PDA

View Full Version : Falkland Islands Referendum


ThreadBaron
10th Mar 2013, 13:58
Hmmmm.

Heritage Foundation (http://youtu.be/6tfvfsZaMsY)

What Special Relationship?

stuckgear
10th Mar 2013, 15:23
The specialu relationship will probably return once americans get that c-nut out of the white house, many right minded US citizen deplore Obamas actions over the Falkland Islands..

Don't forget that Obama has sanctioned the premeditated killing of US citizens on US soil without trail, against the very consitutional basis of the united states..

Kirchner has already stated that she will not recognise the results of the elections of the people of the falklands islands and Obama has done likewise..

Who is left to fight for democracy.. the UK ? UK military capability has been systematically decimated over the past years...

So not only who is left, but who has the capability to preserve democratic freedom ?

Ozzy
10th Mar 2013, 15:44
I have said this once, and I will say it again. Park a couple of boomers off the coast of Argentina and then let launch the missiles. Gone in in an instant. And who is going to retaliate? No one, and job done. I am so tired of being nice to the nutcases in charge of the Argentine guvnment.

Ozzy

Sallyann1234
10th Mar 2013, 21:43
Perhaps Obama thinks that the Falklands belong to the nearest land mass, Argentina.
Of course that does mean that Malta belongs to Italy, the Canaries belong to Morocco, and Japan is part of China.
And no doubt he will insist that Ireland should return to the UK :(

G&T ice n slice
10th Mar 2013, 21:49
And no doubt he will insist that Ireland should return to the UK

Highly unlikely...

More likely is that the UK should be returned to Ireland.


The man's a complete waste of Space, Time and Nathaniel


oops word association football there

Rail Engineer
10th Mar 2013, 22:33
Obama has no love for Britain.

Obama received from Gordon Brown a pen-holder made from the timbers of a Royal Navy anti-slavery vessel, and reciprocated with DVDs.

He downgraded the UK from "our closest ally" to "one of our allies".

He gave the Queen an iPod full of his own speeches.

He used the Louisiana oil spill to attack an imaginary company called "British Petroleum" (it has been BP for the past decade, ever since the merger with Amoco gave it as many American as British shareholders).

He sent a bust of Winston Churchill back to the British Embassy.

He managed, on his visit to West Africa, to refer to the struggle for independence, but not to the Royal Navy's campaign against slavery.

He has refused to acknowledge our presence in Afghanistan in any major speech.

We’re not alone though, as it appears Obama doesn’t like anyone much except the Russians, Chinese and Indonesians.

The one thing that is without doubt is Obama's prediliction for Islamic States and all things Muslim



Obama seems to emotionally hold a Muslim view about Israel, in contrast with Americans who have been educated as Obama has. Obama has never visited Israel as president despite repeated criticisms of his failure to do so, he waited many days before even mentioning the rocket attacks on Israel in late 2012, and he doesn't appear comfortable even discussing issues related to Israel.
Obama declared in prepared remarks, "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country - I know, because I am one of them."[
Obama raised nearly $1 million and campaigned for a Kenyan presidential candidate who had a written agreement withMuslim leaders promising to convert Kenya to an Islamic state that bans Christianity
In 2006, Obama gave an irreverent speech about using the Bible in public policy. It resembled a stand-up comedy act, with Obama making fun of the books of the Torah, the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount and other key Biblical passages

stuckgear
10th Mar 2013, 23:37
Obama is tosser.. of course the lefties think when it comes to obama 'every sh1t's a miracle'

tpAOwJvTOio

Rail Engineer
10th Mar 2013, 23:55
Like many I find it astonishing that the US voted back in a man who has done so much to destroy their economy and posuition in the World.

When I was in the US last month I listened to a radio station which interviewed the group of people that Obama had been photographed with during the recent Hurrican that struck the East Coast. Many were Democrates who were pretty badly upset by the fact that the aid promised never came, and despite hsi public proclamations about making personally certain that everyone he met would be made good, he fails even to acknowledge their emails and phone calls now. In fact one said she had been asked by Officials to stop trying to contact him .

The shades have been lifted from their eyes but the USA has now written its own destiny.

To quote Galations 6:7 (from the King James Bible) "whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." and in Obama's case that is not good news for the US

Metro man
10th Mar 2013, 23:59
I lifted this from another website, any comments ?

1. Back in 1961 people of colour were called "Negroes".
So why / how can the Obama 'birth certificate' state he is
'African-American when the term wasn't even coined or used at that time?

2. The birth certificate that the White House released Lists Obama's
Birth as August 4, 1961, and Barack Hussein Obama as his father.

No big deal, right? At the time of Obama's birth, it also shows that his
father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama's father was born in "
Kenya , East Africa ."
This wouldn't seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya
Did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama's birth, and 27
Years after his father's birth. How could Obama's father have been born in a
Country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it
was known as the " British East Africa Protectorate".
Kenya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya_)

3. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed
Place of birth is "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynaecological Hospital".
This cannot be possible, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were
called "KauiKeolani Children's Hospital" and "Kapi'olani Maternity Home",
respectively. The name did not change to Kapi'olani Maternity &
Gynaecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How
can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth Certificate dated 1961
if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?
Kapiolani Women and Children | About Us (http://www.kapiolani.org/women-and-children/about-us/default.aspx)


4. Why hasn't this been discussed in the major media?
Perhaps a clue comes from Obama's book on his father. He states how proud
He is of his father fighting in WW II. Unfortunately, Barack Obama's "birth
certificate" says his father was 25 years old (or 27 as the case might be
above) in 1961 when he was born. That should have put his father's date
of birth approximately 1936. Now we need a non-revised history book-one that
hasn't been altered to satisfy the author's goals-to verify that WW II
was basically between 1939 and 1945. Just how many 3 year olds fight in wars?
Even in the latest stages of WW II his father wouldn't have been more than 9?
Does that mean that Mr. Obama is a liar, or simply chooses to alter the
facts to satisfy his imagination or political purposes?


5. Wedding ring is in for repair
Since when does a plain wedding band need repairs, along with your
watch, for a whole month?
Another piece falls into place. In a press conference last week Obama was
not wearing his wedding ring nor was he wearing his watch. When noticed,
his staff said his ring was out for repairs.
No reason was given for the missing watch.
So it's just a coincidence that Muslims are forbidden from wearing
jewellery during the month of Ramadan?
Can't possibly be that, because although he hasn't gone to a Christian
church service since entering the White House, we know he's a committed
Christian "cause he said so during his campaign!"
......... and we've got a bridge to nowhere to sell you also.

This is the same president that spent the Christmas holidays in Hawaii
to avoid religious obligations as PRESIDENT at the White House.
His children do not receive Christmas presents.
Let's just face the facts and quit trying to distort the truth, America has a
Muslim for president in the White House, and he has no knowledge of
American history.

DONALD TRUMP YOU MAY BE ONTO SOMETHING ....!!!!!

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/ht_obama_birth_certificate_jp_120301_wg.jpg

G-CPTN
11th Mar 2013, 00:08
how can the Obama 'birth certificate' state he is
'African-American
I read African - no mention of American (which he wasn't, he was a full-blooded African, having been born in Africa.

WRT to Kenya, I was aware of Kenya as far back as 1957. I got to know a young white boy my age who had come to England from 'Kenya, East Africa'. He returned after the summer holiday, so I couldn't have backdated the knowledge.

Just saying.

.

Rail Engineer
11th Mar 2013, 00:29
The World is so lucky that the US has a President who is all things to all men.

Obama is Black for the Black and African vote

He is "Christian" (so he says) to capture the Christian vote

He is a "former" Muslim so as to capture the Muslim vote (there is no such recognised thing accepted by Islamics by the way as a "former muslim - only someone who all believers are required to kill as a traitor)

He is "Irish" so as to capture the Irish vote.

Seemingly the only thing he isn't is Jewish, but no doubt at some point someone will be able to manufacture a Jewish link once the real fun starts Politically.

radeng
11th Mar 2013, 00:29
Regrettably, Cameron and his sicophants don't have the guts to do what's needed.

Which is give the White House 24 hours notice that:

1. Get all British troops out of Afghanistan as soon as maybe - probably a month.

2. Immediately close RAF bases used by the USAF in East Anglia - Lakenheath and Mildenhall. If need be, bomb the runways so they stay closed.

3. Throw any/all CIA/NSA people out of GCHQ, and the monitoring atations at Bude, Menwith Hill, Fylingdales and Cyprus

4. Pull back any UK mil personnel in the US.

5. Shut RAF Fairford

6. Inform the USN that they have 12 hours to vacate Faslane - before mines go down.


Which would lead to enough outcry from the US intelligentsia in the military and security to sort the bu**er out!


A bit violent, but the bu**er needs bringing to his senses. The American public can eventually recognise which side of the bread the butter is....

Rail Engineer
11th Mar 2013, 01:02
Obama is held in the same sort of regard that Bliar was and it will not be until the end of this term that the people will really start to see what a mess he will have made of their Country but of course by then it will be too late.

Meanwhile despite despising the UK Obama still tries to enforce US Policy on us by "Insisting" that the UK stays within the EU.

Just exactly who TF does this clown think he is ???

Sadly for us as Radeng says neither Cameron/Clegg/Milliband have the courage to tell him to FO.

The USA needs the UK far more than we actually need the US something that Mrs Thatcher was adept at pointing out when she refused to be the puppet of Regan and Clinton. Those were the days when we were respected by the US but following Bliar (who was in awe) and Brown (who was treated like an unwanted Uncle at a wedding) basically trotted along at the heels both Clinton of Bush and blindly complied with any and every request

Matari
11th Mar 2013, 01:21
Isn't it ironic that the guy that so many in the UK and Europe wanted as US President turns out to be so anti-British and anti-European.

Romney said that his first act as President would have have been to ask for the return of Churchill's bust. Yet so many in the UK thought Romney was some war-mongering, reactionary, cro-magnon Republican.

Many of us in flyover country respect and appreciate the UK and its sacrifices. We abhor the way Obama has treated our best ally. What we can't understand is why so many in the UK thought Obama was a friend.

Krystal n chips
11th Mar 2013, 06:52
The Falklands....a topic which led us to commentary that involved the adulation of Thatcher, a less than thinly veiled antagonsitic reference to Muslims ( one wondered why the delay here, to be honest )and that bastion of right wing expression, a quote from the Bible......one felt so inspired to read this hectoring on a Monday morning.

"
Just exactly who TF does this clown think he is"

Simply musing you understand, not a rhetorical question, heaven forbid !

Cacophonix
11th Mar 2013, 07:03
Must admit that Ozzie Prince of Darkness's post made me chuckle. Nuke Argentina! He certainly takes no prisoners...;)

I doubt that Argentina is going to try and invade the Falklands anytime soon. As for their nationalistic wishes and aspirations for the Malvinas, they'd be better off wishing for a better government and a healthy economy, and oh, yes, praying that Ozzie doesn't get his hand on the boomer button.

Black Sabbath War Pigs - YouTube

"Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor

Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait 'til their judgement day comes "

Caco

Andu
11th Mar 2013, 07:53
I don't think it matters one whit if 99.9999% of Falkland Islanders vote to remain British. The sad fact is, in not too many more years time, particularly after the UK military cuts become obvious to all,real politik will intrude and, one way or another, the Islanders will get shafted. Voids get filled, and that's an inescapable fact.

A future British Government will either quietly cut the Islanders loose, or a future Argentinian Government, desperate to take their citizenry's attention away from some future economic disaster or political crisis, will take the risk to fill that void. However incapable the Argentinian military may be, if they can put a force ashore by coup de main or sleight of hand, the UK will not be capable to mounting another 1982, either militarily, (or just as importantly, economically, for the treasury will be too bare).

You can posit arguments about stationing boomers off the South American coast, or more fanciful arguments of launching cruise missiles at B.A. or Argentinian military bases should the Argentinians do something precipitate over the Falklands, but the pressure the UK will suffer from the current or some future US President, to say nothing of the UN, to accept whatever is dished out by the Argentinians will be enormous.

If there was another Maggie Thatcher on the horizon, maybe the UK could withstand such political pressure, but I'm afraid I can't see anyone on either side of the UK political scene who's even a pale shadow of that lady when it comes to political resolve.

It's not as though the situation I'm stating above hasn't happened to the UK before. In 1956, Gamel Abdul Nasser, with a military that was a joke compared with what the UK was capable of fielding (and did field) at the time, took an enormous risk and occupied the Suez Canal Zone. I don't need to go into what happened there (or the critical role played by the US against UK interests then) - and the UK military's ability to project itself in 2013+ is certainly not was it was in 1956.

I suspect there'll be some, possibly many, who won't like what I've written here. That doesn't make it any less likely that it will come to pass. My advice to any Falkland Islander who really wants to stay there long term - start learning Spanish.

Cacophonix
11th Mar 2013, 08:12
You make sense and a lot of good points Andu but for all the truth about the way successive governments have screwed the British military and its ability to project power through cuts and incompetence I suspect two words namely "possible oil" will be a game changer. If the oil found offshore is likely to be profitable there is no way the UK will let the islands go. If I was an islander I'd be praying for oil and brushing up on my drilling techniques. No oil and your post may be depressingly germane.

From the military perspective the Argentinians would need to get boots on the ground. One British submarine able to sink whatever tub the Argentinians can afford to get to sea plus the presence of a couple of Typhoons on the island plus a much larger and better equipped and motivated British ground force will make the likely cost of a military invasion too high this time.

Ultimately the UK might find succour in working with the Argentinians to share some of the wealth that may lurk beneath the sea.

Caco

Wholigan
11th Mar 2013, 09:16
Kenya Did not even exist until 1963


I'm afraid I call "bolleaux" on this particular "fact".

I was collecting stamps from Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika in the 50s and early 60s.

As far as I know, Kenya became Kenya in 1920, but we mustn't let a good conspiracy become tainted by reality must we? This is definitely NOT a statement in support of Obama, it is merely a statement that it is pretty much self-defeating to make things up if you are going to have a conspiracy claim.

Also, have a little glance at this:

snopes.com: Barack Obama Birth Certificate (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp)

SpringHeeledJack
11th Mar 2013, 09:20
Wouldn't the discovery of oil and other mineral deposits within the Falklands zone make the chances of them (the islands) being let go a no no ?



SHJ

Romulus
11th Mar 2013, 09:28
Brief history of Kenya

HISTORY OF KENYA (http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ad21)

Cacophonix
11th Mar 2013, 10:05
As for American support in defending the Falkland islands I would suggest that as was the case in 1982, America would look to its interests in South America and like to appear to be neutral but would be willing to give covert support to Britain if push came to shove in keeping a left wing leader like Kirchner, who has a habit of nationalising foreign oil companies, out of control of any large oil reserves in the South Atlantic.

In 1982 America was a staunch ally of the right wing general Galtieri, who was seen as a bulwark against the left, but still provided missiles to the UK and offered the loan of an aircraft carrier when the shooting war started.

Obama might not be a great friend of Britain but realpolitik would prevail and I am sure strategically the US would prefer to have Britain in the Falklands rather than the Argentinians.

Of course Britain should never be blasé about American support as Eden found to his cost in the Suez canal imbroglio.

Caco

radeng
11th Mar 2013, 10:27
Why did so many Europeans want Obama? It was because he was seen as being slightly less bad than the alternative.

Like France - where the choice was between the 'bad' and the 'no better.'

stuckgear
11th Mar 2013, 11:08
Why did so many Europeans want Obama?

simply because of the promotion of socialism.. many European states have become inured to socialism, which seems to be sealing their destruction.

and of course Obama fits with the socialist dream and agenda.

Sallyann1234
11th Mar 2013, 11:55
I'm STILL baffled by how he came to be given the Nobel peace prize!

What the Fug
11th Mar 2013, 12:11
Am still baffled that he accepted it

RJM
11th Mar 2013, 12:48
I'm just baffled. Have been for years.

stuckgear
11th Mar 2013, 13:23
Am still baffled that he accepted it

really..


War breaks out among the committee for the Nobel Peace Prize:
Three of the five members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee had objections (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gOy7GLcrP7iQja3yU5Zu4BHMqFdw) to the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to US President Barack Obama, the Norwegian tabloid Verdens Gang (VG) reported Thursday…
In a surprise move last Friday, the Nobel committee attributed the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama less than nine months after he had taken office.
Moreover, nominations for this year’s prize closed just 11 days after Obama took office.
“The committee was unanimous,” its influential secretary Geir Lundestad told AFP on Friday.
But Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, who represented the right-wing populist Progress Party on the committee, led the way in objecting to the choice of Obama because she questioned his ability to keep his promises, the newspaper said.
Well, yes.
It also said the representative of the Conservative Party, Kaci Kullmann Five, and Aagot Valle, the representative of the Socialist Left, had objections.
The choice for Obama was however strongly supported by committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland and Sissel Roenbeck, both representatives of the Labour Party.
Jagland’s background?
Thorbjørn Jagland (Chairman) - President of the Storting, former Labor Prime Minister, vice president of the Socialist International, named by the KGB as a “confidential contact”. (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/obamas_nobel_the_left_rewards_its_own/)
A bigger joke by the day.


Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize Win Leads to Formal Investigation of Award | TheBlaze.com (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/02/01/obamas-nobel-peace-prize-win-leads-to-formal-investigation-of-award/)



and don't forget who the NPP was award to in 2012.. yes the European union..

Not so noble: EU?s Peace Prize win sparks debate over legitimacy ? RT News (http://rt.com/news/nobel-peace-prize-incakolanews-735/)

go to page 120 of the EU politics thread on more NPP hilarity..

as HB posted on page 121:

The "prize" is now given to whoever has the "right" cause, the "right" political view, and since the "right" cause was bombing the crap out of Libya as well as unending support for Syrian rebels, the invasion of Afghanistan, etc, as well as allowing unimpeded access to Islamic "freedom fighters" (terrorists) and the support of the "Palestinian Freedom Fighters" (terrorists), the EU (HA! Nobody asked me!!) won the prize because there was no other "right" cause to support. Only a true imbecile thinks that said "prize" has any meaning nowadays, which is why the EU leaders are creaming themselves over it.

and from ORAC:
Nobel Peace Prize: foul and unethical (http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=83232)


and from OFSO:

One hand washes the other
When the Chairman of the Nobel Prize Committee, Thorbjorn Jagland, awarded the 2012 Peace Prize to the European Union he announced it was to honour "the advancement of reconciliation and peace, democracy and human rights in Europe".

Is this perhaps the same Thorbjorn Jagland who is Director General of the Council of Europe which whilst not an EU instition is currently in deficit and pleading for funds from the...er... European Union.....

It surely is.


and some mouthpiece named stuckgear


there's more too.. Harald zur Hausen - Top 10 Nobel Prize Controversies - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2096389_2096388_2096385,00.html)



Clinching the 2008 Nobel Prize for Medicine for discovering that HPV causes cervical cancer was supposed to be Harald zur Hausen's moment in the limelight. Instead it cast a dark cloud over the entire Nobel organization and led to an investigation by the Swedish police. An anticorruption unit looked into charges of improper influence against AstraZeneca — a pharmaceutical company that had a large stake in two HPV vaccines — after it emerged that the company had strong links with two senior figures on the medicine prize's selection committee. Although charges were never brought, the process got murkier by the fact AstraZeneca had recently begun sponsoring the Nobel website.



though it is worth noting the EU didn't get the Nobel Prize in Economics.. that's next year


and more as well, there's been some very englightening posts on the corruption of the NPP, and the EU..

brickhistory
11th Mar 2013, 14:04
I read with some amusement and some sadness, the questioning of why Obama won reelection, much less his first term, from foreign, I presume British, ppruners.

May I point the right honorable gentlemen to the USA Politics Hamsterwheel where many of your fellow continentals were full of praise and prayers for Obama?

The voices, and pages, were much stronger and louder there than on this thread. Careful what you wish for and all that...

Regarding the Falklands, the post about realpolitik is valid, I think. I do think Obama would cut you loose if Argentina gives it another go. Which would be to America's shame.

However, in the end, it is your territory and they are your citizens.

No crying about what the US does or does not do if you aren't strong enough yourself to defend your interests on your own.

Vital national interests and all that.

broadreach
12th Mar 2013, 00:25
Depressing reading. The next few days will no doubt confirm the 100% "yes" result of the Falklands Referendum and ensure something of a lull in the Argentine "it's illegal" lobbying. It may even nudge the US slightly off the fence.

Any Falklander - and I include the few Argentinos and many Chileans who live there - would have to be insane to vote "no". Life is pretty good, even if rather chilly, under the present system; I'd venture to say better on average than in most of the UK itself.

Many talk about realpolitik. At times in the past several Argentine governments have understood the term but the present one just seems to blunder about like the proverbial bull in a china shop, souring relations not only with the "imperialists" but with all the countries with whom it shares borders - Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay. When you read about all Latin America supporting Argentina's claim to the Falklands, take it with a good dose of salt; it's political, the realpolitik price for trying to keep the loose cannon from blasting through the hull.

Rail Engineer
12th Mar 2013, 02:02
I read with some amusement and some sadness, the questioning of why Obama won reelection, much less his first term, from foreign, I presume British, ppruners.

May I point the right honorable gentlemen to the USA Politics Hamsterwheel where many of your fellow continentals were full of praise and prayers for Obama?Happy to say I was one who thought Obama would be a complete disaster for the USA, and said so during dinner with a number of Americans just before the Elections.

The sad fact is that the US Republican Party seems to have no equal in finding candidates who to use an US expression are all "Cookie".

Take the previous Candidate John McCain. Now whilst he had a good background he was really too old to take on the job. His Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin was (is) wonderfully good to look at but was completely out of her depth and said many stupid things. Unfortunately they were simply not up to the dirty tricks of the Obama regime.

Turning now to the last Election.

The Republican nominee Mitt Romney had impeccable business credentials and a good history however he never really got going until towardfs the end and was not seen as someone who was very good in debate. The Republicans also have a real problem with the various hard Right activists such as the Tea Party and its interesting to see that they were happy to let Obama back in to finish his destruction of the Country so long as they "won" the idealogical war of words.

Some Republicans made crazy comments, remember the two Senate nominees who made such stupid remarks about rape and then lost what were in effect solid Republican seats ?

On another track, the Republicans seem to have lost there way and failt o understand that 70% of the population of the US are either first language Spanish speakers or come from such families. Despite the fact that many of these fit into the Republican demographics, the Republicans are not seen as supportive and thus those votes were either lost to Obama simply because he played the stage for them, or else the votes were not cast.

Either way the Right Wing in the US is a complete mess and the perception (to me at least) is that the Republicans are incapable of fielding any candidate who holds any sort of long term credibility and who can be trusted to hold the views held by the majority.

Stupid way off centre beliefs and comments are what have destroyed the Republicans as a Political force, and unless and until they face up to the fact that not only are 70% of the population nare on-indigenous Americans, but also that the majority public have moved towards more liberal values, then the dont stand a snowballs chance in hell of taking the Democrats out in the next Election.

That said of course, that will be the Election to make absolutely certain you lose because the pain that the US is going to have to go through will be blamed on the winner who, like the UK, will have to impose such unpopular economic policies, that they will likely as not be unelectable again for a further two or three terms !

One could propose the argument that the Republicans should sit it out until the Democrats have totally destroyed the US because they will then have destroyed themselves for ever.

brickhistory
12th Mar 2013, 02:28
Yep, the Republicans did shoot themselves in the foot.

Repeatedly.

And it is uncanny how the Democrats did not.

Or is it because of a tame national and international press? Lots and lots of Democratic snafus, from candidates to office holders, that didn't seem to make much of a splash and get 24/7 coverage like those same Republican gaffes did.

Funny that.

But a Republican isn't likely to say the Falklands are 'The Maldives,' or to offer to arbitrate British 'claims.'

As to Mrs. Palin being dumb - hmmm, college graduate, small business owner, chief executive of a state, one of 50. Mr. Obama, college graduate (although exactly how he gained entry into several Ivy League schools is shrouded in mystery), prior to being President, was a community organizer (I've yet to see a job description for that), a part-time college professor, and, briefly, a US senator, one of 100.

We can discuss his admitted drug use, his not letting his grades be released, or any of a multitude of other information that seems to be fair game against Republicans, but strangely not him, or any of numerous other curious instances.

But,as this thread is about the Falklands referendum, perhaps further direct analysis of the US Presidential selection should go to the existing hamsterwheel on the suject?

Matari
12th Mar 2013, 02:48
Most JBlast political threads eventually turn to the US, and follow a nifty, all-purpose formula.

The script begins with showing up late, then careens to stealing all the good inventions, stumbles into making bad beer, then sobers up to cover blue on blue deaths, and then, of course condemns tipping for bad tea. And to really make the point, throw in a George Bush reference. See how easy that was?

sitigeltfel
12th Mar 2013, 05:27
1513 for staying British, 3 against in a 90% turnout. 1517 votes cast....was there one spoiled paper?

BBC News - Falklands referendum: Voters choose to remain UK territory (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21750909)

stuckgear
12th Mar 2013, 10:23
brick.. i agree with you. personally i've seen through Barry from the start..

No crying about what the US does or does not do if you aren't strong enough yourself to defend your interests on your own


:D:D:D:D:D

and then..

:D:D:D:D:D

Ant T
12th Mar 2013, 10:56
Referendum on moving this thread to USA Hamsterwheel due to almost total lack of relevance to thread title -

Yes - 99.8%
No - 0.2%

:):)

Backtrack
12th Mar 2013, 11:17
Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Adress:

"...and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

(Apologies if I've got this wrong - no offence intended. Like many, have become a limey/pommy, armchair, US constitutional expert after watching the movie, 'Lincoln'!).

Now that 'the people' (ie, the islanders) have spoken, will Obama stand by the above, or has he included a rider "so long as that government is Argentinian".

Rail Engineer
12th Mar 2013, 11:31
brickhistory
From my perpsective across the pond here, the 2008 Presidential Election was lost before it had even started.

Was a 70 year old Presidential nominee and a vice Presidential nominee with no national experience and an unknown outside of Alaska really the right mix ?

It should have been obvious that the media would go for her, and the fact that by the third major interview she was already being criticised for her lack of knowledge of world affairs, and fairly basic errors - for example she spoke of reading newspapers widely but couldn't name one. It was from around then on that the Republicans as a credible force basically spiralled down to earth, not helped by the fact that John McCain did not prove to be an orator who was able to tap into the national feeling, at least not until it was too late.

the 2012 election saw many Republican candidates being beaten by Tea Party candidates who had not a hope of winning in a Presidential campaign and so a number of strong Republican seats were in effect thrown away to the Democrats for nothing in 2012.

It is the case I believe that the Democrats have a much better control and command mechanism, certainly with regards to keeping their extreme advocates out of the way. They also manage very cleverly to play the man not the ball, a tactic that they continue to use and for which the Republicans appear to have no strategy to counteract. They do this because in its heart most Americans are not Socialists but Obama and the Democrats have managed to demonise the Republican party as a group of Neo-Fascist Right Wingers and I am sorry to have to say that some of the rantings which emanate from the Republican party do tend to support that.

Again it is my belief that until the Republicans take on a root and branch review they will stay as the runner-up. Many of their Policies are no longer popular with middle America, itself having changed beyond all recognition in the past 20 years to such a state that the greater part of the lower and middle income earning sections of the US can outvote the Republicans permanently

stuckgear
12th Mar 2013, 11:43
1513 for staying British, 3 against in a 90% turnout. 1517 votes cast....was there one spoiled paper?



let's see how the beloved Barry recognises democratic choice there..

what with his Nobel Peace Prize..

Kirchner will ignore it anyway.. the harridan just needs to get laid.

Rail Engineer
12th Mar 2013, 11:46
Ant T
The US has a strong political hold over South America for a variety of reasons, one not least being the fact that the US is a major trading partner and the supplier of various types of aid.

At the end of the day despite the fact that Brazil is a big friend to the UK, and UK/Brazillian trade is growing, they have to counter the usual Argentinian approach of trying to involve other Countries by claiming that the Falklands is more of a South America versus the UK issue (with some sympathy as well it has to be said).

The combined weight of pressure on Countries to come together on the basis that they should support "attacks" on another racially allied Country (based upon a common Spanish history) brings its own threats especially to the Left wing Government now running Brazil. Add to that mix, covert Political pressure from the US and you can see why the US and its Politics do actually have a relevance.

Given Obamas thorough dislike of the UK I have no doubt he is mounting pressure behind the scenes within South America towards a position that the Argentinians have a legitimate claim on the Falkland Isklands, and this can be evinced by the fact that until recently Argentina was the major outlet for the Falklands trade.

500N
12th Mar 2013, 12:02
Rail

The US can try to influence but at the end of the day,
- the vote is exactly how the UN likes things determined
- The UK can and will apply pressure on the US to shut up
and butt out.
- The people of the Falklands will tell the US et al to piss off,
they can do and say what they want but the people of the Falklands
will do what they want.

Just my HO.

Rail Engineer
12th Mar 2013, 12:29
500N
I dont dispute your point but what I would say is that the Falklands depends on South America for trade and for communication.

The Argentinian boycott of goods from the Falklands is having a notable impact on both economies.

Unfortunately Cameron is no Mrs Thatcher and would not have the balls to tell Obama to go play with himself.

As I have said before, the US needs the UK more than we need the US, however 13 years of acting as a lapdog to Bush and Obama have changed our Political power as can be seen by Obama's view that France is a better friend of the US that the UK :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Most of the Wars that we have ended up being involved in have been brought about through our blindly following along in the wake of US foreign policy and being identified in such a way with that as to piss off considerably some Countries with which we had no previous differences. What is right for the US is almost without doubt NOT right for the UK and what is needed now is a foreign policy that does not mirror what Obama demands.

The totally pointless war in Iraq has cost the UK £bns, has led to the creation of a viable terrorist organisation that will be around for years and has alienated the UK within the Middle East as well as generating a whole domestic problem that will be with us for generations as the adherents to their anti-UK beliefs are the sort who keep hatred and perceived wrongdoing simmering on a medium heat for Centuries.

The UK went to war in the Balkans to PROTECT the Muslims but one never ever hears one bit of positive commentary to that fact from UK-based Muslim leaders. Everything is based on a so called "War" that Britain is engaged in against them. A war manufactured by the USA to benefit the USA.

At the end of the day the USA can simply pull down the shutters and return to an isolationist approach to Europe (as it did until Pearl Harbour). It is geograohically able to do so, unlike the UK.

It is to Obama's benefit to make the Falklands into a bigger issue, especially given the high percentage of Spanish speaking Americans who have come from South America and whose ultimate loyalty will be to their home country. As soon as Obama perceives that he can gain Political capital he will openly come out in favour of a "solution" to the Falklands, very probably but laughingly positioning himself as a mediator or trustworthy go-between when in all probability he will have been pressurising the various South American Countries to come along the US line through carefully planned economic and trade agreements.

airship
12th Mar 2013, 13:16
Should they be:

1) Sent to a lunatic asylum for a long period, suitably hosed down with a fire-hose at least once a day?

2) Tried for treason, repatriated to the UK and rapidly be hung, drawn and quartered?

3) Quietly abducted and extraordinarily-rendered to a 3rd country for suitable punishment?

4) Issued ASBOs, prohibiting them from doing their own shopping personally?

5) Be deported to Venzuela?

Sallyann1234
12th Mar 2013, 13:27
None of the above. It's a demonstration that in a democracy, people are allowed to say and do stupid things. It hasn't degraded the result in any way.

hval
12th Mar 2013, 13:33
airship,

I agree with Sallyann1234. People are entitled to their own opinion. I would be interested to learn why they voted as they did.

Blacksheep
12th Mar 2013, 13:38
The referendum result was pretty much a foregone conclusion, but it is worth noting that it was their own referendum, not Westminster's. As to the history of the islands and the Argentine claims of "colonialism" they base their claims upon the Spanish who set up the Buenos Aires colony. Which is much closer to Patagonia then Buenos Aires. And is not the Buenos Aires/Argentine annexation of Patagonia an act of colonialism? as was their armed struggle with Chile over the territory?

Argentina needs to look at its own history very carefully before playing the colonial card. If they are successful, the Patagonian natives may well take their own case to the United Nations.

Lightning Mate
12th Mar 2013, 13:40
This is as expected, but it won't make any difference at all to Kirchner.

She will continue to rant as usual.

Ancient Mariner
12th Mar 2013, 13:42
Brickhistory: However, in the end, it is your territory and they are your citizens.
No crying about what the US does or does not do if you aren't strong enough yourself to defend your interests on your own.
Vital national interests and all that.
I seem to vaguely remember a certain superpower asking for international assistance on their "war on terror".
Per

yotty
12th Mar 2013, 14:03
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6ouyeycWk8

AlpineSkier
12th Mar 2013, 14:11
The 3 who voted against in the referendum...

airship

They should be left peacefully to stare deeply into their embracing chalice of Ballantines and conjure in their minds how things might have been ......

MagnusP
12th Mar 2013, 14:36
The three voted against the status quo. I suspect we'll never know whether they were pro-Argentinian or simply for a change in status from being a British Overseas Territory.

brickhistory
12th Mar 2013, 15:03
I seem to vaguely remember a certain superpower asking for international
assistance on their "war on terror".


Absolutely.

Don't infer that I personally think that the US should wash its hands of the UK and/or the Falklands, merely that the darling of the leftist world - Obama - most likely will.

From that, if, to protect its own national interests, the UK can't do anything but talk sternly if the Argentines try again to take what isn't theirs, then it is silly to blame the US for the weakness of the UK.

And more than a few countries said "no" when starting the Iraq War. Why did they decline? Because it wasn't in their interests.

At some point, a nation has to take responsibility for its own actions.

It's convenient to have a scapegoat, but not logical or constructive to resolving the problem.

BenThere
12th Mar 2013, 20:20
As I have said before, the US needs the UK more than we need the US

Rail Engineer,

I don't think so. Furthermore, the trend suggests the US will need the UK less and less as time passes and Asia becomes the focus.

The truth is that the US and UK need what we were in the past, bulwarks of civilization in a tumultuous world. Thatcher and Reagan were up to it and saw it through. Both our nations' leaderships and electorates today are lacking, and we're in the process of paying the price.

Today we are both reduced, trying simply to survive in a competitive world.

Cheers, to what we once were.

Rail Engineer
12th Mar 2013, 22:26
BenThere
They are still very reliant upon GCHQ, the use of our airfields, and our support both in the Intelligence field as well as military support.

You are right of course about Asia, but the UK has a much better historic relationship with Asia compared to the USA and does not have the baggage of being considered to be the big bully in the schoolyard who wants to poilce the whole playground.

For all Obama's rhetoric, there are still a huge number of places where a US passport is a hindrance rather than a help.

Andu
12th Mar 2013, 22:32
If I may play devil's advocate for one moment: surely the Argentinians could argue that the Falklands referendum could be compared to the British Government holding a referendum in Northern Ireland in 1922 to see whether the inhabitants of the six counties wanted to maintain links with Britain - where the majority of voters in those six counties were staunchly Protestant Scots who'd been imported by the very same British government into Ireland?

I know the comparison doesn't hold water in all regards, but, purely from an Argentinian perspective, you have to admit that they might see it that way.

I stand by my comments made earlier on this thread: the *** politicians - British, American and and Argentinian - notwithstanding David Cameron's gushing rhetoric this morning, will end up forcing the hapless Falkland Islanders to sit on the rough end of the pineapple.

AlpineSkier
12th Mar 2013, 22:41
If I may play devil's advocate for one moment: surely the Argentinians could argue that the Falklands referendum could be compared to the British Government holding a referendum in Northern Ireland in 1922 to see whether the inhabitants of the six counties wanted to maintain links with Britain - where the majority of voters in those six counties were staunchly Protestant Scots who'd been imported by the very same British government into Ireland?

I know the comparison doesn't hold water in all regards,

As I understand it, there were never any Argentinian settlers so your comparison holds no water at all.

G-CPTN
12th Mar 2013, 23:46
From Wiki:- Argentina claims that, in 1833, the UK expelled Argentine authorities and settlers from the Falklands with a threat of "greater force" and that the UK afterwards barred Argentines from resettling the islands.

Andu
13th Mar 2013, 00:39
Sorry, AlpineSkier, but I think you're missing my point. Whether there were Argentinian settlers in situ at some time or whether there weren't makes no difference to the argument I was attempting to make. My point was that those voting (in the Northern Ireland case, a smallish majority, most of whom were Scots/English ex-soldiers who'd served in Ireland and were encouraged by the British government to stay on to quite literally 'stack the deck' with as many loyal Protestants as they could; in the Falklands case, damn near everyone) are people who moved there from the same nation now asking whether they want to remain part of that nation.

I tend to agree with your argument over Wikipedia's - the only Argentinian 'settlers' I'm aware on the islands in question of were a very small number of sealers or whalers, most of whom would have been there only for as long as their employers kept paying them, and not for one second longer. But of course, the 21st Century Argentinian spin doctors won't see it that way - they'll be made to look like steely-eyed South American versions of the pioneers on the 'Mayflower'. (And on that last point, I'm afraid, Barak Obama will fall in with them.)

Ant T
13th Mar 2013, 00:51
Argentina claims that, in 1833, the UK expelled Argentine authorities and settlers from the Falklands with a threat of "greater force" and that the UK afterwards barred Argentines from resettling the islands.

The historical record shows that in January 1833 Captain Onslow of HMS Clio expelled only an Argentinian garrison who had been on the islands for less than 3 months, and whose despatch had been formally protested by the British charge d'affaires within 3 days of their leaving Buenos Aires, as the British had an existing claim to the islands. (During that garrison's short stay they had mutinied against and murdered their own Commander). The other 33 people in the islands, not all of whom were residents, were invited to remain, and 22 chose to, including 12 Argentinians. The civilian population was NOT expelled.
Incidentally, the Argentinians consider the Falklands to be part of Patagonia (it appears on thier maps as part of their Tierra del Fuego province). However, in 1833 Argentina's Southern border was just south of Buenos Aires - Patagonia was not conquered (by violent bloody war - thousands of indigenous inhabitants killed) until the 1870's.

broadreach
14th Mar 2013, 01:09
Quite amazing how columnists in Argentina have finally come out of the closet in almost praise of self-determination, decrying the war of words their government has waged of late, and drawing comparisons with their country's own annexation of adjacent territories and near extinction of the indigenous tribes of Patagonia - well after the Falklands were consolidated as British territory.

The referendum does, now at least, look like a severe diplomatic blow to Argentina's claims on the islands, despite the arguments that it's illegal, invalid, etc.

Earlier this week Vale, a Brazilian mining company, suspended indefinitely the development of its Rio Colorado potash project, originally budgeted at $5.9 billion and the largest ever foreign investment in Argentina. Vale have reportedly already spent $2.2 billion on it but have for more than months been complaining that their difference between the official dollar exchange rate and the unofficial, plus inflation, means their overall projected investment would be $11 billion. Put more simply, they had to pay labour and sub-contractors at the unofficial rate but could only bring in dollars at the official one. Vale have also had huge problems negotiating with provincial governments who wanted a bigger slice of the pie for allowing it to build a 790km railway through their provinces to the port of Bahia Blanca, where they had also intended to build a terminal for loading the potash.

The goose who was in the process of laying a golden egg has now given up and farted. The Argeninian central and provincial governments are still staggering, a bit in denial, considering retaliation, nationalization, whatever. It is a tremendous political setback for the government.

And on top of all this comes the election of a Franciscan Argentine cardinal who's been estranged from the regime for years, as POPE.

What next? God help Argentina to get out of this mess, to bury its Peronista and now Kirchnerista legacy and resume integrating itself with the rest of the world.

500N
14th Mar 2013, 01:27
If the US gets too loud in it's support of the Argies,
the UK could start to make very loud noises in
support of Canada over the Northwest Passage.

Don't think the US would be very happy about that.

Ozzy
14th Mar 2013, 02:41
Well done FI....

20th Century Battlefields - Falklands War - YouTube

Ozzy

ChrisJ800
14th Mar 2013, 11:04
Interesting words on the Falklands spoken previously by the new pope:
Falkland Islanders greet election of Argentine as Pope Francis I with surprise - Americas - World - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/falkland-islanders-greet-election-of-argentine-as-pope-francis-i-with-surprise-8533715.html)

"We come to pray for those who have fallen, sons of the country who went out to defend their mother country, to reclaim that which is theirs and was usurped from them."

"Go and kiss this land which is ours, and seem to us far away."

Hope he can come to understand the FI views too.

cavortingcheetah
14th Mar 2013, 11:36
All the Pope has to do is to declare the entire area of Las Malvinas as an unconsecrated, unhallowed or accursed ground. That means that no Christian burials or internment of ashes could take place in that province of the Argentine. This would effectively render all dead Falklanders into Zombies, which might be as appropriate in death as in life. An exception would of course have to be made, in the Zeitgeist of diplomacy, for the burial sites of those heroic (and I mean that) British and Argentine servicemen who gave their lives so many years ago for what was a political enterprise on the part of both their governments.

Ancient Observer
14th Mar 2013, 12:06
The great thing about history is that one can pick a time in the past which suits one's arguments.

Never mind the Falklands.

What about the whole of the Middle east? (Including Israel).

For over 300 years it was a Christian place, until invaded by a wild bunch of Saudi tribesmen. (And they didn't know that they were Saudi - that's a twentieth century invention)

So when are the Christians of the world going to liberate the Middle east?

radeng
14th Mar 2013, 12:25
Didn't the Christians try it and fail - with four Crusades?

charliegolf
14th Mar 2013, 14:31
If the US gets too loud in it's support of the Argies,
the UK could start to make very loud noises in
support of Canada over the Northwest Passage.

Don't think the US would be very happy about that.

Don't think they'd give a toot, frankly.

CG

BenThere
14th Mar 2013, 17:25
Once the war with Islam is fully engaged by the civilized world, the Middle East issues will disappear.

Krystal n chips
14th Mar 2013, 18:13
" [I]Once the war with Islam is fully engaged by the civilized world, the Middle East issues will disappear[/I

On that basis, presumably you lack the literacy skills to understand the word civilised then?. The irony that the Middle East, as a whole, is viewed as being the cradle of civilisation is, possibly, too complex for your understanding I feel.

There again, being unaware of any declaration of war against Islam ( do you have a link at all? ) then I think it's fair to say that my own, and a few million others on this planet, have a somewhat different understanding of the term "civilised world"......thankfully.

And now, back to why the Falklands elected to remain under British jurisdiction.

BenThere
14th Mar 2013, 18:18
On that basis, presumably you lack the literacy skills to understand the word civilised then?

On what basis would you make that presumption, Your Eminence?

cavortingcheetah
14th Mar 2013, 18:22
A civilised world might be as the Christians envisaged the Muslims who lived in Granada, Spain, surrounded by fountains and running water, orange trees, gentle breezes, servants and slaves, art work and sobriety, warm nights and scented days and endless virgins, for a while at any rate. Then along came a couple of Roman Catholic monarchs and that wrecked civilisation for ever.

hval
14th Mar 2013, 18:27
KnC,

The irony that the Middle East, as a whole, is viewed as being the cradle of civilisation

Since when? ROTFL. Nae chance. Glasgow is, was, and always will be.

Krystal n chips
14th Mar 2013, 18:32
" On what basis would you make that presumption, Your Eminence "

Thank you for the compliment, alas, I was not a contender for the recent vacancy at the Vatican.

No presumption was required however with the categorical statement you posted or indeed clarification.

hval
14th Mar 2013, 18:41
Actually KnC,

Joking aside, parts of Asia and the Andes are also considered cradles of civilisation. Also not all of the Middle East is considered "A Cradle of Civilisation"; only parts of it are.

But I know, as should everyone else that Glasgow and Buckfast Abbey are actually the only two true cradles of civilisation

BenThere
14th Mar 2013, 18:46
May I consider that a graceful withdrawal?

Cradles are associated with infancies, not culminations.

hval
14th Mar 2013, 18:49
KnC,

On that basis, presumably you lack the literacy skills to understand the word civilised then?

As per usual you are abusive and rude. Do you really believe that a civilisation remains civilised? For ever?

To return your rudeness, might I suggest you lack the literacy skills to read history and the ability to understand history?