We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Samizdata quote of the day

“The declaration of neutrality on the issue of the sovereignty of the Falklands issued by the US State Department is clear proof of the uselessness of the Obama administration.”

James Corum, military expert, ex-US soldier and writer in the Daily Telegraph. I would point out, in fairness, that in the early phases of the Falklands conflict in 1982, some members of the Reagan administration initially were sympathetic to Argentina, or at least tried to prevent a UK military recovery of the islands. But the Obama administration clearly has little love for the UK. Fair enough: let the UK follow its national interest and f**k the White House.

66 comments to Samizdata quote of the day

  • Roue le Jour

    Hear hear. F**k the White House and bring our brothers home.

    And you can repeal the 2003 extradition Act as well, while you’re at it.

  • John Louis Swaine

    I hate to sound Jingoistic but if the Argentinians want to see how well their ageing airforce fares against T-45 Destroyers then they’re welcome to try.

    Sheer lunacy.

    In addition, at least Reagan had some respect for Great Britain and made it clear to Argentina that they’d probably lose in an altercation.

    Apparently sending soldiers to die alongside US forces is an insufficient proof of Great Britain’s worthiness as an ally. Mr Obama can shove it.

  • HappyAcres

    Apologies from the US.
    Barry’s instincts are foul so let’s be grateful his execution is inept.

  • Not that we needed any additional proof of the uselessness of the Obama administration.

  • not the Alex above

    Look i know you guys don’t like Obama, but this whole thing is rubbish so why would the US say anything at the moment.

    It wouldn’t change anything but would lose the US some diplomacy points (or whatever) in latin america.

    Now if things started to heat up a bit and it was still as queit then yeah i think you’d have a point.

  • RAB

    Ah yes, it was one Jean Kirkpatrick Foreign Policy advisor to Reagan, who was the strongest supporter of the Argentinian dictatorship the last time round.
    Had she got her way, we would have lost the Falklands in 1982.
    She was also a staunch supporter of the IRA too. Vile woman and an enemy of Britain.

    This time round the rot and twisted thinking goes all the way to the top.

  • Dom

    Anyone have any ideas WHY Obama does not consider Britain an important ally?

  • Gareth

    I’m struggling to see the problem. The USA is not some world arbiter of territory disputes nor should Britain be trying to fight a South American coalition of loudmouths by trying to pull out some kind of trump card.

    The Falklands have not been invaded again, yet. There is no justification for the US to do anything beyond saying it’s for us and Argentina to resolve. Which it already is – it’s ours and they can bugger off.

  • View from the Solent

    John Louis Swaine at February 26, 2010 12:31 PM

    T-45 destroyers? They don’t have any armament yet. Apart from a 4.5″ pop-gun.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    Gareth, the problem is that the stance taken by BO is that it suggests how his administration would behave should things take a nasty turn. Of course, all this may be academic.

    I am afraid Mr Obama’s performance in office to date does not inspire confidence.

  • PersonFromPorlock

    The last time around we could support you. But you’ve let your military decay to the point where we’d likely have to do some fighting for you, too, and we’re not quite ready to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands.

    And yes, it’s rank ingratitude considering your role in the WOT. But realpolitik is like that.

  • Dace Dacre

    But you’ve let your military decay to the point where we’d likely have to do some fighting for you, too, and we’re not quite ready to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands.

    Jesus, the arrogance. I think Britain can defend the Falklands just fine.

    And yes, it’s rank ingratitude considering your role in the WOT. But realpolitik is like that.

    And I hope the next UK government remember that and next time the USA needs UK backing in any form, which seems to happen quite often and the UK, unlike most US allies, actually stumps up solders, that Downing Street says “Sorry guys, not our problem… realpolitik is like that”.

  • AKM

    To second what View from the Solent said, our surface fleet has no reliable air defence above the short-range Seawolf missile systems on our frigates at the moment.

    We have scrapped Sea Harrier FA2 with it’s Blue Vixen radar & AMRAAM missiles and replaced them with the ground-attack Harrier GR9 which has no radar and no air-air weapon better than Sidewinder.
    We only have a single Type 45 destroyer in service, and it hasn’t yet test fired even a single Sea Viper missile yet (I think that’s scheduled for 2011).
    The Sea Dart missiles on our Type 42′s are all at the end of their shelf lives are can not be regarded as reliable any longer. In fact I think the shelf life has been extended beyond the original design by the simple expedient of changing the paperwork.

    Basicly we don’t have the ability to recapture the islands if we lose them, and won’t have that ability again until CVF and F-35 are operational at the end of this decade (if everything goes to plan). But it is difficult to see how Argentina could take them in the first place, the military airfield is pretty well defended and the sea’s are under constant surveillance. 48 hours after we detect hostile movements by the Argentinian military we would be flying in serious reinforcements.

  • Laird

    “f**k the White House.”

    Words to live by, regardless of which side of the Atlantic you’re on.

    But to the more substantive issue, I don’t have a dog in this fight and don’t really know the history here, but why does the UK care about the Falklands any more? I mean, it’s not like you need remote ports for your sailing ships to replenish their water and food stocks. You gave away Hong Kong, and all the other colonies are gone (I think), so what’s the big deal over some irrelevant islands near the tip of South America? I’m not meaning to be rude; I’m really curious.

  • But the Obama administration clearly has little love for the UK.

    He doesn’t have much love for the US either.

  • Verity

    Why don’t we just annex the Falklands and make it an English county?

  • BigFire

    The Chosen One has a personal grief against England. Supposedly, his paternal grandfather was tortured under British rule in Kenya.

    Hey, England, you love this guy. Well, here’s his love in return.

  • AKM

    I some ways I don’t think we do care about them as such.

    It’s mainly just the principle that they are owned by the UK, the people who live there want it to stay that way, and we don’t think we should have to give in to coercion.

    Also the fact that we have now had to shed blood over them does tend to increase the emotional attachment.

  • Dace Dacre wrote:

    Jesus, the arrogance. I think Britain can defend the Falklands just fine.

    In theory, the UK probably can. But when I think about that Navy crew that got picked up by Iran a year or two ago, I wonder if the UK has the nerve to defend the Falklands.

  • James

    “why does the UK care about the Falklands any more?”

    There’s a lot of oil there, and, more importantly, the islanders want to remain under British rule.

  • George

    As a friend:

    1) What makes you believe that Malvinas/Falklands are UK as compared with other Colonial antiquities UK gave up?

    2) Dont pretend compare conventional military forces. Does it make you feel better? at least thanks the Argentinians are not Muslims and dont take it asymmetrical. Think for a moment and calm down

    Best,

  • George Bush

    Miss me yet?

  • Oil? What oil? I thought we are done with that anachronistic, reactionary, capitalist, polar-bear-killing “resource”? Aren’t we all going to switch to electric cars that recharge themselves out of thin air any day now, and are going to use windmills to cool our houses which are going to get way too warm due to the impending global warming?

  • AKM

    George:

    1) The people who live there with to remain British. We havn’t given up all our oversea territories(Link) anyway.

    2) I don’t think we have to thank the Argentinians for not engaging in asymmetric warfare, anymore than they should thank us for not doing the same back. It’s not actually a very successful form of warfare, which is why most nations avoid it: You can kill a lot of people and make a lot of people sad and/or angry, but actually obtaining your objective is unusual (unless your objective is nothing more than killing people…).

  • John B

    Main problem is that all western culture countries are fighting to lose right now. Except in situations where internal control can be enhanced.
    It might all be viewed as an excuse in Whitehall to give it all away.
    The enemy is within.
    The way we see things is pretty much the way they want us to see things?
    Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee.

  • PersonFromPorlock

    Jesus, the arrogance. I think Britain can defend the Falklands just fine.

    Posted by Dace Dacre at February 26, 2010 03:24 PM

    My comments are descriptive, not prescriptive. Personally I’d be fine with the US getting into it on the Brit side, but it isn’t going to happen.

  • Steven Rockwell

    Don’t forget the islands are at a strategic chokepoint. Place some bombers there and it’s awfully hard to move forces from the Pacific to the Atlantic (or vice versa). That alone is a good reason why someone would want to keep the property (not unlike keeping control of Gibralter).

  • Noel C

    “why does the UK care about the Falklands any more?”

    Why does the US care about Hawaii any more?

  • John B

    Steven.
    Britain has been struggling to get rid of Gibraltar for some time.
    It’s those pesky Gibraltarians who want to stay British that get in the way.
    National interest, disturbingly, seems to be a low priority in most considerations.

  • RAB

    Yes indeed Noel C, can we have the Sandwich Islands back please Obamy One Kinnobi?, and would you be neutral if Russia wanted Alaska back, or France Louisianna, Spain California perhaps? (oh I forgot they seem to have got California back by stealth already).

  • RPL

    As a proud American, I extend my deepest condolences for the ingratitude, ineptitude, and rank stupidity of the current administration.

  • lukas

    What is wrong with declaring neutrality? Clearly, the UK can defend a bunch of barren rocks in the South Atlantic just fine, especially against the economic basket case that is Argentina. And if HMG is unwilling to defend them, well, there isn’t much the Americans could do about that either.

  • Leo

    Guys, calm down, I don’t know in England, but nobody in Argentina is thinking about war. We are more worried about inflation and the debt (and you should be also worried)
    Cristina just need a good theme for her speech to the opening session of the parliament, some news in the newspapers not related to her being a complete idiot, and some traveling to the Caribbean to join her pals and have some fun, and that is.

    Thank god our army doesn’t even have a firecracker to shoot you, and what is specially important, to shoot us. So if you are worried, probably some slingshots are more than enough to take down the complete argentine army, navy and air force.

    One possible explanation for Reagan at first being so worried about the Malvinas Falkland war, even that Haig made a trip to Buenos Aires for a personal meeting with the junta, was that the junta were teaching the contras in Nicaragua the niceties of counter insurgent operations, Argentinian Style.

    So if in English the government is worried about the “Falklands Situation”, probably Gordon is also looking for the same things as Cristina.

    Leo, lurker from Argentina, long time reader of samizdata.

  • Eric

    What is wrong with declaring neutrality?

    The RAF and Royal Navy are at a temporary (one hopes) trough in terms of power. Part of the reason for this is funding was pulled to support land troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The single Type-45 isn’t ready for action – her offensive power is laughable and her air defense hasn’t been shaken down. She’ll only survive by the grace of a higher power if she sees action.

    You remember the first Iraq war? You know, the one that spawned a second and gave Osama bin Laden a reason for 9/11? Saddam talked to the US ambassador, April Glaspie, and she told him the US was neutral on the question of invading Kuwait. Or at least he thought she did. That’s when he decided to pull the trigger.

    The DVDs were very funny in a sort of “look at me, I’m an asshole” kind of way, but this is serious. Most likely Argentina won’t do more than complain, but they certainly won’t start anything if Obama says publicly the US will get involved. Were I Gordon Brown I’d be on the phone pointing out Tommy Atkins would probably rather be in the Falklands than Afghanistan anyway.

  • Eric

    And yes, it’s rank ingratitude considering your role in the WOT. But realpolitik is like that.

    Too much realpolitik and nobody trusts you.

  • Alice

    “Were I Gordon Brown I’d be on the phone pointing out Tommy Atkins would probably rather be in the Falklands than Afghanistan anyway.”

    The girl on the White House switchboard probably does not know who Tommy Atkins is. And when Gordon called, she is probably the only one in the Obama White House who would take a call from the Prime Minister of Great Britain, wherever that is.

  • Eric

    The girl on the White House switchboard probably does not know who Tommy Atkins is. And when Gordon called, she is probably the only one in the Obama White House who would take a call from the Prime Minister of Great Britain, wherever that is.

    Must be that new kind of diplomacy we kept hearing about during the election. Maybe I would understand if I’d gone to Harvard.

  • michael

    Perhaps we are approaching one of those “tipping point” thingies as far as our relationship with the Americans is concerned. Along the lines of no more American wars. We could also reverse our mistake of a hundred years ago and join no more French wars at the same time.

  • lukas

    Eric, Argentina is not Iraq. Cristina has enough problems on her hands, and unlike Saddam (and unlike Galtieri, for that matter), she can’t just jail and torture anyone she doesn’t like and divert the resources of the country towards military adventurism. She’ll play up historic grievances to score political points, but there’s no way she’ll actually invade the Falklands. Everyone remembers how that turned out the last time Argentina tried it.

  • 1) What makes you believe that Malvinas/Falklands are UK as compared with other Colonial antiquities UK gave up?

    Ok, so if you were to take a vote of the population of the Falklands and ask them ” who wants to be ruled by Argentina”… do you think a single person would say “Yes”?

    What makes any part of the USA belong to the USA?

  • PersonFromPorlock

    Too much realpolitik and nobody trusts you.

    Posted by Eric at February 27, 2010 03:37 AM

    One clear lesson of recent history is that it is dangerous to trust America: ask the South Vietnamese, or the Shah, or (you can see it coming) the Taiwanese. That’s why it was a mistake for you to let your forces dwindle. To quote Animal House, “You fucked up: you trusted us.”

    And yes, I’m embarrassed by my country’s unreliability. But ye gods, it was there to be seen if you’d just looked.

  • RAB

    It is hardly the perfidy of Obama that I worry about, but of our own politicians. Take a look at what an ex one and a Tory at that has to say. Matthew has obviously been on the happy gas again…
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article7043099.ece

    He does mention something I didn’t know though. why the hell arn’t you Americans paying us for the use of Ascension Island?

  • Vinegar Joe

    why the hell arn’t you Americans paying us for the use of Ascension Island?

    The UK didn’t repay its WWII loans from the US until December 29, 2006. Your WWI loans still haven’t been repaid.

  • RAB

    Bleedin hell! thanks for the info Vinegar Joe!
    I knew that we had only recently paid off the WW2 debt, but I knew nothing about WW1.

    I love Americans dearly, probably my favorite country in all the world, but it has to be said that you can be a bunch of devious self interested bastards when you want to be cant you?

    All the people who bloody started the Wars get their debt cancelled but your closest allie gets shafted in perpetuity!
    You just wanted to destroy the British Empire at all costs didn’t you?
    You turn up fashionably late for both of them, and we are expected to foot the bill ! Sheesh!!

  • PersonFromPorlock

    He does mention something I didn’t know though. why the hell arn’t you Americans paying us for the use of Ascension Island?

    Posted by RAB at February 27, 2010 03:25 PM

    If I’m right, our major use of Ascension is Wideawake Airfield. This is officially an RAF base but in fact it appears to be (mostly) a NASA/USAF operation, from which both the UK and Ascension benefit. So it may be that you’re already taking it out in trade.

  • Vinegar Joe

    You just wanted to destroy the British Empire at all costs didn’t you?

    You got us figured out! Mahatma Gandhi, Neville Chamberlain and Lt Gen. Arthur Percival were all CIA agents. I’m blushing with embarrassment.

  • RAB

    Sorry to be pedantic VJ, but the CIA did not exist when Nitwit Neville and ‘ol Nappyrash were about, fucking up our Noble Enterprise from within.
    You must mean the OSS ;-)

  • Kim du Toit

    Two comments about this.

    Firstly, everyone needs to understand that Obama, unlike every other president before him (except perhaps J. Carter), is a “Third-Worlder” — in other words, he has more sympathy for Third-World countries than he does for the Western democracies. There is no “shared culture” with him, no “special relationship” with Britain. (Speaking personally, I loathe and detest the man, his policies and his fucking “heritage”, and so, I’d bet, do most Americans, in this regard anyway.) Obama’s graceless return of the Churchill gift should have been the first clue as to his predilections.

    The second comment is that this may be payback for the BritGov spilling the beans on the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques used to question terrorists. (Note that I do not use “scare quotes” around the words enhanced interrogation techniques because these are NOT torture, as so many bedwetters think they are, both here and in the UK.)

    As for the latter: I’m not at all supportive of this kind of payback — especially when it’s being applied in so inappropriate circumstance — but this bunch of fucking amateurs we have allowed to ruin run our country have NO CLUE when it comes to things like diplomatic niceties.

    And if the Brits decided to pull out of Afghanistan in response to this Argentina hoo-hah, it would only reinforce the Obama crowd in their belief that the UK is not reliable, and the US should therefore throw in our lot with the Third World, not the least because Obama and his policies seem hell-bent on turning the United States into a Third World country.

    Seems to me that the correct response for the UK would be to re-deploy HM Armed Forces from the Middle East to the Falklands, as America seems not to want to support the UK in this regard. That would kill three birds with one stone: beef up the Falklands against invasion, get HM Armed Forces out of the war zone in Afghanistan (which so many Brits seem to want to do) and poke a stick in the eye of the Obama administration, showing them that realpolitik can cut several ways.

    Biy what do I know? I’m not a diplomat, just a person who feels a close affinity with our Brit friends. (And should anyone think that Obama’s coolness towards Britain is somehow justified, stemming from some harm done to his family by the evil British colonialists in Kenya, allow me to point out that I lost some distant relatives in British concentration camps back in the early 20th century — and I STILL feel a special affinity towards Britain.)

  • Gerry N.

    All your impotent rantings aside, Nations do not have friends, they have interests. Formerly Great Britain has voluntarily emasculated its military and used the money for paying off the parasites in it’s society, buying them posh flats, cars, “free” medical care, free food and the like.

    FGB will simply have to man up and take care of itself, or finish going under, becoming Fwance Light.

    “Get busy living or get busy dying.”

    Now, be quiet! Or I shall taunt you a second time.

    Gerry N.

  • FGB will simply have to man up and take care of itself, or finish going under, becoming Fwance Light.

    Twit. No one expect or wants the USA to FIGHT for the Falklands, we are quite capable of doing that ourselves. However next time the USA is looking for a few warm bodies to support their ludicrous Imperial adventures overseas, we need to tell them to have fun but if we cannot rely on US political support for the Falklands, then various US adventures are really none of our damn business.

  • The declaration of neutrality… is obnoxious on the part of the administration. I may not be able to know fully the background of such declaration but it is unthinkable on the part of Americans to know that declaration.

  • Paul Marks

    Jean K. was a Democrat – true an anti Communist one, but a person with no deep dislike of big government.

    It was indeed fortunate that Ronald Reagan choose to go against her advice – without American supplies Britain would (yes) have lost the Falklands war.

    As for American hostility to the British Empire – well F.D.R. (treated as a hero in the history books) was deeply hostile to it.

    He did not want Germany to control Europe (and that meant supporting Britain in 1940), but he also wanted an end to the British Empire – he was also hostile to France (after all F.D.R. got his view of international relations from Claude C. and other far leftists).

    Sec of State Hull was not a leftist – but he was not a wild fan of the British Empire either (especially since the tariff of 1932 – although this was provoked by the American trade tax of 1931).

    Argentina:

    It is seeking a distraction from the failure of domestic policy.

    I wonder what distraction Barack Obama will think up.

    The left already have their cover story in place.

    According to the head of the Washington Office of the Financial Times, Barry HAS NOT SPENT ENOUGH MONEY.

    No that was not a typing mistake – according to the degenerates of the F.T. the problem with the Obama “Stimulus” Bill was that IT WAS NOT BIG ENOUGH.

    And people stare at me when I say the F.T. (sister publication of the Economist magazine) is a far left outfit “but it is a business newspaper Paul – it can not be far left”.

    Anyway Obama and Britain:

    He loves us – he has said so.

    Just as he “supports the free market” – he has said that also.

    And if you believe him I have a nice bridge to sell you.

    Vast numbers of people have bought Barack Obama’s book about his father (really the book is about Barry – all the books Barry writes are really about Barry).

    However, very few people seem to have actually READ this book – at least not in a way that enables them to understand it.

    There is a section on the Mau Mau revolt in Kenya.

    In reality this revolt was a weird mixture of disgusting tribal practices (including cannibalism) and Marxism.

    That is not quite the way Barry describes matters.

    Sorry but Barack Obama is no friend of Britain – or of Western Civilization in general.

  • Sunfish

    Sorry.

    That declaration is the end result of allowing foreign policy to be conducted by someone who was able to sucker a bunch of people who are stupid enough to believe what politicians say.

    Not my idea.

    Although, if you want to hold on to overseas territory, why’d you gut your military to the point that US support is necessary or relevant?

  • Nuke Gray

    If Labour had been in power in 1982, they would have accepted the takeover as another step in getting rid of Empire. So Argentina’s government would have survived longer on patriotism, and they would now be reaping any oil revenue.
    I suppose this dispute will run on and on for years and years. I remember seeing on TV that Spain hangs on to two lumps of rock off the coast of Africa, which should belong to the Arab nation meters from them (I think it is Morocco, but am not sure). When Spain complains about Gibraltar, it is a lot like the pot calling the kettle African-American!

  • Lone American

    This only reaffirms my thoughts & feelings about entangling alliances, and as an American, I am against them.

    No, we should NOT take sides in the Falklands issue. It doesn’t mean I like Argentina as much as Great Britain.

    No, you (GB or UK) should NOT have taken our side in the maddeningly inept invasion of Iraq. It would not have meant that you Brits think Iraq is a cool as the U.S.

    What good are all these resentments, which are due to the unreasonably high expectations we have for each other, thanks to our alliance?

    Sometimes brothers need to let each other handle their own affairs.

  • Andrew Duffin

    “The declaration of neutrality on the issue of the sovereignty of the Falklands issued by the US State Department is clear proof of the uselessness of the Obama administration.”

    Hmm.

    Clear proof of the fact that US interests are not involved, I would say.

  • Laird

    “I love Americans dearly, probably my favorite country in all the world, but it has to be said that you can be a bunch of devious self interested bastards when you want to be can’t you?”

    Would that it were true; at least then we might have a consistent and articulable foreign policy. Unfortunately, all we are is inconsistent self-righteous bastards.

    You Brits have a reputation for “muddling through”, which at least implies a modicum of finesse. All we can do is blunder through, sustained solely by mere force. Once that force is depleted (through the evisceration of our military and the collapse of our economy) we’ll be in a bad way indeed.

  • RAB

    Laird, perhaps I should have said used to. The States has subsequently been infected by the same creeping Big Government Socialist shite as the rest of us.
    You will remember this? See Plan Red…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_color-coded_war_plans

    Lone American. We were looking out for ourselves just fine back at the time of Suez, thanks very much, but America stepped in and threatened to bankcrupt us if we didn’t back off.

  • tehag

    Perhaps Obama will offer a “Monroe Doctrine” speech, telling the British to leave the Falklands.

  • Gabriel

    Obama has always been fairly explicit about his desire to fulfill the progressive Left’s long term dream of ending America’s status as an offshoot of Anglo-Saxon civilization and turning into, well they differ amongst themselves on that one, but certainly something else. Some Polish politician pointed out what was perfectly obvious, namely that the election of a third-worldist ultra-left President was a disaster for the white man’s civilization, and everyone went all nutso about it. But whether this is in the abstract sense good or bad, it seems pretty obvious that its subjectively bad if you happen to be a white man, or a man of some other ehtnic extraction that is part of the white man’s civlization.

    (This is one of those nice situations where as an ethnic myself, I get to say what you can’t).

  • Unfortunately I don’t think you are ethnic enough, Gabriel: we are considered Caucasian, AFAIK:-)

  • cubanbob

    I’m no fan of Obama but in this instance he may be tactically right. The Argentine Army hasn’t a snowballs chance in hell of the defeating the UK Forces. Why needlessly irritate Latin America when you know that the Argentine president is spewing nationalist bullshit to cover her incompetence and Argentina’s military has no ability whatsoever to take the Falklands? A few UK subs patrolling the area is more than enough by itself to keep Argentina from even thinking about another invasion.

  • Gabriel

    What is wrong with declaring neutrality? Well how about this, I’m “neutral” about whether California* belongs to the United States or to whatever conquistadore shithole decides they want to conquer it at any future moment. After all it’s a long way from D.C (which seems to the nub of the Argentine *argument*).
    Now, that’s obviously an unebelievably classless, not to mention preposterous, claim and if our foreign minister were to come out and say it, there would obviously be outrage. People would rightly wonder why, if he could not say “all parts of the U.S. belong to the U.S.” he didn’t just y’know, STFU.

    Obama is scum and filth and that the British people overwhelmingly supported him is #528525656 on the list of shocking indictments of comprehensive education.

    * Not wholly hypothetical if La Raza has anything to do with it.

    P.S. Alisa, I’m 1/8th Sephardi FTW!

  • Paul Marks

    Lone American.

    Time to pull British forces out of Afghanistan then. If pleasing Castro, Chevez, Lula and the Argentine politicals means more to the “Annointed One” (to borrow Sean Hannity’s term) than standing with Britain. Sorry but “neutral” means “hostile” in this case.

    Of course the Afghan campaign does not even appear to be in American interests – if it was about getting Bin Laden and his pal Mullah Omah they would have been killed or captured long ago. And if it is about “nation building” that is an absurd idea.

    The Khazi is not just some joke from “Carry on up the Kyber” – he is a corrupt, election rigger. Even if “nation building” made sense (and I doubt it does) it can not be done with him.

    RAB.

    We could have won at Suez – there was no need to be afraid of any American threat to bankrupt us (and there was no such threat anyway – Harold Macmillan exeragerated everything in order to bring down Eden and become Prime Minister himself, YES “Super Mac” put becomming Prime Minister ahead of Britian winning thw war).

    All we needed to do is do what Rab Butler had suggested before the war – STOP RIGGING THE POUND DOLLAR EXCHANGE RATE.

    Stop wasting reserves trying to prop up an artificial exchange rate for the Pound.

    Then threats of a “run on the Pound” could have been treated with far less seriousness.

  • Gabriel

    No-one is expecting Obama to say “we will fight the Argies till the last drop of blood”. Rather all he needs to say is “The Falklands is part of sovereign territory and we see no reason it should not remain such”, or, simply, nothing at all. There’s not even a need for him to condemn Argentinian provocation. Simply put, coming out with a statement that the U.S. government is neutral as to who is sovereign over parts of our country is totally indefensible.

  • mac

    As an American, I’m deeply sorry that I’m a citizen of a nation stupid enough to elect this worthless bastard as President. Yes, he’s insulted you. There’s no doubt of it. Don’t think for a minute that he would be willing to help you if you got in trouble, either. He hates you just like he hates the rest of white Westerners.

    That said, I think the nation is beginning to wake up and treat this slutpup the way he deserves. Right now he’s looking at getting his balls cut off in 2010 and being kicked into the street in 2012. It can’t come soon enough, although if the disaster he’s been has woken enough people up, it may have had at least some benefit.

    You in the U.K., on the other hand, have put yourselves in a bad situation by thinking that you could always depend on us. PC hates white people, particularly white men, and you’ve been indefatigable in promoting it. Consequently, you’ve hurt the entire Anglosphere. You should scrap the Beeb, that foul den of anti-British corruption, and spend the cash on your military. Then cut off all Muslim immigration and make the ones you have there go home. I’m sure you could find some patriotic people to live on the Edgware Road once it changed from being little Pakistan.

    You’ve weakened yourselves and you’ve weakened your allies. As Kipling once said, “in your own hands, on your own heads, the sin and the saving lies.”