Moderator: Community Team
You're delusional.
BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm thinking about how the US could be factored into this, but if the Executive and/or key congress people have no strong personal ties with any English politician, then I don't see why the US would really care who controlled the Malvinas--as long as oil is being produced and traded.
Oh, "NATO obligations" might get the US involved. That possibility probably explains why ARG has yet to invade Malvinas.
What do you think, sax?
saxitoxin wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm thinking about how the US could be factored into this, but if the Executive and/or key congress people have no strong personal ties with any English politician, then I don't see why the US would really care who controlled the Malvinas--as long as oil is being produced and traded.
Oh, "NATO obligations" might get the US involved. That possibility probably explains why ARG has yet to invade Malvinas.
What do you think, sax?
There was an article in the Telegraph last year that said declassified files showed that Alexander Haig had suggested to Reagan they tip off the Argentine high command on British naval movements. In another report, Reagan called Thatcher during the final British offensive on Stanley and requested the UK immediately stop advancing and submit the matter to the Four Power (US, Brazil, Peru, Germany) arbitration committee.
That was Ronald Reagan.
Obama is the dude who had the bust of Winston Churchill taken out with the Thursday trash.
saxitoxin wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm thinking about how the US could be factored into this, but if the Executive and/or key congress people have no strong personal ties with any English politician, then I don't see why the US would really care who controlled the Malvinas--as long as oil is being produced and traded.
Oh, "NATO obligations" might get the US involved. That possibility probably explains why ARG has yet to invade Malvinas.
What do you think, sax?
There was an article in the Telegraph last year that said declassified files showed that Alexander Haig had suggested to Reagan they tip off the Argentine high command on British plans (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... orgia.html). In another report, Reagan called Thatcher during the final British offensive on Stanley and requested the UK immediately stop advancing and submit the matter to the Four Power (US, Brazil, Peru, Germany) arbitration committee.
That was Ronald Reagan.
Obama is the dude who had the bust of Winston Churchill taken out with the Thursday trash.
Also, under Article 6 of the NATO Treaty, the US is only obligated to assist other NATO states if their territory located north of the Tropic of Cancer is attacked. The U.S. has no mutual defense obligations for attacks occurring south of the Tropic of Cancer. The U.S. specifically requested this limit in the NATO treaty so it's more than theoretical.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/off ... _17120.htm
BigBallinStalin wrote:saxitoxin wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm thinking about how the US could be factored into this, but if the Executive and/or key congress people have no strong personal ties with any English politician, then I don't see why the US would really care who controlled the Malvinas--as long as oil is being produced and traded.
Oh, "NATO obligations" might get the US involved. That possibility probably explains why ARG has yet to invade Malvinas.
What do you think, sax?
There was an article in the Telegraph last year that said declassified files showed that Alexander Haig had suggested to Reagan they tip off the Argentine high command on British plans (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... orgia.html). In another report, Reagan called Thatcher during the final British offensive on Stanley and requested the UK immediately stop advancing and submit the matter to the Four Power (US, Brazil, Peru, Germany) arbitration committee.
That was Ronald Reagan.
Obama is the dude who had the bust of Winston Churchill taken out with the Thursday trash.
Also, under Article 6 of the NATO Treaty, the US is only obligated to assist other NATO states if their territory located north of the Tropic of Cancer is attacked. The U.S. has no mutual defense obligations for attacks occurring south of the Tropic of Cancer. The U.S. specifically requested this limit in the NATO treaty so it's more than theoretical.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/off ... _17120.htm
So, if the risk of US involvement seems so low, then why doesn't ARG invade? Is it fear of international boo'ing? Are they actually capable of launching a successful attack? What constrains ARG?
MrPanzerGeneral wrote:Brits are in a position of power.....The RN & the RAF could wipe the present day Argentinian Air Force & Navy offa the map, anytime, if they ever wanted to, offensively OR defensively ( with one hand tied behind their backs even.... I hazard....)... and the B.A is then always on the ground Argentina can't protect, nor project, it's own landward boundaries at present, let alone do it across some water.... all bluff... but come what may...we'll be willing to teach them a lesson again
Brazil likewise...
BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm thinking about how the US could be factored into this, but if the Executive and/or key congress people have no strong personal ties with any English politician, then I don't see why the US would really care who controlled the Malvinas--as long as oil is being produced and traded.
Oh, "NATO obligations" might get the US involved. That possibility probably explains why ARG has yet to invade Malvinas.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: ConfederateSS, mookiemcgee