It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by Soshh
Current British policy revolves around deterring a second invasion. If this was entirely unnecessary then we would not bother.
Yes, because show of force has worked so well in world's history.
Because the Falklands aren't Hong Kong and the circumstances are completely different.
Really? I thought the Falklands were close to India.
Actually it is far more important to place such things into context and not blow them out of proportion.
Of course, who really cares where a few millions go...
A persistent 'show of force' most certainly does work
which may explain why deterrence is a vital component of the defence policies of so many countries. If you know something that they don't then feel free to pass it on.
Originally posted by gabrielxxx
reply to post by michael1983l
"So you have admitted that no Argentinian has ever lived there. Thank you, case closed. "
No, I told you since 1833 , not never... read again....
Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR
Personally I hate rating agencies. I think they are the current economic cancer that is threatening a lot of world economies. To me, it's beyond belief how an agency (connotation on "agency") says "it's like this" and everyone acts on it, even more if you consider how catastrophic some of their claims and ratings have been. But I wouldn't feel much safe if I was brit... France was laughing at other european countries until it got served it's fair share. I just stated that because recently there have been some concerning news regarding UK, like the debt record...
Yes, but like I answered to another post, I think the whole problem is around the fact the UK thinks it needs a strong military presence there. You can lower the impact of said costs in your military budget... But if you didn't send any warships at all, you would be saving even more money, and not just accepting it as an inevitable cost, or making a routine out of it.
I don't want to seem like I'm spiliting hairs just to make a point, but to me that doesn't make sense. If they are not a threat in terms of military power, then why send stuff like nuclear submarines, and the latest destroyers? Why not deploy there, permanently, the destroyers that are usually in that area as routine, and use the new destroyers for...whatever? Argentina is seeing this as an "aggression"(lack of better word), to the point where other South American leaders start taking sides. I take what they say (especially Chavez) with 2 tons of salt on top of it, but it does show a new concern that we haven't seen for at least a decade.
International law has shown itself futile, especially during the last decade. The UN, who supposedly are in charge of enforcing it, simply don't give a crap or are unable to do anything against those who disrespect it. The matter of fact is that, if it was an easy to solve problem, it would be solved by now.