"Obama Administration Backs Argentina Over U.K. Falkland Dispute" (Iraq, solution)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The Obama administration once again has sided with Argentina -- and by default, against Britain -- in the ongoing dispute over the island chain at the center of a 1982 war."
"Heritage Foundation analyst Nile Gardiner said the U.S. should at least stay neutral on the Falkland issue."
"British sovereignty over the islands is not an issue for negotiation. ... This is a slap in the face for America's closest friend and ally," he said, accusing the administration of siding with Venezuela and others against its friend."
So, according to FauxNews this betrayal of Britain is based upon the U.S. position supporting an OAS resolution that the Argentina and Britain TALK! What an amazing betrayal!!! I'm Shocked, SHOCKED I SAY!
I think that became outmoded with the Monroe Doctrine.
The Monroe Doctrine didn't apply to Britain, by an unwritten agreement between the US and UK governments. The British Empire benefited from the Monroe Doctrine as it meant that its rival colonial powers in Europe were kept out of the Western Hemisphere, and the Royal Navy was happy to help enforce it.
Apparently there are petroleum reserves involved. If the go to Argentina they will be controlled out of Huston. If Britain maintains control they will be operated out of London. This is very important to some people and completely irrelevant to most of us as we will be overcharged for oil no matter who controls the reserves. I think we have done enough for the British Crown considering what we did to keep British Petroleum's concessions in Iraq in their possession.
"The Obama administration once again has sided with Argentina -- and by default, against Britain -- in the ongoing dispute over the island chain at the center of a 1982 war."
"Heritage Foundation analyst Nile Gardiner said the U.S. should at least stay neutral on the Falkland issue."
"British sovereignty over the islands is not an issue for negotiation. ... This is a slap in the face for America's closest friend and ally," he said, accusing the administration of siding with Venezuela and others against its friend."
Didn't Obama hear? That war was over nearly 30 years ago.
He tends to prefer facts not get in the way, especially when it comes to matters he regards as righting the entire history of colonization.
"However, Britain does not consider the sovereignty in question. After the British fended off an Argentine invasion of the nearby islands in 1982 -- a war in which hundreds died on both sides -- the government continues to assert control over the Falklands and grant islanders British citizenship."
Yes but never settled by them. The residents have made it clear they want to remain a part of Britain.
By your logic we'd subsume Cuba since it is only 90 miles off the FL coast.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
