Posted on 05/03/2010 9:24:18 AM PDT by Winged Hussar
Suppose a foreign power sent a telegram to Mexico to encourage Mexico to invade the Southwest United States in a "reconquista" of its "lost territories." Would the United States regard that as a hostile act and perhaps even an act of war by said foreign power? This is not an academic question because the Zimmerman Telegram played a role in the United States' declaration of war on Germany in 1917. Unlike Barack Obama, however, Zimmerman did not go so far as to incite one country to attack another outright; he offered to finance a war by Mexico only if the United States attacked Germany.
Barack Obama, however, recently incited Argentina to attack the United Kingdom for no reason whatsoever. Argentinian leader Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is a lot more attractive than Leopoldo Galtieri (seen here on a balcony announcing the invasion of the Falklands--why do dictators always seem to declare war from balconies?), but her territorial ambitions are similar and the Buffoon-in-Chief just did his best to encourage them. As reported by the Times Online, our (former?) British allies are not amused.
(Excerpt) Read more at israpundit.com ...
The Brits are definitely not amused.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/argentina/navy.htm
Argentina has less to invade with and Britain now has Typhoon fighter bombers based in the Falklands.
That’ll make a nice oil slick.
Please, please, please, please, PLEEEEEASE get this man indicted on treason and sedition and have him carted out of the WH in striped pajamas.
Barack Obama is going to fundamentally DESTROY this country and every ally we’ve ever had. He’s a direct danger to our country and should be immediately removed from office by the military.
Hussein totally detests the Brits because they were colonial power over his beloved homeland. He hates their guts and makes it obvious. He may even hate them more than Israel, but that would be close.
In other words, we have approximately the same foreign policy under Hussein as if Ahmenijad were the Prez. We are under the control of a foreign entity for all practical purposes, and the entity’s name is Hussein Obama.
More and more, I see a pathological hatred in Barak Obama for anything British.
that certainly fits hand-in-glove with this African Post-Colonial theory that is floating around about Obama
One difference--Mexico accepted a treaty in 1848 ceding territories to the US, and later sold an additional chunk of land (the Gadsden Purchase--we accepted less than they agreed to cede). Argentina, as far as I know, has never acknowledged the British right to the Falklands (taken in 1833 from Argentina).
Another difference is that the Falkland Islands have some 3100 permanent residents. The population of the lands Mexico lost to the US was 70 million as of 2000, a majority of whom would not welcome restoration of Mexican sovereignty.
Obama is not just the most evil, most destructive man to the safety and security of the United States, he is the most evil, most destructive man to the safety and security of the world.
Do you wonder why Britain is still fighting in Afghanistan? Do you wonder why Canada is pulling out next year?
Are these questions purely rhetorical, or should I commit thought and answer them? I’m thinking you have more to say, so please speak. You’ve piqued my interest.
So Obama ignores the Logan Act a second time . . . and Congress does what?
He is not above reproach. He is just a man [we think] who puts his pants on one leg at a time.
CONGRESS Do Your Duty!
Perhaps after the 2010 elections the House will have a Majority of Republicans and can initiate Impeachment Proceedings?
We think. Maybe he has someone else do that for him.
Look at the pattern--President of the Harvard Law Review (doesn't do any work, underlings do it for him), Illinois legislature (gets his name on bills other people write), Dreams from My Father (gets his name on the title page, but Bill Ayers may have done the actual writing), reads speeches glibly from a teleprompter (but his staff actually writes the speeches), tells jokes deriding his political opponents at the White House Correspondents dinner (but his staff comes up with the jokes).
This strikes me as a right decision made for the wrong reason (either Obama being an Anglophobe, or Hillary! having the hots for and wanting to bed the Argie leader).
The UK has really shot itself in the foot with recent defense spending decisions. These have included:
* Decommissioning HMS Invincible, cutting their carrier force by 1/3 and making it very difficult to deploy their two remaining carriers at the same time.
* Retiring the Sea Harrier FA.2s early, removing true organic air-cover (the RAF Harrier GR.9s lack radar and AMRAAM capability) from their naval task forces.
* Cutting back on their SSN fleet.
* Deciding to finish their second CVF not as a fixed-wing carrier, but as a commando/assault ship (LPH).
* Cutting back on the F-35 buy.
* Cutting back on their surface naval forces by selling off a good number of their new frigates and limiting the Daring-class DDGs to four ships.
Fact is, and I hope the Admins will give me latitude to say this, NOTHING says “Do NOT f*ck with me” quite like being able to park several acres of sovereign territory packed with high-performance fighter and strike aircraft off an enemy’s coast. While SSNs are prowling about looking for targets of opportunity amongst that enemy’s naval and maritime forces.
Britain has been slowly ceding just that capability. In reality they should be doing the following:
* Finishing both CVFs as carriers, as intended.
* Equipping those CVFs with the largest airwings possible. Plus attrition spares.
* Expanding their surface forces to adequate size to protect those CVFs, plus provide escort to assault task forces led by HMS Ocean, Albion and Bulwark, plus engage in smaller scale, independent or SAG actions as required.
* Building more Astute-class SSNs than projected.
* Working in conjunction with the USN to build modular multi-mission packages that would allow quick swapout of their Vanguard SSBNs into SSGNs with the kind of Tomahawk and covert ops capabilities being put into the Ohio class SSGNs and later Virginia Class SSNs. Ideally the RN would rotate the Vanguards, one in overhaul, two in SSBN configuration and one as an SSGN. If there were a Falklands-style crisis one of the SSBN-configured Vanguards could be quickly pulled in and have it’s Tridents swapped with the modular Tomahawk packages.
If anything, the Brits are too reliant upon the US, and are facing the kind of military capability situation that encouraged the Argies to take the Falklands in the early 80s (the Argies never would have tried if the Brits had either Ark Royal or Eagle in commission).
If the Administration doing this sort of thing convinces the Brits that they need to focus more on maintaining and expanding their power-projection capabilities, I don’t see it as a bad thing at all. At least in the long-term, as there WILL be a different US Administration in 2013 or 2017.
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.
