Falklands (Americans View)

NumberTwentySix

Just Browsing
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Posts
203
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
51
Gender
Male
Juan Carlos got a lot of respect for that remark. He said what had been on everyone else's mind for a long time, (and got away with it because he's the f***ing king of Spain). Argentina does substantially more trade with MERCOSUR than the US, but there is still about 9.7bn in total imports and exports, making the US their 3rd largest trade partner, behind China and Brazil, so I wouldn't send the ambassador packing quite yet. :wink: For some reason, perhaps because of the roles played by Bolivar, O'Higgins et. al., South American militaries have always viewed themselves as custodians of the state, ready to safeguard it and pick up the pieces when corrupt or weak civilian governments fail.
 
Last edited:
5

554279

Guest
Midlife> You have a great depth of information regarding one side of the story and I would not question it, as you confirmed many of my suspicions about the root of the matter in the first place. However, I totally disagree with your attitude that people in the US are so much less intelligent than others and they believe what they are told (that is my analysis of your statements and prose). In sum it is that attitude which you present damages some of your stock with me.

Ultimately my friend I agree to disagree and make no bones about the fact going back to the original posters question of how Americans felt.

This US version of a North American feels like this: Argentina lost the moral high ground in 1982 when they used force to "liberate" the Falklands. Any hope the Argentine government had of negotiating or winning the hearts and minds of the British people on the island were lost. The US has as much right to defend it's allies as any other nation. If your nation exercises a military option then it should expect a reciprocal response. As an American tax payer I expect my government to back its allies, otherwise our credibility sucks worse than it already does. Especially allies that didn't just lend lip service to the Global War on Terror post 911, but actually acted upon it. Blood is thicker than water, and the UK has been shedding it with the US since the Boxer Rebellion.

Argentina at the end of the day has to live with the fact the, the nations leadership made poor decisions (much like your friend GW Bush did for us) and you should probably just let sleeping dogs lay. Who knows, seventy five years from now the islands will probably be a protectorate or have a commonwealth relationship with Argentina anyway after Argentina recovers from all of its hardships and the UK feels a level of comfort with the government.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

midlifebear

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Posts
5,789
Media
0
Likes
174
Points
133
Location
Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Juan Carlos got a lot of respect for that remark. He said what had been on everyone else's mind for a long time, (and got away with it because he's the f***ing king of Spain). Argentina does substantially more trade with MERCOSUR than the US, but there is still about 9.7bn in total imports and exports, making the US their 3rd largest trade partner, behind China and Brazil, so I wouldn't send the ambassador packing quite yet. :wink:

I doubt the US ambassador does much. His name rarely, if ever makes the papers. But it's amusing you should bring him up. The US Embassy which is within half a mile of my piso is an ominous two-storey steel and black glass curtain architecture modernist construction with more antennae than a flying saucer convention. I've had to use their notary services a couple of times. But you're never allowed into the hallowed secret black steel and glass building. Predictably, you line up and go through several layers of security only to take a number and sit in what looks like every damn department of motor vehicles office in the USA. It's bland, celieatex ceilings with recessed florescent lighting, and rows of orange and green molded fiber glass chairs.

But just walking around the Recoleta neighborhood you can visit the UK Embassy (classy and old), take a tour of Italy's Embassy, and drop in on the fun folks of Leichtenstein (sp?). There was a time when Argentines were trying to revive the Parisienne architecture of the belle epoch --- up until the early 1940s. But it's all poured cement. God forbid there should ever be an earthquake in this city. Millions will die.
 
Last edited:

TomCat84

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Posts
3,414
Media
4
Likes
172
Points
148
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Have you looked at the budgets of states like Cal, NY, CT and Ma???

All blue states and all wildly fiscally out of control.

So is Arizona and Texas- and Florida. But that's besides the point. States like Mississippi and Alabama are kept afloat through federal largesse, mainly from states like- yes- California, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, etc. Blue states- liberal states. Last time I checked, for every $1.00 that California sends to the federal government, it gets something in the range of $0.75-$0.80. FOr every dollar, it gets 75 or 80 cents back. Want to cut the budget? Let's start by cutting the amount of pork states like Alabama and West Virginia get back.
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
125
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
Sarah Palin can see the Falklands if she goes to the end of her driveway and looks south.
LOL.

She can even see into the future if the wind's in the right direction. :biggrin1:
LOLOL.

Oh, the fate of the Falklands? Sorry. Just can't get worked up about the fate of 3000 sheep farmers today.

Anyway, except for Lady Margaret's excursion, I thought Brittania gave up on her dreams of empire long ago.

Now if you're going to exhume her boyfriend Ronny, I might buy a ticket.
 

boredsquirrel

Just Browsing
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Posts
11
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
36
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Hello from Argentina, that is in America, so we too are Americans.
Sorry for my english.

The Falkland Islands are a chain of British Islands in the South Atlantic Ocean, as I'm sure you intelligent well endowed folks know ;)

Once again they're in the News because Brazil has sided with Argentina along with most South American nations in saying that the Islands should be Argentinian.

But, it's just crazy.

The whole point of 'Self-Determination' according to the UN is that the people who live in a place should decide what country they are part of. The Falklanders are 100% British. Before the British arrived the islands were un inhabited.
Argentina has NO claim to them what so ever, except that the next nearest land is Argentina. By that logic Alaska should be given to Canada, regardless of what the Alaskans themselves want.

The UN policy is to end with the colonies in the world.
"The Falklanders are 100% British" of course man, if they are occupying the territory! With that argument, we can send 3500 people in a boat to the islands, make and election and easy resolved! That's not about 1982, but british occupation in 1833. Before that the first settlement was a French one, that after give that to Spain. In the middle, british come and gone, after agreements with Spain, and after the spanish themself leave too. Then Argentina goes and take sovereignty. And here we go again to 1833 when british occupied military the islands, claiming an inexisting sovereignty for them (and kicking out argentinians).


Argentina has NO claim to them what so ever, except that the next nearest land is Argentina. By that logic Alaska should be given to Canada, regardless of what the Alaskans themselves want.

The geographic element (important for the decolonization UN policy) adds to the historical. Your comparison with Alaska is tricky, since USA get that not just by an election from alaskans, or i am wrong? The same (and worst) about New Mexico, Texas, etc. If Canada had had people in Alaska and the U.S. had kicked out then, that would be a good comparison.

I thought Lady Thatcher settled this. Other than scoring some meaningless diplomatic points, there isn't much Brazil or Argentina can do about it. I mean, the British govt threatened that Buenos Aires would be Nuked over this issue in the 80's. Is any archipelago really worth that?

Well, certainly it matter to the British, didn't they?
More from the geographic element: the island are in the argentinian maritime platform. Imagine if we go to a Canadian island uninhabited (they have a lot of islands) and claim argentinian sovereignty, it's obviously ridiculous!
For "all sides" oil matters. Remembers all that about invading Irak for weapons they never found? Oil, oil, oil...
Also, matters the strategic position in the world for future conflicts.

Exactly how do a couple thousand sheep farmers three hundred miles out to sea from Argentina decide its economic fate? Other than to fulfill stupid nationalistic pride, there is no reason for Argentina to claim the islands. The colonels came up with the idea to distract people from the fact that they bankrupted the country (again) in the 80's.

It's true they may have some oil there but the Argentinians withdrew from the agreement that would have let them share in exploiting it several years ago, so fuck em. Argentina wants to make the islands the Alsace-Lorraine of the Atlantic, but the simple fact is that they aren't. If the British want to poke a stick in the eye of Buenos Aires, more power to them says this American.

The Brits settled them (without killing or displacing anybody), built them up, and even held several plebiscites to see if the inhabitants wouldn't really rather be citizens of Argentina, which were rejected soundly each time. They defended the islands and their people with blood and treasure against a despotic, hostile military government, and now are profitably exploiting their resources. What more do they need to demonstrate their rightful ownership?

1982 war nothing have to do with any discution about the claims for sovereignty, it's hard to understand? and yes, they "displacing anybody" in the XIX century. The recent plebiscites are ridiculous, is like we make one in Buenos Aires to get under british kingdom! they are british occupants, is obvios what they will vote!
Of course it were a despotic government in 1982, but that is also funny to say, like if Thatcher had not been despotic in his own way, in many ways! But, i repeat, 1982 war nothing have to do with any discution about the claims for sovereignty, 1982 war nothing have to do with any discution about the claims for sovereignty, 1982 war nothing have to do with any discution about the claims for sovereignty


Last census, which was more than 10 years ago, guestimated that the population of the entire country was about 40 million.

I agree with some and and disagree with oter things you said, however they are about things that have nothing to with Malvinas subject, but i just wanna tell you that the 2010 census gives a 40 million population.

Argentina is a country whose phenotype is probably whiter than the UK!

LMAO what some people thinks...
 

midlifebear

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Posts
5,789
Media
0
Likes
174
Points
133
Location
Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Midlife> You have a great depth of information regarding one side of the story and I would not question it, as you confirmed many of my suspicions about the root of the matter in the first place. However, I totally disagree with your attitude that people in the US are so much less intelligent than others and they believe what they are told (that is my analysis of your statements and prose). In sum it is that attitude which you present damages some of your stock with me.

Ultimately my friend I agree to disagree and make no bones about the fact going back to the original posters question of how Americans felt.

This US version of a North American feels like this: Argentina lost the moral high ground in 1982 when they used force to "liberate" the Falklands. Any hope the Argentine government had of negotiating or winning the hearts and minds of the British people on the island were lost. The US has as much right to defend it's allies as any other nation. If your nation exercises a military option then it should expect a reciprocal response. As an American tax payer I expect my government to back its allies, otherwise our credibility sucks worse than it already does. Especially allies that didn't just lend lip service to the Global War on Terror post 911, but actually acted upon it. Blood is thicker than water, and the UK has been shedding it with the US since the Boxer Rebellion.

Argentina at the end of the day has to live with the fact the, the nations leadership made poor decisions (much like your friend GW Bush did for us) and you should probably just let sleeping dogs lay. Who knows, seventy five years from now the islands will probably be a protectorate or have a commonwealth relationship with Argentina anyway after Argentina recovers from all of its hardships and the UK feels a level of comfort with the government.

Dear sixinch: I get where you're coming from. I really do. However, the USA had Argentina convinced we were its ally for decades. It was our non action that came as a surprise to the military government running things down here in 1982.

I would suggest you do some reading regarding Henry Kissinger's advice, in 1976, given to Argentina's military regime. The USA heavily subsidized Argentina's military dictatorships with lots of US Dollars. Kissinger encouraged the military to get the "dirty war" over and done with ASAP so the US House and Senate would continue to support the junta. This escalated two things: 1.the continued assassinations of labor leaders, any anti-junta activist, journalists, students, etc., and 2. the belief by the last junta that one back scratched the other and that surely in 1982 the USA would back it's fight for the Malvinas, because the military government had been a valuable ally helping its great friend, the USA, displace Daniel Ortega as "the evil socialist/communist" leader in Honduras. Today, thanks to Reagan, Oliver North who was pardoned by Reagan for crimes against the Honduran government that included arms and drug smuggling while he served in the US Military, is considered a great patriot and 'Mericuhn hero with his own conservative anti-Obama radio talk show. Of course, Ollie North was getting his marching orders from Reagan under the advice of the US Military. And he's considered a great 'Mericuhn hero 'cause that's what 'Mericuhns have been told, not because they know any better.

Last I checked, Daniel Ortega ran for President of Honduras a few years ago and is still the sitting president. Things have may changed since I last paid much attention. I've been avoiding Honduras because they have a serious problem with Denque fever. Sorry, but I have little faith in the general understanding of my fellow countrymen regarding world politics.

I was reading this morning a bit about the collapse of the Argentine economy in 2001. Paul Krugman, in today's NY Times, blames the collapse on Argentina pegging the Peso to the US Dollar and taking huge loans from the IMF in the early 1990s. He completely overlooks the fact that then President Menem (he was originally a Muslim, but converted to Catholicism to ensure political popularity and winning the presidency) used the Argentine Treasury as his personal checking account. Menem is fondly remembered for big gestures, such as handing over the cash to build the largest mosque in South America. And it really is beautiful, situated between Jumbo (a wildly popular shopping and grocery store experience) and the US Embassy. But when he left office, the Treasury, which had once been able to back every Peso with a US Dollar, didn't have enough Dollars to back the Peso. Most of Menem's minions are still living quite well in the Province of Buenos Aires and Spain. Menem lived, for a time, in Paraguay after he stepped down from the Presidency. There was no extradition policy at that time between Paraguay and Argentina. However, Menem and his minions could have done the right thing and put economic austerity measures in place to stabilize the economy rather than open their arms and willingly be drowned in IMF money which they abused with conscientious malfeasance. Krugman seems to have missed that part in his understanding of the Argentine economy and it's eventual collapse in 2001 -- a time when 9/11 was certainly a shocking event to Argentines, but not as shocking as having their entire middle class wiped out overnight. Argentina is not harboring Al Qaeda terrorists in the milongas of San Telmo, Barrio Norte, Recoleta or Palermo.

Menem lives somewhere in a northern province enjoying his old age and a multimillion income from off shore banking accounts (actually, Uruguay, the best kept secret for those wanting to launder and hide money from any government).

And dear Jason: You'll love this. Krugman makes arguments for four economic scenarios regarding the future of the Eurozone and he calls one of them "Doing an Argentina."
 
Last edited:

midlifebear

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Posts
5,789
Media
0
Likes
174
Points
133
Location
Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Hello from Argentina, that is in America, so we too are Americans.
Sorry for my english.

I agree with some and and disagree with oter things you said, however they are about things that have nothing to with Malvinas subject, but i just wanna tell you that the 2010 census gives a 40 million population.

LMAO what some people thinks...

In the words of the dead late night TV host Johnny Carson, "I did not know that!" Sorry for the mixup. Last I paid any attention or heard about a census was last year and I was given to understand it would take place in 2011. But you're quite right about the best way to settle the Malvinas issue: simply send 3,500 porteños on vacation to the islands. Have them apply for residency, put them up in tents, and force a coup by referendum vote. Sadly, it can't be that simple, but I like the idea.:smile:

As for anyone wanting to disagree with me, Marcelo has the floor. After all, I'm only down here to support my legal husband as he cares for his mother and extended family. I'd prefer to be back home in Santa Margarida outside of Barcelona. And my knowledge of Argentine politics doesn't come from reading Wikipedia. It comes from sitting at the corner cafe each morning, reading Clarín (I'm addicted to Nelly), and listening to the local bronca regarding lovely Buenos Aires. And Buenos Aires really is quite lovely in many ways -- unless you live in Once. (That last bit was meant as a gentle joke. If you've been to the barrio/neighborhood you understand.)
 
5

554279

Guest
Dear sixinch:

I would suggest you do some reading regarding Henry Kissinger's advice, in 1976, given to Argentina's military regime. The USA heavily subsidized Argentina's military dictatorships with lots of US Dollars. Kissinger encouraged the military to get the "dirty war" over and done with ASAP so the US House and Senate would continue to support the junta. This escalated two things: 1.the continued assassinations of labor leaders, any anti-junta activist, journalists, students, etc., and 2. the belief by the last junta that one back scratched the other and that surely in 1982 the USA would back it's fight for the Malvinas, because the military government had been a valuable ally helping its great friend, the USA, displace Daniel Ortega as "the evil socialist/communist" leader in Honduras. Today, thanks to Reagan, Oliver North who was pardoned by Reagan for crimes against the Honduran government that included arms and drug smuggling while he served in the US Military, is considered a great patriot and 'Mericuhn hero with his own conservative anti-Obama radio talk show. Of course, Ollie North was getting his marching orders from Reagan under the advice of the US Military. And he's considered a great 'Mericuhn hero 'cause that's what 'Mericuhns have been told, not because they know any better.

Last I checked, Daniel Ortega ran for President of Honduras a few years ago and is still the sitting president. Things have may changed since I last paid much attention. I've been avoiding Honduras because they have a serious problem with Denque fever. Sorry, but I have little faith in the general understanding of my fellow countrymen regarding world politics. "

Going back to my original quote or my first post to this string, part of the problem I identified was the failed US Foreign policy through the 70's (while I did not identify Argentina, I noted the problems with Nicaragua and Iran). We were notorious for backing the dictator of the week. IMO if anything our lack of not backing the UK probably gave Argentinians the tacit green light. We were still terrified of another Vietnam and thought that confronting the Soviets through proxies was the way to go. Argentina and the UK going to blows didn't fit the intelligence, dogma or doctrinal flavor of the week. I believe it caught the US with trousers around ankles.

I am very much familiar with the operations, doings, undoings, deeds and misdeeds in Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Panama, from first hand experience.

I can assure you that the US are not the only ones with dirty hands in that part of the world. No; we don't always guess right.

Daniel Ortega was the Sandinista President of Nicaragua, not Honduras. We (the US) ran Contras out of Honduras in an effort to overthrow him. Ultimately he collapsed on his own and was re-elected later (post Reagan) in 2007. There are issues with the Honduran government now, but I am not fully aware of the particulars as I have not operated there in some time.

North was an overambitious dick at best, that did and still does greatly exaggerate his role in history. He is an embarrassment to the military.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
The UN position is set out in a series of resolutions:
Falkland Islands Information Portal - History - UN Resolutions

They boil down to the people of the Falklands have the absolute right to decide on their future.

The most simple status quo solution is that the Falklands have a measure of independence with foreign policy and defence handled by the UK. Also possible is that the Falklands may seek integration within a UK county (as for example the Isles of Scilly are part of the County of Cornwall) and therefore be an integral, non-colonial part of the UK, part of a UK electoral constituency. (In many ways this would be the best solution as colonial status is increasingly problematic. It would also send a clear message to any aggressor that the UK regards the Falklands as an integral part). Just about unthinkable is that the Falklands would vote to joint Argentina.

If Argentina disagrees with the outcome of the UN deliberations then Argentina must resolve that through the UN. Right now we have an unresolved conflict because Argentina is not willing to abide by the result of a referendum held on the Falklands. In international law it is Argentina that is not in compliance.

Oil extraction is not commercial at the moment. This is the big uncertainty - it is possible that a commercial deposit will be discovered soon. The legal position is that the oil belongs to the Falklanders, which in the context of their determination to remain British means that the UK would benefit.
 

NumberTwentySix

Just Browsing
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Posts
203
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
51
Gender
Male
I would just point out that if Argentina can disavow the actions of prior governments (invasions, bond defaults, disappearing people, etc) then other countries can disavow the actions their prior governments took in supporting or assisting the then-government of Argentina. It is no good to say that the current government of the US, Formerly Great Britain, or Paraguay for that matter, is responsible for thirty-year-old dealings with the Junta, and then to say Argentina and her people have no blame whatsoever because the government changed. Other nations' governments have changed since then too. More peacefully, to be sure, but changed none the less.
 

D_Abraham Slinkin

Account Disabled
Joined
Jun 2, 2010
Posts
105
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
51
Kinda like the british dumping colonist into Ireland and having the colonies say "we want to be owned by britain" and then "britain is there because they want us to be!"

Here's one for you - The Chinese in San Fransisco suddenly all say that they want San Fransisco to be owned by China...does this mean we give San Fransisco to China? They're the majority assume.

oh yeah...and 3,000 people in the Falklands should definately decide the economic fate of 40 million in Argentina

There is a difference - the Falklands were uninhabited before hand, it is nothing like your crazy San Francisco Metaphor.
 

D_Abraham Slinkin

Account Disabled
Joined
Jun 2, 2010
Posts
105
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
51
Hello from Argentina, that is in America, so we too are Americans.
Sorry for my english.



The UN policy is to end with the colonies in the world.
"The Falklanders are 100% British" of course man, if they are occupying the territory! With that argument, we can send 3500 people in a boat to the islands, make and election and easy resolved! That's not about 1982, but british occupation in 1833. Before that the first settlement was a French one, that after give that to Spain. In the middle, british come and gone, after agreements with Spain, and after the spanish themself leave too. Then Argentina goes and take sovereignty. And here we go again to 1833 when british occupied military the islands, claiming an inexisting sovereignty for them (and kicking out argentinians).




The geographic element (important for the decolonization UN policy) adds to the historical. Your comparison with Alaska is tricky, since USA get that not just by an election from alaskans, or i am wrong? The same (and worst) about New Mexico, Texas, etc. If Canada had had people in Alaska and the U.S. had kicked out then, that would be a good comparison.



Well, certainly it matter to the British, didn't they?
More from the geographic element: the island are in the argentinian maritime platform. Imagine if we go to a Canadian island uninhabited (they have a lot of islands) and claim argentinian sovereignty, it's obviously ridiculous!
For "all sides" oil matters. Remembers all that about invading Irak for weapons they never found? Oil, oil, oil...
Also, matters the strategic position in the world for future conflicts.



1982 war nothing have to do with any discution about the claims for sovereignty, it's hard to understand? and yes, they "displacing anybody" in the XIX century. The recent plebiscites are ridiculous, is like we make one in Buenos Aires to get under british kingdom! they are british occupants, is obvios what they will vote!
Of course it were a despotic government in 1982, but that is also funny to say, like if Thatcher had not been despotic in his own way, in many ways! But, i repeat, 1982 war nothing have to do with any discution about the claims for sovereignty, 1982 war nothing have to do with any discution about the claims for sovereignty, 1982 war nothing have to do with any discution about the claims for sovereignty




I agree with some and and disagree with oter things you said, however they are about things that have nothing to with Malvinas subject, but i just wanna tell you that the 2010 census gives a 40 million population.



LMAO what some people thinks...

Your argument that Argentina Briefly controlled the islands for a few years in the 19th century really isn't here nor there. By that logic almost every inch of land would be up for claim by hundreds of countries.

Let me think of some more to the point examples to compare this with.

'Geographically' the Channel Islands are part of France. France previously owned the islands. Does this mean France has a legitimate claim to the islands? No. It would be laughed out of the courts.
 

midlifebear

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Posts
5,789
Media
0
Likes
174
Points
133
Location
Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Going back to my original quote or my first post to this string, part of the problem I identified was the failed US Foreign policy through the 70's (while I did not identify Argentina, I noted the problems with Nicaragua and Iran). We were notorious for backing the dictator of the week. IMO if anything our lack of not backing the UK probably gave Argentinians the tacit green light. We were still terrified of another Vietnam and thought that confronting the Soviets through proxies was the way to go. Argentina and the UK going to blows didn't fit the intelligence, dogma or doctrinal flavor of the week. I believe it caught the US with trousers around ankles.

I am very much familiar with the operations, doings, undoings, deeds and misdeeds in Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Panama, from first hand experience.

I can assure you that the US are not the only ones with dirty hands in that part of the world. No; we don't always guess right.

Daniel Ortega was the Sandinista President of Nicaragua, not Honduras. We (the US) ran Contras out of Honduras in an effort to overthrow him. Ultimately he collapsed on his own and was re-elected later (post Reagan) in 2007. There are issues with the Honduran government now, but I am not fully aware of the particulars as I have not operated there in some time.

North was an overambitious dick at best, that did and still does greatly exaggerate his role in history. He is an embarrassment to the military.

Oh . . . MY . . . HECK! How I could mix up Nicaragua with Honduras! Yes, you are absolutely right! Ortega was the fabu Sandinista leader who spooked away by the USA backed Contras in the 80's. And then the USA declared him an illegal victor in the ensuing election and the Contras removed him. I'm old. My mind is mush. It's true that there is stuff going on in Honduras that the USA doesn't or didn't like. But I had yea olde British Honduras on my mind when thinking about the Malvinas. Of course, British Honduras, which has nothing to do with Honduars was given it's self to govern when the UK magnanimously left the place in ruins. Now called Belize, it's the only place in Central America where the majority of the population speaks English and there are bunches of people with African roots. Sorry about that.

As for Nicaragua, yeah that's what I meant but didn't name correctly. It appears Daniel Ortega has been the democratically elected president once again since 2008. As for Ollie the Patriot North, I do remember following a series of articles in the San Jose Mercury News that linked the US-supported Contras to the cocaine that was flooding the streets of San Francisco down to San Jose. But, hey . . . what's a little illegal cocaine smuggling when you can use illegal gun money to help topple a government you don't like?

Yup, the USA has a bad history of backing the wrong horse. The fear of Communism is still so strong as the ultimate booga booga in US politics we're willing to support the worst of the worst in dictatorships as an excuse to still fight the commie pinkos from getting under every bed in 'Mericuh. But we're not afraid to sell bonds to and get in bed with the Republic of China? (Another thing I was reading this morning about how G.E. is sharing passenger jet engine technology with China so we don't have to manufacture jet engines in the USA any more.) Was just thinking how convenient it was to back Manual Noriega until he got too uppity and into the drug business. And then there was Saddam the Hussein of Iraq who was a "great US ally" as long as he kept Iraq engaged in a war with Iran, which of course, was in the best interest of the USA.

And don't forget El Salvador where the USA sent in military "advisors" to ensure the old regime of that banana republic's rich could stay in power. San Salvador (what a great pun in Spanish) which is that tiny country's capital is still a major human rights violator. But that's all OK as long as them damn pinko commies don't take over. But I'm getting WAY off thread. Maybe we should send Sister Sarah down there as the US Ambassador to keep things straightened out?

Thanks for the correction. Nicaragua NOT Honduras, I'll keep repeating that a bunch.
 
Last edited: