The United States has threatened to oppose Britain's sovereignty over the Falkland Islands if Andy Burnham does not increase defence spending, The Telegraph can reveal.

The proposal is among measures being drawn up by senior defence officials at the Pentagon as an incentive to hit Nato's 5 per cent spending pledge.

A senior US official told The Telegraph that Britain was likely to receive "special attention" in Washington's review of its allies' commitment to Nato, which will examine whether member nations have credible paths toward the target.

all 59 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 90 points 2 months ago (13 children)

When are the republians underneath him going to say enough is enough? We're a long ways into batshit crazy right now.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago

    This IS the plan. Canada Tariffs, renaming Lake Ontario are all distractions for more serious news about Iran, oil prices, Trump stealing from soldiers paychecks.

    Picking fights with friendly allies who won’t continue the fight after he Taco’s is the shtick.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Right? That runs through my mind so often nowadays. It's about to the point I may just actually start taking pills so I'm fucked up enough to not notice all the fucked-up shit going on around me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    voters keep rewaribg his choices in primaries etc ..fuck voters.

    Trump is there because America is like this, he's a symptom.

    The sooner saner countries walk away from the US en masse and group together, the better

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    They need to wait until Vance can run for two terms.

    So right after January 20, 2027.

    I think there is a decent chance that after the mid terms dems get lots of control, they investigate and impeach, and then president vance can start to undo lots of the crazy Trump stuff to recover image with independents and be eligible to run for a full 10 years.

    I don’t think Vance would actually win the 2028 election, but I’m pretty sure nobody is doing anything until after the mid terms.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago

    Why would Vance change anything, he's on the crazy town express with the rest of the far right nutters

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-2 replies)
  • [–] 81 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Trump threatens ____________ over ___________.

    Repeat again in a day or two.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Indeed. I wish they wouldn’t say that US this or the US that it’s not normal same thinking people it’s orange idiot clown

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago

    No other country seems to get that benefit. He is our drmocratically elected leader

    People supporting him is normal in the US. 39% of the population continue to support him

    We need to take a real hard look at our country and realize what we did. Trump isn't some aberration, he's a democratically elected leader, who got elected twice

    We have a lot of structural issues that led to this, from poor education and rampant anti-intellectualism, to an electoral college that subverted the popular democratic result to bring him to power initially

    Our electoral system is such that ~40% of the population will support a candidate for their party no matter how bad, simply because that's their team, then that candidate can be elected with less than half the vote

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 38 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I'm sure thus has nothing to do with Xavier Milei

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 27 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    The Orange Turd is actively trying to start WWIII, from the get go.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Like a drunk trying to start a fight with the entire bar

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 2 months ago

    Still trying to prop up Milei.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 2 months ago

    From other thread

    I think this war would be awful…

    But I also think it would be fucking hilarious if the US takes over those islands and doesn’t give them to Argentina. They would seethe so fucking much.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago

    I wanna see a video of the POTUS pointing to the islands on a map.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    Margaret Thatcher intensifies

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    No one cares. US opposition or support in the falklands dispute is meaningless unless the US is going to park a carrier group there and do something about it, which they absolutely wont. So our powerless yet somehow also power mad toddler president can support or not support whoever he likes, or even better he can sit down and stfu.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    iirc the last time someone parked a fleet there two destroyers were lost.

    If it happens again, it would be the most excitement the local sheep population has seen since 1982.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    It was a bit more than that.

    Two british destroyers, two frigates, a landing ship, and a containership. One argentinian light cruiser and a submarine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    Is this linked to the massive beef import plan from a mysterious country that I read about the other day, it trump of course it is

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    We should collectively boycot US gun sector.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Why keep demanding NATO spend more on defense? Why choose defense spending?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Well, for the US, trump was assuming europe would spend it on US weapons, meaning his buddies get more money.

    For Europe, spending more on defense is an excellent way to break the stranglehold the US has on the defense industry, which is a good thing, since they're extremely unreliable these days. Also, there's literally a foreign power invading europe right now, which is a Bad Thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    Hey Britain, Canada here...we rebuilding the empire then?

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    the us can suck a dick for being imperialists but also the uk can suck a dick for being colonisers but also argentina can suck a dick because javier milei is a right wing cryptofash piece of shit

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

    Eh, the Falklands are much more complicated than “UK Imperialism”. The locals overwhelmingly want to stay a part of the UK, and the island was pretty much inhabited until European counties started to live there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    pretty much inhabited

    uninhabited

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-2 replies)
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago

    Yeah the British and French efforts to colonise the Falklands were probably the least morally questionable act of colonisation ever, since there was no indigenous people there to repress. They genuinely were terra nullius, in the actual original sense not the inhumane imperialist meaning of 'we don't consider the inhabitants human'.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Late night fever dream.

    BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

    1. No person shall be eligible for the highest office of <nation>, nor of their highest houses ('Congress', 'Senate', 'Parliament', or equivalent ruling body) unless they have at least one child of age eligible to serve active duty in their military at the time of attaining office, or are themselves eligible for active duty;

    2. <Nation>, upon entering a state of War, declared or undeclared, incursion, 'liberation mission', 'limited operation', or any other such terms causing military operation against another nation, triggers a mandatory enlistment and deployment of ALL politicians enacting said state of conflict, and their eligible children. This shall apply to the highest and second-highest leadership, as well as those of their highest houses; for service to enter active duty immediately, to be placed on the first offensive line, and remaining on active lines of conflict until their tour of duty is fully served, or their death, whichever occurs first;

    3. If the opposing nation does not have this same policy in effect, the first and foremost objective of <nation>, being in conflict with demonstrated cowards, shall be to eliminate the children of opposing cowardly nation's leadership, followed by the cowardly leaders themselves;

    4. The preceding clauses logically imply that any opposing nation should carefully consider if they are to engage in unprompted aggression against our great <nation>, and are strongly encouraged to adopt this same statute for the protection of their own leaders and their families.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    This is just MAD with extra steps to allow explicit child murder.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    Well, I did call it a 'late night fever dream'.

    But any politician who advocates starting war should be required to be at the front line themselves, or their of-age children, no exceptions. That would put a damper on chicken-hawks like Drumpf, who dodged service himself.

  • source
  • parent
  • 23 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 34 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    With what? Buzz the islands with some over-tired and exausted soldiers without any weapons because your dumb pedo ass wasted them trying to impress the Iranians?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    If they bring that Aircraft Carrier from the Middle East over to the Falklands I'm pretty sure all the sailors will jump overboard and swim to the islands to claim asylum.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    A new Falklands conflict was not something I was expecting in 2026.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    I guarantee that’s a Playskool phone in the thumbnail, just painted black to trick Trump into thinking he’s a big boy

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    "The cow called me last night. Big cow, strong cow, beautiful cow. It was crying on the phone, begging, pleading with me. 'Mr President,' it said, because it respects me just like everyone else, except for the phony dumocrats and the Spanish. 'Please Mr President, the cow goes moo!'

    "I said, 'I don't understand what you mean, Mr Cow.' The cow goes moo? Why is he talking in third person? That's my thing, you know? What's he talking about?

    "And you know what it said back to me? It said 'the cow goes moo for you, Mr President, because you're so strong and handsome and successful. And you have such big manly hooves and such a smooth neck that doesn't look like a vagayna at all!'

    "I said 'thank you Mr Cow. When my beautiful bunker ballroom opens up you should come over and chew on some cud.' But then I had to hang up because Natalie came in with my Baby Mum-Mum biscuits and my sippy cup of warm milk."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I can't understand how people can listen to him going on about how there's a B in dumb and take him seriously at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    This guy's followers talk the same way about "maga" that the aliens talked about "Marklar" in that South Park episode. So we aren't talking about the most coherent bunch of people, and they don't really make any demands of competency or logic from their leaders, either.

    I think I should print up a bunch of red hats with MARKLAR on them and see if I can start a cult. We can have fun debates about who is the true Marklar with the most Marklar of beliefs.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    as an incentive to hit Nato's 5 per cent spending pledge.

    For fuck's sake! The previous 2% was already FAR too much to waste on enriching the world military industrial complex and now they want to increase it by 150%?! 🤦🏻

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago
    [–] 16 points 2 months ago

    Original link:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/08/28/us-uk-boost-defence-spending-lose-falklands-support/

    Archive:

    https://archive.is/iAtj8

    OP you should swap out the link or your post might get deleted. News aggregators aren't allowed in this community (Rule 1).

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    What a loser

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    GO GET NORIEGA WHILE YOU'RE AT IT.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Please stop sharing yahoo links as news. It's complete junk. Let's keep the quality here better than this.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    What the actual fuck is the matter with the orange faced dipshit?

    Seriously - he is a fucked up piece of shit.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    And by "US", we mean donnie the dumbass and his apparatchiks, right?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [M] 3 points 2 months ago*

    We require links go to the original sources, not aggregators like Yahoo.

    In this case:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/08/28/us-uk-boost-defence-spending-lose-falklands-support/

    Please update the link to the correct source or we'll have to remove it.

  • source