
Here's a link for you, with “Facts about poop” to be acquainted with before it's too late:
Dec 29th, 2010 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Fact 1 The retreating argentine forces had a poop in Port Stanley Post Office
not France !! we Germany who is the head of Europa !!
Dec 29th, 2010 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse -1English? dont you mean British? and you want to kick us off the UN Security Council? When you nominate idiots like Arguello to represent Argentina, you really dont do yourselves any favours. Instead of constantly whinging about the Uk and islands which you have never owned, try sorting your own country out first, like the desperate squatters all over Buenos Aires living in third world conditions.
Dec 29th, 2010 - 09:31 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“So, very well, who are the Islanders? Are they a people needing to be liberated from colonial oppression?
Dec 29th, 2010 - 09:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They are a people needing protection from Argentine colonial oppression
No, we are talking about a population that was implanted after the Argentine population that lived there was removed by military force.
2 lies. The population is not implanted and the Argentine population was not removed.
It is made up of British citizens whose primary purpose is to use its parliament to block any attempt by the international community to reopen negotiations between its country and Argentina.
a lie. The UK parliament is not the parliament of the Falkland Islanders
“Cameron knows that the ‘Islanders’ include a substantial proportion of soldiers
a lie, the military and their families are not counted in the population statistics.
who are there, not so much for the colony’s defence as to sustain the illegal exploration of resources in the South Atlantic and to safeguard the military strategic interests of the British Crown.”
A lie, before the invasion there was very little British military presence in the region. Before the invasion the military presence consisted of one patrol ship (Endurance) and a garrison of about 40 Royal Marines established in 1964.
@ Y Draig Goch
Dec 29th, 2010 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“English? don't you mean British?” Can't ya read? I mean English, as long as Scotland and Northern Ireland and Wales and the other small populations are not independent from England (aka The UK) I will say English. Using your celtic nickname makes you look like a pussy, you know? Welsh people like you should be ashamed of themselves. Lots of Welsh people came to Argentina in search of food and a better life. It looks like they didn't get the best of the English haha
If you love to be bastardized by the English, it's all up to you. Unless the Head of State is Welsh... what do you say? Is she?
Argentina will most likely be kicked out of the G20 waaay before UK every leaves the Security Council. Actually it may happen this year after they the IMF audit in Apirl.
Dec 29th, 2010 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse +1What have you guys been saying “another nail in the coffin” let's say another notch towards irrelevance.
Q for Argentine posters (those with an IQ of above 70). How can you take your leaders/representatives seriously when they come out with weird comments like this. Is this guy a few steps short of a Tango? Is he medicated? Or is he making a position prior to the 2011 election which may see his job given to another?
Dec 29th, 2010 - 10:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +1This appears to be for domestic consumption.
Well you have to remember Cristina KIRCHNER at the moment is fermenting support for her 2011 election prospects but sacking ministers and replacing them with strong pro-peronists, anyone who will dance to her tune will keep thier government positions aka this muppet whining to the UN about us British bullies wh ' invaded' the falkland islands, occupied for a time by Spanish, who , depending on the mood of the commentor or minister, are either colonialists or proto argentineans.
Dec 29th, 2010 - 10:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for unilateral plundering of natural resources, you dont see britain wiping out fish stocks in the southern atlantic, coming up with absurd geological extentions of the contintental shelf, which if you listen to argentina, would extend up to Australia.
Australia? Sooner than the English expect Australia will become a real country without English Queens. Talk to us later, when Australia becomes a Republic :)
Dec 29th, 2010 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Its figure head and they choose to be commonwealth nugget. The Queen has no power law-wise apart from a few archaic ones, which will never be used in real life, however, if you think a powerless figurehead is trouble, then try a Peronist Government who ia now just a lapdog to Brazil
Dec 29th, 2010 - 11:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0# 10 - ” ... Q for Argentine posters (those with an IQ of above 70). ...”
Dec 30th, 2010 - 01:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry Beef, you lost me there ... who are you talking to ?
I see EXbrain is back - if you're tired Exbrain, try and get some rest. Thinking is obviously something you are not suited to and is wearing you out.
As for the article above - has argentina not noticed that all of the permanent members of the Security Council have problems of their own? All are holding on to territory that someone else claims, rightly or wrongly. So why should Britain leave?
And we won't ... will we! Argentina's grasp of reality appears tenuous at best.
Morning all, another fine day ....... same old, same old? Fair enough ... God (or Bhudda) is in his heaven and all is well with the world :-)
The UK should've been kicked out of the CS after it agreed to invade Iraq - against the better judgment of its French, Chinese, and Russian colleagues - just to appease the US. This is no behavior of a country in a position of global leadership.
Dec 30th, 2010 - 01:49 am - Link - Report abuse -1So your saying US should be kicked out of the security council too? hmmm thats some flaw in your argument there boyo
Dec 30th, 2010 - 01:58 am - Link - Report abuse +1Countries that knowingly behave in an illegal way - that is, countries that purposelly threaten global peace - should not be treated by the international community as its leaders. The problem is that the US is still too important for world decision to be taken in its abscence. But let's be reasonable: the same is not true of the UK.
Dec 30th, 2010 - 02:15 am - Link - Report abuse -1LOL, countrys shouldnt be allowed to threaten global peace unless they're too powerful for us to complain about.
Dec 30th, 2010 - 02:40 am - Link - Report abuse -1Great logic there!
Who's talking about logic. This is reality. And the reality is that the world doesn't need the UK that much. If a country doesn't stand out either as an indispensable power or as a fair-minded world player (and the Iraq War was anything but fair minded), then why should it sit at the SC?
Dec 30th, 2010 - 02:45 am - Link - Report abuse -1I think you'll find our real power is due to the US, they rely on us to give a lot of thier policies credence, why do you think we go everywhere they do? its not for trade and its not for some massive payoff, we are mutually beneficial in a way our now small size belies. And you forget the commonwealth, i no doubt hear you RG's scoff at that idea, but it is a powerful trade group and has a waiting list to join it. Uk by itself, we are a former shadow, but as in 1982, thinking we are helpless.....well 'nuff' said
Dec 30th, 2010 - 02:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0“This is reality”
Dec 30th, 2010 - 03:06 am - Link - Report abuse -1And the reality is that to reform the security council it would require all the votes from everyone on the security council.
Yes the Iraq war was a mistake, now if you can tell me that no other member on the security council has ever made a mistake then you might have a solid argument to work with.
But you can't, so it's all just hot air.
Zethee: “Yes the Iraq war was a mistake...” A mistake? I thought that a mistake is something you commit whithout intention, not knowing that you're doing wrong. Iraq was not a mistake and the UK is as guilty as the US for invading Iraq and killing thousands of people intentionally. You can laugh Zethee and talk crap, one day you'll get stabbed to death and you will laugh no more.
Dec 30th, 2010 - 03:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Take a look at these “mistakes” you Zethee, buddy, I'm sure you'll enjoy!
http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqwarpix.html
http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqwarpix.html
Oh Argentina the innocent, give me a break...the second iraq war everyone seems to forget , saddham for 10 years stuck a fat middle middle to UN and took the utter mickey out of the world, the reason we used was wrong, the action was right, the post war planning was wrong, dont preach from titbits from anti american press.
Dec 30th, 2010 - 03:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Britain is the world's 6th largest economy and has the 4th largest military .... not that easy to write off boys.
Dec 30th, 2010 - 03:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0But keep tapping at the window, one day we may notice you :-)
4th largest? where did you get that from? china, russia, USA, india, pakistan etc... i admit it would be nice to be 4th largest, maybe 4th largest when you take into account sheer balls and training...sadly even france is considerably bigger than us now
Dec 30th, 2010 - 03:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0@23
Dec 30th, 2010 - 03:56 am - Link - Report abuse -1The Welsh pussy got offended! Just so you know, You Drag Queen, you'll never be good at justifying your actions, will you? I don't care about the American press or the anti american press I only care for the results of your “mistakes”. What's lying there are mutilated bodies, that's all I can see. American soldiers and Iraqi people being killed by the likes of you.
Hasnt an argentinean just been jailed for life for just such actions? or people killing each other over patches of land in Buenos Aires? hmmm have a rethink mr xBarilox
Dec 30th, 2010 - 03:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Didn't you know that those dictators have been jailed for life? What about Bush, Blair, Aznar, etc, etc? When will they be jailed? huh? When? Your brain is not even the size of the smallest subatomic pacticle.
Dec 30th, 2010 - 04:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0lol i think electrical activity might stop if its not even a sub atomic particle .. read up on basics of quantum physics buttercup. You know you are good for this forum as you're just making argentina look even worse, at least bring somthing to the table other than anger and abuse, you're winning the argument for me!
Dec 30th, 2010 - 04:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0You think wrong! Ah, sorry I made you feel like you're being raped you Miss! What a lady you are. I don't need to win an argument, I'm just exposing the facts. When Blair and the others are jailed, you maybe will have an argument. Until then, enjoy looking at the results of your “mistakes”, no argument can save you.
Dec 30th, 2010 - 04:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0“A mistake? I thought that a mistake is something you commit whithout intention”
Dec 30th, 2010 - 04:36 am - Link - Report abuse -1You obviously don't think too well, do you?
Mistake - an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc.
“4th largest? where did you get that from? china, russia, USA, india, pakistan etc.”
He was talking budget wise. But history has shown over and over that numbers are not everything. Especially now days technology makes huge leaps over mass numbers.
The USA for one, does not have the largest army in the world, but certanly the most capable of making holes in things.
“I don't need to win an argument”
Im glad, because you can't. It is funny watching you explode like a little girl, what a sad, little person you are. lmao.
Raped? wow , no wonder RG politics are in a mess if this is how you reason the world!
Dec 30th, 2010 - 04:37 am - Link - Report abuse +1You really dont learn that your attitude and inability to dicuss without a foul mouth is just making you look like a retarded child, really, get a grip gringo!
It looks like I win, whithout intention. Mistake and the meaning... believe me, those “mistakes” of yours don't worry about your dictionary Zethee. I repeat to you, Zethee, laugh, laugh, one day you'll laugh no more. Just take a look at these dictators in my country, it's never too late for justice.
Dec 30th, 2010 - 04:47 am - Link - Report abuse -1And for you Drag Queen, what can I say to you... NOTHING, since you are a Welsh ninny withouth a country that couldn't find her own ass to wash it.
welsh ninny? why would a country have an arse? you're hilarious , it must be way past your bedtime
Dec 30th, 2010 - 04:53 am - Link - Report abuse +1The Welsh ! What can I say - ” ... The British Armed Forces are a purely professional and volunteer force, with a reported personnel strength in August 2010 of 194,440[3] professional (Regular) troops and 39,420[4] volunteer forces. (Total of 233,860 troops). The British armed forces are the second largest military in the EU in terms of professional personnel and reserves. In addition the British armed forces have 191,300[5] regular reserves.
Dec 30th, 2010 - 06:18 am - Link - Report abuse +1The British Armed Forces have the fourth highest declared expenditure of any military in the world, only behind the United States, People's Republic of China and the France...”
However you cut it, to quote a phrase - the British punch above their weight !
and then our government scrap hundreds of aeroplanes, dozens of bases, etc to pay for it all yay! but thats our own fault for ' make do' culture
Dec 30th, 2010 - 06:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0We're straying from the point here, guys (& gals?).
Dec 30th, 2010 - 11:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0The point seems to be that Ambassador Arguello is brewing the usual RG smoke screen to provoke emotion at home so as to divert attention away from their internal problems.
Political and economic.
xbox really lost the plot last night, lmao.
Dec 30th, 2010 - 11:23 am - Link - Report abuse -1Britain appeased fascists in 1930's and learned that such a policy only encourages more aggression. During the War with Argentina, Britain fought for the people of the Falklands whereas Argentina fought to take land and resources. Argentina must first accept the Islanders right to self determination otherwise there is nothing to talk about.
Dec 30th, 2010 - 11:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think Xbox had a lot of pent up energy, remember he has been sitting in the dark hot night for days now. Large parts of BA have lost electricity and water during the heat wave, and hundreds of people are dying daily!
Dec 30th, 2010 - 02:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Also there is no gas in the city so people are stuck there instead of being able to go to the coast.
Can't you see why they are pissed off all the time. They hope and dream to live like in the USA or UK but they are stuck living in a really horrible place with no means to escape. It must be maddening especially when it's over 100 degrees with no a/c.
outstanding, Argentina has managed to shoot itself in the nads a grand total of three times in this one highly idiotic attempt at an insult
Dec 30th, 2010 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) it further shows the falkland islanders argentina's contempt of them and it's wishes for them to be “removed” and also shows utter hypocrisy from argentina, a nation founded by “implanted” Spaniards who slaughtered their way across modern day argentina before, and after Britain reasserted itself on the falklands in 1833
2) it shows britain how utterly undeserving argentina is of being treated with any respect or in any way as an equal nation, and shows the world how utterly pathetic the current argentine government is
3) when the Argentine nationalists realise that the world utterly ignores their opinion or the words of their ambassador they will inevitably blame their government for humiliating them
keep it up argentina, by this rate you will be next to north korea in terms of hysterical and impotent revanchism
@Zethee
Dec 30th, 2010 - 05:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yeah, some other SC permanent members have perpetrated morally questionable deeds during their recent history, deeds that have cost loads of human lives in foreign countries. The US and the Soviet Union/Russia are world champions when it comes to such “mistakes”. But there can be no council on global affairs without US participation - or, for that matter, Chinese or Russian participation. If they are to be excluded from key decision making, they can very well disturb the council's activities, for instance, by creating alternative fora: something that would turn the decision making more chaotic. They are powerful enough to do that. The UK isn't. Just as France, for instance, isn't. Why, then, the UK should not be replaced by Germany at SC, for example? Economically Germany is a very powerful nation - more than any other country in Europe. It also has a cleaner foreign policy record than some SC permanent members. Its government, for instance, opposed the Iraq War.
Well if we are just competing to make as many mistakes as the 'champions', I reckon we can probably get away with accidentally, by 'mistake', dropping a few nukes on Argentina, nobody would miss the shit hole, and it would improve our position in this respect.
Dec 30th, 2010 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Forget Tit, you start to make sense, although I suggest inviting further such mistakes on your third world flawed democracy isn't a great plan.
@Wireless: 1 - I'm not Argentine. 2 - The UK is not going to drop any bombs. Unlike the US, the UK doesn't have the power to make “mistakes” BY ITSELF and get away with it. Your aggressive revenge fantasies are nothing but that. 3 - Be careful before tagging a country a “third world shit hole.” Do you realize that the developed world - the US, Western Europe and Japan - has only managed to secure its high standards of living by indebting their arses to large countries... in the Third World? And that if they do not pay their debt, what happened with Greece and Ireland - a sovereign debt crisis - may soon get to them? 4 - I don't get your angry tone. A person may feel angry when he is unfairly slighted. But is anything I said about the UK unfair or untrue? All I said is that the UK threatens global peace by appeasing to other countries' war-monger agenda: is that untrue? Perhaps you're not used to see someone treating your country in a frank manner. Perhaps your “free media” doesn't allow it. But I tell you this, your indignation is based on nationalism fever: that is, on a disease of the intellect that incites people to stupidly defend their country's behavior no matter what. You should treat yourself.
Dec 30th, 2010 - 06:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wireless, FYI Forget is a 20 something y/o kid living with his parents in Brazil. He has never been out of South America and gets all of his ideas from Marxist/Socialist/Liberal web sites. Don't waste too much time on him.
Dec 30th, 2010 - 07:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“They are powerful enough to do that. The UK isn't. Just as France, for instance, isn't. Why, then, the UK should not be replaced by Germany at SC, for example?”
Dec 30th, 2010 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Quite wrong infact, your post shows that you don't know much about military matters.
France and the UK, currently have smaller, but well trained militarys which are capable of operating anywhere in the world - this is expensive and as such shrinks the military we can afford.
China and russia have large but massivly underfunded armed forces who are incabable of operating not far from there own borders.
The US, on the other hand has both a large armed forces and the logistics to project them anywhere in the world, this is what makes them the current superpower.
The great logic of your argument is quite funny indeed. You first say that the UK should be removed from the SC because of the iraq war, which was a mistake.
Then you say that while every other government has made lots of mistakes they should be let off.
Then you would invite Germany, the nation who is responcible for over 100 million deaths and the very reason the SC was created should be allowed to join the SC.
Your hatred for the UK is the main flaw in your stupid argument.
You would do well to also note that when the British empire was at it's height, it had the smallest land army of all the world powers.
Dec 30th, 2010 - 07:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I didn't say that every other government has made the kind of mistakes the UK has done. China, e.g., doesn't strike one as a very aggressive power: its rise into a military and economic heavyweight has largely been peaceful (notice that I'm talking about foreign affairs, not domestic ones; I'm aware that China treats secessionist movements WITHIN its borders harshly). Unlike someone would have you believe, I didn't learn that from from marxist websites. That assessment on China was also made by an Israeli military scholar named Martin van Creveld.
Dec 30th, 2010 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“China has been inward-looking. Unlike the U.S and the former U.S.S.R, it has never sought to make the rest of the world share the blessings of its own ideology. Nor does it have a particularly bad record of military aggression.”
http://www.sonshi.com/vancreveld.html
As for how militarily strong the UK is, I don't doubt what you said, but it doesn't really relate to my argument. What I said about the other countries having the ability to disturb foreign policy decisions by a hypothetical international forum in which they do not participate, has to do with their geopolitical clout, that is, their ability to influence other countries to adopt certain attitudes: an ability that the UK doesn't possess. That means the UK is neither a vital partner in world decision-making nor, as you yourself recognize, a very righteous country in its foreign relations. Why have it at the SC, then? That's my argument. And funny, you're eager to point the finger to Germany over a 65 yo war, but not to your own country over a war that hasn't even finished. Germany has already expiated its sins. After the WWII, it endured years of meddling by foreign countries in its domestic affairs; paid, and is still paying, high sums to persons that suffered abuses in WWII (and even to some that did not); and has given Israel, more than any other country save for the US, valuable financial, technical and military assistence.
Actually there are two reasons why Germany is not on the SC - you people have such short memories ! 65 years is no time at all, only now are the British thinking of withdrawing the last of the troops there. And No, they weren't just there to watch the Soviets.
Dec 31st, 2010 - 12:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0And ForgetTit, you under estimate the UK's influence in world politics, which is why we remain on the SC ... and cannot be shifted without a massive reorganisation of the UN. Something that would most likely have the effect of pulling it apart!
The British went into Iraq in support of the US because of our relationship with them. Whether it was right or wrong ir rather irrelevant, sometimes you have to support your friends.
We'll probably follow them into Iran soon.
The “massive reorganisation of the UN” is slowly in it's way.
Dec 31st, 2010 - 01:02 am - Link - Report abuse -1Ambassador Arguello's “Suggestions” are just a little piece of the puzzle.
The first things that should be “pulled apart” are the two paper tigers on the Security Council: France and the United Kingdom......
“hat is, their ability to influence other countries to adopt certain attitudes: an ability that the UK doesn't possess. That means the UK is neither a vital partner in world decision-making nor, as you yourself recognize, a very righteous country in its foreign relations”
Dec 31st, 2010 - 01:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0One which most of the worlds politians would disagree with you.
“you're eager to point the finger to Germany over a 65 yo war, but not to your own country over a war that hasn't even finished.”
Yes, lets compare the wars in iraq there thoudands have died through fire and suicide bombings to the two world wars where over one hundred million people died.
@Redhoyt: What a load of silliness. Haven't you ever heard of this: that countries have no friends; they only have interests? Henry Kissinger said that. And it seems that in so doing he was recycling a quote by a XIX century BRITISH politician. In more than 2,500 years of foreign relations scholarship, that has been the only enduring truth about the international system. So, go think more deeply about what has led the UK to support another country's war. And even if the silliness you said is the truth - even if by waging war on Iraq all the UK intended was to support a friend (that really sounds more ridiculous than I thought) - then that's just more reason for the world to reject conceding your country a leadership position. Does that the UK believe supporting the US no matter what is more important than maintaining world peace and sparing the lives of innocent people? Then WTF it is doing at the SC? By your own words, the UK is even more of a threat than I had previously asserted. And please, explain to me how I “under estimate the UK's influence in world politics.” As I see things, if the UK perceived itself to be that relevant, I don't think it would turn itself into just another yes-man to the US (your words, not mine). France - a country that is not superior to the UK in military or economic terms - at least has the dignity of having its own stances on world matters. And yes, even Argentina has more dignity than the UK.
Dec 31st, 2010 - 01:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Foolish child ... the US's interests are closely aligned with our own. We are a major investor in the US economy and yes, sometimes friendship is the best of reasons.
Dec 31st, 2010 - 02:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0And we don't always agree with them (who mentioned yes-men?)
As for our influence ... well we ARE on the SC are we not? And the influence we have will allow us to remain there .. the influence that you have is not sufficient to make any change at all!
Dignity is just a matter of opinion.... you are indeed young, your idealism shows. Age and experience will bring a greater grasp of reality .... and cynicism obviously :-)
1 - “the US's interests are closely aligned with our own”
Dec 31st, 2010 - 03:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Then explain to me how the UK has benefitted from the Iraq War. You first said it followed the US lead because it meant to support a friend. Now you say it had interests of its own. There's a contradiction between both of your assertions.
2 - “As for our influence ... well we ARE on the SC are we not? And the influence we have will allow us to remain there .. the influence that you have is not sufficient to make any change at all”
You first said the UK is at SC because it is an influential country. Now you say it is an influential country because it is at the SC. That's a circular reasoning. You should think more about your arguments before posting them.
3 - “you are indeed young, your idealism shows. Age and experience will bring a greater grasp of reality”
I wasn't the one who asserted countries act out of friendship, so I'm not the idealist in here. And age doesn't really matter in all this. If you believe the trivial things politicans say in their public speeches - for instance, that they are actually doing nothing but to support friends when they decide to wage ill-planned wars that kill tens of thousands of innocent persons - then you're the one with no grasp of reality, no matter how old you are.
His entire oppinion is hate for the UK. It doesnt matter if any other nation makes mistakes, it's only the UK whom he thinks should be punished.
Dec 31st, 2010 - 03:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0>Reality is< You can't do nothing.
“Then explain to me how the UK has benefitted from the Iraq War”
Dec 31st, 2010 - 03:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0I didn't see him saying we did. The friendship between our nations is not defined on this one object in time.
“Does that the UK believe supporting the US no matter what is more important than maintaining world peace and sparing the lives of innocent people? Then WTF it is doing at the SC?”
Then WTF is the US doing on the SC if this is your view?
“As I see things, if the UK perceived itself to be that relevant, I don't think it would turn itself into just another yes-man to the US”
A popular oppinion at the moment, i wonder if the same oppinion was thought of in the US when they helped us in WW1+2?
I've already explained why I've applied different standars for the US and the UK.
Dec 31st, 2010 - 05:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0The SC was supposed to reunite the WW2 winners but wound up accepting as its permanent members France and China, two countries that had actually lost the war against their foes, Germany and Japan. That's because - economically, demographically, or otherwise - those countries had enough weight in the international system so as to shape it according to their deeds. And the same could then be said of the UK. That's why they were at the SC: because all of its 5 members were too important to be kept away from participating in world politics at the highest level. The same is true of the US even today. But not of the UK.
Are you suggesting that people may have thought the US was a yes-man to the UK when it helped it fight the 2 world wars? That may be true, but there's enough evidence that, by supporting the UK in WWII, FDR was actually following a very realpolitik agenda. He only stepped in against Germany when the UK had been considerably weakened (the same could be said of Germany and the Soviets). That meant that by the end of the war, it would be easier for the US to assert its position as a global hegemon, a position that had previously belonged to the UK. Had the UK left the war relatively unscathed, that would likely have been harder for the US. So I don't know how US support for the UK during WW2 can serve as an analogy of UK support for US-led wars. So, I ask you: how is the UK serving its own best interests by maintaining its weirdly close relationship with the US? As I said before, the UK is very similar to France when it comes to its strength in the international system. However, France follows an independent foreign policy. It doesn't perceive itself to need a special relationship with the superpower next door. The UK, on the other hand, aligns with the US in all important decisions. Can you explain the difference between France and the UK?
#54 - I'm afraid your interpretations are inaccurate.
Dec 31st, 2010 - 06:37 am - Link - Report abuse 01. There are no contradictions worthy of mention. Although of course, life is full of contradictions :-) Supporting friends hopefully leads to friends supporting you, when needed. Rhetoric is one thing, actions are another!
2. Both are correct of course, but you misread me. I am saying that we are influencial HENCE we are on the SC. Your english is very good but failed here.
3. Grow up! I rarely believe what politicians say ....... I even have doubts about what they do. What they say in public at least has the advantage of scrutiny and later reference if they go against it. There's usually some truth in there .... the general message has (I hope) been thought through before the official mouth was opened.
#57 - far more complicated. The so called 'special relationship' has been forming since the War of 1812 and we feel tied together partly because we tend to view the world in the same way. Whether that's a culural thing ( “ ... one people divided by a common language ...” - Churchill) or a political thing I'm not sure. Probably a mixture of the two. The relationship allows for an interchange of technology and ideas, which have proved beneficial to both countries. France on the other hand has always 'culturally' preferred an independence of view, to it's cost historically. EG - It's standing with the world's Superpower fell dramatically as a result of it's views on Iraq ( Cheese eating....!)
Bonds of friendship can unite countries. Make them more powerful which of course is why the EU formed and Mercosur is trying to expand.
The UK IS influencial because our history and indeed our riches (they still exist) allow us a status that does not accord with size . We are permanent members of the SC partly because we we in the right place at the right time but also because we've expended a great deal of time and energy making sure that we are in the right place at the right time.
Nobody said life had to be fair!!
Bla bla blah he's in his 20s and thinks he is brilliant but he never left his mothers bosom. Don't bother with him, somehow every post will end up back to where 3rd world countries are some how better than 1st world and in his mind that is true.
Dec 31st, 2010 - 07:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yet I am sure he would beg and scrape to get into either UK or USA to get out of the favela. So don't even bother.
That may be true, but there's enough evidence that, by supporting the UK in WWII, FDR was actually following a very realpolitik agenda. He only stepped in against Germany when the UK had been considerably weakened (the same could be said of Germany
Dec 31st, 2010 - 09:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0sorry to piss on your parade Forgetit87
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/11/newsid_3532000/3532401.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/11/newsid_3532000/3532401.stm
From (48) and on………Hoyt vs Forgetit
Dec 31st, 2010 - 09:35 am - Link - Report abuse -1Hoyt……. you defended your points of view as good as you could but, from my point of view there is one clear winner………..
I couldn’t help noticing your last paragraph at post No. 53 though:
--- ” Dignity is just a matter of opinion.... you are indeed young, your idealism shows. Age and experience will bring a greater grasp of reality .... and cynicism obviously :-) ” ---
Ouchhhhh…….….. Dignity a matter of opinion ???......and that forced Smiley after : ”and cynicism obviously.”
Carefull lad………
Seems to be that age is bringing you morally closer to posters like No.59.
And we don’t want that……. Do we?
Senor Arguello is an“implanted” liar.
Dec 31st, 2010 - 11:02 am - Link - Report abuse 01) the Argentine population was not expelled, only the garrison. the people of the Falklands are partly decended from that population.
And he knows it!
2) we are not an implanted population, we came here of our own free will. we are 7th & 8th generation people.(most Argentines are 3rd generation at best)
And he knows that too!
3) the soldiers are not counted in the census as lslanders, and wouldn't be needed if Argentina wasn't a threat.
And he knows it!
4) there is no“illegal”exploitation of the South Atlantic's resources. we are exploiting resources that belong to us, they do not belong to Argentina.
And he knows it as well!
So he is a Liar. the end justifies the means, eh senor? so you will lie & lie & lie so that your lying country can claim OUR land.
Think - quite correct - I won....... we always do :-)
Dec 31st, 2010 - 11:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0I am a cynic .... life has led me to such. The word 'fair' is irrelevant much as 'deserve' is. Power wins....... such is life :-))))))
Happy New Year ... now I'm off to the bar for the count down.
Redhoyt
Dec 31st, 2010 - 05:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. You're only speaking of possibilities. What about ACTUAL instances where the US has collaborated with UK interests in recent times? If we're to trust US diplomats reports published by wikileaks, the special relationship's benefits are all on the US side. Shortly after Cameron took office, a US diplomat reports, for example, that the Tories reassured the US embassy that the UK would keep buying US weaponry and collaborating closely with the US agenda. How's the US returned UK kindness? And if the relationship with the US has been of such a positive impact to you, then how come your country's situation - social, economic, or otherwise - is no better than France's, a nation that doesn't kowtow to Washington or to anyone else's agenda? And funny, even though it's the US who profits the most from the relationship, it's the UK who most fears its end. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8180709/WikiLeaks-Britain-mocked-by-US-over-special-relationship.html
3. If you're so skeptical of politicians' public words, then drop this fluffy rhetoric about going to wars because of friendship. As said before, there's no friendship in foreign relations. Different countries collaborate for two reasons: either because of a compatibility of interests (perceived or real) or because one country is, or perceives itself to be, dependent on another, and thus believes it is in its interests to conform to the other's will. This has nothing to do with emotional or cultural ties.
And again: H. Kissinger asserted in no ambiguous terms that his country doesn't have any friends. And he's arguably the foremost advisor in security and foreign affairs issues that the US has ever had. His influence has extended even to recent administrations. So think twice before saying the US views the UK as its friend. Perhaps the UK does view the US in such a way, but the converse certainly is not true.
perhaps the Americand are more weary of the brits, than the world thinks,
Dec 31st, 2010 - 08:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The USA's situation - “ ... social, economic, or otherwise ...” is also struggling at the moment. And who says that our situation is no better than France's?
Jan 01st, 2011 - 01:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ ... As said before, there's no friendship in foreign relations...”
You say! But I do not believe.
“ ... This has nothing to do with emotional or cultural ties ...”
Wrong.
“ ... So think twice before saying the US views the UK as its friend. Perhaps the UK does view the US in such a way, but the converse certainly is not true ...”
Wrong.
I still believe that the close relationship with the US assists our position in the world. I also read US newspapers and recognise the respect that the people have for our help in Afghanistan and Iraq. I also see that they, the people, would pressurise their government should the UK need help in dealing with Argentina's aggression in the future. The current President is no great friend but he'll move on in time, and Clinton was slated by the local press for her apparent support of Argentina last year! She won't make that mistake again.
As was said earlier, the US remains the world's Superpower, and we're closer to it than most.
Now I'm going to nurse my New Years Day hangover :-)
“What about ACTUAL instances where the US has collaborated with UK interests in recent times?”
Jan 01st, 2011 - 04:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Falklands.
Is the most recent event.
@Zethee
Jan 01st, 2011 - 09:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ouch! that was a good punch....
Nice one!
:-)
I seem to recall Malvinists gloating that we only won the Falklands war
Jan 01st, 2011 - 10:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0with American help
In Washington some thought the US should turn down Britain's requests for assistance in the dispute, arguing that to do so could only harm America's relations with various countries in the region. Henderson worked to ensure that the interventionist line of the Defence Secretary, Caspar Weinberger, prevailed in the Oval Office, with the result that the Reagan administration provided generally surreptitious but hugely helpful and possibly decisive aid.
The 'special relationship' is like all relationships - subject to ups and downs ... this is no different. The language changes and some administrations work out better than others, but the UK still benefits.
Jan 01st, 2011 - 11:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0No sign of any serious divorce yet anyway :-)
To return to the subject of the article, I note that the UK has supported an expansion of the Security Council by the addition of the G-4, but there is insufficient support amongst the UNGA to drive it through - and China objects to Japan's inclusion. Expansion may eventually occur but the UK is unlikely to leave, or lose its veto.
Having nuclear weapons helps keep your seat, the argies tried to set up a deck chair :-)
Jan 01st, 2011 - 12:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina pursued a covert nuclear weapons program for many years, refused to accede to the NPT, and did not sign the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America (the Tlatelolco Treaty). A gaseous diffusion enrichment plant was built. Construction of reprocessing facilities was pursued for some years, but was suspended in 1990. A number of sites and facilities were developed for uranium mining, milling, and conversion, and for fuel fabrication. A missile development program was pursued for some years
@Redhoyt: I can't even respond to your posts. You pose as a cynical who believes “Power wins” and that there's no fairness in the world, perhaps to impress anyone with this faux-nietzschism, yet you say countries act out of “friendship.” If you think you know more about the American view of international relations than Mr Kissinger, then I can't debate with you. Perhaps this guy can: http://tinyurl.com/2387r9n
Jan 01st, 2011 - 05:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Zeth: I was actually wondering if there's something of more relevance. Everytime a LatAm country supports Argentina's contention over the islands' sovereignty, some Brit always comes up to say they're only paying lip service. What is difference in US's stance over the dispute? Has the US done something of more substance than just declare support for UK's stance? I'm not really doubting it has, I just really don't know of anything on this matter.
We call it lip service because thats what it is, words.
Jan 01st, 2011 - 06:45 pm - Link - Report abuse -1The us has not SAID they support us in any way over this issue.
The US didnt SAY publicly that they supported us in the falklands war. They did however have a carrier battle group on standby if we requested it.
Actions>words.
While the revival of the wartime Anglo-American ‘special relationship’ did not necessarily ensure a British victory, the effects that American support had on British and Argentinian morale and indeed, world opinion, were significant. As Sharp explains, “had the Americans decided to oppose Britain’s recovery of the Islands, then the war would have been impossible and Thatcher’s political demise all but assured.”[3]
Jan 01st, 2011 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The sophisticated weaponry supplied by the Pentagon, such as the Sidewinder air-to-air missile and the Stinger man-portable surface-to-air missile, helped to minimize British casualties. Especially crucial was US intelligence. That support was all the more surprising as it constituted a near-complete reversal of the centuries-old Monroe Doctrine demarcating the western hemisphere as an entirely American preserve.
People from Latin America don't have honor ( except maybe Chile) so they will never understand the relationship of two honorable countries like the US and UK. There is a love and camaraderie that they will never have with another country because they are always trying to one up them or do some dirty dealing. There is no use trying to explain it to them. If they can't grasp the concept of honor it is like explaining color to a blind person, a complete waste of time and energy.
Jan 01st, 2011 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I agree, if there is one country that i honestly think would come to the UK's aid in a time of bad stuff, it would be the us. likewise i'd trust my government to do the same for the US.
Jan 01st, 2011 - 08:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Austalia and canada would be a close second.
#72 - Tit - Kissinger was just a politician, they come and they go, and they're always opinionated - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Relationship_(US-UK)
Jan 02nd, 2011 - 12:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0I AM a cynic and there is NO fairness ..... but friendship helps!
Stick, interesting that you should raise the Monroe Doctrine. At the time the US wasn't big enough to back it up so it only worked because the British supported it! “ ... The Monroe Doctrine was as a precursor to the Special Relationship. Similar to the United Kingdom's proposal to the United States of a League of Nations nearly 100 years later,...”
Also it can be argued that British support efectively allowed the formation of the South American countries - “ ... Crow argues that it was ultimately the support of Great Britain, not the Monroe Doctrine, which protected the sovereignty of Latin America’s newly independent nations...”
Ungrateful little buggers aren't they :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Relationship_(US-UK)
Austalia and canada would be a close second
Jan 02nd, 2011 - 01:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0And New Zealand
HMNZS Canterbury relieved the Royal Navy frigate HMS Amazon in the Indian Ocean during the Falklands War
HMNZS Canterbury
(77) Hoyt
Jan 02nd, 2011 - 01:48 am - Link - Report abuse -1Ungrateful alright!
”In 1831 American Commander Silas Duncan in the frigate USS-Lexington attacked and destroyed the Argentine colony at Puerto Luis on the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands, sovereign Argentine territory since its independence in 1810, allowing the United Kingdom to retake possession of the islands in 1833, clearly contradicting the 'Monroe doctrine'. This and numerous subsequent invasions and military interventions across Latin America would prove the U.S. actively sought to replace the European imperialist powers on the continent.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
Just another example of the long list of Anglo double standards.....
@ think
Jan 02nd, 2011 - 02:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0But you Argies love Hillary
@ 80
Jan 02nd, 2011 - 02:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Wrong! Some Argies love Hillary, some Argies don't. It's the same in the UK some Brits love the US some Brits don't. For example: Cristina Fernández de Kirchner loves Hillary and the US, and her daughter is living and studying in New York. That's because she's a socialist peronist kirchnerist Chavist populist liar. Liar and populist is the same thing. I hate the american imperialism but I love the benefits that come with it.
Happy Anniversary by the way -
Jan 02nd, 2011 - 03:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ ... Onslow arrived at Puerto Luis on 2 January 1833. Pinedo sent an officer to the British ship, where he was presented with a written request to replace the Argentine flag with the British one, and leave the location. ... The British forces disembarked on 3 January and switched the flags, delivering the Argentine one to Pinedo, who left on 5 January...”
And that was that ....... until 1982 :-)
“And New Zealand”
Jan 02nd, 2011 - 12:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I often forget new zeland, but yeah i agree.
“USS-Lexington”
I seem to remember reading about a US citizen, who was in the US navy twice and war tried for being a pirate after he did some pirating. This pirate even entered the forces of the brazilian navy and found himself fighting against the country who see him as a hero.
Then again, i may have got his story mixed up with the other pirate, this german man who after asking british permission(twice) to live on the islands, stole US ships.
Jan 02nd, 2011 - 12:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Still, can't be as bad as the fate of the first Argentinian man who “ruled” the islands, Mestiviers own, argentinian people killed him just four days after he landed.
@Zethee: And what actions were those? I mean, what vital favours has the US done to the UK? To be frank, I doubt a priori that you can adduce something, anything, of great relevance: nothing, at least, that can compare the way the UK's advocated in favour of US interests. The UK not only has promoted questionable US initiatives in the foreign arena - initiatives from which the UK has not itself derived any benefit - but it is also a major buyer of US weaponry and a lender to the US Treasury. Last time I checked, the UK was the third greatest holder of US Treasury bonds; it held over 350 billion dollars in that kind of investment. How's the US retributed UK's steadyfast support for, apparently, all things American?
Jan 02nd, 2011 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Redhoyt: Kissinger wasn't a mere politician. He's the most influential foreign affairs specialist the US has ever had. Since the 70s, he has no longer held official positions within US presidential administrations. Nonetheless, he remains the most recognizable figure of the US foreign policy. And even though it was long ago since he has been a part of a government cabinet, his influence has been felt even in the most recent administrations. He's had informal meetings in the White House with members of both the Bush and the Obama administrations to discuss foreign policy issues. So if one can say of Kissinger that is just a politician like any other, one can probably assert the same of, say, Thatcher or Bismarck. And perhaps more importantly, Kissinger was not just an opinionated politician. He was also a scholar with published works on international relations and American diplomacy, that is, his job has been not only to be flamboyantly opinionated, but also to analyse his country's relations by means of intellectual concepts. His thesis that countries do not have permanent friendships - only permanent interests - are not of his invention, but is the main contention of the oldest (more than 2,500 years old) and foremost theory of international relations: political realism. That's why you'll see Kissinger vaguely referring to himself as a realist. That you can contest Kissinger's positions so dogmatically to say that countries are moved into action not only by self-interest, but also by cozy feelings of brotherly love, proves how naive you are. You should not buy so easily into speeches and articles by politicians and media pundits when they speak of unbreakable ties between nations.
Jan 02nd, 2011 - 07:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“what vital favours has the US done to the UK? To be frank”
Jan 02nd, 2011 - 07:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 011 million US citizens came to fight for europe just 6o odd years ago.
Something more recent? the falklands. the carrier battle group that they offered to give us if we would only ask.
More recent? the carrier battlegroup the US had offered to lend us to help defend against terrorism at the soon to be royal wedding.
what vital favours has the US done to the UK?
Jan 02nd, 2011 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The whole operation couldn’t have been conducted without American support on Ascension Island. None of the ships would have had enough fuel, none of the ships flying off Ascension Island would have had fuel unless the Americans had provided it. There would have been no communications with the Task Force at all if by chance the Americans had not put up the communications satellite twelve months before over the South Atlantic.’ (Ponting, p.53).
‘the anti-aircraft missiles with which the British carriers and Sea Harriers were equipped were the so-called ‘Side-winder’ missiles and the maker of this missile in the United States, a very widely used missile, had come up with a very much improved version which was incredibly sensitive in terms of its heat-seeking ability. Britain had some supplies of this at the start of the war. It was realised they would very quickly be exhausted. And the United States provided large numbers of the ‘Side-winder’ Mark-L which were used throughout the war and contributed hugely to the success of the Harriers in maintaining some degree of air superiority over the Islands. Now that was really occurring before as well as after the Belgrano incident and really privately there was a huge flow of equipment and material across the Atlantic throughout the war. (Paul Rogers
Yes, that's what I said - a politician :-)
Jan 03rd, 2011 - 01:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0And yes, we hold a lot of the US debt, as does China which comes in at No.1. Now the chinese aren't sentimental so they are after the profit as are we! The buying and selling of bonds is a commercial operation and requires hard headedness. We hold US bonds because they are seen as a good investment.
The UK and Britain also cooperate in matters of intelligence which serve to protect UK interests as much as they do US interests.
The UK is also a major seller of arms, the US is a principle collaborator (and competitir) in that area. That they wanted us to reassure them that we'd continue to buy from them shows doubt on their side, not the UK's.
Relationships are rarely equal ... it's the way of relationships.
He's a politician - - - of course he lies!
Jan 03rd, 2011 - 09:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0He's RG - - - of course he lies!
Nuff said.
Forgetit87 - you are either an idiot or a racist )and yes you can be racist towards a multi-cultural nation - check the United Nations definition of the word racism since you aspire for your country to be a perminant member so much.
Jan 03rd, 2011 - 03:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The fact that you can sit there with a straight face and try to convince us that your wish for us to return the Falklands AND to relinquish our position is somehow born out of logic and not vile hatred is... well you must take us for idiots.
Lets look at the facts -
The UK is the third largest contributor to both the UN Regular Budget and the UN peacekeeping budgets; and one of the largest voluntary contributors to UN funds and programmes and Specialised Agencies. In 2005, the UK's total contribution to the UN exceeded £610 million. This has helped to support programmes which have increased the potential of individuals in every continent. For example, the UN has doubled the literacy rate among women in developing countries; helped immunise 80 per cent of the world's children; and has provided homes, food, education and healthcare to millions of refugees.
The whole damn UN itself was a British idea!! - Churchill and Roosevelt agreed the common principles of the Atlantic Charter on a battleship in August 1941, and the British remained at the heart of the drafting which led via Dumbarton Oaks to the conclusion of the UN Charter at San Francisco. The first meetings of the UN Security Council and the General Assembly took place in London in 1946 in Church House and Central Hall, Westminster. Gladwyn Jebb, the leading British wartime thinker on the future organisation, was the first acting Secretary-General. His Reflections on San Francisco of July 1945 note that 12 Articles of the UN Charter owed their origins to British initiatives!!!
AND - WHAT A SLAP IN THE FACE - Britain as repeatedly called for Germany to be allowed a perminent seat on the council next to us (even though they would be the only members without Nuclear Weapons).
@Zeth: - “11 million US citizens came to fight for europe just 6o odd years ago.”
Jan 03rd, 2011 - 04:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Right. But that doesn't have anything to do with you. Germany had itself declared war on the US. And had the US concern in taking part of the war anything to do with your country's safety, it wouldn't have entered the war so late.
- “Something more recent? the falklands. the carrier battle group that they offered to give us if we would only ask.”
- “More recent? the carrier battlegroup the US had offered to lend us to help defend against terrorism at the soon to be royal wedding”
As I had predicted, you can't adduce anything of real import, no instance where the US has supported UK interests to the same degree that the UK defends the US agenda. Those instances of support do not even represent a sacrifice of interests on the part of the US: they do not even have an impact on the US budget. But the Iraq War? Yes, it had an impact on British taxpayers. It also had an impact on your country's soft power, for the UK support for that war had a negative influence on the country's image to the world public.
@Redhoyt: That the US public debt has been a good investment, is something I'm aware of. But I'm also aware that, over time, they have become a less, not a more, profitable investment. This is due to the policy of low interest rates and currency devaluation that the US has pursued for the last 4 years. That China has an interest in keep buying US Treasury bonds in spite of that, is due to Chinese economy's dependency on exports, and that the US's is the most important market for those exports. That's why China finances the US current account deficit - because if the US economy collapses, China will likely follow suit. I'm unaware of the UK being equally dependent on trade with the US.
@ManchesterFellow: I'm unaware of having said anything hurtful about the British people. My beef is against the British government only, though I also dislike those nationalists - British or otherwise - who set the bar for moral behavior so low to their own country, that they're willing to excuse or defend anything that it does. So to whom am I being racist - the ethnic group called British MPs?
Jan 03rd, 2011 - 04:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Also, am I mistaken, or do you actually believe contributing to peacekeeping missions and the UN budget excuses the slaying of tens of thousands innocent persons in defenseless, impoverished countries? And I am the racist?
Comment removed by the editor.
Jan 03rd, 2011 - 05:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“US: they do not even have an impact on the US budget. Yes, it had an impact on British taxpayers. It also had an impact on your country's soft power”
Jan 03rd, 2011 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Do you just make this stuff up? you do realise that's compltetely wrong in every way. The british military budget has not risen to accomidate the war(s). And iraq itself has only cost us about 4 billion over the cost of the entire war.
The US on the otherhand has just risen it's budget to $1.35 trillion a year to accomidate the wars. Which is about a 55% increase from before the wars started.
Ofcourse, they can afford it.
“Right. But that doesn't have anything to do with you. Germany had itself declared war on the US. And had the US concern in taking part of the war anything to do with your country's safety, it wouldn't have entered the war so late.”
First of all, the US did not enter the war when germany declared war on the US. They offically entered after pearl harbor.
Secondly many US citizens had already been in the fighting and many had died in naval battles helping us get vital supplies across to the UK from america, the US also had her troops relieve british forces in iceland so that they could be used elsewhere.
There was a massive US intellegence force working in and around the UK years before US even declared war. American, British, Swedish, met with Norwegians resistance fighters and would group in the Shetland Islands, 3 yrs before the US ever declared war.
The US also started an immediate build up of its forces the moment the war in europe started.
The attack on the US was from the japanese, the ground war was very much in europe before japan was beaten. I don't know if you've seen a map latly, but germany isn't too close to the USA.
First of all forgetit86 - “my beef is with the British Government only” Er Which one? And if so for what justification? And if you hate us for coloniasim why not also hate the French, the Americans, the Danish, The Spanish... (I could go on for hours) why should your hatred be limited to the British government? Seriously - You should forgive me for not believing you!
Jan 03rd, 2011 - 07:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Secondly, “do you actually believe contributing to peacekeeping missions and the UN budget excuses the slaying of tens of thousands innocent persons in defenseless, impoverished countries” - So let me get this straight. You believe that the British should have thier permanent seat removed for acts of the British Empire hundreds of years ago and replaced with a country responsible for millions of deaths and the slaughter of 6 million innocent Jews?
Some logic there... Again, you are simply trying to justify your irrational hatred of Great Britain (and failing).
Finally, your argument was also that the British can no longer project themselves on the world stage - yet history has proven we can. Our involvement in the UN and NATO has proven we can. Our involvement in our Commonwealth (the biggest group on the planet) proves we can - here is a site showing how we change the lives of millions of impoveraged people everyday - http://www.commonwealthfoundation.com/ Heck, even the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has proven that we can.
Your argument makes no sense.
Tit - you forgot all that exchange of intelligence which protects BOTH countries .... that's up-to-date !
Jan 03rd, 2011 - 11:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The investment in the US is still good, less profitable maybe, but reasonably secure in a volatile world. All portfolios need a range after all.
94 MARIORAULSORIA
Jan 04th, 2011 - 01:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0No need to shout old chap, I think we get the gist. Happy New Year to you too:-)
ho! .. many comments about the statements of Ambassador Arguello.
Jan 04th, 2011 - 04:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why worry whether Arguello is a crazy and evil diplomat to Argentina?
Maybe that Argentina is well on your claim.
English and Nervous Islanders.
Do not cry for Argentina, weep for your decadent country.
100 now ... if that helps? :-)
Jan 04th, 2011 - 05:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0@99 Ant, we are certainly not crying for Argentina my little Ant. maybe laughing though!
Jan 04th, 2011 - 08:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0ForgeTIT - something for you maybe?
Jan 04th, 2011 - 02:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ ... The ties that bind the U.S., Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and in different ways other nations that share some of the values of the Anglosphere are deeper and more abiding, says former Australian Prime Minister John Howard, than the bonds between any other countries ...”
“ ... the single closest intelligence-sharing arrangement that exists anywhere in the world is the intelligence-sharing arrangement between the five members of the Anglosphere—between the United States, Australia, Great Britain, Canada, and New Zealand....”
“ ... you’re not going to reform the United Nations. The veto-wielding powers of the United Nations reflect, as everybody knows, the power structure of the world in 1945, but try taking a veto away from the French, or indeed the Russians. Europe is over-represented. It’s not going to change in a hurry, and there will be immense argument about what the additional veto-wielding countries would be ...”
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Lecture/2011/01/The-Anglosphere-and-the-Advance-of-Freedom
Bravo Jorge !
Jan 04th, 2011 - 02:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0''So, very well, who are the Islanders? Are they a people needing to be liberated from colonial oppression? No, we are talking about a population that was implanted after the Argentine population that lived there was removed by military force. It is made up of British citizens whose primary purpose is to use its parliament to block any attempt by the international community to reopen negotiations between its country and Argentina.''
Jan 04th, 2011 - 04:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I've quoted this part in full because it is a pile of utterly incomprehensible bullshit that is worth reading again if only for entertainment value. I imagine it lost something in translation, in which case 'Bravo Jorge' should employ better staff.
Of course we don't need liberating from colonial oppression! Whoever said we did? We would do if he ever got to be in charge, but that's another story.
And what does he mean by 'primary purpose'? How can a whole population have a primary purpose? We might be British citizens but we don't have representatives in the British parliament, assuming that he's talking about that and not our own assembly.
And how can you call a population 'implanted' that's evolved over nearly 200 years? It's one of those words that keeps cropping up, but when you try and work out what it actually means, it doesn't mean anything at all.
Yes, bravo old chap. we could try to make you look stupid, but we couldn't doa better job than you're doing yourself.
@Zeth: First off, I had not estimated the impact that the war had on British taxpayers. So whether it cost you 1 million dollars or 4 billion, doesn't really matter, and I wouldn't be wrong either way. I didn't know what the exact value was. I said that it had an impact on your country's taxes because a war always weights on the budget. That is, to afford a war, either the budget is increased, or the government becomes more indebted. And of course, public debt is always paid off mostly at the expense of taxpayers. Anyway, let me warn you that the value you cited - and didn't specify whether it was in pounds or dollars - is WRONG. As of 2006 the war had cost 7 billion pounds (or 11 billion dollars) on British taxpayers: http://tinyurl.com/28gt67r
Jan 04th, 2011 - 08:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The value as of 2010 must surely be greater - perhaps much greater - than that.
As for the WWII, by saying the US entered the war after Germany had declared war on the US, I of course meant the WWII as it unfolded IN EUROPE. You yourself were talking about “US citizens [who] came to fight for europe just 6o odd years ago.” So don't come to me with Pearl Harbor, since it has nothing to do with you.
As for your exposé of US support for the UK - the transportation of supplies to the UK - it's completely outside the realm of discussion. Sending in foods, fuels, medicines, is not to enter a war. And my contention has been from the beginnig that the US entered THE WAR effort late: far too late for someone to argue that its main motivation in fighting the Axis was to help the UK. If you think supplying aid is good enough to count it as participation in war efforts, then I can say that Brazil participated in the Vietnam War because the government shipped medicines to US soldiers in that country. If you think supplying aid is enough to count a country as a major ally of another, then why didn't the UK just do that in face of the US invasion of Iraq - why it had to supply troops, too?
@Zeth yet: And finally, that you have to adduce 60 yo events to justify your country's CURRENT subordinate relationship with the US, proves that you can't name how that relationship benefits the UK TODAY. And worse yet, you have no will to question that: you seem all to content that your government is infamously known worldwide as a lap dog, or a poodle, to the White House.
Jan 04th, 2011 - 08:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ManchesterFellow: My dislike for the UK government is based on its support for US war-mongering, not British Empire colonialism. “Colonialism” is a word I hadn't even used here before. Are you sure you're posting on the right forum? Be that as it may, to find witnesses of UK serious violations of international law - not to say MORALITY per se - I don't have to go back centuries. 8 years is enough.
@Red ho: More unimpressive stuff. They share intelligence services, really? And what does it cost them? I'm not some great connaisseur of US national security policies, but I'm willing to bet that the US shares such kind of services with a range of countries - and not all of them do to the US what the UK does; not all of them support everything the US does (even violations of international law); not all of them are major buyers of US weaponry; and not all of them aid the US in sustaining its many deficits by buying its debt. So, that the US shares intelligence service informations with the UK is not enough to demonstrate that the UK benefits from its special relationship. The US shares informations with many countries - and not all of them have a “special relationship” with the US.
(104) Monty69
Jan 04th, 2011 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse -1You say:
”I imagine it lost something in translation, in which case 'Bravo Jorge' should employ better staff.”
I say:
It surely lost something in translation…. Courtesy of MercoPress…. that surely need better staff :-)
You say:
”And how can you call a population 'implanted' that's evolved over nearly 200 years?”
I say:
”Implanted” is THE word that define you settlers best………………….
You never immigrated; you just implanted a “little Britain” 14.000 km away from home.
You never transplanted; you just implanted a “little Britain” 14.000 km away from home.
You never “evolved”, your hearts and minds are declared British.
You are a little group of implanted aliens that could easily be tolerated, accepted, cohabitated or even sympathized with, was it not for your total allegiance with Britain and its plans to control the South Atlantic.
Britain and its plans to control the South Atlantic
Jan 04th, 2011 - 10:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Talking bollox again think,pre 1982 argie invasion we had 40 troops in the south atlantic,it is Argentina that wants to control the south atlantic,but cant cos it is inept
I love your link, try reading it?
Jan 04th, 2011 - 11:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The estimated cost to British taxpayers of the Iraq war so far is £5 billion”
You managed to read the story and still get it “WRONG”.
The real, final cost for the iraq war was 8.4 billion.
“I said that it had an impact on your country's taxes because a war always weights on the budget. That is, to afford a war, either the budget is increased, or the government becomes more indebted.”
Quite incorrect. Our armed forces have a “Special Reserve” which is currently £7.4 billion. So at maximum the war cost us a billion over the normal.
And that's not what you said.
“they do not even have an impact on the US budget”
Which is wrong, completely. From what i stated in my last post to the fact that the iraq war cost the US over 700 billion.
“I of course meant the WWII as it unfolded IN EUROPE”
I agree, the US sent over about 10 million men if im correct, to aid the US allies in europe. Twas japan who attacked them and hitler was in no danger of stepping on US soil when he couldnt even get across the english channel.
“And finally, that you have to adduce 60 yo events to justify your country's CURRENT subordinate relationship with the US, proves that you can't name how that relationship benefits the UK TODAY. And worse yet, you have no will to question that: you seem all to content that your government is infamously known worldwide as a lap dog, or a poodle, to the White House.”
Perhaps you'd like to explain our subordinate relationship when we refused to join them in the vietnam war? or how they refused to help us during the falklands war(oh, they didn't..did they) because i seem to remember the US supporting us in the falklands was very against there policy at the time, yet it still happened. Offering to lend someone a carrier group is no small favor.
Plenty other countrys joined both wars, i suppose they're all lap dogs too? Forgetit we don't care what you, or other nations think, we know we have a good ally.
TIT - “ ... So, that the US shares intelligence service informations with the UK is not enough to demonstrate that the UK benefits from its special relationship ...”
Jan 04th, 2011 - 11:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your opinion = worthless.
Mow, did you not read the opinions of the very recently retired Prime Minister of Australia which I posted above, who seems to have much the same impression as myself and has even extended it throughout the 'Anglosphere'.
Get a grip TIT :-)
Implanted is a wonderful term. Gotta be as Think enjoys employing it so often. Must be a TIT thing :-)
Goodness me Think, you've mellowed since the days when you wanted to ship us all off to UK. Does that mean if we renounce our allegience to the UK's non- existent plans to dominate the South Atlantic you'll leave us alone?
Jan 05th, 2011 - 12:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0The rest of your post is....... well, I just can't summon the energy to rehash all that again.
I can reveal that Falkland Islanders have lamb and new potatoes for Christmas dinner; not a Turkey in sight. You must, therefore, be talking b.........s.
Mmmmm ... lamb :-)
Jan 05th, 2011 - 01:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0....not a turkey, either
Jan 05th, 2011 - 01:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/12524185
Jan 05th, 2011 - 03:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0more mastershake failure , his only attempt at growing mushrooms, which failed , read it to see what a complete backwards kid he is
(111) Monty69
Jan 05th, 2011 - 06:43 am - Link - Report abuse -1Nope.....I haven't “mellowed” a bit.
You are misreading my posts.
Best solution would still be that, after proper compensation, all of you leave the Islands.
Suitable solution would be a “Leaseback” agreement excluding mineral rights.
Tolerable solution would be any kind of agreement that effectively barred Britain (or any other foreign power) to utilize Malvinas as a base to exercise any kind of political, economical or military control on the South Atlantic.
Forgetit86 - you are completely avoiding my points. I have rendered your argument against Britain illogical time and time again and yet you avoid adressing it like an Argentine politician avoiding tthe issue of the Falklanders Human rights!
Jan 05th, 2011 - 08:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Let me spell it out for you - your main argument is that Britain should be removed from it's permanent seat because it has followed the United States into two wars. “Yet you have no ”beef” with the United States!!! Why?
(This is why I assumed you must of meant British conlonism; that would make infinately more sense)
Why?? Because you believe that the US still has something to offer to the UN and Britain doesn't “The problem is that the US is still too important for world decision to be taken in its abscence. But let's be reasonable: the same is not true of the UK.”
I proved this complettely wrong - I shown you that even in relation to just the UN - the UK is the third biggest contributer. I have shown you what our commonwealth does around the world. People have shown you that we are one of only three countries wih a blue water navy to project forces anywhere in the world.
I believe your argument has been flattened ADRESS IT PLEASE!
This is why I believe you simply hate the UK - judging by your completely illogical focus on the UK's activities and lack of consideration for other countries wrongs - it is the only explanation that makes sense. You hate the UK.
” ... barred Britain (or any other foreign power) to utilize Falklands as a base to exercise any kind of political, economical or military control on the South Atlantic.....”
Jan 05th, 2011 - 08:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well done Think (I've corrected your typo's by the way), you've listed half the reasons that Argentina will never be allowed to get its grubby little hands on the Falkland Islands.
Unless the islanders wish it of course ..... which would be surprising :-)
@115 Think, forget it thinkus horribilous, we're not leaving what we own. And you won't be coming here.
Jan 05th, 2011 - 09:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0why don't you lot leave Santa Cruz province? you arrived there long after we arrived here. you are“an implanted population” in Sta Cruz.
Anyway, the UK & FIG need a base to exploit Antarctica when the ice melts.(minerals, oil, coal,gas etc etc).
You didn't think that the Argentine Empire would be allowed to do that did you?
Also will make quite a handy base to control shipping around Cape Horn.
Argentina, put your own house in order & stop claiming other people's property.
Stir, stir.....
Jan 05th, 2011 - 10:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0:-)
Isolde .... you see the future I Think :-)
Jan 05th, 2011 - 12:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Finally!.... A Settler that says things as they are.
Jan 05th, 2011 - 12:54 pm - Link - Report abuse -1(It had to be a woman, of course :-)
Your points of view are perfectly understood by us and we are acting accordingly.
You know.. ….: Fisheries, tourism, transport, denial of services…. all that stuff.
It goes without saying that I’m crossing my fingers for the British Oil Bubble to burst in 2011.
The socioeconomic consequences of such a failure on the settlers would be quite functional for our strategy.
We are geared up to continue with this lengthy and progressive process of attrition.
As some Islander rightly said in this forum: For 99.99% of us, Argentineans, the “Malvinas Issue” is just an abstract detail without any personal consequences or costs.
For all of you it’s quite the opposite………………
“ ... quite functional for our strategy...”
Jan 05th, 2011 - 01:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So, Think ... what does that actually mean? In english :-)
And ... what issue ?
'For 99.99% of us, Argentineans, the “Malvinas Issue” is just an abstract detail without any personal consequences or costs.'
Jan 05th, 2011 - 02:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't agree with this entirely. I think you are paying a price for your intransigent attitude.
Every time one of your people turns up at some international forum, say the International Committee on the Correct Interpretation of the Offside Rule, and starts wittering on about the sovereignty issue, a collective groan goes up.You pay a price in international standing and credibility. You think everyone agrees with you, but they don't.
There would also be a huge cost to you if you ever got what you wanted. We would never give up or go away.We'd be there petitioning the UN for our freedom from a colonial situation every year. We'd be a thorn in your side and a constant embarrassment. You know this and I think you only carry on because you know it won't get you anywhere. You can be beastly to us in complete safety. Poor you.
(123) Monty69
Jan 05th, 2011 - 03:04 pm - Link - Report abuse -1The International Committee on the Correct Interpretation of the Offside Rule is THE perfect example of an extremely biased organization masterminded and financed by the British with the sole purpose of granting unfair advantages to their notoriously slow and heavy footballers that otherwise wouldn’t stand a chance against any real players……………
Furthermore, it has totally discredited itself during the last 178 years because of their unvarying Anti-Argentinean racist an colonial standpoints and rulings……………
In most other relevant international fora I know of, the Argentinean point of view is listen to, understood and increasingly shared by the other members and participants…………
I love how think assumes his nation has a grand master plan to get the islands back, it really is funny.
Jan 05th, 2011 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +1There is no plan, no “strategy”. All Argentina does is complain at international forums and events.
If/when the oil bursts. The islanders will be in the same possition they are now.
Actions get things done, words dont. Argentina only has words.
@Zethee:
Jan 05th, 2011 - 10:39 pm - Link - Report abuse -1The Iraq War:
You love my link, why? It proves your contention - that the war cost British taxpayers only 4 billion (dollars? pounds?) - wrong. And note this: the story was written in 2006, that is, it's already 5 years old. The burden on British taxpayers might have been only 5 billion pounds in 2006. The UK, however, only withdrew its troops from Iraq by 2009. So the sum spent, at the expense of British taxpayers, in the Iraq War is greater than 5 billion pounds. It surely is greater than the 4 billion pounds value you had adduced before.
As for the alleged “special reserves,” they don't matter to me. You read the story: the war still cost money from your budget.
You might want to check your reading skills. I'm quite aware of what the war has cost from the US: it forced the US to become even more indebted to East Asia. My contention is that the “support” the US has rendered Britain over the FI issue - for instance, the utterly trivial offer to lend ”the carrier battlegroup (...) at the soon to be royal wedding“ - has not been a burden to US taxpayers. See, when your country aids the US, British taxpayers ache. When the converse happens, US taxpayers don't even notice. And cease distorting my words just to make it appear like you refuting anything.
WWII
What is ”Twas”? And that the US was in no danger, in the near future, to see Germany invading its territory, doesn't matter. Germany was a military power, and it had declared war on the US. It was for the good of its national security that the US decided to fight off the threat. Please cease with this nonsense that the US only fought Germany because of you. How retarded and unlearned can you be? Instead of wasting your time with nationalist US media pundits - a group of people that is fond of reviewing history in a self-glorifying manner - go read what history or geopolitics scholars think of the US participation in WWII.
WWII (Cont.)
Jan 05th, 2011 - 10:49 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Immanuel Wallerstein, for example, interprets the world wars, both the I and the II, as one long dispute for hegemony between the US and Germany, the two emerging powers of the early XX century (the peaceful period between 1918 to 1941 he reads as an interlude for a new conflict). Gore Vidal - admittedly, no scholar - also thinks the US participation was motivated by self-interested reasons - and so does every thinking brain. Nobody serious believes that the US fought the Axis over feelings of brotherhood with the UK - for this is just too moronic and laughable to be matter of serious debate.
UK the poddle
That the UK refused to participate in the Vietnam War, completely underwhelms me. So did Brazil, and at that time we were under a military president, Castello Branco, that was little more than a client dictator to the White House. He's infamously known in the country to have said, in a visit to Washington, that “What is good to the United States, is good for Brazil.” Yet he refused to partake in war efforts against bthe Vietnamese Communists. And as for the FI support: who cares? Did it cost the US anything to help the UK in this instance? Brazil supported Argentina, for instance, by lending it military planes. And that didn't hurt us, even though Argentina lost that war. As for US: did its support for the UK cost them anything? Does this match the way and degree the UK has defended American interests abroad?
@Red ho: “Your opinion = worthless”. I see that you've run out of arguments.
@MF: Which point you made that I've avoided? You must forgive me, but I haven't read your posts in their entirety. You've derived some seriously wrong conclusions from my posts (for instance, that I'm racist, or that I was talking about British colonialism in referring to UK breaches of international law.) So I chose not to pay as much attention to you as perhaps I should. It seems that your indignation (and also Zethe's) to my point is that I have set different standards to the US and the UK when it comes to appropriateness of their presence at the SC as permanent members. But let me get this straight: had I said that US indifference to global peace and international law should it make unfit to its current position at the SC, would you agree with me that the same applies to the UK? Would you agree that there are more plausible countries - Germany, for example - to take occupy the post that current belongs to the UK?
Jan 05th, 2011 - 10:56 pm - Link - Report abuse -1ForgeTIT - I NEVER run out or arguments - twas ever so :-)
Jan 05th, 2011 - 11:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But I do get tired of dealing with idiots who will only have it their way and ignore the evidence that you present (obviously I don't fall into that category :-). Whether or not the 'special relationship' is really special or not is a moot point without serious answer unless all the facts are known. As the two Governments keep much of their dealings secret it's hard to tell.
However, I believe that the relationship benefits the UK and you have not convinced me otherwise. Interesting that the outgoing (gone) Australian Premier thinks the same way, and he's likely to have a better grasp of the details than we.
“Would you agree that there are more plausible countries - Germany, for example”
Jan 06th, 2011 - 01:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0I wrote out a really long reply. Then i got to this point and deleted it completely.
Goodbye.
“ ... Would you agree that there are more plausible countries - Germany, for example - to take occupy the post that current belongs to the UK?...”
Jan 06th, 2011 - 03:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Easy - NO
Forgetit86 - NO. Go back and read my posts. I have already debunked your whole argument.
Jan 06th, 2011 - 08:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0No wonder you are talking nonsense - you are ignorant!!
@Zethee: I forget, Germany harbored and conceded power to the an Austria-born racist some 77 years ago. That means Germany should never, ever, occupy at international political institutions a position that reflects its economic might. The UK, on the other hand, can play being the British Empire all over again at the expense of Middle Eastern countries and their civilian populations. But God forbid!, one can never discuss how appropriate it is to concede a country like that the highest leadership position at the most global of institutions, the UN.
Jan 06th, 2011 - 09:24 am - Link - Report abuse -1@Red ho: OK then, we cannot discuss the merits of the “special relationship” for we have little access to behind-the-scene interactions between heads of states. But most historians and commentators on geopolitical issues do not have more access to secret negotiations between world leaders than we do. Why then do we still study geopolitics and read books on the foreign relations?
@Manchester: You're overestimating your abilities. All you did was to throw to the wind a load of allegations that you somehow take as proof of your nationalistic beliefs: that the UK is an immensely relevant country and that its impact on the world is largely positive. For example, right after presenting numbers on the UK contribution to the UN budget, you speak of how literacy among women in 3rd World countries has improved as if this is due to anything the UK has done. You're the one who's not making sense.
@121, Twas only a stir but it hooked a big Thinkfish!
Jan 06th, 2011 - 09:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Forge TIT - quite right, 77 years is NOT ENOUGH! So 28/9 has no chance.
Jan 06th, 2011 - 11:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0And hey, I have no idea why you study geopolitics when only a part of the information is available to you. All you can do is summise ...... little chance of real success! All guesswork.
(134) Cher Isolde
Jan 06th, 2011 - 12:37 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Was it really “only a stir”?
Ohhhh……You devious temptress
You bait was so exquisite, I couldn’t resist.
I have a soft-spot for women that tell the truth.
(Especially when they don’t know they are doing it :-)
Easy think, this is the internet you know, for all you know Isolde could be a hairy arsed 250 pound navvy.
Jan 07th, 2011 - 12:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0She can fish.
Jan 07th, 2011 - 01:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0She can shoot..
She can curse...
Who cares about some extra ounces:-)
hmmm .... a woman that can dig :-)
Jan 07th, 2011 - 04:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Cool down, Cher Think. as Westy has said “this is only the internet!”
Jan 07th, 2011 - 08:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Don't presume so much!
But you must agree, the Falklands would make an ideal base, thats the main reason you want our islands. and of course, the oil, South Georgia & the others. TDF would be as good but you don't want competition. so that would mean that you have devious plans for Chile also.
not very sporting old chap
(140) Cher Isolde
Jan 07th, 2011 - 09:18 am - Link - Report abuse -1First you say: ”The ”UK & FIG need a base to exploit Antarctica.”
Then you say: ”Twas only a stir.”
Last you say: ” You must agree, the Falklands would make an ideal base.”
You are so full of……………………………….............................. contradictions.
The perfect Malvinense Woman!
Says No,…………… Means yes :-)
Woman talk:-
Jan 07th, 2011 - 09:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0No means Yes
Yes means No
Maybe means No
Do what you like means don't even think about it
l don't care means l care very much & if you do that you'll be sorry!
lts your choice means that whatever you pick had better be acceptable to me!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thats ALL women, Cher Think, Argentine ones as well.
That what I ment with: “The perfect Malvinense Woman”
Jan 07th, 2011 - 10:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are constantly saying !- NO -! to Argentina.......
You know what I mean.. Nudge nudge... Say no more :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ona-RhLfRfc
Clear enough .. they're not saying 'maybe' for sure :-)
Jan 07th, 2011 - 10:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Cher Think, whats going on in that brain(?) of yours.? Some words & phrases mean exactly as they say. especially when talking to Argentina & Argentines(no hidden meanings), a small sample..............................
Jan 07th, 2011 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) Get lost
2) Never
3) ln your dreams
4) ldiots
5) Fools
6) lncompetents
7) lnterfering
8) Delusions of Grandeur
9) You've been Lying to the UN.
10) You're Whining over what is not yours.
You're looking poor & hard done-by(looking for sympathy).
12)Many others, but this will do for now. oh last but certainly not least, when we say to you“you do not own the Falklands, we do”--we really mean it.
hope this helps
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!