74 3 mins 12 yrs

(Modesty forbids from revealing who predicted betrayal a few days ago on this thread)

THE Obama Administration has decided that in the business of Argentina laying claim to the sovereign Crown territory of the Falkland Islands it will remain neutral. Reports the Times:

Washington refused to endorse British claims to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands yesterday as the diplomatic row over oil drilling in the South Atlantic intensified in London, Buenos Aires and at the UN.

Message received loud and clear, Mr President.

One would have thought that with many thousands of British men and women fighting beside the armed forces of which you are Commander in Chief, honour would have won the day. One might have thought also that the cornerstone of NATO – the Atlantic alliance between the USA and Great Britain – may have weighed heavily against this shameful decision. Afterall, if the Reagan Administration’s regional interests were all that counted, the USA would have sided with Argentina during the Falklands War. However, President Reagan was a man of history, culture and honour and understood the prime importance of the USA and Great Britain uniting when possible.

George W Bush is suddenly much missed. He would not have let pass this opportunity to honour a debt of gratitude. For Obama, it is clear that insulting old friends is paramount.

Very well, Mr President, the rightful claims of British sovereignty over British land are easily dismissed by you. It would be well to remember that the USAF has many bases in our homeland because of that sovereignty. It would be well to remember also that British sovereignty is what enables the US to occupy Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean which, if denied to your forces, would punch a large hole in your Asian capability.

The petty insults of this regime are easily ignored, however someone has picked a fight with a friend of America and the President has walked away. If he thinks others will take our place and stand with his nation in dark times he’s even more stupid than I thought.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

74 thoughts on “WITH FRIENDS LIKE THIS …

  1. We want and need friendly relations with Argentina but this is not the right position to take. Argentina is not in the right here.

    And a non-answer would have been more eloquent than a statement of neutrality. These comments can only inflame the Argentines.

    Neutrality is a tilt towards Argentina, and away from a relationship that has been special for some time, and everyone knows it.

    Amateurs are in power – a dangerous thing as everyone is beginning to realize this fact. Danger. Beware.

  2. As the Poles and Czechs have already discovered, being an American ally is a guaranteed method of getting on the wrong side of the Obama administration.

  3. I wouldn’t give the Reagan administration too easy a pass over this. His policy was to try and be neutral and an ‘honest broker’ even after Argentina had invaded. It was only when it became clear that Britain would not compromise, would fight, and would win that the US changed that polcy and adopted a pro-British stance, but even then it voted at the UN to call on the UK and Argentina to discuss sovereignty.

  4. Huh? Reagan pursued an essentially neutral course on the Falklands dispute. The Administration seems to be pursuing the same course.

  5. President Reagan knew that Margaret Thatcher wanted a comprehensive defeat of Argentina after Buenos Aires had rejected capitulation prior to hostilities.

    He feared was that a routing of Argentine forces would destabilise Latin America (against America if it could not prevent that routing) and he tried to avoid that on condition of Argentine surrender and withdrawal. On the question of British sovereignty, however, he was not neutral.

  6. >>He feared was that a routing of Argentine forces would destabilise Latin America (against America if it could not prevent that routing) and he tried to avoid<<

    Oh he feareed this and he tried that. Look, your pin-up boy was completely neutral in the conflict even after Argentina had committed an act of war against part of the "cornerstone of NATO", yet you whinge about Obama being neutral when we’re still at the diplomatic stage.

  7. This issue still has the ability to destabilize Latin America. Now, Brazil supports Argentina and I don’t think that they did the last time.

    And the unfortunate fact is that these lands were never Argentine and never had an Argentine population.

    There can never be a restoration of lands to a country that never had them, an idealized return that goes against the wishes of all of the inhabitants of the islands

    I’d like to hear a supporter of the Argentine claim address these issues directly. Argentina’s stance is actually pro imperialist and not anti imperialist.

    If anything the need for clarity of position is greater now, when there are no troops on the ground and where there is no one currently dying. Neutrality in a situation like this rewards the aggressor – who again, seeks lands it never owned, and seeks to subjugate a population that wants no part of the perpetual mess that is Argentina.

  8. Reagan may have appeared politically neutral but militarily the US forces replaced British naval commitments thus freeing the Navy and the US ensured that there was no lack of supplies. Perhaps it was that Weinberger out-muscled Haig to persuade Reagan to back the UK but Reagan was simply persuaded to go the way he wanted to go. Reagan’s instincts were to back his ally and he did.

  9. >>and never had an Argentine population<<

    No less than the West Bank had an Israeli population.

    >>There can never be a restoration of lands to a country that never had them<<

    Israel and the West Bank.

    >>an idealized return that goes against the wishes of all of the inhabitants<<

    Now there’s Israel’s occupation of the West Bank in a nutshell! Why, I couldn’t have put it better myself.

    >>>Argentina’s stance is actually pro imperialist <<<

    ** coughing***

    I back Britain here, but I am more than surprised that you do, Phantom.

    (OK, to be honest, Im not surprised at all. We all knew all along that those "arguments" you trot out for Israel’s occupation are really only smoke to disguise your general support for Israel’s expansion)

    Allan, of course Reagan backed Britain after the shooting had started. He had little choice.
    But the US was still neutral after Argentina had invaded, calling for the problem to be resolved through negotiation and for a temporary administration to be put in place. This is what angered Thatcher so much.

  10. The tombs of Jericho refute you, Noel. The West Bank had Jews and Israelites when Allah wasn’t a glint in the Prophet’s eye

  11. Phantom
    north and south america never knew a european. britain and Ireland had never heard of normans, vikings, romans or saxons when jesus asn’t a fictional historic character

  12. Phantom – except the issue isn’t whether the Falklands should be British (they should be, and Regan was no better than Obama on this and everyone here knows that), but whether we should be dragged into some unnecessary dispute driven by some oil drilling folks.

  13. I would be careful too… but a rather big war erupted not that long ago when there was no known oil down there.

    The oil people wouldn’t be dragging the British into this – but it is now oil that may drag the Argentines into it. They’re insane with jealousy that there could be oil developed off those rocks, while big Argentina doesn’t develop much oil ( the oil companies don’t trust the Argentines, with good reason ) . Argentina, with all its vast agricultural, maritime and human resources economically does not have a pot to piss in

    I’m not saying send the troops in, and I’m not saying that caution should be not be taken. But we should at least quietly make it clear where we stand.

    And for anyone who buys the Argentine line – they’ve been quiet – I shall assume that in the name of consistency they will sign off on the immediate American annexation of Bermuda and the Bahamas. Same deal – small islands near a big country.

  14. Shouldn’t be too hasty in condeming Obama. I believe if push came to shove and there was conflict he would stand by Britain, but there is little point in taking sides in a minor dispute which could potentially have massive diplomatic repurcussions.

  15. Well I guess that Britain will have to withdraw its troops from Arghanistan to face up to this, then perhaps President Obama will understand that voting present is not an option and learn it the hard way. Us normal Brits should make it clear, the issue is with the present administration, not the Americans.

    I just love it when people like Noel ignore the long historical rights of the Jewish people, shows a selective understanding of history, as some one quite rightly pointed out, why is Josephs tomb there? All you did Noel is make yourself look like an idiot when you tried to make a smart comment., you not dealing with young people who have been educated with selective history, you dealing with people who know the truth and your white washed version or should I say black washed version sucks big time.

  16. The tombs of Jericho refute you, Noel. The West Bank had Jews and Israelites when Allah wasn’t a glint in the Prophet’s eye

    More moth like behaviour. How do you think Islam spread without converts from judaism and christianity? Again your hatred of muslims blinds you to the fact that Palestinian DOES NOT EQUAL muslim. Should england be handed back to the pagans?

    The Brits don’t need their ‘handler’ to help them deal with Argentina…do they?

  17. My recollection is of US neutrality. Does anyone at ATW even remember neutrality by some of the globalists in the the Thatcher regime itself (the filthy globalist traitor Carrington-Rothschild frontman and later Bilderberger resigned rather than fight a war of national defence. He was later rewarded by the NWO gang and made head of NATO). http://www.answers.com/topic/peter-carington-6th-baron-carrington
    Kissinger (Rockefeller front man and Bilderberger) and the CIA were actually directing the "dirty war" against the left in Argentina (Operation Condor/Contras etc).
    Haig was a lackey of the Rockefeller banks.
    The "instability" the US wished to avoid was a fall of the Argentine banker deathsquad regime followed by a debt default.

  18. Interesting comment by Grace Livingstone in The Guardian concerning Britain’s claim on the Falklands. Seems it’s not so clear cut as I thought.

    She refers to a 17,000-page(!) memo drawn up in 1910 but withdrawn from public view at the time of the Falklands War. She equates it with the infamous Pentagon Papers.

    The history of the islands before the 18th century is murky, with Italian, Dutch, British, French and Spanish claims to their discovery.

    All agree that what is now known as East Falkland was first settled by the French in 1764. The French ceded control of the island to Spain in 1767.

    A year after the French landed, the British established a settlement at Port Egmont on West Falkland, but abandoned the territory in 1774. Spain maintained a presence on the Falklands until 1811. The newly independent United Provinces of the Río de la Plata (which included Argentina) believed that Spanish possessions should revert to them and in 1820 sent a ship to the abandoned [my italics] Falklands. In 1829, Argentina appointed a governor. The British then sent two warships to the Falklands and struck the Argentine flag. Argentina, impoverished and divided, did not have the means to resist.

    My reading of this is that Britain had no more than a tenuous claim on uninhabited lumps of rock rather closer to Buenos Aires than to Portsmouth.

    The British case, in recent times, has focused on its peaceful occupation of the islands for the last 177 years and the self-determination of the Falkland islanders. Argentina maintains that the islands were illegally annexed by Britain in 1833 and remain to this day a colony, an anachronism in the 21st century. A 1965 United Nations resolution backs, to some extent, the Argentine position by ruling that the principle of decolonisation applies to the Falklands.

    Livingstone concludes:

    Is it not time for Britain to stop behaving like a 19th-century colonial power and heed the call of the United Nations to discuss the question of sovereignty with Argentina?

    Time for some real diplomacy and perhaps Obama can help.

  19. RS

    Bla bla bla

    Rabbi

    The UK should negotiate only if it feels like it. But the fact is that they have owned those islands for a long time, and Argentina has never owned them for a second, and Argentinians have never lived there.

    Perhaps if they feel like it they should enable the residents of the islands to declare a complete independence. They own those lands, not some portenos from Buenos Aires who have never been there, and whose ancestors have never walked those lands either

  20. Phantom, the first people to live there were Indians. They returned to what is now Argentina before the first Europeans arrived. Many of their artefacts have been found.

    What’s more, their descendants have a story of how wonderful it all once was when they lived there, and believe that the two islands of the Falklands – which they call Yuudiya and Fantomaria – belong to them, including to all those of their tribe who have long since settled in Florida, New York, Paris and points further east.

    I think that more or less settles it, eh?

  21. Eh – no.

    They still were not Argentinians. That is one slender thread, my friend.

    The European Argentines were great Indian killers, right up there with the Yanks and Euros up north.

    The story sounds bullshittish. If it was so goddamned great, why did they leave?

    Sounds like an indian casino scam in the making, with " Indians " of 1/1000000000 Indian blood wanting to stake a claim somewhere

  22. The Argentinians killed of their Indian population – there are terribly few remaining

    This absolutely has the sniff of a scam to it. But by all means speak about how the Falkland Island Indians’ descendents ( if there are any ) want to " return " to a land their ancestors " left " centuries ago of their own volition, and how they want to be " returned " to a dysfunctional land who killed Indians even more brutally than the north Americans did.

    That’s one tall tale, but do tell it.

  23. Phantom,

    "But the fact is that they have owned those islands for a long time, and Argentina has never owned them for a second"

    Are we reading the same Guardian piece I quoted? The British had a presence on ONE of the islands but abandoned it in 1774. That left the islands in Spanish hands.

    The Argentinians decided to stake a claim to them in 1820 and had established a governor by 1829. Still no sign of the British…

    … until they decide to annex the islands in 1833, after an absence of about 60 years.

    If the French or Spanish had done that in 1833 would we be claiming the Falklands as British now?

  24. Phantom, they don’t want to return to Argentina, as the have memories, as you said, of being massacred and constant persecution there.
    They want to return to their islands, the one place where they believe they can be safe.

    The British people there will just have to leave; they have Britain and Australia and Allah knows how many other places to go to. Why should those Indians not take over their land again.

  25. Noel Cunningham –

    That’s about the funniest thing I’ve read on here.

    Truly, what a hoot – "lower the flag and get everyone aboard Smithers, we must abandon home because of some old Indian hogwash".

    You know what? I reckon the UN might just buy it.

  26. >>I reckon the UN might just buy it.<<

    I had assumed you and David and Phantom and Allan etc. would too!

    Any takers?

  27. For Argentina, emotional diversion and sideshow

    For Latin America, misplaced anticolonial pride

    For some irlandais and others, a chance for Brit bashing, with about as much depth to it as rooting against the English football team

    That’s about it.

  28. And for some an opportunity to see what lies behind what might appear to be objective conviction and firm principle: absolutely nothing!

  29. For some irlandais and others, a chance for Brit bashing, with about as much depth to it as rooting against the English football team

    Pretty childish statement that.

  30. People are either pretending not to know or have not copped onto what Noel is getting at.

    Why is it so important, and such a great thing, for the Jews to return to "their land" but the same doesn’t apply to these Indians. Are they lesser beings (Allan, you needn’t answer that one!) ?

  31. Haha… this from the man who didn’t even know about the French connection when this subject last came up.

    Do a spot of reading, old boy.

  32. Humor me.

    There are no such peoples.

    You made it up, and / or Noel is engaging in some excellent codology

  33. >>Why is it so important, and such a great thing, for the Jews to return to "their land" but the same doesn’t apply to these Indians. <<

    Ah, at last someone without blinkers! Ah well, it was fun while it lasted.

    And it did generate some real gems in the light of the Israel-Palestinian analogy:

    >>the fact is that they have owned those islands for a long time,<< AS DID THE ARABS IN THE WB

    >>If it was so goddamned great, why did they leave?<< – ALMOST EMBARRASSING, THAT ONE!

    >>Sounds like an indian casino scam in the making, with " Indians " of 1/1000000000 Indian blood wanting to stake a claim somewhere<< YOU MEAN THE ATHEIST FROM KAZAKHSTAN NOW LORDING IT OVER THE PALLIES IN THE WEST BANK AFTER SOMEONE INFORMED HIM OF HIS JEWISH GRANNIE?

    >>>That’s about the funniest thing I’ve read on here.<< INDEED, NOW IMAGINE HOW WE FEEL WHEN LISTENING TO YOUR ARGUMENTS ABOUT ISRAEL

    and the pearl of the collection:

    >>an idealized return that goes against the wishes of all of the inhabitants<< !!

    Truly remarkable how opinions swing so dramatically when one’s prejudices are reversed.

    BTW, there were Indians living there around 2000 years ago, and many artefacts and tools have been found.
    Though perhaps not as impressive as the tombs of Jericho.

  34. Very slim evidence of any Indian inhabitation – there are arrowheads and evidence of a canoe, but not of permanent habitation.

    Twas a nice dream while it lasted

    For some of these guys, everything, including the snow over America, is about Jews and Israel.

  35. Oh, come on, Phantom – be a good sport and admit it, you are owned.
    Noel – you had me going – I couldn’t see where that was going.

  36. You fooled Petr

    Not sure that’s really worthy of a response, particularly considering it’s coming from one who didn’t even know about the French presence there!

    Still… I enjoyed this thread quite a lot. Particularly these choice cuts that Noel extracted:


    the fact is that they have owned those islands for a long time

    an idealized return that goes against the wishes of all of the inhabitants

    ROFL

    Most excellent… surely there’s some blog award that Noel can be nominated for!

  37. I think that I am a good sport, but this wasn’t clever, and I didn’t see anyone particularly fooled, except for poor Petr who thinks it was the funniest thing ever written now that he realizes the Indian thing was wrong.

    " The Tempest " Falklands with a Malvinas twist.

    Whatever.

  38. Whatever indeed!

    Noel’s pretty good with providing links, it was pretty obvious what was going on. You twigged eventually, unlike poor Pete Moore.

    Wouldn’t it be odd it the guy who had to correct you on your scant knowledge of this region in the past (AHEM, France!) was fooled by this?

    Both odd and highly unlikely.

  39. Noel Cunningham –

    I think you have the wrong person in mind in stating IMAGINE HOW WE FEEL WHEN LISTENING TO YOUR ARGUMENTS ABOUT ISRAEL

    I’ve been critical of Israel and have told you that Israel should retrench from settling the West Bank. However, I support Israel’s right to exist in peace. In fact … yes, I do believe I am the only person in here to both praise and criticise Israel.

    As usual, I am an example of balance.

    If you were thinking of some argument of mine on how long Jews have been there – sorry, that’s treadmill I don’t step on.

    By the way, your nativist, anti-colonial, "outsiders ought to leave another’s land" principle was noted. How does it go?

    The British people there will just have to leave; they have Britain and Australia and Allah knows how many other places to go to. Why should those Indians not take over their land again.

    Change a couple of words and you have a BNP ultra’s dream policy, eh?!

  40. Tarasov –

    What are you talking about? What do you think "hogwash" means?

    Clearly Noel Cunningham was making it up – the story was much more believable than his usual stuff.

  41. Quite true. A significant improvement.

    I wouldn’t at all be surprised if someone believed in stories like this – I’ve actually met 9/11 deniers and the like.

    And those who think that there is not a Jewish people could be forgiven if they believed in imaginary Indian tribes who used to live in barren islands off the Patagonian coasts.

    Petr was clearly tricked by the ruse he now acts as though he was in on all along.

    Impressive. Wink wink

  42. Truly remarkable how opinions swing so dramatically when one’s prejudices are reversed

    Indeed Noel, the moth was caught…yet again.

  43. Pete

    You are not the only person here to both praise and criticise Israel. I think I can match you in terms of balance, reason, common sense, and of course modesty on that topic 😉

    As to the Falklands. They are British. End of story. No other argument has the tiniest shred of merit.

  44. Phantom I’ll do a dance when you pick up a friggin book. Until that time materialises, I suggest keep investing in the sudocream.

  45. Tell me your beliefs of the Falkland indians. Perhaps they should do a little intifada on behalf of Juan Peron.

  46. Lets play Noels sad game, If I am not mistaken the Argentines are largely made up of Spanish, Italian and even Welsh people, with a few Indians thrown in so even if your example was true which it is not, its like me deciding that Brittany should be under the UK which I do not, after all they were Britons…

    In terms of Israel, the Jews have always been in Israel, even after the Roman conquest, there has always been Jews in Israel. I actually find your prank offensive and shows the mindless word games on isues like this were people are getting murdered or losing their freedoms, grow up…

  47. I seem to remember reverse principles expressed on a previous thread about the Falklands where someone was saying that they were rightfully Argentinian and when I said that they should be whatever the Falkland Ilanders wanted, saying something like it would be nice if that principle were applied to the West Bank. Funny how he didn’t seem to apply the nice principle to the FIs.

  48. Simon Jenkins has an interesting take on this in today’s Guardian:

    "The islanders claim that the cost of sustaining their splendid isolation can be met from the potential revenue from oil. But that oil no more belongs to them than the revenue of North Sea oil belongs to the Orkneys. As for potential oil farther south, uninhabited South Georgia and the South Orkneys can hardly claim "self-determination" to justify Britain appropriating revenue there, which many in South America consider theirs. Democratic consent is always ­important, though hardly an absolute. Britain never gave the Hong Kong islanders a say in whether they would be handed over to Beijing. The fate of Gibraltar cannot be delegated entirely to the Gibraltarians. There is fierce opposition among English political parties to allowing the Scots even to vote on whether or not to end their union with England. There is nothing special about the Falklands.

    In other words, 2,500 colonists cannot enjoy an unqualified veto on British government policy. Thatcher thought it was in Britain’s interest to negotiate with Argentina in 1982, even when it was a dictatorship. Now that Argentina is a democracy that interest can hardly have diminished. Subsequent British governments knew this, but were too gutless to act on it. The Falklands will remain an expensive nuisance to British diplomacy – and possibly trade – in Latin America, the more so after last week’s vocal support for Kirchner in Mexico.

    The best hope for a ­stable and prosperous Falklands under British occupation is a revival of leaseback under UN supervision. The islands must have links with the adjacent mainland. It is absurd to supply them for ever by an air bridge from Britain and ­Ascension. Nor should the security of British citizens necessarily entitle them to the ­exploitation of oil on South America’s continental shelf."

  49. >>Change a couple of words and you have a BNP ultra’s dream policy, eh?!<<

    >>even if your example was true which it is not, its like me deciding that Brittany should be under the UK which I do not, after all they were Britons<<

    >>Funny how he didn’t seem to apply the nice principle to the FIs.<<

    Petr, maybe if you explain again to the authors of the above – but real slowly ths time – they’ll finally understand what was going on.

  50. I think someone needs to explain to the last poster very very very slowly that my comment was written PRECISELY because it is ruddy obvious to me what was going on. Although even then I am not sure that he would be capable of understanding! *yawns

  51. aileen

    They think that this post was clever in some way. Even on the re-reading the next day, it’s just not. No one was fooled on any point made, with the possible exception of Petr, who now claims that he wasn’t.

    But whatever.

    There appear to be no defenders of the " Malvinas Destiny " theory from anyone here. Which is most impressive. I would have thought that there were some who endorsed Argentine imperial expansion.

  52. Phantom

    On another Falklands post a few days ago, Daithio argued in favour of Agentina’s claim – but I soundly defeated him 😉

  53. Missed that one.

    I truly think that unless you’re an Argentine, any support for the Argentine claim is sublimated Brit bashing, getting at them for sins they’ve committed in other places.

    Which is fine, but I wish some of these guys would just admit it.

Comments are closed.