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.

cross-posted from: https://discuss.online/post/44708818

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.

    • siravious@lemmy.worldEnglish
      63·
      9 days ago

      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

      • Taldan@lemmy.worldEnglish
        111·
        9 days 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

      • ohulancutash@feddit.ukEnglish
        1·
        8 days ago

        No, the american electorate fucks duly appointed him their leader. They don’t get to weasel out of this.

    • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      21·
      9 days ago

      Putin told him to do it. Why would you disobey your boss?

      That’s rhetorical… Fight fight fight, everyone. We’re not cowardly criminals (against all humanity) like the president.

  • katy ✨@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    289·
    9 days ago

    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

    • jumjummy@lemmy.worldEnglish
      232·
      9 days ago

      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.

      • mobyduck648@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        9 days 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’.

  • Skullgrid@lemmy.worldEnglish
    18·
    9 days 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.

  • kreskin@lemmy.worldEnglish
    8·
    9 days ago

    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.

    • StarDreamer@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      3·
      9 days ago

      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.

      • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        2·
        7 days ago

        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.

        • the_crotch@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          1·
          7 days ago

          Brezhnev took Afghanistan

          Begin took Beirut

          Galtieri took the Union Jack

          And Maggie, over lunch one day

          Took a cruiser with all hands

          Apparently to make him give it back

  • Theoriginalthon@lemmy.worldEnglish
    6·
    9 days 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

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.comOPEnglish
      4·
      8 days ago

      More money spent on military = more tax money being funneled into the pockets of arms dealers and mercenaries who love Trump and his European far right allies = more bribes and kickbacks for the latter.

      • minorkeys@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        1·
        8 days ago

        Yeah but the US has tons of agreements and alliances, why keep going for funding.for NATO? I don’t believe for a moment Trump cares about NATO or its member states, what’s the play?

    • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      1·
      7 days 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.

  • Arghblarg@lemmy.caEnglish
    58·
    10 days ago

    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.

      • Arghblarg@lemmy.caEnglish
        4·
        9 days 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.