MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Brazil wants an equals relation with the US, says Foreign minister Patriota
Brazil’s Foreign Affairs minister Antonio Patriota said that the visit of US president Barack Obama represents a significant reset in bilateral relations. What Brazil wants, declared the minister, ‘is to be treated as an equal, in a more seamless relationship without confrontations’. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules“ ... What Brazil wants, declared the minister, ‘is to be treated as an equal,...”
Mar 19th, 2011 - 12:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oops, getting a bit big for your boots there Brazil, the US of A doesn't treat anyone as an equal. They don't believe such a country exists.
“ ... he is hopeful that President Obama will declare support for a reform of the United Nations Security Council and a permanent seat for Brazil. ...”
He is 'hopeful' that the President of the US will water down its UNSC powers to facilitate Brazil! Hmmmm .... :-)
“ ... the ninth US president to visit Brazil,...”
Yup, that puts it into perspective.
All diplomatic bullsh*t reall.
Brazil wants an equals relation with the US [YES SIRRRRR]
Mar 19th, 2011 - 12:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Any thing else you require , a seat at the same table, dinner for two
perhaps you would like to accompany the president around the world as his second, president of the UN perhaps.
shit man just be grateful you are on the same continent as him.
he will be wanting to be called royal highness next,?????
@Redhoyt
Mar 19th, 2011 - 12:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Never thought I'd been saying that one day, but good post, particularly the first part.
As for briton, as often happens I don't quite get what he's trying to say.
Redhot, briton,
Mar 19th, 2011 - 01:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0There is ranting and there is retarded, you both qualify for the latter. Though I suspect I'd be just as defensive and insecure if I were a Brit.
Go punch a door or something, freaks.
ForgeTIT - I am struck dumb :-)
Mar 19th, 2011 - 01:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Martian - you are just dumb !
Do you know any adjectives other than “dumb”?
Mar 19th, 2011 - 03:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Third grade must've been tough for you.
brazil to play in world board need to show an starring role in any main world conflict; ex. south atlantic.-
Mar 19th, 2011 - 03:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0There are other ways to excel Billy, but as far as I know Brazil already plays an important role.
Mar 19th, 2011 - 03:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0The British don't have '3rd grade' Idiot ... there, apparently I know two adjectives :-)
Mar 19th, 2011 - 05:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0I will not lower myself to insult martin, a gentleman does not insult the lower classes as it may be deemed an insult.????
Mar 19th, 2011 - 01:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0,,,,,,,,,,,,
Forgetit87
this was a catty reference to the same as you asking your boss to be equal.
you want what he has but you cannot have it, very logical really
just a bit catty, thanks
MARTIN once again we all agree we are all idiots, and you are clever, ok
In my view, Brazil shouldn't even bother of joining the jokers club.
Mar 19th, 2011 - 04:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let's take a close look at those “permanent” members
Russia: rising, doing business there is ????, (rule of law a major issue)
China: lot's of money and the yuan can replace the dollar, can't trust those commie chinks, though you got to do business with them
France: Economy in decline, though you ask yourself if they realize that themself, answer is no, they don't.
Britian: broke,
USA: broke,
UN is a joke.
Brasil is not seeking an absolute equality, but to be able to discuss matters with *respect* accorded to a BRIC and de facto leader of their continent.
Mar 19th, 2011 - 05:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Amorim and Lula did no favours to the reputation of Brasil on the world stage.
Dilma has had to play catch-up, and respect will not be immediate or total in the short term. UNSC membership will not be at all automatic and, it is my belief, that it will be better coming following a longer period of democratic and governmental maturity.
I have considered whether the absence of a seriously first-world defense capability should debar Brasil from Security Council status - I think not.
The thing that should debar is the same as should debar all present members of FIFA (and, indeed most present members of the UNSC!) - institutionalised corruption.
@briton
Mar 19th, 2011 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's not realistic for a country to expect the US to voluntarily treat it as an equal (the possible exception is China, though I'm not very sure of that, either). Be that as it may, the US is not Brazil's boss. Brazil has always had an independent foreign policy, never supported US invasionist folly, never gave in to US demands for more “open” trade, etc.. Nowadays there are only so many countries the US can boss around: mainly the UK, Australia and Canada.
Forgetit87
Mar 19th, 2011 - 07:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you started good but went down hill.
all countries are there own bosses, but please remember some counties have such an intertwine development, it allows one to put pressure on each other to get things done,
in reality very few nations are others puppets,
of me head I cannot think of a nation that is another’s poppet, the relation ship between the USA-UK-AST-NZ-CAN- is very intricate
but I can sure you within reason when the chips are down the UK makes its own decisions good or bad, and thus entertains the out come ,
good or bad .
@briton
Mar 19th, 2011 - 08:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I disagree: a nation CAN be reduced to a relationship of subservience to another. That this happens because their economies is intertwined doesn't really change that fact. When a govt takes decisions that won't advance its own interests and/or don't find domestic support, and does so for the sake of another country's economic and political interests, then that's subservience. The UK, Canada and Australia have actively supported certain US policies in the international arena that were not in their best interests. And they have done so even when other culturally similar and equally powerful countries - Germany and France - refused to toe the US party line. I have only one name for that kind of stance: subservience.
not so, you say we supported the US that was not in our interest,
Mar 19th, 2011 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the USA support us over the Falklands, some would argue not in their interests, the British [one way or another] let that Libyan guy go, this was not in our interested, you see things happen,
a typical scenario would be the brits not supporting the yanks in a certain adventure, , we then get problems later on, and the yanks look the other way, what happens then, trust me when I say, things in this day and age are done to not only further ones interests, but also to secure future interests, this is not subservience, this is friendship or pure business
subservience is when you are FORCED to do what you don’t want to do, and are forced against your will to do it, then still expected to pay homage.
this may be your subservience, Britain is no mans fool, only politicians expedience, [but I will concede one thing]
the European Giant, this I will except that the uk toe knows to them like dogs on a lead, but again I must stand,, this not the people, this is purely political expedience .perhaps if Mr Cameron extended to his own people what he demands for others, then we would have that referendum , and would now be free of Europe, subservience by governments to Europe, against the wishes of the people,
We may just have to agree to disagree.
“the USA support us over the Falklands”
Mar 20th, 2011 - 01:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Uh, yeah that was back in 1982. And Chile. And the Gurkhas you hired, etc.
How exactly is the US supporting you now? They call the islands by its real name: MALVINAS
Either revise your statement or show some proof.
Here is mine
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/60697,news-comment,news-politics,britain-protested-over-us-officials-malvinas-barb-falkland-islands-argentina
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/60697,news-comment,news-politics,britain-protested-over-us-officials-malvinas-barb-falkland-islands-argentina
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/60697,news-comment,news-politics,britain-protested-over-us-officials-malvinas-barb-falkland-islands-argentina
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/60697,news-comment,news-politics,britain-protested-over-us-officials-malvinas-barb-falkland-islands-argentina
If you need more just let me know. ;-)
Martin F - Of course S American states back Arg verbally in the Un and sign “side-agreements” at S America conventions and meetings etc. BUT that, as you and I both know ,is as far as any “real”support goes. other than perhaps little Uruguay at times but we all know she has no option but to do what Lady K says.
Mar 20th, 2011 - 01:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Falkland Flagged ships sail to and from S American nations.
Export Goods from various S American nations arrive here clearly identified as exported to the Islas Falklands.Please show me all this “support” you have?
USA official position is “Neutral” - always has been. Same time they have always said that if BOTH sides want to - they will happily help out etc - emphasis on the word BOTH.
Spain,s position also is NEUTRAL - Spain made that crystal clear to Lady K a month or two ago!
Actually both Brazil and Uruguay denied entry to your pirate ships, hardly just a 'verbal' show of support.
Mar 20th, 2011 - 02:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346094/Brazil-sides-Argentina-Britain-Falklands-warship-turned-away-Rio.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346094/Brazil-sides-Argentina-Britain-Falklands-warship-turned-away-Rio.html
#16 “the USA support us over the Falklands”
#18 “USA official position is “Neutral””
Thank you for revising your statement.
But little Uruguay at least bothered to explain and apologise for her actions.
Mar 20th, 2011 - 05:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0And in both cases it was tacit supportm nothing more. An easy gesture to refuse facilities to a Royal Navy ship that was quite capable of going elsewhere. In fact, if I was a conspiracy theorist I'd be inclined to see Brazil's refusal as remarkably well timed considering the new President want to make a statement. Not least to her own political partners. Almsot as though the Royal navy was in on it.
The reality of course is that whilst 2 Royal Navy vessels have been refused access there is no evidence of any commercial shippping being so refused. Even the last (I think it was the last) MERCOSUR document was delayed a little while the wording of support for Argentina was changed to Brazil's order. Now they'll only report on shipping involved in the Falkland's oil industry ... nothing more!
And Martian, if you believe the USA will support you over the UK if push comes to shove then you are even more naive than it appears !
“Almsot as though the Royal navy was in on it.”
Mar 20th, 2011 - 05:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well RedHot, then your “Royal” Navy is obviously quite fond of making a complete ass of itself. I hope they try that again, we both know they won't. ;-)
And I didn't say the US would support Argentina, 'briton' did. I said the US calls the islands by its real name, MALVINAS, which I proved with four links.
Forgetit nearly won today's Turnip for his tease at #13, but his reply to Briton has truth in it.
Mar 20th, 2011 - 09:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Blair took the world to war in the middle east (and he is arguably the catalyst to all that goes on there at the moment).
The US needed his support and made the call.
It was either subservience to a more powerful master or his belief that the voice of God told him to do it.
Whether it was Bush or God was immaterial - the world saw Bush say 'Jump' and Blair say 'How high?'
Martian ... you proved nothing, cr*p newspaper articles are not 'evidence' :-)
Mar 20th, 2011 - 01:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0haha... sure Redhot, anytime you can't win an argument we'll pretend it was all fabricated by the news. ;-)
Mar 20th, 2011 - 06:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You didn't even read what I posted, I made a mistake.
“And I didn't say the US would support Argentina, 'briton' did.” - Obviously 'briton' would never say that. -
Correction: 'briton' said the US would support the UK, which was actually corrected by 'Islander1' by saying “USA official position is “Neutral””.
So, thank you 'Islander1' for putting 'briton' in its place. ;-)
NO Briton would never say that. nice try martin.
Mar 20th, 2011 - 07:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the thing between me and [ Forgetit87 ] was very good plus
GeoffWard (#)
Forgetit nearly won today's Turnip for his tease at #13, but his reply to Briton has truth in it.
yes, this is why dialect is good for the sole, we were in fact both correct and both wrong, mmmmm
but martin, the USA did support the UK and that is a fact.
but lets get more facts, the USA without obarma will always back the UK against anyone except those who by these actions would prove to be a severe danger to the American people, that is the truth for both nations,
you seem to forget the agreement that the Americans signed with south America [GeoffWard can find it] when this was signed I don’t think anyone perceived that the Argentineans would fxck it up and cause the yanks to decide between it best allies and or the south American agreement,
so she did what all law abiding nations would do, [stay neutral]
at this time America also did what all friends would do, find anyway they can and help their friends, this they did, it is well documented today that the yanks were ready and willing to supply the British with an aircraft carrier, they also allowed the SAS access the military equipment that was still being tested,
that is friendship. all countries do under the counter things that we on this blogg will never know., secrets history was built on them.
MARTIN you tried , you really tried, but no cigar ??
[obama] does not like the british because of other imagenary events
like the argie bloggers [cant prove] mmmm
“[obama] does not like the british because of other imagenary events
Mar 20th, 2011 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0like the argie bloggers [cant prove] mmmm”
I have no idea what you just said, speak up if you're trying to make a point.
“the yanks were ready and willing to supply the British with an aircraft carrier”
Back to the old evil Junta... blah.. blah.. blah.. same old crap, nothing new.
Get out of your cold war shelter briton and get some fresh air... sounds like you really need it.
In more RECENT news. The US calls Malvinas by its real name, Malvinas. ;-)
Quite frankly I don't give a shit about the US, it's just funny how self-deluded you guys are.
Argentina does give a shit about America [we all know that]
Mar 20th, 2011 - 09:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0your reply was very half hearted, you know the truth was different.
its all about politics martin, read the following you might find it interesting .
Argentina sank one of our ships which was rescued by the aircraft carrier HMS
Invincible, I once travelled from Portsmouth to Liverpool on that and it had many of the same crew who saw action in the Falklands.
The key to that victory however was the SAS who canoed in deep into Argentina territory and set explosives on a fleet of Argie planes ready to be deployed. It was a team of about 4 or 5 mean who went in under the cover of darkness, set the explosives, detonated and left without detection. Those boys did their job big time. Like the SAS / SBS always do. .
America was a great help in the Falklands war thanks to the relationship between Regan and Margaret Thatcher.
Their main contribution was the provision of sidewinder air-to-air missiles that the Harriers were fitted with. These were knocking out the Mirages and Sky Hawks of the Argentine Air Force without a single Harrier loss. They also provided vital intelligence.
Did you know the Belgrano was sunk twice? Once by the Japs in Pearl Harbour as the USS Arizona, but it was refloated and repaired. We sunk it for good and drove the Argentinian Navy back to port, never to be seen again.
The UK has fought in more conflicts/wars in the last 70 years than the US has fought in it's entire 230+ year history, so far there has been only 1 year since 1945 British soldiers have not died in a battle somewhere in the world.
So far the US has not sent one soldier to help us, below is a list of just a few of the bigger fights we have had since 1945,
Borneo
Malaysia
Aden
Kenya
Cyprus
(all British wins) there are a further 17 conflicts that could be listed (all ending in british victories) (i haven't bothered with Northern ireland as that was a police action)
on the other hand the UK has helped the US in every
On the other hand, Briton,
Mar 20th, 2011 - 10:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Suez was a British DEFEAT at the hands of the USA - by their unwillingness to take the ''British/French side'.. . .
. .you know, like the UK did in reverse in the Vietnam conflict - A USA DEFEAT.
It's a funny old, complicated, world.
Agreed, but /well/ok/yes you are correct, mmm
Mar 20th, 2011 - 10:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0but some would say the Suez was a success we did win, and the Americans lost it for us.
again political, and America proving a point, as you say, they threatened to stop all money and aid, so we were forced into a humiliating withdrawal. but got our own back in the Vietnam, in which the Americans were humiliated by a 4th world power, they never forgave us for that, but what goes around comes around, Falklands/gulf war one and two, Iraq afghan, then this fool takes power, and smack the uk gets insulted, as he is doing now by going to the Americas , and not being in Europe, but this I know is personal , he does not like the British,
but the argies cannot grasp this, otherwise Christina would be all over him. Like a rash,
stupid isn’t it , politics s
27 briton,
Mar 21st, 2011 - 01:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0Everyone knows the UK would have never won the war on their own. You just made that point perfectly clear all by yourself.
We fought on our own, no US, no Chile, no Gurkhas. You're all a bunch of pussies.
That was thirty years ago though, the circumstances are nothing like they were back then, there can be no possible justification for any other country to back you up. Reason why they don't, reason why I'm not worried in the least.
If you're stuck back in time that's your problem, not mine.
Like you just said
Mar 21st, 2011 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0there can be no possible justification for any other country to back you up. and that includes Argentina,
but of course you are correct, we are much weaker that we were 30 years ago, but then even by today’s standard we are still more powerful than Argentina, and we still have the Falklands,, perhaps one day when your government wakes up and gives up on the Falklands, the argentines and British can again stand side by side as gentlemen, what do you say, mmm
I say when pigs fly, Brit.
Mar 22nd, 2011 - 12:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0I say Malvinas was a thorn on both Argentina and the UK's side 30 years ago and is sure as hell a thorn on everyone's side now. When the sovereignty dispute is resolved, then we can talk about Argentina and the UK resuming relations as normal.
Taking things out of context doesn't mean that you have a point, it means exactly the opposite.
of course i have a point, that’s the tip of the pencil
Mar 22nd, 2011 - 12:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0that was replaced by the mighty pen, that will put argentine signature on the paper , that will give the Falklands independence, then we can talk about Argentina and the UK resuming relations as normal.
see how easy that was,
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!