UK PANIC?!

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I don't understand why the UK would go to the trouble and expense of defending that.

It's British sovereign territory, populated by British citizens. I would think any further justification would be unnecessary.

[Herr-Berbunch]

The oil wasn't there 29 years ago, well it obviously was, but not discovered. Just the people. At least these days people know it's whereabouts, in '82 they all went reaching for the world atlas.

Yes I would like everyone to take note that the islands are called The Falkland Islands. Not the Malvinas!!!!!

They have several names, would you like to remind everone to take note that there is a piece of water which you call the English Channel but others call La Manche!!!!!
After all people must stop calling those balliwicks Isles d'la manche or people get testy

It's British sovereign territory,

That is a matter of dispute, just like six counties, Gibralter, Rockall and bits of cyprus not to mention Wales Scotland and even cornwall.

populated by British citizens

That was a matter of dispute....with Britain.

I would think any further justification would be unnecessary.

It would be unnecesssary, if it wasn't a matter of dispute.

[jumpy]

Originally Posted by stormrider_sp

Please, no political bias here. But thanks for answering.

Not bias, you asked what we thought and you got an answer - we think it should remain british sovereign territory, and so do the people who live there - we are not overly worried by any military build up by argentina/brazil, for reasons listed, not least of which is that the world would take a dim view of argentina attacking a sovereign nations territory... again. Such would only damage argentinian reputation from a democratic country to a retrograde position it left behind many years ago, along with making political dissidents 'disappear'.

Originally Posted by stormrider_sp

Please moderators, would you close this thread before it turns out to be a political flamming?

No flaming here mate, just what some of us britishers think and feel about it...

Originally Posted by stormrider_sp

Is the UK in panic about Brazilian and Argentinian's plans to build ssn and renew their navies?

SNIP

I would like to know how you guys feel and think about that.

Cheers

You did ask

We're not worried or afraid of new surface vessels as a threat to british territory, mainly because the UK would not give up the Falkland islands without a fight, even for the sake of receiving a bloody nose in the process. It'd be a clearer cut conflict of arms than any that we are currently engaged in for sure.




Referring to them as either the malvinas or falkland isles does give away the standpoint of the speaker, however; no brit would ever call them 'malvenas isles' just as no argie would call them 'falkland isles'. I see nothing wrong with either, just so long as we are clear about who owns them . (I'm making a pointed joke here, just so's you know)

[Karle94]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I was just about to ask this. According to Wikipedia, there's a population of just over 3000 on the islands, with an annual GDP of $75 milion USD. I don't understand why the UK would go to the trouble and expense of defending that. But if there's resources there, that makes more sense.

Originally Posted by August

It's British sovereign territory, populated by British citizens. I would think any further justification would be unnecessary.

There was more to that than just British territory and citizens. This was not the first time that other counties had seized British islands, this was the first time that Great Britain reacted to it. They didn`t want to seem weak in their sphere of influence, just like the US in the Cuban missile crisis back in 62.

[Oberon]

The Argentinian armed forces are in a state not that much better than our own...in fact they are probably a bit worse off. Cuts, cut backs, neglect.
It'll be years before they get the boat running and then the cost of upkeep will probably mean that it'll never leave dock.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by August

It's British sovereign territory, populated by British citizens. I would think any further justification would be unnecessary.

I agree with you August. Mookiemookie, what you think United States would do if someone captures Key West? I know, I know its not exactly same but still do you see any other viable options for U.S. government but to respond with force?

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

I agree with you August. Mookiemookie, what you think United States would do if someone captures Key West? I know, I know its not exactly same but still do you see any other viable options for U.S. government but to respond with force?

Maybe Guam might be a better example...

oh snap...

[Lord Justice]

This does not give cause for concern, no panic here whatsoever.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Karle94

There was more to that than just British territory and citizens. This was not the first time that other counties had seized British islands, this was the first time that Great Britain reacted to it. They didn`t want to seem weak in their sphere of influence, just like the US in the Cuban missile crisis back in 62.

This makes sense. Thanks for that answer.

[Skybird]

I admit, ignoring any legal bean counting attempt, from a point of reason I have a problem with claiming an small rock on the other side of the planet to be an object of national sovereignity. Whether it be Guam for the US, or Gibraltar or Falkland Islands for Britain, or any similiar geographic absurd constellation - just to leave a stamp-sized piece of land in another, a completely and totally diffent place of the globa, and then make claims about it and link it to national soveriegnity and national home territoies - it makes no sense, it is hilarious, it is absurd. It even does not serve in any understandable diplomatic function, like embassies do.

But possible that such geographic platforms and outposts, like a big warship eternally fixed in its geographical position, serve opportunistic political and economic intentions. But then it is an issue of economic intentions - not national sovereignity per se.

That britain still claims power over the falklands to me makes as much sense as if Madagaskar would make sovereign national claims for the Orkney Islands. The Orkneys of Man lies offshore the British coast, and the Falklands lie offshore South America, not Scotland.

For heaven's sake, let reasonability prevail just this time. It's on the other side of the planet - what else must be explained on this...?.

[Oberon]

Resources, primarily oil. If we weren't going to shift before...we sure as hell won't be shifting now.

[stormrider_sp]

I'm sorry if I let myself go misunderstood. My question did not regard Malvinas, but actually brazilian and argentinian governmnent's plans to build ssn, cause reading the headlines, seemed UK was in shock mainly because of Malvinas.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I admit, ignoring any legal bean counting attempt, from a point of reason I have a problem with claiming an small rock on the other side of the planet to be an object of national sovereignity. Whether it be Guam for the US, or Gibraltar or Falkland Islands for Britain, or any similiar geographic absurd constellation - just to leave a stamp-sized piece of land in another, a completely and totally diffent place of the globa, and then make claims about it and link it to national soveriegnity and national home territoies - it makes no sense, it is hilarious, it is absurd. It even does not serve in any understandable diplomatic function, like embassies do.

But possible that such geographic platforms and outposts, like a big warship eternally fixed in its geographical position, serve opportunistic political and economic intentions. But then it is an issue of economic intentions - not national sovereignity per se.

That britain still claims power over the falklands to me makes as much sense as if Madagaskar would make sovereign national claims for the Orkney Islands. The Orkneys of Man lies offshore the British coast, and the Falklands lie offshore South America, not Scotland.

For heaven's sake, let reasonability prevail just this time. It's on the other side of the planet - what else must be explained on this...?.

Go read Debt of Honor, good old Jack puts it in a simple to understand way.

"The citizens of those islands are American citizens, with U.S. passports—not because we made them do it, but because they freely chose to be. That's called self-determination. We brought the idea to those rocks, and the people there must have thought that we were serious about it."

...


"So we let a foreign country strip the citizenship rights of Americans because it's too hard to defend them?" Ryan asked more quietly. "Then what? What about the next time it happens? Tell me, when did we stop being the United States of America?"

[Oberon]

I dare say that there is a possibility, a strong one, that as the future rolls on and the economic crisis digs deeper that there are going to be a lot of people asking whether the expenditure is worth it. Maybe not on Guam because that's a good Asian counter, nor on the Falklands because of the oil reserves, but other places, that the US or UK or any other country in this debt problem owns that isn't right next door to their shores.

Something'll give, in the future, in regards to the finances, something has to.