The [UK-US] Special Relationship is dead

[funk de fino]

You don't get out of it that easy, funk. YOU claimed I was lying and not wrong. And you did so with no justification, and resorted to bizarre contortions that strain credulity to try to justify your accusation. You shifted the debate away from the facts of the case to the question of my honesty. And now you want to retreat to those grounds without admitting that your accusation was baseless? No, funk. That isn't good enough.

Your use of the words credibility is astounding. I am not the one who made upo a caim about Obama and then was not big enough to admit it.

True story - "Dick Cheney shot Harry Whittington during a hunting accident"

Ziggurat spin - "Bush deliberately tried to murder Harry Whittington with a shotgun"

 

[Ziggurat]

Your use of the words credibility is astounding.

Your reading skills are sub-par. I said "credulity", not "credibility". As for the rest of your post, it is simply a repetition of previous ridiculous claims which I have already responded to, and deserves no further comment. Well, perhaps one more:

I am not the one who made upo a caim

It seems you're so upset with me that you can't type either.

 

[funk de fino]

Your reading skills are sub-par. I said "credulity", not "credibility". As for the rest of your post, it is simply a repetition of previous ridiculous claims which I have already responded to, and deserves no further comment.

Good spot. Yet you did not respond to that post or the claims in it. You at most snipped a previous post of mine and handwaved it. Is it a fair assessment of what you stated when you wrote this?

The Obama administration did something, and yes, it's perfectly acceptable to shorthand to say "Obama" when talking about actions of his administration

If not, where do you draw the line?

How about this one?

Libby resigned all three government positions immediately after he was indicted on federal charges of obstruction and perjury resulting from the grand jury investigation into the leak of the covert identity of Central Intelligence Agency officer Valerie Plame.

But I could say that it was Bush who did it eh?

Well, perhaps one more:

It seems you're so upset with me that you can't type either.

I'm not the one stamping my feet and accusing someone of using vitriol. All you had to do was say "OK Obama did not do anything. Hilary said it, and what I really meant was that the Obama administration stabbed the UK in the back."

Even then, as others have pointed out, the Obama administration has done nothing of the sort. A complete reversal of previous policy on this would have been a stab in the back.

 

[Mikemcc]

How is that different from the 1980s when Argentina was preparing and then invading the Falklands and the USA were actively trying to persuade the UK not to resort to military action and was trying to get the two side to negotiate?

ETA: For a reminder of the USA position at that time: http://www.naval-history.net/F16diplomacy.htm

That will be at the same time that the US was providing us with military intelligence about the Argentine armed forces and shipping AIM-9L missiles that allowed the Harriers to engage further and head-on.

 

[Darat]

That will be at the same time that the US was providing us with military intelligence about the Argentine armed forces and shipping AIM-9L missiles that allowed the Harriers to engage further and head-on.

And? (ETA: That's not meant to be rude its just that I don't see what your comment has to do with the point I was making.)

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Now utterly bewildered. You said:

....Hillary Clinton's recent statements about the Falkland Islands was a major diplomatic betrayal of the UK.​

How was her expressing the same policy that the USA has been expressing for decades, and even expressing it when our country was being invaded, a "major diplomatic betrayal of the UK" - it was just business as usual for the USA. SO how can a public re-statement of the position the USA has made clear for decades be described as a "major diplomatic betrayal"?

It is a bizzare claim. The Americans in 1980 were doing their best to help two friends not start a full blown war with each other. What better friend could either side want? Negotiations can include "not going to war". America should be praised for its efforts in the 80's concerning the Falklands.

 

[Cain]

How was her expressing the same policy that the USA has been expressing for decades, and even expressing it when our country was being invaded, a "major diplomatic betrayal of the UK"...

Because she's a Democrat.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Because she's a Democrat.

Given that who owns the islands was once again settled in 1982, which had been previously settled by a treaty, it is odd that our Sec State would suggest that settled matter ought to be re opened and negotiated ... unless her position (if she is doing this independently) or the administration's position (if this is President Obama's position, which is more likely) represents a change in US policy since 1992.

On the other hand, political rhetoric being what it is, this set of remarks may have been yet another trial balloon sent to sniff out a response for possible changes in policy.

Were I in the Brit policy circles, I'd not be pleased if I sensed the Americans were changing a previously supportive-of-the-UK policy on that matter. The oil only makes it more interesting, and more messy.

DR

 

[Darat]

...snippp... it is odd that our Sec State would suggest that settled matter ought to be re opened and negotiated ... unless her position (if she is doing this independently) or the administration's position (if this is President Obama's position, which is more likely) represents a change in US policy since 1992.

On the other hand, political rhetoric being what it is, this set of remarks may have been yet another trial balloon sent to sniff out a response for possible changes in policy.

Were I in the Brit policy circles, I'd not be pleased if I sensed the Americans were changing a previously supportive-of-the-UK policy on that matter. The oil only makes it more interesting, and more messy.

DR

But none of the above has actually happened.

 

[fitzgibbon]

id go to war to defend Britain. I got over the War of 1812...a looooong time ago.

Good thing. You guys lost. Full stop.

 

[fitzgibbon]

I think you'll find that most people in the UK have never even heard of it. Even at the time, it was a side-show to the main event in Europe.

And the main difference was to today is.....? What? The Brits'd be speaking French?

 

[fitzgibbon]

Well, we were pissed at both the French and the English. And we already had all those nice propaganda posters against the English made up in 1776. So hey, why change that, right?

It amuses me the 'Surrender monkey' thing Yanks trot out. Were it not for said 'Surrender Monkeys' of past the States of today'd be a historical footnote.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Then we can only hope we find a common language.

As do Canucks with said Yanks. And (I believe) northern and southern Yanks.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

And (I believe) northern and southern Yanks.

Well now, *some* divides are just too vast to really comprehend.

Can't we just hope for some sort of Israeli-Palestinian accord, instead?

 

[fitzgibbon]

Well now, *some* divides are just too vast to really comprehend.

Can't we just hope for some sort of Israeli-Palestinian accord, instead?

We can hope.

 

[Darth Rotor]

But none of the above has actually happened.

Actually, yes it did. The American Secretary of State made a public statement, intentionally or not, that she deemed the Falklands Islands claims to be negotiable. As I pointed out earlier, those are was settled in 1982, for a second time. I'll grant you that some of her comments were directed at Argentina and the UK quarelling over oil reserve exploitation in the area, which isn't necessarily about "who owns the islands" but it's directly related to that, else the Argies have no claim.

From the Telegraph:

Hillary Clinton's call for Britain to sit down with Argentina to "resolve the issues" around the Falklands was not appreciated in London.

OK, what do you think Madame Secretary was referring to? Or do you think the telegraph just made it up?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7047309.ece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/02/clinton-us-britain-argentina-falklands-oil

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/world/americas/02clinton.html

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Can't we just hope for some sort of Israeli-Palestinian accord, instead?

Send parky/thunder as chief of mediation, that'll fix 'em ...

 

[Darat]

Actually, yes it did. The American Secretary of State made a public statement, intentionally or not, that she deemed the Falklands Islands claims to be negotiable. As I pointed out earlier, those are was settled in 1982, for a second time. I'll grant you that some of her comments were directed at Argentina and the UK quarelling over oil reserve exploitation in the area, which isn't necessarily about "who owns the islands" but it's directly related to that, else the Argies have no claim.

From the Telegraph:



OK, what do you think Madame Secretary was referring to? Or do you think the telegraph just made it up?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7047309.ece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/02/clinton-us-britain-argentina-falklands-oil

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/world/americas/02clinton.html

DR

Er none of those articles says what you are claiming they do! She was merely re-iterating the same diplomatic statements that the USA has been making for decades, and even made when we were engaged in armed conflict with Argentina.

 

[Metullus]

While I am not certain whether or not I would call Mrs. Clinton's comments a "stab in the back", I can say that I was disappointed in them. The issue of the Falklands was settled in 1982 (if not before) - the islands belong to the UK. My interpretation of Mrs. Clinton's remark was that the Obama administration would welcome and support Argentina's reopening of the question; a position I considered to be both inappropriate and likely offensive (and not unreasonably so) to a friend and ally.

I would also agree with DR that a diplomatic position taken to discourage violence when two countries are heading towards a shooting war is very different from one that is taken when the issue has long been settled.

 

[Darat]

At the time of her remarks there was "increased tension" as the diplomats like to say between the UK & Argentina (because of oil exploration), in light of that she was simply saying that we should talk to resolve our issues. Which has, for as long as I can remember, been the USA's diplomatic line about issues arising between our disagreements.