A new pope...

[Pilgrim]

He does seem like a nice and humble guy, and I'm sure'll he'll keep the seat warm for 4-5 years.  Due to age, he's pretty obviously not a long-term appointment.

[uwe]

That the US "helped" the UK in the last Falkland conflict is giving it a slant it doesn't deserve - Ronnie and his advisors were pretty much aghast at the time that Maggie would go to war over a bunch of rocks in the middle of the South Atlantic. Once the conflict started, they wanted it to end quickly and not see the UK embarrassed militarily. But it sure wasn't how the US wished to be perceived in Latin America at the time. And IIRC, the Chileans (who have other territory issues of their own with their beloved neighbors to the east) helped the Royal Navy more than the US did.

There might be historic reasons for the Falklands being British but in this day and age it just doesn't seem geographically right and reeks of colonialism. It's hard case to argue that Hong Kong went back to mainland China against the will of its millions of inhabitants while a couple of sheep farmers in the Falklands should have the sole say about this South American island's sovreign fate. Of course, any British democratic government is preferable to Junta or populist Argentinain governments, but that is not the point. Not sure whether the UK would really appreciate the Isle of Man or the Hebrides to be under the flag of a South American country. The Irish sure don't dig the existence of Northern Ireland as part of Great Britain too much. So i've heard.

Anyway, I don't think that the views on the Falklands/Malvinas should decide whether someone becomes Pope or not. That's really like seceding from the Catholic Church to back the lifestyle of a notorious bigamist - who would do such a thing I cry?

[Dave W]

Dave... not a new perspective over here for some time now... my "basic" search was "Obama Falklands" for these two... I know the US was in the background in '82 but that was then and this is now... the last link is an American commentators perspective from yesterday... no idea how well known or how accurate a view from the lower 48... only three people on the Island voted "turkey's for Christmas"...

UK article 1

UK article 2

American Spectator article

I'll not post further on this one...

My last post on this matter too.

Consider the source. The American Spectator will disagree with any stance a Democratic president will take, and if it takes misrepresentation, they'll happily oblige. Not saying they're wrong in this case, I really don't know. It's just not a neutral source of information.

I do know that the UK is a major NATO ally of the US. Argentina is not. If there's another war, we may or may not stay neutral, but we won't side with Argentina against the UK. You can count on that.

[uwe]

You won't fight for the Falklands to stay British either. That would be tantamount to insulting all of Latin America, whether they like Argentina or not. Latin America does not only second the new Pope, it's a cultural and economic zone to be reckoned with in the next decades - the US of all countries should know that. And as there will be no future US President without a majority of the Hispanic vote, there will be no US Marines in the Falklands fighting for Queen and Country. Simple as that. Given the outcome of the last election, no gringo party will ever ignore the Hispanic vote again.

The idea that any US administration would go to war for Britain over the Falklands is about as viable as that it would go to battle to preserve Northern Ireland. The Hispanics are your new Irish.

My idea of solving this miniscule remnant conflict from colonial days today would be a "return" of the isles to Argentina (during a gradual period of 10-15 years where Argentinian influence slowly grows) with the Royal Navy retaining a harbo(u)r/naval base there for, say, fifty years to save face. The fossile energy sources assumed there could be shared for a similar period.

When will Cameron call me?