Posted on 06/10/2011 9:50:24 AM PDT by therightliveswithus
President Barack Obama joined forces with Venezuelan despot Hugo Chavez, Argentinian President Cristina Kirchner and the unanimous Organization of American States in "reaffirming the need" of Argentina and Britain to resume negotiations on the sovereignty of the Malvinas Islands.
I'm sorry - the Falkland Islands.
What the hell is wrong with Obama?
Not only did he side against our most important ally in the entire world over territorial claims that were settled almost three decades ago, but he called the islands by their Argentinian name - instead of their accepted British title.
(Excerpt) Read more at punditpress.blogspot.com ...
Well, he ran out of Americans to betray, so he had to go overseas.
No surprise there.
Barry, “it’s hard for thee to kick against the pricks”.
He hates the Brits because they had to colonize his ancestral homeland to end the slave trade.
ObaMao probably fantasizes that his daddy and grandfather and maybe another generation or two back could have been rich slave traders and tribal chieftains who got their first pick of the women before selling their captors to the Muslim world.
He was, is, and will always be remembered as, a national disgrace.
Britain might want to reconsider mothballing all those ships & aircraft. I think that Argentina might just decide to “come out & play” again.
This is where Obama should have been vague. Even if he doesn’t agree with Britain, taking this stance only makes renewed warfare over the Falklands more likely.
Amateur-hour at the White House continues, unfortunately.
Just remember: The. British. Public. And. Press. OVERWHELMINGLY. Supported. Obama.
Be careful what you pray for.
Kirchner has maybe a two-year window to go ‘Galtieri’ if she wants to distract her voters from the debacle that is the Argentine economy. After that: Bambi isn’t President any more.
These days the Falklands are better defended (there were like twelve guys there last time) but the Royal Navy lacks the global reach that it enjoyed in the 1980s.
If nothing else would do, Buenos Aires would have to be nuked.
And don’t forget the sex with the little boys and the voodoo dances.
And the worst part is once we finally get rid of this son of a bitch, the rift between us and the UK will still be there. And you just can’t fix bad blood like that overnight.
I wonder if this is payback for William and Kate telling the Simian in Chief and the First Moose they were not invited to their wedding.
The British had their part in the slave trade. But they did a whole lot more to end slavery and sustained it to a much lesser degree than did the Arab world.
That’s right. These morons hated Bush and thought Obama was the Second Coming of Christ (scratch that, they are all atheists or Muslims these days). Even the UK “Conservative” Party officials were badmouthing Bush and praying for Dear Leader Obama to win. What Obama did is wrong but I have no sympathy for the Brits.
Maybe the idea is to set a precedent for revisiting the US-Mexican treaties of 1848 and 1853.
He seems to be trying to posture himself an insightful international arbiter, but really reveals himself as a spineless bully.
He is pushed around by Venezuela, snubbed and dismissed by the Chinese, and ignored by Iranians, N. Koreans, Russians, and just about anyone else with whom his direct diplomacy would be essential to achieving any progress toward our nation's security.
Laughed from center stage by the main actors, he prances in the wings, trying to bring rivals together with comments which reveal near-total naivete (at best), or ignorance (most likely).
I'm sure there are some folks in AR who think otherwise, but certainly not the rank-and-file citizenry, who are completely ambivalent.
I will probably get flamed, but here goes...if britain has a colony 6000 miles from home, and no navy to protect it, does that mean that WE have to protect it for them???? sorry, but the libs in england have to reap what they have sown....now, as for fubo sticking his nose into it, he has no business taking any stand on it, just like we have no business protecting british colonies, especially if they have no stones to protect it themselves...
I guess my position is that I tend to be an isolationist, I don’t think we should have gotten involved in the Great War or the Spanish American War, for that matter. However, in the matter of foreign policy, I think it serves the United States better if other countries thinks it serves their interest to be our friend and disserves them to be our enemy, instead of the other way around.
He’s already betrayed Great Britain by supplying the Russians with their missile codes.
The Kenyan usurper hates England and is getting even with them for his daddy. Why else would he send Churchill’s bust back?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.