7 hours ago, Yagoda said:

1000 years ago got it.

The Indian wars were over in the 1890s. There was no genocide, unlike the European colonist who arrived with the aim of extirpating tribes, along with enslavement.

Archeology doesnt support your claim about Israel.

This is what happens when you use Google to translate Russian into English; archane English is used, and you don't realise it.

11 hours ago, Jeff the Chef said:

Can you not give it a rest?

Talking of basket cases.

He's doing furious Googling in St Petersburg (not Florida).

On 4/25/2026 at 12:28 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m not suggesting anything of the sort.

Thank your for confirming my earlier statements that the US provided the UK with military hardware, ammunition and logistics.

The ammunition and missiles supplied were not used in the war. The additional Sidewinders 9Ls arrived in the UK after the Air war had concluded, and never made it to the South Atlantic. The Brits had left the UK with a mix of 9Gs and 9Ls from existing stocks. As the British marched on Stanley, there were no magical supplies of American ammunition; there was limited resupply from the UK during the conflict. The Task Force went with essentially what it had. Hence, when the Atlantic Conveyor went down, with its Chinooks, troops had to walk across East Falkland, rather than leap frog. Support was grudging and not immediate. Some members of the US government were immoral. Casper Weinberger was not, but he was alone in the US cabinet as offering fulsome support from the British right from the start. That's called being principaled. Alexander Haig was not, because he equivocated between supplorting a Military Dictatorship that was already under a US Arms Embargo, on account of its Death Squads, and a democratic government that was one of the US's oldest allies.

Senator Joseph Biden nailed it in 1982

https://youtu.be/3C9hxsRO7pI?si=T2gM33nNJUN9Zde_

And many years later, Vice President Biden, signing a Book of Condolance, recounted a personal anecdote about how Thatcher forcefully persuaded Jesse Helms to not back Argentina.

Its instructive to learn that Congress felt it necessary to put out a public statement supporting the United Kingdom, rather than the prevailing position. One would have thought that such a statement wouldn't be necessary, but it just shows that many thought at the time, the US, at one point, wasn't fully supportive.

The Congressional Resolution was passed on the 29th April 1982, 79 in support, 1 against (Jesse helm). Even so, it had to be considerably watered down from the version proposed by Senator Biden. Republicans John Warner, Ted Stevens, ensured the resolution did not call for economic sanctions against Argentina, did not contain any approval for the US to lend direct military support, deleted the phrase "use all appropriate means to assist the British government" and deleted the phrase "the principle of self-determination".

As for "Comms"; the US provision of Comms was nothing to do with US support for the war. For the US to NOT provide Comms would mean the US breaking key agreements between the US and UK about the sharing of resources. Sticking to a pre-existing agreement does not mean condoning British action. This is similar to the recent US use of RAF Fairford. The UK objection was based on the Attorney General's reading of whether the US action was lawful or not. That opinion changed; the British consent to US forces using the airfield was nothing to do with whether the UK approved or not of the action. It was based on the Basing Agreement, where the US is free to use the airbase, as it sees fit, for lawful purposes. The Weather data supplied was normal commercial grade, and proved to be of limited worth. Even after the war, released Pentagon papers showed the British had to beg the Americans for supplies to reinforce the Falklands

Your statements are misleading. But you weren't to know. None of the things you think happened would have happened but for 1982 Joe Biden.

Perhaps we (the UK) should review the status of Puerto Rico and the various American administered Island territories in the Pacific?

Nothing to do with us of course, but then what do the Falkland Islands have to do with the US?

On 4/25/2026 at 1:36 AM, Yagoda said:

The Falklands are a colonialist remnant of the defunct, brutal British Empire. All countries victimized by the rapacious British should seek reparations.

The aboriginals should sue them

10 minutes ago, JAG said:

Perhaps we (the UK) should review the status of Puerto Rico and the various American administered Island territories in the Pacific?

Nothing to do with us of course, but then what do the Falkland Islands have to do with the US?

eg Guam, the Aleutians.

2 hours ago, JAG said:

Perhaps we (the UK) should review the status of Puerto Rico and the various American administered Island territories in the Pacific?

You really think the UK will matter in 2026. What will the UK do if Argentina takes back the Falkland Islands? Send their barely functioning navy? Or send a strongly worded letter?

Which other part of the world does the nutjob want now

5 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

This is what happens when you use Google to translate Russian into English; archane English is used, and you don't realise it.

Arcane English? translating russsian? What does Russia have to do with the Falklands

3 hours ago, MikeandDow said:

Which other part of the world does the nutjob want now

All of it, except the bits "controlled by Russia and China!

5 hours ago, Effective altruism said:

You really think the UK will matter in 2026. What will the UK do if Argentina takes back the Falkland Islands? Send their barely functioning navy? Or send a strongly worded letter?

The Royal Navy is having problems it is true. The Argentinian armed forces however have, effectively, no navy, a residual airforce and an army whose last combat experience was their defeat in 1982.

The Falklands has a strong garrison which can be rapidly reinforced.

Sassoon!

The first casualty of war is your haircut!