Out of curiosity, does the OP think that Eisenhower “pulled a boner” when he decided not to back the UK, France, and Israel in trying to expropriate the Suez Canal?
I’m really wondering if: (a) the US is obligated to follow our allies no matter what; and (b) if a Republican differs with our allies, should it be called “principled leadership,” as opposed to when lib’ruls “pull a boner.”
No, I just found the term appropriate for use but thanks.
No because (1) Suez Canal was actually Egyptian at the time and (2) there was acute danger of war by the USSR if the Anglo-French-Israeli force did not withdraw.
The Falklands are not a part of the UK in the way San Diego is part of the USA
A better analogy would have been Puerto Rico or the US Virgin Islands.
The leaves a lot out, the main reason why England, France and Israel tried to expropriate the Suez Canal was that Egypt had just nationalized the canal that was controlled by Britain and France. In the end they just tried to reverse what had just happened.
How can having a boner ever be a mistake?
As I recall from watching documentaries of it there was a lot of gnashing of teeth over that at the time.
You wanna keep boners away from gnashing teeth.
I’m not much a defender of Argentinian claims, If I was the judge I would say Argentina will have to abide by what it is the de facto state of affairs, but it is silly to think it will last forever.
Currently though, the oil issue will most likely bring things to a head, not having negotiated (and I have to say that it is becoming silly to constantly ignore that negotiating does not mean that Argentina would get the islands, but that we could avoid a confrontation by sharing resources) and just waving away the cost of keeping a fleet on the other side of the world just so someone would “get it”, continues to strike me as someone cutting their nose to spite the face.
No it isn’t. Argentina kissed goodbye to whatever chances they had to take the Islands in 1982. It would be political suicide for any British politician to even broach the subject of giving the Islands to Argentina never mind carrying this plan through to fruition. Even more so now seeing as the Falkland Islander’s are full British citizens following the British Citizenship (Falkland Islands) Act passed in 1983. The Falklands will not be Argentinian within my lifetime, if ever.
Nobody’s waving away the cost of anything. We have nuclear submarines, they may as well be used. The cost of keeping them in position will be miniscule compared to the value of lost oil due to any oil income sharing programme.
I’m afraid you did not pay attention, that is what I also did say.
And I’m referring to the cost of embargoes (that by the look of things, most of OAS is beginning to be more in favor of Argentina) or a shooting war.
Huh? What were you referring to with the phrase “it is silly to think that it will last forever” then?
Are you claiming that you will live forever? 
No, but I’m 26. Hopefully I’m going to be around for quite a bit of time yet, by which point most of the oil will have been extracted. Functionally, if not literally, forever.
Anyway, there’s another reason why the Argentinians will not get the Islands or any resource sharing any time soon: the political situation in Scotland. It’s looking likely that Holyrood will get full financial powers over Scottish tax income sometime in the near future, including monies generated by North Sea Oil. In which case London and the rest of the UK loses out. Suddenly the Falkland Islands don’t look so far away.
Brazil is closer, and the cost for guarding the Falklands got more expensive just recently:
I didn’t say they loved it, I said they understand that taking a side in this issue would neither serve US interests, nor help resolve the situation. I don’t think this needs to be cited, because I’m operating under the assumption that the UK government is not run by drooling cretins- although I’m certainly open to correction on that last point if I’m misinformed.
They’re saying our political stance is payback for the UK releasing documents showing the torture of Binyam Mohammed. Ridiculous.
By docking in Chile instead of Brazil? As I said, the money needed to protect the Islands is dwarfed by the potential oil revenue from the oil fields around the Islands.
You are now ignoring that South American nations are uniting against Britain on this issue doing more than just words, and the point **is **that the potential oil revenue is the reason why there are growing tensions.
Our government is quite possibly run by drooling cretins, in that you are correct. But then, that’s the norm right?
Argentina, the time has passed for them to really stake a claim to the islands. I think it was quite possible 30 years ago for them to have gained them peacefully (Even though I don’t for one minute think the claim is valid) but now, no way. It’s one of those issues that the US refuse to get involved with and I believe most people in the UK understand that totally, that said we won’t be giving them up, ever.
This is it. Though Argentina’s claim is laughably weak, the Falklands have never been particularly importnat to the UK. If Argentina had wanted to it could have courted the Falkland Islanders and persuaded them that it would be to their advantage to perhaps being a sem-autonmous part of Argentina, the UK would not have kicked up a fuss. However Argentina invaded, totally alienated the islanders and made any kind of discussion over sovereignity a total no-go area.