[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Let me put this in perspective....britain has colonies all over the world, yet does not have a navy capable of defending them...so, they go to nato ( nato is in reality the United States ) to get nato to defend the colonies it cannot....sorry, but I have to disagree with the whole premise..."

I said basically this same thing in another thread and got pounded for it. Someone else in this thread mentioned what Reagan did in 1982. In 1982, there was a lot of shuttle diplomacy going on by Alexander Haig to settle this situation. There were people in the Reagan administration that was siding with Argentina at that time. I would be in favor of doing what Reagan did in 1982 which is barely a little more than what we are doing now. Other than that, you are correct. If you have colonies all over the world better have a military in place to defend your interests.

This whole tiff is over oil exploration. Perhaps we can pledge military support for a slice of that oil. That would get the left really up in arms. Fighting a true war for oil...

[Servant of the Cross]

Thanks for your perspective. I have been more enlightened regarding this question and "U.S. military intervention". IMO, this isn't about U.S. military intervention (or even the threat thereof) though. This is just a matter of U.S. foreign policy to "reflexively and instinctively back an ally's interest first with words" rather than being a "neutral weenie". Yes, the Brits should handle their own military needs at colonies (and as mentioned upthread they are more than capable with subs).

This is about the U.S. being the leader and voice for freedom in the world. Again, there is a consensus of the people of the Falkland Islands that they wish to remain British. The U.S. should support that with strong words, not weenie swiss french vichy "neutrality".