US won't accept Falklander's rights to self determination

[Tez3]

I don't see that as double talk. I see it as as trying to hold a neutral position.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

A neutral position would be welcomed, ignoring the Falkland Islanders is not being neutral.

 

[James Kovacich]

I think America could find themselves increasingly isolated from the rest of the world, the UK has the Commonwealth for support, a good part of the world is looking to China and India as having the 'new' money. Business corporations are finding China 'friendlier' than before.
[/URL]

you go ahead and bank on China. I've seen this on TV several times the last couple of years discussing Chinas "ghost cities" and their real estate bubble. The one this past weekend showed how Chinas middle class does not trust the stock market and instead invests in up to 5 or 6 homes but nobody moves into the ghost cites. These are full fledged modern cities with malls, stores, restaurants etc etc. All empty.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-04/chinas-housing-bubble-goes-mainstream-america




Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[celtic_crippler]

We are an independent nation, member of the Commonwealth

Technically:

Canada has a parliamentary system within the context of a constitutional monarchy, the monarchy of Canada being the foundation of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The sovereign is Queen Elizabeth II, who also serves as head of state of 15 other Commonwealth countries and each of Canada's ten provinces. As such, the Queen's representative, the Governor General of Canada (at present David Lloyd Johnston), carries out most of the federal royal duties in Canada

A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state within the Commonwealth of Nations that currently has Elizabeth II as its reigning constitutional monarch and shares a common royal line of succession with the other realms

Anyway... back on topic

This is very interesting... though I said it in jest earlier:

In 1982, the Falkland Island Company owned 43% of the land on the islands and it had a monopoly on all imports and exports. The primary export was wool and sheepskins. At the time in the early 1980’s there was talk of oil reserves being found off the coast of the Falklands

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/background_falkland_islands.htm

Ya know... guess I was right...

http://www.desireplc.co.uk/pdfs/Desire_2011_CPR_Report.pdf

 

[celtic_crippler]

you go ahead and bank on China. I've seen this on TV several times the last couple of years discussing Chinas "ghost cities" and their real estate bubble. The one this past weekend showed how Chinas middle class does not trust the stock market and instead invests in up to 5 or 6 homes but nobody moves into the ghost cites. These are full fledged modern cities with malls, stores, restaurants etc etc. All empty.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-04/chinas-housing-bubble-goes-mainstream-america




Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

Yeah, those in the "know" have realized that China's reported GDP is about as real as unicorns and leprechauns. LOL

 

[Tez3]

you go ahead and bank on China. I've seen this on TV several times the last couple of years discussing Chinas "ghost cities" and their real estate bubble. The one this past weekend showed how Chinas middle class does not trust the stock market and instead invests in up to 5 or 6 homes but nobody moves into the ghost cites. These are full fledged modern cities with malls, stores, restaurants etc etc. All empty.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-04/chinas-housing-bubble-goes-mainstream-america




Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

I didn't say anthing about us relying on China, I said a good part of the world is...Africa for a start. Whatever they are doing in China itself they are pouring money into a lot of other countries.

Canada can decide to be totally independant and have their own head of state anytime they want. They aren't forced to have the Queen as head of state, they chose to.

 

[pgsmith]

I'm sorry, but if you are expecting US politicians to do anything that doesn't result in more money in their pockets, you are going to be sadly disappointed. Seems to me that US politicians are saying that they think they can get more from the Argentinian government than they can from the Falkland Islanders, so that's what they press for.

Never forget that US politics these days is ONLY about money and power.

 

[oftheherd1]

Other than recalling a thread some time ago, I wasn't aware there was anything current going on about the Faulklands. Sorry to our Commonwealth friends.

But for a man like Kerry to say what he did, to be kind, is a new Secretary of State trying to be in line with the administration and not cause waves. To be more honest, when you read

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me be very clear about our position with respect to the Falklands, which I believe is clear. First of all, I’m not going to comment, nor is the President, on a referendum that has yet to take place and hasn’t taken place.

Our position on the Falklands has not changed. The United States recognizes de facto UK administration of the islands, but takes no position on the question of the parties’ sovereignty claims thereto. And we support cooperation between UK and Argentina on practical matters, and we continue to urge a peaceful resolution of that critical issue. And I think that’s exactly what our position has been, that’s what it remains, and we look forward to the future.

That is classic double-talk and some gibberish liberally thrown in. He tried, but I don't think it came out right. What his and President Obama's reasons are I don't know. President Obama isn't my favorite president anyway. Truely Kerry didn't say anything really wrong, or that the government can't quickly change and clarify to mean something else. But there are potential problems in South America. Chavez is about to kick the bucket from all appearences. His brother may not be able to hold on to power. We may not want to antagonize Argentina right now.

But I doubt even Obama is going to disrespect the UK. He may not fully support something publicly, but behind the scenes, he may have pointed out to the UK government why he is doing what he is doing. At least I hope so. And I hope it makes enough sense to the UK government, that they aren't going to raise a lot of sand about it. But who knows if you don't walk in that rarified atmosphere?

BTW, someone mentioned the US didn't assist the UK before. As I recall at the time, we did provide a lot of intel that greatly aided the UK forces, especially naval, to conduct their activities. We didn't send ships but I don't know that the UK really expected or even desired that. The UK had a beef with Argentina. If the US had intervened militarily, the US, and maybe then the UK, would have had a beef with all of South America.

Anyway, this US citizen isn't too happy about Kerry's reply or apparent stance on the matter. Whatever the realities of the regional political arena may be, and whether or not the UK government is upset, I just think it could have been handled better. And I also understand that the UK has indeed been a friend of the US in most, if not all things in the last century. I don't think we have done that badly towards the UK either.

 

[James Kovacich]

Good grief! Canada isn't a colony! We don't actually have any colonies any more.

It's not the being neutral that's a problem it's the refusing to accept the Falkland Islanders wishes for a referendum for independence that's causing concern here. The Americans have their independence so why so keen to ignore the Falklanders wishes? By ignoring the Islanders America isn't being neutral but accepting the Argentinian's idea that the Islanders should be left out of any discussions which clearly isn't going to happen. The wishes of the Islanders must be paramount, if America can't understand that then many feel America doesn't treasure their own independence enough to want to see others have theirs.

Our independence is different, we fought for ours. Independence is what’s best for the people, which in this situation is your business not ours. We fought the Spanish to give Cuba it’s independence. They turned around and wanted us to leave which we did. (thats the short version) They could have had the same rights as Puerto Rico or Guam but instead they chose Communism.

Americans in general are not choosing sides. For us it’s not so black and white.

 

[CanuckMA]

I didn't say anthing about us relying on China, I said a good part of the world is...Africa for a start. Whatever they are doing in China itself they are pouring money into a lot of other countries.

Canada can decide to be totally independant and have their own head of state anytime they want. They aren't forced to have the Queen as head of state, they chose to.

We are totally independent. When's the last time the Queen interfered with our legislative process. She is our nominal head of state. With no real powers.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Shold be the US' new national anthem:

"Cash rules everything around me, CREAM, get tha' money!... dolla-dolla bill y'all!"

 

[James Kovacich]

Good grief! Canada isn't a colony! We don't actually have any colonies any more.

It's not the being neutral that's a problem it's the refusing to accept the Falkland Islanders wishes for a referendum for independence that's causing concern here. The Americans have their independence so why so keen to ignore the Falklanders wishes? By ignoring the Islanders America isn't being neutral but accepting the Argentinian's idea that the Islanders should be left out of any discussions which clearly isn't going to happen. The wishes of the Islanders must be paramount, if America can't understand that then many feel America doesn't treasure their own independence enough to want to see others have theirs.

Your commonwealth is voluntary but it is still much larger than our small number of 9 territories.
http://answers.usa.gov/system/selfs...=1000&PARTITION_ID=1&TIMEZONE_OFFSET=18000000

versus your 123 commonwealths.
http://www.cdncovers.com/BC.html

You have your hands in many affairs but we get bitched at for sticking our noses all over the world. Then we get bitched at when we don’t.

 

[ballen0351]

So why do the islanders or the UK need the US permission anyway. Why do you care what we say? You can take the args with no problem without our help of it came to war so what's the problem. You cry we get to involved in thing then when we don't you cry were not helping.

 

[Tez3]

Your commonwealth is voluntary but it is still much larger than our small number of 9 territories.
http://answers.usa.gov/system/selfs...=1000&PARTITION_ID=1&TIMEZONE_OFFSET=18000000

versus your 123 commonwealths.
http://www.cdncovers.com/BC.html

You have your hands in many affairs but we get bitched at for sticking our noses all over the world. Then we get bitched at when we don’t.

You honestly think all those countries are ours? Really you need to look them us, it's The Commonwealth not the British Commonwealth, many of member countries don't have the Queen as head of state such as Pakistan. Some countries such as Mozambique and Rwanda have never had anything to do with the UK.

http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/191086/191247/the_commonwealth/



the thing with the Falklands is that you aren't being neutral you are sticking your nose in with your support for Argentina.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/n...slaps-britain-in-the-face-over-the-falklands/

"Hillary Clinton’s statements at this press conference are highly significant, as they demonstrate a clear shift in US policy from neutrality (last week’s position) towards siding with the Argentine position of pressing for negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands at the United Nations.
The Secretary of State, a highly skilled political operator, knows exactly what she is doing here. She is giving her full support for the official stance of Buenos Aires, despite the fact that Great Britain has made it clear that the sovereignty of the Falklands is non-negotiable. She makes no reference at all to the fact that Argentina recently threatened a blockade of the Falklands, or that its close ally Venezuela has been threatening war against Britain"

Why do we care? because if it comes to war and America takes Argentina's side, arms them and supports them what do you think will happen?

 

[ballen0351]

What do I think will happen? If you go to war with arg. Wewill stay nnatural in public but I have no doubt Obama would back door you and supply arms right the enemy.

 

[Tez3]

What do I think will happen? If you go to war with arg. Wewill stay nnatural in public but I have no doubt Obama would back door you and supply arms right the enemy.

I'm not sure I want to see you au natural........

Sell us arms you mean and to the Argentinians?

 

[ballen0351]

I'm not sure I want to see you au natural........

But I'm pretty

Sell us arms you mean and to the Argentinians?

No that would be to obvious. We will pay one of their buddy's to buy Chinese arms for them. Back door style.

 

[James Kovacich]

What do I think will happen? If you go to war with arg. Wewill stay nnatural in public but I have no doubt Obama would back door you and supply arms right the enemy.

Argintina isn't our enemy.

 

[Tez3]

Argintina isn't our enemy.

No one said they were.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Yeah... I know... I'm genuine **** sometimes. But, it makes me laugh.

 

[James Kovacich]

No one said they were.

Post #34 "but I have no doubt Obama would back door you and supply arms right the enemy."

Which implied Argentina was the enemy.

But that was not your post.