In addition to Jeanne Kirkpatrick and neo-con support of the Argentine claim (Kirkpatrick appears to have argued for supporting Argentina, not just neutrality) there's the Monroe Doctrine which opposes European Colonialism in favor of good American colonialism.

No, I wouldn't quite call it the opposite since we also won't "let" them declare independence right? And we even have to refer to them in such a way that when we don't call it a province, China goes ape.

jerseyhoya wrote:
The people who live in the Falkland Islands want to remain a British overseas territory. They have their own government. If they want to choose to become part of Argentina or to declare independence from Britain, then they can make that decision themselves. Argentina hasn't ruled the islands for 180 years. The people there speak English. The islands are 300 miles from Argentina. It's not like they're in their territorial waters. Why is this something we should be neutral about?

Why should we even care about it? What would Regan do? Wait, he remained neutral. From Wiki - 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". I distinctly remember that it was a curiosity to us and some engaging news. I think it might have been the first time I saw Navy power being exerted with missiles and jets over 16 inch guns from US destroyers, but it would not have done for Britain to destroy its protectorate.

Ultimately, though, Reagan sided with Al Haig (remember, Britain is part of NATO) and went against Kirkpatrick and told her to vote in favor of the UN resolution in support of Britain.

Also, it's important to note that Argentina's junta collapsed in the aftermath of the failed attempt to retake the Islands and since the current dustup has everything to do with Argentina's domestic politics and that the islands are much better defended than they were in the 80s Argentina is not going to use force to invade the island but is simply asserting their claim. I imagine most, if not all Latin American countries are supportive of Argentina's claim.

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Obama declares US neutrality in the UK-Argentina dispute over the Falklands .... blah, blah, blah .... her and the UK.

what's with republicans & their hangup with the falklands? You'd think we still had a king

The people who live in the Falkland Islands want to remain a British overseas territory. They have their own government. If they want to choose to become part of Argentina or to declare independence from Britain, then they can make that decision themselves. Argentina hasn't ruled the islands for 180 years. The people there speak English. The islands are 300 miles from Argentina. It's not like they're in their territorial waters. Why is this something we should be neutral about?

you'll get nothing more from me until jeff2sf weighs in

EDIT: dammit, this always happens when I don't read EVERY DAMN POST IN A THREAD

Argentina knows that the Brits no longer have a carrier. Those jump jets can't make the trip so easily. I think that they are out of the game for 3 or 4 more years. I would need to look it up, but I am pretty sure that the idea of sharing a carrier with the French is an inside out, dead issue. (fact check: within the last 24 hours the FT days that the new carriers will not have equipment to welcome French planes - gas tanks and steering are on the wrong side I guess - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f276fbaa-87e4 ... z1sJly3Ihi)

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Obama declares US neutrality in the UK-Argentina dispute over the Falklands .... blah, blah, blah .... her and the UK.

what's with republicans & their hangup with the falklands?

Oil

thephan wrote:Argentina knows that the Brits no longer have a carrier. Those jump jets can't make the trip so easily. I think that they are out of the game for 3 or 4 more years. I would need to look it up, but I am pretty sure that the idea of sharing a carrier with the French is an inside out, dead issue. (fact check: within the last 24 hours the FT days that the new carriers will not have equipment to welcome French planes - gas tanks and steering are on the wrong side I guess - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f276fbaa-87e4 ... z1sJly3Ihi)

However, the Islands are much more stoutly defended than they were in the eighties.

The Falklands are to the UK as Guam is to the US, more or less, right?

I presume we'd be pretty pissed if say Japan laid claim to Guam based on their WWII era occupation and Australia decided to declare neutrality.

Define pissed. Presumably we'd get over it right? I mean I don't care about Guam. So if Australia doesn't want to take our side, I'm not necessarily gonna bomb them for it. I won't rule it out either. I think after a week or two we'd get by and it would just be an agenda item for our president to needle their Prime Minister over.

Except that is nothing at all about what is being discussed. For 184 years it has been a British territory. Aside from a little hiccup in the 80's where Argentina, which was not even a place when the the island were declared sovereign land, there seems to be no issue aside from misplaced pride (on both sides really). Aside from that your logic stands to reason.

Our relationship with South America is objectively more important than our relationship with the United Kingdom going forward.

Hey Monkeyboy at least Romney didn't eat his dog, amiright?

who cares? dog meat is probably stringy

pacino wrote:who cares? dog meat is probably stringy

Tough, per Obama

jerseyhoya wrote:Hey Monkeyboy at least Romney didn't eat his dog, amiright?

Nowhere near as cruel as putting your own sick dog on the roof where it repeatedly shits itself and has to be periodically hosed down. Obama ate a dog, not his own dog. But carry on

ok, foreigner muslin

The Seamus story was discussed again Monday when Ann Romney told Diane Sawyer that “the dog loved” traveling that way. “He would see that crate and, you know, he would, like, go crazy because he was going with us on vacation. It was to me a kinder thing to bring him along than to leave him in the kennel for two weeks.”

Certainly kinder than eating him.

ABC, ftw

Hilary Rosen's foot in mouth comment neutralizing the annoying War on Women thing. Now Obama, confirmed dog eater, probably going a long way toward having Gail Collins shut up about the stupid dog on a car roof 29 years ago story. Annoying general election stories dying fast!

Does Obama just hold up a graph showing job growth since he has been in office, climbing from a depth of the previous administration, to turn the argument into 'well, I would have done better.' that is a stupid counter if there ever was one, especially if you were not even in a position to do anything, much less the previous candidate. Are the American people so stupid to ignore the depth of the financial chrisis and belive something so thinly covering a work of fiction? Well, probably most are now that I think about it.