Obama’s Falklands Failure

Originally posted by Muttley2012

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Muttley2012

 

So what? The Brits have already stated that they have no intention of defending the Falkland Islands. So, is it now Obama's responsibility?

your entire post reeks of a water & vinegar.

I don’t want US to intervene in the Falklands.

I was just pointing out the fact that his presidency is and abject failure.

AND that is relevant to the discussion how? again....douche!

How is what I said relevant? Did you happen to read the TITLE of the THREAD??

Obama’s Falklands Failure

Try to keep up…

reply to post by Freeborn


We this, we that.

You speak for an entire country, yes ? Because I know many British people who couldn't care less if the îles Malouines upped anchor & sailed off into the post colonial sunset.

So you don't speak for everyone in UK.

Obama's failure ? He's just following Reagan's sit on the fence. Jeane Kirkpatrick was more brave, she dined at the Argentinian Embassy as the Armada de la República Argentina was setting their soldiers down in what are, basically, their own islands. At least SHE knew who those islands rightfully belong to.

Must be a terrible crushing blow to England to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with USA on Sept 11th, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, losing all the brave soldiers and airmen, only to be kicked in the male member by your very own bestest friend in the whole wide world ... right when you need their help the most.

reply to post by Muttley2012


We have every intention of defending the Falklands, the Argentinians are suggesting we are an occupying force, but in reality the Falklands have been a british territory for centuries and the people of the islands want to remain British.

Just because we have a limited surface force there, dont be so naive as to thing we dont have our nuclear submarines in the area, and our forces in the commonwealth territories will have been bolstered too.

I* do agree that US has really let us down on this one, we would support the US if Russia tried to claim Hawaii, Argentina has no legitimate claim to the Falklands and they will be defended, its the principle of the matter, the last time we let someone take territory they said belonged to them was in the 1930's and that was hitler, Britain will never roll over again.

reply to post by LeBombDiggity


Quelle suprise!

Our resident French agent provocateur turns up on queue trying to stir things up.
How predictable....and pretty boring to be honest especially as your agitations are always easily quelled with reasoned arguement and facts.

You know too well that the phrase 'we' is commonly used as a generalisation by most British people.

In my post it was also used to express both the foreign policy of the elected government and as a reflection of the overwhelming opinion of the population if numerous opinion polls are to be believed.

There are quite a number of threads about The Falklands on ATS at the moment.
I know you like stirring things up between England and Scotland but I found it quite revealing that in these threads quite a number of Scottish members who have expressed their desire for Scottish independance have expressed their backing for the Islanders Right To Self-Determination and support for Britains intent to defend that right regardless.

I find it no suprise that Scots are consistent in their support of the Right To Self-Determination yet you are not and only show support for the side that is anti-English.
I wonder why?

As for Obama failing to support his loyalest allies I personally find it no suprise and think it is more of a reflection of Obama, his administration and possibly even his nation than it is of England or more accurately the UK.

The only friends we Brits truly need are ourselves and our steadfast Commonwealth family members.

Just my humble opinion of course.

reply to post by Freeborn


The islands aren't British.

I have every right to say that on this forum, my taxes are being wasted on the defense of a colonial outpost.

So. As with Scotland, we disagree.

Quelle suprise indeed.



Everyone knows this flag is the right ones for those islands. I suspect Obama does too. Will he come off the fence, to the defence of the same nation which tortured his Grand-père ?

On that question the jury is out.

Send me no more U2U messages, you are no friend of mine.

reply to post by Freeborn


I say this as an American, and I agree with everything you've said, and we both agree that Obama has no business interjecting himself into this situation, especially without an actual act of aggression by the Argentinians or even a UN Security Council resolution condemning any such acts or a call for action. At which point I'm sure Obama would lend support to the UK if they ask for it.

But as you've so well said, the UK is hardly in need of such support. The source OP is just grasping at straws in attempting to blame Obama for the Falklands. Obama has no business getting involved in the Falklands, unless the UN decides to make it a mission at the request of the UK or the UK directly asks for US involvement, neither scenario of which is likely to happen.

reply to post by LeBombDiggity


So, you cherry pick when The Right To Self-Determination is applicable.

I wonder how you would react if Brazil or another neighbouring South American country ever laid claim to French Guiana?

There are plenty of things I don't agree with what my taxes are spent on, that I choose to remain in the UK means that all I can do is work towards change and hopefully having a more representative form of government etc.
You too have the option of moving away from the UK and not paying taxes towards something you don't agree with.
However I think there will always be something 'we' don't agree with regardless where ever either of us lived.
It's a very weak arguement really.

On what basis do you make the claim that the islands belong to Argentina?
Any international law support this claim?
What about any historical claim?

I find it disappointing that someone from the land of Liberté, égalité and fraternité should hold the inalienable rights of man in so little regard.

You 'cry freedom' for Scotland yet disregard the self same right for those wishing to remain British.

I think it's pretty clear just what your agenda is.

reply to post by Freeborn


I encourage French colonial possessions to go their own way, to self rely. Of course, the Falklanders don't do that. They claim to be self rely, that they exercise the right of self determination, self govern.

But as with most things, they rely on England.

Their education system. English coursework, import English teachers.
Bright Falklands child > to England and university.
Their health service. English. Doctors fly in from England, patients are treated in England, elsewhere.
Their judicial system, such as it is. English. Judges come from England to hear many cases.
The workforce. The numbers from England are a huge percentage of the population.
Defence ? England, England again. They cannot defend themselves. They have not a warplane or a gunboat to their own name, they are absolutely defenceless.

They are a colonial possession with the native population of a village. I say that, I mean that.

They are no more worthy of self determination than an English village should have the right to self govern. It's an English village planted far, far away.

Time to uproot the lot back home. If they love England SO MUCH they can go live there and that region will be at peace.

For pitys sake, for no other reason than to enhance their limited gene pool, these people need the intervention of Argentina.

I found the Diplomat article less than scholarly or comprehensive. They claim to be all about the Asia-Pacific issues so why now the Falklands? Their agenda or they don't know the Atlantic from the Pacific?

Their indictment of Obama seems to be "It is an unfolding issue that could say much about the way the U.S. handles its alliances, including those in the Asia-Pacific region." COULD say much? It could also say we see 2 allies having a spat and we do not have a dog in that fight.

reply to post by LeBombDiggity


But neither you nor I have the right to force them to do something they don't want regardless of how low an opinion we may have of them.
We can not cherry pick people's Rights.

There are lots of things I don't agree with.

Personally I'd like to see devolved power to North East England, unfortunately most people disagree with me and that's something I have to live with.
It's called life.

No matter what you think or believe, the Islanders have a Right To Self-Determination, exactly the same as Scotland etc.
They choose to remain British, and so they will.
And that will remain non-negotiable as long they feel the same.

And you may not be aware but the vast majority are of Scottish and Welsh origin, not English....so it would be far more accurate if you were to liken it to either a Scottish or Welsh village.....me, I prefer British but I know how keen you are on emphasising and associating with all things Scottish.

As a point of interest the islanders enjoy a higher standard of living than any South American country.
It has a booming tourist industry which despite Argentinian efforts generates significant wealth for the islands.
In addition it has well established and profitable fishing and farming industries.
Not the overly reliant and dependant village scenario you portray.

The UK have been most generous in recent dealings with Argentina but Kirchner has spurned all attempts at closer links between all concerned parties.
She is the aggressor.
She is putting personal ambition above national interest.

Let's hope it doesn't lead to anything worse than political rhetoric and sabre rattling etc.

reply to post by oghamxx


It's more than that.

The US Government agree with the Argentine position ... that Argentina and England must negotiate together about the future of the îles Malouines.

Of course, the English position is that "it's up to the islanders to decide what they do". But the US Government doesn't support that position, presumably because they see those islands for what they are, just a colonial possession worth not a spit.

For the Americans, self determination for those islanders doesn't come into it.

Quite right too !

QUESTION: (In Spanish.) And for the Secretary, it’s about the Falklands. The – President Fernandez talked about possible friendly mediation. Would the U.S. be considered – would the U.S. (inaudible) consider some kind of mediation role between the UK and Argentina over the Falklands? Thank you.

PRESIDENT DE KIRCHNER: (Via interpreter) (Inaudible) what we have (inaudible) by both countries as a friendly country of both Argentina and the UK, so as to get both countries to sit down at the table and address these negotiations within the framework of the UN resolutions strictly. We do not want to move away from that in any letter whatsoever, any comma, of what has been stated by dozens of UN resolutions and resolutions by its decolonization committee. That’s the only thing we’ve asked for, just to have them sit down at the table and negotiate. I don’t think that’s too much, really, in a very conflicted and controversial world, complex in terms.

SECRETARY CLINTON: And we agree. We would like to see Argentina and the United Kingdom sit down and resolve the issues between them across the table in a peaceful, productive way.

QUESTION: (Via interpreter) To the Secretary of State, good evening on behalf of all the journalists here. I was just wondering what made you change your mind and include Argentina, that was not originally envisaged in your schedule, and whether this will give the president the possibility, then, of meeting with President Obama, as he’s been considering holding meetings with several countries – Latin American countries?

QUESTION: (In Spanish.)

INTERPRETER: The journalist was just asking how the U.S. intends to negotiate to get the United Kingdom to sit at the table and address the Malvinas issue. And he was then asking about this setting up of the fund. So, what’s the reserves of the country?

SECRETARY CLINTON: As to the first point, we want very much to encourage both countries to sit down. Now, we cannot make either one do so, but we think it is the right way to proceed. So we will be saying this publicly, as I have been, and we will continue to encourage exactly the kind of discussion across the table that needs to take place.

www.state.gov...



Poor England. Sold down the river again.

reply to post by seabag


You got that right man !

Any president that don't take every opportunity to start a war with someone is just not that good of a leader.

We don't care who it is or even if we have a reason -- let's INVADE somebody !!!

RIGHT ???

reply to post by Freeborn


No, they DO NOT have the right to self determination.

Only 40% of the current population of those islands has lived there continually for more than 10 years.

Come on, a joke is a joke. That's a colonial settlement, that's not a historic indigenous population.

reply to post by LeBombDiggity


Why are you being deliberately provocative and insistant on referring to it as 'England' when you know all too well that it is the UK?

That is insulting the memory of all the brave British soldiers, including those from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who served in '82 and some of whom paid the ultimate sacrifice.

Plenty of Scots, Northern Irish and Welsh have shown their continued support for the islanders here on ATS yet you deliberately continue to say 'England', why?
Is it because you are deliberately trying to provoke a reaction?

Many non-Brits genuinely do not understand the differences, you live in Scotland and are more than aware.
So what is your excuse, or reasoning?

And as I pointed out earlier, the vast majority of islanders descend from Sottish or Welsh lineage, surely if anything you should be emphasisng their nationalities...but that wouldn't fit into your anti-English agenda would it.

As for Obama, we know where we stand with him.
Does it hurt?
Not at all.
As we have France as a neighbour we are well used to duplicity.

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
reply to post by Freeborn

 

That's a colonial settlement, that's not a historic indigenous population.

Um...the Falklands had no indigenous population.

Actually, the current residents are the closest thing to an indigenous population.

So, their say would be the 'right way' as far as any international legal board is concerned.

reply to post by Freeborn


The islands were first landed by an Englishman before the United Kingdom even existed. That's important as a constituent nation of the United Kingdom decides whether to leave that union because, ultimately, those islands will be an English problem.

I do not disrepect anyone's memory by saying that. It's a political truth. So spare me your contrived emotional outrage. You're another one who glories in slaughter. As was said by WELSH politician Kinnock at the time of the war, "It's a pity that other people had to leave their [guts] on the ground at Goose Green to prove [Thatcher has guts]."

The Argentine claim to the islands dates from 1812. The islands weren't even populated by the English until 1833.

Just give them back. History & world opinion is against colonialism.

reply to post by peck420


Well, the thread's about Obama. His government has decided that England and Argentina should negotiate on a bilateral basis.

His government does not recognise self determination for the islanders.

England is isolated.

An unpalatable truth for some, but a truth nevertheless.

Originally posted by travis911
Some are arguing the U.S. is not supporting its ally Britain in the Falklands. I did not know that things were this bad again over these islands. Reading the article though it appears oil has been found close by...

the-diplomat.com...

For one, Obama is not what you would call an 'allied' president. He doesn't particularly care for the longstanding agreements and alliances this country has nurtured nor will he do anything he doesn't have to, to further them.

That's just his way.

Secondly, all this crap didn't begin until Britain discovered the possibility of oil drilling sites off the coasts of the Falklands. Until then, Argentina was quite content to leave things as they rested after the first war.

Lastly, the US would never, ever in a million years desert England/UK. That's just NOT going to happen under ANY president, regardless of his politics.

Could this lead to another shooting war? Well, because there IS oil involved... what do you think? Does Argentina want the islands for some long, lost marriage with them that never was... or do they want to be the next Venezuela with oil reserves in the ground and in the bank?

You tell me.

reply to post by LeBombDiggity


Of course the US wants it negotiated peacefully. What other option does the US have?

They can't pick sides between two important allies (in their respective spheres), and they can't rely on a treaty clause to 'force their hand' (no US treaty covers this).

So, yea, the US would like to see its two different friends talk peacefully, nothing overly wrong with that approach.

reply to post by peck420


I agree. It's a brilliant approach.

But it's a kick in the nuts for the nation which has stood "shoulder to shoulder" with the USA .

I genuinely pity those in England who placed their faith in la relation spéciale.

How let down must they feel ?

I bid you all adieu for this night.