Falklands War part 2?

[Infohawk]

Link to evidence that the US activities, including the shift in the State Department's position, is merely to "appear" neutral.

What shift in the state department position?

It's not meant to be evidence of anything, but a response to your standard superfluous statements you usually include.

There was nothing superfluous about what I said. The same situation happened 30 years ago and the US hasn't change alliances since then. Your comment about Barack Obama is non-sequitur fluff.

 

[Infohawk]

Their behavior was 30 years ago. I would hope that you would have something more relevant. Moreover, the US-UK relations may be strong or weak, but that doesn't mean that the US is not neutral with regard to UK-Argentina.

Do you have any evidence aside from behavior from 30 years ago?

I didn't say they weren't neutral. I said they wanted to appear neutral. The two are not inconsistent. That doesn't mean when push comes to shove they won't support the UK. What has changed in 30 years with regards to the relationships between the UK and the US? Not much except the US is even closer with the UK because of the war on terror.

 

[CanOWorms]

What shift in the state department position?

The shift that mentioned in the article that I linked to. Are you not reading the relevant things here?

There was nothing superfluous about what I said. The same situation happened 30 years ago and the US hasn't change alliances since then. Your comment about Barack Obama is non-sequitur fluff.

My comment is in regards to your superfluous comment in regards to trust.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I didn't say they weren't neutral. I said they wanted to appear neutral. The two are not inconsistent. That doesn't mean when push comes to shove they won't support the UK. What has changed in 30 years with regards to the relationships between the UK and the US? Not much except the US is even closer with the UK because of the war on terror.

Actually, I think that the US is not closer with the UK than it was 30 years ago. Moreover, I think that the US has become at least a little closer with Argentina over 30 years.

I didn't say that you said that they weren't neutral. Thus, I'm asking you for evidence that they are not neutral now, despite the shift from the State Department that CoW has already linked to.

Again, do you have anything aside from behavior from 30 years ago to support your claim? I think it's a pretty interesting claim to say that the US is essentially lying and making false statements to just appear neutral, so I would hope that you have some information on this.

 

[CanOWorms]

I didn't say they weren't neutral. I said they wanted to appear neutral. The two are not inconsistent. That doesn't mean when push comes to shove they won't support the UK. What has changed in 30 years with regards to the relationships between the UK and the US? Not much except the US is even closer with the UK because of the war on terror.

Much has changed. Demographics have changed. The UK military capability has changed. Argentina's capability has changed. Argentina's status with countries in South America have changed.

Presidents have changed. Obama has written about the mutilation of his grandfather's testicles by the very same Empire wishing to retain control of the Malvinas. His actions have repeatedly been viewed as dismissive by the UK, including in the situation of the Malvinas.

 

[Infohawk]

The shift that mentioned in the article that I linked to. Are you not reading the relevant things here?

I see a position statement from the US that is nothing new.

My comment is in regards to your superfluous comment in regards to trust.

What does your comment about trusting Barack Obama have to do with you being inconsistent about the State Dept's positions. You only cite them as an authority when they agree with you. If they say things like the UK is a developed democracy you wouldn't accept that as true.

 

[Infohawk]

I think it's a pretty interesting claim to say that the US is essentially lying and making false statements to just appear neutral, so I would hope that you have some information on this.

Let's stop right there. That's not what I said. At all.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Let's stop right there. That's not what I said. At all.

Then what did you mean by the US is just appearing to be neutral? It is implying that the US is making false statements since the US is appearing to be neutral, but you say that the US is actually not neutral. You are essentially indicating that the US is being deceptive at the very least.

So, again, do you have any evidence for your claims? We already have CoW citing to a change in the State Department position on this issue. Can you please elaborate on your position and provide some evidence?

 

[CanOWorms]

Actually, I think that the US is not closer with the UK than it was 30 years ago. Moreover, I think that the US has become at least a little closer with Argentina over 30 years.

Agreed.

I also wonder what level of support the supporters of the Empire think that the US will supposedly provide. The US is tired of war. The US lamented the capabilities of its allies in the activity in Libya. The UK had a difficult time preparing for the 1982 war. Its capabilities have greatly diminished since then. Argentina is much more sophisticated since then and now also has the support of its neighbors. Do they expect the US to provide the bulk of any military response for the honor of the Empire?

We must also not forget that the Cold War was going on 30 years ago, and the reality of a feeble UK surely would not be a nice message to send to the Soviet Union.

 

[Infohawk]

Then what did you mean by the US is just appearing to be neutral? It is implying that the US is making false statements since the US is appearing to be neutral, but you say that the US is actually not neutral. You are essentially indicating that the US is being deceptive at the very least.

I mean they want to appear neutral. Do you understand that someone could want to appear to be ethical and actually BE ethical?

It's normal diplomacy and exactly the same thing that happened in the 80s. Why don't you read about what the US diplomats were saying on page 81:

http://web1.millercenter.org/poh/falklands/transcripts/falklands_2003_0515.pdf

 

[RabidMongoose]

I mean they want to appear neutral. Do you understand that someone could want to appear to be ethical and actually BE ethical?

You say that they want to appear neutral, but you said that they aren't neutral. I understand that position. However, it implies deception on the part of the US, which is why I'm asking you for evidence of such actions or anything similar to it.

This has nothing to do with ethics. You have said that the US wants to appear neutral, but the US isn't neutral. Thus, there is some level of deception here on part of the US that I am asking you to provide evidence for.

Look, if it's just your opinion and you have zero evidence, then just say so and admit it. That's not the end of the world.

It's normal diplomacy and exactly the same thing that happened in the 80s. Why don't you read about what the US diplomats were saying on page 81:

http://web1.millercenter.org/poh/falklands/transcripts/falklands_2003_0515.pdf

Again, do you have any evidence that says the US is not neutral here? Something that is relevant to today's world and not the early 80s?

 

[RabidMongoose]

We must also not forget that the Cold War was going on 30 years ago, and the reality of a feeble UK surely would not be a nice message to send to the Soviet Union.

Yes, excellent point. I honestly don't think that you can use behavior from the Malvinas issue from the early 80's and say that it has direct policy implications for 2012.

 

[Infohawk]

You say that they want to appear neutral, but you said that they aren't neutral.

I just don't think you're capable of having a real conversation about this. They are officially neutral now. They want to appear to be neutral. When push comes to shove, they will side with the UK.

Again, do you have any evidence that says the US is not neutral here? Something that is relevant to today's world and not the early 80s?

The question is do YOU have any evidence that the US's alliances have changed since the 80s. They haven't. If anything, the US and UK's bond has been strengthened by decades of combined military operations. Again, I'm still waiting for some actual facts from you about what has changed. And not some opinions about the US's focus being to the east or some nonsense like. How about actual changes in alliances or diplomacy? That's right there is none.

 

[CanOWorms]

Yes, excellent point. I honestly don't think that you can use behavior from the Malvinas issue from the early 80's and say that it has direct policy implications for 2012.

The world has changed a lot. It's interesting that people are so dismissive of the changes. Even Infohawk's Miller Center transcript contains concerns of the Soviet Union.

 

[CanOWorms]

The question is do YOU have any evidence that the US's alliances have changed since the 80s. They haven't. If anything, the US and UK's bond has been strengthened by decades of combined military operations. Again, I'm still waiting for some actual facts from you about what has changed. And not some opinions about the US's focus being to the east or some nonsense like. How about actual changes in alliances or diplomacy? That's right there is none.

You don't think Obama himself is an actual change in the alliance and diplomacy? Interesting. The UK certainly doesn't view it that way.

In fact, the US's position on direct bilateral talks between Argentina and the UK is in fact 100% in line with what Argentina wants but the UK dismisses.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I just don't think you're capable of having a real conversation about this. They are officially neutral now. They want to appear to be neutral. When push comes to shove, they will side with the UK.

Seriously, if you're incapable of throwing personal insults and attacks around, then you've basically shown that you're incapable of having any serious discussion. Are you getting angry because I'm asking you for proof? This is a sign that you really have no argument.

Again, do you have any modern evidence to show that the US will side with the UK at the expense of Argentina? Right now we have official positions from the US of neutrality, but you, InfoHawk who posts on a message board, somehow has intimate knowledge of US policy?

Do you have a single shred of proof or evidence or justification outside of behavior from 30 years ago?

The question is do YOU have any evidence that the US's alliances have changed since the 80s. They haven't. If anything, the US and UK's bond has been strengthened by decades of combined military operations. Again, I'm still waiting for some actual facts from you about what has changed. And not some opinions about the US's focus being to the east or some nonsense like. How about actual changes in alliances or diplomacy? That's right there is none.

You are the one who is claiming to know more about the US position than the State Department itself. So, again, please provide any evidence that shows that the US is not neutral here. That's how it works. You made the statement. Now provide some evidence.

To me, the US has issued statements of neutrality on this issue. The US has changed its stance to neutrality. Thus, I see the US as being neutral. You have somehow taken it upon yourself that this is all essentially a lie and that the US isn't neutral. What is your evidence?

I think it's time that you admit that it's just your gut feeling and that you have nothing.

 

[Infohawk]

Right now we have official positions from the US of neutrality

And they had the same position of neutrality in the early 80s and the diplomats then have since told us that of course they were going to support the UK when push came to shove.

You can whine that it was 30 years ago but none of the alliances have changed. Yes, the cold war is over. So what? The US and the UK have been fighting int he middle-east together for 20 years. You have no evidence of distancing like you say there is.

You are the one who is claiming to know more about the US position than the State Department itself.

That's my prediction. In the unlikely event they didn't provide the same support they did in the 80s, they certainly wouldn't attack the UK.

No more ludicrous than COW talking about GIs storming London or your idiocy that the US will send a carrier to the Channel.

 

[RabidMongoose]

And they had the same position of neutrality in the early 80s and the diplomats then have since told us that of course they were going to support the UK when push came to shove.

You can whine that it was 30 years ago but none of the alliances have changed. Yes, the cold war is over. So what? The US and the UK have been fighting int he middle-east together for 20 years. You have no evidence of distancing like you say there is.

So what? That was an entirely different world.

Again, do you have any evidence that the US is not actually neutral?

That's my prediction. In the unlikely event they didn't provide the same support they did in the 80s, they certainly wouldn't attack the UK.

No more ludicrous than COW talking about GIs storming London or your idiocy that the US will send a carrier to the Channel.

You have a serious attitude problem. I really hope that you improve, but you always seem to get angry whenever faced with opposition.

However, it's good that you're now just admitting that it's just your prediction and assertion that the US is essentially lying about its neutrality is just your completely unsupported opinion.

It's not the end of the world. You can just say that it's your opinion. You should try that next time.

 

[Infohawk]

So what? That was an entirely different world.

Not in any ways relevant to this conflict.

However, it's good that you're now just admitting that it's just your prediction and assertion that the US is essentially lying about its neutrality is just your completely unsupported, uneducated, and ludicrous position.

I never said the US is lying about its neutrality. Please stop misrepresenting my positions. Thanks. Let me know if you have some new facts. So far you have that the cold war ended...

 

[CanOWorms]

I think an argument can be made that the US is actually more on Argentina's side on this. The US position is Argentina's position: bilateral talks. The UK dismisses bilateral talks.

The US wants the same procedure as Argentina, one that the UK does not want. We can only speculate as to what outcome they want.

Or we can pretend that the US is a double agent, secretly acting for the UK, has forgotten that the Cold War ended decades ago, and is ok with taking over the bulk of the warfare and with sending Americans to die for the Empire to retain some colony thousands of miles away, all while we're suffering from war fatigue and high levels of war expenditures.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Not in any ways relevant to this conflict.

Of course it is. 1982 is a lot different than 2012.

I never said the US is lying about its neutrality. Please stop misrepresenting my positions. Thanks. Let me know if you have some new facts. So far you have that the cold war ended...

That is what you are implying. If the US is saying that it is neutral and you admit that it is appearing to be neutral, but it really isn't neutral, then there is a lie there. That is the natural consequence of your position. This is not a misrepresentation of your positions, this is the result of your positions.

Again, do you have any evidence to show that the US is purposefully misrepresenting its own position?

As for my facts, there was already CoW's State Department position. You have nothing, so I am asking for facts that show that the US is misrepresenting its own position and that it is actually not neutral despite the State Department's own statements.

How do you know more about US policy than the State Department?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Or we can pretend that the US is a double agent, secretly acting for the UK, has forgotten that the Cold War ended decades ago, and is ok with taking over the bulk of the warfare and with sending Americans to die for the Empire to retain some colony thousands of miles away, all while we're suffering from war fatigue.

That is about as realistic as InfoHawk's position, IMO.

 

[monovillage]

There is no way the Obama Administration is going to turn their backs on the U.K. less then a year before a presidential election. It ain't going to happen. Yeah, yeah they'll say this and that and try to act as disinterested 3rd parties, but Obama can't take the public relations hit. Face it, there are very, very, very few Americans that hate the U.K.

even if we have 2 of them that post the shit out of this forum

 

[Infohawk]

Of course it is. 1982 is a lot different than 2012.

We can stop right there. You're just repeating yourself. Let me know when you have a reason RELEVANT TO THE FALKLANDS that it's going to be any different than 1982.

 

[RabidMongoose]

There is no way the Obama Administration is going to turn their backs on the U.K. less then a year before a presidential election. It ain't going to happen. Yeah, yeah they'll say this and that and try to act as disinterested 3rd parties, but Obama can't take the public relations hit. Face it, there are very, very, very few Americans that hate the U.K.

I think that there are even fewer Americans who would even want to have the US involved in the mess. The US would most likely stay neutral, IMO. If the UK wants to maintain its colonies, then it will almost certainly have to do it on its own.