Falklands nonsense again?

[Cedz]

I have to say I'm somewhat stunned by the stance from almost all of the American posters here (military professionals or otherwise) regarding providing assistance to an extremely close ally who has just spent the past 10 years providing the largest contribution to two wars because, other debatable foreign interests aside, one of their closest allies asked for help in their time of need. You can prattle on about British foreign interests aligning in the mid east or whatever till the end of time, but at the end of the day they stood up to the plate when asked without any hesitation or equivocation. A lot of us in Britain and Australia (myself) spend quite a bit of our time defending America to our colleagues and friends in regards to Iraq/Afghanistan and why staying loyal to our ally is such an important stance even if it may not always be in our nations best interests. If the opinion expressed by the American posters on this forum is the prevalent view in the US then I have to wonder whether our loyalty and trust in the USA is somewhat misplaced. I really hope I am wrong though.

[YellowFever]

Sorry to derail this thread once again bt I have to ask a rather insensitive question regarding the the people on the island.

What's the primary nationality of the people on the island?

Are they pulling a Puerto Rico here?

Namely, they wish to enjoy the protection of the Brits without paying taxes, pretty much the way the Puerto Ricans are doing the same to America?

[Doktor]

Sorry to derail this thread once again bt I have to ask a rather insensitive question regarding the the people on the island.

What's the primary nationality of the people on the island?

Are they pulling a Puerto Rico here?

Namely, they wish to enjoy the protection of the Brits without paying taxes, pretty much the way the Puerto Ricans are doing the same to America?

Haven't heard of any Falklandish singer ;)

[YellowFever]

I have to say I'm somewhat stunned by the stance from almost all of the American posters here (military professionals or otherwise) regarding providing assistance to an extremely close ally who has just spent the past 10 years providing the largest contribution to two wars because, other debatable foreign interests aside, one of their closest allies asked for help in their time of need. You can prattle on about British foreign interests aligning in the mid east or whatever till the end of time, but at the end of the day they stood up to the plate when asked without any hesitation or equivocation. A lot of us in Britain and Australia (myself) spend quite a bit of our time defending America to our colleagues and friends in regards to Iraq/Afghanistan and why staying loyal to our ally is such an important stance even if it may not always be in our nations best interests. If the opinion expressed by the American posters on this forum is the prevalent view in the US then I have to wonder whether our loyalty and trust in the USA is somewhat misplaced. I really hope I am wrong though.

Only problem with your post is the Brits haven't asked for our help yet.

I'll say it again, Obama's policy wrt Falklands is dumb but why are you guys so sure the Brits even want any "official" help from the U.S.?

[Tanker]

Sorry to derail this thread once again bt I have to ask a rather insensitive question regarding the the people on the island.

What's the primary nationality of the people on the island?

Are they pulling a Puerto Rico here?

Namely, they wish to enjoy the protection of the Brits without paying taxes, pretty much the way the Puerto Ricans are doing the same to America?

Self supporting. They export 125M pds of goods annually while importing another 60 or 70m. They have their own currency which is minted in England I believe and they print their own stamps. The UK pays for the children to go to the UK for higher education.

[Cedz]

I don't think you guys really get it. It's not that we hold what Obama does against any of you just as I wouldn't expect you to hold what Gillard does against me. The problem is the general negative attitude to even the suggestion that America should provide combat assistance to a major long standing ally in their time of need. Some posters then go on to say that if Britain can't defend their own territory then they are shit out of luck and that the US isn't obligated to provide assistance. It isn't even about obligation, its about backing up an ally when they are in a tough position economically and militarily primarily because they have provided assistance to YOU for the past 10 years without faltering. Even just an official statement announced by the US Government that they backed Britain's claim to the Falklands would most likely be enough to squash this power play by Argentina.

It's not about whether the Brit want official help or not, its the attitude that they don't deserve it before they have even asked. I think they have dam right earned your support and loyalty let alone assistance in a time of need.

Is it really so hard to understand why some of us are concerned about this?

[Doktor]

This would classify as British internal issue. Any announcement would be classified as interfering in British internal affairs.

Speaking of it, has Australian or Canadian governments issued such statements?

[Cedz]

As far as I'm aware we haven't officially issued any statements at this time. My own opinion on the issue is that Gillard should express support for Britain over this issue. That of course means we haven't undermined Britain making a statement that we support Argentina's claim to the Falklands either. See how I don't hold you responsible for what your government does in that regard. I think we can all agree that Obama's view on America's Nation Security isn't a popular stance. I just didn't think a lot of the American posters on this forum would have similar views on backing up an Ally. Its not a hard concept to understand.

[Parihaka]

Guys, regardless of what moral imperatives exist, countries should always look after their own best interests first.

Real world example: In 1985 the French DGSE, operating under instructions from Mitterand, mined and sank the NZ registered Rainbow Warrior in Auckland harbour. Effectively this was an act of war. Now the current argument seems to be going that because one nation has done another nation favours then the other nation should be obligated to stand by the first nation when called upon.
In New Zealand's case, Australia, the US and Britain refused to condemn the attack and in Australia's case released several of the DGSE agents despite an international arrest warrant being issued by NZ.
Further, both France and Britain blockaded all NZ products into the EU until we released the two agents we'd caught on our territory.
Now, by the arguments espoused in this thread and New Zealand's commitment to WWI, WWII, Korea, Malaysia, Vietnam etc etc, that earned us precisely no assistance whatsoever from any of the nations who were variously allies or 'very good friends'. In fact the reverse applied.
None of this means that we will not assist the US, Britain, Australia or France should it serve our interests to do so and I'm sure vice versa.

Welcome to the anarchic nature of international relations.

[TopHatter]

Believe me, if push came to shove we would defend the Falklands. If Argentina decided to go for it they may walk in but they wouldn't walk out.

No question about that.
If I was a senior Argentine military commander, I would strongly counsel my military and civilian superiors against a full-on invasion.
Surely not a popular opinion for an Argy officer to have, but the correlation of forces simply doesn't justify that kind of operation.

[Aussiegunner]

Guys, regardless of what moral imperatives exist, countries should always look after their own best interests first.

Real world example: In 1985 the French DGSE, operating under instructions from Mitterand, mined and sank the NZ registered Rainbow Warrior in Auckland harbour. Effectively this was an act of war. Now the current argument seems to be going that because one nation has done another nation favours then the other nation should be obligated to stand by the first nation when called upon.
In New Zealand's case, Australia, the US and Britain refused to condemn the attack and in Australia's case released several of the DGSE agents despite an international arrest warrant being issued by NZ.
Further, both France and Britain blockaded all NZ products into the EU until we released the two agents we'd caught on our territory.
Now, by the arguments espoused in this thread and New Zealand's commitment to WWI, WWII, Korea, Malaysia, Vietnam etc etc, that earned us precisely no assistance whatsoever from any of the nations who were variously allies or 'very good friends'. In fact the reverse applied.
None of this means that we will not assist the US, Britain, Australia or France should it serve our interests to do so and I'm sure vice versa.

Welcome to the anarchic nature of international relations.

Nee Zealand got no sympathy or support because Lange had just undermined, alibiet in a New Zealand sized proportion, the Western nuclear deterrant with the nuclear free New Zealand stance. We were also allowing an organisation that was breaching French soveriegnty to base out of Auckland. That is an act of war and we bought the reponse on ourselves. The only question lies around the proportionality of th French response.

[dave lukins]

Guys, regardless of what moral imperatives exist, countries should always look after their own best interests first.

When we withdraw our Troops will that interest be over? Will the Taliban except Afghanistan as we left it or will they revert to their way of life? Our best interest was to last over a decade and cost us £billions. £billions that maybe could have kept us Militarily effective. I would hate to think how much Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya has cost but without it the Falklands would be much more secure than it is today. ;)

[Aussiegunner]

This would classify as British internal issue. Any announcement would be classified as interfering in British internal affairs.

Speaking of it, has Australian or Canadian governments issued such statements?

No it isn't, Argentina and the UK are separate counties so it is an international issue. The US has already interfered on the side of the Argentinans by signing a statement with the Organisation of American States that Britain should negotiate over thier soveriegn territory. This is something that no American here save YF is willing to acknowledge, Obama has betrayed the British by act of commission.

[Doktor]

Well everything has been tried there:

Mediation - refused by Argentinians
Referendum - refused by Falklanders
Peaceful negotiations - ended with the Argentinian excursion in 1982

Has there been any signed truce, armistice or other form of post conflict treaty that officially ended the conflict? I am not aware of any.

[Doktor]

No it isn't, Argentina and the UK are separate counties so it is an international issue. The US has already interfered on the side of the Argentinans by signing a statement with the Organisation of American States that Britain should negotiate over thier soveriegn territory. This is something that no American here save YF is willing to acknowledge, Obama has betrayed the British by act of commission.

Only if Americans know the outcome of those negotiations and it is negative for UK.