It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama’s Falklands Failure

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Some are arguing the U.S. is not supporting its ally Britain in the Falklands. I did not know that things were this bad again over these islands. Reading the article though it appears oil has been found close by...

the-diplomat.com...




posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
There has got to be something more to the whole situation in the Falklands/Malvinas. (ie, Oil)
I cant understand why there was a war Killing nearly a thousand people for a tiny island with a population of only 3000 people. And now its looking like it could happen again. It just doesn't make any sense.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   
The sub-headline to the article indicates a worry that the US may be sending the wrong message to its Asian allies. Which of our allies have we shown great support to?

I would argue that Canada, the UK, and Israel have all received less support from this administration than they expected. I just don't understand his foreign policy. There don't seem to be many sucesses. Even the pull out from Iraq was part of a deal that was negotiated and signed by Bush.

The Falklands give us one more piece to the puzzle that is his policy. Can anyone explain it to me?



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by travis911
 


Obama’s entire presidency is a complete failure, so why would I expect him to get it right in the Falklands?

He's determined to make the history books somehow! CHANGE we can document, I guess!



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
I am in the same boat as you OP so thanks for enlightening me to the situation. That is very much an upfront article with some great content. I wonder though would her majesty and the first caesar of america really slash military funding and sell off their many assets without forethought? They each must have new tech on the horizon.
edit on 14-2-2012 by usernamehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Starting with Reagan during the first war and through every President inclucing Obama the US has kept the policy in regards to Falklands. I know people seem to forget, then as now Argentina is a major US non-NATO ally.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
everyone want's ron paul because he will reign in america. here's a guy doing the same thing, not getting involved in other countries problems and people are complaining.

if anything he should be supporting argentina. the monroe doctrine was specifically adopted to prevent european countries from interfering in the americas.

what if by some chance war breaks out again, and argentina demolish england in the region.

england threaten's to nuke buenos aires. what then.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 



everyone want's ron paul because he will reign in america.


Everyone?? Why then is he dead last in the polls??




here's a guy doing the same thing, not getting involved in other countries problems and people are complaining.


Tell that to Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar Gaddafi.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by travis911
 


Obama’s entire presidency is a complete failure, so why would I expect him to get it right in the Falklands?

He's determined to make the history books somehow! CHANGE we can document, I guess!


With more jobs and a slow but steady increase to the economy, why do you think his presidency is a failure?



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 


I suppose you mean ASIDE from sharting on the constitution on several occasions and creating more debt in 3 years than all the other presidents combined?

OK….well:


March 11, 2009 - President Signs FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act
Debt Held by Public = $6.66 trillion

April 29, 2009 - Congressional Democrats Pass FY2010 Budget
Debt Held by Public = $6.85 trillion

February 2, 2010 - President Issues FY2011 Budget
Debt Held by Public = $7.85 trillion

March 23, 2010 - President Signs Health-Care Overhaul Into Law
Debt Held by Public = $8.18 trillion

April 15, 2010 - Congressional Democrats Decide Not to Do a Budget for FY2011
Debt Held by Public = $8.39 trillion

July 21, 2010 - President Signs Financial Regulatory Overhaul Into Law
Debt Held by Public = $8.69 trillion

February 14, 2011 - President Issues FY2012 Budget
Debt Held by Public = $9.45 trillion

April 13, 2011 - President Delivers Speech on Deficit Reduction
Debt Held by Public = $9.65 trillion

April 15, 2011 - House Passes FY2012 Budget Resolution
Debt Held by Public = $9.68 trillion

April 18, 2011 - S&P Issues Credit Warning on U.S. Debt
Debt Held by Public = $9.68 trillion

May 13, 2011 - Medicare and Social Security Trustees Issue Warning of Looming Insolvency
Debt Held by Public = $9.67 trillion

May 25, 2011 - Senate Unanimously Rejects President’s FY2012 Budget; Vote is 97-0
Debt Held by Public = $9.72 trillion

June 23, 2011 - CBO Director Further Discredits President’s Fiscal Record
Debt Held by Public = $9.74 trillion

July 8, 2011 - Unemployment Hits 9.2%; Day 800 Since Senate Democrats Last Passed A Budget
Debt Held by Public = $9.75 trillion

July 11, 2011 - Senator Conrad Gives Budget Speech on Senate Floor
Debt held by Public = $9.75 trillion

July 15, 2011 - President Holds Press Conference: “We’re Running Out of Time” to Deal with Debt
Debt Held by Public = $9.75 trillion



Speeches. Not budgets. Not tangible plans to improve American society. Speeches. And golf.

source

Unemployment is better??


Real unemployment is MUCH worse now.




THINGS SUCK AND THEY ARE NOT GETTING BETTER.

OBAMA'S DOMESTIC POLICIES HAVE NOT IMPROVED THINGS.

AND THEY'VE MADE OUR DEBT WORSE.

AND THEY'VE MADE ENERGY MORE EXPENSIVE,

AND THEY'VE INCREASED THE REGULATORY BURDEN ON ALL BUSINESSES.

ALL THIS AS OUR ENEMIES HAVE GAINED POWER AND THE WORLD HAS BECOME LESS STABLE.

AND OBAMA CUTS OUR DEFENSE BUDGET.

THIS IS NOT JUST THE ROAD TO SERFDOM; IT'S THE ROAD TO OBLIVION.

source
edit on 14-2-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
How is the Falklands Obama's "failure"? This is between the UK and Argentina. The UK is a grown-up country, it can settle it's own issues. Or do you think the Brits need someone to hold their hands while dealing with the terrible and mighty Argentinians?

Love how the right-wing goes off on Obama or the UN for "meddling" - as in Libya, but then flip out when Obama or the UN don't interfere, as in the Falklands.

I'm sure if the Argentinians attempt to seize the islands they'll be met with another arse-whooping just as they got once before, courtesy of HMS, and the US military didn't have to hold anyone's hands then either.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 

Are you thinking the influence or "meddling" in this issue is military? I don't think it is. The UK is a much better friend and ally than Argentina, and Argentina's case for invading the islands is very weak. I believe the point of the article (besides the American foreign policy in general) is that the US isn't even making noises to support the UK or to discourage Argentina from attempting to take the islands.

As far as easily destroying the Argentinan forces, as the article points out, the UK has only a third of the Navy it did then. It won't be as easy this time around. Besides, the perceived weakness of the UK forces just encourages Argentina to try something.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by travis911
 


Obama’s entire presidency is a complete failure, so why would I expect him to get it right in the Falklands?

He's determined to make the history books somehow! CHANGE we can document, I guess!


So what? The Brits have already stated that they have no intention of defending the Falkland Islands. So, is it now Obama's responsibility?

your entire post reeks of a water & vinegar.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Muttley2012
 



So what? The Brits have already stated that they have no intention of defending the Falkland Islands. So, is it now Obama's responsibility?

your entire post reeks of a water & vinegar.


I don’t want US to intervene in the Falklands.

I was just pointing out the fact that his presidency is and abject failure.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Muttley2012
 



So what? The Brits have already stated that they have no intention of defending the Falkland Islands. So, is it now Obama's responsibility?

your entire post reeks of a water & vinegar.


I don’t want US to intervene in the Falklands.

I was just pointing out the fact that his presidency is and abject failure.




AND that is relevant to the discussion how? again....douche!



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



I believe the point of the article (besides the American foreign policy in general) is that the US isn't even making noises to support the UK or to discourage Argentina from attempting to take the islands.


So you're aware of what is said and discussed among private diplomatic channels? Or do you expect this whole affair to air out on television for your private amusement? I suspect there's a lot more being said than what you read about on some blog.

Secondly, if the British navy reduced it's size, that's their business. Are we supposed to let them use our navy? I think the advances in military technology has reduced the need for large fleets anyhow, and what the UK navy has now is more than enough to deal with Argentina.

The UK hasn't made any formal complaints to the United Nations Security Council regarding the Falklands, in fact it's the Argentinians who've made a complaint. I don't see why anyone would expect the United States to interject itself into this above and beyond what the UNSC decides.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
As far as easily destroying the Argentinan forces, as the article points out, the UK has only a third of the Navy it did then. It won't be as easy this time around. Besides, the perceived weakness of the UK forces just encourages Argentina to try something.


Unlike last time, the British have installed a defense on the Falklands. They will be difficult to take. Last time the UK had to retake them.

And it's all about oil.
edit on 14-2-2012 by rizla because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 




How is the Falklands Obama's "failure"? This is between the UK and Argentina. The UK is a grown-up country, it can settle it's own issues.


With all due respect, we neither need nor desire the US's help, we are more than capable of looking after ourselves.



I'm sure if the Argentinians attempt to seize the islands they'll be met with another arse-whooping just as they got once before, courtesy of HMS, and the US military didn't have to hold anyone's hands then either


Exactly.
If, in the highly unlikely event that Argentina does try to invade the islands again they will receive a quicker and more resounding defeat than they did last time.

reply to post by charles1952
 




As far as easily destroying the Argentinan forces, as the article points out, the UK has only a third of the Navy it did then. It won't be as easy this time around. Besides, the perceived weakness of the UK forces just encourages Argentina to try something.


The UK has a permanent deployment of experienced professional soldiers at The Falkland Islands along with significant missile defences, 4 Typhoon fighters and a state of the art nuclear submarine.
A full squadron of Typhoon fighters could be at the Falklands within 24hours and we have also despatched HMS Dauntless to The Falklands.
Dauntless is considered the most advanced warship of it's type in the world and along with the submarine already patrolling the region is more than capable of eliminating both Argentina's run down and outdated Navy and Air Force.
Argentina knows this and will NOT invade The Falklands.

reply to post by Muttley2012
 




So what? The Brits have already stated that they have no intention of defending the Falkland Islands. So, is it now Obama's responsibility


Utter bollocks.

The UK is committed to defending the Islanders Right To Self-Determination.

Please show even one example where any UK politician has stated that we will not defend The Falklands.

It would be political suicide for any politician to say something like that let alone a government minister, regardless of political persuassion the UK is almost unanimously supportive of the current policy.
Of course we don't want any military confrontation, but rest assured we will defend their right to remain British.

I will repeat;
We don't need or want US support - we can look after ourselves.
The Falklands are British, they have never, ever been Argentinian territory.
The UK will defend The Falkland Islanders Right To Self-Determination as set out in The UN Charter.

As far as Obama is concerned we expect nothing else from him, he has made it abundantly clear what he thinks of the UK.
We don't whinge and moan.
But it could come back to bite him in the arse, who knows?

edit on 14/2/12 by Freeborn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Can the UK even help the Falklands without a carrier?



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by travis911
 


Have you bothered to read the posts in this thread and even do a little bit of research?




top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join