Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Britain says 'no military escalation' in Falklands

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Britain says 'no military escalation' in Falklands


www.thesun.co.uk

The country's president Cristina Kirchner last night blasted a UK decision to deploy a warship to the South Atlantic alongside Prince William in his search and rescue Sea King helicopter.

She vowed to lodge a formal complaint to the UN.

But No 10 fired back today, insisting Britain was not fuelling an escalation of aggression by deploying destroyer HMS Dauntless to the South Atlantic.

It has also been reported the Royal Navy is sending a nuclear submarine to the region.

A Downing Street
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Just seen this news article regarding us the UK sending Nuclear Submarines etc to Argentina. Now can somebody please tell me WHY? And WHEN were we, the British taxpaying public, asked if this was ok to waste our money like this?

The money issue is just one of my main problems with this, the second is, why the hell are we sending them there anyway? They must be setting up for war or flexing their muscles for somebody to see!

A complete waste of money and if you ask me, the fact that Prince Willy is going with them is just a cover so the public don't ask too many questions!

www.thesun.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by benjamin2012
 


Must say that we dont see to many smart people like you around here. I agree with you



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
It is part of a standard tour of duty.

Prince William is doing his part. The Falklands proves invaluable training.

They are UK residents (many of which have been interviewed recently stressing their desire to remain part of the UK). A military presence should hopefully deter a repeat of 1982.

Simple as.
edit on 8-2-2012 by Knights because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Gloster
 


Thanks,
lol

I think the Argentinian leader is right to question why we are doing this, I'm sure david cameron would have something to say if Iran just parked a load of nuclear submarines in the river thames!



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by benjamin2012
 


Almost sounds like you were working for the Bush administration!
Irans 'nuclear subs'.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Hmmm another country sending a nuclear sub down to Antarctica.....

I wonder if there is something more to the whole Russian drilling operation down there......



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
the falklands belongs to us
the islanders think so to
we will protect what is ours



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
1) Britain only has four nuclear-armed submarines, so for there to be subs plural that means sending at least 50% of its nuclear force to 'Argentina' - would it bother?

2) As has been said, William has a job to do and it's been decided that job needs doing in the Falklands - I know two servicemen either currently or preparing to deploy to the Islands, it means nothing except all three will have to say goodbye to decent Internet and hot weather for six months


3) Before I get jumped on as being part of the 'sheeple' just because I'm British and taking this position: Self-determination for all who want it is my position, and as has been said, the Falklanders have made their choice known.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Knights
It is part of a standard tour of duty.

Prince William is doing his part. The Falklands proves invaluable training.

They are UK residents (many of which have been interviewed recently stressing their desire to remain part of the UK). A military presence should hopefully deter a repeat of 1982.

Simple as.
edit on 8-2-2012 by Knights because: (no reason given)


If they want to be UK residents so bad, they can catch the next boat to England. The UK or any other country has no business establishing a territory thousands of miles away. That is colonization at its worst. Imperialism is the cancer of the world.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnaChispa

Originally posted by Knights
It is part of a standard tour of duty.

Prince William is doing his part. The Falklands proves invaluable training.

They are UK residents (many of which have been interviewed recently stressing their desire to remain part of the UK). A military presence should hopefully deter a repeat of 1982.

Simple as.
edit on 8-2-2012 by Knights because: (no reason given)


If they want to be UK residents so bad, they can catch the next boat to England. The UK or any other country has no business establishing a territory thousands of miles away. That is colonization at its worst. Imperialism is the cancer of the world.


sir
you are talking flatulance
get your facts right



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by benjamin2012
Just seen this news article regarding us the UK sending Nuclear Submarines etc to Argentina. Now can somebody please tell me WHY? And WHEN were we, the British taxpaying public, asked if this was ok to waste our money like this?


Well, ships are deployed. No big deal. Besides, the British have been routinely sending Royal Navy warships to tjhe South Atlantic since the 1830's as part of the contineous assertion of soverignty of the Falklands, South Georgia et al.

As to nuclear submarines... The thing about submarines is that you don't known how much is bluff.

As a tax payer, I have no problem with this.

Regards



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by benjamin2012


Just seen this news article regarding us the UK sending Nuclear Submarines etc to Argentina. Now can somebody please tell me WHY? And WHEN were we, the British taxpaying public, asked if this was ok to waste our money like this?


That's the beauty of having a working government, imagine how much time would be wasted if they had to ask our permission to do anything.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by davesmart
 



Let me check my facts real quick....

The UK planted a flag on a piece of the Western Hemisphere a few hundred years ago, making it British territory. Is that how you understand it?



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnaChispa
That is colonization at its worst. Imperialism is the cancer of the world.


Thing is, the British occupation of the Falklands hurt no-one because they were unoccupied, unlike the Argentinean genocide of the natives in e.g. Patagonia and subsequent violent colonisation. Do we see the return of lands to the natives by the colonisers of South America AFTER the Spanish and Portuguese withdrew leaving Argentina and company to finish the job with anything none-European.

Regards



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
As a person who is marginally familiar with the history of the area I have a question to ask regarding the Falkands (or "Islas Malvinas" as the locals seem to say.)

In all the interviews and other material which is broadcast in Europe, are there ever any that show residents of the islands that don't want to be subjects of the Queen?

I only ask because it seems fairly commonplace for governments to tell "the whole truth - as we want it understood" when it comes to these things... few are innocent of the practice.

Now I know that there is pride and other ego-related currency at stake here, so don't take this as an assault on your declarations. It is a legitimate question, because the "British" status of the Islands was only formalized in 1983. Unless most of it's residents (3 or 4,000 I think) are immigrants from Europe, I fail to see how aside from military power, the UK maintains the "hearts and minds" of the residents there.

Is this all about Oil?
edit on 8-2-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
As a person who is marginally familiar with the history of the area I have a question to ask of those of you regarding the Falkands (or "Islas Malvinas" as the locals seem to say.)


I'm pretty sure the locals in the Falklands do not call them that at all.


Is this all about Oil?


the exclusive economic zone around the Falklands is pretty big, and has a lot of potential for exploitation of all varieties.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnaChispa
reply to post by davesmart
 



Let me check my facts real quick....

The UK planted a flag on a piece of the Western Hemisphere a few hundred years ago, making it British territory. Is that how you understand it?


hi sir
i do have a little bit more understanding than that
but it still comes down to 1 thing
the people of the falklands want to stay part of the british isles
sorry if i was rude



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi

Originally posted by UnaChispa
That is colonization at its worst. Imperialism is the cancer of the world.


Thing is, the British occupation of the Falklands hurt no-one because they were unoccupied, unlike the Argentinean genocide of the natives in e.g. Patagonia and subsequent violent colonisation. Do we see the return of lands to the natives by the colonisers of South America AFTER the Spanish and Portuguese withdrew leaving Argentina and company to finish the job with anything none-European.

Regards


Actually, there are some evidence of natives being there before. Whether or not they were there when the Europeans arrived will remain a mystery.
No, we do not see the colonizers of the Americas giving land back to the natives, because most of them are dead or have been relocated.

I'm sure Her Majesty wouldn't want a piece of Greenland being controlled by the Argentine government. It is too close to home and makes the mainland uncomfortable. The Golden rule must apply to everybody.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


1) Valid point about opinion and the control of - I'll state for the record that I can at least partly back up my claim with personal testimony - however, since FULL support would involve personally interviewing every Islander, no I don't have that.

2) Nationality and lineage etc - the "how long is a piece of string?" conclusion can only be gained from going too far down that line of questioning. "Immigrants from Europe" also applies to Argentina to a large degree, remember, since they didn't kill ALL the indigenous population, neither before nor after Argentina became a country in its own right - but Argentina fought for and won self-determination from its European mother due to a (rightful, I'll add) wish to self-govern. If there was a verifiable wish for freedom on the Islands, wouldn't it be "new boss, same as the old boss" to vent that solidarity by supporting the act of another country taking over control from the first?





new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join