Since oil was found in the waters around the British Falkland Islands Argentina have renewed their claims over the Islands and have gained support from many of their South American neighbours.
Despite the fact that the Falklands have been British for 300 years, that all of the people who live there consider themselves to be British, and that the Islands were uninhabited prior their discovery by Spain and then subsequent colonisation by Britain (Argentina's claim is entirely based on the fact that they are the closest mainland country to the islands - the Falklands never have been part of Argentina) America has refused to back Britain up and recognize British sovereignty.
Personally I think this is despicable. Britain has always backed up our American friends on the world stage and considered ourselves to be allies, but it seems there is no willingness to reciprocate. I for one hope that the British government rethinks our relationship with America because of this.
im inclined to agree with you on that, i have friends who live on the falkland islands and im worried for them, I can remember the last time this happened its just pethetic and america will have to help us otherwise we wont be helping them any more.
Lets just hope it doesn't play out like last time. If Argentina feel like they have support from many other countries and that we have none they may be emboldened enough to escalate things.
You know what they are like if they cant get their own way, i think the term is trigger happy lol
But its typical though I mean we fought the second world war alone for three years before america got involved in 1941, i suppose they will relent eventually but I hope this does not happen.
"But its typical though I mean we fought the second world war alone for three years before america got involved in 1941"
Gee, sorry we didn't come rescue your continent sooner. What were we thinking? I would also like to apologize for the cheapo Marshall Plan and the meager billions spent defending Western Europe during the Cold War.
Can you ever forgive us?
The marshall plan nearly bankrupted Britain - 20 years on from the war countries like France, which was overrun, had already recovered from the war whereas Britain hadn't been able to because of crippling debt repayments. The Marshall plan money was leant on a commercial basis, not just given away.
And the comment about rescuing our continent: Britain didn't have to go to war with the Nazi's, but we did so because it was the right thing to do despite the fact that it had such a high cost.
The Impact of the Marshall Plan on the United Kingdom
The Wasting of Britain's Marshall Aid
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/mo … l_01.shtml
Britain didn't go to war because it was supposedly the "right" thing to do, people don't go to war for silly reasons like that. They went to war because of the Anglo-Polish Military alliance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Poli … y_alliance
Britain was also worried about Germany becoming a threat to itself and its empire. They wanted to stop it before it became too strong.
When you say Britain didn't go to war because it was the right thing to do but because of the anglo polish military alliance - don't you think that defending a friend from unprovoked aggression is the right thing to do? Is that not, in actual fact, the actual template of what I was suggesting America should be doing when I posted this thread - standing by their friends.
This 'anglo polish military alliance', considering that Poland was a small country with a very weak military compared to Britain, was nothing more than a British promise not to stand by and ignore it if Poland was attacked.
Anyway, all this talk about WW2 is really nothing to do with the actual topic of the thread, and I've yet to hear anyone defending America's current position re the Falklands, you just seem to want to deflect attention from it.
They were obligated by the alliance to do so. If they had turned their backs on the treaty then they would have had severe diplomatic consequences, which would have badly affected their efforts to curb German power.
"The treaty contained promises of mutual military assistance between the nations in the event either was attacked by another European country. The United Kingdom, sensing a dangerous trend of German expansionism, sought to prevent German aggression by this show of solidarity. In a secret protocol of the pact, the United Kingdom only actually offered assistance in the case of an attack on Poland specifically by Germany, though both the United Kingdom and Poland were bound not to enter agreements with any other third countries which were a threat to the other. Because of the pact's signing, Hitler postponed his planned invasion of Poland from August 26 until September 1."
They did it hoping to slow Hitler down, by making him reluctant to expand Germany more. It worked, but only for a short while.
Don't bring up something you don't want to talk about. The only reason I posted was because of your opinionated statement on the Marshall Plan and World War 2, my purpose was not to deflect attention at all, I'm sorry if it did though.
Here's my opinion on the whole Falklands thing:
It's none of America's business, this an an argument between Argentina and the UK and has nothing to do with us. Whatever we say will have a positive diplomatic effect on one country while having a negative diplomatic effect on the other, so it is best just to remain silent.
I do believe the island belongs to the UK. Argentina has no real right to it and the islanders want to stay British anyways. Argentina's government is just trying to make a show of power to distract its people from the country's many problems.
It would have been nice if America had remained silence, but if you actually read the initial post I started this thread because the American government did not stay silent - they made a statement saying that they don't recognise British sovereignty.
It's neutrality. It's none of our business. By saying that the we do not recognize British sovereignty over the island we are saying that we are not giving a leg up to either country in this debate.
Has anyone else noticed that when America intervenes in something other countries get angry with us and when American doesn't intervene in something other countries still get angry with us?
Stepping in and saying you don't recognise soverienty is not neutrality, and once again I say that no intervention would have been nice, but that's not what happened - America did intervene and they did so against Britain.
"Britain didn't have to go to war with the Nazi's"
No, you could have become them like the French did.
Gee, sorry we didn't come rescue your continent sooner.
LOL, now that's funny. America saw themselves under threat in the future so jumped on the bandwagon for their own benefit, turned the tide perhaps, but rescued? My arse.
I agree, the US didn't help at all, Britain had it totally under control!
More like suddenly woke up to the fact that this was a threat that affected them too. And came in late.
Yep, that's right, Hurrah! for team America. We're all so incredibly grateful.
I guess you would have preferred the alternative?
Fish and Sauerkraut just doesn't sound right, does it?
Well, with responses such as 'we don't care what any of you think or feel, because we are the best' the differences between yourselves and the 'alternative' are becoming less-and-less clear.
Luckily I'm aware that you two don't speak for most Americans (or at least I pray you don't).
I will, because quite frankly you scare me.
I keep picturing a child with a very very big BB-gun, not too bright, but very very dangerous.
I should scare you!
I am dangerous!
come find out just how big my BB gun really is!
LOL, yeah that's right, I'll hop on the next plane shall I. Stop pretending that you're hard, it didn't work before, and it ain't working now.
I refer you to the 'not too bright' comment above.
Tex, you really just like riling them up don't ya
Can't stop I'm "not too bright" the lady with the hat told me so.
Really? She's the one in the mask, she can't see nothin.
Wow, did you think that up all by yourself?
I take it all back, you really do have smarts.
* This thread has degenerated into nothing more than a series of personal attacks.
Voodoo, it certainly got you riled up already. It's way too easy.
Well that's how you guys do it, can't say it's unfair.
Yeah, the one's who diss those of a more conservative outlook.
Hell, if you guys want to believe you single handedly won the war then go for it, why not, maybe it gives you a warm glowing feeling inside.
I just see it as a little disrespectful of the thousands of men from other countries who also died fighting.
I'm not concerned about those from other Countries that died! Especially the ones from Italy,Germany and Japan!
I guess I should include a sizable portion of France!
Voodoo, you dissed us for not trying to get involved in a world war. Do you blame us? It was your governments that set up Hitler's comeback by making the Germans miserable after WW1. It was your governments that appeased him. Yet you blame Americans for not going in. Then you turn around and accuse us of Imperialism.
You guys are freaky.
None of you won it, or lost it, or aided Hitler, or any of it, because none of you was BORN
Speaking loosely, I think I can assume that not too many people commenting here was born before 1920, let's say... so.....
You didn't have to be born before 1920 to have fought in WW2,Many cases of men barely out into their teens who fought. My father was 16 when he was in the Ardennes!
Always coming back in with your voice of reason to break up the squabbling children.
You do talk sense.
I can't think of a pithy reply; unless that was one
If you think one had to have been born before 1920 to have fought in WW2 then you are talking nonsense!
No, I think you have to have been born before 1920 to have had any real chance of influence on government policy in the 1930s or 1940s
...and as for fighting, fine I'll change it to "1935"
I'm not sure I'm following this.
If you were a teenager in 1940, let's say, I don't see how you could've influenced govt policy much. Frankly, I once heard that the average age of US combat personnel in the Second World War was 26, but to correct for those who were younger, I changed my original statement to read "1935" (but I could've used "1930"). Either way, let's face it is not the fighting men or women who decide when their country goes to war
"None of you won it, or lost it, or aided Hitler, or any of it, because none of you was BORN"
I don't understand why you aren't following this, you amended this statement to the one I am replying to. It seems you are all over the place on this.
I'm definitely not following this. I can't editorialize as I go?
My original statement stays. Servicemen had next to no say in the US' decision to go to war.
Your statement that teenagers didn't have any effect on policy is a hell of a lot different than the one I responded to. You may want to feign ignorance to somehow remain on topic but you were talking nonsense when you said this!
"None of you won it, or lost it, or aided Hitler, or any of it, because none of you was BORN"
I'm not feigning ignorance. I have said on many other threads how grateful I am (a) that the Americans fought in Western Europe (b) that the Marshall Plan propped up Europe after 1945 and (c) that the Americans kept Stalin (and possibly Krutschev) from heading much farther west than he (or they) did. I'm not going to be painted as someone I'm not. Trawl through Hubpages if you care that much about where I stand on the matter. The fact remains that MOST (ok I concede, maybe not ALL) people posting on this thread were not old enough to fight (or to get away with enlisting underage) in 1945 or before.
I know your feelings on the US involvement in WW2, and I appreciate that you appreciate what was done. However, the statement I replied to was the not the one you are touting.
This reminds me of Jaques Derrida, the French philosopher who claims that texts are more important than the people who write them. He's an idiot. So I misspoke. So, I revised (slightly) what I said. It's called a conversation
That's true. But we still get lip from you guys about it.
I wasn't talking about what either or any Government did or didn't do, but the people right here in this thread.
You mean like saying someone is "not too bright" Thats the only attack I have seen. Of course those who do the attacking usually have a different view, don't they?
Yeah, that's true, and I was including that in my statement.
I shouldn't have said that, you could be incredibly intelligent, what do I know, but you do scare me.
And i'm not sure you thinking that that's a good thing is healthy.
Again, couldn't care less what you think, don't care what your Country thinks, Britain is irrelevant, except to Britain!
All of these threads make it sound like the People of either country had ANY choice either way. If Chamberlain had remained in power who knows what would have happened. Similarly, a lot of US policy was decided based on Roosevelt's decisions...
...This myth that the people of either the US or Britain had a say in whether to fight Germany sounds, well, unlikely.
I mean, look at Britain's "support" for the US in Iraq! Millions marched saying they didn't want to go unless the UN had a mandate... didn't matter, it never freaking matters: it's always politicians, not people that decide on this supreme sacrifice...
So, you would have been just as well off if Germany had invaded England?
Las Malvinas are obviously more rightly part of Argentina than GB.
Why don't you tough guys pick on somebody your own size like...Houston
Who was that statement supposed to be directed at?
Well you asked for it!!! Your messing with a Texan!!!!
You really don't have a clue what you are talking about do you? Britain is not picking on anyone. It is Argentina that is picking on Britain if you want to phrase it like that at all.
Again it is all about oil and the fact that a British company has started drilling in the waters off the Falklands.
The US probably believes that it will be easier to muscle in on that oil supply if it is controlled by the Argentinians rather than Britain.
The Falkland Islanders are British citizens and their right to remain so needs to be protected and upheld.
Maybe we should pull our troops out of Afhganistan and let our American friends carry on on their own. Friendship between countries needs to be reciprocal.
Its a shame how much is made about oil instead of renewable energy sources. I am willing to bet if governments spent half of the money they spend for military maneuvering on making "green resources" more readily available...
Anyway, I have to agree with the intent of this thread - the American government should step it up and be more worried about what we are doing in the world instead of being subservient to whichever business has contributed the biggest "donation".
Looks like sabre rattling to me - and British forces are more than enough for a little job like this and the Argentinians know it, so I doubt if they will get out of hand again. America is not going to get involved because it might damage their trade and there are no billions to be made from arms sales, or is there ?
Perhaps America recognizes Britains ability to fight their own fight, but will come to the rescue if needed.
That's not the point. Britain is not asking for American military assistance. We didn't need it in the 80s and wouldn't now, even if it did come to that which it almost certainly won't. I'm not saying America should actually do anything to help, but in the last day or two the US government came out and said that they didn't recognise British soveriegnty over the Falklands, which in purely diplomnatic terms causes extra hassles and makes it easier for Argentina to get their case heard at the UN, despite the fact that there is no reason why it should be. That's not just not helping, that's actually actively siding against us for no good reason. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
Come on you guys. Remember this is The United States you are talking about and our alliance with Britain is rock solid. Don't believe what you see in the media. Just because our gov't says one thing in the media does not mean they are not doing anything behind the scenes. This is gov't we are talking about.
A Texan - prepare for the trenches - how are you good buddy
Obama is not going to help Britain and will not give any kind of support, not even the logistical kind which is the support that America gave to Britain the last time. I don't think Obama likes the British, he ignored Brown when he was here. Hellooo! DVDs that don't work on British DVD players. He resents the Brits for what they did to his grandfather in Kenya.
Its sad to think that its something like that, but you're probably right. As much as I didn't like Bush, I doubt whether he would have done this.
Bush stood by his friend Blair even though all you Brits hated Blair for doing what he thought was right. It'll be tough going for you guys if anything happens. The Organization of American States which the US is part of, rallied around Argentina the last time and they will do the same again. The US abstained from support, I'm not sure they're not going to do that this time.
If you're right then things could get nasty. Britain is unlikely to back down, and Argentina might not either if they think they have some kind of American backing. Obama better hope that we finnish the job in Afghanistan soon, cos if we have to deploy in South America in any significant strength then we won't have any choice but to withdraw from there.
The British forces will have to withdraw from Afghanistan, that is something that the Brits wanted anyway. NATO forces are still there although they are not as effective as we would like, you can only conduct a war with what you have. The Americans will move from Iraq to Afghanistan and probably finish it like they did in Iraq.
The British will have a problem in Argentina because its leaders are left of center and will probably have Chavez's and Emo's active support. I hope they keep out of it but I think Chavez is an idiot and will do something stupid. The Falklands is far away for the Brits. Let's hope it is just sabre rattling.
Quite the interesting read:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … na-britain
This was my favorite part:
"In 1829, Argentina appointed a governor. The British then sent two warships to the Falklands and struck the Argentine flag. Argentina, impoverished and divided, did not have the means to resist."
and I posted that article for you because it was a British paper.
Fairly typical for the Guardian though. It should be up to the people who live in the Falklands - if they want to stay British, they should be allowed to stay British.
But what that quote misses out is the fact that when Argentia appointed a governor the islands were already inhabited by the British, but not by Argentinians, who only went there because the spanish said they could have the islands even though they had already passed to British control.
I guess I should have posted the whole paragraph:
"A year after the French landed, the British established a settlement at Port Egmont on West Falkland, but abandoned the territory in 1774. Spain maintained a presence on the Falklands until 1811. The newly independent United Provinces of the Río de la Plata (which included Argentina) believed that Spanish possessions should revert to them and in 1820 sent a ship to the abandoned Falklands. In 1829, Argentina appointed a governor. The British then sent two warships to the Falklands and struck the Argentine flag. Argentina, impoverished and divided, did not have the means to resist."
says there the Brits abandoned the territory in 1774.
But the people who live in The Falkland have been British and consider themselves British. It's like if Cuba took Puerto Rico. The Puerto Ricans expect us to help them.
Sure, the ones that live there now consider themselves British, but the whole point of Argentina's complaint is that these islands have been wrongfully controlled by GB for over 200 years.
I am not agreeing with either side here as I am by no means a historian, was just posting an article I found interesting to the discussion.
Argentina can argue any way it wants, the fact is that British people live there and have lived there for the past 200 years. Possession is 9/10 of the law.
Hand back parts of Arizona and New Mexico back to Mexico and wait to hear the howls of protest! Why should people who have lived their lives as British citizens just be handed over to another country. Especially as that country speaks a different language and has an entirely different culture
This thread about the Falklands has been very interesting, but woe is me if we end up going to war again over them.
Here am I...a Brit...living in Spain with a Spaniard who like the rest of them believe the Malvinas are Spanish and therefore Argentinian, and then there is the Gibralter problem...
Argentina is a source of beef to Americans
Britain can take care of themselves without the help of the US
it is just wrong to take side at this point in time
Afghanistan and IRAQ are another point in case-- terrorism is a world problem and not just the problem of the US isnt it??
The US is the world's largest beef producer - we don't need Argentina for that. And yes, the UK can take care of themselves but I think the point here is that allies watch each other's backs. A point Obama continually seems to miss.
X, the Brits posting here don't seem to think we are allies, why act like allies?
Most Brits love America, what it stands for, and the majority of its good people, we just don't like Americans like you.
The 'Go-Team-Go!' type, a little humility goes a long way.
Most Americans don't care what Brits like you think or feel, there is no need to be humble when you're the best, but you wouldn't know anything about that would you?
we still need more beef, we love beef
this is a personal country fight of UK like in 1982 -- they dont need allies
ganging up on ARGENTINA wow, the British can do it
and besides the US cant take side, they are the only superpower now, they are like a mother which shouldnt take side
This is about diplomacy and beyond taking or not taking sides
The US cant take side because they have also diplomatic relationship with Argentina
The UN should decide about this matter once and for all, if not then WAR is in the offing again like in 1982
The UN shouldn't decide anything other than how to disband itself!
The US a mother that should not take sides....
The US is more like a spoiled child that hasn't grown up yet.
I guess the Brits don't mind terrorism or other countries running ruffshod all over Europe, from all that I have read the US is the true source of their problems.
by Matthew Kirk4 years ago
The more I read on other forums and from comments on media websites the more I get upset. It seems like either the international community is surely misinformed, misguided or blind. If you have not heard of the...
by James Kenny7 months ago
Will there be another Falklands War between Britain and Argentina?
by Silver Fish4 years ago
Does the US care about Britain?
by SparklingJewel6 years ago
this truly is a serious issue that does need to be dealt with. people will be at varying stages of the situation of being dependent on the scale of government help, but there is a lot that can be done to start to change...
by Susie Lehto10 months ago
What do Germany’s Angela Merkel, France’s Emmanuel Macron, Italy’s Paolo Gentiloni, Great Britain’s Theresa May, Holland’s Mark Rutte, Sweden’s Stefan Löfven, Scotland’s Nicola Sturgeon, and European...
by Grace Marguerite Williams19 months ago
What is the FIRST thing that comes to mind at the mention of Argentina?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.