Posted on 02/10/2006 9:00:31 PM PST by Thunder90
VENEZUELA'S president has called on Tony Blair to return the Falkland Islands to Argentina, accusing the Prime Minister of being a "pawn" of Washington.
"We have to remember the Malvinas [the Argentine name for the islands]; how they were taken away from the Argentines. Mr Blair, return the Malvinas to Argentina," said president Hugo Chavez.
The socialist leader has long been the most vocal critic of US president George Bush, but Mr Blair was added to his list of "imperialists" after the Prime Minister said in parliament on Wednesday that if Mr Chavez wanted to be respected, he "should abide by the rules of the international community".
He responded: "Mr Tony Blair, you have no moral right to tell anyone to respect international laws, as you have shown no respect for them, aligning yourself with 'Mr Danger' [president Bush] and trampling on the people of Iraq. Do you think we still live in the times of the British Empire or colonialism?"
The Argentine president, Nestor Kirchner, has vowed that the islands will one day be part of Argentina, but has not aggressively pursued the issue since taking power in 2003.
A statement released by the Venezuelan presidential palace was more formal but equally critical of Britain, which it now lumped together with the US.
"Venezuela respects the rules of the international community: that is why it does not invade countries, it does not blockade countries, it does not sponsor torture, it does not protect international terrorists and it repudiates the existence of clandestine CIA jails in various European countries. Venezuela is not a genocidal country," it said.
<< Er... We kicked the living crap out of the Mau Mau in Kenya >>
Not a huge task.
During Mau Mau, more white people died in traffic accidents in Nairobi than were killed throughout Kenya by Herr Kenyatta's killer Kikuyus.
And Rhodesia is a bad blot on Britain's book.
You can not return what was never owned by them in the first place
There were some tales of great heroism during the emergency. I don't think they should be knocked.
1. British ownership of the Falkland Islands preceded the Monroe Doctrine which, under international law, cannot be retrospective.
2. Why do you think the Monroe Doctrine is binding for Britain anyway?
2. The UK is a European/Foreign power. The Monroe Doctrine was created with the UK, Spain, and France all in mind. Same goes for the Roosevelt Corollary.
They are British. They could be turned over to Argentina, but not 'returned.' This is fallacious way of argument.
WHAT???!!!????
We speak "English"
Most take English literature in High school for a year.
Where did that weird rank "Sergeant major" come from? How about the idea of Marines or even a Ranger?
70% THAT IS SEVENTY PERCENT of Americans have ancestry that is from the UK. How many links do you want to prove this? 30, 50 how many?
http://landing.ancestry.com/uk_genealogy/uk_genealogy.aspx
http://www.shopirishwithmoytura.com/genealogy/UK-Ireland/
Guess which nation is tied into the NSA? BAE is tied into the JSF program. We have intell agreements on mutual collection and dissemination efforts. If we know it, they know it. If they know it, we know it.
GB is one of our major trading partners. It's the EU nation that is on our side when it comes to breaking down trade barriers, opening up protectionist markets etc. They are THE most reliable NATO partner we have.
Why is Mr. Bean such a hit in the US? Why was Chicken run such a wide spread success? They make lots of movies in China and Russia! But culturally these movies hit the American audience just like our stuff does there.
In 1995 (Just an example) we exported to the UK with 56M population and a smaller economy 28.8B worth of goods, to Germany with 81M people 22.4B. Italy didn’t even break 9B. GB is hands down our best trading partner within Europe and plays the least “protectionist” games of anyone there.
Just as an interesting side bar: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/uk/uk-0401-hansard-commons.htm
You’re living on Mars! If GB is attacked or their territorial rights threatened, the Monroe Doctrine goes out the window. While most other European nations also have blood relatives, economic and cultural ties, NONE are as close as with GB. GB will always get our favor within Europe. Mexico is part of NAFTA, but GB is still closer to us than them. GB is part of the EU, but they still hold us closer that their French/German buddies.
Yes, he US-British relations are a "special" case.
There are more Americans of GERMAN Ancestry than any other.
Americans by ancestry, 2000 census:
1. German 42,841,569 15.2%
2. Irish 30,524,799 10.8
3. African American1 24,903,412 8.8
4. English 24,509,692 8.7
5. American 20,188,305 7.2
6. Mexican 18,382,291 6.5
7. Italian 15,638,348 5.6
8. Polish 8,977,235 3.2
9. French 8,309,666 3.0
10. American Indian1 7,876,568 2.8
As you can see, Americans of English ancestry are WAY outnumbered if you combine every other ethnicity.
Thoughout the 19th and early 20th century, Americans would celebrate "Evacuation Day" by burning British soldiers in effigy.
Take your Anglophilia back to ol' Blighty if you love that little island so much. ;-)
Actually more outnumbered than even your figure indicates since I didn't see Scots-Irish on that list. The 24 million listed under English is probably about 2/3 Scots-Irish since that group outnumbers the English. Most likely the English is only about 10 million total with the rest Scots-Irish.
Do you intentionally only focus on one part of my post but ignore the other 90%?
--
We have an ancestry that is not only large, one of the largest, but it’s the British culture, the British heritage, the British humor even that is the "mainstay" of American society.
We have LOTS of Hispanics in the US who speak Spanish only. But is this the "heartbeat" of American life and culture? No. It is not. Though no official national language, we right now are communicating in “ENGLISH” which if you want to be anyone, or go anywhere in this society you must speak.
I am of German origin from BOTH sides of my family (Actually Austrian and German), and I speak ENGLISH, I took English literature, studied history which focused heavily on British history (Crusades, King Henry……etc). "Karl der Grosse" was hardly covered.
--
And yet with all this considered, it’s only PART of the much bigger picture. A picture that in reality includes trade, a defense partner, a nation with whom we fought two World Wars and institutions in intelligence and security were borne from………
Great Britain was in Iraq 1991, they went into Afghanistan on our side and today are after us the largest contingent in Iraq 2003. If war broke out tomorrow in Korea, they would be just about the ONLY EU state we could count on to help! In fact one can go so far that GB might just be a more reliable ally than our NAFTA friends in the North or South! There is no doubt, that while some in Britain tout the EU; GB sees us the same way. They trust us, and put more confidence in us than the French or the Germans; at least that is how the political and economic establishment sees it.
Read what I wrote - I never said the Brits had the highest ancestry in the US.
However, read your post #72 which I was answering: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1576358/posts?page=72#72
You dear, are full of shit with your 20% pulled from your rectum.
--
The Germans didn’t manage the colonies in the US. No it was the British, whose legal system we adopted for all states except Louisiana, which uses Napoleonic code. The Germans are not our most reliable NATO partner, they are not our largest export market in Europe despite being the biggest economy in the EU, they are not the ones we can politically rely on within the EU, NATO or UN (Can you say Iraq 2003?). The NSA which is our national level SIGINT Intel agency is partially run with the British. We share secrets with them, in fact we share technology with them that includes direct information on “how to” in reference nuclear weapons. British pilots have actually flown and operated US stealth planes F117’s. If you had even a “remote clue” about what you’re talking about, you’d know that certain information is ONLY shared with the UK and it is labeled as such.
Here’s another interesting little factoid: If you look at the former British Empire and look at where the US is present today or our scope of influence is, you’d be amazed to see how this map nearly overlaps ~ India, Pakistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Australia……..
So you understand, in case it hurts your feelings since you still might feel LOYAL to others besides the US and are blinded by this. The US as a nation places the alliance, friendship, economic and political ties with Great Britain before all others within Europe, Africa, Latin or South America. If Argentina gets between the US and GB they will not be happy with the US decision - that was proven in the Falklands.
Culturally speaking:
The only nations that are as close or closer to us arguably than Great Britain are Australia and Canada. The Aussies because of "geography" and similar developmental paths over our history are extremely close to how we are. They speak a little different, but unlike GB they are a bit less refined and a bit more casual, rough and direct, which is typical of American society compared to the Brits. Cheney and Rumsfeld, both whom I admire very much are good examples. The “Mid West” attitude of Cheney is obvious as day, and I personally like this. But it’s not something you’d find often in a Brit. However, the Aussies are more like that again because of their nations past. But even there, it is our common British heritage which ultimately ties us together.
Nevertheless, we are a different people, often with different interests. I also am with Jefferson and Washington on the issue of what attitude Americans should take towards colonialism and empire. The Monroe Doctrine, and the Roosevelt Corollary, should always stand, even for our "friends."
I will leave you with a quote from one of my heros, a Prime Minister no less, Benjamin Disraeli: "States have no friends, only interests."
Canada is a more complex case. Being that they had a confederate form of government, they never developed a sense of national unity. This was not helped by the linguistic/religious divide that was present from the beginning, to say nothing of the large waves of immigration since WWII (initially Southern and Eastern European, now from Asia and the Western Hemisphere). Canadians do not have the strong sense of cultural identity that Americans have, which is why they seem to unite by identifying themselves negatively against the U.S.
De Gaulle said that as well. They also threw us out of France, didn't put their nukes under NATO control and and and.
Acting as France does brings you where they are today; Loathed world wide and without any true friends. The French are even HATED in the Middle East, despite being against the war in Iraq and trying their hardest to bottom feed and get every little arms deal they can with Tin Pot regimes. Do the Poles like the French? No. Does the German political elite really have full confidence in them? No. Rightfully so one might add! Because they act “exactly” the way you described. France is all about France and while Schroeder liked their companionship in taking an anti Iraq war position (For his own political gain/reelection 2002) even in Germany those in power today know that France can’t be fully trusted. The French are hated in Vietnam to the Ivory Coast to French Guiana. In Polynesia they are not liked either.
Do you think we would go far out of our way to help the French even though they are a NATO member and we liberated and helped them in WWII? An alliance, trust, etc can only be upheld when the member states also act in their allies’ best interest. There is no such thing as a “fair weather ally”.
--
You mention “interests”: Let’s discuss them.
In the big picture, which EU nation is more closely aligned with us? With whom do we do more trade in the EU? With who are we closer tied for Intel? Whom can we trust more when it comes to security matters? Which EU countries invest more in our economy? Who are OUR common enemies?
Sacrificing a long term solid powerful and close ally with mutual economic and security interests so we do a quick fix in some South American nation is not even serving our own best interests if you really want to get down to it.
Do you think Tony Blair wanted to get the political egg in the face over Iraq? He’s a LIBERAL even, yet why did they stand by us? In part I’m sure not only because of the real threat poised by the late Saddam Regime, but also because they do not want to jeopardize our relationship. It’s a two way road.
I have nothing but respect for Tony Blair taking the unpopular step of being our closest ally in Iraq. I used to think he was nothing more than the Clinton of the UK, until I saw how he behaved with fellow Methodist POTUS 43. He is a man of principle and, the rarest or rarities in Europe these days, a Christian who lives his faith.
I don't know if Russia can be put there.
I'd switch out Russia and put Cuba in their place.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.