Obama signs off on negotiation resolution of OAS re: Falklands

[Trajan]

I am striving to understand the admins. policy here in that this is the second time they have shown sppt. for Argentinean calls for sovereignty negotiations.

Last year Hillary provided verbal sppt. even referring to the islands in its Argentine name- the Malvinas.

What advantage or benefit is derived from supporting this ?




It is hugely disappointing that the Obama administration has chosen once again to side not only with the increasingly authoritarian regime in Argentina, but also with an array of despots in Latin America against British interests. Mrs Clinton should be reminded that 255 brave British servicemen laid down their lives in 1982 for the freedom of the Falkland Islanders, who are overwhelmingly British, following the brutal Argentine invasion.

The sovereignty of the Islands is not a matter for negotiation, and Britain will never give in to threats from Argentina or its tyrannical allies in places such as Venezuela. The White House recently declared that Britain remains America’s most important ally. Now it should live up to its words by supporting Washington’s closest friend and partner on matters of vital British interest, including the future of British subjects living in the South Atlantic, whose only wish is to remain free under the protection of the Union Jack.

more at-

Another slap in the face for Britain: the Obama administration sides with Argentina and Venezuela in OAS declaration on the Falklands – Telegraph Blogs


and for another view;

The Falklands can no longer remain as Britain's expensive nuisance | Simon Jenkins | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

[martybegan]

The argentinians convinently do not consider the islanders to be "natives" claiming thier people were on the island around 1830 and were driven off by the British in 1833. the british, however claimed the island in 1690, before spain, and say they never gave up the claim.

In any event possession is 90% of the law, and the british currently posses it.

 

[California Girl]

Obama is such a piece of shit. Some fucking 'friend' we are to the Brits. On the bright side, it'll make the Brits see what a total lying, two faced bastard Obama is.

 

[Trajan]

Obama is such a piece of shit. Some fucking 'friend' we are to the Brits. On the bright side, it'll make the Brits see what a total lying, two faced bastard Obama is.

thats why I don't get it, why would he just stick a thumb in their eye? cui bono?

 

[California Girl]

Obama is such a piece of shit. Some fucking 'friend' we are to the Brits. On the bright side, it'll make the Brits see what a total lying, two faced bastard Obama is.

thats why I don't get it, why would he just stick a thumb in their eye? cui bono?

Why? Because he hates the British.... stupid, arrogant fucking idiot that he is. The Brits honor him with a speaking engagement at Westminster Hall - the only President ever to be given such a privilege and this is how he repays them.

The Falkland Islands are British. Argentina already tried to take them back by force and lost that little war. If they want a rematch, it is between them and Britain.... and only a very foolish nation would take on the British. They are such damned ass kickers in a fight.

 

[xsited1]

 

[Ropey]

Obama is such a piece of shit. Some fucking 'friend' we are to the Brits. On the bright side, it'll make the Brits see what a total lying, two faced bastard Obama is.

He's far better to his Muslim Brotherhood friends.

 

[Polk]

I am striving to understand the admins. policy here in that this is the second time they have shown sppt. for Argentinean calls for sovereignty negotiations.

Last year Hillary provided verbal sppt. even referring to the islands in its Argentine name- the Malvinas.

What advantage or benefit is derived from supporting this ?




It is hugely disappointing that the Obama administration has chosen once again to side not only with the increasingly authoritarian regime in Argentina, but also with an array of despots in Latin America against British interests. Mrs Clinton should be reminded that 255 brave British servicemen laid down their lives in 1982 for the freedom of the Falkland Islanders, who are overwhelmingly British, following the brutal Argentine invasion.

The sovereignty of the Islands is not a matter for negotiation, and Britain will never give in to threats from Argentina or its tyrannical allies in places such as Venezuela. The White House recently declared that Britain remains America’s most important ally. Now it should live up to its words by supporting Washington’s closest friend and partner on matters of vital British interest, including the future of British subjects living in the South Atlantic, whose only wish is to remain free under the protection of the Union Jack.

more at-

Another slap in the face for Britain: the Obama administration sides with Argentina and Venezuela in OAS declaration on the Falklands – Telegraph Blogs


and for another view;

The Falklands can no longer remain as Britain's expensive nuisance | Simon Jenkins | Comment is free | The Guardian

Are the Falklands overwhelmingly British?

Joshua Project - Ethnic People Groups of Falkland Islands

 

[California Girl]

I am striving to understand the admins. policy here in that this is the second time they have shown sppt. for Argentinean calls for sovereignty negotiations.

Last year Hillary provided verbal sppt. even referring to the islands in its Argentine name- the Malvinas.

What advantage or benefit is derived from supporting this ?




It is hugely disappointing that the Obama administration has chosen once again to side not only with the increasingly authoritarian regime in Argentina, but also with an array of despots in Latin America against British interests. Mrs Clinton should be reminded that 255 brave British servicemen laid down their lives in 1982 for the freedom of the Falkland Islanders, who are overwhelmingly British, following the brutal Argentine invasion.

The sovereignty of the Islands is not a matter for negotiation, and Britain will never give in to threats from Argentina or its tyrannical allies in places such as Venezuela. The White House recently declared that Britain remains America’s most important ally. Now it should live up to its words by supporting Washington’s closest friend and partner on matters of vital British interest, including the future of British subjects living in the South Atlantic, whose only wish is to remain free under the protection of the Union Jack.

more at-

Another slap in the face for Britain: the Obama administration sides with Argentina and Venezuela in OAS declaration on the Falklands – Telegraph Blogs


and for another view;

The Falklands can no longer remain as Britain's expensive nuisance | Simon Jenkins | Comment is free | The Guardian

Are the Falklands overwhelmingly British?

Joshua Project - Ethnic People Groups of Falkland Islands

The people of the Falkland Islands WANT to remain under Britain. Couldn't give a shit what some project says.... it is for the Falkland Islanders to decide.... and they decided... they chose Britain.

This is not America's business, we should either:

a. support Britain.
b. mind our own fucking business.

As liberals are so fond of pointing out, we don't own the world.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Danny Glover is his foreign affairs Hollywood adviser.

 

[Caroljo]

He's doing the same thing with Israel...supporting his terrorist friends instead.

 

[Trajan]

I am striving to understand the admins. policy here in that this is the second time they have shown sppt. for Argentinean calls for sovereignty negotiations.

Last year Hillary provided verbal sppt. even referring to the islands in its Argentine name- the Malvinas.

What advantage or benefit is derived from supporting this ?




It is hugely disappointing that the Obama administration has chosen once again to side not only with the increasingly authoritarian regime in Argentina, but also with an array of despots in Latin America against British interests. Mrs Clinton should be reminded that 255 brave British servicemen laid down their lives in 1982 for the freedom of the Falkland Islanders, who are overwhelmingly British, following the brutal Argentine invasion.

The sovereignty of the Islands is not a matter for negotiation, and Britain will never give in to threats from Argentina or its tyrannical allies in places such as Venezuela. The White House recently declared that Britain remains America’s most important ally. Now it should live up to its words by supporting Washington’s closest friend and partner on matters of vital British interest, including the future of British subjects living in the South Atlantic, whose only wish is to remain free under the protection of the Union Jack.

more at-

Another slap in the face for Britain: the Obama administration sides with Argentina and Venezuela in OAS declaration on the Falklands – Telegraph Blogs


and for another view;

The Falklands can no longer remain as Britain's expensive nuisance | Simon Jenkins | Comment is free | The Guardian

Are the Falklands overwhelmingly British?

Joshua Project - Ethnic People Groups of Falkland Islands

yes.


here;
Pablo Kleinman, commenting on Facebook, linked to his 2007 article, ¿De quién son las Malvinas? (Whose Falklands?) (link in Spanish), which sheds light on the islands’ background. Kleinman wrote the article on the 25th anniversary of the Falklands war. I translated it, so please, if you use any of this translation, link to this post and credit me (emphasis added):

Most Argentinians do not know today, and did not know in 1982, that the Argentinian colonization of the islands is little more than fiction, and when it took place it lasted barely longer than the Argentinian dictatorship than started the 1982 war. The fact that the Falklands are part of the American continental platform, or that are 500 kilometers away from the Argentinian coastline, two of the most used rationalizations when trying to claim Argentinian sovereignty over them, lacks weight in International Law.

During the lengthiest period of time when any Argentinian inhabited the Falklands, between 1826 and 1833, there never was any government representation in the islands. There was a governor only between 1829 and 1831; back then there were only some 40 people, workers at a fishery owned by the “governor”, a French entrepreneur from Hamburg named Louis Vernet.

Vernet had been ceded Soledad Island (East Falkland) for commercial exploitation as payment for a debt the Buenos Aires Government owed him. Aside from Vernet’s worker, among which Argentinians were a minority, a few gauchos and adventurers lived in the Falklands.

Vernet’s daughter was the only person born in the Falklands during that precarious settlement. “Precarious” since there was no town hall, no churches, nor any civil society of any type. Aside from the couple of years of the Frenchman’s enterprise, there was nothing more than a pirate encampment.

In 1833 the Falklands had some 20 inhabitants of various nationalities. All were expelled by the British. Interestingly, shortly after, dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas offered more than once to cede the islands to the United Kingdom to pay off a debt Buenos Aires owed British banking institutions. However, London ignored the Argentinian claim or offer.

The United Kingdom founded a colony in the Islands 165 years ago. That was when, for the first time in history, a constant human presence was established permanently in the Falklands. Generationally speaking, the Falklanders have been longer in the Falklands than the majority of Argentinians in Argentina. There should be no doubt, then, that the Falklanders are the legitimate masters of the Falklands, and that their will is to be respected, within the framework of the right of self-determination recognized by international law.

more at-

Argentina and the Falklands: A background post « Hot Air

 

[Polk]

That's a fair argument, but it does gloss over a primary Argentine claim that I don't think can be dismissed so easily. Namely, that the island was a Spanish colony beforehand, and therefore the legal claim fell to the United Provinces upon their independence. That argument isn't ironclad by any means (Britain also claimed the island at that point), but it is an issue worth considering.

 

[Polk]

I also fail to see how the resolution sides with Argentina and Venezuela. It simply affirms the need for negotiations to settle the dispute. It doesn't take a position on the final status of those negotiations.

 

[Trajan]

I also fail to see how the resolution sides with Argentina and Venezuela. It simply affirms the need for negotiations to settle the dispute. It doesn't take a position on the final status of those negotiations.

there is NO dispute.....the Brits have remained adamant that there is no discussion to be had, there is NO WHERE to go IN a negotiation if it does NOT apportion the islands to Argentina or some part there of.

....... if Mexico claimed that parts of texas and cali. should belong to them and the UK signed off and lent legitimacy for a call for negotiations over the settlement of such.......?

 

[Polk]

Pretty outrage to say there is no dispute, noting that Argentina has been challenging Britain's claim since the 1830s and they've fought a minor war over the issue.

The Mexico analogy doesn't hold, as we legally annexed those territories.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Pretty outrage to say there is no dispute, noting that Argentina has been challenging Britain's claim since the 1830s and they've fought a minor war over the issue.

The Mexico analogy doesn't hold, as we legally annexed those territories.

We won those territories in a WAR. Texas fought and defeated the Mexicans and when we admitted it to the Union we fought a war with Mexico. They lost and we forced them to sell the territories of the Southwest to us as part of the Peace deal.

Britain has had a continuous claim on the Falklands since the 1600's. And a permanent inhabitation for almost 200 years. And they won the war in 1982.

Argentina has no claim. No legit claim. If they do then Mexico has a claim on the American South West.

 

[Toronado3800]

Did Britain even really want the island?

In 80 or 81 didn't Thatcher try to remove the full British citizenship of the Islanders?

 

[California Girl]

Did Britain even really want the island?

In 80 or 81 didn't Thatcher try to remove the full British citizenship of the Islanders?

In 1980, Thatcher asked the islanders whether they WANTED to remain under Britain. The Islanders said they did. It's their island, it is their right to decide. They chose Britain. This has jack shit to do with us or Obama. He can go fuck with some country that needs to be fucked with and mind his own damned business about the Falklands.

 

[Colin]

It is Sunday morning, the 12th June and I am sitting here having breakfast while I read this. I am a Falklands war vet ex 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment (3 Para). On this date twentynine years ago, 3 Para was involved in a two day battle to take Mount Longdon from the Argentinians. We lost 23 men with 47 wounded during that action. Shortly I will be leaving to attend a memorial service to remember those 23 friends and heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice on the 11th and 12th June all those years ago.

To say that I consider Mr Obama's position on this to be an insult to our fallen would be an understatement. I would like to say more about him, but I refuse to bring any disgrace on the uniform I once wore.

In Memorium:

Mount Longdon
11/12 June 1982

Sergeant Ian McKay VC
Corporal Stephen Hope
Corporal Keith McCarthy
Corporal Stewart McLaughlin
Cfn Alex Shaw REME
Corporal Scott Wilson
Lance-Corporal Peter Higgs
Lance-Corporal Christopher Lovatt
Lance-Corporal James Murdoch
Lance-Corporal David Scott
Private Richard Absolon, MM
Private Gerald Bull
Private Jason Burt
Private John Crow
Private Mark Dobsworth
Private Anthony Greenwood
Private Neil Grose
Private Peter Hedicker
Private Timothy Jenkins
Private Craig Jones
Private Stewart Laing
Private Ian Scrivens
Private Philip West

We will never forget you.