Friday, March 19, 2010

How being incompetent, hardened Leftist ideologue actually leads to war instead of peace...

Will Obama's Betrayal of Britain Cause a Second Falklands War?

While the lion's share of the attention over the last two weeks has been drawn by the Obama Administration's political campaign against Israel on behalf of Arab-Islamic terrorists, there are worrying developments arising out of the Falkland Islands, which threaten a repeat of the original Falklands War.

The latest wrangling over the Falkland Islands erupted as oil resources near the islands have once again made them a tempting target for Argentina. Yet last month, the Obama Administration could have easily averted the growing crisis by staking out a position on the side of England, America's formerly closest ally. A country whose help is needed in Afghanistan, and whose government could have used a boost after being repeatedly undermined by Obama. Instead the Obama Administration staked out a neutral position, which in the context of geopolitics was a statement that Britain was on its own.

While Obama could have easily put a stop to the escalating crisis by stating clearly that the United States was prepared to back England, just as England had backed the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq-- his declaration of neutrality emboldened left wing Latin American leaders like Hugo Chavez to jump into the fight on Argentina's side. In her meeting with left wing Argentinian President Christina Kirchner, Hillary Clinton could have quietly pressed her to back down. Instead Clinton endorsed a call for talks in order to resolve the status of the Falkland Islands. Which actually moved the United States away from supporting neutrality, and toward supporting the Argentinian position.

The entire matter may seem like a tempest in a teapot to many Americans, but it's actually quite important for a number of reasons.

Christina Kirchner or "Queen Christina" is another one of Chavez's puppets. Two years ago Franklin Duran was convicted of serving as an illegal agent for Chavez's government as part of an attempt to silence Guido Alejandro Antonini Wilson, who had tried to relay a suitcase with 800,000 dollars from Chavez to Kirchner's election campaign. The entire incident was heavily tied to the oil industries in Venezuela, Argentina and Chavez's own oil ambitions.

If Chavez and Kirchner can take the Falklands from England, there is a great deal of oil and power in it for them. Under the waters around the Falkland Islands there may be as much as 60 billion barrels of oil. That's almost as three times as much as the oil reserves of the United States. It's more than Libya and Qatar have put together. And it is over 80 percent as large as Venezuela's own hefty oil reserves.

And both Chavez and Kirchner need it. Argentina's debt has risen under Kirchner, and Chavez's hook into Argentina depended on his offer to refinance Argentina's debt on favorable terms. Chavez got access to Argentina and the corrupt Kirchners got an economic savior. But Argentina's economy continues to head downhill and Chavez's influence building is proving to be expensive. Forcing England out of the Falklands would bring him one step closer to a vision of a Latin American OPEC under his control. But losing Kirchner would be a fatal blow to his tenuous Latin American coalition.

And Kirchner has become wildly unpopular in Argentina. And it will take a good deal more than a suitcase with 800,000 dollars to save her. A second successful Falklands war however might do the trick. It might also backfire badly. And while Chavez hates America, he isn't a fool. Which means that if the Obama Administration had sent a clear signal that it would back the UK, the entire affair would have evaporated in a puff of angry rhetoric and fitful lawfare. But that is now less likely to happen than ever. And Obama and Hillary Clinton are to blame for it.

Chavez warned England, "Be sure that the Argentine homeland is not alone, because it is also our homeland." The British government in turn has warned that it will do whatever is necessary to protect the Falklands and dispatched the HMS Spectre, a nuclear powered submarine to the region, in order to protect its shipping and interests, and avert any thoughts of a second surprise Argentine invasion. But while the idea of an Argentinian-Venezuelan war with England might seem a non-starter the second time around, this time Argentina will not only enjoy Latin-American backing, but Russian backing as well.

The Russians have turned Chavez into the new Castro, and Venezuela into the new Cuba, pouring money into it, and helping Chavez buy influence and radicalize the region. Chavez's plans originate from Moscow, much as Nasser's once did. And Venezuelan agents like Franklin Duran, actually began their careers in bed with the Russians. If war does come, the invasion forces will not be flying old Mirages the way they were in the original Falklands War, but they will have top of the line Russian equipment.

In light of this, the Obama Administration's failure to checkmate Putin, Kirchner and Chavez veer on the downright treasonous. Because a Second Falklands War would not only cost the lives of British soldiers, but the lives of American soldiers as well. Whether a Second Falklands War takes place or does not take place, the UK will be forced to divert military resources to coping with the threat. Which means there will be a further strain on the British military, and its ability to offer any assistance in Afghanistan, at a time when a crucial campaign to break the Taliban is underway.

The loss of British support will further undermine our ability to win in Afghanistan. It may well cost American lives. Yet when Hillary Clinton met with Christina Kirchner, she didn't yell at her or berate her, as she did Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Instead she backed her call for negotiations and agreed to have the United States serve as an intermediary. Which was as good as selling England down the river. England naturally rejected the call for meditation, but the damage had already been done.

The Obama Administration has made it clear that despite the presence of thousands of Britons on the islands, they consider the status of the islands open to negotiation. The fact that the Chavez axis is fundamentally hostile to America and American interests and represents a Russian wedge in the hemisphere, means that the Obama Administration once again has sold out an ally at the expense of an enemy.

The Kirchner government celebrated Hillary Clinton's agreement to its proposal for negotiations. As it should. And to understand how grave Obama's betrayal of Britain was, just read their statements.

Héctor Timerman, the Argentine Ambassador to the US, said he had never seen “such substantial support” from Washington for his country’s claim. Mrs Clinton had not only offered to mediate but had also signalled that talks should be in line with existing UN resolutions, he insisted, referring to non-binding UN General Assembly resolutions from the 1970s that urge both sides to negotiate.

Ruperto Godoy, the official Argentine government spokesman on the islands, said the new pressure from Mrs Clinton was “very significant, very important” and would help Buenos Aires to force Britain to the negotiating table.

finish at sultan kinish


13 comments:

cjk said...

Does the Man-Child take the unjust position in every case or is this just an example of his knee jerk anti-everything pro-American?
The inhabitants of the Falklands are overwhelmingly pro-British who recoil at any association with any of a series of corrupt Argentinian socialist regimes...Pity they can't grow bananas.
Then again the Jews also don't want to be pushed into the Mediterranean, but that doesn't seem to matter either.
What an EVIL SOB.

Note: The USGS estimates the the Orinoco basin contains at LEAST 510 billion barrels of recoverable oil using current methods of recovery which will only improve.

Anonymous said...

The inhabitants of the Falklands are overwhelmingly pro-British who recoil at any association with any of a series of corrupt Argentinian socialist regimes

they arent just pro -british, they are british. british citizens and ethnically british.

cjk said...

Well than if you would also pardon my use of the term socialist too.

Ray Boyd said...

cjk said:"Well than if you would also pardon my use of the term socialist too."

Only 30% of the voters put the labour government in and some of them were not socialists - they were just pissed off with the Tories.

I suppose if we apply your addled thinking to the US then you lot are marxists having voted in a marxist opresident.

Epaminondas said...

This is hysterical.
GB is better off as long as Obama is prez with them giving mouthpiece support for third world quasi Peronistas.

1) Do you really want him on your side? Ask Bibi

2) If the Carter on crack meme holds, and they support these morons to any degree, it will take the iconic form of Carter's famous unarmed F-15 patrols.

3) VASTLY more inmportant... can hte British navy now mount an expedition with 2 aircraft carrier and marines if it comes to it? If not, GET THOSE AIRCRAFT IN THERE NOW, you are on your own (and better off as long as Carter on crack is mealy mouthing his way earning nice points from those who despise us)

Ray Boyd said...

Epaminondas:

No need. The islands can be quietly reinforced by air anytime now there's a military airbase in place.

There's a wing of Eurofighters (air superiority aircraft) and more can be sent. We don't need them in the UK at the moment, and they are no good for Afghanistan, but ideal for thrashing the Argies again.

They couldn't mount an invasion 'cos a couple of nuclear subs would keep their fleet in port.

cjk said...

Ray Boyd;
I might be wrong, but the overall feeling that I and many other people have is that Great Britain is far more socialist than the USA and has been for quite a while although I sadly can't dispute that we're heading in the same destructive direction.
Regardless I think maybe you're being a bit sensitive about your nation (I'm guessing you're British).
Anyway you're not gonna find many people more pro-British than I am outside of Britain itself. If I state that Britain has fallen into socialism, I don't state it with any type of glee or satisfaction whatsoever. I for one would love to see nothing more than for the British people to rise up and acknowledge their splendid history unashamedly and their cultural superiority and force the Mohammedans into their place of subservience.

Ray Boyd said...

cjk said: "maybe you're being a bit sensitive about your nation (I'm guessing you're British)"

Yes I am. Yes I am. Answer to both above. I have found a lot of anti British hate on another blog - WZ.

Try to post there with reasonable comments and a rabid pack of hyenas rise from hell to attack.

As for the socialist thing well we do have socialised healthcare which we very much care for and would rather Americans wouldn't use it as to why they don't want Obamacare.

Apart from that, oh and we do have a welfare system - which working people pay for - but apart from that our labour and libdem voters are about equivalent to your dems and our conservatives are nearly the same as yours.

We obviously have capitalism red in tooth and claw so we are the nearest in Europe to the US - or we were until Obama got in.

Anyway, glad to hear you are not one of the anti british lot.

Remember this, if General Wolfe had not defeated the French at Quebec in 1749, and then gone on to route the french from the American Midwest then you would all be speaking French now ... wow!

cjk said...

I don't think that we'd be speaking French in any case.
I imagine that a worst case scenario would be a Quebec like situation in reverse.
The reality is that the British colonies already had a probable insurmountable population advantage which would have taken gargantuan efforts for the French to ever overcome, but who really knows what could have happened?
In any case Wolfe was a great man and it's too bad he didn't survive the battle

Anonymous said...

I find the whole scenerio bizzare.

it seems territorial wants desires are "reasonable" only if they are made by an entity other than anglo, american, or such.

so hong kong has to live under the undemocratic thumb of main land communist china, because it was a part of the british empire?

israel which has defended itself in countless wars started by aggressors wishing not just to defeat them but then drive out and murder any israelis left if they won.

yet the israelis are under some obligation not to keep land that buffers them from ravenous enemies?

mexicans are intitles to traipse across our border at will and claim in some groups like la raza that arizona new mexico colorado california should be rightfully mexico's? the mexico whos culture and political culture cant tell the difference between thier ass and a whole in the ground?

the falklands were lost over a hundred years ago. the citizens of the islands are ethnically british, they have lived on the islands for almost as many generations as the argintinians in argentina

it is madness for clinton and the magic pResident to to even be humoring this tripe. the people of the falklands and thier wishes apparently mean nothing, only the present day grand plans of outside world which has no claim but wants to be the descision makers is valid?

utter crap. I would arm the falklands with a nuke silo pointed at buenas aries and then I would say the discussion is over.

fuck off.

cjk said...

Rumcrook: My feelings also.
I really hate to accuse people of racism because that's what the despicable hypocrites on the left always cry, but I just can't help but believe that it's a major factor in a lot of national and world politics today.

Ray Boyd said...

When the Falklands were first settled by the British, Argentina did not exist as a nation.

As for the nuclear option maybe we just need to send one of our Trident Nuclear subs down there if things really get nasty.

On the other hand it would not really be an option to nuke anywhere. Every country in the world would condemn us.

Perhaps our nuclear subs carrying cruise missiles could be ultimately be used to destroy their airbases.

I was going to say that none of that would be necessary, that the whole thing is hot air but then we are dealing with South America - notorious hotheads capable of doing stupid things.

I particularly liked Rumcrook's view: "it seems territorial wants desires are "reasonable" only if they are made by an entity other than anglo, american, or such."

I have often thought this myself in particular not only of the Falklands but of Northern Island where the world backed a minority that wanted to take power from a majority.

It seems that normal rules of democracy are throwned out of the window when it comes to dealing with the Anglo Saxons.

Pastorius said...

AA,
I'll start drinking heavily now, and later we can get into it.