angrysoba
Philosophile
It's called lies.
Mitt Romney's overseas tour
- Thread starter Puppycow
- Start date
It's called lies.
Noztradamus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2010
- Messages
- 4,680
Because the US giving a nutjob government a diplomatic message that the US appreciates that government's claim on another peoples' land is unlikely to have adverse consequences *cough..Kuwait*
Last edited:
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Synonymous with "Diplomacy". If you want to change that, you'll have to go to war for any dispute.
angrysoba
Philosophile
No you won't.
Monketi Ghost
Confusion Reactor
- Joined
- May 21, 2003
- Messages
- 25,141
angrysoba
Philosophile
Oh, for goodness sake! I don't like Romney and I suppose I hope Obama wins but some of this utter tripe that partisan hacks write is irritating.
Obama went to Berlin and to Israel, if I remember rightly, to do some overseas promotion and did quite well out of it.
John McCain showed up in Georgia and acted senile.
So what?
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Yeah, you do. No diplomacy == war. Sometimes diplomacy doesn't help, but several thousand years of experience have shown it is preferable to start with.
angrysoba
Philosophile
This is a silly thing to say. People have said all kinds of undiplomatic things without war being a result. Similarly, people have simply not said things on the basis of diplomacy rather than browntongued everyone.
Are you seriously suggesting that if Obama hadn't uttered the magic diplomatic words "Maldives" then there would be a new war?
angrysoba
Philosophile
As far as I know, Jeanne Kirkpatrick was the last fully-fledged supporter of Argentina vis-a-vis the Falklands. I remember when she died and laughed watching John Bolton blub over her carcass.
Here is the State Department Position:
QUESTION: Does the U.S. take a position on the recent posturing between the United Kingdom and Argentina over the Falklands?
ANSWER: This is a bilateral issue that needs to be worked out directly between the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom. We encourage both parties to resolve their differences through dialogue in normal diplomatic channels.
We recognize de facto United Kingdom administration of the islands but take no position regarding sovereignty.
Here is the Telegraph's take on it:
In response to a question on the Falklands at*Thursday's State Department*press briefing, a*US government*spokesman supported direct negotiations between Buenos Aires and London over the sovereignty of the Falklands, something that Argentina has been pressing for aggressively, and which Britain sees as completely unacceptable.
As far is London is concerned, the sovereignty of the Falklands was decisively settled in the 1982 war when British forces retook the Islands after Argentina’s brutal military junta invaded them. The Falklands’ 3,000 inhabitants are 90 per cent British (according to the 2006 census), and 0.1 percent Argentine, and have no desire to live under the boot of Buenos Aires. There is nothing whatsoever to be negotiated over regarding the future of the Falklands, a position the British government has reiterated on numerous occasions.
Here is the official State Department*press release*on the Falklands issue*published today*– note the insulting use of the Argentine term for the Islands, "Malvinas", a de facto declaration by the Obama presidency that it recognises Argentina has a legitimate claim over the Islands:
My comments:
Encouraging the UK to talk when there is nothing to talk about and calling UK soveriegnty just "de facto administration" (why didn't they just come out and call it "colonial occupiers"?) is giving the Argentinian position an unwarrented, unjustified and unpalatable respect.
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
Is this one of those "if you're not with us, you're against us" things?
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
angrysoba
Philosophile
Here's a question, if the US government is currently talking about "de facto" ownership and making it sound like the claims are 50-50, then at what point did the US government change from an earlier policy?
The answer is they haven't. The US has always blown hot and cold on this. Just ask Alexander Haig.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Does the UK recognize Japanese sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands?
It seems like the general rule for third countries not directly involved in a territorial dispute to remain neutral.
ETA:
Also, I don't see a call for "resolving differences through dialogue" as the same as calling for "negotiations."
It seems like the general rule for third countries not directly involved in a territorial dispute to remain neutral.
ETA:
Also, I don't see a call for "resolving differences through dialogue" as the same as calling for "negotiations."
Last edited:
If the UK was asked about the Hawaiin Sovereignty Movement, would the UK's official position be: "We recognise de facto US administration of Hawaii but take no position regarding sovereignty and encourage both sides to sit down and negotiate"?
angrysoba
Philosophile
I don't know. Nobody even lives there. What difference would it make anyway?
So what about Takeshima? Doesn't the world recognize it as Japanese? Only Korea considers it Dokdo.
As for the north-east islands, well, sorry, the world considers it Russian except for Japan.
Just because disputes happen it doesn't mean that every dispute is the same.
As Arthur Koestler might have said, it requires an advanced form of dialectics to understand that.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
It's a pretty big deal actually, not because of the islands themselves but the ocean territory and possible oil or other resources that might be under it. Also fishing rights.
"dialogue" and "negotiations" are clearly different things.
Last edited: