It was a headline I never expected to read: US refuses to endorse British sovereignty in Falklands oil dispute. Washington has declined to back Britain in its dispute with Argentina over drilling rights in the waters surrounding the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands. President Obama's position is one of strict neutrality, refusing to take sides. According to the State Department:
We are aware not only of the current situation but also of the history, but our position remains one of neutrality. The US recognises de facto UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party. (To read more, click here.)
Re: Et tu, Barack? America betrays Britain in her hour of need
Posted by Phil on 01-03-2010 21:22:
What on earth is surprising about the US refusing to back Britain over the Falklands? They sat on their thumbs the last time we got into a spat with Argentina, insisting on remaining strictly neutral. What else have they done for us? Post WWII France/Germany got Marshall Aid and so, indeed, did we; difference was that we paid (a crippling rate of) interest. Took us 4 decades to pay it off, while France had 'les trente glorieuses' and Germany had their 'economic miracle' - we got lumbered with a staggering amount of debt. Then there was Korea ('our' conflict, was it?). What did the US do for us at Suez? What happened when Harold Wilson refused to participate in the Vietnam War (Wall Street-generated mayhem for the Pound)? Who was behind 'Big Bang' (and the possibly even bigger banking collapse) in the City? And so, and so, and ... while we're about it, remind me where Noraid was based, would you?
'Special relationship'? Looks more like enmity (theirs) and stupidity (ours)from where I sit.
RT @rcbl: Just turned on the Superbowl! Who knew that Willem Dafoe could sing and dance like that? Truly an amazing entertainer! (6 hours ago)
