Donald Trump's Pentagon officials are examining potential measures to penalize NATO countries that have declined to back the Iran conflict, with reports suggesting this includes a review of Britain's sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.

[...] Britain fought a war against Argentina in 1982 to maintain control after Argentine forces invaded the islands. Argentina's current president, Javier Milei, is among Trump's closest international supporters.

all 41 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 28 points 6 months ago (8 children)

What is the US's claim to have the authority to question the UK's claim to the Falklands'?

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] [S] 19 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

    I assume the threat is that the US would not support the UK military or in the UN, if Argentina attacked.

    Argentina is not going to attack in either case, so it is moot. Argentina simply don't have a military capable to launch a 500km amphibious landing, against a UK military which already reinforced the Falklands after 1982 to avoid repeats.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    I assume the threat is that the US would not support the UK military or in the UN, if Argentina attacked.

    That would be a direct violation of Article 5 of the NATO treaty. It's one thing to refuse to join the US in attacking someone...but, it's an entirely different story when a NATO member is being attacked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 27 points 6 months ago*

    And then when the UK doesn't feel eternal gratitude the next time the US needs help, Trump will again be surprised.

    The US foreign policy/diplomacy seems to be a kakistocracy. If you literally picked a random person out of the phone book to be President, then it would with great probability be better than Trump.

  • source
  • [–] 49 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    I'm reviewing the US's claim to Hawaii

    Also don't mess with the Falklands they are all British Citizens and the last time Thatcher had to be genuinely talked down from using Nukes.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Thatcher had to be genuinely talked down from using Nukes

    There are only two source I could find for any such claims. One is an interview with Michael Quinlan, former Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence, who claims that after the war ended Thatcher suggested to him that she would have considered using nuclear weapons if the war went badly enough. The other is this book by Mitterrands psychiatrist written ~20 years after the conflict. I only really think the interview is a credible source, and it sure doesn't sound like they genuinely had to talk her out of using nukes at any point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 22 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Native Americans can now review the US Governments claim on their land as well, I'd guess.

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

    The less powerful and relevant the US become the more they will act like they are rulers of the world.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Then the UK should push ahead with the Chagos deal. 2 can play at that game.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c04x1lg1lygo

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Declare War
    Empire of Britannia vs. Argentine Republic

    No Casus Belli to choose from....

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    So what if Trump reconsiders this? Apart from Argentina who else will support him.

    NOW is the time for the planet to get rid of reliance upon the US. Not screw them over, just stop being their removed.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago

    Trump can get effed. Starts a war, doesn’t consult allies ahead of time. Whines and bullies allies to help him clean up the mess he started unilaterally (with Satanyahu). Continues to bully former allies into fighting his adventurist war for him. When will wankees comprehend actions have consequences. Oh right - never.

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

    And yet we're still planning to send Charlie over for a State visit to the orange cunt ferfuckssake.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago

    He's not involved in either side of that war. Nor would either side invite his help. And we dont have the military strength to open yet another front. We cant even keep our soldiers fed in the gulf. His review one way or another is pathetic and stupid.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    The British public might now side with Prince Harry who criticized Trump during his present visit to Ukraine. In contrast, King Charles is visiting Trump on Monday. I'm sure King Charles will cozy up to Trump.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

    I’m sure King Charles will cozy up to Trump.

    Trump is super easy to manipulate. Sending Charles to get free brown nose points, at no real cost to the UK, is the right thing to do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Charles is also retarded (it's ok we can use that word now) and keeps pushing for the NHS to do homeopathy.

    A true meeting of geniuses, hopefully RFK's brainworms aren't hungry that week.

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

    Woah, this is going to be a good one! Will be interesting to see the British mental gymnastics this time around.

  • source
  • It’s simultaneously imbecilically quaint and mildly concerning that orangeboi thinks he can just decree things like that.

    But also, he had enough absolutely idiotic sycophants who all think they’re the smartest guy in the room who will try to follow the decrees. So it’s a roll of the dice.

  • source