-
How British Conservatives Rose from the Dead
November 21, 2012 | 24 comments
-
Oxford Embraces Cross-Dressing
October 2, 2012 | 14 comments
-
The British Are Coming
July 25, 2012 | 2 comments
-
Her Majesty’s X Factor
June 1, 2012 | 32 comments
-
London’s Cool Conservative
April 30, 2012 | 28 comments
The Obama Watch
Sorry, Mr. Obama, the Falklands Will Stay British
This is no way to treat our closest ally.
Britain has fought side by side with the U.S. for the last decade in Iraq and Afghanistan. So you would have thought that President Obama might offer Britain a little support on its most urgent foreign policy objective — the on-going efforts to stop Argentina swallowing up the Falkland Islands, lying vulnerably just 300 miles off its South Atlantic coast.
Sadly, Obama seems unconcerned to show such loyalty to his ally. “Our position remains one of neutrality,” says his administration. “The United States… takes no position regarding the sovereignty claims of either party.”
Thanks, Mr. Obama.
No wonder the Falkland Islanders have felt the need to show the world just how much they wish to stay British — something that was impressed upon me during my visit there in January. Last Monday they took part in a referendum on their sovereignty, and a whopping 99.8% of them voted in favor of remaining as a UK territory. Since the UN Charter enshrines a people’s right to self-determination, you’d hope they might finally get the backing of the American president.
Sadly, though, it may not be as simple as that. Argentina regards the 2,800 Islanders as an “implanted” British population whose wishes are therefore irrelevant, and is only too happy to bully them, hoping to undermine their economy and weaken their resolve. What’s more, it seems that the international community, with Obama at its head, is letting them get away with it.
In recent months Argentina has threatened to prevent flights to the Falklands from traveling through its airspace; refused to allow port entry to cruise ships that have visited the Falklands; and persuaded the Mercosur bloc, which includes Brazil and Uruguay, to close ports to all ships flying the Falklands flag. Argentina’s president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, is busy persuading other countries to back her case and is whipping up nationalist sentiment at home, declaring that Argentina will control the Islands within 20 years.
It’s deeply unsettling for the Islanders to see their homeland so aggressively coveted by a giant neighbor, especially since Argentina’s ill-conceived 1982 attempt to take the Islands by force is still fresh in the memory. Back then many of the invading soldiers expected to be welcomed as liberators. Instead they were greeted with contempt — a sentiment Margaret Thatcher wholeheartedly shared. She immediately dispatched a massive task force from Britain, and only two months after they had arrived, the demoralized Argentines surrendered.
Nevertheless, the conflict and its accompanying horrors are still intensely resented by Falklands people. They remember being pushed around at gunpoint, their public buildings being taken over and their leaders being deported. And they display a steely determination that their homeland will never again fall into Argentinean hands.
They have the backing of just about everyone in Britain. In fact, to Britons of my generation, the Falklands capture the imagination like nowhere else. I was a teenager when Argentina invaded them in 1982, and the war that followed was a formative experience that left me with an intense curiosity about the place, and the people who live there. So when, a few weeks ago, the government of the Falkland Islands invited me to carry out a training project, I was fascinated to see just what this windswept little community was really like, and how British it could really be.
Walking along the streets of the main settlement, Stanley, on my first evening, I was reminded of the archetypal English village in late-summer sunlight, complete with community store, church, bright red post box, plenty of pubs, and a proud display of British flags. There are big physical differences of course — not least the thousands of penguins nestling in the wind-battered rocks just outside town. You don’t get those in Stratford-on-Avon. But the people display those old-fashioned virtues of self-reliance, care for neighbors and an understated pride in their country. For 180 years, it’s been a tight-knit place where everyone knows everyone else — and despite living 8,000 miles away from the UK, the Islanders are as British as warm beer and afternoon tea.
In fact, Argentina’s only obvious claim to the Islands is geographical — the same one that would make Alaska part of Russia. Any historical claim is far-fetched, for unlike the South American mainland, the Falklands never had an indigenous population vulnerable to European colonists. And Argentina didn’t even exist in its modern form when the British began to settle there in 1833, let alone when they first arrived in 1690. Moreover, the Islanders, many of whom trace their family history back nine generations, have always done so by free choice, as Argentina discovered to its cost in 1982.
Ironically, most Argentineans, including President Kirchner, are themselves the descendants of European settlers, and their families have been in their country for rather less time than the Falkland Islanders have been in theirs.
The people of the Falklands shrug their shoulders at this, merely expressing, with British understatement, their disappointment at Argentina’s bullyboy tactics. Meanwhile, they look forward to a healthy economic future based on fishing (much of the calamari eaten in Europe is from the Falklands), tourism, and oil.
However, the Islanders also rely on the international community to dismiss Argentina’s power games, and to accept the rights of this small, isolated but determined community to decide its own future. In particular, they expect President Obama to recognize these rights, and will patiently wait to see how he responds to a referendum result that is as unequivocal as it gets.
All the Islanders ask for is to live their lives in peace. If the UN Charter has any force, if the right to self-determination is paramount, they should surely be allowed to do so.
Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Letter to the Editor View all comments (56) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Robert Taylor
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/03/13/sorry-mr-obama-the-falklands-w
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- A Nation on the Edge
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- The Welfarians
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
homme nike air max BW | 3.13.13 @ 6:37AM
Argentina regards the 2,800 Islanders as an www.toairmaxfr.com
AlanAnti-RoveCheneyBrooks | 3.13.13 @ 8:17AM
"In recent months Argentina has threatened to prevent flights to the Falklands from traveling through its airspace; refused to allow port entry to cruise ships that have visited the Falklands; and persuaded the Mercosur bloc, which includes Brazil and Uruguay, to close ports to all ships flying the Falklands flag. Argentina’s president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, is busy persuading other countries to back her case and is whipping up nationalist sentiment at home, declaring that Argentina will control the Islands within 20 years."
Homme is another advert (apparently French, not Chinese).
Anyway this article says only white-- not brown-- caucasians can be nationalists and use economic warfare.
Bob K| 3.13.13 @ 11:18AM
The Kirschners aren't brown. They are white Caucasians of European Heritage. And their major economic warfare is being perpetrated against their own Citizens! They share the same fascist political and economic beliefs as the Peron's did.
Argentina is on the verge of being hit with economic sanctions world wide.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl.....n-deadline
AlanAnti-RoveCheneyBrooks | 3.13.13 @ 1:33PM
"They share the same fascist political and economic beliefs as the Peron's did."
You ought to be glad they aren't commies; that's what matters to American national security- which is what it ultimately comes down to. Allende was overthrown not because of his totalist tendencies, but because he was a commie and his allies were Commies. And of Course the residents are not brown, but Argentinians are brown and they consider the islands the Malvinas-- it is your bias against theirs'.
You'd be a dope to think Obama is going to side with honkies in S. America.
AlanAnti-RoveCheneyBrooks | 3.13.13 @ 1:54PM
...might add since 1976 I have admired the lack of gullibility on the Right; real leftists, not goo goos, are often naifs.
Why ought Obama care about Whitey in what the Argentines consider the Malvinas? People look out for they and theirs'. If England backs the Kirschners again, it is tough shit for them, they will take casualties. You don't care-- as Jack in Wi. has pointed out-- about Islamics, why should Argentina care about Kirschners?
Bob K| 3.13.13 @ 5:12PM
You know you might be able to make some cogent arguments if you stopped babbling nonsense and put some thought into your comments.
Bob K| 3.13.13 @ 5:19PM
And it would also help if you knew what you were talking about before you committed it to print. 90% of the population in Argentina are of European Heritage. and are not so called "brown" people.
But thanks again for showing everybody here how uninformed you are.
StanAmSpec| 3.14.13 @ 2:12PM
Though I've never been to Argentina, every Argentinian I've ever seen is clearly of primarily European decent. I'm sure there are some others. But it seems skin color is a non-issue in this issue. It is and has always been an economic grab by Argentina. First fishing, and now it's heating up again with oil possibilities.
Of course Obama The Ignorant cares little for facts (in fact they are irrelevant to him see his Maldives quote) and makes policy based on his Fabian Socialist agenda only.
Moe Blotz| 3.13.13 @ 8:39AM
Mr. Taylor should know that beer brewed in Britain is properly served at cellar temperature of 52 degrees Fahrenheit and is not warm.
AlanAnti-RoveCheneyBrooks | 3.13.13 @ 11:06AM
Moe, from your comment it appears you must know Argentina glomming the Falklands is no threat to American national security.
Robert Taylor = Chicken Little.
TLP| 3.13.13 @ 9:09AM
So, what's the problem? You sound surprised. Go read the "Dreams from my Father", a book about his Marxist Muslim Anti-Colonialist Father. Not the Indonesian one. That was his Stepfather. His real Father. The one who RAN OUT on him and his Atheist Communist Mother, and ended up Dead in a Kenyan Gutter. Drunk, and riddled with Aids.
He returned the Bust of Winston Churchill. He gave the Russians the exact number of British Nuclear Weapons AND their Serial Numbers.
He gave the Queen an IPod of his speeches. Screwed up the whole meet and greet with her. And, tried to run his mouth at dinner while the music was still playing. (You can take him outta the hood..........) The only thing he DIDN'T do, was he did not Bow to The Queen of England. He kisses the Asses of ALL of our Enemies, whilst leaving our Traditional Allies hung out to dry, at every turn.
Anyone who thinks that we can survive 4 more years of this guy, is out of their mind, and he knows it.
Why else would he be buying up all of the Ammunition?
To our Friends at the Secret Service, who's OATH is to Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America, from all enemies, both Foreign and DOMESTIC.
Why is he buying BILLIONS of Rounds of Ammunition?
Or, have you forgotten your Oaths?
nathan| 3.13.13 @ 10:41AM
Point of order Mr. Chairman regarding Winston Churchill's bust and return of said object. Churchill was a mass murderer. Now who pray tell would say such a horrible thing about so noble an individual? No less a person than Avery, his secretary for India during WWII. He wrote it in his diary published after everyone was safely dead to be sure. Now Avery being the cabinent secretary for India has "some" credibility here does he not? This of course was in connection with WC's handling of the Bengal famine in which 1-3 million Bengalis died, people WC had it in his power to save. The image of Australian grain ships traveling around the southern tip of India on their way to the Med where they sat at anchor for weeks for an operation that WC knew the Americans would never greenlight is disturbing indeed. He asked at one point if Gandhi had died during the famine and was very disappointed to find out he hadn't. Avery in his diary equated him to Hitler. Now since we don't keep images of Stalin in the WH, removing WC's probably was long overdue? And besides didn't WC order the use of poison gas against Iraqi villages that didn't take kindly to the noble British rule after WWI? We do know that the first use of WMD's in the region was by Britain against those villages in order to minimize British casualities. A truly civilizing influence! :) Did SH take his cue from them later?
Tom Kyba| 3.13.13 @ 11:54AM
A while back you said you were done commenting here. Please read Ross Kaminsky's article and look in the mirror.
nathan| 3.13.13 @ 2:37PM
Well gee if that's how you feel . . .
You've never had an irrestible impulse? Or should I use Pacino's line from Godfather III?
I note by the way that nothing has changed in my absence? I mean you didn't respond by saying that Avery "didn't" write that in his diary right? You didn't say Avery wasn't the secretary for India, right and might actually be knowledgeable on the subject? You didn't say that those grain ships from Australia didn't bypass India on the way to the Med while people were starving in Bengal right? Or that once there they lay at anchor? I mean the Indians, contributing troops to a war in Africa they had absolutely NO stake in were just so well repaid right? And you didn't say the noble British didn't use poison gas left over from WWI to pacify the villages in Iraq, a country the noble British created out of nothing with no reference to the ethnic situation there and had no business being there in the first place right? You didn't say any of that right? Because maybe everything I said was factually correct because if it wasn't you would have refuted it with facts of your own? I mean just asking . . .
Occam's Tool| 3.13.13 @ 3:29PM
Sir Winston Churchill was the Greatest Human Being of the 20th Century, Nathan, you blithering nincompoop. He fought against Communism and Fascism, to which you would have rolled over and offered free BJs.
The FI sound like a great place to retire too. Cool weather year round. Civilized people. The Argentines need to blow it out their collective asses, and tango off to play with their Nazis.
nathan| 3.13.13 @ 6:58PM
Well I see you haven't changed either. You call me names, nothing new there, but you also, shockingly didn't refute a single thing I said, equally nothing new. As for the "GREATEST HUMAN BEING OF THE 20th CENTURY" as I said, his cabinent secretary for India, Avery would beg to disagree with you. Since he actually served with the man, saw him EVERY DAY, his judgement cannot be lightly dismissed. And really 1-3 million dead Bengalis, people he had within his power to save, well they might disagree with you too. I mean really he allowed those grain ships to go to the Med where they just sat there, do you, self righteous as you are, do you remotely understand this, all that food sat there AT ANCHOR, when it could have saved countless lives because the greatest man of the century didn't give a damn about a bunch of asians and was perfectly willing to see them die. If that sir is YOUR definition of a great man, fine, it ain't mine. And Avery was right, in that regard he wasn't any better than Hitler.
But also understand that there is a wealth of evidence that WC, secretary for Air in the George government, authorized the use of poison gas against the rebels in what is now Iraq which GB had just occupied after WWI. Again, if you think that defines "greatness" feel free. I don't nor do I think a lot of others do either. Questions?
Occam's Tool| 3.15.13 @ 8:29PM
OK, let me do that. If not for Churchill, Europe would be under the boot of a Nazified Germany. Halifax WOULD have negotiated a peace treaty---the continuation of war in 1940 made no rational sense to Britain but Churchill FOUGHT. Without Churchill, we are talking either a subjugated Russia and an overweening German presence as the Western Armies of Germany would have made ALL the difference in the East, or we are talking about the need for "The Big One" if the US needed to get involved (mass bombing with advanced bombers in the late 1940s).
In addition nathan has repeatedly discussed how he would let jihadists get away with mass murder rather than harm a hair of their captured heads to get actionable intelligence.
In short, Churchill saved Western Civilization in the 1940s. Full Frickin' Stop. Waterboarding KSM was Justifiable. Nathan doesn't believe either of these things. Now, the discussion on Churchill is academic, but the discussion on stopping the Jihad is anything but.
In short, rather than waterboard captured terrorists who were captured red handed attempting acts of illegal warfare against American Civilians, Nathan would rather lose. As Jihadists are known for their homosexual and other perverted sexual tendencies (see, Arafat, Yasser, and newspaper column ad nauseum about Islamic rapes), my comment about giving BJs to jihadists rather than do what is necessary to win was entirely precise and not overblown.
Con'T
Occam's Tool| 3.15.13 @ 8:38PM
In short, Nathan, as I have said before, you engage in pilpul---you are the type of person who would lob a "Stainless Steel Hanky" at someone's head for cursing while failing to exert yourself to put out a fire. You are a Nauseatingly Picayune Moralist with no discrimination who would let utter evil triumph because your Champion is not perfect.
And Stan, kiss my Hairy Hebraic Hinder. Had you read more of Nathan's oevre, you would not be engaging in friendly fire against someone who knows his enemy quite well. Come on up to the Great White North in March and MAKE me shut up, ass. I'm a MENSAN who snagged his Doctorate at age 25. I will go high/low as I see fit.
My Board scores in History were perfect. I can research whatever I wish. Churchill also engaged in rough action against the Irish (who screwed up royally themselves in WWII).
However and whatever you say about him, he SAVED WESTERN CIVILIZATION IN 1940. Full Flinkin' STOP. The fact that Nathan can't recognize that says all that is needed to be said. The truth isn't nuanced at all, ponce.
StanAmSpec| 3.14.13 @ 2:16PM
Occam, either take the time, research what he says and rebut him or be quite. Honestly, your post is the kind of thing Liberals do.
I'm sure the truth is more nuanced than he says, however, we must not shy away from arguing with facts.
Bob K| 3.13.13 @ 10:13PM
This is pure Bull Crap! And dishonest to boot!
The main cause of the famine was the fall of Burma to the Japanese which stopped imports of rice to India. There had been smaller famines in Bengal in the 2 previous years. It was aggravated by the incompetent bureaucracy in India which couldn't distribute the grain they had.
The ships with the grain were Australian. Churchill had no control over them. At that time in 1943 he was still begging for more help from Roosevelt and was involved in a war in the Mediterranean with the Germans, not to mention fighting the German wolf packs of submarines in the Atlantic, and he had no ships to spare.
nathan| 3.14.13 @ 6:57AM
Very true the grain ships were Australian but under whose control? Churchill directed where those ships went and he was contemplating an action in the Med, one against the "soft underbelly of Europe" as he put it that we the Americans were never going to greenlight so those ships sat at anchor for weeks. But I suggest you read "Churchill's Secret War" by Madhusree Murkerjee. Not without her critics to be sure, every writer has them, but still she goes into considerable detail on this subject.
Again, Leopold Amery (sorry I previously mispelled his name) was the secretary for India and told Churchill that in his actions regarding India he was no different than Hitler. Make of THAT what y0u will. But that was so very consistent with that man. While he was more than willing to make use of Indian resources to fight the Germans in say North Africa, a fight they literally had no stake in, he had zero interest in welfare of those people. And note again his actions in "Mesopotamia" in the early 20's. There is considerable evidence that he authorized the use of left over poison gas against villages rebelling against British rule. How "noble" was that? And be clear here, those villages, those people had every right to revolt against the British who had no right to be there in the first place. By any standard of today or then they were fighting for THEIR freedom and he used WMD's against them. Not the most noble of gestures. The removal of his bust from the WH was long overdue.
Who Knows?| 3.13.13 @ 12:54PM
0 + 0 = 0
Mr. Wright| 3.13.13 @ 4:39PM
I am really worried about the 1.6 billion rounds of ammo too.What in the world would homeland security need to do that much shooting for? They do nothing of any consequence to guard borders,its porous, for god sake.
SUBVET| 3.13.13 @ 5:41PM
To keep you from buying ammo......try to buy some lately ? How about a weapon ?
c. j. acworth| 3.13.13 @ 10:19AM
The people of the Falklands are determined to remain British, eh? Brits aren't allowed to own GUNS. Do the people of the Falklands own GUNS? If not, are they planning on getting them.?
OP4| 3.13.13 @ 10:40AM
I have no idea what the civilian guns laws are there, but since the last Argentine invasion, the Falkland Islands Defence Force has been seriously beefed up. I'm sure if another invasion was imminent, there is a Steyr AUG for everyone willing to fight.
Louis Jenkins| 3.13.13 @ 10:51AM
Have to agree with TLP on this one. Why should Obama and America be interested? Obama doesn't care what happens down south. This time Argentina will give Britian a run.
TLP| 3.13.13 @ 2:05PM
You sound disappointed.
OP4| 3.13.13 @ 10:52AM
Luckily, thanks to Kirchner's stupidity, Argentina is too broke to rearm. Thanks to multiple defaults, she can't even fly her Presidential jet abroad - because it would be repossessed.
They aren't able to repair or replace the obsolete junk they lost with 30 years ago, much less buy modern equipment.
All Kirchner's blustering is just a distraction from the economic disaster area that is Argentina.
ncatty| 3.13.13 @ 12:50PM
Correct.
Will| 3.14.13 @ 7:14PM
Correct indeed. Argentina wouldn't have a hope in hell of taking the Falklands militarily. Back in '82, the British garrison was made up of a grand total of 80 Royal Marines will light weaponry. Now there are 4 Typhoon fighters and Type 45 Destroyer, which could take down the entire Argentine Air Force single-handed.
Paul Murphy | 3.13.13 @ 11:07AM
Dear Mr. Taylor:
Obama? Neutral? Not bloodly likely - he approved the use of federal tax monies to support billions in loans to Argentina for the express purpose of developing undersea oil near the Falklands.
Underwater drilling is too environmentally dangerous to be permitted when done by Americans in the American gulf, but safe when done by Argentines - logical enough for democrats, I guess but something that really only makes sense if the point was to add financial and emotional fuel to Argentine resentment against the British.
cicero| 3.13.13 @ 11:09AM
Where is the left when you need them.. Where are the chants of, "No war for oil!"? Argentina wants to get their hands on the oil thought to be beneath the territorial waters of the Falklands. Kirchner has already bankrupted her own country, and stays in power because the poor still wishfully think that they can survive by taking more from the marginal haves. Thus it has always been, and thus it will always be.
The Brits are now paying the price for trrading defense for free stuff. Now it is a question of whether they can even get to the fight. All things being equal, I still bet on the Brits. Once they get to the fight, the know how to get the job done. As for America's position on this, we should be ashamed of ourselves (or at least of this addministration). We are either for freedom and self-determinatikon, or we are for nothing. If it is the latter, we have no purpose, as we are no better than Argentina.
Mike G| 3.13.13 @ 11:27AM
This administration is for neither freedom nor self-determination. And I have been ashamed of this administration (and the last for that matter) for quite some time.
Derek Leaberry| 3.13.13 @ 11:38AM
The British should keep a couple of submarines off the Falklands and sink any Argentine warship that happens to come their way. The Argies will stay away.
OP4| 3.13.13 @ 6:25PM
They keep a nuke attack sub, their equivalent of an Aegis guided missile destroyer, and 4 Eurofighter Typhoons on station there.
Argentina doesn't have anything that could touch them - and not nearly enough obsolete stuff to overwhelm those systems.
John O.| 3.13.13 @ 1:12PM
I love it when the author blatantly distorts history to make his point. Argentina gained it's independence from Spain in 1816. So to say that Argentina was not even a country in 1833 is not only a huge historical mistake, it is also a bold face lie. Argentina certainly existed as an autonomous country by 1833 when British war ships sailed in and kicked out the Argentine population in the islands. That's where the Argentine sovereignty claim stems from and it is a very worthy one.
minktulip| 3.13.13 @ 4:14PM
Both earlier than your ancetors' final decimation of the American aborigines. What are you giving back?
markenoff| 3.13.13 @ 4:37PM
"In 1765, British captain John Byron explored and claimed Saunders Island on West Falkland, where he named the harbour Port Egmont and a settlement was constructed in 1766."
"In 1774, economic pressures leading up to the American Revolutionary War forced Great Britain to withdraw from many overseas settlements.[21][22] Upon withdrawal, the British left behind a plaque asserting Britain's continued claim. "
"In 1820, storm damage forced the privateer Heroína to take shelter in the islands.[23] Her captain David Jewett raised the flag of the United Provinces of the River Plate and read a proclamation claiming the islands.[23] This became public knowledge in Buenos Aires nearly a year later after the proclamation was published in the Salem Gazette.[23] After several failures, Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 with authorisation from the Republic of Buenos Aires and from Great Britain.[24] In 1829, after asking for help from Buenos Aires, he was instead proclaimed Military and Civil Commander of the islands.[24] Additionally, Vernet asked the British to protect his settlement if they returned.[25]"
ABNCP| 3.13.13 @ 2:35PM
Why does anyone with viable brain cells not understand that Obama went into office with an agenda to due as much harm to traditional American values as was possible. Two of this countries most reliable allies, The United Kingdom and Israel have received nothing but contempt from Obama whenever he could get away with it. But why does that surprise anyone? He came into office with the mantra of, "We are going to change traditional America".
Occam's Tool| 3.15.13 @ 8:40PM
ABNCP: yup. Obama is a traitor, pure and simple. Not nuanced at all. His parents were traitors, his mentors were traitors, he started his political career in the home of two traitors---what is so hard here?
ABNCP| 3.13.13 @ 2:56PM
To John O. I am not going to go into the very complicated history of the Falklands, but your post leaves out some facts that should make anyone pause before accusing another of lying. Just check Wikipedia.
Al Adab| 3.13.13 @ 3:30PM
Perhaps, the selection of an Argentine as Pope Francis I just prevented a war.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 3.13.13 @ 10:01PM
Yes a traditionally Protestant British power with a long history of abuse against Catholics in Europe would be ill advised to start a campaign in which Argentinian Catholics would be inevitably killed especially now that the new Pope of the Roman Catholic Church is from Argentina.
Cpm| 3.15.13 @ 9:45PM
Any campaign vis-a-vis the Falklands would have to necessarily be started by Argentina, not Great Britain.
Occam's Tool| 3.13.13 @ 3:30PM
Obama LIKES oppression of Democratic countries. He likes killing free people.
SUBVET| 3.13.13 @ 5:43PM
Tool.....insert soros.....obama is just a pupit.
but you knew that.....right
Michele San Pietro| 3.13.13 @ 6:26PM
The Falklands are a holy British territory and Argentinean impudence is really incredible. The most absurd people are Argentinean leftists who approved of the 1982 invasion, although the regime in power was a right-wing one, and one of the most murderous in history. Shame on Argentine and Argentineans!
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 3.13.13 @ 9:55PM
What business is it of the Americans to pick sides in a British-Argentinian dispute? I am no fan of Barrack Obama, but maintaining America's neutrality on the issue was exactly the right thing to do.
Occam's Tool| 3.15.13 @ 8:41PM
Dmitry: because the British shed their blood with ours. It is what is called a Blood Debt. Try to understand loyalty and honor and obligation. It is hard for a Russkie, I know.
nike air max pas cher | 3.14.13 @ 4:54AM
Sadly, Obama seems unconcerned to show such loyalty to his ally. “Our position remains one of neutrality,” says his administration. “The United States… takes no position regarding the sovereignty claims of either party.”
Hamaka| 3.14.13 @ 6:57AM
"We the people...". There used to be a document that people recognised as the rules of how to live in a democratic society. One of those rules was to respect and support the will of the people.
Obama's fence-sitting is deplorable and an embarrassment for all Americans. It seems OK to support a rabble, in fact any rabble in the mid-East, just because they don't like the current dictatorship, but not to support a free, democratic populous who have not only made their wishes abundantly clear, but who are a sovereign part of the USA's longest and most fervent ally.
Taylor is right on the money here. So much for the USA being the World's policeman. Currently it's more like the Keystone Kops!
Belianis | 3.14.13 @ 7:10PM
If the Sassenach are so much in love with the MALVINAS, the thing for them to do is to uproot said islands from the S Pacific and plant them right in the center of England. While they are at it, they might as well also uproot N Ireland and Gibraltar and plant them in undeniably unquestionably Sassenach territory.
Juan Jose Morales y Castillo of PUERTO RICO, which was invaded by the S on 1595, 1598 and 1797, and who is very much aware that the GB of Elizabeth II is NOT the GB of Victoria, which could throw its weight all around the world without anybody daring to oppose it.
Will| 3.14.13 @ 7:16PM
Have literally no idea what you are talking about.
Signed, A. Sassenach
Belianis | 3.14.13 @ 8:30PM
Simple: the GB of Elizabeth II is not the GB of Victoria, Edward VII and George V, and the Anglos are no longer the majority in the USA, so it's damn foolish to try to force the world into believing that this is 1913 instead of 2013.
Cpm| 3.15.13 @ 9:55PM
The "sassenach" are infinitely better prepared to wage war than they were in 1982.