Obama refuses to support UK sovereignty over Falklands

Started by Hansmeister, February 25, 2010, 06:06:11 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Neil

Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2010, 10:06:36 AM
It's funny, considering all US territorial gains EVER were based on that "illegitimate claim".  :lol:
US territorial gains were based on force of arms.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

Berkut

How is this a departure from what has always been the US stance on the Falklands?
"If you think this has a happy ending, then you haven't been paying attention."

select * from users where clue > 0
0 rows returned

grumbler

Quote from: Neil on February 26, 2010, 10:49:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2010, 10:06:36 AM
It's funny, considering all US territorial gains EVER were based on that "illegitimate claim".  :lol:
US territorial gains were based on force of arms.
Well, given that force of arms is one of the ways in which disputes over sovereignty  get resolved, you could certainly argue this.  The British governments do not dispute US sovereignty, though (a fact that Marti appears to have missed) and signed papers to that effect.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

grumbler

Quote from: Berkut on February 26, 2010, 10:50:12 AM
How is this a departure from what has always been the US stance on the Falklands?
It is no departure from either the traditionally neutral US stance on the Falklands, nor Hansmeister's traditionally false-outraged stance on Obama.

Thank god for amusing traditions!  :cool:
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

Neil

Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2010, 11:12:40 AM
Quote from: Neil on February 26, 2010, 10:49:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2010, 10:06:36 AM
It's funny, considering all US territorial gains EVER were based on that "illegitimate claim".  :lol:
US territorial gains were based on force of arms.
Well, given that force of arms is one of the ways in which disputes over sovereignty  get resolved, you could certainly argue this.  The British governments do not dispute US sovereignty, though (a fact that Marti appears to have missed) and signed papers to that effect.
Force of arms is the only test of sovereignty.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

Martim Silva

Quote from: citizen k
Now why would they want that?  :hmm:


Because they want to.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8531266.stm

Americas bloc excluding US and Canada agreed

Latin American and Caribbean nations have agreed to set up a new regional body without the US and Canada.

Quote from: Barrister
Actually, Chile has no problem with ships to and from the Falklands.

Actually, none of them wants Britain oil drilling in the Malvinas. Or the British there altoghther, for that matter.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/23/argentina-uk-falkland-row-oil

Latin American leaders back Argentina over Falklands oil drilling

A summit of 32 countries in Mexico endorsed an Argentine document accusing Britain of flouting international law by permitting drilling to begin this week, said Argentina's president, Cristina Kirchner.

(...)

The Argentine statement quoted Mexico's president, Felipe Calderón, saying: "The heads of state represented here reaffirm their support for the legitimate rights of the republic of Argentina in the sovereignty dispute with Great Britain."


And you people accuse ME of being ignorant on Latin America?

Barrister

Martim - the fact that Chile formally endorses Argentine ownership of the Falklands apparently has little to do with the fact that the Chilean government allows ships and airflights between Chile and the Falklands.

In other words, both of our posts are true.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

The Brain

The EUOT thread about the "sable rattling" in the South Atlantic was strangely disappointing.
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

grumbler

Quote from: Martim Silva on February 26, 2010, 12:20:44 PM
Americas bloc excluding US and Canada agreed
I think that such a bloc is perfectly fair.  None of them have much chance to get into NATO, so they should be able to set up another organization for NATO-wannabes.  Sorta the South American Equivalent of the NIT.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

Razgovory

What impresses me is that Hans doesn't miss a beat.  He makes a statement about Obama and when thinking people notice it is utterly meaningless he just moves on like it didn't happen.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Admiral Yi

Quote from: Tamas on February 26, 2010, 07:26:16 AM
Isn't it against the Monroe Doctrine to confirm that the island belongs to Britain?  :hmm:
The Monroe Doctrine committed the US to oppose any outside attempt to establish colonies or annex territories through force of arms, so no.

MadImmortalMan

Quote from: Berkut on February 26, 2010, 10:50:12 AM
How is this a departure from what has always been the US stance on the Falklands?


It's not, afaik. But what should the stance be?
"Stability is destabilizing." --Hyman Minsky

"Complacency can be a self-denying prophecy."
"We have nothing to fear but lack of fear itself." --Larry Summers

derspiess

Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2010, 02:10:17 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 26, 2010, 12:20:44 PM
Americas bloc excluding US and Canada agreed
I think that such a bloc is perfectly fair.  None of them have much chance to get into NATO, so they should be able to set up another organization for NATO-wannabes.  Sorta the South American Equivalent of the NIT.

An NIT consisting of teams with losing records, maybe :)
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

The Larch

Quote from: The Brain on February 26, 2010, 01:40:01 PM
The EUOT thread about the "sable rattling" in the South Atlantic was strangely disappointing.

It would have been funnier if there were Argentinians involved. Too few of them around nowadays.

CountDeMoney

Quote from: Razgovory on February 26, 2010, 02:14:56 PM
What impresses me is that Hans doesn't miss a beat.  He makes a statement about Obama and when thinking people notice it is utterly meaningless he just moves on like it didn't happen.

It's like a Glenn Beck IED.  A Hansgrenade.