Look what I saw flying today!

[TheDawg]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

What would we do if Argentina decided it wanted the Falklands after all?

Obama already stated publicly he thinks Argentina deserves the Falklands......

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by TheDawg

Obama already stated publicly he thinks Argentina deserves the Falklands......

He's entitled to his opinion, but it's none of his fizzing business.
The Falklands remain British sovereign territory.

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by TheDawg

Obama already stated publicly he thinks Argentina deserves the Falklands......

Has he? Frankly, I'd be surprised if he gave an opinion one war or another.

Or is this something invented by the 'Obama is a Moslem' crowd?

And can anyone explain how a thread about Vulcans ended up being hijacked yet again by the NeoCon 'we can save the world from tyranny' bunch? Are they so insecure that they can't look at an internet forum without spouting their revisionist gloop? Tiresome...

[Splitter]

“We are aware not only of the current situation but also of the history, but our position remains one of neutrality,” a State Department spokesman told The Times. “The US recognizes de facto UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party.”

Hilary Clinton, our secretary of state, has said Argentina and Britain should sit down and negotiate the fate of the Falklands. And the Obama administration refused to back Britain at the UN regarding the Falklands. An assistant Secretary of State prefers to call the islands the "Malvinas".

So...ya'll might just lose the islands through a UN resolution. No fighting required unless you buck the UN.

This stance by the administration is probably an attempt to curry favor with Central and South American countries. Throwing an ally with whom we are supposed to have a 'special relationship" under the bus? Sure, but we want the world to like us now.

You can't count on the US unless things change over here. Our enemies know this and our allies are figuring it out.

Dutch: I know it's not everyone. There are still realistic people scattered throughout the world lol. But then again, there are a bunch of people in the world who like seeing the US get a black eye. Many quietly snickered after 9/11 and believe that this nation brought those attacks on itself. Heck, there is even a group of people here that believe the attacks were perpetrated by the US government (cause Bush was so evil).

While we as a nation are sometimes misguided, we are not an evil people....so those attitudes are frustrating. Really, all we hear about is how unpopular the US is around the world.

BTW, I have no doubt about the "fight" that lays beneath the British facades. That same resilience that brought you all through the Battle of Britain is still there, just lying dormant .

Splitter

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Study history, wars begin only because one side thinks they can prevail in the use of violence.

Peace is maintained through power.

I would agree if you had said "through responsible use of power". Because otherwise, the peace that's good for me might be humiliating to you and when that happens and you have nothing to lose, you'll probably take up arms against me in ways that might be detrimental to you, but also hard for me to comprehend, analyze and counter. That's the main reason why the people in black PJs and flip-flops won in Vietnam, they didn't really have much to fear they would lose if they wouldn't back down, so they didn't.

The guy living the better life is the guy who has the most to fear.

As for counting on allies or disappointing them, my country has been on the allied camp through WWI, the Crimean landings against the Soviet revolution, WWII, a civil war, Korea (these last three as so close together in history that you can see we had some people fighting pretty much from 1940 until 1953) and all through the cold war.

As a reward for our loyalty we've been dealt a bad hand by allies as early as the 1920s and kept being dealt so up until today. I realize what you say about weakness provoking attack, because it's this weakness that has been brought upon my country by "allied" nations urging us to exercise caution and "coolness", back down from sovereign rights that are granted to all countries under international law, loaning us money that will supposedly save our economy but in essence making them profit and so on, while at the same time having to buy their weapons as a detterent to the problems they are co-responsible for creating, going in debt as a result and getting tossed to the international loan-sharks piecemeal.

We are expected to tow the party line and bleed for the cause, but neither the cause nor the reaping of rewards is ours. In fact it has gone so far that even what is ours by law is not ours anymore or will not be soon enough, all at the instigation of "friends" and "allies" and as the saying goes, with friends like that who needs enemies.

You don't have Iraqi or Afghani aircraft overflying inhabitted areas of your country daily while carrying a full combat load, nor do you have an "allied" but stronger nation telling you how to go about dealing with it. Well, we do have exactly that, it's just not Iraqi/Afghan aircraft but "allied" ones and the threat is daily, immediate and at a bomb's gliding distance from many people's homes. So, excuse me if i see the reaction of such a huge country as disproportionate to the threat, when the last time their mainland was ravaged by war was probably during the time of Abraham Lincoln and yet they spend all their time telling us how its best for us not to defend ourselves.

I don't know about Europe at large, but where i come from people don't just "hate the US" out of dogma. They just don't trust the US to tell us the truth anymore since the 70s, that's all. In a sense, we don't dread the time the US will abandon us but rather long for the time they will stop telling us how to do stuff, because the mild mannered would say they have already abandoned us 40 years ago and the not-so-polite would bluntly declare they are just using us or being downright hostile, even if covertly so.

EDIT: I think i should stay away from topics discussing politics from now on, i get sucked in way too easily and end up posting more in them than in the update threads

[LukeFF]

Originally Posted by Tree_UK

This means we can save some cash and rather than spending it on misery making machines of destruction we can hopefully try and do something creative that will benefit mankind. If we do achieve this who's going to want to attack us?

So why are you then interested in a game (SOW) that depicts "misery making machines of destruction"? Wouldn't a game like Farmville be more to your liking?

Originally Posted by LukeFF

So why are you then interested in a game (SOW) that depicts "misery making machines of destruction"? Wouldn't a game like Farmville be more to your liking?

Yeah thats right LukeFF, hey u should go into comedy, you are a really funny guy, all your posts are so laughable!!

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Splitter

“our position remains one of neutrality,” a State Department spokesman told The Times.

That same resilience that brought you all through the Battle of Britain is still there, just lying dormant .
Splitter

The neutrality issue is no different to the attitude in the 80's so fair enough, although we did get some badly needed sidewinders from the US.

As to resilience, I'm not so sure.
Maybe its dormancy is what I find so bloody frustrating.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

The neutrality issue is no different to the attitude in the 80's so fair enough, although we did get some badly needed sidewinders from the US.

As to resilience, I'm not so sure.
Maybe its dormancy is what I find so bloody frustrating.

Well, if I recall correctly, Reagan provided logistical and transport support during the Falklands war and the US has ALWAYS backed Britain's stance that they hold sovereignty over the Falklands. There has been no question where the US stood on the issue until the Obama administration.

I could see such a change in public position if the administration wanted to send a hard message to Britain for Britain not backing the US on something. Even allies throw diplomatic shots across each other's bows once in a while. Doesn't seem to be the case here though. Of course, we have no idea what is going on between the two countries in diplomatic back channels.

Yeah, Dutch, you all will still fight....we see your soccer games .

Splitter

EDIT: If I recall correctly, the Falklands had the West's last bayonet charge until British troops did it AGAIN in Iraq. That's guts. I think I would rather be in a firefight than square off in a bayonet fight.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Splitter

.

Yeah, Dutch, you all will still fight....we see your soccer games .

Splitter

And did you see the one where Germany beat us 4-1 and we played like a bunch of whining schoolgirls? Disallowed goal or not?
Hmmph.
Bunch of overpaid popstar wimps. With an Italian manager who doesn't speak English.
Hmmph.
And Hmmph again.