Falklands

[Louis VI the Fat]

Both are, at least technically, allies of the USA.

For me, Britain has fought/bled with us, which counts for more in my book (but I'm a crusty conservative type).

For the US political left, the alliance with Britain is important, but not singularly.

For the US far left, the alliance with Britain is part of our imperialism AND Britain is standing in the way of a Truly United Europe.

Obama will, effectively, sit this one out. I don't know if he'll support the UK sub-rosa, as did Reagan.

Long term, most of the political left are convinced that Argentina is either a) in the right or b) willing to keep after the issue. Either way, they'd view the easiest long-term solution as Argentine control so that the issue goes away.

Objection, your honour!


This conservative is trying to portray this as a US left intervention.

Not so:

A SECRET transcript of a telephone conversation between Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan has revealed how the former president tried to persuade the prime minister to stop the Falklands war as British troops were advancing on Port Stanley.

The document shows Thatcher was determined to deliver a crushing victory to avenge British losses. Her response to the peace initiative left the president stammering on the transatlantic hotline. At one stage a clearly heated Thatcher demanded to know what Reagan would do if Alaska had been invaded and the United States had suffered casualties recapturing it.

“I wonder if anyone over there realises, I'd like to ask them. Just supposing Alaska was invaded ...” asked Thatcher. “Now you've put all your people up there to retake it and someone suggested that a contact could coe in ... you wouldn't do it.”

“No, no, although, Margaret, I have to say I don't quite think Alaska is a similar situation” said Reagan.

“More or less so,” snapped Thatcher. Reagan feared the pending rout of Argentine forces in the south Atlantic would destabilise the region, damaging Washington's battle against left-wing regimes in Latin America.

But Thatcher, with barely concealed impatience, scotched the plan with a verbal explosion. Reagan could barely get a word in as the prime ministe gushed out a torrent of dismissal. “I didn't lose some of my best ships and some of my finest lives, to leave quietly under a ceasefire without the Argentines withdrawing,” she said.

“Oh. Oh, Margaret, that is part of this, as I understand it ...” stammered Reagan, trying to outline a Brazilian peace plan. It called for a ceasefire, Argentine withdrawal and a third-party peace-keeping force in the disputed islands. “Ron, I'm not handing over ... I'm not handing over the island now,” insisted Thatcher.


http://www.margaretthatcher.org/comm...p?docid=110526

[KukriKhan]

“I didn't lose some of my best ships and some of my finest lives, to leave quietly under a ceasefire without the Argentines withdrawing,” she said.

You won't believe this, but... I read something along those lines back in those days. NOT in the New York Times.

A sizable portion of the America that I know, supports the UK in this matter; if we come out on the side of Kosovar independence on the principle of local determination and sovereignty, then consistency - and true blood alliance - demands unquestioned support. By God, we should be playing "God Save The Queen" every morning when the colours are raised at The White House!! And tell the Argie's (politely): "Stuff it."

Triangulated Political intrigues are so 1960's. Our New Boss promised an end to such playground epics.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Kukri speaks for me as well (though I'd have them run up our colors and anthem first).