They told me if I voted for McCain that our allies in the world would become even more alienated... and they were right!

He's voting "present."

You get what you pay for, and we are PAYING DEARLY for this joke of a prescident.

The main problem is no one even knows what this guy believes. The MSM and the liberal wing sold our country out to slam Bush. ww

Obama preferes to coddle and rub elbows with Marxists like Chavez, who promote and exploit issues like the Falklands. To take the UK's side would be to alienate his buddy Hugo, and that Obama does not want to do. For Obama, better to betray a long-time friendship with a democracy than to let a failing Marxist dictator pout and say bad things about the 'Won'.

When Obama was talking "allies" he wasn't including white anglo saxons, or white roman catholics, or white lutherans, or well, white anything...

Considering the way he is treating Israel, where the U.S. interest is both obvious and short term as well as long term, why should he treat Britain any differently where the U.S. interest is both indirect and long term?

Obama has a personel grief against England due to how his grandfather was treated in Kenya during British rule. Sorry England, 3 more years of this.

Folks, Britain is a Socialist cesspool. And in fact, Islamofacists are gaining power daily. I'm a conservative Tea Partier who realizes that BOTH sides are nasty, and we shouldn't help either side. I have no use whatsoever for Obama and his Marxist cohorts. So, let the Brits defend their own territory, oh, wait a minute....we are subsidizing their Socialism by defending them, aren't we?

This is what you get with an affirmative action president. When it comes to tough decisions, you ignore the problem. Just look at Iran, and North Korea.

9. Posted by Killerwhale52 | March 1, 2010 10:02 AM

And stop eating the President's birth certificate!

So, let the Brits defend their own territory, oh, wait a minute....we are subsidizing their Socialism by defending them, aren't we?
~Killerwhale52

Yeah, well you know NATO Article 5, the reason Britain is in Afghanistan?
Well that is the reason the U.S. should help Britain if it is attacked.

The Falklands are British territory.

Are you arguing for the scrapping of NATO?

The Army units deployed in Europe have been historically incapable of mission success, thus only useful as livebait/ bloody shirt propaganda purposes, i.e. more useful dead than alive.
~bryanD

The reason why Army units were stationed in Europe was to prevent Russia invading western Europe.

Russia did not invade western Europe, the mission was and is a success.

Actually it is a little more complicated then that. Argentina claimed the islands because Spain did. When Spain left South America and the individual colonies became nations those claims were passed to them. Argentina did have a colony there prior to 1832. It was destroyed by an American warship angry about Argentine mistreatment of American whalers.

There is supposedly a secrete corollary to the Treaty of Ghent transferring ownership of the islands from Great Britain to Spain or vice versa. Nobody can find it. In 1982 we were rather clear as to who had sovereignty over the islands -- and it wasn't Argentina.

One would think the same would hold here.

The whole thing is silly. I will mediate: Britain is the surface owner and Argentina holds the mineral rights. Britain drills for oil as the 'producer' and therefore gets 3/4 of the proceeds and takes all the risk. The Argentinos get their 1/4 off the top. There are third party agents who can verify the whole deal. Win-win.

If they want to fight for honor then let Ms. Presidente's husband fight a duel with the idiot occupying #10. It would have to be in Uruguay since pistols are illegal in Engerland.

Student of Marxism is a better way to say it.

For real students of history..

Curious the cognitive dissonance on this page in your rage to chastize Obama at every opportunity, while unstintedly praising conservative favorites like Reagan often in the same breath.

You might remember that in the Falklands conflict in 1982 Reagan,or Saint Reagan as he is revered and rated by Wizbang editors such as Drummond, was the real 'nobrainer for neutrality' with a slight tilt towards Argentina.

Reagan initially personally sympathized or tilted with Argentina and General Galtieri because of the General's strong anti-Communism despite (or I'm afraid because of) Argentina´s military's brutal conduct of 'the dirty war' against their countrymen.

But in the American foreign policy reality of the Falklands, in it's totality,

the Reagan Administration was sharply divided on the issue. Meeting on April 5, Haig and Assistant Secretary of State for Political Affairs Lawrence Eagleburger favoured backing Britain, concerned that equivocation would undermine the NATO alliance. Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs Thomas Enders, however, feared that supporting Britain would undermine U.S. anti-communist efforts in Latin America. He received the firm backing of U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, Haig's nominal subordinate and political rival. Kirkpatrick was guest of honour at a dinner held by the Argentine ambassador to the United States, on the day that the Argentine armed forces landed on the islands.

The White House continued its neutrality; Reagan famously declared at the time that he could not understand why two allies were arguing over "that little ice-cold bunch of land down there". But he assented (finally after the conflict had started in earnest) to Haig and Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger's position.

Margaret Thatcher would have lost the Falklands war in 1982 if America had failed to provide crucial missiles to bolster British air defences, according to an adviser to the former prime minister.
America, which angered the Thatcher government with its initially even-handed approach to the conflict, was believed to have provided little more than intelligence once Washington lost patience with the Argentinians.

But British and American officials say in the BBC documentary that Washington provided the latest Sidewinder missiles at 48 hours' notice after the British task force came under fire
FROM:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/sep/06/falklands.world

Further:

Lord Renwick, a senior diplomat in the British embassy in Washington, who went on to become ambassador, told the programme: "My role was to go along to the Pentagon and ask them for 105 Sidewinder missiles. These were the very latest version, which were far more accurate than the earlier versions and we wanted them delivered within 48 hours. That meant stripping part of the frontline US air force of those missiles and sending them to the South Atlantic."

Lord Powell of Bayswater, Lady Thatcher's key foreign affairs adviser, said that Britain would have lost the war without such assistance.

His remarks were echoed by Richard Perle, an assistant US defence secretary at the time, who said: "Britain would probably have lost the war without American assistance. That's how significant it was."

Actions speak louder than words says I.

...