Article

2010-03-03 Caribbean-Latin America

Hillary Gives Moral Support to Argentina re Falklands

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by lord garth 2010-03-03 06:41|| || Front Page|| [11129 views ] Top

#1 The Brits should claim Tierra del Fuego and offer to negotiate the surrender terms with the Argentinians.

Posted by ed 2010-03-03 08:00|| 2010-03-03 08:00|| Front Page Top

#2 There are serious implications to this action by BOA (Big O Administration). It encourages actions by Argentina (Falkland Redux) and other tin pot regimes, and it puts a knife in our ally, Great Britain. Expect pullout of Afghanistan if something starts.

This is not stupidity on the part of BOA, it is by design.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2010-03-03 08:22|| 2010-03-03 08:22|| Front Page Top

#3 Given how much Americans are hated in the UK (they will never forgive you for saving their bacon) I would say that she has done something right.

The problem is that once he learns of British hate towards America her boss will override her.

Posted by JFM 2010-03-03 09:36|| 2010-03-03 09:36|| Front Page Top

#4 I don't think we are hated in Britain, at least by the average folks there. The apparatchiks, Labourite leaders and 'elites' may not like us but that's different, that's just to be expected this day and age.

Hillary has created a serious, long-term problem for us with these statements. She should have known better.

Posted by Steve White 2010-03-03 09:39|| 2010-03-03 09:39|| Front Page Top

#5 There goes our left-leaning Secretary of State giving aid and support to left-leaning regimes. Isn't Argentina sympathetic towards Chavez and his failed communist paradise?

Posted by JohnQC 2010-03-03 09:41|| 2010-03-03 09:41|| Front Page Top

#6 But does give cover to the Brits for when they do loose the Falklands....

Posted by Kelly 2010-03-03 10:21|| 2010-03-03 10:21|| Front Page Top

#7 If Labour loses the Falklands before the election they'll not be in the Parliament after the election.

Posted by Steve White 2010-03-03 10:50|| 2010-03-03 10:50|| Front Page Top

#8 Not the first US f-p honcho to tilt toward the latins. IIRC, during the Reagan Admin, Jeane Kirkpatrick strenuously argued for neutrality during the first Falklands contretemps

Posted by lex 2010-03-03 11:05|| 2010-03-03 11:05|| Front Page Top

#9 Just like I said a couple days ago....we're taking our foreign policy cues from Hugo.

Next time he spouts off about some other country, wait a couple days and we'll fall into line.

Posted by Cornsilk Blondie 2010-03-03 11:12|| 2010-03-03 11:12|| Front Page Top

#10 BO hates the Brits because he's Kenyan. I have a colleague from Kenya who grew up under colonialism and he hates the Brits to this day. I don't know what Hillary's excuse is, other than general cluelessness.

Posted by Spot 2010-03-03 11:19|| 2010-03-03 11:19|| Front Page Top

#11 I don't know what Hillary's excuse is She works for Obama, doesn't she? She's not an independent agent.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-03-03 12:48|| 2010-03-03 12:48|| Front Page Top

#12 Given how much Americans are hated in the UK (they will never forgive you for saving their bacon) I would say that she has done something right.

The problem is that once he learns of British hate towards America her boss will override her.

I think you're describing France there, JFM, not the UK. Though there is still a lot of fashionable anti-Americanism (and not just amongst the usual anti-US suspects, the like of which you'll find in the US itself), in the UK, it's more than outweighed by popular Europhobic (i.e. anti-EU interference) sentiment. Amongst those on the 'Right' who are anti-US (an arrogant 'we're really better' mentality rooted, as usual, in a sense of inferiority) this back-stabbing will pander to their prejudices; amongst the Left, who aren't really pro-'Malvinas', this will probably cause some confusion - but then the BBC will sit on this for as long as possible, just as it kept Obama's previous anti-British demonstrations of sentiment well hidden from its audience.

I suppose if the US wants the UK Government to give the Falklands to Argentina (not 'back' - they have never been Argentinian), the British Government could give Diego Garcia back to its non-British natives - who actually do have a legitimate claim and desire to change the status quo.

In the case of the Falklands, Britain defers the question of sovereignty to the islanders. The people who spend their entire lives there deeply opposed to becoming Argentinians (as, incidentally, are the Gibraltarians).

Posted by Bulldog 2010-03-03 13:01|| 2010-03-03 13:01|| Front Page Top

#13 (as, incidentally, are the Gibraltarians deeply opposed to becoming Spanish).

Posted by Bulldog 2010-03-03 13:03|| 2010-03-03 13:03|| Front Page Top

#14 She works for Obama, doesn't she? She's not an independent agent.
Does she know that?

Posted by Spot 2010-03-03 13:05|| 2010-03-03 13:05|| Front Page Top

#15 I could say I feel sorry for the Brits---but, given British attitudes to Israel---I'd be lying.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2010-03-03 13:52|| 2010-03-03 13:52|| Front Page Top

#16 I could say I feel sorry for the Brits---but, given British attitudes to Israel---I'd be lying.

And, like so many others lack an ability to process information from a variety of sources, you'd be taking opinions you see in the Guardian and on the BBC and ignorantly extrapolating that to the population as a whole.

Posted by Bulldog 2010-03-03 14:01|| 2010-03-03 14:01|| Front Page Top

#17 We aren't too bothered what hilda says or Obama thinks and her rhetoric seems rather 'brush under the carpet' anyway. Labour will be out by June and a conservative gov in place just like 82.. No biggies here and I doubt we would pull out of aghan , that's like cutting off your nose to spite your face.. A lessening of ore sence might occur though.. Let's see what blunders on either side of the pond happen first I.e in June

Posted by On tour 2010-03-03 14:28|| 2010-03-03 14:28|| Front Page Top

#18 Britain should still withdraw from Astan immediately if it's upset.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-03-03 14:28|| 2010-03-03 14:28|| Front Page Top

#19 **Our presence not ore sence (iPhone malfunction)

Posted by On tour 2010-03-03 14:37|| 2010-03-03 14:37|| Front Page Top

#20 I bloody hope not nimble... Stay the course

Posted by On tour 2010-03-03 14:39|| 2010-03-03 14:39|| Front Page Top

#21 I think you're overly optimistic, On Tour. We have what could charitably be called an 'unreliable ally' in the White House; a man so lacking in decency and judgement that one of his first acts in office was to return a bust of Winston Churchill to the UK.

The Tories by no means have the coming election in the bag - the BBC haven't girded up for partisan campaign mode yet, and even at the moment a hung parliament would be likely, and I don't see the Lib Dems rushing to join the Tories in a coalition.

If we came to a point in time where we were fighting in Afghanistan AND the South Atlantic, I think it would be entirely justified to pull our forces out of Afghanistan if necessary to concentrate on a fight which was part-triggered by Washington on our enemy's side. The UK Government, whoever makes it up, needs to carefully consider our national strategic priorities - and in my opinion the Brits of the Falkland Islands should take priority over defending the Afghans from each other, few if any of whom can even be considered our friends.

Posted by Bulldog 2010-03-03 15:17|| 2010-03-03 15:17|| Front Page Top

#22 #16 Actually Bulldog I base my opinions on the actions of your successive governments for the last 80 years. May I suggest that you study the relevant history before opening your mouth.

A good place to start would be to read the following two books.
1) From Time Immemorial
It deals with the creation of Palestinian "nation" via importation of (approx) million Arabs into Palestinian Mandate by Britain.
2) Official Secrets it deals with British complicity in suppressing information about Holocaust.

On the other hand, you can just stick to your opinions---I can assure you, it won't lower my estimate of your education and intelligence.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2010-03-03 15:40|| 2010-03-03 15:40|| Front Page Top

#23 Grom, your contributions to this website read like a one man campaign to lose friends for Israel - I suggest it's about time you started to think twice in future before posting your usually odious thoughts here.

If it wasn't for Britain's efforts to help the Jewish population of Europe get refuge post-WWII there would be no Israel. Full stop. When the rest of the free world were either already defeated or pleading 'neutrality', only Britain and her Empire were fighting the Nazis as they murdered your people. How many times has the UK fought in your neck of the woods just the past couple of decades to force down the kind of regime which poses a threat to your country. I also suggest you start reading some balanced history, not those revisionist doorstops you link to.

Posted by Bulldog 2010-03-03 16:58|| 2010-03-03 16:58|| Front Page Top

#24 Gentlemen, please! Bulldog, g(r)omgoru is correct about his local history. Britain played favourites and did everything they could to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in the Palestinian Mandate. However, you are correct that Britain's refusal to surrender to the Nazis, and their continuing to fight until America was ready to join the effort prevented the complete genocide of the Jews of Europe.

So on a meta level there would indeed be no Israel without British efforts. However, Britain's effort was not to create Israel per se, which was an undesired side effect as far as the government at the time was concerned.

As for how many times British troops have fought in the Middle East post-1948, that I can only think of the British-French-Israeli effort to reverse Nasser's closing of the Suez Canal in 1956, and the UN effort in Lebanon in the 1980s, clearly demonstrates one of the many depths of my ignorance.

In the meantime, Britain should be seriously annoyed at the American government's position. President Obama is a fool on this matter and, while it is the job of the secretary of state to present her government's position in public, it is her responsibility to oppose such stupidities in private, even to the point of resigning her position when her advice is not followed.

On Tour, I hope you're the one who read the situation correctly -- no matter what our president may think, we all need what our British cousins bring to the table.

Posted by trailing wife 2010-03-03 19:57|| 2010-03-03 19:57|| Front Page Top

00:05 Frostbite McGee Rigg
23:47 trailing wife
23:45 trailing wife
23:35 AlmostAnonymous5839
23:31 AlmostAnonymous5839
23:27 JosephMendiola
23:22 lotp
23:09 badanov
23:09 Redneck Jim
23:08 trailing wife
23:00 JosephMendiola
22:55 gorb
22:54 JosephMendiola
22:49 JosephMendiola
22:49 mom
22:44 JosephMendiola
22:37 Barbara Skolaut
22:36 JosephMendiola
22:35 Barbara Skolaut
22:33 Barbara Skolaut
22:31 Barbara Skolaut
22:30 JosephMendiola
22:24 JosephMendiola
22:22 abu do you love