argentina"sabre-rattling"..?

[Zhukov]

What are Argentina upto?...British nuclear submarines have patrolled the South Atlantic,for many years..

Now they complain about HMS Dauntless being deployed to the area,and any submarines with "nuclear" capacity..

Are they trying to "level the playing field",as a precursor to a possible assault on the Falklands?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...atin-america-16993391

[peashaq]

Falklands/Las Malvinas - UK/Argentina - 2 fleas fighting over who owns the dog.

[Zhukov]

..gonna be a proud pooch..and v.rich..when the oil starts pumping!

[peashaq]

Uncle Sam is watching this - he likes dogs but has no time for fleas.

[rov1100]

We might as well let them have the oil.....How have the British public gained anything from the North Sea? Norway made sure its citizens did benefit.

[anotheoldgit]

rov1100 I don't see why we should let the Argies have it, but I see your point.

Exactly like North Sea Gas, they said as soon as they had covered the cost of laying the pipe lines and converting all the domestic appliances, we would be getting the gas for next to nothing.

Gas was much cheaper when it was just a by-product of coal.

[nannybooby]

if their president didn't expect some kind of retaliation for her recent comments she was very niave. Also what part of we dont want to belong to Argentina does she not understand.

[ludwig]

If their economy's in the same state as everyone elses, it's probably got something to do with taking the peoples minds off it and improving the government's popularity.

[d9f1c7]

peashaq they are the Falklands they have been British longer than Argentina has existed. That other name you used is not equivalent and should never be mentioned as a / alternative. Get it?

[anotheoldgit]

The British/Argentine/Falklands situation was discussed early this morning on the Radio (not the BBC).

The obviously 'Left-Wing' presenter couldn't get it into his head why the Falklands belonged to the UK and not Argentina, he kept on about why we just do not give the Falklands to Argentina, seeing they were closer to Argentina than to Britain.

Why do the 'Left-Wing' always seem to come across as non patriotic?

i.e. they seem to be anti British, with their insistence of sticking up for everyone apart from their own countrymen, an inbred wish to see our very culture and traditions diminish, along with the demise of our Monarchy.

[jno]

aog, after the last Argentine "conflict" (don't mention the war!) it was calculated that it would have been cheaper to give each islander a million pounds and let them move them to Britain. (That's cheaper in money, never mind the cost in lives.)

In a recession, how much of the country's wealth would you be prepared to spend to defend the islanders this time? Is it right for them to be able to demand that people in Britain should spend indefinite amounts to safeguard them?

[B00]

Yes jno.

would we say the same if another country decided they wanted the UK? Would we roll over and say "we can't afford to defend ourselves- so here, the UK's yours"?

[jackthehat]

I think I would rather see our forces defending a British protectorate than embroiled much longer in Afghanistan.....any cost (£) will be far more justified and justifiable.

I believe it is a bit of rabble-rousing by a cynical Government to deflect anger and concern away from their own troubles and inadequacies

[jackthehat]

And that ^^ could possibly apply to either side......but I meant Argentina, of course. :o)

[jno]

we might have to, B00. We could have decided we wanted to keep Hong Kong, for instance (though it was technically only leased to us), but there was no way we could have gone to war with China over it and won. Countries with diminished resources sometimes have to make hard choices about what to spend them on.

Britain did defend itself during WW2 - but look at what it cost us to do so: we're now rather poorer than Germany. Can we afford another war?

[B00]

I've honestly no idea jno- does anyone really? But I still say as long as the people there want to stay British, then they should get every source available to them to make it so. As Jack says, I'd rather deploy some forces currently serving in Afghanistan there instead.

[anotheoldgit]

jno

/// In a recession, how much of the country's wealth would you be prepared to spend to defend the islanders this time? ///

We now spend an extraordinary amount of the country's wealth on overseas aid, to countries that are of no responsibility to the UK, so why not spend some on those British citizens who we wish to protect, on those far away distant Islands?

[anotheoldgit]

jno

Yes Hong Kong was only leased to us, and being 'the stick to the rules' nation that we are, we would not have dreamt of going to war with China over it.

/// Britain did defend itself during WW2 - but look at what it cost us to do so: we're now rather poorer than Germany. Can we afford another war? ///

What are you saying "it wasn't worth the cost"?

Perhaps you would have wished to live under the Jack-Boot of the Nazi regime, so we could then be as well off' as Germany?

[jno]

aog: yes, it was worth the cost to save the whole country. Would it be worth the cost to save the Falklands, though?

I remember at the time of the previous conflict politicians were insisting that the wishes of the islanders were paramount. I remember thinking: What, they even take precedence over the wishes of the people of Britain? When did this transfer of sovereignty come about?

[New Judge]

It isn’t “either, or” jno. The Falkland Islanders are as British as the inhabitants of the Isle of Wight (and in some cases more so).” Is it right for them to be able to demand that people in Britain should spend indefinite amounts to safeguard them?” Yes it is. As has been mentioned, we managed to find indefinite amounts to unsuccessfully and vainly safeguard people who have no reason to expect us to do so and who have nothing to do with the UK. A little bit of effort to safeguard the way of life of the Falklanders is warranted and, in my view, our obligation.