Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
It could well be that the UK overstretched armed forces may yet have another faraway place to protect as the war of the words hots up between the PM and the President of Argentina.
The president of Argentina, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, has called Britain "arrogant" for refusing to negotiate on the Falklands. She was speaking a day after UK Prime Minister David Cameron said the issue of sovereignty was non-negotiable.
President Fernandez called his refusal to hold talks on the sovereignty of the Falklands, or Malvinas, arrogant and bordering on stupidity''.
Sandy Woodward said that he doubted that the UK could resist another attempt to fight off the Argentines without an aircraft carrier or US assistance. It doesn't look like the Americans are too keen on helping out either (and why should they) after President Obama called on the 2 countries to resolve the dispute over soveriegnity of the 'Malvinas'.
I think its time it was sorted without further loss of life.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
the lady was clearly sabre rattling, saying something along the lines of us being an out of date colonial power.
there would be no chance of us regaining them again even if we had the aircraft carriers, we are overstretched on all fronts.
a few tabloid headlines would not get the public in favour of an invasion and also dave has a decent opinion poll rating.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Under the principals of self-determination as laid down by the UN this is up to the Falkland Islanders.
It should be made clear to the Argentines that an attack on the Falklands is an attack on the UK and will be responded to accordingly. Thankfully the islands are far better defended than in 1982 by forces based there, sea, land and air - while the Argentine Forces are significantly weaker.
Even so this illustrates the folly of defence cuts.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
The whole thing would probably be solved far quicker if the negotiations were about the real issue, mineral and oil rights to a slice of the Antarctic.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Alec Sheldon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 18 Aug 2008
- Posts: 1,037
A good case to get rid of the nuclear deterrent then I would think. It don't scare the Argies none by the sound of things.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
The Falkland Islands are British, there is nothing to solve on that, and nothing to negotiate.
The Falkland Islands don't require any air-craft carrier to defend, as planes based there would have far more than an aircraft carrier.
The only issue that needs solving is that of territorial waters between our Falkland Islands and Argentina, and the presence of oil in these waters- and possibly also in international waters between the Falklands and Argentina, but the Argentines pulled out unilaterally on that issue.
But the sovereignty of the islands is not up for dispute, and it is pointless trying to reverse the Defence Review using the Falklands as a case.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
alex
if the argentines want to get their hands on the oil surrounding the islands then treaties will count for nothing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alec - not get rid of it but adopt a different and cheaper fprm of nuclear deterrant is my preference, a cruise missile solution would be my preference.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Although I am in favour of international talks to get rid of all - ALL - nuclear weaopons in the world FOR EVER, there is no danger of nuclear weopons being used in relation to the Falkland Islands.
There is also no way on the international chess-board the Argentines could get away with invading the Falklands, as many countries have islands across the sea from their mainland, and would see it as a precedent, and conflicts could break out world-wide if other governments followed Argentina's example.
In fact, just about no country supports Argentina's claim to the Falklands.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
don't think that anyone has seriously suggested using nuclear weapons in a potential falklands conflict.
should argentina decide to take the islands back they would pay no heed to international opinion.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Argentina can't decide to take the Falkland Islands, because there is a British Army based there, and if they started any military embarcation movemnents, our satelites would see it, and before the Argentines could sat Jack Robinson we'd have thousands more soldiers there, before any of their dinosaur warships even started moving.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
the easy answer is to flog it of to the yanks at a knock down price but keeping the gas,oil and minral rights.