OP
OP
- Max login streak
- 2 day(s)
- Thread starter
- #21
A neutral position would be welcomed, ignoring the Falkland Islanders is not being neutral.
US won't accept Falklander's rights to self determination
- Thread starter Tez3
- Start date
A neutral position would be welcomed, ignoring the Falkland Islanders is not being neutral.
you go ahead and bank on China.
I've seen this on TV several times the last couple of years discussing Chinas "ghost cities" and their real estate bubble. The one this past weekend showed how Chinas middle class does not trust the stock market and instead invests in up to 5 or 6 homes but nobody moves into the ghost cites. These are full fledged modern cities with malls, stores, restaurants etc etc. All empty.http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-04/chinas-housing-bubble-goes-mainstream-america
Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2
celtic_crippler
Senior Master
Technically:
Anyway... back on topic
This is very interesting... though I said it in jest earlier:
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/background_falkland_islands.htm
Ya know... guess I was right...
http://www.desireplc.co.uk/pdfs/Desire_2011_CPR_Report.pdf
celtic_crippler
Senior Master
you go ahead and bank on China.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-04/chinas-housing-bubble-goes-mainstream-america
Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2
Yeah, those in the "know" have realized that China's reported GDP is about as real as unicorns and leprechauns. LOL
OP
OP
- Max login streak
- 2 day(s)
- Thread starter
- #25
you go ahead and bank on China.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-04/chinas-housing-bubble-goes-mainstream-america
Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2
I didn't say anthing about us relying on China, I said a good part of the world is...Africa for a start. Whatever they are doing in China itself they are pouring money into a lot of other countries.
Canada can decide to be totally independant and have their own head of state anytime they want. They aren't forced to have the Queen as head of state, they chose to.
pgsmith
Master of Arts
I'm sorry, but if you are expecting US politicians to do anything that doesn't result in more money in their pockets, you are going to be sadly disappointed. Seems to me that US politicians are saying that they think they can get more from the Argentinian government than they can from the Falkland Islanders, so that's what they press for.
Never forget that US politics these days is ONLY about money and power.
Never forget that US politics these days is ONLY about money and power.
oftheherd1
Senior Master
Other than recalling a thread some time ago, I wasn't aware there was anything current going on about the Faulklands. Sorry to our Commonwealth friends.
But for a man like Kerry to say what he did, to be kind, is a new Secretary of State trying to be in line with the administration and not cause waves. To be more honest, when you read
That is classic double-talk and some gibberish liberally thrown in. He tried, but I don't think it came out right. What his and President Obama's reasons are I don't know. President Obama isn't my favorite president anyway. Truely Kerry didn't say anything really wrong, or that the government can't quickly change and clarify to mean something else. But there are potential problems in South America. Chavez is about to kick the bucket from all appearences. His brother may not be able to hold on to power. We may not want to antagonize Argentina right now.
But I doubt even Obama is going to disrespect the UK. He may not fully support something publicly, but behind the scenes, he may have pointed out to the UK government why he is doing what he is doing. At least I hope so. And I hope it makes enough sense to the UK government, that they aren't going to raise a lot of sand about it. But who knows if you don't walk in that rarified atmosphere?
BTW, someone mentioned the US didn't assist the UK before. As I recall at the time, we did provide a lot of intel that greatly aided the UK forces, especially naval, to conduct their activities. We didn't send ships but I don't know that the UK really expected or even desired that. The UK had a beef with Argentina. If the US had intervened militarily, the US, and maybe then the UK, would have had a beef with all of South America.
Anyway, this US citizen isn't too happy about Kerry's reply or apparent stance on the matter. Whatever the realities of the regional political arena may be, and whether or not the UK government is upset, I just think it could have been handled better. And I also understand that the UK has indeed been a friend of the US in most, if not all things in the last century. I don't think we have done that badly towards the UK either.
But for a man like Kerry to say what he did, to be kind, is a new Secretary of State trying to be in line with the administration and not cause waves. To be more honest, when you read
That is classic double-talk and some gibberish liberally thrown in. He tried, but I don't think it came out right. What his and President Obama's reasons are I don't know. President Obama isn't my favorite president anyway. Truely Kerry didn't say anything really wrong, or that the government can't quickly change and clarify to mean something else. But there are potential problems in South America. Chavez is about to kick the bucket from all appearences. His brother may not be able to hold on to power. We may not want to antagonize Argentina right now.
But I doubt even Obama is going to disrespect the UK. He may not fully support something publicly, but behind the scenes, he may have pointed out to the UK government why he is doing what he is doing. At least I hope so. And I hope it makes enough sense to the UK government, that they aren't going to raise a lot of sand about it. But who knows if you don't walk in that rarified atmosphere?
BTW, someone mentioned the US didn't assist the UK before. As I recall at the time, we did provide a lot of intel that greatly aided the UK forces, especially naval, to conduct their activities. We didn't send ships but I don't know that the UK really expected or even desired that. The UK had a beef with Argentina. If the US had intervened militarily, the US, and maybe then the UK, would have had a beef with all of South America.
Anyway, this US citizen isn't too happy about Kerry's reply or apparent stance on the matter. Whatever the realities of the regional political arena may be, and whether or not the UK government is upset, I just think it could have been handled better. And I also understand that the UK has indeed been a friend of the US in most, if not all things in the last century. I don't think we have done that badly towards the UK either.
Our independence is different, we fought for ours. Independence is whats best for the people, which in this situation is your business not ours. We fought the Spanish to give Cuba its independence. They turned around and wanted us to leave which we did. (thats the short version) They could have had the same rights as Puerto Rico or Guam but instead they chose Communism.
Americans in general are not choosing sides. For us its not so black and white.
We are totally independent. When's the last time the Queen interfered with our legislative process. She is our nominal head of state. With no real powers.
celtic_crippler
Senior Master
Shold be the US' new national anthem:
"Cash rules everything around me, CREAM, get tha' money!... dolla-dolla bill y'all!"
"Cash rules everything around me, CREAM, get tha' money!... dolla-dolla bill y'all!"
Last edited by a moderator:
Your commonwealth is voluntary but it is still much larger than our small number of 9 territories.
http://answers.usa.gov/system/selfs...=1000&PARTITION_ID=1&TIMEZONE_OFFSET=18000000
versus your 123 commonwealths.
http://www.cdncovers.com/BC.html
You have your hands in many affairs but we get bitched at for sticking our noses all over the world. Then we get bitched at when we dont.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
So why do the islanders or the UK need the US permission anyway. Why do you care what we say? You can take the args with no problem without our help of it came to war so what's the problem. You cry we get to involved in thing then when we don't you cry were not helping.
OP
OP
- Max login streak
- 2 day(s)
- Thread starter
- #33
Your commonwealth is voluntary but it is still much larger than our small number of 9 territories.
http://answers.usa.gov/system/selfs...=1000&PARTITION_ID=1&TIMEZONE_OFFSET=18000000
versus your 123 commonwealths.
http://www.cdncovers.com/BC.html
You have your hands in many affairs but we get bitched at for sticking our noses all over the world. Then we get bitched at when we don’t.
You honestly think all those countries are ours? Really you need to look them us, it's The Commonwealth not the British Commonwealth, many of member countries don't have the Queen as head of state such as Pakistan. Some countries such as Mozambique and Rwanda have never had anything to do with the UK.
http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/191086/191247/the_commonwealth/
the thing with the Falklands is that you aren't being neutral you are sticking your nose in with your support for Argentina.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/n...slaps-britain-in-the-face-over-the-falklands/
"Hillary Clinton’s statements at this press conference are highly significant, as they demonstrate a clear shift in US policy from neutrality (last week’s position) towards siding with the Argentine position of pressing for negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands at the United Nations.
The Secretary of State, a highly skilled political operator, knows exactly what she is doing here. She is giving her full support for the official stance of Buenos Aires, despite the fact that Great Britain has made it clear that the sovereignty of the Falklands is non-negotiable. She makes no reference at all to the fact that Argentina recently threatened a blockade of the Falklands, or that its close ally Venezuela has been threatening war against Britain"
Why do we care? because if it comes to war and America takes Argentina's side, arms them and supports them what do you think will happen?
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
What do I think will happen? If you go to war with arg. Wewill stay nnatural in public but I have no doubt Obama would back door you and supply arms right the enemy.
OP
OP
- Max login streak
- 2 day(s)
- Thread starter
- #35
I'm not sure I want to see you au natural........
Sell us arms you mean and to the Argentinians?
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
But I'm pretty
No that would be to obvious. We will pay one of their buddy's to buy Chinese arms for them. Back door style.
Argintina isn't our enemy.
OP
OP
- Max login streak
- 2 day(s)
- Thread starter
- #38
celtic_crippler
Senior Master
Yeah... I know... I'm genuine **** sometimes. But, it makes me laugh.
Last edited by a moderator:
Post #34 "but I have no doubt Obama would back door you and supply arms right the enemy."
Which implied Argentina was the enemy.
But that was not your post.
Similar threads
