Falklands - What, again?

[Little-Rena]

It seems the Falklands dispute is heating up again, this topic is about a day or so late from the news story, but I didn't see anyone else bring it up.

From what I have read, it seems that Obama is supporting Argentina in regards to negotiations and therefor withdrawing support to the UK over the issue, they supported the UK back in 1982 (Falklands war) and this has come a while after Obamas visit to London talking about a 'special relationship' but wirthdrawing support is kind of a slap in the face, is it not?

If this did go to a war, the UK wouldn't be able to hold the Falklands without the support of the US, this is also harder because of cuts in the UK defense buget as well as fighting in wars already.

David Cameron also said that the sovereignty of the Falklands wasn't up for negotiation.

What does this mean for future relations?

What should the future of the Falklands be?

Some links:

Mail Online
Fox lol
MecroPress
Telegraph

Also, if this did go to war, that's 2 wars in the Falklands under a Conservative lead parliment in the UK

[Korriken]

Meh, in my opinion, the US shouldn't support the UK occupation of a piece of land it can't hold on its own.

Also, I believe the US shouldn't be picking up the UK's slack on their defense so they can cut their own budget at our expense.

[Little-Rena]

At 6/16/11 11:03 PM, Korriken wrote: Meh, in my opinion, the US shouldn't support the UK occupation of a piece of land it can't hold on its own.

It is officially British land, as an ally of the UK the US should support the UK in defending it's land, considering most of the residents of the Falklands want to remain under British rule.

Also, I believe the US shouldn't be picking up the UK's slack on their defense so they can cut their own budget at our expense.

Sure, that makes sense, there's no excuse for a slack defese budget, holding onto only one aircraft carrier but then, the UK didn't have to go into Iraq with the US, if they didn't, the UK would have more money to spend on defending overseas territories.

But as it stands, the Falklands are recognised as being British.

[Camarohusky]

If Argentina wants to clear out the Falklands all they have to do is lead the way with Diego Maradona...

[Korriken]

At 6/16/11 11:08 PM, Little-Rena wrote:

It is officially British land, as an ally of the UK the US should support the UK in defending it's land, considering most of the residents of the Falklands want to remain under British rule.

I did a little research on it and reverse my opinion. We need to help these people stay free from Argentina. If they wish to remain British territory, and Argentina is trying to take it from them, then we should give a hand.

But as it stands, the Falklands are recognised as being British.

And from what I read, they wanna keep it that way, but Argentina wants the land for itself. to hell with that.

Best thing to do would be to have a referendum in the Falklands (if they haven't already) on which side they want to be, British, Argentine, or Independent.

Both sides should accept and honor the wishes of the people living there.

[Little-Rena]

At 6/16/11 11:32 PM, Korriken wrote: And from what I read, they wanna keep it that way, but Argentina wants the land for itself. to hell with that.

From a few other sites, I've read there is a large amount of oil around the Falklands and this is what Argentina could really be after, rather than the land and its citizens.

Best thing to do would be to have a referendum in the Falklands (if they haven't already) on which side they want to be, British, Argentine, or Independent.

Both sides should accept and honor the wishes of the people living there.

I don't believe they have had one yet, there has been a lot of polling, which is where the information of them wanting to remain British has come from and yes, it should be honoured, as much so as if Scotland or any other country linked to Westminster had a referendum on independence.

Not to mention I think that Britain has a more stable economy than Argentine and can therefor support the small number of people who live there better.

[Gilsan]

Asking the British to leave the Falklands (they have been there for close to 200 years) is like asking the Americans to leave Guantanamo or some of the Pacific islands.

If they have a referendum the population will surely vote to remain British since most of the population there came from the UK. Its a sticky problem but I'm more inclined to side with the UK on this one.

[All-American-Badass]

I personally have no problem if Obama doesn't want to take sides in this conflict, but if he does it should be the British's side, they've been an important ally to us for pretty much at least 100 years they supported us in Afghanistan and Iraq the least we can do is support them in keeping the Falklands British territory, from which I've seen in this thread so far is what the people of the Falklands want. However if it were up to me I'd stay out of this conflict because our military and monetary resources are spread thin as it is we don't need another conflict to get involved in.

[Little-Rena]

At 6/17/11 05:29 PM, All-American-Badass wrote: I personally have no problem if Obama doesn't want to take sides in this conflict, but if he does it should be the British's side

I believe this was the US stance on the Falklands prior to the Falklands war in 1982 and during that, they only supplied equipment to the British to defend the island, they didn't send any soldiers.

Britain was under prepared for a conflict in 1982 over the Falklands, there might be more readiness now but Britain is also streched thin.

But yes, I fully agree, if anything, the US should remain neutural and not try to move diplomatic proceedings one way or the other.

[Jinzoa]

One of the closest friends britain has when it comes to the falklands is probably france(igven they also have a number of oversea territories) and i can sort of see the American responce of being neutral as understandable as it's relationship with the southern American countries is not...well that great.

At the end of the day the issue comes down to this, The overwhelming population of the falklands and their government wish to remain british citezens and Britain will has always stated it is an issue that is up to the islanders alone. If they wish to remain British citizens then Britain will respect that, if they suddenly turned around and wished to all become argentinian then Britian would also respect that.

Most of the population have british ancestory anyway, and while they may have their own culture their relationship with britain is just to valuable to both sides culturally and economically.

[Ledgey]

Argentina are complete and utter morons if they think they hold any right to the Falklands. I'm not saying this from some crazy British patriotic view, but rather from the view that the occupants of the islands do not and never will want to be part of the Argentinian state (except for one guy lol). How in the hell can they claim the islands when there's not a single Argentine in the Falklands and there never has been.

And now it seems America is still utilising the Monroe Doctrine and is siding with the completely illogical side, whilst alienating a key ally in the process. Generally, I believe it's not America's right to interfere with things like this anyway, but this is just ridiculous.

Perhaps if we did what we did with Gibraltar and just gave them a referendum that abides by the democratic process (and will undoubtedly side with the UK), then that might stop the Argentinians from whining over territory that was never theirs. May also stop the murrikans from doubting British sovereignty.

[Spawndex]

We don't need their support , but we should have it anyway. If they side with the Argies then they're justifying their claim to the islands.

The fact the US isn't supporting the UK makes fuck all sense, they could just stay out of it instead of siding with anyone, but stabbing one of the only allies that is always their for America in the back like that is , for lack of a better word, stupid and just causes resentment . Also if it ever got to the stage of military action (which is most likely wouldn't, but that's not the point) then the British Army, being stretched thin as it is from supporting the Americans in their holiday in Afghanistan, would have to be re-deployed OUT of Afghanistan to fight off ANOTHER invasion over and Island the Argentinians have never settled.

And considering we're the only other country in Afghanistan that's actually deployed soldiers in any real number, it will weaken NATOs aims at a crucial time as America starts to pull out of Afghanistan.

So basically they're just making a fucking mess out of a situation they should just stay out of, because it has fuck all to do with them. And to think I used to like Obama, lolo.

Meh, it's nice to see what our alliance actually means to the Americans. We help them, they help u- oh wait, they left us in Libya and now they're siding with the opposition over Argentina, gee, thanks , Obama !

[Ranger2]

At 6/16/11 10:22 PM, Little-Rena wrote: From what I have read, it seems that Obama is supporting Argentina

You have GOT to be kidding me. So much for our "special relationship."

[Warforger]

What's Britain going to do? The only reason America supported the UK in 1982 was because Argentina was a brutal military dictatorship, currently it's a free democracy with a high standard of living. Britain has always been close to America, sending the 2nd most amount of troops behind it in the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, there's no reason to get angry much. Also it's good to point out that in the 1982 war all of Argentina's neighbors and others supported Argentina except Chile, meaning if the US supports Argentina then it gains support from the entire region as well which would be useful to try to bring down Venezuela and Cuba.

[Camarohusky]

I shall take the unpopular but very defensable position that not only should we not support the Birtish we should actively fight against them.

[Rahmemhotep]

Let Argentina have it.

[All-American-Badass]

At 6/19/11 01:13 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I shall take the unpopular but very defensable position that not only should we not support the Birtish we should actively fight against them.

And what is your logic into fighting the most powerful military ally we've had for the past 100 years?

[Camarohusky]

At 6/19/11 01:32 AM, All-American-Badass wrote: And what is your logic into fighting the most powerful military ally we've had for the past 100 years?

You want the offensive (tough in cheek) version or the serious one?

[SadisticMonkey]

At 6/19/11 01:13 AM, Camarohusky wrote: we should actively fight against them.

Even though america doesn't atually have any money.

[Ledgey]

At 6/19/11 01:44 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 6/19/11 01:32 AM, All-American-Badass wrote: And what is your logic into fighting the most powerful military ally we've had for the past 100 years?

You want the offensive (tough in cheek) version or the serious one?

I would actually seriously love to hear you justify fighting Britain over it. Go on, I'd love to hear this.

[All-American-Badass]

At 6/19/11 01:44 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 6/19/11 01:32 AM, All-American-Badass wrote: And what is your logic into fighting the most powerful military ally we've had for the past 100 years?

You want the offensive (tough in cheek) version or the serious one?

Either one works

[Sonicobbsessed]

At 6/16/11 10:22 PM, Little-Rena wrote: It seems the Falklands dispute is heating up again, this topic is about a day or so late from the news story, but I didn't see anyone else bring it up.

From what I have read, it seems that Obama is supporting Argentina in regards to negotiations and therefor withdrawing support to the UK over the issue, they supported the UK back in 1982 (Falklands war) and this has come a while after Obamas visit to London talking about a 'special relationship' but wirthdrawing support is kind of a slap in the face, is it not?

If this did go to a war, the UK wouldn't be able to hold the Falklands without the support of the US, this is also harder because of cuts in the UK defense buget as well as fighting in wars already.

David Cameron also said that the sovereignty of the Falklands wasn't up for negotiation.

What does this mean for future relations?

What should the future of the Falklands be?

Some links:

Mail Online
Fox lol
MecroPress
Telegraph

Also, if this did go to war, that's 2 wars in the Falklands under a Conservative lead parliment in the UK

We all know that the Falklands are geographically closer to Argentina, but Geography does not override the fact that most Falklanders are British, and want to stay with Britian.
I am very disappointed in Obama for not supporting our ally, the U.K. and the wishes of the people of the Falklands. But, if war does erupt, I think the British are still strong enough to defeat the Argentines, and I'm sure an overwhelming amount of Americans (and the rest of the world) would be in favor of the British.

[Little-Rena]

At 6/19/11 01:13 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I shall take the unpopular but very defensable position that not only should we not support the Birtish we should actively fight against them.

I don't know if you're serious or if you are trolling.

Also, this just came out in the news.

Most of the island's 3,000 residents strongly favour retaining ties to Britain. But Argentina maintains that the residents do not have the unilateral right to decide what they want the islands to be.

Link to one place which has that line.

This to me just sound really stupid, the island as an entity can't decide, it can't think but the people can.

[Warforger]

At 6/21/11 09:19 PM, Little-Rena wrote:

At 6/19/11 01:13 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I shall take the unpopular but very defensable position that not only should we not support the Birtish we should actively fight against them.

I don't know if you're serious or if you are trolling.

Also, this just came out in the news.

Most of the island's 3,000 residents strongly favour retaining ties to Britain. But Argentina maintains that the residents do not have the unilateral right to decide what they want the islands to be.

Link to one place which has that line.

This to me just sound really stupid, the island as an entity can't decide, it can't think but the people can.

Yup that's how it is in Nationalist wet dreams. I've been trying to figure out why Argentina wants it now, maybe it's for the same reason as before, to distract from the current problems?

[lapis]

At 6/22/11 01:02 AM, Warforger wrote: Yup that's how it is in Nationalist wet dreams. I've been trying to figure out why Argentina wants it now, maybe it's for the same reason as before, to distract from the current problems?

How about 60 billion barrels of oil underneath its coastal waters. And last year the British company Rockhopper started drilling for said oil, prompting an "oh shit" response from Argentina. I do have to remark here that I find it funny how having 3,000 shepherds on a bunch of desolate islands can grant you exclusive access to enormous loads of natural resources. But hey, that's how the world turns, I guess. Anyway, if Britain really doesn't want to risk a military conflict over the islands, maybe they could try to work some sort of deal with the Argentineans for shared drilling.

[Graduation]

Fuck the >9% unemployment rate, stretching of our military, and looming debt.

Let's fight people over territory sans napoleon.

[All-American-Badass]

At 6/22/11 03:21 AM, lapis wrote:

At 6/22/11 01:02 AM, Warforger wrote: Yup that's how it is in Nationalist wet dreams. I've been trying to figure out why Argentina wants it now, maybe it's for the same reason as before, to distract from the current problems?

How about 60 billion barrels of oil underneath its coastal waters. And last year the British company Rockhopper started drilling for said oil, prompting an "oh shit" response from Argentina.

Well I can see now why Obama wants to support Argentina, he supposedly wants the developing countries to get the resources, which is the logic behind,from what I've heard, why he's letting Brazil drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico yet we cannot do it. Even then, I still think we should stay out of this the UK's military can easily defeat Argentina just like they did almost 30 years ago.

[Camarohusky]

At 6/19/11 01:13 PM, Ledgey wrote: I would actually seriously love to hear you justify fighting Britain over it. Go on, I'd love to hear this.

Meh. I have seriously lost interest in this topic. So here's the half-assed answer: Monroe Doctrine.

[LordJaric]

At 6/22/11 10:27 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 6/19/11 01:13 PM, Ledgey wrote: I would actually seriously love to hear you justify fighting Britain over it. Go on, I'd love to hear this.

Meh. I have seriously lost interest in this topic. So here's the half-assed answer: Monroe Doctrine.

I got a half-assed answer as well: NATO

[Little-Rena]

At 6/22/11 10:27 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 6/19/11 01:13 PM, Ledgey wrote: I would actually seriously love to hear you justify fighting Britain over it. Go on, I'd love to hear this.

Meh. I have seriously lost interest in this topic. So here's the half-assed answer: Monroe Doctrine.

I don't think that's a good enough reason in this day and age.