David Cameron Confronts Cristina Fernandez (UK v Argentina) (page 17)

Chariklo

Rogue traders, rogue bankers, rogue countries.

Hey, maybe the JW's have it right after all, LMAS is a sign of impending Armageddon?

OK, hands up, you got me, cheesy joke. Mea culpa!

cedars

slimboyfat

Europe falling apart is a cheap jibe? You have lost me there. I honesty didn't realise you were responsible for that one.
Oh and roll on the 2014 independence referendum.

I apologise - given the nature of your other cheap jibes I assumed that was a reference to the fact that I live in Europe! Hey, it's a fair assumption. Your comment didn't make any sense at all otherwise.

Yes, the 2014 referendum will be interesting. I might use my all powerful online influence to gag all the nationalists and make them all "shut up". I'll have Salmond in my pocket, and complete control of the media. Apparently, I can do all that you know....

Cedars

botchtowersociety

Let's face reality. The UK will not give up the Falklands, and the Falklanders will never agree to transfer the islands to Argentina. That is a non sequitur. Furthermore, Argentina does not have the ability to take it by force. So all we have, really, are Argentinian pols squawking, and Argentinian nationalists posting on X-cult forums. It's masturbatory.

slimboyfat

I live in Europe too. Scotland considers itself part of Europe, unlike little Englanders - which is just one reason why Scotland should vote yes in 2014.

Chariklo

I know a lot of Scottish people who'd disagree with you, Slimboy.

slimboyfat

BTS it doesn't make much sense to me either. Unless it's all part of a strategy to secure the deep sea oil and gas around the islands. Even so I doubt this is the best way to go about it. If Brazil threw their weight behind the Argentinian claim it might put a different complection on the situation. And what about the Monroe doctrine?

slimboyfat

I know a lot of Scottish people who'd disagree with you, Slimboy.

Well let's hope so. Still a lot of people to convince though if recent polls are to be believed.

botchtowersociety

And what about the Monroe doctrine?

I doubt it would be applied in this case. The U.S. would probably feign neutrality, just as it did in 1982, but would almost certainly side with the UK if the chips were down. That's what I think. I posted earlier how the Reagan admin did this, yet was willing to lend aid in the form of an aircraft carrier, if necessary. This President, however, has, it seems to me, some personal issue with the UK because of past colonialism in his father's Kenya. He might lend the Queen an ipod with his speeches and a pillar for Churchill's bust...just kidding...public opinion would force his hand regardless.

Besides, the UK has the stronger claim, and "posession is 9/10 of the law."

Chariklo

Slimboy, LMAS's strategy actually makes a lot of sense.

Cristina knows she hasn't the military strength to make much headway against the UK. Her main aim is to arouse sympathy in whatever parts of the world have grievances of their own that can be manipulated to meld with her cause, and also among anyone with a vague sense that maybe Britain is really the colonialist, imperialist nation as which she tries at every turn to portray her.

That is actually the sole tactic. That's what the recent visit to the uN was. That's why the internet is a gift to Buenos Aires. What's happoening on this forum is happening all over the web.

If you doubt me, just consider the poster's pen-name, go back and read the introductory thread and other early threads, and notice how by the second post or so her main purpose is introduced.And then reflect, and maybe study Cristina's actions and sayings, and also study and reflect a bit on Argentina itself. It wouldn't hurt to have a look at the Falkland's sites too.

It's all very illuminating, and what's going on is as clear as daylight.

slimboyfat

And Mitt Romney might send a pair of magic underpants.

David Cameron Confronts Cristina Fernandez (UK v Argentina)

Share this