Bit more then a curtasy as we have treaties to ensure rules.

But the UK will only do so if it is also a crime here. And not if the death sentence is likely. As our laws prohibit rhat. (For now).

But it is interesting that tue garedian and telegraph also published this data. And the US is ignoring them. Seems more of a power play against the idea of wiki lwaks then any actual risk to the US.

Opps.

Honestly i do tend to muddle them up. Also been a few years so will use that as an excuse. Lame one but ah.

Makes one wonder why the US needed to reopen a closed Swiss rape allagation rather then the obvious facts you state. To convince an allied nation to extradite then?

Its fairly clear that the law is a little less direct then you claim when talking extradition.

Which is why it sounds to me like they need some significant reform

Unfortunately the US founder had the same idea as you about reform. IE no one person or small group should be able to do so.

Now over decades Heck centuries. Power has migrated to the president. As groups continued to objects to slow change. So took the easy answer of trusting one elected member.

But any change to significantly limit power. Would need the constitution to be reworked to limit such power. Would require a huge approval. 66% of every state I think.

The very fact that Congress has to worry about such things. Is clear evidence such agreement is not and may never be possible.

Its a desperate attempt not to piss off even more voters. While still supporting party funders ideals.

because policymakers and some scientists are for sale?

How the hell is supporting the democratic rights of settlers supporting imperialism. An idea that is founded in feudalism.

Besides how the hell is the Falklands Islands to do with imperialism. No one lived their at all before UK settlers. UK was the first human landing France Spain and UK ran military out posts for decades. Argentina less then 1 year. Then some UK folk built a settlement. At no point in the past has any nation taken over the homes of other nations citizens. In fact the closest we have seen is Argentina trying to force its way. A nation also built by Spanish imperialism.

Your arguments are totally unfounded bullshit with less then 0 merit.

Did not know location invalidated peoples democratic rights. But given how much closer and able to offer support Argentina is then the UK. They must be really crappy for 99.8% of the only people who have ever formed a civilian settlement to decide they want the UK instead.

But more to the point. Chile and all its islands are right next to Argentina. Dose that mean their population has no right to decide who rules they follow. Why is water 350 miles wide not enough of a border to allow citizens to make up there own mind. But land right next to it is OK. Denmark’s Faroe Islands is about the same distance from the UK. While Denmark is 3x the distance. Dose that mean the UK should rule them. And fuck what the people living there think. Hell the Republic of Ireland is less then 80 miles and we used to rule them. Why do they deserve freedom to make their own choice. Or for that matter why do we now let northern island remain rather then forcing half the population to join RoI. They can have a vote anytime they express the support to do so (at least since 97).

And hell if you look as the Caribbean sea and the Golf of Mexico with a 350 mile radius to any larger nation. It becomes a complete fucking mess.

The whole idea that Argentina has any claim at all based on location is just utterly insane.

“privacy enhancing technology”.

Insanely naive. No one with any technical knowledge was involved in that terminology.

Even someone with minimal knowledge would know if the same company in implementing that tech as we are worried about accessing it. Then nope you aint in control. They just let you think you are.

There was a time the NHS hired their own tech team. It was crap ( I know as I was related to one of them. ). But at least they had the knowledge to recogniser what others were doing. The issue was dumb funding not the staff.

Now everything is outsourced. So the folks choosing don’t havee the knowledge to spot bullshit.

depressing.

When you consider the order.

Austerity to increase poverty and reduce free time of the working class.

Protest rights to limit the right to gather. So leaders do not actually have to fear the citizenship.

Followed by direct attempts to remove any legal limitation on government actions.

Disgusting is a better ord then depressing.

And lets face it. All the gov needs to do now. Is claim russia or any other nation has declared war. And they can stop any need to be elected.

Nothing in our justice system or constitutional monarchy stops a majority party passing a law to delay a genral election until an emergency is over. The lords used to be able to. But now best they can do is delay it. But even then. Its up to commons how fast they work on overriding them. Hate to sound like a conspiracy theory nut. But its seeming harder not to every day. they sure as hell aint trying to get elected atm,.

Yes but the fact is the actions of Europe in the 1700 has left nations we think of as southern poorer then northern nations. And most of those nations were not allies to a cold war side. Because both sides did not consider then stratigically important.

Given the European (my ancestors of course) actions of treating the area as resources to remove. And the clear fact that the wealth of the north has been built upon those resources.

Ignoring them during the cold war may not have intentionally been due to povertly. But the fact they were behind other nations and unable to catchup was. Meaning there was a def link between poverty and them being named 3rd world. Caused by previous european actions.

As for the global south. I dont understand the term myself. But as it is a term certain nations have chosen themselves to represent the issue. I am not arrogant enough to tell them they cannot use the name for themselves. Or that I will call them something else.

while you are correct. 1st vs 3rd world is an old cold war term that reeks of racism. 1st world were the allies to the US. 2nd world was Russian allies. 3rd world was all the nation to poor to be considered worth caring about. Who happened to be mainly in the global south.

So while I totally agree Falklands was not a racist act. 1st and 3rd world really is a term we need to expunge as our history is full of plenty of others acts that were.

LOL typo im not a great writter and have to reread things a few times. Ill leave it.

To be fair I am legally blind so take some time to edit comments. And likely have fucked up a few sends. So need to reread a before I can answer that.

In 1982 the UK navy was not in the top 10. Our military as a whole was likely in the top 5 but we had been reducing our navy to the point we needed to convert civilian ship as mine sweepers.

“When Argentina launched the attack on British citizens Living on land Argentina had absolutely no claim to” The simple fact is if any nation ignored a hostile power trying to forcibly take over the homes of their citizens. Especially when that hostile power had recently lost an election among those citizens to give the nation to them and become Argentine citizens. No one would consider the leader of that nation to be doing their job.

Thatcher was a bitch and most Brits agree with you their. But her actions in the Falklands were forced by the Argentine government nothing more.

The fact that the Argentine navy is tiny. Just goes to proves how fucking stupid it was to try and take land by force. When you punch big guy in the nose. No one feels sorry that he breaks your arm. Only that your mouth is to big to back up your threat.

Argentina failed to convince the people of the Falklands that they wanted to join Argentina. So started a war as a way of distracting their own population from their government corruption. And have been using the same trick every few years for the last 5 decades.

gigantic UK navy

LOL Not since the 2nd world war. And def not in 1980s when we had a total of 64 active ships, at the time the lowest since 1650s. We now only have 19. We have more coastal patrol ships. But they are limited to our own waters. We have not had a “Gigantic Navy” at anypoint in modern times. Mainly because we do not see it as an appropriate defensive force any more. Air superiority is way more important. And even their we are far far from a giant force.

Not exactly an uncommon take. Settlement is pretty much how the world recognises national land claims.

Given all humans immigrated from Africa originally. Settlement is really the only claim any nation can use beyond force a very colonial method.

I’d agree the British 1690 landing claim is weak and colonial. But Argentina has never controlled the islands for more then justnover a year. So impossible to argue settlement. France were def the first to build a settlement their. Followed by the UK and then Spain. Given Argentina only had a presence as a nation from 1932 to 1933. They really have the weakest claim of any nation.

That said raising the islands seems to be the Argentina politicians equivalent of immigration. A subject used to distract the popular from their own screw ups.

If we did. It would be to the French. As Argentina has never had any presence on the island.

Yes but their is not real answer to that. Even comunism where people own the means of production. Turns into a state where the leaders of that state make more money owning the machines then the workers on those machines.

Any system will always result in a cost to start the industry be it land in the past. Machines in the present or AI in the future. Those who have the resources to provide work for others will always have some form of power. And power will always lead to corruption.

All differing political stratagies do is change the process for gaining that power.

Yeah as @[email protected] says.

The whole discussion on the economy is sorta bipolar. Voters care about (A)inflation. But our whole interpretation of successful capatalism depends on (B)growth. Add to that the enviromental desire to reduce ©waste. And the only way corps can achive B without selling more products leading to C. Is A.

This leads to a media that can portray any situation as bad news. Except as they are funded via advertising they also need growth. Meaning there ability to sell shit requirs appealing to an audience that hates A. While ruling on the cuases of A.

Really the only answer. Don’t trust any of the arseholes.