Argentina rallies regional support over Falklands

[Brown, Jon Brow]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8529605.stm

Latin American and Caribbean leaders have backed Argentina's claim over the Falklands, Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has said.

Hugo Chavez: "Queen of England, the empires are over" - if this is the case then why is it important who owns the islands? Hypocrite much?


"We demand, and I think all of us should do the same, the withdrawal of the submarine platform, and that the English government... give that land back," - Back where? Argentina have never had a legitamate claim the to Falklands. France established the first colony, followed by the British, Spanish, then British again after Spain granted independance to her South American colonies in 1811.

Why don't we ask the islanders what they want?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8527579.stm

[Mark]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8529605.stm
Why don't we ask the islanders what they want?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8527579.stm

That, indeed, is the correct course. Just like Northern Ireland, it's up to the people who live there who they are governed by. I'm sure that if the islanders voted to change to Argentinian control, the British government would not stand in their way.

[schmenke]

It’s amazing the commotion that a little bit of petroleum will cause...

[Mark in Oshawa]

If there was no rumour of oil, the Argentinians wouldn't care. As for Hugo, he should mind his own business. Last I saw, his garden spot of South America isn't the paradise he promised. At some point, people will tire of his act....

[Easy Drifter]

Argentina starts making too much noise and there will be a couple of unreported Nuclear subs prowling the waters around the Falklands in addition to the one proper warship stationed there. :D

[Macd]

Its ours. If they want it they can come get it at their own risk ;)

[BDunnell]

That, indeed, is the correct course. Just like Northern Ireland, it's up to the people who live there who they are governed by. I'm sure that if the islanders voted to change to Argentinian control, the British government would not stand in their way.

Exactly right.

[Hondo]

In keeping with the traditional British method of geographical dispute settlement, I think the Brits should give the Falklands to the Palestinians for a homeland. The Palestinians are good with sheep, have their own weapons for defence, and are dumb and greedy enough to where the Brits can scam them with a sweetheart oil deal. Take the people from the Falklands and give them Ireland. It could be years before they know they've been moved. Give Somalia to to the Irish. They're good with car bombs, would make wonderful pirates, and they might enjoy some ocean front resort property for a change.

[ZequeArgentina]

What a way of trying to see things?!?!?
The trhuth all the un-informastion is on purpose or just because of lack of investigation?

1- History is not like you tell. It is not me being Argentinean, is has been internationally being recognized that the Islanders are not the ones to determine the sovereignity over the islands.

2- Islanders opinion: Islanders? is that native people who always lived ther???? NO, it is british people who have been ther since British occupation.

3- he oil is one more thing, Argentina have claim their rights for over 100 years, periods with more force and some with less. The 1982 war was a big mistake by the Military Government of that time, but Argentina kept claiming for its rights.

4- The UK have been giving fishing licenses, for an unilaterally establishes maritime zone (no international recognition) and now they qare doing it again with the oil.

Having a disastrous Government, who allies with not the right people (say Venezuela Hugo Chavez) does not mean with are not right our claim!!

Not being rude, but please inform yourself right before posting these sort of things!

Please keep the discussion on civilized terms and with no aggressions!

[Mark in Oshawa]

What a way of trying to see things?!?!?
The trhuth all the un-informastion is on purpose or just because of lack of investigation?

1- History is not like you tell. It is not me being Argentinean, is has been internationally being recognized that the Islanders are not the ones to determine the sovereignity over the islands.

2- Islanders opinion: Islanders? is that native people who always lived ther???? NO, it is british people who have been ther since British occupation.

3- he oil is one more thing, Argentina have claim their rights for over 100 years, periods with more force and some with less. The 1982 war was a big mistake by the Military Government of that time, but Argentina kept claiming for its rights.

4- The UK have been giving fishing licenses, for an unilaterally establishes maritime zone (no international recognition) and now they qare doing it again with the oil.

Having a disastrous Government, who allies with not the right people (say Venezuela Hugo Chavez) does not mean with are not right our claim!!

Not being rude, but please inform yourself right before posting these sort of things!

Please keep the discussion on civilized terms and with no aggressions!

We are civilized, but I am afraid the day your government in the early 80's tried to take them by force was the day the moral suasion was lost for Argentina. The truth is, there is a legitimate claim that could be made for the islands but the reality is the 5000 or so people living there have been there for generations and have no desire to become Argentinian. If there is a deal to be had, great, then make a deal to get them back, but I think if the oil isn't there, this isn't in the news any more.

[BDunnell]

What a way of trying to see things?!?!?
The trhuth all the un-informastion is on purpose or just because of lack of investigation?

1- History is not like you tell. It is not me being Argentinean, is has been internationally being recognized that the Islanders are not the ones to determine the sovereignity over the islands.

2- Islanders opinion: Islanders? is that native people who always lived ther???? NO, it is british people who have been ther since British occupation.

3- he oil is one more thing, Argentina have claim their rights for over 100 years, periods with more force and some with less. The 1982 war was a big mistake by the Military Government of that time, but Argentina kept claiming for its rights.

4- The UK have been giving fishing licenses, for an unilaterally establishes maritime zone (no international recognition) and now they qare doing it again with the oil.

Having a disastrous Government, who allies with not the right people (say Venezuela Hugo Chavez) does not mean with are not right our claim!!

Not being rude, but please inform yourself right before posting these sort of things!

Please keep the discussion on civilized terms and with no aggressions!

Sorry, but calling for 'no aggression' in such a post does strike me as a trifle hypocritical. The days of the British Empire are well and truly over, and quite rightly, but the most legitimate claim by far to the Falklands is the British one. I mean, who are the 'native' people of the Falklands? Are they crying out to reinhabit the islands? It seems to me that the Argentinian claim is instead an entirely political one, one that goes down well domestically but has little genuine foundation, unlike, say, territorial claims in respect of Germany's changing borders before the end of the Second World War.

Had history been different, had Britain claimed the Falklands from the Argentinians by illegitimate use of force or some such, as the Germans did in appropriating parts of Poland, my view would also be different. But we didn't. It's surely time for Argentina to forget about the Falklands, just as we British have moved on from our past claims on bits of the world that used to be ours in some long-past age. Why is Argentina unable to do likewise? I have my own ideas, but you may be uncomfortable with them.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Sorry, but calling for 'no aggression' in such a post does strike me as a trifle hypocritical. The days of the British Empire are well and truly over, and quite rightly, but the most legitimate claim by far to the Falklands is the British one. I mean, who are the 'native' people of the Falklands? Are they crying out to reinhabit the islands? It seems to me that the Argentinian claim is instead an entirely political one, one that goes down well domestically but has little genuine foundation, unlike, say, territorial claims in respect of Germany's changing borders before the end of the Second World War.

Had history been different, had Britain claimed the Falklands from the Argentinians by illegitimate use of force or some such, as the Germans did in appropriating parts of Poland, my view would also be different. But we didn't. It's surely time for Argentina to forget about the Falklands, just as we British have moved on from our past claims on bits of the world that used to be ours in some long-past age. Why is Argentina unable to do likewise? I have my own ideas, but you may be uncomfortable with them.

I read about some claims that Argentina might have had being somewhat legitimate, but you are quite right Ben. They have been British for so long that it is rather silly of the Argentinians to only bring this up when the idiot in charge feels he needs to distract the local populace with a new conflict.

[Rollo]

1- Histiry is not like you tell. It is not me being Argentinean, is has been at least 5 tiems the UN saying that UK has no rights over the Island

I would like proof of this.
http://untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/25/18/00048877.pdf
Why then in practically every treaty since the creation of the UN in 1945, can I find no evidence of your claim? Are you telling me that the UN is hiding something?


2- Islanders opinion: Islanders? is that native people who always lived ther???? NO, it is british people who have been ther since British occupation.

http://www.falklands.info/background/census2001r.html
The inherent British nature of the Islands remains practically unaltered. There were on Census Day 2350 British citizens and 443 British Dependent Territories citizens: 95.88% of the total of 2913.

The Falkland Islands is a semi-autonomous self-governing territory. Since you have quoted the UN although glibly, perhaps you'd like to say why the people of the Falkland Islands have no right to self-determination?
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
- UN Charter, Chapter 1, Article 1, Part 2
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml



3- he oil is one more thing, Argentina have claim their rights for over 100 years, periods with more force and some with less. The 1982 war was a big mistake by the Military Government of that time, but Argentina kept claiming for its rights.

Really? Can you provide proof of this? YPF SA didn't even exist until 1922. It's funny an entity can supposedly do something 12 years before it came to be.



4- The UK have been giving fishing licenses, for an unilaterally establishes maritime zone (no international recognition) and now they qare doing it again with the oil.

The only "maritime zone" ever declared around the Falkland Islands was the Total Exclusion Zone which happened during a period of formal war. Fishing Licences exist as per any normal country and prudent fisheries practices.
Besides which, it was President Nestor Kirchner who "unilaterally" broke down negotiations in March 2007.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1547024/Argentina-snubs-UK-over-oil-deal-as-anniversary-nears.html



Having a disastrous Government, who allies with not the right people (say Venezuela Hugo Chavez) does not mean with are not right our claim!!
Not being rude, but please inform yourself right before posting these sort of things!
Please keep the discussion on civilized terms and with no aggressions!


I think I'm quite well informed thank you. Now how's about a nice cup of tea and a scone, eh?

[Easy Drifter]

I hear Spain wants to claim Argentina back as a colony. :confused: :disturb:

[Mark in Oshawa]

I would like proof of this.
http://untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/25/18/00048877.pdf
Why then in practically every treaty since the creation of the UN in 1945, can I find no evidence of your claim? Are you telling me that the UN is hiding something?



http://www.falklands.info/background/census2001r.html
The inherent British nature of the Islands remains practically unaltered. There were on Census Day 2350 British citizens and 443 British Dependent Territories citizens: 95.88% of the total of 2913.

The Falkland Islands is a semi-autonomous self-governing territory. Since you have quoted the UN although glibly, perhaps you'd like to say why the people of the Falkland Islands have no right to self-determination?
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
- UN Charter, Chapter 1, Article 1, Part 2
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml



Really? Can you provide proof of this? YPF SA didn't even exist until 1922. It's funny an entity can supposedly do something 12 years before it came to be.



The only "maritime zone" ever declared around the Falkland Islands was the Total Exclusion Zone which happened during a period of formal war. Fishing Licences exist as per any normal country and prudent fisheries practices.
Besides which, it was President Nestor Kirchner who "unilaterally" broke down negotiations in March 2007.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1547024/Argentina-snubs-UK-over-oil-deal-as-anniversary-nears.html



I think I'm quite well informed thank you. Now how's about a nice cup of tea and a scone, eh?

Me thinks you Brits are NOT giving the islands back any time soon. Well Argentina....If you want to buy some islands....well I am sure we can sell you one or two, about 70 degree's or so North Latitude. Hans Island....and you can deal with the Danes who claim THEY own it.....but unlike you lads, they are not willing to take it. We just take turns putting flags on it....

[markabilly]

Its ours. If they want it they can come get it at their own risk ;)
300 Texans said the same thing to a bunch of mexicans numbering in the thousands; even put it on a flag,,,,the flag went to mexico where it remains today

I hear Spain wants to claim Argentina back as a colony. :confused: :disturb:
The USA wants canada, but i hear the Vikings want both, and both should belong to the Vikings, since they were here first...... :mad:

[Easy Drifter]

The 'First Nations' dispute the Vikings claim. :arrowed:



Read my signature.

[Mark]

We can offer Rockall in compensation.

[Daniel]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/24/2828583.htm

Hands off the Falklands Mrs Queen!

[AndyRAC]

As far as I know, Argentina didn't 'exist' when the British took over - it was a colony of Spain. So they've never actually been Argentinian.

[Hondo]

It's simple to me, be it Falklands, Finland, or France. I don't care about the Cow's Belly Treaty of 1569, the Left Nostril Accord of 1723, or the Taco Bell Buy One Get One Free of 1990. I don't care who lived there 2000 years ago, 1000 years ago or even 500 years ago. It doesn't matter. What matters is that Britain has the Falklands now and have indicated through deeds, not words, that they are willing to do more to keep them than Argentina is willing to do to take them.

[BDunnell]

It's simple to me, be it Falklands, Finland, or France. I don't care about the Cow's Belly Treaty of 1569, the Left Nostril Accord of 1723, or the Taco Bell Buy One Get One Free of 1990. I don't care who lived there 2000 years ago, 1000 years ago or even 500 years ago. It doesn't matter. What matters is that Britain has the Falklands now and have indicated through deeds, not words, that they are willing to do more to keep them than Argentina is willing to do to take them.

But there are limits. I mean, Iraq had Kuwait 'now' after August 1990, but that doesn't mean it should have been allowed to keep it.

[Hondo]

But there are limits. I mean, Iraq had Kuwait 'now' after August 1990, but that doesn't mean it should have been allowed to keep it.


Sure there are limits, but not in the Falklands-Argentina case. Thats a done deal.
The Iraq-Kuwait deal is one of the few examples in my lifetime where I feel the world learned from history. When I first saw that I thought Poland September 1939 all over again. But the world got all brave and formed a coalition and said "you've got until this date to get your monkey ass out of Kuwait or we'll throw your monkey ass out of Kuwait." He didn't, so they did.

I'm not going to research it, but wasn't British post-war redevelopment actually responsible for Kuwait, just like Palestine?

[Mark]

I'm not going to research it, but wasn't British post-war redevelopment actually responsible for Kuwait, just like Palestine?

Indeed. We have a lot to answer for there..

[Mark in Oshawa]

300 Texans said the same thing to a bunch of mexicans numbering in the thousands; even put it on a flag,,,,the flag went to mexico where it remains today

The USA wants canada, but i hear the Vikings want both, and both should belong to the Vikings, since they were here first...... :mad:

The Vikings? Last time I looked, they were long gone......

[schmenke]

Aren't they in Minnesota?

[Hondo]

300 Texans said the same thing to a bunch of mexicans numbering in the thousands; even put it on a flag,,,,the flag went to mexico where it remains today

The USA wants canada, but i hear the Vikings want both, and both should belong to the Vikings, since they were here first...... :mad:

If the Vikings wanted it, they should have stayed, populated it, and done something productive with it. They didn't, so too bad.

Let the Mexicans keep the flag, it may be the last battle the Mexican Army managed to win.

To own it, you have to keep it.

[Hondo]

Indeed. We have a lot to answer for there..

You don't have anything to answer for. You made the best decisions you could at the time, based on the information you had at the time, to provide stability to the region and oil to the west. It's not your fault, the USA's fault, or France's fault that so many of those clowns down there refuse to behave themselves.

[BDunnell]

You don't have anything to answer for. You made the best decisions you could at the time, based on the information you had at the time, to provide stability to the region and oil to the west. It's not your fault, the USA's fault, or France's fault that so many of those clowns down there refuse to behave themselves.

A defence which, neatly, absolves any country from any responsibility at all relating to its past actions. What time limit should be placed on this 'not having anything to answer for', then? Let me guess what you think — about seven years, perhaps?

[steve_spackman]

My father fought in the Falklands (Las Malvinas) war of 82. He was in the Royal Marines 42 Commando......FYI

There is more to this than just the oil.....

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17786

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I don't like how the right wing media try to claim that we couldn't do another Falklands campaign. Telling lies about our Navy. Claims range from:

We only have one aircraft carrier (untrue we have 2 and another 2 on the way)

Sea Harriers have been scrapped (yes, but replaced by Harrier GR9's and a squad of Typhoons stationed there.)

We have less Destroyers (one less, but we now have Type -45 destroyers that are 5 times better than the Type-42s we used in 1982)

Plus Argentinas Navy is much weaker than 1982 and their Air Force is half the size it was.

[BDunnell]

I don't like how the right wing media try to claim that we couldn't do another Falklands campaign. Telling lies about our Navy. Claims range from:

We only have one aircraft carrier (untrue we have 2 and another 2 on the way)

Well, what is true is that, due to operations in Afghanistan, the Harrier force has barely operated off carriers in the last few years. I don't even know how many Harrier pilots at present are carrier-qualified. This isn't a capability that can quickly be revived. And, of course, the two new carriers are some years away, to say nothing of the F-35s that will fly from them. But even so, there is no way that Argentina, with a highly outdated force, poses a credible military threat even to the UK alone, and this isn't a claim I make idly.

[anthonyvop]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8529605.stm

Latin American and Caribbean leaders have backed Argentina's claim over the Falklands, Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has said.

Hugo Chavez: "Queen of England, the empires are over" - if this is the case then why is it important who owns the islands? Hypocrite much?


"We demand, and I think all of us should do the same, the withdrawal of the submarine platform, and that the English government... give that land back," - Back where? Argentina have never had a legitamate claim the to Falklands. France established the first colony, followed by the British, Spanish, then British again after Spain granted independance to her South American colonies in 1811.

Why don't we ask the islanders what they want?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8527579.stm

Pure Lip Service. If Argentina were to go to war with the UK the other Latin-American Nations will help as much as they did during the last one.....
In other words...Not a bit. In fact a few countries helped out the UK.

[Mark in Oshawa]

It's a dead horse. The Argies would have to be out of their freaking minds to go after the Falklands. The whupping they took the last time I think is still in the institutional memory of their army and navy, and I am sure when their President started making noises about making a claim, many in the Argentinian military shuddered...

The reality is Argentina is the one sensible nation or was for the longest while in South America. The standard of living and size of the nation remind of me of the role Canada plays in North America. So why they persist in this fantasy about taking back a bunch of rocks with sheep on them is beyond me. The oil is not really a good reason, for it seems everywhere someone does a little work, they find possiblities for oil. That is the excuse for half the wars going today, and the reality is no nation ever gets away with it.

Argentinians, get over it. Your claim was tenous at best, and after 200 odd years, and beating you once before, the Falklands will stay in British hands. The real irony? Had Argentina played its cards right and NOT invaded and used moral suasion and guarnteed the rights of the Islanders to their way of life, they just might be part of Argentina as a protectorate in the way Hong Kong was given back to the PRC. Britain was spending more money keeping them than really they were worth...until Galtieri thought stealing them was a valid idea.

[Daniel]

It's a dead horse. The Argies would have to be out of their freaking minds to go after the Falklands. The whupping they took the last time I think is still in the institutional memory of their army and navy, and I am sure when their President started making noises about making a claim, many in the Argentinian military shuddered...

The reality is Argentina is the one sensible nation or was for the longest while in South America. The standard of living and size of the nation remind of me of the role Canada plays in North America. So why they persist in this fantasy about taking back a bunch of rocks with sheep on them is beyond me. The oil is not really a good reason, for it seems everywhere someone does a little work, they find possiblities for oil. That is the excuse for half the wars going today, and the reality is no nation ever gets away with it.

Argentinians, get over it. Your claim was tenous at best, and after 200 odd years, and beating you once before, the Falklands will stay in British hands. The real irony? Had Argentina played its cards right and NOT invaded and used moral suasion and guarnteed the rights of the Islanders to their way of life, they just might be part of Argentina as a protectorate in the way Hong Kong was given back to the PRC. Britain was spending more money keeping them than really they were worth...until Galtieri thought stealing them was a valid idea.
:up:

[Mark]

A defence which, neatly, absolves any country from any responsibility at all relating to its past actions. What time limit should be placed on this 'not having anything to answer for', then? Let me guess what you think — about seven years, perhaps?

Isn't it 6 years that debts can go back to? :p

[Mark]

Britain was spending more money keeping them than really they were worth...until Galtieri thought stealing them was a valid idea.

Indeed, one of the main reasons Britain cut its empire loose, was that it was costing more than it was bringing in. After all for the UK (for the most part) empire was all about the money, not some lofty idea of ruling the world.

[BDunnell]

Isn't it 6 years that debts can go back to? :p

I don't know about that, but I do know that saying 'No comebacks!' after something is legally binding.

[BDunnell]

Indeed, one of the main reasons Britain cut its empire loose, was that it was costing more than it was bringing in. After all for the UK (for the most part) empire was all about the money, not some lofty idea of ruling the world.

Well, that lofty idea certainly did get into the heads of a lot of people, and I feel it still affects us today, for it is surely the fact of our having once possessed a sizeable empire that leads to unnecessary disappointment at our relative lack of power today.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Indeed, one of the main reasons Britain cut its empire loose, was that it was costing more than it was bringing in. After all for the UK (for the most part) empire was all about the money, not some lofty idea of ruling the world.

I believe that Margaret Thatcher might have considered letting them go if the Argentinians had allowed them to be British in the lifestyle of the Islanders while protecting their rights. There would have been a deal to be made, but when you try to take something...then people start realizing it has value....

[BDunnell]

I believe that Margaret Thatcher might have considered letting them go if the Argentinians had allowed them to be British in the lifestyle of the Islanders while protecting their rights. There would have been a deal to be made, but when you try to take something...then people start realizing it has value....

I don't agree with that at all, although it is true that she had cut back the naval force that protected the islands prior to the Argentine invasion.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I don't agree with that at all, although it is true that she had cut back the naval force that protected the islands prior to the Argentine invasion.

Maybe so Ben, but I have read that more than once over the years that the UK had considered at one point letting them go to Argentina.

[Hondo]

Madam Hillary, sent to Argentina, has met with the Argentines and has promised to personally get involved in the talks about the Falklands so that everyone can "move forward" on the issue.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7047309.ece

Hillary dear, the Brits aren't going to give up the Falklands unless the islanders themselves want to become part of Argentina and they don't want to do that. They have made that clear. So this "lack of movement" is not a case of being stuck in a mudhole. It's a case of the car being legally parked, with the parking brake on and the doors locked. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see Obama sign a defense treaty with Argentina and back them up if they make a move on the Falklands.
Normally I would feel bad and apologize for stuff like this. But not this time. The fact is the UK and Europe wanted Obama for president. They wanted his forward thinking and promises of a new way of doing business. He is destroying the United States of America, if he hasn't already.

You wanted him, you got him. Enjoy him. I know we do.

[Sonic]

Madam Hillary, sent to Argentina, has met with the Argentines and has promised to personally get involved in the talks about the Falklands so that everyone can "move forward" on the issue.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7047309.ece

Hillary dear, the Brits aren't going to give up the Falklands unless the islanders themselves want to become part of Argentina and they don't want to do that. They have made that clear. So this "lack of movement" is not a case of being stuck in a mudhole. It's a case of the car being legally parked, with the parking brake on and the doors locked. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see Obama sign a defense treaty with Argentina and back them up if they make a move on the Falklands.
Normally I would feel bad and apologize for stuff like this. But not this time. The fact is the UK and Europe wanted Obama for president. They wanted his forward thinking and promises of a new way of doing business. He is destroying the United States of America, if he hasn't already.

You wanted him, you got him. Enjoy him. I know we do.

Tell us what you really feel! Stop holding back. :D

[BDunnell]

Madam Hillary, sent to Argentina, has met with the Argentines and has promised to personally get involved in the talks about the Falklands so that everyone can "move forward" on the issue.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7047309.ece

Hillary dear, the Brits aren't going to give up the Falklands unless the islanders themselves want to become part of Argentina and they don't want to do that. They have made that clear. So this "lack of movement" is not a case of being stuck in a mudhole. It's a case of the car being legally parked, with the parking brake on and the doors locked. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see Obama sign a defense treaty with Argentina and back them up if they make a move on the Falklands.
Normally I would feel bad and apologize for stuff like this. But not this time. The fact is the UK and Europe wanted Obama for president. They wanted his forward thinking and promises of a new way of doing business. He is destroying the United States of America, if he hasn't already.

You wanted him, you got him. Enjoy him. I know we do.

I won't hold back either. This post is one of the most utterly nonsensical I have ever read on these forums. You have no evidence for any of these assertions. Talks are surely a good idea in this situation — better that than the otherwise decent relations we have with Argentina being harmed. If you really believe that the USA will assist the Argentinians in claiming back the Falklands, something which simply will not happen, well, words fail me. The sole reason you come up with this view is as a result of your own political prejudices. It isn't based in any fact.

Go on, say it — you think Obama is worse than Hitler and Stalin combined. I dare you.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I won't hold back either. This post is one of the most utterly nonsensical I have ever read on these forums. You have no evidence for any of these assertions. Talks are surely a good idea in this situation — better that than the otherwise decent relations we have with Argentina being harmed. If you really believe that the USA will assist the Argentinians in claiming back the Falklands, something which simply will not happen, well, words fail me. The sole reason you come up with this view is as a result of your own political prejudices. It isn't based in any fact..

I agree with you on that one Ben. It is a LARGE stretch to think Obama would have any support Argentina on any operation to reacquire the Falklands


Go on, say it — you think Obama is worse than Hitler and Stalin combined. I dare you.

I will say he has a tinge of Neville Chamberlain mixed with some Jimmy Carter, delightfully mixed with a dash of Jacques Chirac....

[BDunnell]

I agree with you on that one Ben. It is a LARGE stretch to think Obama would have any support Argentina on any operation to reacquire the Falklands

I can't think of any 'friendly' nation that would do so.

[Hondo]

The treaty with argentina was sarcastic. Didn't translate well did it? Since I don't know what you mean by "worse than Hitler and Stalin" so, except to say both of them did better their first year in office than Obama has, I'll leave it alone.

Lest you think it's just me, Obama now has the lowest poll ratings of any president, ever. Right now, the man couldn't get elected to run a lemonade stand. He won't support the UK if it comes to the UK -vs- Argentina. He'll probably stay out of it completely and not support either side and privately root for Argentina.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The treaty with argentina was sarcastic. Didn't translate well did it? Since I don't know what you mean by "worse than Hitler and Stalin" so, except to say both of them did better their first year in office than Obama has, I'll leave it alone.

Lest you think it's just me, Obama now has the lowest poll ratings of any president, ever. Right now, the man couldn't get elected to run a lemonade stand. He won't support the UK if it comes to the UK -vs- Argentina. He'll probably stay out of it completely and not support either side and privately root for Argentina.

I wasn't sure...but knowing your sarcastic bent,I should have grasped it.....

[Hondo]

I can't think of any 'friendly' nation that would do so.

Obama is not Englands friend. The American people, myself included, consider England our friend. As Obama has demonstrated before and is getting ready to demonstrate again, he doesn't give a damn about what the American people want.
I would go to war (yes, me personally) to defend the UK. Obama will not.

[BDunnell]

He won't support the UK if it comes to the UK -vs- Argentina. He'll probably stay out of it completely and not support either side and privately root for Argentina.

Evidence for this, other than "I hate him"?

[BDunnell]

Obama is not Englands friend. The American people, myself included, consider England our friend. As Obama has demonstrated before and is getting ready to demonstrate again, he doesn't give a damn about what the American people want.

The corollary of this is that Obama is the UK's (not England's, note) enemy. Which is clearly not true.



I would go to war (yes, me personally) to defend the UK. Obama will not.

Again, I have to ask you whether or not you are honestly saying what I think you're saying — that if the UK were to be attacked by, say, Russia, the USA under Obama would not intervene. If this is your view, sorry, but it's nonsensical. (Oh, and by the way, I wouldn't go to war personally under any circumstances for any nation.)

[Mark in Oshawa]

Obama is not Englands friend. The American people, myself included, consider England our friend. As Obama has demonstrated before and is getting ready to demonstrate again, he doesn't give a damn about what the American people want.
I would go to war (yes, me personally) to defend the UK. Obama will not.

Obama is a mystery Fiero. I don't think I would state that or not on your part. I think he abhors military actions, but I think he would be out on impeachment if anything ever happened where the USA didn't support the UK in a time of dire need.

[BDunnell]

Obama is a mystery Fiero. I don't think I would state that or not on your part. I think he abhors military actions, but I think he would be out on impeachment if anything ever happened where the USA didn't support the UK in a time of dire need.

And he would cause the US to be in breach of the North Atlantic Treaty.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

And he would cause the US to be in breach of the North Atlantic Treaty.

I was going to say what about NATO.

Maybe Friero should get a job for Fox News.

[Mark in Oshawa]

And he would cause the US to be in breach of the North Atlantic Treaty.

It would be I agree, and highly stupid...but there you go. People in the US are more and more not really trusting the guy...

[BDunnell]

It would be I agree, and highly stupid...but there you go. People in the US are more and more not really trusting the guy...

My comments on another thread about people's critical faculties apply equally here, in my view.

[Mark in Oshawa]

My comments on another thread about people's critical faculties apply equally here, in my view.

Well the perceived popularity of a politcian's ability or faculties I wont put in that box. IT is after all just opinion...and whether you agree with the political philosophy. You and I may not support the same pols, but you surely must admit your opinion doesn't carry more or less weight than mine, just that it is different.

[BDunnell]

Well the perceived popularity of a politcian's ability or faculties I wont put in that box. IT is after all just opinion...and whether you agree with the political philosophy. You and I may not support the same pols, but you surely must admit your opinion doesn't carry more or less weight than mine, just that it is different.

Well, take that argument to its conclusion and one might as well say that the opinion of those who voted for Hitler was equally as valid as those who believe that they were utterly wrong to do so, for example. In that case, I would say it is clear that the opinion on one side of the argument carries far more weight than the other, because one side is right and the other wrong. There are all sorts of reasons why one opinion should carry more weight than another — knowing more about a subject than someone else, for instance. I'm not saying that I do in this case, but I do have the courage of my convictions.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well, take that argument to its conclusion and one might as well say that the opinion of those who voted for Hitler was equally as valid as those who believe that they were utterly wrong to do so, for example. In that case, I would say it is clear that the opinion on one side of the argument carries far more weight than the other, because one side is right and the other wrong. There are all sorts of reasons why one opinion should carry more weight than another — knowing more about a subject than someone else, for instance. I'm not saying that I do in this case, but I do have the courage of my convictions.

OH we both do Ben, that is why we often debate hotly. That said, those who voted for Hitler had only one vote, just it was a stupid vote. Still doesn't make their opinion less valid. Sad yes, and misguided, but not invalid.

The whole argument that someone's opinion is not valid because you think it is wrong is just YOUR opinion. Those who waste their vote on idiots may not be making an intelligent choice, but that is partially the fault of the greater society for having educated these fools. The fact Hitler was actually elected is as much a fault of the utter stupidity and ineptness of the "rational" politicians of that time. Society falls apart far enough, and people look to the radical solution. It explains why idiots like Hugo Chavez are elected.

[BDunnell]

OH we both do Ben, that is why we often debate hotly. That said, those who voted for Hitler had only one vote, just it was a stupid vote. Still doesn't make their opinion less valid. Sad yes, and misguided, but not invalid.

Not in 1933 they didn't. Often forgotten in such arguments, but important.



The whole argument that someone's opinion is not valid because you think it is wrong is just YOUR opinion.

I'm talking about things that are factually wrong. Some people do not believe that smoking causes lung cancer. They are, surely, factually wrong. Of course, they have a right to express that opinion. Others have the right to tell them they are being stupid. Unfortunately, there are now many more outlets for the non-expert public to spout outlandish opinions, which gives them a legitimacy that flies in the face of fact.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Not in 1933 they didn't. Often forgotten in such arguments, but important.



I'm talking about things that are factually wrong. Some people do not believe that smoking causes lung cancer. They are, surely, factually wrong. Of course, they have a right to express that opinion. Others have the right to tell them they are being stupid. Unfortunately, there are now many more outlets for the non-expert public to spout outlandish opinions, which gives them a legitimacy that flies in the face of fact.

Ben I will just say it is a dangerous and arrogant game to assume that someone's opinion is wrong based on a fact you see as a fact but may be open to interpretation. Lots of shades of gray. On smoking and cancer, yes, I think a fool would believe that there is no link, but they also will die sooner so there you go, Darwin at work. On other things, such as advanced scientific theories, it isn't so subtle....and even if you disagree, to just dismiss opposition as stupid is a fool's game...