Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama neutral on Maldives or should that be Malvinas??

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    According to The Globe and Mail Obama supported Canada's position against a resolution supporting Argentina's claim at the recent meeting of the Summit of the America's. Here is the quote from Saturdays's Globe:

    At the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, this month, Latin American leaders pushed hard for a resolution supporting Argentina's claim to the Falkland Islands. Stephen Harper pushed back.

    In a private session with leaders, according to people who know, the Prime Minister fiercely supported the right of the islanders to determine their fate, and they had chosen to remain British. For Canada, this was a matter of deep principle, Mr. Harper insisted. The United States has always been neutral on the Falklands, but when Canada took the lead, President Barack Obama made it clear he backed Mr. Harper. The resolution failed.

    Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner was furious. This is pointless. Why did I even come here? the Argentinean president was overheard saying as she stormed out of the conference.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Scupio View Post
      http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ni...the-falklands/

      President Obama says that the USA is neutral on the question of British Sovereignty on the Maldives - (read Malvinas - or to those Islanders apparently to be evicted at sometime in the future - Falklands).
      Actually, his idiotic administration is neutral (leaning toward Argentina) on this question of British Soveriegnty. He doesn't speak for the US in this, because I'm damned sure not neutral on the subject. The Falklands are British territory. No more complicated than that.
      The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post
        According to The Globe and Mail Obama supported Canada's position against a resolution supporting Argentina's claim at the recent meeting of the Summit of the America's. Here is the quote from Saturdays's Globe:
        Well that makes it a lot better. He'd have still been better saying nothing publicly in the first place.

        Got to be honest I really don't know what his problem is or for that matter now rant mode is off if he has a problem.

        I suppose the moral of this story is be careful whose grand dad you torture.
        "Sometimes its better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness" T Pratchett

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by lirelou View Post
          NATO was set up to defend Europe against Soviet expansion, and has never been viewed as applying to the Americas.
          Does the NATO treaty specifically limit itself to Europe? Refusing to follow the letter of the treaty by claiming ti going against the spirit offers a family-sized Pandora's box, you can always claim that a treaty does not apply on a specific case because of something unwritten.

          Originally posted by Mackie View Post
          Yet NATO is fighting in Afghanistan, which is well outside of Europe, as a result of the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks.
          I think territorial limitations only apply to where the victim is, not where the aggressor is from, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor attack would have triggered any alliance deserving of the name, a Soviet strike against America would also have been a NATO case.
          Reaction to the 2016 Munich shootings:
          Europe: "We are shocked and support you in these harsh times, we stand by you."
          USA: "We will check people from Germany extra-hard and it is your own damn fault for being so stupid."

          Comment


          • #20
            I opened the link, and all I saw was talk about the Falklands, not the Malvinas or Maldives.
            Sorry I showed only this link which indeed only mentions Falklands by name but according to another report President Obama made the unfortunate gaff of referring to the Islands as Maldives (of course he meant Malvinas).

            If you read one of comment by one of the contributors posts there is mention of this.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post


              This is the Maldives.




              This is the Falklands.


              Sort of hard to mix the two up.
              Fix'd.
              A wild liberal appears! Conservative uses logical reasoning and empirical evidence! It's super effective! Wild liberal faints.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by lirelou View Post
                I'm well aware of what Great Britain calls the islands, but a good friend of mine commanded an Argentine Marine battalion there, and I happen to know from first hand testimony that the British Paras held the Argie Marines in high respect.
                And?!

                What did those Argentine's marines think of the British Para's? Any first hand testimony this?

                Perhaps those marines saw the para's (along with the rest of the British force) as gods of war.

                Paul
                ‘Tis said his form is tiny, yet
                All human ills he can subdue,
                Or with a bauble or medal
                Can win mans heart for you;
                And many a blessing know to stew
                To make a megloamaniac bright;
                Give honour to the dainty Corse,
                The Pixie is a little shite.

                Comment


                • #23
                  The 9/11 attacks on the US triggered a response from Britain under the authority of NATO. IIRC, it involved sending some NATO AWACS and some other aircraft.


                  Philip
                  "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." Bertrand Russell

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by philiplaos View Post
                    The 9/11 attacks on the US triggered a response from Britain under the authority of NATO. IIRC, it involved sending some NATO AWACS and some other aircraft.


                    Philip
                    More than that. For the first time Article 5 of the NATO agreement was invoked, which is as follows:

                    The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

                    Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
                    It was then up to the United States to request forces from member NATO states. Member states were treaty bound to follow the reasonable requests of United States under article 5, in the name of collective security. I believe that no member demurred to any US requests under this article.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Dibble, I never asked what they thought of the British, as they had obviously lost. And the next conversation i had with my old friend was about the Carapintadas revolt, which he put down and was suffering the silent treatment for doing so.

                      As for the Argies, the Brits i spoke too unanimously described the Argentine Army as badly clothed, poorly fed, and demoralized. The Marines, on the other hand, were described as tough and full of fight. One British sniper opined that the Argies Marines used their snipers better than the British.

                      I assume you are aware that the first Argentine commando action in the Falklands / Malvinas was led ashore by an Argentine captain named Juan Gough, whose native English accent was learned at home.

                      Personally, I rather doubt that Argentina will resort to armed force in the Malvinas. Time is on their side, and treating the issue as best left to eventual negotiation and common sense stands a far better chance of succeeding.

                      Sooner or later, the exchequer is bound to question the monies being spent to fly the Union Jack over the Malvinas.
                      dit: Lirelou

                      Phong trần mi một lưỡi gươm, Những loi gi o ti cơm s g!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post
                        More than that. For the first time Article 5 of the NATO agreement was invoked, which is as follows:



                        It was then up to the United States to request forces from member NATO states. Member states were treaty bound to follow the reasonable requests of United States under article 5, in the name of collective security. I believe that no member demurred to any US requests under this article.
                        You posted the answer.

                        The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America
                        So just were are the Falklands?

                        This opens up the interesting point of what happens should Syria attack the Asian part of Turkey.
                        "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                        Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                        youre entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Destroyer25 View Post
                          Fix'd.
                          I DO NOT LIKE IT WHEN SOMEONE ALTERS MY POST AND THEN CLAIMS THEY ARE QUOTING ME.

                          Change it back.
                          "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                          Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                          youre entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by lirelou View Post
                            Di
                            Personally, I rather doubt that Argentina will resort to armed force in the Malvinas. Time is on their side, and treating the issue as best left to eventual negotiation and common sense stands a far better chance of succeeding.

                            Demanding land who's inhabitants don't want you there is common sense?

                            Time is on Argentinas side, because they are so fukwitted they will continue to demand something that is not theirs in perpetuity?

                            Sooner or later, the exchequer is bound to question the monies being spent to fly the Union Jack over the Malvinas.
                            It's the Falklands.

                            Perhaps they'll find oil down there.

                            Maybe the Falkland islanders will have to rely on donations.
                            Last edited by Gooner; 04 May 12, 06:28.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
                              You posted the answer.



                              So just were are the Falklands?

                              This opens up the interesting point of what happens should Syria attack the Asian part of Turkey.
                              TTurkey would be entitled to envoke Article 5

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by lirelou View Post
                                Sooner or later, the exchequer is bound to question the monies being spent to fly the Union Jack over the Malvinas.
                                It's called the FALKLAND ISLANDS.

                                Does anyone question the costs associated with keeping East New York, Brownsville (the Brooklyn neighborhood), or the South Bronx in the United States? No.
                                Heck, we don't even question the cost of Puerto Rico ... were still waiting for Munoz Marin's "equitable contribution to the Federal union" that he promised Kennedy back in 1961.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X