Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Falklands

Britain is standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States on the battlefields of Afghanistan and in the wider war against Islamist terrorism, and on countless fronts is an indispensable ally to Washington. Yet the current US president can’t even bring himself to support the right of 3,000 overwhelmingly British Falkland Islanders to continue to live under the protection of the Union Jack, 30 years after their liberation from Argentine occupation. A stance of “neutrality” is an act of cowardice by Barack Obama in the face of Latin American pressure, and another slap in the face for Britain.

It is not an act of cowardice.

It is a deliberate statement of contempt by a President who despises the core principles both countries have fought for in the past.

17 Comments

  1. Sam Duncan says:

    It’s exactly the same reason he sent back the Oval Office bust of Churchill. He thinks the 100% British population of the Falklands are somehow an “imperialist” occupation. Presumably the hispanic population of Argentina isn’t.

  2. zack says:

    The sooner Obama is out of office the better, for everyone. His short term has possibly been the most disastrous administration in American history.

  3. john b says:

    Bloody hell. This is a general US position based on the Monroe Doctrine and shared by all US presidents since the conflict arose, including sainted Ronnie. http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/110526

  4. john b says:

    I should add, I believe the 1982 war was one of the few unequivocally correct things Mrs T’s government did, that the self-determination case for the islands is self-evident, and that the Argentinean claim is ridiculous sophistry.

    But suggesting that *continuing a long-standing US policy* (even though it’s a wrong-headed one) is some kind of departure from the traditional relationship between the UK and the US driven by Mau-Mau-ite hatred for Western Values is just ridiculous.

  5. kevin smith says:

    “indispensable ally to Washington” ?

    As indispensable as the little shit who hangs out with the school bully.

  6. Andrew Duffin says:

    We should shut up about the Falklands.

    The more noise we make, the more embarassing it will be when the Argentines finally move in and it’s seen by all the world that there is not a damn thing we can do about it.

  7. CountingCats says:

    Actually agree.

    Although, next time it will hurt the Argentinians a bit more. The islands carry a heavier sting right now than they did before.

  8. john b says:

    Comparing the UK armed presence in the Falklands this time with the Argentinean naval and air force this time, erm, no.

    We don’t have the capability we had in 1982 to launch a naval invasion to recapture the Falklands… but at the same time, Argentina doesn’t have the capability to launch a naval invasion against them, or any money (yes, I know the UK’s strapped for cash, but Argentina is properly buggered and can barely borrow on international markets).

    The 1982 Argentinian invasion was possible because the British military force consisted of 57 marines, 11 sailors, no ships and no planes. It’s now closer to 2,000, including the permanent presence of a destroyer, an armed patrol ship, four Typhoons and an artillery regiment operating SAMs and SGMs.

  9. John Galt says:

    @John B:

    Don’t forget that there is at least one nuclear powered submarine deployed somewhere in the mix as well.

    If you destroy an invasion force before it reaches the beaches then you don’t need to worry about recapture.

    Equally, there are sufficient forces in the Falklands at the present time combined with the limited naval support to repel anything other than a large scale invasion and it would be very difficult to hide the preparations for a large scale invasion.

    All-in-all the Argentines, especially their El Presidente – Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner is nothing but piss and wind. They know full well that other than diplomatic protests about the Falkland Islands and perhaps some form of ban of shipping and airlines from the region there is fuck all they can do.

    I’m sure she would love to send over a cruiser full of her conscripts to plant an Argentine flag on Port Stanley, but despite her slavering rhetoric she knows full well that if any Argentine military vessel were to approach the Falkland Islands with military intent then they would be given a warning, but then sunk.

    Fortunately the Argentinians are so economically fucked that they couldn’t even contemplate such an adventure.

  10. Paul Marks says:

    Interesting john b.

    I do not see which of the comments of the above mentioned the Mau Mau.

    So it is hard to see why you bring it up – unless it is in one of the articles that there are links to (I must confess I have not read the articles).

    However, Sam is right – the first thing Comrade Barack did was to remove the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office.

    I do not see where contempt for Churchill is “long standing”.

    And (contrary to BBC propaganda programmes – including one hosted by the “conservative” Blarite Max Hastings) President Reagan actually gave vital military support to Britain during the Falklands War. And it was his (Reagan’s) personal decision.

    “But Hastings was there…” – No Sir Max was in the Falklands (not the Whitehouse).

    As for Comrade Barack…

    Yes it is sometimes said that his hatred for Churchill and for Britain generally (see his calculated contempt even for Mr Brown – accepting the gifts of carvings made from wood from the antislavery patrol ships of the Royal Navy, and replying with a gift of videos of his own speeches, videos that could not even be played in the United Kingdom) is because of the treatment of his Mau-Mau grandfather.

    Certainly there is family sillyness – for example that illegal immigrant aunt with her witchcraft and so on.

    However, I do not see Comrade Barack as being particularly interested in the Mau-Mau – for example the African side of his family (wealthy Arab influenced people – decended from slave traders rather than slaves) were not really Mau-Mau at all. They actually played both sides during the war and were trusted by neither (if the grandfather not been arrested by the British he might well have been killed by the Mau-Mau as a possible informer).

    Also Barack himself (contrary to the book “The Roots of Obama’s Rage”) is more of an orthodox Marxist (although one of the Frankfurt “cultural Marxist” school) than a “third world Marxist” of the weird mutant Mau-Mau variety.

    After all does a man as thin as Barack look like he eats human flesh?

    Someone who did that would look more big and fat – like ME.

    Although I promise I have not been involved in any Mau Mau “oath taking”.

    Anyway Barack’s father (a drunken “Muslim” who, in fact, was a standard Marxiod) was certainly not Mau Mau.

    Indeed he ran away from Kenya – taking a scholarship from the Ike Administration (the Obama Campaign said it was a Kennedy scholarship – but, like most things they said, that was a lie).

    Barack senior was more into chasing women and getting blind drunk than he was into anything like fighting.

    Although his own habits did prove just as dangerious as fighting. Lost his legs in one car drunken car wreak – and the drink finished him off later. I must confess I have some likeing for Barack senior – he seems to have been an interesting character (a total cad – but then cads are fun, from a distance), unlike his cold calculating son.

    Besides – he soon rejected Obama’s mother (Stanley Ann) and young Barack – and went back to his first wife. So his influence over young Barack was rather limited.

    Barack (jr) was far more influenced by Frank Marshall Davis than he was by Barack senior.

    And the closest Frank came to Africa was a Tarzan film.

    Frank was an interesting character to – he was not just a Marxist calculating machine (like young Barack).

    He was into jazz – and selling drugs, and making porn films (and on and on).

    I am a bit of a stick-in-the-mud about such things, but (I must admit) that Barack would have done less harm in the world had he concentrated on that side of Frank than on the Marxism.

    In the end (even though she dumped him back in the United States) Barack is a mother’s boy.

    He is as cold as ice – just as she was.

    The cause is what matters to him – individual human beings are just details.

  11. Sam Duncan says:

    I’m well aware that the Reagan administration felt that it couldn’t be seen to give overt support. But Ronnie didn’t go around calling them the Maldives.

  12. zack says:

    Well said Paul.

    Also, a bit of a technicality – the Monroe Doctrine concerned FUTURE colonization. In the speech that defined the policy, Monroe made the point of noting that the US would not interfere with existing colonies or European politics, just that it would stop further European involvement in the Americas. Of course, since America had a very small Navy at that time, it fell on the British to enforce it (Britain’s holdings in the America’s [Canada and the West Indies] were stable, while the colonies of other European powers were either independent or in open revolt, so it had much to gain and little to loose).

    But so what, the people on the Falklands see themselves as British and want to continue to be a British territory, not Argentinian. That should be what matters.

  13. john b says:

    The Mau Mau reference was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, in that various more excitable commentators towards the ‘KENYAN BORN MUSLIM WHO WENT TO A MADRASSA IN JAKARTA’ end of the spectrum tend to use the “Obama hates Britain” argument in support.

    Describing Hastings as a Blairite is pushing it. He was full-on Tory pre-1997, and returned to the fold after 2001 (like a great many disgruntled Tories who shifted their votes in 1997).

    Yes, Ronnie did – to his credit, and with the backing of the Democrat-controlled Congress – formally back Britain and provide military tech in support after Argentina refused the US’s offer to enter peace talks. Before the invasion, however, his government’s position was exactly the same as the current administration’s.

    Finally, the Monroe doctrine’s application to the Falklands is questionable: continuous British settlement dates from 1833, a decade after its issuance, but the first British settlement was founded in 1765. The USS Lexington raid in 1831, after which the US declared the islands free of all government, suggests that at least at the time they did not consider them to be an existing British possession like Canada and the British Caribbean…

  14. RAB says:

    It’s all about Oil innit? Argentina may find themselves in a rumble with their old colonial masters before they get to the Falklands.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/9210869/Hague-attacks-Argentine-seizure-of-Repsol-oil-assets.html

    Argentina seems hellbent on pursuing Merchantilist policies that are guaranteed to make them poorer not richer.

  15. john b says:

    The Repsol idiocy is certainly good news for Falklanders – hurts Argentina’s diplomatic status and financial position, so that nobody’ll back them in a war and they can’t afford one even if people did.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: