Replies

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".

"The U.S. should support that with strong words, not weenie swiss french vichy "neutrality"."

The time may come for that. For now, Argentina is huffing and puffing but nothing is being done. I don't personally think it will go beyond huffing and puffing. If it does, I would hope that even Obama would do the minimal where we side with Britian and give them sattelite or logistical support if needed. The big difference between now and 1982 is that in 1982 Argentina was ruled by military juntas. They are a democracy and usually democracies do not go to war with each other.