John Kerry ducks Falkland Islands issue during London visit

Post Reply New Topic

And this is exactly why we should start to distance ourselves from the U.S. Government a little bit. We're finally starting to see how much the "special relationship" means to them - nothing. Britain should have made the same decision in Iraq and Afghanistan as the Labour government made with regards to Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s - we should have told them where to go.

Their claims of 'neutrality' towards the Falkland Islands are absolutely shameful. The colonialist Argentines have no case for the Islands.

John Kerry has embarrassed himself and his country yet again. I hope the rest of his countrymen aren't quite so eager to cravenly isolate their closest friends as he is.

Last edited by Tequila on 25 Feb 2013, 11:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

The Reagan Administration backed Galtieri at first... after all, Argentina was helping to train the Contras.

As an American I think that the U.S. ought to have a more pro-UK position on this. But, at the same time, I think you're over-reacting. The U.S. and the U.K. do not always stay lock-step on their foreign policies with respect to every other country, and they never have. Compare, for instance, US/Cuba relations with UK/Cuba relations. I guess the U.S. should start distancing itself from the UK because its obvious that the "special relationship" doesn't mean very much to you guys.

It seems to be the British that attach more importance to it than Americans.

I'm sorry, but this is a vitally important issue for us. The U.S. government would not be happy if, for example, the UK government were 'neutral' on a foreign government wanting to annex part of your territory.

Hell, the French are more reliable on the issue of the FIs than are the U.S. government at the moment.

This is nothing new, even though Regan and Thatcher were seen as closer than most, secret communications, now released due to freedom of information, show that he tried to dissuade, before 82 campaign.

This is how foreign policy works, if we want to change that we have to start playing American politics. Get other politicians (opposition and rebels), interested in this issue, and call them out for what could be seen as a betrayal given hat we have supported them in their military

I think if different politician will not stay silent on this issue, it will make it difficult for the administration to be silent on it. That is basically what they want to do, not comment.

I recon folk like McCain might be an option, but there should be Democrats, and Republicans that are willing to speak out on this issue.

Obviously nobody in a safe job.

It's really not any of our business and it really doesn't benefit us to take a side, it would worsen our already tense relations with Latin America. I doubt it would benefit the UK much either since Argentina would go whine to all the other quasi-socialist countries of Latin America about US imperialism.

I think most Americans on a personal level would be sympathetic to the UK and would support self determination of the islands.

Last edited by Jacoby on 25 Feb 2013, 2:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

what is so important about the falklands

What is so important about the U.S. Virgin Islands, or any other U.S. territory?

Even though the 'other side' has no case whatsoever for taking the islands?

good question,what is so important about the virgin islands.i dont know,nor do i care.if its not within a 150 mile radius of boston i loose interest

The rightness of the cause has no effect on how beneficial it would be to take it up.

If you put it that way, the wrongness of a cause has no effect on how beneficial it would be to lambast it.

So, for an example, let's not talk about the 600,000 black people in Mauritania who are presently Arab slaves.
Let's not talk about the massacres in Syria that are presently taking place.
Let's not talk about the increasing hostility (and violence towards) ethnic minorities in Hungary and Greece.

And so on. Don't upset the apple cart.

Quite. This government is free to talk about that stuff because it wouldn't have any bad effects. This is how politicians think.

There are reasons I won't go into politics and that is one one them.

So you don't think that the principle of standing up for something - anything - is worth more than the potential 'discomfort'?

Hell, if we thought like that, we would still have slavery.

What would American involvement accomplish? It would not settle the dispute. If the US got involved so would other regional players like Brazil, Venezuela, Ecuador, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, etc. It would be counter productive to both of our interests.