Falklands War part 2?

[Nebor]

Southern Argentina is definitely the middle of nowhere.

England's interest in Libya is not comparable to it defending what it considers its own territory. The smack down would be hard and fast, and if there was any doubt about it at all the US would lend England a carrier fleet to assist.

This. They followed us into Iraq for fucks sake.

 

[Doppel]

This. They followed us into Iraq for fucks sake.

This is why the only way to beat England, or beat the US, is to beat both of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Relationship_(US-UK)

 

[irishScott]

Couldn't England invoke Article V and call in all of NATO if attacked?

 

[CanOWorms]

This. They followed us into Iraq for fucks sake.

Doubtful. The US would not aid the UK. The relationship is a one-way relationship where the UK helps the US.

Additionally, Barack Obama dislikes the UK. I don't see him committing much of anything to the UK, especially since it would likely be on the losing side.

Another slap in the face for Britain: the Obama administration sides with Argentina and Venezuela in OAS declaration on the Falklands

 

[CanOWorms]

Couldn't England invoke Article V and call in all of NATO if attacked?

No, NATO only applies for attacks in Europe or North America. It has geographic limitations.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Southern Argentina is definitely the middle of nowhere.

England's interest in Libya is not comparable to it defending what it considers its own territory. The smack down would be hard and fast, and if there was any doubt about it at all the US would lend England a carrier fleet to assist.

It's the middle of nowhere for the UK. It's not the middle of nowhere for Argentina.

I doubt that the US would assist with British aggression and colonialism. If anything, the US is distancing itself from Europe. The intelligent pick would be to align with Argentina over the UK. Just imagine what the British would do if Obama directs a carrier group into the Channel! They would definitely give up their claim to the Malvinas and the US will build stronger ties with South America.

It makes more sense for the US to help Argentina than to help the UK.

 

[Lemon law]

Oh goody goody goody, one flash point is good as another. Lets us all play global thermonuclear war over the Falkland Islands.

After all we all know some of their sheep are deeply divided over who will shear them.

What a dilemma for me, should I side with the south American sheep fans or the British
sheep? After all, its the most pressing world peace question in the entire world. I am so confused. Maybe we need to put it to the sheep vote of the Falkland Islands, sheep are excellent at saying Baa Baa Baa.

 

[Nebor]

lulz @ the poster posting as RabidMongoose\CanOWorms proposing that the US would side with Argentina over the UK.

We sell them nuclear weapon delivery systems and are co-developing the F-35 with them. British personnel have SIPR & JWICS access.

But keep dreaming. Just do it under one username.

 

[Karl Agathon]

if the United States did send a carrier to help the Brits, I wonder which one it would be? The Ronald Reagan? Or is that ship just assigned to Asia Pacific duty? Regardless, that ship is a thing of power projection beauty!!!

 

[CanOWorms]

lulz @ the poster posting as RabidMongoose\CanOWorms proposing that the US would side with Argentina over the UK.

We sell them nuclear weapon delivery systems and are co-developing the F-35 with them. British personnel have SIPR & JWICS access.

But keep dreaming. Just do it under one username.

Did any of those programs begin under Obama? Why did the US side with Argentina over the UK in the OAS declaration?

The demographics and power in the US are changing such that the UK is not as favorably viewed as some sort of kinship country.

 

[Nebor]

Did any of those programs begin under Obama? Why did the US side with Argentina over the UK in the OAS declaration?

The demographics and power in the US are changing such that the UK is not as favorably viewed as some sort of kinship country.

Yes, the next generation of nuclear weapons development and testing, conducted jointly with the UK, began under Obama.

I'm guessing the "OAS declaration" doesn't mean anything at all. I've never even heard of it.

Militarily, the US & UK will stick together. They need our muscle and we need their finesse in "small wars."

 

[CallMeJoe]

Did any of those programs begin under Obama? Why did the US side with Argentina over the UK in the OAS declaration?
The demographics and power in the US are changing such that the UK is not as favorably viewed as some sort of kinship country.

Aside from language, culture, politics, heritage and history most Americans have almost nothing in common with the UK.

 

[dawheat]

If bullets start flying, I don't think there's a conceivable way we don't back the UK

- UK is a long time, strategic ally
- The inhabitants have stated their desire to stay with the UK
- We do something like 15 billion in trade with Argentina - peanuts

Beforehand, getting both sides to talk and work out some sort of compromise where Argentina wins something of superficial but visible value while the islands stay completely under UK control works for me.

 

[CanOWorms]

Aside from language, culture, politics, heritage and history most Americans have almost nothing in common with the UK.

Similar language, but English is spoken everywhere, so that doesn't seem very compelling. The US and UK culture is completely different, politics and political structure is completely different, heritage is different (after all, we rebelled against their tyranny). So yes, I would say that most Americans have almost nothing in common with the UK.

I suspect most of the support for the UK comes from a feeling of kinship due to racial and ethnic reasons. But that can no longer be sustained in a modern America.

 

[CanOWorms]

Yes, the next generation of nuclear weapons development and testing, conducted jointly with the UK, began under Obama.

I'm guessing the "OAS declaration" doesn't mean anything at all. I've never even heard of it.

Militarily, the US & UK will stick together. They need our muscle and we need their finesse in "small wars."

The OAS is just a small part of the consistent US insults towards the UK. Times have changed. The US cannot go to war against a host of future powers in South America for the sake of a decrepit power.

 

[Nebor]

The OAS is just a small part of the consistent US insults towards the UK. Times have changed. The US cannot go to war against a host of future powers in South America for the sake of a decrepit power.

There are no future powers in South America. Just like Africa, they'll spend the next 100 years wallowing in corruption as the West (and China) exploit their resources for pennies on the dollar.

Flat out, the UK is our biggest partner in crime. We do big business together. We'd have no issue helping them wipe out a measly 40 million people Argentinians. It's what we do.

 

[Jaskalas]

Those islands were apparently uninhabited when settled by British settlers in the 1850's. Argentina claim otherwise.

Geographical proximity trumps finder's keepers.

Either way the current inhabitants all want to remain British.

Now that's a real problem for the regional powers. The free will of the people living there. That's a claim I have to respect and honor is it not? In that case, the UK does not need a navy, they've got ours.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Now that's a real problem for the regional powers. The free will of the people living there. That's a claim I have to respect and honor is it not? In that case, the UK does not need a navy, they've got ours.

I don't think that the Argentinians are going to go in and genocide everyone. They're a modern society. The Malvinas should belong to them, not the UK.

The US should side with Argentina, IMO. It would be better to align with South America instead of the UK.

 

[CanOWorms]

There are no future powers in South America. Just like Africa, they'll spend the next 100 years wallowing in corruption as the West (and China) exploit their resources for pennies on the dollar.

It's 2012, not 1980. Brazil is a future power. Potentially Argentina, too.

Flat out, the UK is our biggest partner in crime. We do big business together. We'd have no issue helping them wipe out a measly 40 million people Argentinians. It's what we do.

The US, under Obama, has completely realigned its foreign policy, focusing on other countries than the UK. They feel neglected. The trend is against them. In the future, I suspect there will be no issues with Uncle Sam storming Buckingham Palace.

 

[Doppel]

It's the middle of nowhere for the UK. It's not the middle of nowhere for Argentina.

I doubt that the US would assist with British aggression and colonialism. If anything, the US is distancing itself from Europe. The intelligent pick would be to align with Argentina over the UK. Just imagine what the British would do if Obama directs a carrier group into the Channel! They would definitely give up their claim to the Malvinas and the US will build stronger ties with South America.

It makes more sense for the US to help Argentina than to help the UK.

Really? During Falklands the US tried to stay neutral for a while and when push came to shove chose the UK's side and was going to offer use of a carrier. No chance in hell the US would help Argentina over the UK in a conflict, it's laughably naive.

The demographics and power in the US are changing such that the UK is not as favorably viewed as some sort of kinship country.

Nonsense. Out of the list of relevant nations on the globe the US/UK alliance is probably the strongest of any. I'd say US/Canada more so, but that's a given.

rabid/can do you guys have any actual precedent for your notion that the US would not back the UK, or is it merely hopes and dreams?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Really? During Falklands the US tried to stay neutral for a while and when push came to shove chose the UK's side and was going to offer use of a carrier. No chance in hell the US would help Argentina over the UK in a conflict, it's laughably naive.Nonsense. Out of the list of relevant nations on the globe the US/UK alliance is probably the strongest of any. I'd say US/Canada more so, but that's a given.

That was a long time ago. Argentina and the relationship between the US and the UK are different.

You may be correct that the US will not directly attack the UK in aid of Argentina, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if the US pressures the UK into submission to surrender the Malvinas.

The US needs to strengthen its South American ties, too, it makes more sense to align with Argentina than the UK. Plus, it's the right thing to do.

 

[CanOWorms]

Really? During Falklands the US tried to stay neutral for a while and when push came to shove chose the UK's side and was going to offer use of a carrier. No chance in hell the US would help Argentina over the UK in a conflict, it's laughably naive.Nonsense.

Link? Moreover, much has changed since 1982.

Out of the list of relevant nations on the globe the US/UK alliance is probably the strongest of any. I'd say US/Canada more so, but that's a given.

It's a strong one-way alliance where the UK helps the US. But the US does not reciprocate to the same level.

Also, the relationships have been changing quite rapidly.

rabid/can do you guys have any actual precedent for your notion that the US would not back the UK, or is it merely hopes and dreams?

Obama has done many things to cast doubt on any sort of future for the so-called special relationship.

 

[Nebor]

In the future, I suspect there will be no issues with Uncle Sam storming Buckingham Palace.

You're an idiot. A complete waste of space, and someone should visit violence on you in an attempt to either fix you, or prevent you from spewing nonsense like this into this Royal forum. Like, if Prince Harry broke every one of your fingers with a ball-peen hammer while God Save the Queen blared from loudspeakers, I think that would be uh, smashing.

 

[Infohawk]

The US, under Obama, has completely realigned its foreign policy, focusing on other countries than the UK.

Do you have any evidence of this besides your silliness about Obama dissing the queen? Because it's pretty clear that Obama continues to actively fight wars with the Europeans.

The trend is against them. In the future, I suspect there will be no issues with Uncle Sam storming Buckingham Palace.

This reminds me of when you were advocating that the US bomb London because of the their reaction to the Gulf oil spill. This is so far-fetched you might as well be talking about aliens from mars attacking US soil. It's also off-topic. This thread is about a potential conflict between Argentina and the UK, not about your fantasies of the US attacking Britain.

 

[CanOWorms]

Do you have any evidence of this besides your silliness about Obama dissing the queen? Because it's pretty clear that Obama continues to actively fight wars with the Europeans.

There is a clear shift in US policy away from Europe and towards other regions of the world. This is often reported. The US, under Obama, has also clearly stated that the future of the US is in Asia. European allies have consistently complained of being neglected.

There are relations with many Europeans, including the UK, but the relationships are becoming less important, less emphasized. Obama is not going to flip a switch and immediately change the state of US foreign relations. It's a gradual change.

This reminds me of when you were advocating that the US bomb London because of the their reaction to the Gulf oil spill. This is so far-fetched you might as well be talking about aliens from mars attacking US soil. It's also off-topic. This thread is about a potential conflict between Argentina and the UK, not about your fantasies of the US attacking Britain.

This reminds me of when you were advocating that the UK should be able to do whatever it wants in US territories, including destroying the livelihoods of millions of Americans, and in particular various minority groups.

My responses are on topic. I believe that the US would not necessarily side with the UK, just like when Obama agreed to the text of the OAS statement on the Malvinas.

The US needs to be on the side of the future rather than the past.

Perhaps the Malvinas can be transitioned to Argentina in a similar manner as Hong Kong was transferred to China. A peaceful transition planned well in advance may be the best solution. It would avoid any embarrassment for the UK.