APP - NO SURPRISE WHEN USA LETS BRITAIN DOWN AGAIN

Topspin said:
brits need their arses kicked by the Argentines, kick out the occupiers
Click to expand...

You are incredibly ill informed. How can the British be classified as occupiers when most of the Falkland Islanders are of British descent and have voted overwhelmingly to have nothing to do with Argentina and stay with Britain? This is all about political posturing and oil.

I suggest that you read a bit more, so here is a good start for you.

http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf

The islands derive their English name from Falkland Sound, the name given to the waterway between
the two main islands by Captain John Strong, who spent several days in the islands in January 1690 in his
ship Welfare.5 The name “Falkland Islands” for the whole archipelago was first used in the journal of
Woodes Rodgers in December 1708, and was first published in 1712 in his account of his voyage.6
The French were active in the South Atlantic from the beginning of the 18th Century, and in 1716 the
French mapmaker Amédée-François Frézier published the best map of the islands so far made, calling
them “Les Isles Nouvelles” (The New Islands).7 The French Geographer Royal, Guillaume Delisle,
invented a better name on two maps of 1720 and 1722 (the first not published till later) – he called them
“Les Iles Malouines”, after the port of St Malo in Brittany, home port of the French ships which had
visited the Falklands.
The Spaniards never had a name of their own for the Islands, but from the mid-1760s they adopted the
French name “Iles Malouines”, adapting it into “Islas Maluinas”. Around 1805 they began to spell it
“Malvinas”, though as late as 1811 they still sometimes spelt it “Maluinas”. “Malvinas” is now the
Spanish name for the islands; in its current form it is a century later than the English name.
 
Last edited:
aw crap. Britain is angry at us for not siding with them this time. what ever will we do?

I guess we'll just keep all our guns on this side of the pond for the next world war.
 
Cypress said:
Invading Grenada was wrong.

Reagan was in bed with rightwing south American fascist dictators, and we should have fully obliged our NATO obligations when the argies invaded the Falklands.

I don’t remember why the brits and French invaded the suez, but I’ve never liked invading arab countries who aren’t a threat to me, up to and including Iraq.

Oil exploration and mineral rights doesn’t sound like war, so I’m not sure what you want the U.S. to do. Maybe you can enlighten me. Now, if the Argentine air force starts bombing british ships, I totally think we should have your back.

That said, didn’t we have a quarter million troops stationed in Europe for 50 years while you were staring directly down the barrels of two million soldiers of the Warsaw Pact?
Click to expand...
Fuck that. Imperialism is dead and the Monroe doctrine has made the US hated and villified in South America.

Fuck the Falklands, their an isolcated wind swept no where that are hardly worth people dying over. Let Argentina have them. It's in their coastal waters anyways.

Or better, how about if the Brits trade the Argies Wales for the Falklands?
 
tom prendergast said:
You are incredibly ill informed. How can the British be classified as occupiers when most of the Falkland Islanders are of British descent and have voted overwhelmingly to have nothing to do with Argentina and stay with Britain? This is all about political posturing and oil.

I suggest that you read a bit more, so here is a good start for you.

http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf

The islands derive their English name from Falkland Sound, the name given to the waterway between
the two main islands by Captain John Strong, who spent several days in the islands in January 1690 in his
ship Welfare.5 The name “Falkland Islands” for the whole archipelago was first used in the journal of
Woodes Rodgers in December 1708, and was first published in 1712 in his account of his voyage.6
The French were active in the South Atlantic from the beginning of the 18th Century, and in 1716 the
French mapmaker Amédée-François Frézier published the best map of the islands so far made, calling
them “Les Isles Nouvelles” (The New Islands).7 The French Geographer Royal, Guillaume Delisle,
invented a better name on two maps of 1720 and 1722 (the first not published till later) – he called them
“Les Iles Malouines”, after the port of St Malo in Brittany, home port of the French ships which had
visited the Falklands.
The Spaniards never had a name of their own for the Islands, but from the mid-1760s they adopted the
French name “Iles Malouines”, adapting it into “Islas Maluinas”. Around 1805 they began to spell it
“Malvinas”, though as late as 1811 they still sometimes spelt it “Maluinas”. “Malvinas” is now the
Spanish name for the islands; in its current form it is a century later than the English name.
Click to expand...
Oi mate! We have enough problems with Puerto Rico!!
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Fuck that. Imperialism is dead and the Monroe doctrine has made the US hated and villified in South America.

Fuck the Falklands, their an isolcated wind swept no where that are hardly worth people dying over. Let Argentina have them. It's in their coastal waters anyways.

Or better, how about if the Brits trade the Argies Wales for the Falklands?
Click to expand...

Why does the US still control Panama and Guantanamo?

It seems to me that if you believe in democracy then any decision ought to be up to the people who live in the Falklands.
 
Last edited:
tom prendergast said:
Why does the US still control Panama and Guantanamo?

It seems to me that if you believe in democracy then any decision ought to be up to the people who live in the Falklands.
Click to expand...
We turned over control of the canal about 10 years ago Tom. Gitmo maybe, but we no longer control the canal.
 
tom prendergast said:
Yes, you are right I stand corrected. However I can't help thinking that if another Noriega came along the marines would be sent in without too much compunction.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but of what strategic value are the Falklands to the UK?

Besides, the detested Monroe doctrine is still alive. We need a European power in the western hemisphere like we need a hole in our head. You won't find much support in the US for this Tom.

No offense Tom....we love the Brits. Would come over in a heart beat if the French were invading but any claims in the western hemisphere even remotely tainted with European colonialism won't go over well here in the US. Not at all.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I'm sorry but of what strategic value are the Falklands to the UK?

Besides, the detested Monroe doctrine is still alive. We need a European power in the western hemisphere like we need a hole in our head. You won't find much support in the US for this Tom.

No offense Tom....we love the Brits. Would come over in a heart beat if the French were invading but any claims in the western hemisphere even remotely tainted with European colonialism won't go over well here in the US. Not at all.
Click to expand...
No, the Monroe doctrine is pretty much dead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top