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

[B00]

hear hear New Judge- brilliantly put :-)

[jno]

they may be British, NJ, but it's still like saying the people of the Isle of Wight have the right to demand indefinite and unlimited government spending on them because their wishes are paramount. They don't. The government, representing *all* the people of Britain, has the right to conclude that any given game is not worth the candle. To keep the Falklands but lose the NHS would be the wrong way round - in my opinion.

[B00]

But we're not losing the NHS?

[New Judge]

Once again, the options are not mutually exclusive and I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to differ, jno.

The first duty of any government must be the defence of its citizens. (Not much use having a health service if the nation is overrun by a foreign power). And that’s all its citizens, not just those who might be “worth defending” or who are conveniently placed to defend easily.

I’m surprised that you consider the Isle of Wight may be sacrificed if the rest of the UK considers defending it might be a bit tricky or expensive. I don’t know what the Caulkheads would have to say about that. So where does it end, then? The people on the mainland are quite happy to see the Isle of Wight occupied. What next? Southampton and Portsmouth? “Hang on”, say the people of those towns, “That’s not what we meant”. Well, the people up north won’t worry too much about that will they? They’re bound to vote against any money being spent looking after those poncey southerners. May as well hand over all of Hampshire and Sussex then. A few of the Home Counties won’t get much support from the Ekky Thumpers either, so we can chuck a few of them in. On to Northamptonshire, then perhaps Warwickshire and Staffordshire. Wonder what the Northerners would think about that? I think you get my drift.

This country can find oodles of dosh to defend and protect people all over the globe. Many of them despise westerners and have no connection with the west. To suggest that it is “too expensive” to defend the population of a British Overseas Territory from invasion and colonisation, casting the population to the wolves is too preposterous for words.

[jno]

I'd agree that the distance from the Isle of Wight to Portsmouth isn't all that great, which is why I'd expect it to be defended. But the distance to Port Stanley is rather greater - I'm not just talking about the cost of getting men and materiel there, but the mental distance. It feels a long way off, because it is. If Port Stanley fell, Portsmouth would not be imperilled.

People may feel the islands are worth defending - but at any cost? Would they, for instance, agree to pay more tax to finance a war? Maybe so, that's their prerogative. I'm just not certain that they would, not in times that are already tough.

B00, I'm relieved to hear, from both you and Mr Cameron, that the NHS is safe. I hope you're both right.

[New Judge]

So it's just a matter of geographical location, then?

[jno]

not "just", but I think that's part of it. A common location breeds national feeling; having bits scattered round the globe just feels like the remnants of empire, which inspire less feeling these days.

You could draw a parallel with hypothermia, if you like: the body will sacrifice the extremities to keep the core safe. Expend resources on faraway islands and you may not have them to spend on something nearer to home. I'll stick with the example of the NHS: can a government argue that it hasn't got the resources to keep a health service going, and yet does have unlimited resources to defend islands in the south Atlantic?

I know you say it's not either/or; but when resources are limited, choices do have to be made. If not that particular choice, then others.

[nungate]

It's all about oil and mineral rights. We've got it they want it. As far as I can tell the Falklands have never ever been part of Argentina or been administered from there. They are British, the people wish to remain British, if we can send troops all over the world to defend other peoples we ought to do the same for our own citizens irrespective of where they are

[sunny-dave]

I have been vehement in my opposition to our neo-colonial, 'world policeman' interventions in assorted sovereign countries where we just shouldn't be interfering.

But this is different, as so many have already said - they were uninhabited until we settled them and Argentina didn't even exist as a political entity at the time. The islands are ours, the people are ours and (whether or not they are actually worth anything) the mineral rights etc are ours.

We have a nuclear submarine there - perhaps someone should be showing films of Hiroshima to the residents of Buenos Aires ... OK so that is tongue firmly in cheek, but the principle holds true - we can do a da*n sight more damage to them than they can to us - so lets concentrate their minds a little before they do anything stupid ...

[jno]

dave, they weren't uninhabited: there was a French colony there when Britain first arrived and laid claim to them. Spain, which ruled Argentina, took over the French settlement, and the British garrison surrendered to the Spanish. Spain and Britain avoided outright war over this but never did agree on who owned them. So Britain sticks to its claim, and Argentina inherited Spain's claim when it became independent.

There's some background here

http://en.wikipedia.o...and_Crisis_%281770%29

[New Judge]

Fascinating as that all is, jno, it’s largely academic. Argentina made no noises about the islands between about 1830 and the early 1960s.The people there now have no connection with Argentina and never have had. Unless they are evicted they would have to succumb to rule by a foreign power who has taken a shine to the place they live. Do you really think that is acceptable?

[VoiceofReason]

Its all politics. I doubt very much that Argentina will launch an assault as they are playing a much cleverer game in getting Central/South America on side and involving the UN.

I also wonder why Chile never laid claim, there shoreline seems to be as close as Argentinas.

[peashaq]

The concept of "owning" land is puerile and should be consigned to where it belongs, viz. the playground.

[jno]

just trying to inject some facts into the discussion, NJ. If you gain a right to a place simply by living there while the owner doesn't do anything, isn't that what's called squatting? Is squatting acceptable? The British government doesn't seem to think so, since Ken Clarke's trying to outlaw it.

(Imagine a squatter trying to resist eviction on the grounds that he has no connection with the real owner...)

[Quizmonster]

As I pointed out in a similar thread recently, Tierra del Fuego - which is the province the Argentinians claim the Falklands belong to - did not even officially and legally become part of Argentina until 1990! In 1861 they and Chile agreed on the division of Tierra del Fuego between them but still they almost went to war as late as the 1970s over it.
Both these dates are perfectly clearly long after the British settlement there was firmly established. In the days when exploring countries were discovering the world and claiming lumps of it, the British were first to land there in 1690. In the 1760s, the French settlement and the British one were there simultaneously and, apparently, for some years neither was even aware of the other's existence! The French simply had no right to "sell" the islands to Spain and so their transfer to Argentina had no legal standing either.
The geographical argument is, of course, absurd. As regards the Isle of Wight, a far more relevant 'local' illustration would be the Channel Islands. These are just offshore France, but they're British. Yes, we gave up on them during World War II when fighting for our very survival, but they're still "ours" now, aren't they?
The Argentinians whine about colonisation, but that is precisely what THEY would be doing to the Falklands if they got sovereignty. The whole current hoo-haa is ridiculous.

[mightyWBA]

They are British,the people there are British,end of story.
Geography has nothing to do with it.

I don't suppose may of you have heard of this place 12 miles off the Canadian coast.
http://en.wikipedia.o...t_Pierre_and_Miquelon

[mightyWBA]

*many

[anotheoldgit]

jno

/// I'll stick with the example of the NHS: can a government argue that it hasn't got the resources to keep a health service going, and yet does have unlimited resources to defend islands in the south Atlantic? ///

It seems that your concerns revolves around money, this being the case and since provisions for our elderly are being cut-back, should we now remove all monetary foreign aid, so as to care for our elderly?

[d9f1c7]

so you rent then peashaq do you?

[jomifl]

Britain ought to claim the Faeroe Islands and France should claim the channel islands on the basis of some of the arguments made here. The Falkland islands are owned by the Falkland islanders it is their choice, it is that simple.