It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Britain says 'no military escalation' in Falklands

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnaChispa
I don't support imperialism. I ultimately want the Malvinas to be there own nation.


So Imperialism is bad but it's perfectly alright to tell people whose sovereignty they should fall under. There's some sense in there somewhere I'm sure.

Travel to the Falklands and refer to the islands as the Malvinas and you won't make many friends, put it that way.




posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by tommyjo
 


This was what I hoped someone would say (or rather, wouldn't say), because to say 'nuclear submarines' in that context is pointless - ALL of Britain's submarines are nuclear submarines, so the phrase has no meaning unless referring to SSBNs. The fact the Royal Navy doesn't have any diesel submarines left anymore to send to the area is hardly its fault, is it?



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kolya
reply to post by tommyjo
 


This was what I hoped someone would say (or rather, wouldn't say), because to say 'nuclear submarines' in that context is pointless - ALL of Britain's submarines are nuclear submarines, so the phrase has no meaning unless referring to SSBNs. The fact the Royal Navy doesn't have any diesel submarines left anymore to send to the area is hardly its fault, is it?



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?


Not sure where you are going with this? I was referring to your post referring to the SSBN. Of course SSBNs are not going to be sent in defence of the Falklands. The SSNs are routinely available for such deployment and it is those that the journalist is referring to when he/she mentions nuclear submarine. Obviously in terms of a deterrent a nuclear powered submarine has many distinct advantages over a conventional submarine. The article is written for journalistic effect for joe public. Of course the journalist should have written nuclear-powered submarine. The reality is how many UK taxpayers actually know the composition or make up of the Royal Navy submarine fleet?
edit on 8-2-2012 by tommyjo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by tommyjo
Of course the journalist should have written nuclear-powered submarine. The reality is how many UK taxpayers actually know the composition or make up of the Royal Navy submarine fleet?
edit on 8-2-2012 by tommyjo because: (no reason given)


Me for one!

I actually thought they meant they had nuclear weapons on board


My bad...



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by tommyjo
The reality is how many UK taxpayers actually know the composition or make up of the Royal Navy submarine fleet?


Any of them that care to look it up on wiki



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Wot they sed. I have both professional and private (as in 'for my own interest', not 'it's secret') reasons for knowing these things, and while the average journalist has 'professional' reason to look this stuff up they often don't...



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
I see from the wikipedia article on Falkland Islands that the official language is Engish.


The predominant and official language is English. Under the British Nationality Act of 1983, Falkland Islanders are British citizens.
en.wikipedia.org...

If Argentina gets a hold of it they'll probably force all its residents to speak Spanish. It's kind of nice knowing English is surviving that far down in Latin America. The U.S. has a great number of Spanish speaking citizens and since they have the most babies here I can see a future where Spanish is the dominant language. So, Britain don't give up the Falkland Islands, for English sake - God save the Queen.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 07:58 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?

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)


Umm during the elections?

What would you rather do with our Nuclear Deterrent, sat in a drydock costing you a similar amount of money.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by UnaChispa
 

The British arent going anywhere as long as the people of the Falkland Islands wish to remain British.

European possessions in the Western Hemisphere:
Danish: Greenland.
Dutch: Aruba, Curacao, Bonaire, Saba, St. Estatitus, St. Martin (Dutch).
French: St. Pierre & Miquelon, French Guiana, Martinique & dependencies, Guadalupe & dependencies, St. Martin (French).
British: Bermuda, Turks & Caicos Islands, British Virgin Islands, Anguilla, Montserrat, Cayman Islands, St. Helena & Ascension Island, Falkland Islands, South Georgia & and the South Sandwich Islands.

ALL European and European they will stay as long as the residents wish.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisF231
reply to post by UnaChispa
 

Well how would you like it if one day Mexico demanded we (the US) return California to them? I bet you wouldent be so thrilled either. Afterall we stole California from Mexico you know ...

You rant and rave against imperialism but then support it in the next breath. The Argentine claim is also imperialism.
edit on 8-2-2012 by ChrisF231 because: (no reason given)


They took it from Spain actually.The native Mexicans didn't push that far into the Americas.
With that aside though its safe to say both Argentina and England have both acted immature in regards to the Islands. Though at the end of the day what the populace wants to remain under is what matters.
edit on 9-2-2012 by paganini because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by benjamin2012
 


For the record, as a higher rate tax payer and owner of a business that also pays a lot of tax I have NO ISSUE whatsoever with defending British citizens no matter what part of the World they are from.

What does annoy me is my tax money being given in handouts in the form of benefits...if we didn't have so many layabouts we wouldn't have such a big structural deficit and thus have to worry about such things like the cost of defending our citizens.

Maybe we should hand over our council estates to Argentina instead..

edit on 9-2-2012 by biggilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 02:47 AM
link   
I live in the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labradore. I live on the island of Newfoundland.

Literally just off the shore of my island, theres a set of islands called Ste. Pierre and Miquelon, Collectivité territoriale de Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon as the French call it, because its the only remnant of the former colonial empire of New France that remains under French control.

What if, tomrrow, Canada decided to go ahead and annex that isle. Would you be in support of that?

After all, it is really quite close indeed to the island of Newfoundland, part of a Canadian province. A very short ferry ride. I've never been there personally, nor do I frankly with to go there.




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join