60 2 mins 10 yrs

“The people dont matter.”

It’s no surprise. The Secretary of State came to London three weeks and announced that Washington would ignore the referendum. Let’s acknowledge their consistency now in that case. After 99.8% of islanders voted to remain British, the State Department has again discarded their opinion, taking no position on sovereignty, but recognising what it calls Argentina’s “competing claim” to the Falkland Islands.

I’m tempted to suggest that Downing Street should recognise Mexico’s “competing claim” to Texas and California, but the Obama regime might well agree. Of course, there’s no competing claim for land by Buenos Aires, as explained by von Mises:

“A nation, therefore, has no right to say to a province: You belong to me, I want to take you. A province consists of its inhabitants. If anybody has a right to be heard in this case it is these inhabitants. Boundary disputes should be settled by plebiscite.”

Liberation theorists would concur, except, it seems, when those voting are white.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

60 thoughts on “WASHINGTON’S PREDICTABLE REACTION TO THE FALKLANDS REFERENDUM

  1. As far as I can tell, the US wing of ATW overwhelmingly supports the British position on this. Maybe 100%?

  2. I suppose Pete you would also support an Island-wide vote in Ireland as well (they are mostly white).

    My personal view is I am glad the vote went the way it did and support the Falklands as part of the UK. Argentina’s wicked witch of the south only uses this to distract from their crappy economy. As for the US position, it remains the same as it has always been.

  3. Is it technically part of the UK or is it a UK possession?

    I recall the Channel Islands and maybe the Isle of Man being described as not being in the UK proper.

  4. It is a UK Overseas territory. I think the Channel Isles and the Isle of Man are dependent territories. None of them are specifically part of the UK as a nation and have no representative in the Westminster Parliament as far as I know.

  5. Colm – thanks. But y’all better watch out for a no taxation without representation movement. There has been a precedent.

  6. Pete

    If you oppose all taxation, then how would you propose to fund the military that may have to defend the Falklands some day?

    Ships and fighter aircraft aren’t cheap 🙂

  7. I do believe that opposition to taxation in Britain is implicit support of the Argentine position?

    Maliciously yours,

    Me

  8. Europe recognises the Falklands as disputed territory between two sovereign states, the referendum doesn’t change that.

  9. Phantom –

    It’s a British Overseas Territory. In short it means the Queen is the Head of State, it’s not part of the UK and it’s self-governing. It’s a similar, not not exactly the same, situation to Gib, the Channel Islands and Isle of Man.

    “If you oppose all taxation, then how would you propose to fund the military that may have to defend the Falklands some day?”

    I’d surcharge tax fans. Then when the oil comes on stream islanders can tool up big time, employ ex-forces mercenaries, gunboats etc. Long live liberty.

  10. I’d surcharge

    When someone is afraid to call a tax a tax, you can call it a surcharge.

  11. The Argentinian claim that they inherited the islands from Spain upon their own independence prior to Britain asserting its colonial power (in 1832) is not unreasonable. Put it like this: any people can move into a piece of land, expel those who are there and then, by ‘democratic’ principle, the new landowners vote for their position as-is and call that a mandate. Ask Israelis about it.

    As for Texas and California, not long now before they are re-colonised, and the stupid gringos are paying the cost of accommodating the (re-)colonisers. What would Davy Crockett think of that?

  12. The Obama Regime is no friend to our British ally, they are hostile to it in Obama’s view it is an evil colonizing nation that is responsible for a large portion of history’s grief.

    In his eyes you are a major part of the worlds problem.

  13. According to the link;

    “The residents have clearly expressed their preference for a continued relationship with the United Kingdom.”

    “That said, we obviously recognize that there are competing claims. Our formal position has not changed. We recognize the de facto UK administration of the islands, but we take no position on sovereignty claims.”

    Not quite sure why you care what the US government thinks on this insignificant issue, Pete, but they do seem to be acknowledging the people’s vote.

    I am surprised that you’re not castigating these Falklanders (sp?) for claiming blind fealty to a socialist, nanny-state, over-regulated, immigrant importing, welfare loving nation near financial ruin.

    Shouldn’t these hearty souls be encouraged to break all ties to your dying empire? To forge a new, independent, non-statist stronghold?

    Come on, fess up – you don’t really give a rat’s what the state department has to say about anything. 😉

  14. Daphne –

    The State Department doesn’t acknowledge the vote. It continues to encourage Argie belligerence.

    “I am surprised that you’re not castigating these Falklanders (sp?) for claiming blind fealty to a socialist, nanny-state, over-regulated, immigrant importing, welfare loving nation near financial ruin.”

    They’re not American, they’re self-governing 😉

  15. Daphne –

    I did mean to ask you something.

    This week I’ve seen a couple of online news pieces about the same old horrors in northern Mexico. One was about Reynosa, the other (if I remember correctly) was in Nuevo Laredo. Killings, bodies, mutiliations, the usual stuff out of there.

    Are these things news in Texas? I mean, if so, are they seen as “close to home” or is it more of a foreign thing and “over there”?

  16. Funny man. 😉

    Atw isn’t loading worth a damn tonight. Slow and slippy.

    I may have missed it, did anyone do an Iraq 10 year retrospective? What a complete disaster.

    I see David’s pet asshole at large has decided he possesses more information than the Commander of U.S. Pacific forces.

    If I didn’t know the imbecilic writer, I’d swear it was an ironic Onion piece.

  17. now come on every body attack me for responding to an unprovoked attack from the texas bimbo

  18. It’s not news so much anymore, Pete. We’ve become immune to the shock value of the massive, violent slaughter taking place across the border, but we’re very much aware and have significantly curtailed our trips south.

    It’s not happening in Texas, so for those of us not living on the border, it is considered it a foreign thing.

    The drug cartels are sorting out territory while corrupt and complicit government entities are feeling the bloody end of the stick. It’ll work itself out eventually, until then we steer clear of crossing the border.

  19. Pete it’s your thread if she wants to attack unprovoked I’ll respond.

    If you feel both comments should be removed mine and hers, please do so.

    It’s up to you

  20. I see David’s pet asshole at large has decided he possesses more information than the Commander of U.S. Pacific forces.

    If I didn’t know the imbecilic writer, I’d swear it was an ironic Onion piece

    I have to admit to finding the above pretty funny, along with troll’s response.

    Daphne – just stay where you are. Soon, the border will be to your north.

  21. Troll, you can do better than that. We all saw how you verbally abused a polite senior citizen this morning.

    C’mon, make David proud, let your Ivy league, true inner bully loose.

  22. Daphne – Thanks, interesting.

    Troll – Yes, Daphne was rude about you, but it made me chuckle. Hey, shit happens.

  23. The sad part is he believes people take him seriously or find his insults to be anything more than indicative of a lousy personality.

    What’s up with the obsession with deleting comments? If anyone’s words should be deleted from this site…

    I’m done, Pete. Check out Borderlands if you’re interested in the ongoing Mexico mess.

  24. Daphne your trite little quips don’t dismiss that it was you that showed yourself to be the low class thing that you are. I said nothing to you at all let alone to provoke you.

    You went out of your way to just be obnoxious. You didn’t comment whether or not my judgement on the Commander was wrong or why. You just got your jollies off of being a bitch to someone who has ignored you for weeks.

    You have no ground to stand on. I am not liked by many, that is true. I don’t however attack people at random for no reason. You did. If your trite comment justifies your behavior in your mind it only shows what you are inside.

    It isn’t much is it?

  25. Paul McMahon –

    Chicken feed when the oil comes on stream. But what’s your objection? I thought the Left was in favour of welfare! What an interesting comment from Seamus Milne:

    What other result could conceivably be expected if the future of the islands is put in the hands of the tiny British settler population, most of whom weren’t born there but are subsidised to the tune of £44,856 a head to keep them in the Rhodesian retro style to which they are accustomed?

    People on welfare don’t have the right to self-determination. That’s Labour and Sinn Fein screwed then. When Britons talk about immigrants and welfare like that we’re accused of being Nazis.

  26. //People on welfare don’t have the right to self-determination. //

    He didn’t mean that. He meant that the population on the islands is some kind of artificial one, not a viable independent group that would be entitled to made an independent decision on self-determination.

    I don’t know if this is defined in international law, as he suggests. Deliberately planting a population in some area with a view to establishing a legal claim to the place (such as Israel’s settlement of Palestine) if of course illegal.
    Generally, the conflicting claims of various groups settled in different places, and when a group is entitled to secede etc., seems to be one of the major causes of war and conflict now, and it would be a good idea if international agreement were reached on the general question.

    Whatever the definition, the present set-up of Northern Ireland is/was indefensible. Either a group in a hitherto undefined area is entitled to secede or not. If Ulster Unionists in the 6 NE counties of Ireland had the right to break away in 1921, then the counties and cities within the 6 with a nationalist majority had in turn a right to break away from this new NI the very next day.

  27. Even if there was only two sheep and a goat there, those islands were never Argentine so there’s really no issue.

    I’d like to own all kinds of things that don’t belong to me now, but that doesn’t mean that I have any claim to them.

  28. Deliberately planting a population in some area with a view to establishing a legal claim to the place (such as Israel’s settlement of Palestine) if of course illegal.

    Would that also apply to the Spanish/Argentinian population that was there in 1833?

  29. //Would that also apply to the Spanish/Argentinian population that was there in 1833?//

    No, nor to the British population pre-1982. As far as I know, there was no deliberate settlement of populations there in order to establish sovereignty. People at that time used simply stick a flag on the top of a mountain. I know it’s often difficult to make a clear distiction (e.g. American settlers in Texas in the early 19th C), but there is an obvious difference between “natural” and spontaneous migration on the one hand and sly measures by the home country to establish a territorial claim through ethnic settlements.

    Incidentally, I’ve been reading recently about travel in S.America in the late 19th C and was suprised to learn how strong the British presence was there at the time, one of the few places where I’d thought the sun does set on the Union Jack.
    There were substantial British settlements in Argentina, Montevideo, Chile etc.

    Agit8ed, I was talking about Israeli ethnic settlemnts in present-day Palestine.
    BTW, the initial Jewish immigrants to (the former) Palestine didn’t intend to take over the place and set up an independent country. That really became a goal only after the collapse of the Ottomans and the chaos of the inter-war period.

    Now I hope you found this comment helpful.

  30. For most of the last couple of centuries British-Argentine relations were very good.

  31. The Brits built the Argentinian railroads and many other things there too.

    I don’t think that there is any personal animosity towards English / British there.

    They compartmentalize the island claim thing.

  32. The historic British influence (through railway workers and traders) in the cone of South America can still be seen in the names of their leading football clubs which often have English language names like River Plate or Corinthians.

  33. I once saw Argentinians described as “Italians that speak Spanish and think they are British”

  34. Ah, new coffee. Will address on the next open thread.

    Please do. I’ve been experimenting myself lately.

  35. If you speak to a coffee / beer / wine geek, their hobby can be the most interesting thing in the universe.

    To me, a good cup of coffee is one of life’s fine things, but lets not go too far.

  36. “BTW, the initial Jewish immigrants to (the former) Palestine didn’t intend to take over the place and set up an independent country. That really became a goal only after the collapse of the Ottomans and the chaos of the inter-war period.

    Now I hope you found this comment helpful.”

    Ah, but you don’t KNOW that, Noel.
    Ask Allan.
    He will tell you that those pesky Jews hatched a plot back in the ’20s to pluck an unsuspecting house painter named Adolf Hitler to power in Germany. He would then be forced to draw up the Final Solution,bump off a few (Faux)Jewish people (miraculously multiplied to 6,000,000) so that the Jews could return to Palestine. There they could cause a load of trouble with the noble Palestinians. and recruit even more enemies…
    Ain’t that right, Allan?

  37. Very interesting Petrkin.
    The Cohens of course being of the priestly caste (my relatives by marriage being Cohens), and the Levites being the temple attendants who assisted the cohenim but could not approach the holy areas.

    In regards to Oliver Cromwell this is interesting..

    “Unlike William the Conqueror, Cromwell was well disposed to the Jewish people for more than purely political or economic reasons. Cromwell was a Puritan and, as such he was conscious of the importance of the Jewish people in the purposes of God. His Puritan chaplain John Howe preached a series of sermons on Ezekiel 39:29, “And I will not hide my face from them any more: for I shall have poured out my Spirit on the house of Israel”. In those sermons Howe stated his belief that there would come “a time of far more general calling than there hath been hitherto; when the receiving and gathering in of the Jews shall be as life from the dead”. When that happened the Church and the world would be blessed as a result.”

    http://cwi.org.uk/library/articles/HASA.html

    Incidentally many Christians (including myself) still believe what John Howe preached..

  38. People on welfare don’t have the right to self-determination. That’s Labour and Sinn Fein screwed then. When Britons talk about immigrants and welfare like that we’re accused of being Nazis.

    Don’t you ever tire of building deflective straw mwn Pete?

    My comment was clearly about your contradiction in terms of on one hand shooting from the rooftops about how taxation is legalised robbery under the threat of state violence yet you having no problem with subsidising each inhabitant of the Malvinas / Falklands to the tune of £44,856 each.

    I make that £269,136 a year for my family. Not a bad little earner for doing bugger all.

Comments are closed.