Yesterday we wondered whether President Obama would support Britain in the latest dispute with Argentina over the Falkland Islands? Today we learn Obama decided not to support Britain, our closest ally.
According to the Times, The Obama/Hillary State Department insisted that the U.S. position was one of longstanding neutrality:
"We are aware not only of the current situation but also of the history, but our position remains one of neutrality," a State Department spokesman told The Times. "The US recognises de facto UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party."
This seems like revisionist history, and is a far cry from the staunch support the U.S. gave Britain under President Reagan during the 1982 Falklands War.
President Obama, once hailed as our first European President, has thrown out the United State's long-standing special relationship with our closest ally. Obama chose, under a false pretense of neutrality, to side with a corrupt, aggressive Argentine government that is backed by Hugo Chavez and is threatening a blockade of British territory.
This is how Obama repays Britain for continuing to support our special relationship and providing thousands of British soldiers to lay their lives on the line alongside their American allies on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Do not let Obama get away with this latest outrage. Call the White House. Call your Senators. Call your Representative. Tell them the American people, if not their current president, back our most dependable and important ally. So should the federal government.
Stronly suggest admin adding a google+ button for easy share!
Posted by: elliptical reviews | Monday, December 12, 2011 at 05:30 AM
I am often appalled by the American President's undermining comments in general about Britain, our leaders and other matters, considering the devastating effect his comments can make in regard to stock markets, world opinion etc.
I was against our joining in the Iraq war but we were pulled into it undemocratically, for whatever reasons and motives the decision makers may have had at the time. I think people forget we are a small country with far fewer taxpayers than many others, expensive welfare systems and multitudes of other humanitarian expenses (I work for our National Health service), so our recession has had far deeper effects than in other countries. The war in the middle east has cost us dearly in both terms of life and economy and we are more vulnerable now than we have ever been. yet we still believe in loyalty.
In return, the british people hear nothing but criticism and lack of support and gratitude from this man - I wish he would think more about what he says about us.
I hear the hero-worship the public and the media give this man, but personally, I think he has damaged us shamefully- I can see more gaffes being aimed at us previously and in years to come than Bush was ever capable of!
I wish the people of the US would get past the wonderful prospect and milestone that has ben gained from their first non-white leader and see instead what, as a person he is doing to my poor beleagered country.
Shame on him.
Posted by: British and Proud | Saturday, April 24, 2010 at 09:14 AM
One admits that life is very expensive, nevertheless we need money for various things and not every man earns enough money. Hence to get quick home loans and student loan should be a right way out.
Posted by: DorothyWhitehead25 | Friday, February 26, 2010 at 09:55 PM
I understand the argument that Britain has given full support to America for the war in Afghanistan, however is it not possible that by being neutral in this dispute, America is only hoping to mediate the situation? It was noted in the Times article that the 'British officials in Washington said that they were comfortable with the US response to the dispute', also quoting Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, 'To compare the way we dealt with the issues in 1982 with today is nonsense.' This for me, gives the impression that although it is not desirable - Britain is not severing ties with America on this issue? It is an undesirable situation, but it won't be one to ruin a historical alliance?
Posted by: Briefgold | Friday, February 26, 2010 at 05:48 AM