over the Falklands ...

This guy will give us all a heart attack.

A gift to his weirdo Argentinian president friend?

3 minutes ago, ronnie50 said:

A gift to his weirdo Argentinian president friend?

A "quid pro quo" for the Pategonian moonbat letting him have all that dodgy minced beef cheap?

28 minutes ago, ronnie50 said:

A gift to his weirdo Argentinian president friend?

For sure libertarian free market presidents are weird and are usually only elected when a country figures out they have no choice but to elect this weirdo because the last president made them all poor

Edited August 30Aug 30 by harvardgrad

the falkands are a remnant of the brutal imperialist british regime. all so called possessions of the european exploiters should be freed and reparations imposed

Edited August 30Aug 30 by Yagoda

4 hours ago, JAG said:

A "quid pro quo" for the Pategonian moonbat letting him have all that dodgy minced beef cheap?

Nothing to do with that, the UK is not pulling its weight in NATO. Defence budget and all that, old chap. Whilst some countries have agreed to increase defence spending, the UK has skimped like a Scottish banker.

6 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Nothing to do with that, the UK is not pulling its weight in NATO. Defence budget and all that, old chap. Whilst some countries have agreed to increase defence spending, the UK has skimped like a Scottish banker.

Says the man who pulled his weight in defence matters by allowing his father to pull strings to get him out of being drafted!

Shouldn't have admitted that last week - old chap!

Just now, JAG said:

Says the man who pulled his weight in defence matters by allowing his father to pull strings to get him out of being drafted!

Shouldn't have admitted that last week - old chap!

That was purely a parental decision. I practised filial piety, as a good son should.

Just now, Yagoda said:

got it. you got hoisted on your own petard and cant get down

Petard is a bomb......the word hoisted was used to convey the notion you would be blown upwards.

But I guess you knew all that.

Trump threatens everyone, it's his modus operandi.

Bullies need a good smack in the mouth, and Carney just gave Trump a beauty.

The US states bordering Canada are going to lose 340,000 jobs.

Trump lashed out indiscriminately. Carney's response is calibrated carefully to cause maximum pain.

Just now, Lacessit said:

Bullies need a good smack in the mouth, and Carney just gave Trump a beauty.

Not sure it's a good idea to fight with the world's most powerful country who is your neighbor.

Edited August 30Aug 30 by save the frogs

2 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Not sure it's a good idea to fight with the world's most powerful country who is your neighbor.

What were the options? Canada certainly didn't start this idiotic trade war, and I fail to see what else PM Carney could have done.

Dropped the pants and bent over? Doesn't seem like a great alternative. Anyone who's ever caved in to trump has found out that he always comes back for more.

Besides, he is genuinely demented and getting worse day by day.

3 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

Dropped the pants and bent over?

Placate is a better way to put it.

4 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

and I fail to see what else PM Carney could have done.

Lol, obviously he could have negotiated better.

Carney is incompetent.

5 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Placate is a better way to put it.

If you "placate" trump he will take that as a sign of weakness and go all in. Besides, even if Canada had taken it up the a**, he would have torn the deal surrender up in a couple of months, saying it was the worst deal in history and asking what idiot had made it.

9 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Lol, obviously he could have negotiated better.

Carney is incompetent.

Poor PM Carney, having to deal with a mental midget like trump.

Just now, BLMFem said:

If you "placate" trump he will take that as a sign of weakness and go all in. Besides, even if Canada had taken it up the a**, he would have torn the deal surrender up in a couple of months, saying it was the worst deal in history and asking what idiot had made it.

Maybe you're right actually.

Maybe Carney doesn't trust Trump at all.

Let's see how this plays out.

Carney making deals with China or the US bombing Canada.

49 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

Petard is a bomb......the word hoisted was used to convey the notion you would be blown upwards.

But I guess you knew all that.

should have used the word with to make it historicaly correct, hamlet act 3 scene 4

" Let it work, For ’tis the sport to have the engineer, hoist with his own petard. "

1 hour ago, BLMFem said:

Poor PM Carney, having to deal with a mental midget like trump.

Wow, you're easily impressed. I dealt with Oxbridge guys every day for 20 years. They're nothing special. And Bessent, a Yale professor has said Trump was right about tariffs and knows more about the economy than he does, a professor of economics lol.

Carney is driving Canada into a recession, massive job losses and a falling Canadian Dollar.

6 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Wow, you're easily impressed. I dealt with Oxbridge guys every day for 20 years. They're nothing special.

Glad to hear about your real working life history. How much did that janitor job at Oxford pay?

11 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Carney is driving Canada into a recession, massive job losses and a falling Canadian Dollar.

A broadcaster said what Carney is doing by walking away from trade talks doesn't make economic sense, so it must be for political reasons.

So it could be that Carney is allied with the Democrats.

And maybe sabotaging his own country in doing so.

China and Canada are the only countries that retaliated against Trump.

But China is in a very different situation and has more cards to play.

14 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

A broadcaster said what Carney is doing by walking away from trade talks doesn't make economic sense, so it must be for political reasons.

So it could be that Carney is allied with the Democrats.

And maybe sabotaging his own country in doing so.

China and Canada are the only countries that retaliated against Trump.

But China is in a very different situation and has more cards to play.

What Carney is doing certainly does not make economic sense. Job losses, a falling Dollar, recession, this is what he is gifting Canadians. It's bizarre. But then he did not do wonders for the UK either when was at the Bank of England. Maybe he's just incompetent and out of his depth.

Meanwhile Trump already secured the biggest oil deal in history with Venezuela and is already substituting Canada.

It won't stop his fan boys, who swoon when they hear Goldman Sachs, Harvard and Oxford, proclaiming Carney is a genius. Time will tell, lol. I rather doubt it.

11 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

What Carney is doing certainly does not make economic sense. Job losses, a falling Dollar, recession, this is what he is gifting Canadians.

I Googled your unsubstantiated claims, and see what I got as a result.

The only countries Trump doesn't threaten are Russia, China, and North Korea.

8 hours ago, Yagoda said:

the falkands are a remnant of the brutal imperialist british regime. all so called possessions of the european exploiters should be freed and reparations imposed

Your argument is not merely historically shallow; it is morally backwards. You describe the Falkland Islands as a “remnant” of British imperialism and demand that all supposedly European “possessions” be “freed”, as though the world were a children's morality play in which Europeans are permanently guilty, everyone else is permanently innocent, and the wishes of the people actually living in a territory can simply be discarded whenever they interfere with your preferred political narrative.

And this is where you might want to take a history lesson from an American rather more principled than yourself: Ronald Reagan. Reagan did not begin the Falklands crisis by blindly cheering Britain. His administration initially tried intensely to mediate between Britain and Argentina. Reagan personally spoke to both governments, sent Secretary of State Alexander Haig on his extraordinary shuttle diplomacy mission, and sought a peaceful settlement. But Reagan also understood something apparently beyond you: there is a moral difference between having a territorial dispute and settling that dispute through armed aggression. Argentina's military junta invaded the Falklands in April 1982. Reagan's administration immediately called for Argentine forces to withdraw and made clear its opposition to the use of force. And when diplomacy failed, Reagan did not hide behind your fashionable communistic anti-colonial rhetoric. He did not decide that Britain was automatically the villain because Britain was European. He did not decide that Argentina was automatically virtuous because it was Latin American. He looked at what had actually happened.

Argentina had used military force to seize territory whose population overwhelmingly wished to remain British.Reagan recognised that aggression cannot simply be rewarded because the aggressor has wrapped its territorial claim in the language of historical grievance.

By April 30, the Reagan administration had formally tilted toward the British position, suspended military and economic assistance to Argentina and imposed sanctions. The United States subsequently provided Britain with substantial military materiel and other forms of political, diplomatic and military assistance. Reagan himself articulated the principle with remarkable clarity: “armed aggression cannot be allowed to succeed in today's world.” That is what principle looks like.

Notice what Reagan didn't do. He didn't say: “Britain has an empire, therefore anything done against Britain is automatically justified.” He didn't say: “Argentina has a historical grievance, therefore its military junta has a moral blank cheque.” He didn't say: “The inhabitants of the Falklands are merely colonial remnants whose opinions can be ignored.” And he certainly didn't reduce an enormously complicated historical dispute to a cartoon in which one side possesses all the moral agency and the other possesses none. Indeed, Reagan later explicitly reaffirmed that self-determination applied to the people of the Falklands. That distinction matters enormously. But if you claim to care about freedom, you cannot simply erase the people who live there.

And Reagan understood that better than you apparently do.

There is a particularly delicious irony here. The person you, MAGA Commie, would probably expect to dismiss as an old-fashioned right-wing American imperialist actually displayed considerably more intellectual consistency on this question than your supposedly enlightened anti-imperialism does.

Reagan understood that opposition to imperialism does not mean opposition to Britain. He understood that historical grievances do not confer an unlimited right to use force. He understood that a territorial claim does not automatically override the wishes of the population concerned. And he understood that democratic self-determination cannot be treated as a principle that applies only when it produces the politically fashionable result.

That brings us back to your argument. You invoke “European exploiters” as though nationality determines moral legitimacy. It doesn't. If colonialism is wrong, colonialism is wrong. If conquest is wrong, conquest is wrong. If military aggression is wrong, military aggression is wrong. If the wishes of small populations matter, they matter even when those populations happen to have a British identity. You are a hypocrite, in your support for the murder happening in Ukraine.

A genuinely universal principle doesn't suddenly change depending on the flag involved. And since you are American, there is another rather awkward historical question you might want to contemplate before lecturing everyone else about imperialism. The United States itself has an extraordinarily complicated history of territorial expansion, indigenous dispossession, warfare, annexation and overseas power. You are perfectly entitled to criticise Britain—Americans are entitled to criticise anybody—but pretending that American history provides some immaculate moral vantage point from which to condemn the sins of other countries is absurd.

If historical guilt automatically invalidates modern sovereignty, you have just invented a principle capable of producing an absolutely enormous number of territorial claims against the United States itself. So perhaps the real question is whether you actually believe in a principle—or whether you simply enjoy applying historical morality selectively. Because your argument appears to operate according to a remarkably convenient formula:

British = imperialist.

European = exploiter.

Argentine claim = liberation.

Falkland Islanders' wishes = inconvenient.

American historical complications = apparently irrelevant.

That isn't serious anti-imperialism.

That is historical tribalism.

And the demand for “reparations” makes the argument even more intellectually unserious. Reparations are not a magic word that automatically transforms a disputed territorial claim into a moral crusade. Reparations require an identifiable injustice, identifiable victims, identifiable responsibility and a defensible mechanism of remedy.

So who exactly is supposed to receive these reparations?

The Falkland Islanders?

The people you simultaneously propose removing from the sovereignty they overwhelmingly prefer?

Argentina?

On what precise historical and legal basis?

Some other population?

Which one, and why?

Once you get beyond the slogan, the supposedly effortless moral certainty starts looking rather less impressive.

And that is ultimately the problem with your post: you have confused hostility toward Britain with a coherent philosophy of decolonisation.

Those are not the same thing.

You are perfectly entitled to dislike the British Empire. You are perfectly entitled to support Argentina's claim. You are perfectly entitled to believe Britain should negotiate over sovereignty.

But if you are going to invoke the sacred language of freedom, liberation and self-determination, you have to confront the people whose freedom and self-determination you are supposedly defending.

They have spoken.

You simply don't like their answer, MAGA Commie.

And that reveals rather more about your (im)morality than it does about theirs.

If this sort of argument is genuinely representative of contemporary American political discourse, then the troubling question isn't merely what happened to Britain's historical reputation. It is what has happened to American political culture when people can demand the political subordination of an entire population while simultaneously congratulating themselves for defending that population's freedom?

Because Reagan, whatever one's opinion of him on other matters, understood something elementary that seems to have escaped you: Self-determination is not the right to determine what other people should choose.

You invoke “European exploiters” as though nationality determines moral legitimacy. It doesn't.

If colonialism is wrong, colonialism is wrong. If conquest is wrong, conquest is wrong. If military aggression is wrong, military aggression is wrong. If the wishes of small populations matter, they matter even when those populations happen to have a British identity.

A genuinely universal principle doesn't suddenly change depending on the flag involved.

And since you are American, there is another rather awkward historical question you might want to contemplate before lecturing everyone else about imperialism. The United States itself has an extraordinarily complicated history of territorial expansion, indigenous dispossession, warfare, annexation and overseas power. You are perfectly entitled to criticise Britain—Americans are entitled to criticise anybody—but pretending that American history provides some immaculate moral vantage point from which to condemn the sins of other countries is absurd. If historical guilt automatically invalidates modern sovereignty, you have just invented a principle capable of producing an absolutely enormous number of territorial claims against the United States itself.

So perhaps the real question is whether you actually believe in a principle—or whether you simply enjoy applying historical morality selectively like your fellow MAGA Commies. Because your argument appears to operate according to a remarkably convenient formula:

British = imperialist.

European = exploiter.

Argentine claim = liberation.

Falkland Islanders' wishes = inconvenient.

American historical complications = apparently irrelevant.**

That isn't serious anti-imperialisms but effing historical tribalism.

And the demand for “reparations” makes the argument even more intellectually unserious. Reparations are not a magic word that automatically transforms a disputed territorial claim into a moral crusade. Reparations require an identifiable injustice, identifiable victims, identifiable responsibility and a defensible mechanism of remedy.

You have revealed yourself as a MAGA Communist. You are so far to the right, you have reached the left. You are now using the language of the extremist left, the Communists. I bet you hate free trade as well, commie. Reds under the bed. You are the real threat to the United State of America.

So who exactly is supposed to receive these reparations? The Falkland Islanders? The people you simultaneously propose removing from the sovereignty they overwhelmingly prefer? Argentina? On what precise historical and legal basis? Some other population? Which one, and why? Once you get beyond the slogan, the supposedly effortless moral certainty starts looking rather less impressive. And that is ultimately the problem with your post: you have confused hostility toward Britain with a coherent philosophy of decolonisation. Those are not the same thing. You are perfectly entitled to dislike the British Empire and be repeatedly supportive of Z-Russia and their ilk. You are perfectly entitled to support Argentina's claim. You are perfectly entitled to believe Britain should negotiate over sovereignty. Pity you don't apply the same <deleted> standards to your mates in Russia as they rape and murder their way across Ukraine. When are you joining their Holy War?

But if you are going to invoke the sacred language of freedom, liberation and self-determination, you have to confront the people whose freedom and self-determination you are supposedly defending. They have spoken. You simply don't like their answer.

And that reveals rather more about your morality than it does about theirs. If this sort of argument is genuinely representative of contemporary American political discourse, then the troubling question isn't merely what happened to Britain's historical reputation. It is what has happened to American political culture when people can demand the political subordination of an entire population while simultaneously congratulating themselves for defending that population's freedom? Because Reagan, whatever one's opinion of him on other matters, understood something elementary that seems to have escaped you: Self-determination is not the right to determine what other people should choose. It is their right to choose.

And if you cannot accept that distinction, perhaps the problem isn't that the Falkland Islanders haven't been liberated. Perhaps the problem is that you haven't got a scoobie what liberation means. Not surprising for a Ruscist.

11 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Not sure it's a good idea to fight with the world's most powerful country who is your neighbor.

It is a fight against trump policies and actions. Thus, this American citizen stands with our Canadian neighbors. This is official USA government action and … it is wrong. The global community recognizes this while far too many US citizens do not seem to comphrehend.

11 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Not sure it's a good idea to fight with the world's most powerful country who is your neighbor.

15 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

It is a fight against trump policies and actions. Thus, this American citizen stands with our Canadian neighbors. This is official USA government action and … it is wrong. The global community recognizes this while far too many US citizens do not seem to comphrehend.

Why? What are you thinking? Reality of USA using military against Canada? There is no threat in reality … all huff and puff. Attacking another NATO country? Not in the realm of reality.

14 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Not sure it's a good idea to fight with the world's most powerful country who is your neighbor.

Not sure it's a good idea to become a doormat either.

NATO is a defensive treaty. If Trump tore that up, it would get messier than even Iran.

2 hours ago, wwest5829 said:

Attacking another NATO country? Not in the realm of reality.

Trump is pulling away from NATO anyway.

But I really don't know to what extent it's hot air or what the probabilities are.

It's above my pay grade.

What Trump is doing is simple. If you want American diplomatic cover then spend like an ally.

NATO target is 5%. Britain is crawling toward 2.7% and calling it a plan. UK is a freeloader but they seem to have unlimited funds to house and feed illegals. If I were british I would offload the illegals and use that money to pay NATO. Would be less stabby walks around neighborhood too.

Washington is saying the Falklands recognition is not a free gift while London cheapskates on defence and that is not a threat to invade Stanley. It is burden-sharing with consequences. About time.

UK should stop crying poor on NATO while finding endless money for hotels and meals for people who arrived(arrives) illegally. Cut that bill, fund the 5%, and the streets get quieter (and less stabby) too.