Falklands nonsense again?

[Doktor]

S2s arguement is contradictory. On one hand he says that we aren't needed in these conflict and on the other hand he says that we are there because it is in our interests. How is it in our interest to fight anwar that somebody else will fight for us? Until you guys can get this straight your arguement doesn't make sense.

How is it contradictory?

- US can send enough troops to replace the contribution from the allies.
- UK is there because they believe it is right thing to do, not to fight a war for USA.

Remember that the US led on the NPT to reduce the prospect of nuclear war, which can affect Americans catastrophically.

Atoms for peace was not a bad idea imv.

Anyway nuclear arms proliferation would be bad for everybody.

[dave lukins]

[B]

Read this carefully-we don't NEED Great Britain in Afghanistan if simply for our sake. That's an absolute fact. British VALUES are invested in fighting Al Qaeda and the taliban. If those issues aren't important to the British government and its people then they should not be there.

The vast majority of the British people would agree with that. Reason: They don't know why they are there in the first place. Prior to 9/11 they hadn't heard of the Taliban or Al Q. Like I mentioned earlier, there has never been a Government statement on why the British are in A'stan. There have been numerous televised debates on Afghanistan all of which have turned out shouting matches. The general consensus is that we are there because the Americans asked us. I don't think that attitude has changed. I think they understand Iraq but A'stan has always been an unknown factor to them.

[Aussiegunner]

How is it contradictory?

- US can send enough troops to replace the contribution from the allies.
- UK is there because they believe it is right thing to do, not to fight a war for USA.



Atoms for peace was not a bad idea imv.

Anyway nuclear arms proliferation would be bad for everybody.

I actuslly misread S2s bit on British values and I will therefore restate what I have already said. They are there because helping thier friends the Americans is the right thing to do. The two concepts aren't mutually exclusive. Now that the US President has demonstrated that he doesn't share those values they may have cause to reconsider.

The NPV was only a good idea for non nuclear nations who can trust thier nuclear sponsor 100%. Obama has demonstrated that we now can't. That guy wouldn't be pushing any button anyway, he can't wait to get rid of nuclear weapons. If they can elect a President like that once they can't be relied upon.

[dave lukins]

OOPS!! WE HAVE STRAYED OFF TOPIC...watch out for a certain Mod lurking to pounce ;)

[astralis]

aussie,

On one hand he says that we aren't needed in these conflict and on the other hand he says that we are there because it is in our interests.

i fail to see what is contradictory here.

it is perfectly true that at the very last, the US could fight in afghanistan and iraq alone.

the question is, is it in the national security interests of the UK and Australia for the US to do so. i'd say no-- and your policymakers agree. this is everybody's fight, not just america's fight and "we're just there cuz we like the americans so much."

However, dog acts like Obama's over the Falklands just tell me that there are enough Americans who don't value loyalty outside the US's borders that we can't afford to trust any of you, at least in respect to long term planning like nuclear deterrance which can't be changed with each new President is concerned. Then failure here to acknowledge that it was wrong and in some cases even to acknowledge that a bond of loyalty should exist, just reinforces this view.

like i said, you are focusing one ONE aspect of the UK-US relationship to the detriment of all others.

the mark of a mature, friendly international relationship is the ability to work around single issues to get at broader areas of interest, and over the long-term. this is the US and UK, and US and AUS, that we're talking about here-- not US and pakistan.

if your working assumption is that the US can't be trusted, then i really wonder which ally you (or for that matter the UK) CAN trust. it makes me curious why you focus on one issue, which you acknowledge to be a temporary one held by a President, to describe a relationship-- a relationship that has stood the test of time of almost a hundred years of friendship, trust, and sacrifice.

[Aussiegunner]

aussie,



i fail to see what is contradictory here.

it is perfectly true that at the very last, the US could fight in afghanistan and iraq alone.

the question is, is it in the national security interests of the UK and Australia for the US to do so. i'd say no-- and your policymakers agree. this is everybody's fight, not just america's fight and "we're just there cuz we like the americans so much."



like i said, you are focusing one ONE aspect of the UK-US relationship to the detriment of all others.

the mark of a mature, friendly international relationship is the ability to work around single issues to get at broader areas of interest, and over the long-term. this is the US and UK, and US and AUS, that we're talking about here-- not US and pakistan.

if your working assumption is that the US can't be trusted, then i really wonder which ally you (or for that matter the UK) CAN trust. it makes me curious why you focus on one issue, which you acknowledge to be a temporary one held by a President, to describe a relationship-- a relationship that has stood the test of time of almost a hundred years of friendship, trust, and sacrifice.

Because that is what betrayal does, doing it once erodes years of trust building effort. It isn't that temporary either, just because Obama goes doesn't mean that the people who elected him with his known views have.

[Aussiegunner]

OOPS!! WE HAVE STRAYED OFF TOPIC...watch out for a certain Mod lurking to pounce ;)

Thats up to him. I still see it as being an interesting discussion on the place of the Falklands dispute in the broader geostrategic context. What would we talk about otherwise, Argentine trawler boarding techiques?

[ArtyEngineer]

Question for Gun Grape

GG,

Regarding the 1982 conflict. I work with a Retired MSgt who would also have been at alejeune in your time there. told me once when we were talking about the 1982 conflict that he was on a Med Float then which was pulled out of the Med and sent south. Can you confirm this. He was only a young un then so surely wasnt aware of the big picture on whst was goin on. Is this a likely reaction from the US given the situatioin in 1982?

Regards

Arty

[Parihaka]

They just aren't right now because they are making very big commitments fighting more immediate wars principally for other people.

And this is where you're wrong. Britain has and hopefully will continue to make decisions principally in her own self-interest. History is replete with examples of British foreign excursions. Which of these has been other than in Britians own self interest?

[Parihaka]

obviously i disagree. as S2 said, the british are in afghanistan because british policymakers have concluded that a secure afghanistan is in their national interest, prioritized above the possibility of an argentinian invasion of the falklands.

Oops, Asty said it better

[gunnut]

Their balls have "Property of Ms. Thatcher" engraved.

Ouch!

[gunnut]

I have to agree with the American posters here. The UK government decimated its own forces to the point that it may have trouble defend British territory. We did not remove the missiles from the Type 42s to save money on the sailors who maintain them. We did not retire all Harriers from the Joint Harrier force. We did not cut the Type 45 purchase from 12 to 6. The UK government did. Why? To buy off the people on welfare.

We can assist the UK in defending Falklands with logistics and intelligence. But we cannot and should not defend British territory simply because the British forces cannot do it themselves.

[Bigfella]

Tough luck about your resentment mate, we've put rivers of Aussie blood and treasure on the line after being hectored to do so by Americans.I figure that entitles us to have our say on such matters. The implication that we shouldn't when you have suggests to me that you think Americans are better than us and shouldn't be subject to our opinions. You aren't, you are just more populated by virtue of being on a wetter and more central continent.

Really? Rivers of blood & treasure as a result of US hectoring? Care to elaborate? Can't think of a single example that fits.

You've actually been playing fast & loose with facts for the whole thread, but I haven't wanted to drag it off course any further.

[dave lukins]

We can assist the UK in defending Falklands with logistics and intelligence. But we cannot and should not defend British territory simply because the British forces cannot do it themselves.

Believe me, if push came to shove we would defend the Falklands. If Argentina decided to go for it they may walk in but they wouldn't walk out.

[bigross86]

What would be so hard? Pull whatever troops you need out of Iraq or A-Stan or wherever they are and send them to the Falklands. Someone will come up with a way to pick up the slack, I guarantee you...