«

»

Strategic Sheep Purposes

Argentina, attempting to distract attention away from a bubble economy and heavy inflation, is rattling the saber on the Falklands again. So we can expect our President to certainly … oh, shit:

Obama’s comments were made during a speech in Cartagena, Colombia, at the Summit of the Americas. It was delivered in English, but Obama chose to refer to the disputed islands by their Spanish name – the Malvinas. Argentina has insisted that the islands should always be referred to as “the Malvinas,” while the British have been adamant about calling them “the Falklands.” Obama’s choice of “Malvinas” was a slap at the UK. Instead of feeling slapped, though, the British might be amused: He called them “the Maldives.”

Of course, this would be seen as proof of his stupidity and ignorance if he were a Republican. But I’m sure Andrew Sullivan or somebody will pen some op-ed about Obama’s brilliant tactic in referring to them by the wrong fucking name and therefore being neutral.

The thing is, we should not be neutral about this. Argentina’s claim to the Falklands is dubious at best and bullshit at worst. They have been British since the 1840′s. The people there want to be British. Argentina’s claim is based mostly on proximity. By that logic, we have a territorial claim to French Guyana.

Moreover, Argentina’s government, while led by a moderately hot Peronista socialist, is a disaster, despite desperate leftist attempts to pretend otherwise. Their economy is supposedly booming, but everyone knows their economic figures are complete bullshit and the “recovery” has mostly consisted of undoing the damage caused by Fernandez’s husband. Foreign investment is falling, government control is increasing, the peso is weak and their current boom is unsustainable. And just today, the nationalized a Spanish oil company. Argentina is going the way of Hugo Chavez, Fernandez’ role model.

The appropriate response to Argentina’s bullshit is to ignore them, as most of South America is doing.

10 comments

No ping yet

  1. Seattle Outcast says:

    Oddly enough, these islands are located next the 51st – 57th states…..

    The people there want to be British. Argentina’s claim is based mostly on proximity. By that logic, we have a territorial claim to French Guyana.

    Perhaps we should exploit that – I’m pretty sure the US could do with ownership of some really nice oil fields and vacation land on the north side of South America. While we’re at it, we should reclaim the canal zone and set Central America to rights by ridding them of the various criminal organizations that infest the place, starting with their governments.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  2. Hal_10000 says:

    As I understand, France is offering to defuse the entire Argentina problem by surrendering. We could get Guyana in the confusion.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  3. Mississippi Yankee says:

    The appropriate response to Argentina’s bullshit is to ignore them, as most of South America is doing.

    Yeah, because throughout history that tactic has always worked best.

    Watching what Spain does about their oil company being nationalized by Cutie Christina may prove to be interesting as they are the next EU domino to fall.
    We no longer live ‘in interesting times’. they’re turning out to be dangerous and bizarre.

    An incensed Spain threatened swift economic retaliation against Argentina on Tuesday after it seized control of YPF, the South American nation’s biggest oil company, in a move which pushed down shares in Spanish energy giant Repsol, the major shareholder.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  4. Hal_10000 says:

    Yeah, because throughout history that tactic has always worked best.

    I meant with the Falklands. Their nationalization of an oil company should absolutely NOT be ignored and Obama’s mealy-mouthed response was pathetic.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  5. Seattle Outcast says:

    As his actions with GM clearly showed, Obama is FOR the nationalization of companies for little or no reason…

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  6. CM says:

    As his actions with GM clearly showed, Obama is FOR the nationalization of companies for little or no reason…

    Except that AFAIK Govt ownership of GM is about 30% (down from 60.8%). And whether you agreed with the GM plan or not, you can’t honestly claim it was for “little or no reason”
    If he was for the nationalisation of companies, he would have ensured the Govt held more than a 60.8% stake, and he certainly wouldn’t signed off on letting it fall back, cerrtainly not to less than 30% (it was 27% before the IPO, so is pretty much back to where it was beforehand).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/business/government-ownership-and-gm-regulation-dont-mix.html?pagewanted=all

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  7. Mississippi Yankee says:

    If he was for the nationalisation of companies, he would have ensured the Govt held more than a 60.8% stake, and he certainly wouldn’t signed off on letting it fall back, cerrtainly not to less than 30%

    Ah yes but what entity (hint it’s a union) holds a majority of shares. But then again I’m sure you just forgot to mention that part.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  8. CM says:

    Ah yes but what entity (hint it’s a union) holds a majority of shares.

    I’m struggling to find what percentage share the United Auto Workers hold.

    Initially (when the Govt had 60%) it looks like their VEBA fund held a 17.5% stake, designed that way in order to lower costs for the company:

    A major use of the concept was implemented in 2007 when the United Auto Workers agreed to form VEBAs for their workers at the Big Three automobile manufacturers, thus relieving the companies from carrying the liability for their health plans on their accounting books.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Employee_Beneficiary_Association

    But then it seems when the newly formed GM went public, they SOLD stock (along with the Govt)….

    Besides the Treasury Department, the big sellers of stock into the offering were the United Automobile Workers health care trust and the Canadian government.

    Bob King, the U.A.W. president, was among the crowd of G.M. executives who stood with Mr. Akerson when he rang the opening bell, which was then followed by the sounds of a revving engine.

    Buyers of the stock included mutual funds, hedge funds and large overseas sovereign wealth funds, said Chris Liddell, G.M.’s chief financial officer. He said that 90 percent of the shares were sold to North American investors, including $4 billion worth of shares that were allotted for retail investors through various brokerage firms.

    It was unclear whether G.M.’s thousands of retirees and active workers bought the 5 percent of the public offering allocated for them.

    Another large buyer was SAIC Motor, G.M.’s longtime Chinese partner. SAIC said in a statement that it acquired just less than 1 percent of the new G.M. for about $500 million.

    http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/g-m-shares-big-day/

    Where are you getting your information that the union holds the majority of shares?

    But then again I’m sure you just forgot to mention that part.

    Sorry I’m not biting.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  9. balthazar says:

    Except that AFAIK Govt ownership of GM is about 30% (down from 60.8%). And whether you agreed with the GM plan or not, you can’t honestly claim it was for “little or no reason”
    If he was for the nationalisation of companies, he would have ensured the Govt held more than a 60.8% stake, and he certainly wouldn’t signed off on letting it fall back, cerrtainly not to less than 30% (it was 27% before the IPO, so is pretty much back to where it was beforehand).

    So were slightly more than 1/2 as communistic as china, well that MAKES IT OK THEN!

    Goddamn you are a stupid fuck.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  10. CM says:

    So were slightly more than 1/2 as communistic as china, well that MAKES IT OK THEN!

    I was responding to the following claim, which is quite different:

    As his actions with GM clearly showed, Obama is FOR the nationalization of companies for little or no reason…

    Goddamn you are a stupid fuck.

    Sorry, not biting.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.

View Mobile Site