Falklands War part 2?

[Infohawk]

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.

There are no facts there. No links to even trivial stories. Do you have any evidence? You know, like the fact that the US is actively allied with 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.

That is not my position at all. Did you know there's a new rule against misrepresenting people's positions? I'm supposed to warn you that you're misrepresenting my position first. So I am doing that right now.

My responses are on topic.

You saying it doesn't make it so. How is a bizarre fantasy that the US will storm Buckingham Palace relevant to this story?

 

[RabidMongoose]

I don't see how talking about US action against the UK are off-topic if people are talking about the US involving itself in this potential conflict. It's just the opposite position of people saying that the US will act with the UK.

If you disagree with a position, it doesn't make that position off-topic.

 

[CanOWorms]

There are no facts there. No links to even trivial stories. Do you have any evidence? You know, like the fact that the US is actively allied with Britain?

You've asked for links before and I've provided for them several times. Please stop playing your games.

A simple google search for "obama neglects europe" and "united states looks to asia" turns up many results.

That is not my position at all. Did you know there's a new rule against misrepresenting people's positions? I'm supposed to warn you that you're misrepresenting my position first. So I am doing that right now.

I'm warning you as well.

You saying it doesn't make it so. How is a bizarre fantasy that the US will storm Buckingham Palace relevant to this story?

It's incidental to the topic and relates to a response by Nebor.

Can you please provide something meaningful to this conversation? Thanks.

 

[gingermeggs]

You've asked for links before and I've provided for them several times. Please stop playing your games.

A simple google search for "obama neglects europe" and "united states looks to asia" turns up many results.



I'm warning you as well.



It's incidental to the topic and relates to a response by Nebor.

Can you please provide something meaningful to this conversation? Thanks.

I'M JUST PICTURING THAT NOW SEAL SQUAD BUSTS IN AND A SHOT OF A NAVY SEAL WITH HIS BOOT ON THE BACK of THE QUEENS NECK SAYING "MOVE TERRORIST AND YOUR GONE!"lol

 

[Infohawk]

You've asked for links before and I've provided for them several times. Please stop playing your games.

A simple google search for "obama neglects europe" and "united states looks to asia" turns up many results.

I will let your lack of evidence speak for itself.

I'm warning you as well.

About what? Are you denying that you posted that the US should bomb bridges in London?

Can you please provide something meaningful to this conversation? Thanks.

I've already done so. I've shown that you have no evidence for your outlandish beliefs.

 

[CanOWorms]

Here is the official US position on the Malvinas.

U.S. Position on the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands

QUESTION: Does the U.S. take a position on the recent posturing between the United Kingdom and Argentina over the Falklands?

ANSWER: This is a bilateral issue that needs to be worked out directly between the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom. We encourage both parties to resolve their differences through dialogue in normal diplomatic channels.

We recognize de facto United Kingdom administration of the islands but take no position regarding sovereignty.

Bluster in Buenos Aires and a new war over squid: how Falkland Islands' temperature is heating up

Buenos Aires has also crowed over the position of the US government, which has shifted from explicit support for the British position to one of studied neutrality. In a stance that has irked Downing Street – given British support for the US ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan – the Obama administration has called on both sides to hold a dialogue, saying it takes no position on sovereignty.

Times are changing!

 

[RabidMongoose]

What are you talking about? CoW already posted the link about the OAS from the US, that is evidence. InfoHawk, have you read this thread? Please try to stay on-topic instead of turning this into a trollfest, thanks. We can all disagree and yet still be civil to each other.

 

[Infohawk]

Cow, what are you warning me about? I need to know what you're talking about specifically to respect your wishes and not misrepresent you. Are you denying that you posted that you think the US should have bombed London related to the oil spill?

Here is the official US position on the Malvinas.

U.S. Position on the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands




Bluster in Buenos Aires and a new war over squid: how Falkland Islands' temperature is heating up

This is not evidence that the US is distancing itself from the UK. The US started off neutral in the first war too.

 

[Craig234]

History of Falklands war 1:

Government #1 wants to rally public opinion, goes to war, tells suckers 'go get killed for our benefit while we sing about country and noble sacrifice'

Government #2 wants to rally public opinion, goes to war, tells suckers 'go get killed for our benefit while we sing about country and noble sacrifice'

Both governments get what they want, suckers get killed for the benefit of the government leaders and upper class.

War over, let's forget about it.

For the story not often told, read "War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning".

 

[CanOWorms]

Cow, what are you warning me about? I need to know what you're talking about specifically to respect your wishes and not misrepresent you. Are you denying that you posted that you think the US should have bombed London related to the oil spill?

I don't deny that I may have posted something similar, but you're misrepresenting intent, purpose, and context. Please consider this the required notice of warning. Any further inquiries should proceed via PM or written on a note and attached to a pigeon.

This is not evidence that the US is distancing itself from the UK.

I didn't post that in response to your post, but for the thread for discussion related to the topic. However, it does show a shift of the US away from the UK. I don't understand how you can characterize otherwise. Please provide a link.

 

[Jaskalas]

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.

Side how?

If it's a military conflict, the Argentinians would be making conquest against the will of the people of those Islands. We can do nothing less than stand for the free will and choice of the Islanders.

If Argentina wishes to do this economically, culturally, and win the Islands over through diplomatic, nonviolent means, then I've no problem with that. Then it'd be the Islands choosing to switch sides.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Side how?

If it's a military conflict, the Argentinians would be making conquest against the will of the people of those Islands. We can do nothing less than stand for the free will and choice of the Islanders.

If Argentina wishes to do this economically, culturally, and win the Islands over through diplomatic, nonviolent means, then I've no problem with that. Then it'd be the Islands choosing to switch sides.

I don't think that an Argentinian takeover of the Malvinas will be much of a conquest against the kelpers.

I don't think that the US should intervene in the sense of blowing up that British ship that they're sending out, but the US could probably pressure the UK into giving up its claim to the Malvinas. It would be a peaceful transition of power from the UK to what I consider the rightful owner of the Malvinas, Argentina.

 

[lothar]

Seriously, a destroyer is the most powerful ship in the Royal Navy? WTF happened to them?

----
The Royal Navy also announced last week it was sending its most powerful warship, HMS Dauntless, to the South Pacific.

Great Britain is now a shadow of it's former self.

 

[Infohawk]

I don't deny that I may have posted something similar, but you're misrepresenting intent, purpose, and context.

Please explain in what way specifically. I'm trying to understand you so I can respect your wishes on this point. Here is what you said:

The time is now to launch an attack and subdue the British hysteria. They must be put in their place and shown what is to come if they continue on their path. A missile strike on Buckingham Palace or Tower Bridge would be fine.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2083119

There's also another one where you imagined cruise missles slamming into Big Ben, which is a UNESCO World Heritage site and not a strategic target at all.

(Unfortunately there needs to be a record here so I can show that I can prove that I'm trying respecting your wishes but you're not telling me what I'm misunderstanding.)

I didn't post that in response to your post, but for the thread for discussion related to the topic. However, it does show a shift of the US away from the UK. I don't understand how you can characterize otherwise. Please provide a link.

What are you talking about? You said "the US has completely realigned its foreign policy." Where is your evidence for that? On its face, you'd have to show they're no longer allies to have it be a COMPLETE realignment.

 

[lothar]

They have nuclear powered subs armed with Trident II D5 nuclear missiles, one might be patrolling the south Atlantic right now

Fixed.

 

[lothar]

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

What about Afghanistan and Libya?

 

[CanOWorms]

Please explain in what way specifically. I'm trying to understand you so I can respect your wishes on this point. Here is what you said:

Look at the entire post. It talks in reference to genocide. Accordingly, please consider yourself duly warned!

What are you talking about? You said "the US has completely realigned its foreign policy." Where is your evidence for that? On its face, you'd have to show they're no longer allies to have it be a COMPLETE realignment.

I suppose it depends how you define "completely realigned." Also, I don't see why a complete realignment requires the immediate dumping of allies. Do you have any links?

 

[CanOWorms]

What about Afghanistan and Libya?

Afghanistan was the result of an attack on US soil. Libya was outside of Article V.

 

[Infohawk]

Look at the entire post. It talks in reference to genocide. Accordingly, please consider yourself duly warned!

Warned about what exactly? Maybe you can tell me what your position was with regard to the attack on London? I'm confused because the thread was about the oil spill. Are you saying you were off-topic in that thread and shouldn't have posted that there but instead in a non-existent thread about genocide? Is your position that the oil spill was leading to genocide and that the US needed to attack Big Ben to stop that oil-spill-caused genocide? Help me out here...

I suppose it depends how you define "completely realigned." Also, I don't see why a complete realignment requires the immediate dumping of allies. Do you have any links?

Well usually complete means 100%. Re-alignment would mean having totally new allies, like China or Russia. I gave you facts already. There is no complete realignment (or anything near it) because the US is still officially allied with the UK and engaged in joint military operations right now. Do you dispute those facts? You don't need a link if you don't.

 

[CanOWorms]

Warned about what exactly? Maybe you can tell me what your position was with regard to the attack on London? I'm confused because the thread was about the oil spill. Are you saying you were off-topic in that thread and shouldn't have posted that there but instead in a non-existent thread about genocide? Is your position that the oil spill was leading to genocide and that the US needed to attack Big Ben to stop that oil-spill-caused genocide? Help me out here...

You have been warned on misrepresentation in regards to that post. Even here, you provided merely a fragment of the entire post, effectively slicing out context, intent, purpose, emotional state, and other possible factors that would lead to a reasonable interpretation.

I don't see any need to further elaborate on a position. Or is this required in the warning process? Please provide a link.

Well usually complete means 100%. Re-alignment would mean having totally new allies, like China or Russia. I gave you facts already. There is no complete realignment (or anything near it) because the US is still officially allied with the UK and engaged in joint military operations right now. Do you dispute those facts? You don't need a link if you don't.

Re-alignment means a new focus. Nevertheless, the US is still shifting away from the UK, particularly in the context of the Malvinas.

The US has many allies and engaged in many joint military, cultural, economic, technological, and other types of operations right now.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Can we please focus back onto the issue of the Malvinas instead of random threads from a long time ago? If you two would like to continue to discuss non-Malvinas issues, then might I suggest PMs?

 

[Infohawk]

You have been warned on misrepresentation in regards to that post. Even here, you provided merely a fragment of the entire post, effectively slicing out context, intent, purpose, emotional state, and other possible factors that would lead to a reasonable interpretation.

I don't see any need to further elaborate on a position. Or is this required in the warning process? Please provide a link.

The warning process wouldn't make any sense if you just "warned" someone without saying what they were misrepresenting. Again, what am I wrong about? You posted about it numerous times.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2082310&highlight=big+ben

There is another one. I don't see anything about genocide in there.

Is it wrong to say that you think the US should have bombed Big Ben and the London Tower because of the UK's involvement in the oil spill?

If not, please tell me what part of that is not true. What are the emotional states and other factors that make that incorrect?

Re-alignment means a new focus. Nevertheless, the US is still shifting away from the UK, particularly in the context of the Malvinas.

The US has many allies and engaged in many joint military, cultural, economic, technological, and other types of operations right now.

You didn't just say realignment though. You said complete realignment. Do you want to retract that?

 

[RabidMongoose]

The re-alignment issue is interesting. I am not sure if I would say that it's a 'complete re-alignment' but it appears to be in the process of at least some re-alignment that is more favorable to Argentina and against the UK. Personally, I find this to be positive and hope that it can lead to a more just resolution to the Malvinas within the next 10-20 years.

 

[CanOWorms]

A former head of the army claims that the UK would not be able to retake the Malvinas.

Britain could not reclaim the Falklands if Argentina invades, warns General Sir Michael Jackson

In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, the former head of the army, General Sir Michael Jackson, says defence cuts have made it "impossible" to win the islands back after a successful invasion, in the way the British task force did in 1982.

"What if an Argentinian force was able to secure the Mount Pleasant airfield? Then our ability to recover the islands now would be just about impossible," says General Jackson, who was Chief of the General Staff until five years ago and led the army into Iraq.

"We are not in a position to take air power by sea since the demise of the Harrier force."

The British military is undoubtedly weaker than in 1982. Argentina has developed quite a bit. It has received support from other South American nations, including pledges of military support. The US has also distanced itself from the UK.

The UK may want to think about a graceful transition, particularly if they wish to retain a facade of still being an international power.

 

[CanOWorms]

The warning process wouldn't make any sense if you just "warned" someone without saying what they were misrepresenting. Again, what am I wrong about? You posted about it numerous times.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2082310&highlight=big+ben

There is another one. I don't see anything about genocide in there.

Is it wrong to say that you think the US should have bombed Big Ben and the London Tower because of the UK's involvement in the oil spill?

If not, please tell me what part of that is not true. What are the emotional states and other factors that make that incorrect?

I already told you a few posts ago.

You didn't just say realignment though. You said complete realignment. Do you want to retract that?

Not really. I don't believe that a "complete realignment" implies that you dump all other relations. It means that you're stressing those that you previously did not, and de-emphasizing those that you previously emphasized.

Do you agree that the US has distanced itself from its prior position with the UK in regards to the Malvinas?