The lyrics of Stephen Sondheim’s Send in the Clowns captures the comedy of errors which the British establishment now finds itself in with regard to the Falklands. How could they have guessed that the man they had been waiting for, the person who they assumed would be so implicitly like them — their soulmate — would turn to be so different from what they imagined? UK pundits are still shock over the administration’s announcement that it will remain neutral in any dispute between Argentina and Britain over the Falklands. The London Times summarizes things succinctly:
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.
As usual, the administration’s given reason for its actions is that “Bush did it”, only in this case it is “Ronald Reagan did it”, even though he didn’t. The Times continues:
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.
Amazingly the British believe that Obama is getting back at Gordon Brown for not keep keeping intelligence obtained during the Bush administration secret. The Daily Mail reports that “A senior MP and a respected foreign policy think-tank claimed Washington’s stance was ‘payback’ for the British courts ordering the disclosure of secret CIA files on Binyam Mohamed. … The papers detailed evidence showing MI5 knew that Mohamed, a British citizen, had been tortured by U.S. spies after he was detained in Pakistan in 2002.” Wikipedia describes his ordeal, at times in Mohamed’s words:
“It is now August 11. They have betrayed our trust (again). Hisham from Tunisia was savagely beaten in his interrogation and they publicly desecrated the Qur’an (again). Saad from Kuwait was ERF’d [visited by the Extreme Reaction Force] for refusing to go (again) to interrogation because the female interrogator had sexually humiliated him (again) for 5 hours. Therefore, the strike must begin again.” … In December 2005 the declassification of his lawyer’s notes permitted further claims of abusive interrogation to be made public. Mohamed’s further claims included that he was transported to a black site known as “the dark prison”, where captives were permanently chained to the wall, kept in constant darkness, and constantly bombarded with “The Real Slim Shady ” by Eminem for 20 days.
Daniel Hannan, a British politician who had supported Obama expressed his disappointment in the Telegraph, adding that while he could understand a mild resentment of Britain, he scarcely believe he was witnessing betrayal on this scale.
Look, Mr President, I was one of the few conservatives who truly wanted you to succeed. I didn’t mind the way you snubbed our PM: I mean, most of us feel the same way about him. I didn’t mind about the mildly anti-British passages in your book, or the boxed set of DVDs or the returning of the bust of Churchill. But this is different. This is serious. How would you feel if, the next time you found yourself at war with some tyrant, we were simply to issue a terse statement saying “our position remains one of neutrality”?
To pour oil on troubled waters — however inappropriate that metaphor might be in this instance — President Obama has dispatched Hillary Clinton to have a word with the Argentinian President after the Rio Group Summit in Mexico, after she meets with President Lula of Brazil. Lula said, “Our attitude is one of solidarity with Argentina. What is the geographical, political and economic explanation for England to be in the Malvinas?”
Even the left wing Guardian is aghast. “Obama should back our claim to the Falklands. The US president has yet to find his feet when dealing with international affairs.” His feet are right next to the gap where you throw things under the bus. Only the British can’t see things that way. Rather than simply accept that the Left in general completely misjudged him it’s easier to think he is still trying to find his bearings or that the One has a secret plan to ring down a happy ending. Writing in the Guardian Nick Cohen can’t help hoping against hope.
They couldn’t wait for Bush to leave and want Obama to succeed. Their officials in the FCO are urging them to regard the dispute with the department’s customary cynicism. Not only the US, but Brazil, Chile and other sensible social democratic states in South America are giving a hearing to Kirchner and Chavez’s anti-imperialist populism for form’s sake. If the dispute became serious, diplomats are certain that Obama would back Britain, and most Latin American governments would quietly applaud him.
I am sure they are right, but I am equally sure that Obama’s critics are not all wrong however much they overdo it. There will not be a second Falklands war this year because the Argentinians know we would defeat them. But if not over the Falklands then on some other crisis, Obama will have to make up his mind whether he wants to be a liberal president or to follow the worst rather than the best traditions of neoconservatism and hold that basic principles can always be sacrificed for the sake of a usually deluded view of the American national interest.
Still doesn’t get it, does he?
Don’t you love farce?
My fault I fear.
I thought that you’d want what I want.
Sorry, my dear.
But where are the clowns?
Quick, send in the clowns.
Don’t bother, they’re here.
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
I am aghast at Obama’s attitude. I am really surprised this has not received more coverage over here. I hope he comes to his senses soon, but I fear he will not.
Matt.
Obama is in complete possession of his senses. That’s the problem.
“What is the geographical, political and economic explanation for England to be in the Malvinas?”
Why should there be two Koreas? Why should Taiwan be a separate country when it would do just fine as part of China? Why shouldn’t Kuwait be the 19th province of Iraq? Why, geographically, politically, and economically, should Hawaii be the 50th state in the US?
It will be amusing in a sense to see these intellectual titans wrestle with these questions if a crisis develops in the Falklands. In another larger sense, it will be terrifying.
It looks like all the clowns have come home to roost.
For Brits remorse is setting in
They don’t know which is which
The guy they cheered for then to win
Has run them in the ditch
They thought that he was just like them
Cut in their liberal niche
But he’s not like your standard Dem
The mopey dopey rich
No, O is not your cup of tea
You will not like his pitch
He doesn’t like you, don’t you see
Remorse is such a bitch
It appears that Mr. Obama has analysed the world historical moment and finds that our political and economic interests lie more in our own hemisphere and across the Pacific than they do any longer across the Atlantic. I am no apologist for the man, but I have to ask whether there is not a certain wisdom in this analysis. If (as several commenters here have opined), Europe has tacitly decided to stop asserting itself over against Islamic immigration and eventual dominance, what sense does it make for the US to hitch our wagon to theirs in matters like this?
Just asking. Maybe there’s a good answer, but I don’t think reflexive loyalty to the “special relationship” quite cuts it at this stage of the game.
Does Obama hate the UK because his ancestors in Kenya were humiliated by British colonial rule? Or does he despise America enough to utterly destroy our standing in the world and alienate us from every ally we have?
It appears that Mr. Obama has analysed the world historical moment and finds that our present and future political and economic interests lie more in our own hemisphere and across the Pacific than they do across the Atlantic. I am no apologist for the man, but I have to ask whether there is not a certain wisdom in this analysis. If (as several commenters here have opined) Europe has tacitly decided to stop asserting itself over against Islamic immigration and eventual dominance, what sense does it make for the US to hitch our wagon to theirs in matters like this?
Just asking. Maybe there’s a good answer, but I don’t think reflexive loyalty to the “special relationship” quite cuts it at this stage of the game.
Confirmation bias powerully shapes how we interpret information. If you’re emotionally predisposed toward someone, such as Barack Obama, you miss all the warning signs that someone generates even when they are quite obvious. This works in the other direction as well. One can be blind to the positive as well as the negative. People who dislike the President can ignore his achievements as easily as those who adulate him can ignore his faults.
The President himself warned people this would happen. ‘I am a blank canvas on which people project their aspirations’. The boys at the Guardian will be surprised all the way to the end, not because anything was hidden, but because there are none so blind as they who will not see.
“…How would you feel if, the next time you found yourself at war with some tyrant, we were simply to issue a terse statement saying “our position remains one of neutrality”?
I wish Congress actually did declare war, but they signed that power over to the Executive long ago. But Falklands II isn’t about “tyrants” like World War II, it’s just a pissing contest between two countries over oil rights for oil that might not even be there. Tyrants? Imagine if Brazil had a thousand troops and a small fleet guarding their colony on the Isle of Wight from invasion. Which one would be the tyrant?
What motivates Obama and his advisors? Obama is committed to dismantling traditional power structures. He does not seem to care what uncertainties he unleashes as long as the unleashing furthers the dismantling. Health care, business, Israel, traditional allies . . . all these to Obama are relics of the hegemonic elites.
If you want to predict Obama’s behavior, Gramscian ideology may have some predictive value.
via Wiki: “In the early 20th century, Italian political scientist Antonio Gramsci developed the concept cultural hegemony by transposing political hegemony beyond international relations to the structure of social class, arguing that cultural hegemony showed how a social class exerts cultural “leadership” or dominance of other classes in maintaining the socio-political status quo.[4] Cultural hegemony identifies and explains domination and the maintenance of power and how the (hegemon) leader class “persuades” the subordinated social classes to accept and adopt the ruling-class values of bourgeois hegemony.”
“captives were permanently chained to the wall, kept in constant darkness, and constantly bombarded with “The Real Slim Shady ” by Eminem for 20 days.”
Had to smile! Torture in the 21st Century. No rack. No Iron Maiden. No finger nails pulled out. No electric shocks to the genitals. No bastinado. Not even some mild waterboarding, just for old time’s sake.
Hey, at least our guys used Eminem. If they had been real sadists, it would have been Babs Streisand, her early years. And if that didn’t break the bastard, the next step up would have been non-stop BBC World Service. Oh wait! That’s a Premium Channel.
Might have something to do with House efforts to get statehood for puerto rico.
How Does one construct a policy that at once supports english nationalism and discourages puerto rico from becoming another state of the USA.
I support england in the falklands dispute because that’s what they want and they’re old friends and you stick with old friends. I don’t support puerto rico becoming a state. –because too many of them wouldn’t want it and too many americans wouldn’t want it.
Obama can be predicted to a T by the degree to which he hates or likes people. Obama is Black Nationalist/Marxist with a dose of Islamism (due to his upbringing as a Muslim). He hates White people. Period. He hates Britain over imprisoning his Black Kenyan Terrorist Grandfather. Period. THAT will never change.
Obama is UNLIKE all other Presidents. He does not even, like Andrew Jackson, seek to build an enduring, binding alliance politically to create a new dominant alignment. Because Blacks are only 12.5% of the population. Obama is like most Black people — their actions predictably come down to their dislike to hatred of Whites. See Cornel West, or Skippy Gates.
Obama is likely to see:
1. An Argentine invasion of the Falklands, supported by Lula and Chavez, since Kirchner has nothing left.
2. The invasion quite successful, since Britain is overstretched and unwilling really to use significant force.
3. The collapse of NATO as everyone realizes that the Pax Americana is dead.
4. A practical result will be Britain immediately withdrawing from Afghanistan and ceasing to cooperate with the US on counter-terrorism measures, including a “corrupt bargain” with Islamists to leave them alone if they merely attack the US.
But, Obama will “get Whitey” and certainly those who are the descendants of those who imprisoned his terrorist Grandpa (the only one that counts, which is NOT the White one).
The most important thing about Obama, is not Muslim, nor Marxism, though those are present. His book was subtitled “A Story of RACE AND INHERITANCE” and Obama is all about RACE. So his motivation is simple — screw the White Brits who imprisoned his Grandpa.
It really is that simple.
I mean, the man is not stupid. He knows that Britain is already wavering on committing to Afghanistan, and can screw him over with simply not sharing plots aimed at the US hatched in Londonistan. He just does not care. Obama has not become President to do anything other really, than “screw Whitey.” That’s what you get with the First Black President (or Second if you count Clinton).
IMHO he does not even plan to really adhere to US traditions, and political reality. If it looks like he cannot win re-election he’ll simply rule by decree and suspend elections. Because Obama is not culturally American, is not White (as the majority of the nation is) and has a huge and well documented (in his own books) well of racial hatred for Whites. He’s hidden it so far, but Power besides being corrupting is also revealing. You cannot hide who you are, because you MUST always decide. And deciding reveals character.
#7 trangbang68:
Does Obama hate the UK because his ancestors in Kenya were humiliated by British colonial rule? Or does he despise America enough to utterly destroy our standing in the world and alienate us from every ally we have?
I may be missing something obvious, but what is the basis for assuming that it is an either/or question?
Subotai Bahadur
I am aghast that British politicians should have ever expected President Obama to have acted any differently.
Most European politicians as well as the vast majority of the British establishment were rooting for Obama back in 2008. They didn’t just root for Obama either; they practically demanded that we vote for him. To them, it was supposedly “racist” to oppose Barack Obama in 2008 or Jesse Jackson in 1988.
If British politicians had wanted an American president to back them to the hilt on the Falklands, what ever gave them the idea that Barack Obama would be on their side?
They got what they wanted. What are they complaining about?
I think the British should be thankful that President Obama isn’t openly backing Argentina!
Let me add that a rational appraisal of Obama, suggests that his race and demeanor (Black and professorial) appeals greatly to SWPL yuppies, and accounts for most of his strength among the elites. I.E. it allows them “pretty lies” (to quote Roissy in DC) to tell themselves about the malleability of culture, race, and the Black-White divide.
Most SWPL are deeply, religiously invested in the utopia of a multiracial society where all Blacks act like say, NPR commentator Julian Schnabel. Obama evokes deep feelings (and indeed claims this in his book as his signature political move) from this class. Which is pretty much all of the Media, Government, and Yuppie class nation and worldwide.
BUT … and there is always a but, he has NO clue as to what ordinary White folks want and like. Even say, Ashton Kutcher, could remember a time when he was not rich and famous, and eating mac and cheese for dinner. What was discussed at the dinner table. A man who grew up first Muslim in Jakarta, Indonesia, and then in Hawaii where Whites were a discriminated minority, and finally Columbia and Harvard (with side trips to Pakistan, and Chicago’s South Side) has no political ear for most Americans, who remain White and middle class. Clinton knew these people because for a time he was one. Even if no longer. Obama never was.
Obama is likely to push disaster into disaster. Leaving him no room but to jump off the cliff. as Andrew McCarthy argues Dems will with ObamaCare.
ObamaCare is a done deal via reconciliation, with likely abortion paid for, health care for illegals, and all the rest. Dems will hold the Senate enough even if they give up the House to prevent an over-ride of any Obama veto. Allowing Obama the ability to preside over permanent, Dem-run government health care. Raising taxes while delivering no health care for the first five years.
This is likely to be so bitter that with ObamaCare killing new jobs, and disaster after disaster abroad, coupled with unemployment reaching 15% officially and probably 30% unofficially, making Obama a dead duck for re-election.
Again, Obama knows this and does not care. I can’t say how unusual he is. Obama’s gifts, and he has them, will not hold him in good stead as he ACTS and reveals character. His extraordinary success in getting elected unvetted has led him to believe he can be Captain BS over and over again. But the President always has to act.
What Whites (who he has widely and irretrievably lost among men, and is losing among women) will conclude is that here is one more revealing act of Obama hating Whites. Rasmussen has Obama at 37% approval among Men (among White Men I would suspect, as they have been losers in his Administration, it would be about 10%) and 49% among Women (proof positive that women LOVE LOVE LOVE the big shot Big Man Captain BS model). But even among White Women, who love his Big Shot act, and his BS, he is losing appeal because he has not delivered: economic stability and increasing income.
Even women, who love PC and “the Malvinas” and Eva Peron style socialism and wives being catspaws for powerful husbands (Hillary, Kirchner, Eva herself) will view this negatively as Britain gives a big FU to the US in response.
The larger issue of course is will this catapult the BNP into power, if they adopt an anti-American attitude of Britain First and general re-armament to retake the Falklands, kick out all Muslims, and other things designed to produce a “White Socialism?”
This certainly means an end to the Pax Americana. Every nation for themselves. Nuke up, arm up, and the result is also high employment. An aircraft carrier **group** (i.e. carrier plus escorts plus resupply ships plus aircraft) built can employ half a million people, and jump-start manufacturing. Try that building a bridge or “green jobs.”
The Guardian piece is fascinating for its complete disconnection from reality. My favorite excerpt:
So Chavez is not a dictator? Helloooooo…
L3
“President Obama has dispatched Hillary Clinton to have a word with the Argentinian President after the Rio Group Summit in Mexico”
U.S. Condemned For Pre-Emptive Use Of Hillary Clinton Against Pakistan
TDrew & Teresita @ 8 & 10; what moots your point is that the Falklands contain a native population of native peoples who wish to maintain the status quo. They speak English, have their own history, customs, traditions, and are descendants of the original settlers. Do they count?
Realpolitik: (n) the process of merging ‘right and wrong’ into ‘practical’.
# Buddy les natives se rebiffent and want their share of the oil benefits
Falklands offer to split oil profits http://bit.ly/cvoPCc
Whiskey is on to something here, but I think that there is a component beyond racial at work. We may be witnessing the deliberate break-up of the Anglosphere -a very successful alliance. If this is the case, then we are all indeed on our own as enemy alliances coalesce around us.
From my perspective, stationed in Europe, the NATO militaries want to, desire to work together more closely -it is the politcal that is preventing better collaboration as the 0 does his best to start fires in warehouses and secured backrooms. He is a lightworker -an arsonist.
Look for the upside. Maybe a demonstration that American blood and money is not available on demand will trigger a dormant gene and cause the Brits and other Europeans to face up to the fact that they are solely responsible for their own preservation.
Something has to happen somewhere to shake up the Euroweenies until they catch on that inviting the beast of Islam to dinner only puts themselves on the menu.
“Binyam Mohamed…a British citizen”.
A small point perhaps, but no, Binyam Mohamed is not a British citizen.
He is an Ethiopian, who came to the UK as a an asylum-seeker.
Like the rest of the Guantanamo Five, he was only a “UK resident” at the time when he left the UK for Afghanistan.
He ended up in Guantanamo after being arrested in Pakistan while attempting to fly to the UK using a false passport.
“There will not be a second Falklands war this year because the Argentinians know we (the English) would defeat them.”
I have not laughed so hard all day.
It is interesting that the people who actually inhabit the islands get no say. As for the legal claim, I’m thinking Mexico got as much a claim to the Southwestern US as Argentina has for the Falklands (I’ve met Mexicans who would say they got an even better claim).
On the other hand, the US could take Cuba. The Falklands are 300 miles from Argentina. Cuba is but 90 miles from the US. The Argentinians had a small settlement and penal colony there before 1833 — which was destroyed by the USS Lexington after seal hunting ships were seized by the locals (who subsequently murdered the Argentine governor). In 1833, the British took over the islands (reasserted control, they might say). But the US has had a settlement in Cuba since 1898 (and now a prison, too!) and Americans have asserted their rights to Cuba since before the Civil War. And when considering US rights to Cuba, we should remember the current leaders were put in place with the help of foreign money and foreign leftists mercenaries (I refer to Cuba). As for the desires of the inhabitants of these islands, I think we have already established their wishes don’t count — at least in Latin American eyes. Unfortunately, Cuba has oil — which would make it morally repugnant to simply march in there and take over. However, if we could seize their health care system — nah.
International affairs are complicated. This is why we need intelligent leftists in charge rather than members of the great un-nuanced.
I think Obama picks countries that he likes (and that the US will then support) by asking himself how much those nations respect life, liberty, and property… and then he supports the nation that respects these the least.
It is rather sad to watch this mating dance, where leftist Brits keep batting their eyes and flashing a snaggletoothed grin at our President, hoping beyond hope that he will return their flirtations.
Alas, unrequited amor…the most bitter of slights. If returning Churchill wasn’t a clear enough signal, maybe next will be an anti-stalking order from a World Court.
Face it, he’s just not that into you.
Ironically, the Tea Party crowd, despite the historical nom de plume, is much more likely to view you as a cherished ally and hold dear the relationship, with a strong instinct to protect and preserve it.
More ironic, of course..is the way leftist Brits spit out venom at those very same loyal souls. It’s an odd dance this one. The dance of the mating swans, with all the feinting and head bobbing displays.
In the end, Chavez is a preening, fine feathered friend who will be excused any excess. And you, dear Brit…are the ugly duckling to this administration.
Unwanted, unloved, uncool, uninteresting.
How does the back of that hand feel?
My working hypothesis for Obama’s Master Narrative is that he is a Decolonialist/Multiculturalist. This predicts that on any issue in foreign affairs, Obama will start from an orthodox, academic decolonialist and multiculturalist perspective and then spin and trim to fit domestic political realities.
Given a conflict between any member of the Global South and a former imperialist power, Obama’s default position will be to appease and accommodate the former. Given the choice between a Western imperial power and a non-Western imperial power, he will choose the non-Westerners, be they Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Syrian, Argentine, whatever. The best way to do so is by keeping the US from doing anything, and he is certainly in a good position to do that.
Guardian readers are blinded and intellectually disabled because they share the same core assumptions.
Why should Hawaii be a US state? It is disconnected from the continent, a string of islands in the Pacific. The mainland US has no real business out there.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Falklands claim for their own independance, and become some sor of oil “emirate”. Might be that they ask some other oil companies to drill too !
I believe that conservatives should proclaim at this juncture is that when conservatives regain power in America, ( and we will), if Argentina has invaded and taken the Falklands, we will take back the Falklands for the British, with unbridled force and without any concern for Argentine life or property.
Foreign Leftwing military adventurism needs to be resisted at all cost, and the British alliance needs to be saved.
The Falklands are a no win for the US. That issue aside I don’t think anyone can trust Obama to do anything that is not in his own interest. I believe he has an agenda, I don’t know exactly what or why but I don’t like it and will not support it. If Obama can’t see an issue in the mirror he can’t see the issue.
Should we take the Obama/Clinton statement of “neutrality” at face? I think not. This is their magical realism form of diplomacy, in this case deescalating in advance by deflating all claims.
Which is especially appropriate for South America, home of magical realism in literature, also in their anti-American politics (even if there is sometimes at least a few grains of truth in the matter).
And in this case, well, what is the context? Britain may have asked the US for support. Moral support? Military support? Because, well, even if it were just UK versus Argentina, they might need both. And if Venezuela supplied money and arms, and maybe other Latin American countries even aligned politically against the UK, Britain might need the US bigtime, for both moral and military support, at least satellite and naval intelligence.
So maybe Obama/Clinton know all this, and would more or less back UK if it somehow went kinetic, but right now _believe_ that it is diplomatically appropriate to just tut-tut the whole thing. I am not saying they are correct, just trying to read the tea leaves.
“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.”
The covert support provided by the US was significant and may have been a decisive factor in the outcome of that war.
Ascension Island is a British possession and is vital to the country’s contact with the Falkland Islands. Aircraft have to refuel at Ascension Island and it was used for Vulcan bomber missions during the Falklands war. The RAF can’t get along without it.
But the primary activity on the island is support of USAF tracking capabilities by the Eastern Range, mainly for launches from Cape Canaveral and for SLBM’s launched from subs near the Cape. The US has about 250 people there and runs just about everything on the island in the way of support capabilities. The Ascension airfield is operated by the USAF and the British contribute relatively little to keeping the place running. By the way, the USAF pays no rent; we got a 99 year lease in return for those fifty 4 stack WWI vintage destroyers we gave Britain in 1940.
A very sticky situation could develop here. The US could hardly refuse the RAF use of a US airfield on a British island but could refuse to supply some support, if nothing else on the basis of inadequate capabilities. Add to that the fact that there is an argument being advanced to pull the US out of Ascension Island, use satellite based tracking resources, and simply accept any greater risk associated with overflight of Africa. Yes, very sticky.
There are several other things that mediate any US response to the Falklands situation. One is Diego Garcia, another is all those T-Bills the UK holds. Obama can want a lot of things, but he has to be prepared to pay a certain price if he wants to get them.
As for islands near other lands, well, what about St. Pierre et Miquelon? Shouldn’t America or Canada just annex them? If Canada is afraid of a nuclear response, they can just weaponize some materiel from their CANDU plants, use their already established rocket building capacity and everything will be fine. Or we could just leave the present owners their land, and instead negotiate fairly for mutual benefit.
Britain can hold the Falklands if they use their SSN fleet. They can send the whole damned thing down there if necessary. There’s no GIUK gap to look after any more, after all. If it comes to war, and the British use their subs, then it comes down to how many billions of dollars of shipping that Chavez and Kirchner are willing to see at the bottom before they give up.
Josh,
The danger is that Argentina and Venezuela may interpret that non-commitment the wrong way, much like how Saddam interpreted the diplomatic response regarding his comments about Kuwait, or like how the Argentines in 1982 interpreted the British response to their actions before invasion(“ah, they won’t fight for it, so let’s have a go”).
This is why diplomacy is so dangerous.
Ascension Island was vital to the USAAF buildup in England during WWII. Like LORAN and so much else, we are surrendering geo and tech assets that may be critical someday, in return for cost-savings that amount to just barely more than nothing –and relative to such things as the latest 15 billion Fannie draw to pay off crooked mortgage-sellers, even less than nothing.
***
aN/38; –dangerous? –look at the Dean Acheson speech in 1950 –that sort of seemed to’ve placed S Korea outside the USA sphere of interest. No one on our side much noted, but it set off a firestorm between Pyongyang and Moscow –and soon enough Kremlin acceded to NoKo requests –and the T-34s rolled south.
A Nobody
uh so far none tried to drill around St Pierre & Miquelon, Besides Canada has many other places where oil isn’t rare, specially if the ice is melting in the north
Buddy #39:
I have always found it interesting that Ascension sits astride the tanker routes from the Middle East. But no one seems to be concerned about that. We have no aircraft – none – based there. The USAF personnel there are mainly contractors and comprise about 80% or more of the population, the rest being workers for a British telecom company.
It was amusing reading the classified files in my Pentagon office about when we pulled out of other tracking stations located in places such as Grand Turk. The locals were aghast that we would actually leave, requiring them to find replacements for such services as fire tracks at the local airport and furthermore our having the unmitigated gall to actually pack up all of our stuff and take it with us. The local elites had always assumed that if we did leave that equipment could be looted to their benefit. Then the State Dept started whining about a reduced US presence fostering mischief in the area.
Precisely what part of neoconservatism holds that “basic principles can always be sacrificed for the sake of a usually deluded view of the American national interest”?
Seriously, is this meant as a defence of liberal inaction or a condemnation of the presumptive neoconservative claim on a moral position the liberals thought–inaccurately–belonged to them alone? Reflexive idiocy is still idiocy, and hardly advances the writer’s point.
I mean really, how hard would it be in this case to argue flippantly that in the worst tradition of English empiricism even the left-wing Guardian now seems willing to sacrifice basic principles for the sake of a deluded view of English national interest?
But I guess it’s nuance when the left does it. Either that, or it’s always and entirely a matter of reading with correctly coloured glasses.
RWE, somewhere there’s a name on every one of these idiotic, wasteful, dangerous decisions. Somewhere there’s an entry in the Federal Register rationalizing the argument. I dunno what step is off-footing us so badly. I guess it’s the old criminal’s advantage –secretly he’s been casing the joint and knows what he wants, and has a plan to get it. All the while the defenders are oblivious, distracted, demoralized, or something. I just don’t know. But time after time, it’s a surprise when these things happen. The termites are always hungry and eating –the homeowner just can’t spend all his time squashing ‘em one at a time –he has to go off and earn the mortgage. And all the good insecticides are banned –by the termites!
#38 A Nobody:
The danger is that Argentina and Venezuela may interpret that non-commitment the wrong way, much like how Saddam interpreted the diplomatic response regarding his comments about Kuwait, or like how the Argentines in 1982 interpreted the British response to their actions before invasion(“ah, they won’t fight for it, so let’s have a go”).
I don’t think that it can be interpreted “the wrong way” like when American diplomat April Glaspie [sp?] gave Saddam what could be interpreted as a green light. She was a relatively low level diplomat without authority to make policy.
As much as it is being deliberately not reported in this country [almost all news on the statement comes from the overseas press, as does almost all current real analysis of American politics]; what we have here is a direct and open statement of official policy which reverses a century of American alliance with Britain, and 3 decades of specific policy and acts on the matter of the Falklands. It is encased in deliberate lies a’ la Orwell’s Ministry of Truth to the effect that such has ALWAYS been our policy.
There has been a firestorm of reaction in Britain. And after about a week, there has been no “walk back”, explanation, or reassurance. Instead we see Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dispatched to Buenos Aires to meet with the Argentine government to “mediate”, which is being interpreted by all players as coordination of US and Argentine policy. There is no room for misinterpretation here. There is just a blatant taking of sides against Britain. I would not be surprised to see US forces committed to the defense of the Argentine mainland in the event hostilities do break out. Without the ability to apply force to the mainland, there is no way the Brits can take the island back with the forces they have. Game, set, and match.
The only remaining response for Britain would be to withdraw support for our efforts around the world. Any attempt to retake the Falklands will require exactly the British troops and equipment in Afghanistan. Further, while things like Holy Loch sub base were shut down at the end of the Cold War; there are still some vital US bases in the UK. The US Air Force’s Special Operations Command that operates throughout the Middle East, Balkans, and the Horn of Africa relies on bases in England. Our base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean is subject to a lease that runs out, I believe, in 2016. And the base itself is still subject to a Royal Navy Commander [British Indian Ocean Territories], who can make life difficult if they so choose. I am pretty sure that we also have the use of the RAF base at Akrotiri in Cyprus for Spec Ops; which would be hard to replace.
This would net out as a loss for both any alliance with Britain and for the US reducing our capabilities worldwide. I am sure that the White House and the Democratic Party would view that as a tremendous win-win situation.
Poor Bloody Kelpies.
Subotai Bahadur
Whiskey nails it. His points are on the mark.
Big picture? Obama is breaking the historical ties with allies of the US. These ties have evolved through many years of common interests and of standing together in times of great peril. We stood together for things that helped us both and for our mutual survival. Our relationships should not be treated lightly.
And they are not under this administration. They are being systematically torn down. As Elrond said to Gandalf in the Fellowship of the Ring, “Our list of allies grows thin.”
So what do you do when your allies see that you do not consider them in their times of crisis? You run out of allies and embrace your enemies. That is a recipe for national suicide.
The world is a dangerous place, and without some leadership and moral compass, evil will fill in the vacuum. In this case, Argentina will again try to utilize the Falkland Islands issue to redirect national attention away from the absolute disaster they have created domestically. Old play from old playbook. And other politicians in trouble will be encouraged to do the same if the ploy works this time.
Obama’s decision of neutrality has serious ramifications for us all. War and chaos are coming. Our enemies smell weakness and fear, and opportunity knocks for those who sense it.
Teresita, in post 11, you used the phrase, “…just a pissing contest between two countries over oil rights for oil that might not even be there.” People seem to think of oil only in terms of propulsion and heating fuel. In fact, the world – and even moreso, the industrialized nations – are far more intimately dependent on petroleum than for just those. The complex carbohydrates of petroleum are the basis for industrial polymer chemistry. That’s constantly growing list of pharmaceuticals, fibers, textiles, films, plastics, rubber, adhesives, medical prosthetics (alternative to transplants), imaging materials, inks and dyes, fertilizers, etc.
Even if we could find an INSTANT FREE REPLACEMENT for fossil fuels, we would still need to be extracting billions of barrels of petroleum for all those other applications. We do not have enough rubber trees, islands covered with bird poop to be mined for phosphates, fields of cotton, herds of sheep, or horses and kine to render down for wood glue. If instead of petroleum-based polymers we harvest trees to make the resins, turpentine, and construction lumber, elephants and walruses for their tusks, and deer for their antlers, I believe we would run out of all those “natural” materials (well, excepting the trees) in a handful of years.
Simply, we are absolutely dependent on oil for the mass-produced modern world, and NOT just for fuel.
The significance of this is that you can bet that most of the coming conflicts in the world over the foreseeable future are likely to be struggles over critical resources like oil and fresh water. Phosphate deposits contain as much fissionable Uranium as the known reserves of pitchblende ores. The Syrian processing plant bombed by the Israelis a couple of years ago was concentrating (according to some reports) Uranium extracted from phosphates. Guess what countries have the greatest phosphate deposits…
and the Horn of Africa relies on Djibouti, even for launching operations into afghanistan !
Subotai writes: “The only remaining response for Britain would be to withdraw support for our efforts around the world. Any attempt to retake the Falklands will require exactly the British troops and equipment in Afghanistan.”
Bingo!
I’ve been thinking that Obama must be disappointed that his Afghanistan strategy, or rather Petraeus’s strategy, seems to be working, at least as well as it can work given the circumstances and resources. Does anyone doubt that Obama’s preference was to underman the Afghan war and force eventual US withdrawl? But Obama, given U.S. public opinion, had to commit the needed resources, or at least most of them.
Now, how might Obama ensure that the Afghan venture fails? I think Subotai has the answer.
According to a paper published 3/15/2008 by Doctor M. Ragheb of the University of Illinois (Urbana) – “Uranium Resources in Phosphate Rocks” – there is an estimated world supply totaling 91,000,000 tons of Uranium available in Marine Phosphorite and organic phosphorite.
Morocco is thought to have something like two-thirds of the world’s known deposits, six times more than either the US or Russia.
(See Table 5: Estimated world uranium resources in phosphate rock, in that document.)
Re phospates –what of the recent ”uranium coup” in Niger?
http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=niger+uranium+&FORM=BNFD
M/48; i’ve been wondering about the cascading predator strikes –just speculating from extreme ignorance here, but they seem to be under some sort of White House control. Forgive the tin hat –but who exactly is identifying these targets –and the resulting bodies? The Paki ISI ? Lord i hope the O is not accidentally or otherwise pot-shotting enemies of our enemies –nahhhh –couldn’t be possible –i’m just crazy, that’s all. Never had a president before that i KNEW was operating “against interest”. Tho i think Clinton was –i just didn’t notice that sort of stuff pre 9/11.
oh well, I’m waiting for the next rumors from the non intelligent but nonentheless righteous guis across the pond, that the French ignified some genocide there too !
c’est la guerra ! qui qui va monopoliser tous ces mineraux !
uh meeneirriaeou of course
Subotai is correct. But I am dismayed by so many here that would put Obama’s motivations as Ideological rather than racial/family.
Has anyone here actually lived in a Black Majority city? Let me assure you, years in pre-Katrina New Orleans opened my eyes. The most widely sold newspaper on Sunday was not the Times-Picayune but Farrakhan’s “the Call.”
People tend to act on a hierarchy of first, family, then race, then ideology/association. Whites are fairly unique in that any celebration of ethnicity unless it is carefully modulated “ethnic” such as Scots Highland games, St. Patrick’s Day, Columbus Day, etc. is punished as being “racist” and automatically, membership in the Klan or something.
This shows just HOW SUCCESSFUL Leftism has been, to take the basic, most natural human instinct (basically, identifying by distant kin networks i.e. race after family/kin) as “racism” when it is done by Whites. Along with denying this process happens all the time and is the DOMINANT action by non-Whites outside straight kin networks.
It is active denial IMHO on how human beings behave at their most basic level in affiliation and preference. A pretty lie designed to deny Darwin’s most basic theories applying to human beings (because we are “special” and “different” and “unique” in all existence). Denying that extended genetic preference over those with far distant genetics actually exists.
One also has to assess Obama’s blind spots. He has a working level far inferior to that of a Navy midshipman or Army/Marine corporal of how bases, alliances, and so on work. While Obama would surely like to make America weakened abroad, he knows that abject defeat in Afghanistan after GWB held it for about 7 years would be something that in a recession would give him a heavy price on what he wants most.
Look at where Obama has spent almost ALL his efforts: ObamaCare, but even then it has been desultory, with control ceded to Pelosi and Reid and his attitude that of the African Big Man (i.e. his father) having big parties and hanging out with Celebrities. Obama has not been interested nor spent much time or energy in foreign affairs. His real interest is in punishing Whitey and transferring resources from Whitey to Blacks (and to a lesser extent, Hispanics) via a Black aristocracy. He spent more time defending crony and fellow Black Aristocrat Skip Gates of Harvard than worrying about anything in the Middle East or the “Peace Process.”
Obama has people who no doubt have explained his risk in backing the Argentines. That for the satisfaction of backing his pal Hugo Chavez and Eva Peron Jr. he gets the collapse of NATO, British troops withdrawn from Afghanistan and likely defeat there, a corrupt Bargain with Islamists in Londonistan giving them free fire at the US, and no access to British bases around the world.
With quite likely eventually a victory by the BNP which would expel all Muslims it could from the UK, nuke up as much as possible and re-arm as a hostile, anti-American force, embracing “White National Socialism” and starting the overt struggle between Europeans and Muslims for domination of the Continent and UK. Leading quite likely to a re-armed Europe, fighting Iran and other forces, independently and and with huge doses of anti-Americanism, with some places (Greece, possibly Spain) falling to Islamists.
All of this leading of course to a further drop in the polls, with only Blacks and Hispanics backing him. Not even White female voters or Yuppies would back a guy who so obviously blew it and led to collapse of the Anglosphere and anti-Americanism.
For all this, what does Obama get? The satisfaction of sticking it to Britain which imprisoned his terrorist grandpa. Sticking it to Whitey. With the cost of 35% approval rates, perhaps loss of the Senate as some Dems switch to Reps, even the risk of impeachment by Dems wanting salvation. His advisors have explained this no doubt in detail, just how BAD the deal really is for him, why it is a no-brainer to back the UK because the risk-reward payouts are so much better.
BUT … Obama has his blind spots. Recall that New Yorker Cartoon with New York taking up most of the Globe, and the Western US, Europe, Pacific all lumped together into one tiny, obscure mass? That is Obama’s worldview, with Blacks vs. Whites in the US being 90% of the world, and the rest being obscure SWPL folks making furniture for IKEA or fuzzy sweaters or hi-Def TVs. He cannot understand it, because emotionally he just is focused on Black-White issues.
So basically, we will see the Argentines retake the Falklands, the US back them, and Britain withdraw from Afghanistan, NATO, and the BNP steadily advance over the years on the winning issue of “White National Socialism” and basically the collapse of the US security bubble with every nation for itself, probably mostly with nukes.
But Obama gets to eat Wagyu steaks, hang out with celebrities, and stick it to Whitey. He really is David Paterson or Deval Patrick or Marion Barry or David Dinkins as President.
[As a practical matter, "after Obama" the US will have to VASTLY increase its military spending because most of Europe will by
necessity re-arm, and will be overtly hostile to its former benefactor now turning it loose, with some allied with Islamists and others pursuing overt nationalism. It is a slam-dunk the EU and Eurozone is collapsing in slow-motion.]
UK. Leading quite likely to a re-armed Europe, fighting Iran and other forces, independently and and with huge doses of anti-Americanism, with some places (Greece, possibly Spain) falling to Islamists.”
Whiskey you’re not leaving in the real world, nor you met Brits, but only read the daily telegraph !
UK has no desire to take care of the EU, but to get some subsidies from EU
Why did they insist that such a nutt like Lady Ashton, that hasn’t even the excuse to be pretty, to direct the EU foreign affairs ? if it wasn’t to doom the EU diplomacy !
Even You don’t know Spanish, nor Greeks, nor read their paperss, cuz, you would then know that clashes often happened with spanish workers and muslim “invited” workers.
On behalf of the UK, I’d like to say a big ‘Thank You’ to Obama. He’s given us the perfect pretext to pull our troops out of Afghanistan, where they’re dying on behalf of a regime that has shariah law written into its constitution. Far better that we ship our forces down to the Falklands to protect our oil.
Thank you wretchard once again.
I have treasured my pirated MP3 of Sintara’s classic rendition. In his words “a wonderful marriage of music and lyrics by Stephen Sondheim”. A breakup song, painful for the writer. Indeed it is.
Here he instructs a talented student:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-VXXZLh2a0
I think he is helping someone who has not felt the pain. Its a breakup. doesnt matter who was at fault because we both are bleeding now… anyway. This is song for veterans of love and betrayal.
Sinatra did it well. Still nobody does it justice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K15_Yk77CyI
Spin
Whiskey: HOW SUCCESSFUL Leftism has been, to take the basic, most natural human instinct (basically, identifying by distant kin networks i.e. race after family/kin) as “racism”
That wasn’t too hard, since Wikipedia says, “Racism is the belief that race is a primary determinant of human traits and capacities”. Basically, if you are correct, Leftism has managed to make racism match the definition of racism. For Leftism’s next trick, they will make 2 + 2 = 4. Or perhaps Wikipedia is run by a cabal of feminists, blacks, and liberal Jews, and you have another definition of racism. Not every topic revolves around race and gender politics.
Comment from Teresita (10)- “Imagine if Brazil had a thousand troops and a small fleet guarding their colony on the Isle of Wight from invasion. Which one would be the tyrant?”
My goodness, the old Spain/Gibraltar/ UK argument again. What a debating point. This was dealt with in the following fashion – Great Britain was a power of the First Rank in the 1700′s and remained that way – No Continental Power had the ability or the resources to take the Isle of Wight away from the UK let alone maintain a garrison there.
Heck, the Channel Islands are so close to France that you would have thought that France – a Major World Power for several centuries could have taken them from the UK – thay did not. Spain, also a Major Power could not hold Gibraltar or retake it from the UK. Going further, the Royal Navy had effective Command of the Seas of the entire planet. Arguments like Teresita’s are mere puffery.
The point is that the Falklands are British, and were retaken by the UK in 1982 after the failed Argentine attempt. What many people who support the Argentines forget, is that the system of recognising world borders has kept the Peace. Bringing back the concepts of forcible conquest means that we all are at the mercy of the strongest. Are there no Argentine border provinces coveted by the neighbours ?. What happens then ? Will the US maintain neutrality ?.
Marie Claude –
Britain and of course the rest of the EU will simply fracture, along national lines, as the EU and the Eurozone and Euroforce dreams die. But security challenges and economic challenges remain.
How will Britain (and the rest of Europe) find jobs for its unemployed workers, keep out Muslims, and respond to Muslim demands for domination of European society?
There is a very old recipe for this, and note that the money to paper over problems is gone. Germany cannot just bail out Greece, Spain, and Italy. Germany does not have the money. Meanwhile Muslims demand more money, tribute, welfare, and so on.
The Russians are not going to be pouring out of the Fulda Gap. But Pakistani and Iranian demands for Muslim autonomy and privilege inside Britain are going to go up as soon as the US is visibly no longer the protector but adversary of the UK. Thus the need for missile submarines, a bigger RAF (rather than winding it down), and so on. Not the least of which is building submarines, missiles, UK RAF bombers and fighters, to punish/deter Pakistan and Iran, employs a lot of unemployed who would otherwise be voting BNP. Even the BNP can figure that out, and no one accused them of being overly brainy boys from Oxford.
Besides which, if the Falklands are lost, by military force, a whacking great rebuilding of the RN and RAF and Royal Marines could take them back again, and promise jobs a plenty once the Argentines are defeated by drilling all that oil.
I mean, expectation of oil drilling in the Falklands was the UK’s great hope for getting jobs. A repeat of the North Sea run of prosperity. What else will produce jobs in Britain? How will the vast sea of unemployed find jobs?
What the Left now has on offer is a permanent state of affairs of massive permanent unemployment in the 25-30% range, for most nations, and supine surrender to Third World nations abroad and Third World immigrants at home. Collapse of a bubble.
Greece and Spain lack the will to fight, most of the riots are pro-Muslim and dominated by Muslim immigrants. At any rate, both Spaniards and Greeks are dying out.
Looking back, that Bill Clinton was impeached for his comparative peccadilloes seems almost laughable now, a comedy when compared to what havoc Obama will have accomplished. Can no one stop the Obamatron in this headlong rush to destroying what’s left of this republic?
What I sense in the tenor of many comments is inchoate desperation, and people who are desperate will eventually scream out for a Cromwell to overthrow things.
If the U.K. and Argentina really come to blows over this and the U.S. sits on the sidelines or even helps the Argentines it means a crash program to develop nuclear warheads and delivery systems by the R.O.K and certainly Taiwan. Both countries, unlike Japan, do not hold extremely significant amounts of U.S. debt, and both have entirely inadequate militaries to resist invasion by the P.R.C. or P.R.C. proxy, North Korea without substantial U.S. military aid.
Such demonstrated inaction on the part of the U.S. would be a blazing green light for the P.R.C. to use military adventure in order to distract it’s suffering middle class in a few months or years when the inevitable Chinese economic crash arrives.
If the P.R.C. were to decide to pull a “Falkland” job on Taiwan, or encourage their proxy in North Korea to do the same with implied P.R.C. backing, to the R.O.K., both the Koreans and Taiwanese could be certain that no U.S. military assistance was headed their way.
If the U.S. won’t step up to the plate to help our co-linguists, co-cultural and longtime ally, what’s the chance we’ll shed U.S. blood and dollars to help small Asian nations against the P.R.C. who is one of our largest trading partners, and second largest foreign holder of U.S. debt?
With these likely eventualities, the only reasonable course of action for both the Taiwanese and R.O.K. is to build up their own small but effective nuclear arsenals, thus ensuring the destruction of Hong Kong, Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Tianjin, Chongqing, Dongguan, Nanjing, Wuhan, Hangzhou, and perhaps a couple other extremely strategic locations in the opening minutes of any attack.
I don’t expect the immolation of several hundred million Chinese would stop the Communist Party committee members from ordering hostilities, but it sure might cause Peoples Army commanders to hesitate or refuse orders before commencing attack.
Quite frankly the increasing “diversity” of both countries has broken the special relationship. The US is much less Anglo-American than it was in say 1950 and much more Hispano-American while at the same time the most common baby name in the UK has become Mohammed. Bottom line is we have a lot less in common and therefore a lot less to identify with. For those of us with a little Irish American heritage maybe there was never all that much we identified with in the first place.
As a practical matter I live in a new world, the new world and find it a bit of an anomaly that an Euro-Islamo-Socialist Kingdom is still holding a colony in my half of the globe. Think me unsentimental if you will but as near a I can tell Europe is already lost and Britain with it in the great clash of civilizations so I will stick with my Hispano-American neighbors on this one. Really I feel like I have more in common with them and besides I like to root for the underdog. The Labour Party in Britain made their own bed and invited the fleas in as part of the process. Maybe they can partner up with the Paki’s if there is a round two in the Falklands.
If all that sounds a bit racist it may be and a fellow maybe cannot help his visceral emotions but ought not be governed by them in his actions At a plain practical level I think it is more important we maintain our relationship with the rising powers in Latin America rather than the declining ones n Europe.
It is unlikely to come to war because Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner of Argentina is a woman and women abhor war. Oh, there are exceptions, of course: Golda Meier, Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher. Queen Elizebeth — especially the first one — seemed ok with war. But with Hillary doing the diplomacy…alright, war is likely.
Perhaps it is a long shot, but if it actually does come to war the Brits could get help from “Europe.” After all, a little war could go a long way in centralizing power in Brussels. Plus, other European countries have outposts and territorial disputes to worry about, so pulling together might help head off conflict in other areas. Spain and Portugal may stay on the sidelines but the French could actually be quite helpful, if their aircraft carrier is out of dry-dock that week. The German’s and Italians could do anti-sub and anti-air work and Greek merchant vessels could handle “resupply.” Ideally, the actual dying will be done by the Brits and Argentinians.
Tommy Atkins@55 – Give me a break Tommy Britain itself recognizes Sharia law and last I saw had 85 domestic Sharia courts set up so why shouldn’t British Ayoub’s be fighting in Afghanistan for a regime that has them. The UK is the country that ought to be there and not the US.
BTW its your bloody empire that gave us Obama and since he is technically a British subject or at least entitled to a British passport I would appreciate it if you would take him back
Oh and while you are at it get the heck out of Ireland when you are getting out of the Falklands.
#62 – Joe Hill
Nice. Nothing like knifing an ally in the back, particularly one who has stood by you for generations (never mind the Suez incident, another example of US fecklessness).
See how far treating your allies like sh1t gets you vis-a-vis the Chinese and the Islamicists – the real enemies of freedom.
We’re in an inter-war period now, though clearly it’s ending. We can afford these little peccadillos and stupidities. But it’s getting ugly fast, and we’re going to need all the help we can get.
And, believe me, it won’t be there when we need it.
s_s @ 42: “imperialism” instead of “empiricism”
Just wanted to see if anyone was paying attention
Old Salt – I just don’t believe that old ally exists any more. I think he is dead and gone. The Labour Party didn’t like the Britain they had so they imported a new polity. That had consequences including immense security consequences for this old ally. Heck most of the terrorist attacks on the US have been launched from Britain or through Britain. I didn’t tell the Labour Party to import half of Pakistan into the country. They did it to win elections and for ideological reasons. Did they really think that would have no other security and alliance consequences? If they did they are fools.
At the same time the USA has increased immigration from Latin America and commercial ties with this growing region. I know way more Latin American immigrants than British and if we are going to talk about old allies viva Bernardo de Gálvez.
Nice try Joe, but you’re the ones who voted Obama into power, not us. Anyway it sounds like the two of you have a lot in common – the IRA sympathiser and the Marxist revolutionary wannabe. Enjoy.
It’s Jimmy Carter all over again.
I happened to be overseas during most of Carter’s Administration, I personally met former allies and heard their side of the relationship.
In Jo’burg in ’79, I met “truck drivers” from “Rhodesia” who were supremely pissed that Jimmy pulled the plug while they were facing 50,000 Cuban troops in Angola and SWA. People take it badly when an American President waves a pen and stabs them in the back.
Think of the results, in his few years in the White House, Jimmy did the same thing to our ally the Shah, in Iran. That decision has redounded sadly down the decades since, with more war and misery that would otherwise be the case if we hadn’t surrendered our ally.
When the USSR invaded Afghanistan, Jimmy Carter boycotted the Olympics in response! Then again, that’s more than Madam Hillary, SecState of teh Obama Administration has threatened to do in the face of Iran’s nuclear warhead and demonstrated ICBM programs.
One weak American President leads to decades of mischief and misery – that’s History’s lesson on the Carter presidency. I get a sinking feeling now, but at least Obama’s already a lame duck, and he’ll spend his last two years with a Republican Congress that can save us from this fatal weakness.
It’s not so much that America suffers when a weak President pulls back from our ongoing responsibilities, it’s our allies and especially our enemies’ helpless victims who suffer – like South Africa, Southeast Asia, back in the bad old days the Democratic Congress even outlawed fighting Communism in Central America.
God love us all.
the one thing missing from this discussion is the $64 000 question.how exactly do the Argentinians grab the Falklands?i’ve had the impression that the UK has maintained about a battalion or so plus aircraft on the islands.how do the Argentinians manage an opposed landing against this?or has Brown and company stripped this force away?
Tommy – I don’t approve of the IRA but as the bible says ” He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart.”
Obama may be a homegrown problem for us but so is the IRA for you. We will have enough sense not to re-elect Obama but I am not at all sure you aren’t looking at another – what is it six years? – of Gordon Brown and his increasingly Cheka like police.
Whiskey
Britain and of course the rest of the EU will simply fracture, along national lines, as the EU and the Eurozone and Euroforce dreams die. But security challenges and economic challenges remain.
it’s not the daily telegraph but times magazine now
olright, we are shrinking, so what? don’t worry, France and Germany still will be there to fuel your conversations on the net. Besides apart Luxemburg, France was the only EU contry above zero in last year GDP groth rate. Eurozone nor Euroforce are programmed to die. But we can expect a devaluation ; Germany bailing out Greece is nothing in comparison with its economical results, the maximum it would represent 2% of its GDP. Though, no Germans nor French want to give up money for nothing, Greecs will have to show real transformations first.
Euroforce is already effective, with the Germans (and Irish in Africa).
German and French share common trainings on the ground, and barracks(in Alsace).
With the Brits we have common training with the navy.
How will Britain (and the rest of Europe) find jobs for its unemployed workers, keep out Muslims, and respond to Muslim demands for domination of European society?
Do you know that these persons have already a job, I accord you in suburbs, not so much, but replaced by lucrative traffics (I heard that your suburbs ain’t any better)
There is a very old recipe for this, and note that the money to paper over problems is gone. Germany cannot just bail out Greece, Spain, and Italy. Germany does not have the money. Meanwhile Muslims demand more money, tribute, welfare, and so on.
see above, muslims on welfare ? not more than the nationals!
The Russians are not going to be pouring out of the Fulda Gap. But Pakistani and Iranian demands for Muslim autonomy and privilege inside Britain are going to go up as soon as the US is visibly no longer the protector but adversary of the UK.
The problem is that the Brits allowed too long free speech in their hide park corner, and as London city was the transit and the washing machine for muslim money, they were’nt suspected, until the underground bombing. I bet that now the potential terrorists are registred
Even the BNP can figure that out, and no one accused them of being overly brainy boys from Oxford.
these brainy guis from Oxford were Hitler supporters too some times ago
Greece and Spain lack the will to fight, most of the riots are pro-Muslim and dominated by Muslim immigrants. At any rate, both Spaniards and Greeks are dying out.
Uh again you don’t know them, Spanish are hot blooded, if they decided that the cause is theirs, they will fight until death. Actually, they don’t see why they would make that effort for a far away Suzerin which plus, keeps them under contempt. For the Greeks, I’m less concerned, they aren’t my proxy neighbourgs.
Now hear is the lady Marie
Who speaks for the people Paree
If she hears you diss France
She brings out the Lance
And skewers you Lung to Pancree!
did you discribe Joan of Arc ?
Mars is my coach
like Bayard
without fear
but honnor
I wear my irony coat
I wonder if anyone told Obama that although the Argentinians speak Spanish, they are not “Hispanic,” whatever *that* means. Most of them are whiter than white, and most of them have Italian origins.
I have Argentinian relatives, and their origins are German. The Brits are far more third worldy than Argentina.
Obama is a total idiot and ignoramus.
“There will not be a second Falklands war this year because the Argentinians know we would defeat them.”
Fool, Britannia.
There’s no doubting the fighting spirit of the British, but there is the issue of fighting several thousand miles from your home, with much reduced capabilities. Just as a general rule, counting on your enemies to do the reasonable thing is not the way to bet, particularly if Kirchner finds herself up against the wall the way the junta did in the 1980s. There’s not all that much money left for the government to commandeer in Argentina. The Royal Navy is down to less than half the number of hulls it had in 1985, which is a pretty bold bet on quality over quantity.
I’ll spot them their SSN force, the British have an enviable reputation in submarine operations, which will make it rather difficult to get to the islands in ships. This time the Argies have at least three modern diesel-electric submarines, which can give SSNs fits in the hands of good operators, and can make life rather awful on a fleet sailing down from the UK.
One carrier battle group could stop all of this nonsense about taking over the Falklands, but probably generate entirely new and unwelcome nonsense. The genuflection to South American wanna-be dictators shouldn’t come as any surprise to anyone who paid attention to how shabbily Honduras was treated last year. I agree that this would only lower our standing if it happened and we did not provide at least tacit support to the UK. Maybe a CVN and escorts is bigfooting, but it does send a message and might push back any armed conflict for a few years at least. It would be nice to see a port call at Stanley from one of our mobile four acres of sovereign territory, but I’m not holding my breath.
And double-fool for misreading BHO so badly. They lose points for supporting the cipher for President, and more points for not realizing he was a particularly adroit mirror for the gullible to see what they wanted. He’s not Tony Blair minus the Bush lapdog streak and with an outside jump shot.
Couple of stories from my Argentine friends:
God gave Argentina plentiful fertile land, clean abundant water, a mild pleasant climate, mineral wealth and great natural beauty. To even things out, he then populated is with the most unruly disorganized people in the World.
Two Argentines were talking: The first complained about the repressive government, the stagnant economy, the unstable currency, the social unrest. The second commiserated, but rejoined: “Yes, but the rest of Europe has it worse.”
The ones I have known were all from Non-Spanish European ancestry. Similar situation in Chile.
Argentina is, they tell me, the only country in Latin America without an Indian problem. Because their ancestors killed them all.
Generally well educated, intelligent people, cultured in the European manner, charming but not real practical. Too small a sample to mean anything, but it fits their view of themselves as far as I can tell.
They do have a history of warring with their neighbors. Just not lately.
My impression of Argentinians is that they think of themselves as O-So-Cultured, kind of like the French do.
@ #14 Whiskey (“I mean, the man is not stupid.”)
Except when he is. He has a stunningly tin ear, and has still apparently not learned that when he opens his mouth, Delphic wisdom is not guaranteed to pour out.
Whiskey – where I disagree with you is that I believe that what Obama will do can be predicted to a T by answering the question “What would Chauncy Gardener do?”
And if the answer is, “whatever the people controlling him tell him to do” then you will be closing in on what I believe Obama is all about – no more, no less.
Promothea, you got it all way wrong, Argentina ain’t a french terra d’immigration, but Italian’s, English’s (yes), German’s, Jews’, now: Muslims’
so let’s say that Argentina with that mixture is irritating the poor ol Americans, that only have one referrence of people more intelligent than t’em: the French, and if they don’t understand a country that they can’t subjugate (of course) it’s because it’s some kind of like a French’s
I tell ya, Argentina is more anarchist than France, therefore imprevisible ! but plaisant and civilised too ! Well so far my son who visited Argentina a few years ago, preferred it to any other latin america countries
I think this IS payback to the UK for some slight or another.
Consider:
The President refused to meet with the Dalai Lama and blew off Taiwan’s request for arms. China ignores the President’s requests for trade concessions, then screws him over and makes him look bad at Copenhagen.
All of a sudden, F-16s are going to Taiwan, and the Dalai Lama is welcome in the White House. Not because Taiwan or Tibet are priorities, but to punish China.
There’s no principle other than power politics. This is destructive. Damaging our oldest alliance over nothing is stupid. The UK is fighting a war in Afghanistan to avenge 9/11 and prevent another attack on the US. That’s an ally.
And we’re not willing to back them in claiming some islands that they’ve had longer than we’ve had Hawaii? Wtf?
This is shallow, childish, and the UK deserves better.
69 Tony
“One weak American President leads to decades of mischief and misery – that’s History’s lesson on the Carter presidency. I get a sinking feeling now, but at least Obama’s already a lame duck, and he’ll spend his last two years with a Republican Congress that can save us from this fatal weakness.”
I don’t think they’re going to save us from much – at best they’ll slow the train down a little.
61. Armageddon Rex:
…”If the U.S. won’t step up to the plate to help our co-linguists, co-cultural and longtime ally, what’s the chance we’ll shed U.S. blood and dollars to help small Asian nations against the P.R.C. who is one of our largest trading partners, and second largest foreign holder of U.S. debt?
With these likely eventualities, the only reasonable course of action for both the Taiwanese and R.O.K. is to build up their own small but effective nuclear arsenals, thus ensuring the destruction of Hong Kong,etc.etc.”
This is the coming reality, and the more quickly our allies in the world understand this, the better.
There’s no going back to the old ways, no matter how well we (and much of the world) have been served by them. We have an incredible military, but it’s increasingly based on a foundation of sand (our national economy, and moreover our political divisions, which aren’t going away). The PRC is unlikely to invade Taiwan in the near future, but if they did what do you think we would do? Start a nuclear war with China over this? Refuse to sell them any more T bills?
‘
Taiwan, Korea, and Japan are going to have to face the new reality and act accordingly. That will mean accomodating Chinas’ wishes to a large degree, and probably constructing a Nuclear arsenal to provide defense. I don’t think Taiwan would get away with this – the first suggestion that they were serious about a Nuclear defense would bring the invasion that no one wants to see. I think eventually they’ll have to come to a “Hong Kong” type of arrangement with the mainland.
Of course, we don’t know what’s going to happen in China in the next decade, as we don’t know anything else at this point. All of this has to play out, and it won’t play by the old rules.
I have no idea what the future holds for Europe, but I wouldn’t expect it to be a bed of roses.
I am sure somebody has mentioned it by now but, the Brits should have gotten a clue when the big 0 gave them some cheap DVDs and returned Churchill’s bust.
Obama Beach, ouch >.<
Undoing Bush Continues:
White House Is Rethinking Nuclear Policy
Aides to President Obama say he will permanently reduce America’s arsenal by thousands of weapons.
That wasn’t too hard, since Wikipedia says, “Racism is the belief that race is a primary determinant of human traits and capacities”
Wow. One might replace “racism” with “biology” and the sentence would be largely accurate.
“Racism” as presently constituted in our culture is a farce. We are told, endlessly, that it is wrong — indeed, the wrongest of all possible wrongs — to hate someone because of “the color of their skin.” Yet I would propose that nobody anywhere, ever has hated someone “because of the color of their skin.” People hate other races/ethnicities because of their perceived character traits.
Those perceptions may be true or false, but they are what drives the dislike. Do “racist” whites who dislike blacks do so because they have black skin? Or might it be because of the excessive social pathologies that blacks exhibit, along with a non-stop drumbeat of grievance mongering? Do blacks that hate whites do so because they have white skin, or because they perceive whites as oppressive overlords that are keeping them down?
The whole canard of racism being about skin-color is a Leftist con job. It has the effect of turning perfectly legitimate concerns and distress about widely practiced behaviors of various racial groups into a sort of insanity. What, you hate those people because of their skin color? That’s crazy, you’re an evil person. It’s a dodge, a deft intellectual deflection that turns valid criticisms into a form of childish foolishness and moral retardation.
And it has the very important side effect of eliminating all discussion of the actual issues. Out of wedlock birth rates? Racist! Rampant criminality? Racist! Consistent, generational economic failure? Racist! And on and on it goes. “Racism” is a magical word, like abra-cadabra, and just as empty of genuine content.
If we could, for a moment, remove the concept of racism from our minds, we could have discussions based on reality. Are blacks as a group more inclined to crime? If so, why? And what can we do to stop it? Are whites actually preventing blacks from being successful? Can we prove that somehow beyond accusations and rhetoric? I think you’d have a heck of an easier time proving the first proposition than the second. But as it is, we ignore the first and assume the second as true (culturally speaking). Or, even worse, we assume white repression is the source of all black ills, a twisted intellectual moebius strip that aggravates everything while getting us nowhere.
Marie Claude . . .
Please check my #75 before my #78. Then make your comment.
Whatever happened to the Liberal charge used against Bush about “alienating our traditional allies”?
So Lula doesn’t think the UK has any right to the Falklands…
He needs a history lesson. Brazil carved out a chunk of Bolivia
and made it a part of Brazil. Chile and Paraguay also took a part
of Bolivia. I wonder if the UK gives the islands to Argentina,
Brazil, Chile and Paraguay will return what they took from Bolivia.
Tough choice for Obama: the Monroe Doctrine (tell the British to exit) or the “Special Relationship.”
BTW, this is a version of “Send in the Clowns” you want to hear if you like your musicals acted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAl-EawVobY
And this if you like your musicals sung.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQDiKGRut80
Though the more appropos song from that musical for the Obama years is perhaps “Every Day A Little Death.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKqw7VK9CYE
87. Promethea
ol right, but I ain’t not wrong too
“Whatever happened to the Liberal charge used against Bush about “alienating our traditional allies”?”
Remember this simple rule, and all will become clear: Everything (and I mean EVERYTHING!) that liberals ever accuse conservatives of doing are in fact the deepest, darkest desires of their own hearts. Try thinking of a list of things they’ve decried – now look at what they’ve actually done.
Remember when they accused Bush of spending too much money?
“UK has no desire to take care of the EU, but to get some subsidies from EU”
Marie claude: Any idea when those subsidies are going to kick in? We joined the then EEC in 1974 and have now been shovelling cash in your direction for 36 years.
Though France is technically a net contrbuter to EU coffers its efforts are dwarfed by those of Britain and Germany.
http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/2009/11/pathetic-autistic-castrates.html
Maybe you’re waiting to sign off the accounts.
I will not risk offending by saying that the US and UK are in the same boat, but we are sailing the same sea of troubles, and if we do not support each other then it will be to our mutual loss.
Whatever Binyam Mohamed intended when he tried to fly to the UK on that false passport,it was probably no good. Having failed in whatever that mission was, he then engaged in what amounted to a counter-intel operation to put a wedge between US and UK intel services.
That Argentina should step into the mix may qualify as a black swan. Obama’s under-the-bus reaction was more par for the course, but “resident” Binyam must really think he has God on his side now.
I really do wonder how we can survive this madness. Will it all come down to a few good men working to keep the lines of secret cooperation open until post-Obama America arrives ?
Phil Jackson
and you would me to trust you and your lovely blog, uh, you wouldn’t believe it, a commenter left that link from “EU observer” (sorry I’m curious), bizarre the numbers aren’t fitting yours !
UK rebate
The UK’s net contribution to the EU budget fell from €4 billion in 2007 to less than €1 billion in 2008, primarily due to the country’s weaker exchange rate with the euro since the financial crisis began.
London put less into the EU budget last year than in 2007, but also received a larger rebate from Brussels – €6.25 billion compared to the 2007 figure of €5.19 billion.
The British rebate was extracted from other EU member states by the former prime minister Margaret Thatcher in 1984 as a result of British perceptions of excessive Mediterranean agricultural spending.
However, the cheque in the post is due to get smaller from 2010 onwards, say commission officials, part of a deal struck by the country’s Labour party in 2005, when it signed away much of the rebate on condition EU farm subsidies would also be reduced.
The European Commission is currently working on plans to reform the bloc’s budgetary process in a move that is likely to cause much debate between the region’s net donors and recipients.
Ol right you poor money, but I’m so sorry that you couldn’t get a dust back, though don’t worry some cleverer persons in your country manage to get the whole lot back and more than you could believe it :
from MS post, my comment :
“like French farmers do, the Germans have only been able to afford to subsidize French farming because they stick Americans with their defense tab”
except that you like to repeat anglo-saxons clichés.
For your info queen Elisabeth of England get more than anyone else of the PAC subsidies, then the prince of Monaco, followed by english ducs, europeans politicians, agro-alimentaires industries…
“L’an passé, Élisabeth, une des femmes les plus riches du Royaume-Uni, a perçu, via la « ferme de Sandringham », un total de 530 000 euros. Le prince Charles, son fils aîné, a reçu 95 222,56 livres pour son duché de Cornouailles, et 86.262,98 livres pour la ferme du Duché, soit un total de 181.485,54 livres”
“Les 24 principaux bénéficiaires ont touché des aides supérieures à 5 millions €, mais aucun agriculteur ne figure dans la liste. Au premier rang, on retrouve les industriels de l’alimentaire, tel le volailler Doux qui a reçu à lui seul 63 millions d’euros sous la forme d’aides à l’exportation. Dans de tout autres proportions, la SAS Fromageries Occitanes de Villefranche-de Lauragais a obtenu 239 137 €.”
and the poor ol french paysants, the less, 5000€, with 100ha. If you have less ha, you get 50€ to 300 €, the majority of the french paysans are lttle farmers, compared to the Brits, to the Germans, but they are more numerous, and produce the biggest percentage of the agricultural goods in EU
http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2009/05/06/602099-Subventions-agricoles-l-Europe-publie-sur-Internet-la-liste-des-beneficiaires.html
there were articles in Times and the Guardian that you obviouly missed about the very benefitors of the EU agricultural PAC
My dear Phil, I give you an advice, cut your nobles’ and smala oxford guis’ heads off !
… quit EU, take back your ridicule baroness and your lobbyists from Brussels, and leave our country free from your immobilistions speculators
We the frogs have a long memory, and you weren’t our friends !
Peterike #86:
Well said. And I was just thinking yesterday that Obama and his allies are giving racism a “good name.” The use of term has become so absurd that it no longer has any meaning.
The bad part is that we will not have anything to call real racism. The good part is that all this crap we have been putting up with for the last 40 years will start being ignored, like it deserves.
Other than wretchard’s comment about those who will not see, I find the Brits’ surprise to be astonishing.
Obama repeatedly insulted Brown and the UK in his first couple of months in office–the cheesy DVD’s that don’t play on a European system, returning the Churchill bust, saying that there is no special relationship, and then a couple of months later giving the Queen an iPod full of Obama speeches.
I mean, what did they THINK all that meant?
The English failed to grasp two issues. They failed to see Barack Obama as a racially based “Community Organizer” and assumed that he had merely exploited that base, as any normal politician does in their experience, but had by virtue of his education transcended that background to become one of them. In their modest opinion that was damned inclusive and decent of the English. In fact they were so busy slapping themselves on the back that they didn’t manage to look at or listen to the person they were welcoming into their club. The second mistake of the English was that they thought that they understood American racial politics.
The belief of the English that they have some special gift for understanding tribal politics is based on their historical experience. For hundreds of years now they have been dealing with tribal grievances among the yellow, brown, red, or white in the world. Joe Hill to them is just another backwards bigot and all the easier to manipulate for that, once separated from dangerous objects or even better pointed at another target.
The English used that model to assume that America was a place like all the others subject to the tribal politics that had sustained the Empire and justify a belief that Obama was another coopted local boy eager for their approval, like Jinnah of Pakistan was. They fundamentally misread the nature of America and our racial demons. Liberals do promote hyphenated identity politics among all groups in a way that dissolves the unifying bonds of citizenship. For most Americans, White, Asian and even I believe from most of Latin America, whether Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Hindu or Buddhist, the melting pot is still a real thing. Only for most Black American and a large segment of the recent Hispanic migrants is that not true. Teddy Roosevelt spoke eloquently against divided loyalties.
Barack Obama is not a leader of one tribe engaged in a negotiation with a random assortment of other tribes. The Euro-elites hoped he would prove capable of uniting all of the backwards American tribes in a common purpose approved of by the benevolent Wise Clerks of Oxenford. What he is instead is a true alien to the community who has the support of a sizable and apparently indigestible minority that sees itelf in permanent opposition to all other members of the polity.
It is two generations since the end of legal discrimination in America. It is seven generations since the end of chattel slavery. The percentage of Americans who are descended from those who owned slaves or profited from their trade is insignificant, and I suspect concentrated among adherents of the Democratic Party. The belief that has taken root among a large percentage of Black Americans that they are engaged in a permanent state of conflict with White America, and the British, makes their alliance with the Islamist world, with its language of an unending war with the Dar al Harb extremely troubling.
“…cut your nobles’ and smala oxford guis’ heads off ! [...] we the frogs have a long memory.”
You’re not real, surely? (may I call you surely?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V7zbWNznbs
(about 2 mins in)
You are a bit too much of a caricature to be truly French.
Sir Phil
I’m more than real
if the French for you are a carricature, Monty Python’s is a good one
Dunno what to think of your image though
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lsPQoTTjxE
“That Argentina should step into the mix may qualify as a black swan” Al_Batross@96.
And that followed by the major earthquake in Chile, which is going to keep Argentina’s neighbour at a disadvantage for weeks and, maybe, at the beck and call of Obama and Clinton.
If the inhabitants of the Isle of Wright were Brazilians, and they had made it plain that they wanted to remain Brazilians, it would be none of Britain’s business.
Or do you subscribe to the theory that because the Falklands are close to Argentina or because Argentina claims them; they have some sort of special right to them? Working from that theory, because the Yukon and British Columbia lie between the American territories of Alaska and the lower forty-eight, we have the “right” to annex them?
“Working from that theory, because the Yukon and British Columbia lie between the American territories of Alaska and the lower forty-eight, we have the “right” to annex them?”
I say 54′ 40 or Fight. It is Manifest Destiny.
How does all that square with the fact that Britain won’t get the heck out of Ireland? Yeah I know a “majority” in Northern Ireland want to remain British but that is only because the British carved out a hunk of Ireland where the majority wanted to be British after they lost a war. With that kind of reasoning I could carve out a hunk of London that wants Sharia law and to join a Caliphate. Or I could carve out a good hunk of the Southwest USA where a majority wants to become part of Mexico.
These kind of arguements about who should own what based on the population in place at the moment are never so clear cut whether you are talking Kurds or Volga Germans or the whole situation in the Middle East.
JH/105; for me it’s “WD 40 or Fight!” –because i’m loyal to oil