For what it's worth (and forgive straying to the South Atlantic instead of South Korea for a moment) Obama actually said:
And in terms of the Maldives [sic] or the Falklands, whatever your preferred term, our position on this is that we are going to remain neutral. We have good relations with both Argentina and Great Britain, and we are looking forward to them being able to continue to dialogue on this issue. But this is not something that we typically intervene in.[1]
Which was pretty much the public line of the Reagan administration while AIM-9Ls were being prepared to head south in 1982...
[2]
So to be fair to him, AB, what he was doing was being even-handed and polite; he did use the F-word in the presence of Latin Americans, which can only be seen as being careful not to upset the UK. I appreciate that the Daily Mail believes that US foreign policy should be exercised in the interests of the UK, but it seems entirely fair to me that the President of the United States should, well, attempt to carry out American foreign policy in the interests of the United States, which may mean having to avoid taking sides with long-standing allies if it avoids causing widespread angst in the US's back yard...
[1] Source - Remarks by President Obama and President Santos of Colombia in Joint Press Conference | The White House about half-way down, but search for 'Maldives' in page
[2]Yes, yes, I know about the complication of Harry Train being godfather to Jorge Anaya's son and Jeanne Kirkpatrick's problem of not meeting a fascist dictator she didn't see as a likeable bulwark against communism adding to the PR fun