Back to Home

Active Questions

Obama refuses to support Britain, our closest ally
Race, Religion & Politics / 12:35 PM - Thursday February 25, 2010

Obama refuses to support Britain, our closest ally

The UK is our closest ally, and they are the ones, along with Canada, who have stuck by us the most in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. The British have sent thousands of their soldiers to fight beside ours in those places.

However, in the latest dispute between Argentina and the UK over the Falklands, the Obama administration is refusing to support the UK. They claim neutrality, even though the US supported the UK under Reagan, in the 1982 Falklands War.

President Obama seems to be throwing out our special relationship with our closest ally right around the time we need all the friends we have - with the ongoing action in Iraq and Afghanistan, with Iran getting nukes and China becoming more aggressive... does this seem wise to you?

Update: February 27, 2010.
You know, those of you who agree with Obama on this have made really good points.

Update: February 25, 2010.
thanks to all who responded, wish I had more stars!

- Asked by curvysmartgirl, A Creative, Female, 46-55, Dallas, Artist / Musician / Writer

Read more about the Rating System


Obama has already alienated another of closest allies, Israel. Obama also seams to be cozying up to left-wing dictators. Furthering alienated our allies.

- Response by cosmicdog0, A Guy Critical, Male, 56-65, Denver, Science / Engineering

Rating Received:


No it doesn't seem wise to me, but neither does anything that guy does.

- Response by sonicspyro, A Creative, Female, Who Cares?

Rating Received:


Why should we get involved? It's a matter between Britain and Argentina. Also, politically and strategically, the Falklands mean nothing to us. Why did we get support Britain last time? Because Reagan and Thatcher were politically identical. Of course they were in bed together.

There's other times we did not back up Great Britain when they were in a conflict. During the Suez Crisis, Eisenhower threatened to flood the market with US reserves of British pound unless Britain, France, and Israel pulled out of Egypt. For what reason? Because the US didn't want the Soviets to get involved as they threatened to. That's right, we sold out the Brits because we were scared of the Soviets. What about the Malayan Emergency? The US never bothered to help out in the jungle fighting in Malaysia because we were too busy with our own jungle fighting in Vietnam. Besides, plenty of our allies, including Britain, have scaled back their presence in Iraq and Afghanistan when we could've used the help, so it's not like this is an Obama thing. And I'm sure, with our presence in Iraq and the escalation of our presence in Afghanistan and our financial problems, that Britain understands we have enough on our plate with us having to worry about Britain's inferiority complex over trying to hang on to the last shreds of it's former empire.

This is a non-issue. Nobody gives a shit about the Falkland Islands except Argentina and Great Britain.

- Response by damon8r351, An Intellectual Guy, Male, 29-35, Norfolk

Rating Received:


no. just because you are trying to make new friends/allies does not mean you should totally abandon the ones who have been supportive in the past. not that i'm politically savvy or anything, but alot of the decisions the US gov't makes do not make sense to me. i really don't feel like the gov't (both local/state and federal) actually represents those they are supposed to.

- Response by divadancer2, An Alternative Girl, Female, 46-55, Other Profession

Rating Received:


Sorry but this has nothing to do with us. They are the ones who want to stay their why in the world should we get involoved in that. Our troops have our hands full enough. And our spread thin enough as it is. I think its smart to not put ourselves under further fire while we are so heavily involved in other places. We are not supposed to police the world.

- Response by bellabyrdie, A Thinker, Female, 29-35, Who Cares?

Rating Received:


As someone who is half Brit, half American, I'm glad with his position. Why should he support Britain on this issue? What does it have to do with the US? Britain supports the US in Afghanistan because its in Britain's interest to do so, Al Queda are a threat to Britain, just as much as they are a threat to Britain, they have attacked Britain and killed British civilians. Britain supported the Iraq war, but should not have done so. While Britain made a mistake with the Iraq war, the logic was the same - Britain felt Iraq was a threat.

Argentina is not a threat to the US. It would be gross stupidity for Obama to side with Britain in any conflict over the Falklands - Americans should thank Obama for not getting the US involved in a conflict that has NOTHING to do with them.

As usual, Obama-haters take a very logical and sensible Obama position, and portray it as weakness. The biggest threat to world peace and to peace in America is those on the right who have this crazy idea that the USA is better off and safer when it acts aggressively. Its a bizarre idea, yet its standard thinking on the right. Conservatives have been so spectacularly wrong in the area of foreign policy these past 10 years, how do they even have the chutzpah to provide their opinions? They simply dont understand the world, and should leave foreign policy to those who do.

- Response by xerxes, An Intellectual Guy, Male, 46-55, Washington, DC, Lawyer

Rating Received: