Global Politics

Post all your political knockabout here:

:box1: :duel: :violent1: :kap:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: Mon 22 Oct, 2012 1:14 pm


Hey, at least Romney only dismissed the views of 47% of the American electorate - we have a Tory leader here (who just happens to be a lesbian) who has dismissed 88% of the Scottish population as "non-productive"

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php...-romney-moment

I think they should be hugging each other.

:sign5:

Similar Threads:

• Thai Politics. Priceless.
• Thai Politics

[Dalewood]

My first presidential vote was for Gerald Ford.....boy, have things changed.

[arsenal]

Obama supports Argentina (over The Falkland Islands) therefore I am supporting Romney.

[ceejay]

Hey, at least Romney only dismissed the views of 47% of the American electorate - we have a Tory leader here (who just happens to be a lesbian) who has dismissed 88% of the Scottish population as "non-productive"
:sign5:

Do I smell a conspiracy here? Without Scotland, the Tories could dream of becoming the permanent party of power in the remainder of the UK (I think it would only be a dream, but that is another story). However, with their Unionist roots, they can't do anything but support that status quo so far as the independence referendum goes. But, should that vote oh-so-sadly go against them well, they'll just have to pick up the pieces and work with what they hope will be a built-in majority in England, won't they?
and it seems they are doing all they can to piss off the average Scot.............

Yes, ceejay it's not only a "dream"- the "permanent Tory majority without Labour MPs from Scotland" is also a myth!

On only ONE occasion in the last approx 40 years (in the second election of 1974 - giving Labour a majority of 3) and TWICE in the last approx 70 years (in 1964 - giving Labour a majority of 4) has the number of Labour MPs returned from Scotland affected the ultimate outcome.

In both cases incidentally it was Harold Wilson who was returned as PM, defeating Tory leaders Alec Douglas-Home and Ted Heath both of whom had proved to be extremely poor PMs.

:occasion9:

[cdnmatt]

Why anyone would ever decide Romney is a good idea is beyond my comprehension. Here's a good article about him titled, "Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital".

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... l-20120829

If you can't view it due to being out of the US, goto http://hidemyass.com/, and enter the above URL.

[Khor tose]

Obama supports Argentina (over The Falkland Islands) therefore I am supporting Romney.

Not just the policy of Obama. America has had a policy of neutrality on this issue since WWII. This policy has been held by both republicans and democrats. America has offered to mediate between The UK and Argentina with the last proposal to do so under Ronald Reagan. In spite of our "neutrality" you beat the Argentinians with our help. We supplied Britain from our airbase on British held Ascension island with the latest sidewinders, and other tactical supplies. We also provided up to date military intelligence which was invaluable to the Naval Commander on the scene. Casper Weinberger at the direction of Ronald Reagan even offered the British use of one of our aircraft carriers, but was grateful the offer was never accepted. For their support both Weinberger and Reagan would late be awarded the British honor of Knight Commander of the British Empire.

As far as I know Romney has not advocated we change our policy of neutrality on this issue. I remind you we have both the Monroe doctrine and the Rio Pact which pledges us to come to the aid of a country in the Western hemisphere if they are attacked. In this case Argentina was the aggressor so we did not have to invoke either policy. Nor did the Nato alliance pledge us to support you as it only applies in Europe, and North of the tropic of Cancer in the Western Hemisphere. The US did then and I am sure we will always continue to support the UK who we clearly have a special relationship with. Very unfair of you to single out Obama for our policy of neutrality on this issue. Especially when this policy is the only one we can have by treaties we are signatory to.

There are dozens of books about this war, but the only one I am familiar with is Duncan Anderson's, "The Falkins War of 1982." which I found to be an outstanding account.

[arsenal]

Khor Tose: An interesting and well informed reply. I can handle the idea of neutrality as long as it is neutrality that allows us to use your airbases and you to fly out of Britain to bomb Libya. Obama actually supports Argentinas' claim to the Falklands. This is not the forum to discuss that, but any foreign leader who has that view will not get my support.

By the way. If you haven't seen Chris Rocks' stand up on the Obama/McCain Presidential race then do. It's a superb piece of comedy, quite breathtakingly skillful.

The reality is that America eventually came out in support of Britain only when there was no alternative (after sitting on the fence for a full month) and it seems from Khor Tose's post that the USA now claims to have won the Falklands War for us!

We know how that one works - we've heard it twice before - but it's new to hear it without a single combatant having been contributed.

:occasion9:

[Liamog]

The reality is the Malvinas are in South America. 290 miles of the coast of Argentina. In the South Atlantic.

No one in Britain had even heard of them until an unfortunate combination of circumstances (deranged dictatorial and highly unpopular governments in power in both Argentina and the UK, and the sniff of possible future oil & gas revenues) led to war over them. Now they are in effect a heavily subsidised UK military base and war memorial with sheep and (maybe) oil.

Not worth the lives that the conflict cost.