aragorngw

What's the colour for slightly miffed?

Rushman

It's a light green with a slight orange tinge. Not to be confused with a light orange with a slight green tinge....thats the colour for "almost irritated".

veryfunny

This has now been resolved, well some part of it has.

veryfunny

UK settles WWII debts to allies
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6215847.stm?ls

<<Admin Edit - You cannot post entire articles or news in the forum without permission from the copyright holder. Even if you attribute the article correctly it is still copyright infringement. Minor fair use excerpts of less than one paragraph or 4 sentences may be used if the content is publically available on the internet. All other forms of inserted content from press releases, newsletters, web pages, or any other copyrighted content placed into messages will be removed without exception. A link to the content is acceptable and appropriate.>>

dakota44

I tried, really did, to read all 9 million pages of this, but I failed, so I'll just jump in.

Yes, my fellow Americans can be quite dumb when it comes to other parts of the world. Hell, as someone else pointed out, they can be quite dumb about other parts of their own country. Not sure where to put the blame for that, but I have sure noticed it since living in Canada.

As for Brits...lovely bunch of wankers. I know that things have changed there, but when I was in Portsmouth and London as a part of the U.S. Navy, oh those many decades ago, I was treated quite nicely and in a very friendly and cordial way. Someone even tried to explain the currency to me when I was buying a pack of smokes. After 15 minutes I just held out my hand and said, "just take what you need." Pounds? Quids? Thrupny bits? What the!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now the Falklands. Let me see. I am trying to think of a more idiotic war, but can't. (Iraq doesn't count, because it was not idiotic...it was completely and utterly moronic. There is a difference."
And..ummmm...there is this about the U.S. position.

At first glance, it appeared that the U.S. had military treaty obligations to both parties in the war, bound to the UK as a member of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and to Argentina by the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (the "Rio Pact"). However, the North Atlantic Treaty only obliges the signatories to support if the attack occurs in Europe or North America north of Tropic of Cancer, and the Rio Pact only obliges the U.S. to intervene if one of the adherents to the treaty is attacked—the UK never attacked Argentina, only Argentine forces on British territory. In March, Secretary of State Alexander Haig directed the United States Ambassador to Argentina to warn the Argentine government away from any invasion. President Reagan requested assurances from Galtieri against an invasion and offered the services of his Vice President, George H.W. Bush, as mediator, but was refused.


In fact, the Reagan Administration was sharply divided on the issue. Meeting on 5 April, Haig and Assistant Secretary of State for Political Affairs Lawrence Eagleburger favoured backing Britain, concerned that equivocation would undermine the NATO alliance. Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs Thomas Enders, however, feared that supporting Britain would undermine U.S. anti-communist efforts in Latin America. He received the firm backing of U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, Haig's nominal subordinate and political rival. Kirkpatrick was guest of honour at a dinner held by the Argentine ambassador to the United States, on the day that the Argentine armed forces landed on the islands.

The White House continued its neutrality; Reagan famously declared at the time that he could not understand why two allies were arguing over "that little ice-cold bunch of land down there". But he assented to Haig and Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger's position. Haig briefly (8 April–30 April) headed a "shuttle diplomacy" mission between London and Buenos Aires.

At the end of the month Reagan blamed Argentina for the failure of the mediation, declared U.S. support for Britain, and announced the imposition of economic sanctions against Argentina.
American non-interference was vital to the American-British relationship. Ascension Island, a British possession, was vital in the long term supply of the Task Force South; however, the airbase stationed on it was run and operated by the U.S. The American commander of the base was ordered to assist the British in any way, and for a brief period Ascension Air Field was one of the busiest airports in the world. The most expedient NATO contribution was satellite photographs, intelligence information, and the rescheduled supply of the latest model of Sidewinder Lima all-aspect infra-red seeking missiles, which allowed existing British inventory to be employed. Margaret Thatcher stated that "without the Harrier jets and their immense manoeuvrability, equipped as they were with the latest version of the Sidewinder missile, supplied to us by U.S. Defence Minister Caspar Weinberger, we could never have got back the Falklands". This is not only politically, but militarily questionable, however, as all the Fleet Air Arm Sidewinder engagements, proved to be from the rear.

Both Weinberger and Reagan were later awarded the British honour of Knight Commander of the British Empire (KBE). American critics of the U.S. role claimed that, by failing to side with Argentina, the U.S. violated its own Monroe Doctrine.

In September 2001, President of Mexico Vicente Fox cited the conflict as proof of the failure of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, since the treaty provides for mutual defence. However, in this conflict, Argentina was the aggressor.

...........The one good thing to come out of that war..was the ultimate fall of the Junta in Argentina. But that would have happened anyway.

Rompers

Interesting post Dakota.

The US was not legally bound to help the UK in 1982 just as the UK was not legally bound to help the US in 2003 (but we did anyway).

In the case of the Falklands, a military dictator launched an invasion of a a friendly democratic country's soil, imprisoning the civilian population. That the decision to support the UK against this military junta split the US administration speaks volumes. Compare the reluctance of the US to risk friendships with South American dictators in 1982 with the UK's willingness to alienate her European partners in order to follow the US into the quagmire of Iraq.

The US will only help the UK when it is in US interests to do so and will extract the maximum in return. Thankfully the diplomatic incompetence of the Bush administration has laid this truth bare and I doubt that any future UK Government will be as nieve and trusting as Blair's.

Britain and the US share comman values that will naturally align us on most issues, but self-interest will always come first for the US and should do so for the UK; the "special realtionship" should be seen for the myth that it is.

britvic

Good post, karma on it's way.

dakota44

There is no question that, all too often, self interest dominates American policies. But...I do think that that situation is occasionally toned down...if there is a rational head in the Oval Office. I am the first to be critical of my home country....and justly so.

On the Falklands issue....it was disputed territory..as you must know. It would do well to remember that they were taken by force from Argentina, with American help in a way.

The Falkland Islands have had a complex history since their discovery, with France, Britain, Spain and Argentina all claiming possession and establishing as well as abandoning settlements on the islands. The Spanish government's claim was continued by Argentina after the latter's independence in 1816 and the independence war in 1817, until 1833 when the United Kingdom took control of the islands by force, following the destruction of the Argentine settlement at Puerto Soledad by the American sloop USS Lexington (December 28, 1831).
Upon her withdrawal in 1774 Britain left behind a plaque asserting her claims, and in 1790, Britain officially ceded control of the islands to Spain, and renounced any and all colonial ambitions in South America, and its adjacent islands, as part of the Nootka Convention. In addition, the Nootka Convention provided for equal British, Spanish, and US rights to fish the surrounding waters of, as well as land on and erect temporary buildings to aid in such fishing operations, in any territory south of parts already occupied by Spain - the Falkland Islands being one of them since 1770 [2]. From then on Spain ruled the islands unchallenged under the name "Islas Malvinas", maintaining a settlement ruled from Buenos Aires under the control of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata until 1811. On leaving in 1811, Spain, too, left behind a plaque asserting her claims.

When Argentina declared its independence from Spain in 1816, it laid claim to the islands according to the uti possidetis principle, since they had been under the administrative jurisdiction of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata. On 6 November 1820, Colonel David Jewett, an American sailor at the service of Buenos Aires, and captain of the frigate Heroina, raised the flag of the United Provinces of the River Plate (which later became Argentina) at Port Louis. He warned the British and American sealing ships present that they did not have authorization to hunt seals in the area, and then returned to Buenos Aires ; the sealers ignored his warning.

Actual occupation began in 1826 with the foundation of a settlement and a penal colony. The settlement was destroyed by United States warship in 1831 after the Argentinian governor of the islands Luis Vernet seized U.S. seal hunting ships during a dispute over fishing rights. They left behind escaped prisoners and pirates. In November 1832, Argentina sent another governor who was killed in a mutiny. In January 1833, British forces returned, took control, repatriated the remainder of the Argentine settlement, and began to repopulate the islands with British citizens.

So you see....given this little tidbit from above..."in 1790, Britain officially ceded control of the islands to Spain, and renounced any and all colonial ambitions in South America, and its adjacent islands, as part of the Nootka Convention". .......... There is an argument that they rightfully should have been returned to Argentina when the Empire faded away, in my opinion.

gruffbrown

To be fair, we stole it first, so it's ours.
Think of the sheep as well, they can't speak Spanish.

dakota44

I was going to comment on the fact that sheep probably outnumbered people, but thought better of it. lol

And actually the Dutch stole it first. The first European explorer widely credited with sighting the islands is Sebald de Weert, a Dutch sailor, in 1600.

gruffbrown

You're right about the sheep.
The Dutch didn't want it, too many hills.

dakota44

and no tulips...

I guess my point was that for over 1,000 people to die, and billions to be wasted, over a few rocks with a high sheep population...was a tragic waste. The widows and orphans, both Brit and Argentine might not be so sure the cost was justified. I know how miffed the populace of the islands was that they were told to drive on the other side of the road and all, but I don't recall any savage or brutal treatment of the populace. And let's be honest, Britain, in all sincerity, was showing muscle to take light away from other issues. Maggie T. was in crisis mode and the war, with it's very American like patriotic influence on the populace, saved her ass. Not that the U.S. has not been equally guilty of the same thing a few times or more. Sometimes, it just isn't worth the tragic loss of human life. But the sheep I am sure are quite happy.

gardnma

Those champion mugs are dwindling aren't they?

gruffbrown

Told you so.

gardnma

You might end up with the cr@p game which no-one wants to play.....