Usa Stick Nose In

[manshimajin]

Perhaps they could be handed over to a neutral third party e.g. the French, who after all were the first to establish a settlement there and who are remembered by their alternate name of Islas Malvinas (Malouins - the intrepid sailors from St Malo)...then again maybe not a good idea - Les Isles Sarkozy doesn't sound that good.

 

Is Ms Clinton applying the Monroe Doctrine? A bit late in the case of the Falklands.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

USA have let Britain down big time on this and basically sided with the Argies and we should now tell the Americans what a bunch of twats they really are and stop backing them every time they ask.why would Britain agree to talk about the Falklands with Argentina. There is nothing to talk about, they are British, and We should fight to keep it that way.In fact lets pull out of Afghanistan and let them yanks find another 10,000 troops.

This isn't about AMERICANS, it is the American government we are talking about here. The American people aren't as a group involved in this. It is just the few in government who have interests in South America to protect. American business and political influence is somewhat on the wane as the repressive governments that the USA supported have disappeared. The US wants to maintain a strong position in that Continent so would not want to get on the wrong side of the Argentians.

And as much as I hate the US government (and the British government, etc). If it wasn't for the US government during the Falkands Campaign, British would never have been able to carry it out.

[MilitantDogOwner]

USA have let Britain down big time on this and basically sided with the Argies and we should now tell the Americans what a bunch of twats they really are and stop backing them every time they ask.why would Britain agree to talk about the Falklands with Argentina. There is nothing to talk about, they are British, and We should fight to keep it that way.In fact lets pull out of Afghanistan and let them yanks find another 10,000 troops.

This isn't about AMERICANS, it is the American government we are talking about here. The American people aren't as a group involved in this. It is just the few in government who have interests in South America to protect. American business and political influence is somewhat on the wane as the repressive governments that the USA supported have disappeared. The US wants to maintain a strong position in that Continent so would not want to get on the wrong side of the Argentians.

And as much as I hate the US government (and the British government, etc). If it wasn't for the US government during the Falkands Campaign, British would never have been able to carry it out.

 

Indeed as LDV says.

 

If it were not for the loan of Stinger Anti-Aircraft missile systems lent to the Special Forces in the Falklands Conflict, there would have been a signifcant difference in the Argi's air power (given as the Army were F*%ing useless at setting up the Rapier batteries.)

[P.K.]

Such a pity there's no longer a 45-year-old clapped out light cruiser that's totally out-classed by a modern nuclear submarine that could be sunk with large loss of life and take a US peace-plan with it.

[Max Power]

Once again the USA spits on the one sided 'special relationship'.

 

They have crapped on us from 1776 right up to today at every twist and turn. Their help in WW1 and WW2 came at such a high price and was basically used to destroy Britain and its empire to the benefit of themselves. They came into the war as we and the Russians had proved the Nazis were beatable! They didn't back us in Suez, they lambasted us for not going to Vietnam and they tried to obstruct us in using Assention Islands during the Falklands.

There is little benefit in cow towing to them, they only want us for what they can squeeze out of us!

As one poster suggested, we should transfer our troops from Afghanistan to the Falklands and let them get on with it!

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Bit of a silly post Max Power, you seem to assume that the US should be doing Britain favours and not looking out for its own interests.

[Freggyragh]

Once again the USA spits on the one sided 'special relationship'.

 

They have crapped on us from 1776 right up to today at every twist and turn. Their help in WW1 and WW2 came at such a high price and was basically used to destroy Britain and its empire to the benefit of themselves. They came into the war as we and the Russians had proved the Nazis were beatable! They didn't back us in Suez, they lambasted us for not going to Vietnam and they tried to obstruct us in using Assention Islands during the Falklands.

There is little benefit in cow towing to them, they only want us for what they can squeeze out of us!

As one poster suggested, we should transfer our troops from Afghanistan to the Falklands and let them get on with it!

 

The UK have crapped on us since 1775 at every twist and turn.

 

The US has fought against colonialism since its inception. We (Europeans) should be ever grateful that the US paid such a high price, in the world wars, both in resources and blood (1,397,000 casualties in both wars combined), especially as not one battle was fought on the American continent in direct defence of the US. America won WW2 and chose not to colonise the countries it found itself occupying at the end of the war. How on earth do you think they would or should have supported Britain's immoral fiasco in Suez? And why didn't Britain join in the Vietnam War? - the British had plenty of experience fighting guerilla campaigns in other people's countries, particularly in East Asia. Oh, and if the US had tried to obstruct the UK using Ascension in 1982 it would have.

 

The Falklands War was fought to appease a depressed nation in a deep recession, that couldn't win a war against a few housing estates in Derry and West Belfast, but could see a chance to score an easy victory. As a result, Thatcher had to shut her gob when Regan ordered US troops into Grenada the following year, and when the French resumed nuclear testing in Mururoa (leading to the Rainbow Warrior incident).

 

The resident population of the Falklands/Malvinos, excluding UK government employees, is tiny. If it wasn't for the legacy of that war, and of course the oil, fishing and Antartic regional rights, the British wouldn't care about the Falkland Islanders any more than they did for the people of Diego Garcia. That is not to say that Argentina have a particularly strong claim on the islands, but I think it is time to talk. if the Americans are willing, they, being the best friends the UK has, would make excellent mediators.

[Pat Ayres]

Once again the USA spits on the one sided 'special relationship'.

 

They have crapped on us from 1776 right up to today at every twist and turn. Their help in WW1 and WW2 came at such a high price and was basically used to destroy Britain and its empire to the benefit of themselves. They came into the war as we and the Russians had proved the Nazis were beatable! They didn't back us in Suez, they lambasted us for not going to Vietnam and they tried to obstruct us in using Assention Islands during the Falklands.

There is little benefit in cow towing to them, they only want us for what they can squeeze out of us!

As one poster suggested, we should transfer our troops from Afghanistan to the Falklands and let them get on with it!

 

The UK have crapped on us since 1775 at every twist and turn.

 

The US has fought against colonialism since its inception. We (Europeans) should be ever grateful that the US paid such a high price, in the world wars, both in resources and blood (1,397,000 casualties in both wars combined), especially as not one battle was fought on the American continent in direct defence of the US. America won WW2 and chose not to colonise the countries it found itself occupying at the end of the war. How on earth do you think they would or should have supported Britain's immoral fiasco in Suez? And why didn't Britain join in the Vietnam War? - the British had plenty of experience fighting guerilla campaigns in other people's countries, particularly in East Asia. Oh, and if the US had tried to obstruct the UK using Ascension in 1982 it would have.

 

The Falklands War was fought to appease a depressed nation in a deep recession, that couldn't win a war against a few housing estates in Derry and West Belfast, but could see a chance to score an easy victory. As a result, Thatcher had to shut her gob when Regan ordered US troops into Grenada the following year, and when the French resumed nuclear testing in Mururoa (leading to the Rainbow Warrior incident).

 

The resident population of the Falklands/Malvinos, excluding UK government employees, is tiny. If it wasn't for the legacy of that war, and of course the oil, fishing and Antartic regional rights, the British wouldn't care about the Falkland Islanders any more than they did for the people of Diego Garcia. That is not to say that Argentina have a particularly strong claim on the islands, but I think it is time to talk. if the Americans are willing, they, being the best friends the UK has, would make excellent mediators.

Well, besides the bit about the housing estates, agree with that post. Well done and said.

I do believe Australia, who were in Vietnam, are a british colony.

[Cambon]

Well, besides the bit about the housing estates, agree with that post. Well done and said.

I do believe Australia, who were in Vietnam, are a british colony.

 

Pat, don't let facts and the truth get in the way of a good rant.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The US has fought against colonialism since its inception...America won WW2 and chose not to colonise the countries it found itself occupying at the end of the war.

It may not be colonialist, but the US was an imperial and is today. Latin America, Phillipines, Pacific Islands, influence in China from c.1900 to the 1940s. And think of its economic and political role across the world - Western Europe during the Cold War, for example.

 

We (Europeans) should be ever grateful that the US paid such a high price, in the world wars, both in resources and blood (1,397,000 casualties in both wars combined), especially as not one battle was fought on the American continent in direct defence of the US.

There's nothing altruisTIC about US involvement.

 

How on earth do you think they would or should have supported Britain's immoral fiasco in Suez?

You seem to think the primary US objections to Suez as being a moral issue, i.e. anti-imperialism. It wasn't.

 

The Falklands War was fought to appease a depressed nation in a deep recession, that couldn't win a war against a few housing estates in Derry and West Belfast, but could see a chance to score an easy victory.

Do you think the UK government planned the Falklands? That's nuts. The government were no doubt glad it did happen and was won, but the course of events in terms of the occupation of the F.I. was considered certain and it was a very close risky thing to pull off what Britain did. The government was quite lucky to get the result it did.

[Freggyragh]

LDV, the US is not an imperial, that is a type of mint. The US bought the Philippines from Spain in 1898 as part of the settlement of the Spanish-American war. The US paid 20,000,000 dollars to bring almost 500 years of Spanish rule to an end, and then began the process of de-colonization, including the development of schools and universities and infrastructure, granting Commonwealth Status (semi-independence) in 1935, and full independence by 1946. The US involvement in China was not colonial in nature, but considering that the UK, Germany and Japan were all held colonies in China during the era it is hardly surprising that the US maintained an influence. The Cold War was not an imperial venture, and neither is the War on Terror. Western Europe was not colonized by the US after WW2, if anything, it was the UK and other Western European countries that were keener on a 'special relationship' than vice versa (for trade, and just in case they would need help keeping the Falklands British, or Mururoa French).

 

You say there was nothing 'altruistic' about the US' involvement in the World War 2?

 

You don't understand Suez.

 

You don't know much about the build up to the Falklands War, or the choice to go to war either.

[jimbms]

Does anyone else see any coincidences?

 

1982 Exxon oil company hired by Argentina find oil off South Georgia, Argentina's economy was in shambles with an utterly corrupt government and hopelessly indebted, it had rampant crime and abject poverty, it's government needed something to rally the peoples in a nationalistic way at the same time Britain's government was in real danger of losing a soon to be election due to it's dictatorial policies, so Argentina invade the Falklands and it's people cheer, Britain's leaders says we will not stand for this and gains the support of the people then gets re-elected.

 

2010 Britain gets caught horizontal drilling for oil off its own sector and allegedly into an Argentinian sector, Argentina's economy is in shambles..........etc etc, Britain's government is in real danger of losing a soon to be election....... etc etc.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV, the US is not an imperial, that is a type of mint.

This is where I believe you are correct.

 

The US bought the Philippines from Spain in 1898 as part of the settlement of the Spanish-American war. The US paid 20,000,000 dollars to bring almost 500 years of Spanish rule to an end, and then began the process of de-colonization, including the development of schools and universities and infrastructure, granting Commonwealth Status (semi-independence) in 1935, and full independence by 1946.

Are you aware of the resistance the Phillipinos made against the United States annexation? And are trying to imply that this, at the very least, paternalistic behaviour was not imperialist? If so, I think you're off your rocker.

 

The US involvement in China was not colonial in nature, but considering that the UK, Germany and Japan were all held colonies in China during the era it is hardly surprising that the US maintained an influence.

I am talking about imperialistic behaviours, not full blown colonies. Some of the European powers has treaty ports, but I am referring to the control that Europe and the US exerted over China, especially the later nation by the 1920s and 30s.

 

The Cold War was not an imperial venture, and neither is the War on Terror. Western Europe was not colonized by the US after WW2, if anything, it was the UK and other Western European countries that were keener on a 'special relationship' than vice versa (for trade, and just in case they would need help keeping the Falklands British, or Mururoa French).

No, the COLD WAR was not an imperialist venture but the economic relationships that formed post-WW2 as a result of the US economic position were of an imperialistic category, a lot was simply the result of the US being the economic giant, but it used its economic power to gain a very high degree of influence and control over foreign economies.

 

You say there was nothing 'altruistic' about the US' involvement in the World War 2?

Yep, in the sense that the US didn't join the war to help out. It was attacked. And it fought outside the US, because the land of the US was not occupied or being attacked, except the Pacific island of course.

 

You don't understand Suez.

I don't know what reading you have done on the matter but you ought to read more about Eisenhower thinking behind the suggestions made by the British government on what to do about Nasser before Britain committed itself to Musketeer and it also might be worth considering the impact of Britain's behaviour in terms of the Cold War and NATO.

 

 

You don't know much about the build up to the Falklands War, or the choice to go to war either.

Say I did not, and say I knew absolutely nothing about the build-up or choise to go to war. Considering how Britain was not very well prepared for this conflict in view of how it was carried out and risks involved both in terms of international relations and to the military, this would seem in itself to be a bizarre result for a government committed to a conflict of its own making upon (I can only assume from your post) a high expectation of victory.

 

Anyway...the US has been an imperialist and colonial nation from its earliest beginnings. What ever happened to the Native Americans?

The US was forged by imperialism. And nobody can really ignore the US behaviour in Latin America from Nicaragua all the way down to Chile.

 

I am not being anti-American, just trying to explain that the US isn't some moral nation that does good in the world and which has done the UK favours out of kindness. All governments and nations have their own interests in mind first and foremost.

[Freggyragh]

OK LDV, you've made a couple of good points - re; the US' behaviour towards Native Americans and Hawaii - but I assumed from your previous posts that you were dead against minority cultures and languages. According to everything else you have said in regards to Manx nationalism you would support the US imposition of majority language and culture on Native Americans and the native people of Hawaii. I'm not making any claims for the US as an ideal humanistic nation - it isn't, but your British nationalist view of the world, and celebration of colonial warmongering, is sick.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

How have you come to that conclusion about my thoughts, on minority cultures and languages. I have previously queried the utility of learning Manx in schools and in considering it a dead language. And I have changed my views a little from what Vulgarian and you have said.

 

As to my supposed support for British imperialism, where do you get this idea from?

 

Are you under the assumption that because I do not agree with your misunderstood idea of American foreign policy that I am somehow a supporter of British imperialism?

 

I am neither a Manx nationalism nor somehow who agrees with British imperialism. It's not one or the other.