-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Argentines seek peaceful resolution in Falklands, Brits says its settled.
- Thread starter Ripclawe
- Start date
- Status
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
Russia actually has more of a claim to Alaska than Argentina does to the Falklands, lol.
That's how ridiculous this is.
smh, Argies.
ElectricBlue187
Member
we got that shit for a song too we should've bought more
What a load of bollocks, yes, the UK did terrible things in the past, but we supported America in two HUGELY unpopular wars, and backed you guys throughout the entire cold war. Is this the way Obama treats his allies? It's no wonder we're cosying up to China.
el retorno
Member
How does this equate to us backing up Argentina?
I know it doesn't say we directly support UK claims but we know what the reality of the situation is (its british) so why risk ticking of another friend (argentina) just to show how close we are with the first.
ElectricBlue187
Member
The reasons the UK did those things were entirely selfish and don't pretend otherwise. UK wanted to be the superpower's best buddy.
Tell that to the families of the 400 troops that died in Afghanistan and the 179 that died in Iraq
So? We still did it.
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
ElectricBlue187
Member
I don't buy the "we did you guys a favor" nonsense. You are responsible for your own decisions in this world.
It's called being an ally you fuck.
We help you out (as we did with Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya/Yemen/Pakistan), so you help us out by conforming to the legally binding UN position that the Falklands are in the UK.
It's not hard. Jesus.
We won't of course
When Israel/Iran kicks off either this year or next year and the US jumps in we'll be right behind them
ElectricBlue187
Member
nah you do things that benefit your own nation, if you are doing something else for sentimental or other reasons your leaders are fucking you over. If the US has more to gain by backing Argentina even for appearances sake then that's what we should do.
marvelharvey
Member
Not only is it not hard, but saying "We side with the UK" is totally free of charge. Unlike the billions the UK has spent helping the US with their wars.
GREAT IDEA!
You should keep alienating a country that has backed you TIME after TIME! A country that is your 6th biggest export market (Argentina is your 30th) and a veto wielding member of the UNSC
Not saying the President should be using this logic, but nothing that came from the alliance benefited either country. Maybe Libya, but that was your thing anyway. I don't think either side should be sorry to see it end, though the right will obviously use it as a club.
ElectricBlue187
Member
well if you just take it and don't complain then we get to be friends with both Argentina and UK, so the US loses nothing and gains a friend in Argentina. It makes perfect sense from that point of view.
Are you serious right now?
America didn't gain anything from all those years? Let me tell you, if America had been in Helmand all of those years your casualties would have been way higher.
I do think that the U.S. should back the U.K. on this.
However, I think they should back the U.K. on the premise that it makes sense to do so, not because of "payback" or whatever for backing us in those stupid wars. If the U.K. really decided to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq because of some stupid allegiance to the U.S. and thinks they deserve payback for it, then the U.K. is truly fucking stupid. You don't go to war for those reasons.
However, I think they should back the U.K. on the premise that it makes sense to do so, not because of "payback" or whatever for backing us in those stupid wars. If the U.K. really decided to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq because of some stupid allegiance to the U.S. and thinks they deserve payback for it, then the U.K. is truly fucking stupid. You don't go to war for those reasons.
so do i, because helping the americans out in conflicts so far has involved us in two immoral and illegal wars
stupidity with respect to honouring alliances is part of what caused WW1
Fuck alliances. The U.S. (and U.K.) should get in the business of doing what's right, not sucking our partners' dicks. The U.K. of all nations should realize that after Afghanistan and Iraq.
It seems you have a mature attitude to international relations
America circa 2003: COALITION OF THE WILLING
America circa 2012: Argentina is a new partner, the UK are not as important as they once were
Awesome.
ElectricBlue187
Member
I agree on both points. Alliances are nice but in the end you gotta do what's best for you
I don't think the occupation would have been possible. If it was initially, it would have become impossible sooner. You know we're going to lose right? Even with your help.
Anyway what we'd lose there we'd save in Iraq. And think what you would have saved.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
Backing Argentina up on something they have absolutely no claim to is something else entirely. Doing his homework on the politics and history of the Falklands is something I expect a US president to do before he makes dumb statements. Simply calling them them "Malvinas" shows his allegiance and complete lack of knowledge.
He could have just abstained from the situation but he couldn't help himself.
Again, I agree that the U.S. should back the U.K. on this. Just not for any of the reasons you stated. The U.S. should not unconditionally support the U.K.. Again, the U.K. -- of all nations -- should be aware of how this can get you into trouble since they have been there again and again over the past 10 years.
look at it from the US's point of view: the UK is a declining power among declining powers (europe)
argentina is a rising power among rising powers (south america)
from the US point of view, it makes sense to support the argentinians rather than the british because, putting alliances aside, there's fuck all that the british can do if the US doesn't support them, but damaging relations with south america could have severe long-term political and economic consequences
ElectricBlue187
Member
oh NO not CHINA plz anything but THAT
exactly. Being friends with argentina is a high priority if we are to continue to have influence in South America
Enjoy? Who the hell isn't "cosying up" to China?
el retorno
Member
We've been neutral for 70 plus years. But its clear whose side were on (We gave you guys stuff during the war).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute#Neutral
I just don't understand your anger at the US here. Its not like were supporting the Argentinians. We just aren't coming out and saying it. Do the words matter that much?
Exactly. It's morally disappointing that Obama doesn't back the Falklands residents. I'm not sad he isn't maintaining our alliances.
And I don't have many more neurons available to be more disappointed in Obama.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
He could have abstained. This case shows Obama has no consideration for actual facts and will just go along with something because it benefits him.
Yes they do matter because the islands ARE called the Falklands. To call them Malvinas validates the Argentinian's claims. There seems this perception that because of the UK's past that we are the bad guys in this situation, let me make it clear... the Argentines were the ones who originally refused negotiations, invaded and started a sequence of events that led to the death of hundreds of people. Because of their actions they have completely ruined their chances of any discussions over sovereignty. They are the bad guys in this situation.
When your 6th biggest export market moves to a new supplier, that causes damage (one of the reasons why the Whitehouse asked Cameron to come over in March)
again, why would he abstain if he can build a relationship with an emerging and likely future superpower (south america)?
Sir Hamish
Member
If the US were to support the UK in this then it would be for the right reasons, not simply because we have an alliance. Legally the islands are British. Even if we wanted to give them to Argentina the islanders still have a legal right to self determination under the UN, and we all know the islanders would choose to be British. Argentina have no valid claim, at all, for the islands.
The right thing to do would be to back back the UK. At the very least the US should back the islanders. They aren't, they're choosing to back Argentina.
Not only are they not supporting an ally, they're not supporting an ally when that ally is legally in the right.
He doesn't have too. And is going along with this because it will benefit him. Which is exactly what Napoleonthechimp is pointing out.
ElectricBlue187
Member
which is exactly what he should do, act for the benefit of the citizens of the USA, he's not President of UKSA
because he's alienating a much bigger, more important ally. The UK is on the UNSC, don't forget that.
el retorno
Member
By not changing our position?
firstly, my point is precisely that we're only bigger and more important at the moment; in the not-too-distant future emerging economies are going to pass us
secondly, we are on the UNSC, so what? the US has hardly demonstrated that it considers itself beholden to the UN before
the US has virtually nothing to lose by alienating the UK, but it has potentially a lot to lose from alienating south america
ElectricBlue187
Member
and you're not going to do a damn thing about it and Obama knows that. So there's no reason not to make friends with the Argentines
Yes, I am aware. That's why I said I think the U.S. should back the U.K. What I am saying, however, is that our "alliance" or "friendship" or whatever other cuddly words come into play should have absolutely zilch to do with it.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
If Obama wants to completely ignore actual history and facts then his position should be completely ignored.
i suspect that realistically that's what's going to happen
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked