From the London Times:
QuoteUS refuses to endorse British sovereignty in Falklands oil dispute
Giles Whittell, Washington and James Bone, New York Washington refused to endorse British claims to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands yesterday as the diplomatic row over oil drilling in the South Atlantic intensified in London, Buenos Aires and at the UN.
Despite Britain's close alliance with the US, the Obama Administration is determined not to be drawn into the issue. It has also declined to back Britain's claim that oil exploration near the islands is sanctioned by international law, saying that the dispute is strictly a bilateral issue.
Argentina appealed to the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki Moon, last night to intervene in the dispute, a move Britain adamantly opposes.
"The Secretary-General knows about the issue. He is not happy to learn that the situation is worsening," Jorge Taiana, the Argentine Foreign Minister, said after meeting Mr Ban in New York.
"We have asked the Secretary-General, within the framework of his good offices, to stress to Britain the need to abstain from further unilateral acts."
A top UN aide acknowledged, however, that Mr Ban would not be able to mediate because of Britain's opposition.
Sir Mark Lyall Grant, Britain's Ambassador to the UN, said: "As British ministers have made clear, the UK has no doubt about its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands . . . We are also clear that the Falkland Islands Government is entitled to develop a hydrocarbons industry within its waters, and we support this legitimate business in Falklands' territory."
Senior US officials insisted that Washington's position on the Falklands was one of longstanding neutrality. This is in stark contrast to the public backing and vital intelligence offered by President Reagan to Margaret Thatcher once she had made the decision to recover the islands by force in 1982.
"We are aware not only of the current situation but also of the history, but our position remains one of neutrality," a State Department spokesman told The Times. "The US recognises de facto UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party."
Kevin Casas-Zamora, a Brookings Institution analyst and former vice-president of Costa Rica, said that President Reagan's support for Britain in 1982 "irked a lot of people in Latin America".
The Obama Administration "is trying to split the difference as much as it can because it knows that coming round to the British position would again create a lot of ill will in the region", he said.
British officials in Washington said that they were comfortable with the US response to the dispute, but indicated that any American support for mediated negotiations would not be well received. It was "up to the islanders whether they want mediation or not", one official said.
Britain has boosted the islands' defences since the conflict, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, the First Sea Lord, said last night. "We have built a massive runway. We have emplaced forces on the ground, we have sophisticated early warning systems. It is a different package. To compare the way we dealt with the issues in 1982 with today is nonsense," he said.
The Obamateur is voting "present" again! he really hates the British, doesn't he?
Now we know why the new US Embassy needs a moat!
Maybe Obama is a Larouchite.
Monroe Lives!
Good.
IIRC he's just continuing the standard US policy towards the dispute?
Appalling! :o
Quote from: Warspite on February 25, 2010, 06:59:20 PM
IIRC he's just continuing the standard US policy towards the dispute?
THE SPECIKAL RELATIONSHIP IZ DESTRYED!
Please panic appropriately.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253878/The-Falklands-betrayal-U-S-fails-British-oil-claims-row-American-torture-secrets.html
:bowler:
Disgraceful
No blood for oil.
I don't see what Argentina has to offer us that's worth muddying the relationship with the UK. As far as I can see, US interests lie strongly with supporting the UK.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 25, 2010, 07:30:51 PM
I don't see what Argentina has to offer us that's worth muddying the relationship with the UK. As far as I can see, US interests lie strongly with supporting the UK.
Steaks.
Hot chicks?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 25, 2010, 07:30:51 PM
I don't see what Argentina has to offer us that's worth muddying the relationship with the UK. As far as I can see, US interests lie strongly with supporting the UK.
As far as I can see, the existing US policy on the dispute has served the US well and shouldn't be changed without a necessity. I see no reason why the US should reverse itself at this point and agree with Britain's claims.
Quote from: grumbler on February 25, 2010, 07:45:20 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 25, 2010, 07:30:51 PM
I don't see what Argentina has to offer us that's worth muddying the relationship with the UK. As far as I can see, US interests lie strongly with supporting the UK.
As far as I can see, the existing US policy on the dispute has served the US well and shouldn't be changed without a necessity. I see no reason why the US should reverse itself at this point and agree with Britain's claims.
Do you mean Hans and Tim are trying to stir up controversy where none exists? Say it ain't so grumbles!
Quote from: grumbler on February 25, 2010, 07:45:20 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 25, 2010, 07:30:51 PM
I don't see what Argentina has to offer us that's worth muddying the relationship with the UK. As far as I can see, US interests lie strongly with supporting the UK.
As far as I can see, the existing US policy on the dispute has served the US well and shouldn't be changed without a necessity. I see no reason why the US should reverse itself at this point and agree with Britain's claims.
Because to do anything else is evil.
Quote from: Neil on February 25, 2010, 07:52:41 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 25, 2010, 07:45:20 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 25, 2010, 07:30:51 PM
I don't see what Argentina has to offer us that's worth muddying the relationship with the UK. As far as I can see, US interests lie strongly with supporting the UK.
As far as I can see, the existing US policy on the dispute has served the US well and shouldn't be changed without a necessity. I see no reason why the US should reverse itself at this point and agree with Britain's claims.
Because to do anything else is evil.
Why should we help the spineless brits when they're cutting and running from their commitments against terror?
Quote from: Fate on February 25, 2010, 07:49:30 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 25, 2010, 07:45:20 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 25, 2010, 07:30:51 PM
I don't see what Argentina has to offer us that's worth muddying the relationship with the UK. As far as I can see, US interests lie strongly with supporting the UK.
As far as I can see, the existing US policy on the dispute has served the US well and shouldn't be changed without a necessity. I see no reason why the US should reverse itself at this point and agree with Britain's claims.
Do you mean Hans and Tim are trying to stir up controversy where none exists? Say it ain't so grumbles!
I think that he means that Hans is doing that, and Tim is dumb enough to fall for it. ;)
This is interesting. In the Mexico summit, all the Latin American countries could agree on was two things:
1. Argentina should have the Falklands (or Malvinas, as we call them here), and
2. A new american organization should be formed beyond the Organization of American States, but one that specifically excludes the US and Canada from membership.
If Obama backs down on the Brits, their only ally in the Americas would be Canada... maybe.
Cute. Too bad both sides are too bankrupt to do anything serious, 'cause a nice war there would liven things up again. I enjoyed the first one.
Britain doesn't really need to do anything. The status quo works in the favour, and a single SSN could easily balk any military solution that Argentina might attempt.
Quote from: Neil on February 25, 2010, 08:39:00 PM
Britain doesn't really need to do anything. The status quo works in the favour, and a single SSN could easily balk any military solution that Argentina might attempt.
Maybe. But what Argentina is doing now is denying the use of its ports to Britain. What this means is that all the gear and supplies for oil drilling operations now have to come from areas considerably to the North of the Falklands, and that makes an eventual extraction of oil more expensive, thus less appealing.
And if all nations in the area agree that Britain should not be down there, then the British companies will have to get their gear from Europe, which basically means no oil for London until it gets to $200+ a barrel.
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 25, 2010, 08:31:02 PM
If Obama backs down on the Brits, their only ally in the Americas would be Canada... maybe.
Great. It's like getting stuck with the skinny dorky kid that's always picked last. :rolleyes:
Canada isn't really a reliable US ally anyways. The Liberal Party is suspect, and the NDP wanted to join the Warsaw Pact in the 80s.
I thought the US was neutral on the situation before.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 25, 2010, 09:13:00 PM
I thought the US was neutral on the situation before.
Reagan being neutral > Obama being a spineless wimp. ;)
Shades of April Gilespie.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 25, 2010, 10:19:39 PM
How so?
Since you already know who April Gilespie is, and what the similarities are between that case and this, why don't we just skip ahead to your objection and leave out the pointless explanation.
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 25, 2010, 08:31:02 PM
This is interesting. In the Mexico summit, all the Latin American countries could agree on was two things:
1. Argentina should have the Falklands (or Malvinas, as we call them here), and
2. A new american organization should be formed beyond the Organization of American States, but one that specifically excludes the US and Canada from membership.
If Obama backs down on the Brits, their only ally in the Americas would be Canada... maybe.
Cute. Too bad both sides are too bankrupt to do anything serious, 'cause a nice war there would liven things up again. I enjoyed the first one.
Your ignorance of Latin America continues to be a source of great entertainment.
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 25, 2010, 08:31:02 PM
2. A new american organization should be formed beyond the Organization of American States, but one that specifically excludes the US and Canada from membership.
Now why would they want that? :hmm:
QuoteChavez rejects report citing rights violations
By CHRISTOPHER TOOTHAKER, Associated Press Feb 25, 8:55 pm ET
CARACAS, Venezuela – President Hugo Chavez said Thursday that Venezuela should boycott the Organization of American States' human rights body, saying the panel wrongly accused his government of political repression.
Chavez took issue with a report issued this week by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which cited widespread human rights violations in Venezuela. The socialist leader called the 300-page report "pure garbage" and described the commission's president, Santiago Canton, as "excrement."
"We should prepare to denounce the agreement in which Venezuela joined ... this terrible Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and leave it," Chavez said during a televised address.
His threat drew criticism from a local rights activist.
"This is very bad signal," said Liliana Ortega of the Cofavic rights group. "Hopefully, he'll reconsider this decision."
Local rights activists applauded the report issued by the rights committee, saying it sheds light on widespread rights abuses.
The report released Wednesday at OAS headquarters in Washington complains of a lack of independence for Venezuela's judiciary, the closing of news media outlets that are critical of the government, and political discrimination and repression under Chavez.
"We don't recognize the commission as an impartial institution," said Gabriela Ramirez, the Venezuelan government's top rights guarantor. Ramirez said the report incorrectly concludes that "the Venezuelan state threatens democracy and human rights."
The report condemned the procedures for appointing and removing judges, saying the regulations "lack the safeguards necessary to prevent other branches of government from undermining the Supreme Court's independence."
Government opponents have long complained that the Supreme Court — whose members are appointed by the predominantly pro-Chavez National Assembly — has been packed with the president's allies, giving him nearly unlimited power. Chavez denies holding sway over justices.
The OAS commission also called attention to an increase in sanctions against news media, singling out the case of Globovision, a television news network that is fiercely critical of Chavez.
Globovision has been repeatedly fined for allegedly violating broadcast regulations, and Chavez has threatened to shutter the network.
"It is of particular concern," the rights commission said, "that in several of these cases, the investigations and administrative procedures began after the highest authorities of the state called on public agencies to take action against Globovision and other media outlets that are independent and critical of the government."
The report strongly condemned what it called "a trend toward the use of criminal charges to punish people exercising their right to demonstrate or protest against government policies," adding that more than 2,200 people have been indicted on criminal charges stemming from their participation in protests in recent years.
Carlos Correa, a leader of the Venezuelan human rights group Espacio Publico, welcomed the report. "It makes the violations that are occurring in Venezuela more visible" and should attract the attention of the international community, he said.
The report carries more weight than statements from independent rights watchdogs, because it "comes from an institution made up of the hemisphere's own states," Correa added.
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 25, 2010, 08:43:19 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 25, 2010, 08:39:00 PM
Britain doesn't really need to do anything. The status quo works in the favour, and a single SSN could easily balk any military solution that Argentina might attempt.
Maybe. But what Argentina is doing now is denying the use of its ports to Britain. What this means is that all the gear and supplies for oil drilling operations now have to come from areas considerably to the North of the Falklands, and that makes an eventual extraction of oil more expensive, thus less appealing.
And if all nations in the area agree that Britain should not be down there, then the British companies will have to get their gear from Europe, which basically means no oil for London until it gets to $200+ a barrel.
Actually, Chile has no problem with ships to and from the Falklands.
Quote from: Barrister on February 26, 2010, 02:50:37 AM
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 25, 2010, 08:43:19 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 25, 2010, 08:39:00 PM
Britain doesn't really need to do anything. The status quo works in the favour, and a single SSN could easily balk any military solution that Argentina might attempt.
Maybe. But what Argentina is doing now is denying the use of its ports to Britain. What this means is that all the gear and supplies for oil drilling operations now have to come from areas considerably to the North of the Falklands, and that makes an eventual extraction of oil more expensive, thus less appealing.
And if all nations in the area agree that Britain should not be down there, then the British companies will have to get their gear from Europe, which basically means no oil for London until it gets to $200+ a barrel.
Actually, Chile has no problem with ships to and from the Falklands.
Chile was and would be a problem for an Argentina at war but supplying the Falklands/Malvinas for oil wouldn't be practical given the geography.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 26, 2010, 03:09:17 AM
Quote from: Barrister on February 26, 2010, 02:50:37 AM
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 25, 2010, 08:43:19 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 25, 2010, 08:39:00 PM
Britain doesn't really need to do anything. The status quo works in the favour, and a single SSN could easily balk any military solution that Argentina might attempt.
Maybe. But what Argentina is doing now is denying the use of its ports to Britain. What this means is that all the gear and supplies for oil drilling operations now have to come from areas considerably to the North of the Falklands, and that makes an eventual extraction of oil more expensive, thus less appealing.
And if all nations in the area agree that Britain should not be down there, then the British companies will have to get their gear from Europe, which basically means no oil for London until it gets to $200+ a barrel.
Actually, Chile has no problem with ships to and from the Falklands.
Chile was and would be a problem for an Argentina at war but supplying the Falklands/Malvinas for oil wouldn't be practical given the geography.
There's no question that Argentina would be more convenient, but support from Chile is certainly practical.
via Cape Horn? Maybe that doesn't matter so much with modern vessels :hmm:
Argentine diplomacy re the Falklands is completely hamfisted of course, their behaviour guaranteed to irritate the British and make them intransigent. They should cooperate with us and maximise trade and cultural links with the islands. It would be a long game, but after 50 years or so they'd probably be given them.
Quote from: Barrister on February 26, 2010, 03:23:38 AM
Actually, Chile has no problem with ships to and from the Falklands.
Chile was and would be a problem for an Argentina at war but supplying the Falklands/Malvinas for oil wouldn't be practical given the geography.
[/quote]
There's no question that Argentina would be more convenient, but support from Chile is certainly practical.
[/quote]
As in better than nothing in the area, sure :)
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 25, 2010, 08:43:19 PM
And if all nations in the area agree that Britain should not be down there, then the British companies will have to get their gear from Europe, which basically means no oil for London until it gets to $200+ a barrel.
Oh no. We will have to gear from Europe? You mean we will be denied the vast stocks of advanced equipment and expertise sitting in the oil-rich Latin American states?
If only there were British companies that had some kind of expertise in oil exploration. :(
Quote from: Barrister on February 26, 2010, 02:50:37 AM
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 25, 2010, 08:43:19 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 25, 2010, 08:39:00 PM
Britain doesn't really need to do anything. The status quo works in the favour, and a single SSN could easily balk any military solution that Argentina might attempt.
Maybe. But what Argentina is doing now is denying the use of its ports to Britain. What this means is that all the gear and supplies for oil drilling operations now have to come from areas considerably to the North of the Falklands, and that makes an eventual extraction of oil more expensive, thus less appealing.
And if all nations in the area agree that Britain should not be down there, then the British companies will have to get their gear from Europe, which basically means no oil for London until it gets to $200+ a barrel.
Actually, Chile has no problem with ships to and from the Falklands.
Nor has Uruguay. AFAIK, for fishing operations Montevideo is the port of choice in continental South America for fleets operating in the Falklands, so I guess that for O&G exploration it'd be the same.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 26, 2010, 03:31:40 AM
via Cape Horn? Maybe that doesn't matter so much with modern vessels :hmm:
Argentine diplomacy re the Falklands is completely hamfisted of course, their behaviour guaranteed to irritate the British and make them intransigent. They should cooperate with us and maximise trade and cultural links with the islands. It would be a long game, but after 50 years or so they'd probably be given them.
Why would the island be "given" to them after 50 years? The British citizens of the islands have no interest joining that banana republic and Argentina has no legitimate claim on the islands. "Hey, those islands are pretty close to us" isn't really a serious claim.
Britain has given away about a quarter of the world in the past 70 years, all we need is a good excuse ;)
Isn't it against the Monroe Doctrine to confirm that the island belongs to Britain? :hmm:
Quote from: Tamas on February 26, 2010, 07:26:16 AM
Isn't it against the Monroe Doctrine to confirm that the island belongs to Britain? :hmm:
The Monroe doctrine is a dead letter.
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 26, 2010, 07:14:34 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 26, 2010, 03:31:40 AM
via Cape Horn? Maybe that doesn't matter so much with modern vessels :hmm:
Argentine diplomacy re the Falklands is completely hamfisted of course, their behaviour guaranteed to irritate the British and make them intransigent. They should cooperate with us and maximise trade and cultural links with the islands. It would be a long game, but after 50 years or so they'd probably be given them.
Why would the island be "given" to them after 50 years? The British citizens of the islands have no interest joining that banana republic and Argentina has no legitimate claim on the islands. "Hey, those islands are pretty close to us" isn't really a serious claim.
The inhabitants of Hong Kong didn't have much interest in joining a brutal murder-state either, but they did when the lease was up. Self-determination doesn't much matter for small groups of people.
This is outrageous. I hope he tries to make up for this by recognizing the UK sovereignty over all the UK North American colonies instead.
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 26, 2010, 07:14:34 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 26, 2010, 03:31:40 AM
via Cape Horn? Maybe that doesn't matter so much with modern vessels :hmm:
Argentine diplomacy re the Falklands is completely hamfisted of course, their behaviour guaranteed to irritate the British and make them intransigent. They should cooperate with us and maximise trade and cultural links with the islands. It would be a long game, but after 50 years or so they'd probably be given them.
Why would the island be "given" to them after 50 years? The British citizens of the islands have no interest joining that banana republic and Argentina has no legitimate claim on the islands. "Hey, those islands are pretty close to us" isn't really a serious claim.
It's funny, considering all US territorial gains EVER were based on that "illegitimate claim". :lol:
Stop being stupid Marty.
Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2010, 10:06:36 AM
It's funny, considering all US territorial gains EVER were based on that "illegitimate claim". :lol:
US territorial gains were based on force of arms.
How is this a departure from what has always been the US stance on the Falklands?
Quote from: Neil on February 26, 2010, 10:49:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2010, 10:06:36 AM
It's funny, considering all US territorial gains EVER were based on that "illegitimate claim". :lol:
US territorial gains were based on force of arms.
Well, given that force of arms is one of the ways in which disputes over sovereignty get resolved, you could certainly argue this. The British governments do not dispute US sovereignty, though (a fact that Marti appears to have missed) and signed papers to that effect.
Quote from: Berkut on February 26, 2010, 10:50:12 AM
How is this a departure from what has always been the US stance on the Falklands?
It is no departure from either the traditionally neutral US stance on the Falklands, nor Hansmeister's traditionally false-outraged stance on Obama.
Thank god for amusing traditions! :cool:
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2010, 11:12:40 AM
Quote from: Neil on February 26, 2010, 10:49:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2010, 10:06:36 AM
It's funny, considering all US territorial gains EVER were based on that "illegitimate claim". :lol:
US territorial gains were based on force of arms.
Well, given that force of arms is one of the ways in which disputes over sovereignty get resolved, you could certainly argue this. The British governments do not dispute US sovereignty, though (a fact that Marti appears to have missed) and signed papers to that effect.
Force of arms is the only test of sovereignty.
Quote from: citizen k
Now why would they want that? :hmm:
Because they want to.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8531266.stm
Americas bloc excluding US and Canada agreed Latin American and Caribbean nations have agreed to set up a new regional body without the US and Canada.Quote from: Barrister
Actually, Chile has no problem with ships to and from the Falklands.
Actually, none of them wants Britain oil drilling in the Malvinas. Or the British there altoghther, for that matter.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/23/argentina-uk-falkland-row-oil
Latin American leaders back Argentina over Falklands oil drillingA summit of 32 countries in Mexico endorsed an Argentine document accusing Britain of flouting international law by permitting drilling to begin this week, said Argentina's president, Cristina Kirchner.
(...)
The Argentine statement quoted Mexico's president, Felipe Calderón, saying: "The heads of state represented here reaffirm their support for the legitimate rights of the republic of Argentina in the sovereignty dispute with Great Britain."And you people accuse ME of being ignorant on Latin America?
Martim - the fact that Chile formally endorses Argentine ownership of the Falklands apparently has little to do with the fact that the Chilean government allows ships and airflights between Chile and the Falklands.
In other words, both of our posts are true.
The EUOT thread about the "sable rattling" in the South Atlantic was strangely disappointing.
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 26, 2010, 12:20:44 PM
Americas bloc excluding US and Canada agreed
I think that such a bloc is perfectly fair. None of them have much chance to get into NATO, so they should be able to set up another organization for NATO-wannabes. Sorta the South American Equivalent of the NIT.
What impresses me is that Hans doesn't miss a beat. He makes a statement about Obama and when thinking people notice it is utterly meaningless he just moves on like it didn't happen.
Quote from: Tamas on February 26, 2010, 07:26:16 AM
Isn't it against the Monroe Doctrine to confirm that the island belongs to Britain? :hmm:
The Monroe Doctrine committed the US to oppose any outside attempt to establish colonies or annex territories through force of arms, so no.
Quote from: Berkut on February 26, 2010, 10:50:12 AM
How is this a departure from what has always been the US stance on the Falklands?
It's not, afaik. But what should the stance be?
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2010, 02:10:17 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 26, 2010, 12:20:44 PM
Americas bloc excluding US and Canada agreed
I think that such a bloc is perfectly fair. None of them have much chance to get into NATO, so they should be able to set up another organization for NATO-wannabes. Sorta the South American Equivalent of the NIT.
An NIT consisting of teams with losing records, maybe :)
Quote from: The Brain on February 26, 2010, 01:40:01 PM
The EUOT thread about the "sable rattling" in the South Atlantic was strangely disappointing.
It would have been funnier if there were Argentinians involved. Too few of them around nowadays.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 26, 2010, 02:14:56 PM
What impresses me is that Hans doesn't miss a beat. He makes a statement about Obama and when thinking people notice it is utterly meaningless he just moves on like it didn't happen.
It's like a Glenn Beck IED. A Hansgrenade.
Quote from: derspiess on February 26, 2010, 03:42:26 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2010, 02:10:17 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 26, 2010, 12:20:44 PM
Americas bloc excluding US and Canada agreed
I think that such a bloc is perfectly fair. None of them have much chance to get into NATO, so they should be able to set up another organization for NATO-wannabes. Sorta the South American Equivalent of the NIT.
An NIT consisting of teams with losing records, maybe :)
Did you see the video of Chavez ranting about Bush and the power goes out on it? Hilarious.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 26, 2010, 05:55:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 26, 2010, 02:14:56 PM
What impresses me is that Hans doesn't miss a beat. He makes a statement about Obama and when thinking people notice it is utterly meaningless he just moves on like it didn't happen.
It's like a Glenn Beck IED. A Hansgrenade.
:lol:
That was rather witty.
Quote from: Warspite on February 25, 2010, 06:59:20 PM
IIRC he's just continuing the standard US policy towards the dispute?
Yep. During the Falklands war the US Administration was ambivalent, at best. Only Cap Weinberger really supported the UK. In that war our only real ally was France - as has been the case since the entente cordiale.
I have no doubt that if Argentina invaded the Falklands again, the US would continue to profess our neutrality while supplying the UK with intelligence and support.
Which is, of course, As It Should Be.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 26, 2010, 07:30:40 PM
Quote from: Warspite on February 25, 2010, 06:59:20 PM
IIRC he's just continuing the standard US policy towards the dispute?
Yep. During the Falklands war the US Administration was ambivalent, at best. Only Cap Weinberger really supported the UK. In that war our only real ally was France - as has been the case since the entente cordiale.
Shame about the French rockets that sank your ship though.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 27, 2010, 02:28:33 PM
Shame about the French rockets that sank your ship though.
The weren't rockets and weren't French. They were missiles, and they were Argentinian.
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2010, 03:19:31 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 27, 2010, 02:28:33 PM
Shame about the French rockets that sank your ship though.
The weren't rockets and weren't French. They were missiles, and they were Argentinian.
They might be rockets again some day.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 27, 2010, 02:28:33 PM
Shame about the French rockets that sank your ship though.
The French immediately supported us. They gave us the fighter planes they'd sold to the Argies so that the RAF could train against them. They also gave us all details about Exocet missiles so that the military knew what to expect and MI6 could try to sabotage them and helped the British orchestrate a secret mission so that the Argies would always be outbid for Exocet missiles (which they desperately needed) even though the French wouldn't receive the money and Britain wouldn't receive the weapons.
The US eventually helped us (and to give him his due Weinberger promised, immediately, that the US would help) but only after the State Department (who generally wanted a face-saving negotiated settlement for Galtieri) had spent a lot of time, not to mention Jeane Kirkpatrick's performance.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 27, 2010, 07:55:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 27, 2010, 02:28:33 PM
Shame about the French rockets that sank your ship though.
The US eventually helped us (and to give him his due Weinberger promised, immediately, that the US would help) but only after the State Department (who generally wanted a face-saving negotiated settlement for Galtieri) had spent a lot of time, not to mention Jeane Kirkpatrick's performance.
The US Navy went to Britain's aid immediately, which led to a mini-scandal inside the service, as it turned out that some aircraft engines, POL, and (I think) some AIM-9L missiles went to the UK considerably in advance of official authorization.
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2010, 08:51:19 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 27, 2010, 07:55:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 27, 2010, 02:28:33 PM
Shame about the French rockets that sank your ship though.
The US eventually helped us (and to give him his due Weinberger promised, immediately, that the US would help) but only after the State Department (who generally wanted a face-saving negotiated settlement for Galtieri) had spent a lot of time, not to mention Jeane Kirkpatrick's performance.
The US Navy went to Britain's aid immediately, which led to a mini-scandal inside the service, as it turned out that some aircraft engines, POL, and (I think) some AIM-9L missiles went to the UK considerably in advance of official authorization.
There was a lot of help from the US with intelligence and use of bases.
Wasn't there even talk of sending a carrier in case of loss of hermes and Ark Royal?
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2010, 08:51:19 PM
The US Navy went to Britain's aid immediately, which led to a mini-scandal inside the service, as it turned out that some aircraft engines, POL, and (I think) some AIM-9L missiles went to the UK considerably in advance of official authorization.
Yeah. My impressions are shaped by the British Ambassador in Washington and the Defence Minister's books which deal with the subject. The general view they both had was that the DoD helped and that Weinberger was very strong from the start and that Haig came around in the end, but that the State Department was more-or-less institutionally pro-Argie and the Administration as a whole was tepid for quite some time - understandably, two American allies were going to war.