I'll admit I do have a pro-Brazil bias because my own political opinions are a close match those of Lula/Dilma. However I'm trying to base my judgment on what the two countries have achieved so far in the 21st century not my own political opinions. Brazil has had better economic growth and has made a lot of progress towards improving its people's living standards. Brazil's economy used to be smaller than the UK's but is now slightly larger. Check back in 20 years, I think Brazil's economy will a lot larger than UK's. Also, Social problems such as hunger have been significantly reduced in Brazil under Lula/Dilma leadership (crime is still pretty high). Brazil is a lot poorer per person than USA, UK, or even Argentina. Basis of my judgment about national leadership is amount of progress made over last approximately 10 years, not current per person GDP. Brazil's leadership is also very popular in Brazil and in other South American countries. Politicians in other countries in South America often say they want to be like Lula. In my personal opinion Lula has been the best national leader of any country in the 21st century. I didn't say UK has terrible leadership (Cameron hasn't been in office long enough to tell) it just hasn't been as impressive as Brazil's so far in 21st century. Brazil has also had some luck because their exports are in high demand in fast growing China but I don't think they have achieved as much as they have on luck alone. Don't know enough about the Argentine President to say how good or bad a leader she is. Argentina doesn't get as much attention in the USA as Brazil (probably because of lower population). I do know she is a Peronist and I personally don't think highly of Peron but I know a lot of Argentines do. I hope you noticed I didn't say anything good about Chavez. I don't think he is a good leader. However, I'm not surprised he has stayed in power. This year is the first time his opponents might run a candidate who might attract a significant number of working class and lower class votes, without at least some they can't win. "Behaving slightly badly" wasn't the best phrase. So far, neither UK or Argentina have actually done anything they don't have the right to do. This doesn't mean I, or more important Obama and Clinton, have to think highly of either country's strategy or actions.
Look at what the UK has done, went from having the world's 3rd biggest banks sector to the biggest, has make some of the biggest and best building in the world, make the first solar power and wind power. Then will look at build new and better weapons and exporting sport like cricket. Brazil has had more growth, but then it is 20 times bigger than the UK, and has an economic about the same size.
Brazil has abundant natural resources (Which has contributed the most to its growth), 4 times as many people, 1 times the geographical area, but has only just now managed to overtake our GDP and is still only able to achieve a third of our GDP per capita. Drugs crime and murder are rife, as well as corruption. Meanwhile, in Britain, despite an overly welfare dependant working class, its all pretty good - One of the largest Military forces in the World, crimes low, moneys good considering we are one of the smallest countries in the world and everyone seems relatively happy. Hell, we can even spare the time and resource to protect the sovereignty of a small island, just off the coast of Argentina. But still, I can see your point...
But I never said anything about EU military support, only dimplomatic. And the EU does give the UK dimplomatic support through the Lisbon treat, stating many time it is a European territory.
And what does "diplomatic support" matter in a war? Hey, Myopia! We support you in this war, you are so right to attack that country. But don't ask for a single bullet or hand grenade. We are going to do nothing. You said over and over that the UN would back the UK because of treaties. But you have yet to prove that in any way, shape or form.
And you will not find me opposing that idea either. Especially if the UK does what the OP porposed in another thread, ie attacking and siezing South Argentina.
Why would we attack the Brits for protecting their own national territorial integrity? You do understand the the Falklands are inhabited by British people who want to stay British right? This would be like Australia attacking us for protecting Guam from threat by the Chinese.
Obviously not even talking about that insane idea of invading South America!! Surely the UK defending the Falkland islands and its inhabitants is nothing to do with the Monroe Doctrine? Which if I am correct is about stopping further colonisation of the Americas?
The Monroe Doctrine is a tricky policy. If you are talking about The Falklands, then it does not apply. It was written in 1823, and those islands had been in dispute since long before then. However, the OP has often times discussed invading Argentina as part of a goal of taking control of the Straight of Magellan. And in that area the Monroe Doctrine would most definately apply. You have to realize, that almost every thread of the OP is aimed at allowing the UK to gain more overseas territory, in order to bring back the might of the British Empire. And that in his mind, the poor wogs have no right, ability or intelligence to administer to their own affairs. I bet he absolutely loves the early works of Rudyard Kipling, especially The White Man's Burden and A Song of the English. Especially moving is his poem The Song Of The Cities". Bombay Royal and Dower-royal, I the Queen Fronting thy richest sea with richer hands- A thousand mills roar through the where I glean All races from all lands. About half of the poems in that collection are paen's to the Empire. Capetown Hail! Snatched and bartered oft from hand to hand, I dream my dream, by rock and heath and pine. Of Empire to the Northward. Ay, one land From Lion's Head to Line!
True. But when I consider these posts, I also consider all posts by the OP. And because he has admitted several times to having Imperialistic ideas in taking over Argentina and other nations, I have to consider that whenever I respond to another of his posts. This is the kind of previous post I have to consider whenever I comment on yet another thread created by ALW. Because they are never really straight-forward posts to discuss something. They all tie in together, always trying eventually to find a war that the UK can fight and gain territory.
I imagine he does, and in relation to those poems when we remember when they where written in the days of empire that would of been quite normal! Not today of course
That is why I specified the "early works" of Mr. Kipling. George Orwell refered to him as the "prophet of British Imperialism". He was the prophet of British Imperialism in its expansionist phase (even more than his poems, his solitary novel, THE LIGHT THAT FAILED, gives you the atmosphere of that time) and also the unofficial historian of the British Army, the old mercenary army which began to change its shape in 1914. http://www.george-orwell.org/Rudyard_Kipling/0.html However, after the death of his son in 1915 while fighting in the Wrold War, his writing turned much more somber.
If I have said that about the UN I don't think it any more, the UN wouldn't support any side, apart from wanting peace and talks. I have said why diplomatic support is important, and if the EU wants the UK to hold the Falklands, no doubt the Falklands would be held, it's not the EU's military that's important, but it's economy. And even if the EU wanted to help apart from France no nation could, Spain and Italy can't afford to help and no other nation could. If the EU puts sanctions on Argentina, that would help the UK.
I don't want the UK to do that, but if the Falklands get independence and Argentina attacks them. In the UK's case if Argentina loses and will not accept the UK's peace terms, then the UK would just send 4 subs and using Tomahawk missiles bomb Argentina's military so it can no longer fight and is forced to the peace table. If that didn't work, then invasion is the only option.
They will be burying Chavez soon, so what he says wont be of any consequence to anyone or to any country in the world. Then Venezuela can pick itself up off the dirty muckraking floor instituted by Chavez, and with Cuba, join the modern Democratic world
Mushroom if you know me at all you will know I want the shipping lane, not the territory. If I wanted more easy territory I would just reclaim New Zealand, then Australia, then Canada. But I wanted to control not to conquer.
I made a mistake, I meant the EU when I said UN. However, if the EU places trade sanctions against Argentina, it would indeed be a major blow. For Europe. The trade between Argentina and the EU is rather large. 4.8 billion in exports (manufactured goods and transportation), and 8.2 billion in imports, primarily food and raw materials. EU imports from Argentina primarily consist of agricultural products and raw materials (75%), while the EU mainly exports manufactured goods such as machinery, transport equipment and chemicals to Argentina. http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/bilateral-relations/countries/argentina/ Translation: If the EU places an embargo on Argentina, it will loose one of it's major sources of food. How exactly will any kind of sanctions or embargo against Argentina help the UK? It exports far more then it imports, and it's exports are in constant demand. It's imports are much less important to Argentina, and it can either do without those for a while, or find other suppliers. You have again failed to make your point, I suggest doing research before making such claims. Here, let me refresh your memory once again. This is directly from a threat you yourself created, titled Could I Take The South Bit Of Argentina? Funny, but that is not what you said a short time ago. And why would you want that? Either way, you are talking about illegally siezing land that belongs to another nation. And what good would it do you? The Straits are not a major trade route. Most shipping that needs to cross in that region of the world are PANAMAX, and use the safer and all season Panama Canal. Other ships normally take the longer but much safer route of the Suez Canal. So once again, you are trying to claim something that is of no value, other then for conquest. Modern tankers can't fit through the strait. And it is to dangerous for other ships other then at a need. About the only ships that use this passage anymore are US Aircraft Carriers, and a few cruise ships during the short Southern Hemisphere summer. Besides, this is a moot point, because Argentina has signed and ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. In this, they have agreed to allow "innocent passage" to all nations. However, interestingly enough, Peru has not signed the agreement (along with 17 countries). The United States has signed the agreement, but not ratified it. Along with another 17 countries including Iran, Columbia, North Korea, Libya, and the UAE. And other nations have not ratified it, like Afghanistan. But they are landlocked, so this does not matter. So before you make such claims in the future, I will repeat the same words I have said over and over and over again. Research, research, research.
The UK exports 400 million Euros to Argentina and imports 700 million Euros from Argentina, that would need to be taken off. So the real amount is 4.4 billion Euros in exports to Argentina and 7.5 billion in imports from Argentina, so a difference of 3.1 billion. But we must also take into account EU invest in Argentina which is 4.4 billion, Argentina invests just 0.3 million in the EU, a difference of 4.1 billion, that's means Argentina would be more hurt by any EU embargo than the EU would. And look at the stock investment, EU 44.1 billion, Argentina 1.7 billion, if much of that money is moved then the Argentina stock market would crash. So no you are just wrong, it wouldn't be a big blow to Europe, but Argentina. EU can get food from other places, the same goes for the raw materials. Nobody else can make machinery, transport equipment and chemicals but the EU, and those things are all needed in a war. http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and...uth-america/argentina?profile=tradeInvestment Yes, but I was talking about an independent Falklands, not the UK. Apart from the use of mainly UK ship, aircraft and weapons. I was taking about the Drake Passage. What about the Falklands? Argentina is boarding their ships. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw2Ze6icgls"]"The Falkland islands is an associated territory to the European Union" - YouTube[/ame]
