world

British PM stokes war of words over Falklands

47 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2012 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

47 Comments
Login to comment

Cameron is just telling the truth - he's prepared to defend British Citizens and British Territory. Argentina is just using the issue to build up political capital at home.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Meryl Streep has reopened some grievous wounds.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Wasn't the UK all for Colonialism around the world for several centuries?

2 ( +7 / -5 )

“What the Argentinians have been saying recently, I would argue, is actually far more like colonialism because these people want to remain British and the Argentinians want them to do something else.”

No, the Argentinians just want the island, the 3000 or so British residents can go British somewhere else, like in Gibraltar..hah!

0 ( +5 / -5 )

As much as I like Englands citizens, I cant stand their leaders. Forever they have done nothing but bred pompous. They have never been as generous as they take. I bet most commonwealth countries wouldnt care if England states it cant defend them.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

"Wasn't the UK all for Colonialism around the world for several centuries?" ummm... yeah you kind of said it your self with you the use of the word "WAS"

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Everyone's ancestors were involved in colonialism to some extent. The Argentinians were not adverse to it themselves - as the Patagonian Natives found out.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Tensions began rising in 2010, when London authorized oil prospecting around the islands

Why am I not surprised at this?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

illsayit,

not England, but "the United Kingdom".

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Here we go again! Stupid cold islands in the middle of no where with more sheep than human citizens, call them the Falklands, call the Las Malvinas, what ever you want, but I do hope the UK and Argentina do not go at it again, oil?? Why fight over OIL when Chavez can give it away from Venezuela to Argentina??

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Sounds like Cameron's spoiling for a fight; just like Thatcher, he wants to distract the British public from his government's incompetence and screw-the-poor policies by engaging in a nice little war: just a few thousand young men drowned, shot or burnt to death. A price well worth paying to keep the Tories in power and the populace on side. Evil, evil people.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

So the people of the island want to remain part of the UK, the UK want the islands still and have had them since 1833 prior to that they where Spanish and French. So where exactly does Argentina come into this apart from the fact that Argentina was once part of the Spanish Empire? Yet the Argentinians are offended at being accused of colonialism yet its them who ignore the wishes of the residents of the islands and want to impose their own way on them.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

@Cletus

The British government certainly didn't want the islands in the 1960s when they repeatedly tried (secretly) to cede them to Argentina without annoying the locals too much. They only became an issue when the Tory government saw a chance to make political capital out of Argentina's idiot plan to try and take the islands by force. In fact that very same Tory government passed legislation banning Falkanders from working in the UK only a few months before the war. That's how much they cared.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Oh quit it, a few thousand dead Argies or Brits aren't going to solve the global recession.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Here we go again! Stupid cold islands in the middle of no where with more sheep than human citizens, call them the Falklands, call the Las Malvinas, what ever you want, but I do hope the UK and Argentina do not go at it again, oil??

It's like New Zealand with importance

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The tragedy of this is, for all his bluster, if Argentina were to mount an invasion tomorrow, Cameron for all his bluster would have to bend over and take it. Ten years of ruinous and futile war, plus incompetence and corruption in all aspects of British politics have left the UK without a single available warship with which to defend the Falklands.

We even had to borrow ships from the sodding French in 2005 to mount a limpwristed lets-not-upset-anyone commemoration of Trafalgar at its bicentennial.

This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land, Dear for her reputation through the world, Is now leased out, I die pronouncing it, Like to a tenement or pelting farm: England, bound in with the triumphant sea Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame, With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds: That England, that was wont to conquer others, Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.
-5 ( +1 / -6 )

The British Royal Navy couldn't defend the Falklands. The Royal Air Force can't get there.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The British Royal Navy couldn't defend the Falklands. The Royal Air Force can't get there.

Complete nonsense. RAF Mount Pleasant can accept all sorts of military aircraft. The RAF could reinforce the base very quickly.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Never mind ancient history. Never mind the fact that the Falklands are off the coast of Argentina. Those things confused me when I was a teenager and the war was on. I have since grown up.

What matters is that the majority of people living on the Falklands consider themselves British and want to be part of Britian. That is quite simply all that counts. Those British people and their ancestors have been there since even before Argentina was officially a country!

Argentina's claims are a joke that isn't funny. The way Argentina got its butt totally pummelled in the Falklands War was divine justice at work if there is such a thing.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

In the 1982 the Royal Navy had a hard time defending the Falklands, losing many ships. Today the Royal Navy is no longer what it was. There are only fighter aircraft on the Falklands.

"The RAF could reinforce the base very quickly."

How would they get there?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

zichi

In the 1982 the Royal Navy had a hard time defending the Falklands, losing many ships. Today the Royal Navy is no longer what it was. There are only fighter aircraft on the Falklands.

Actually they have a bit more than fighters on the island, they have fighter aircraft (Typhoons), air to air refueling aircraft, transport aircraft, and helicopters. In addition the RN has a warship (Frigate or Destroyer) stationed there, as well as a smaller patrol vessel and a submarine from time to time. The army also stations infantry and engineering troops there.

Against this the Argentineans have 30 odd 1960's era Skyhawks, a few (about 20) old Mirages and 7 newer Mirages

"The RAF could reinforce the base very quickly." How would they get there?

Um by flying! Like they do now they stop over in the Ascencion Islands.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The once was Great Britain isnt so Great any more is it . Give the malvinas back to the argies.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

I bet most commonwealth countries wouldnt care if England states it cant defend them.

I dont think Britain would ever state that they are able to defend Commonwealth nations. Some Cth nations have bigger armies than Britain now. Britain is NOT a colonial power and has not been for a very long time.

The bottom line is the people of the Falklands wish to remain British and have no interest in tying themselves to Argentina. The Republic needs to try and sort out it's decaying economy before they can talk themselves up to a nation like Britain. Could make for an interesting soccer/rugby game if things escalate though!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

In the 1982 the Royal Navy had a hard time defending the Falklands, losing many ship

Is 5 ships (+2 landing craft) considered "many" these days?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Is 5 ships (+2 landing craft) considered "many" these days?

Yes, considering that the Argentinians only had a green water navy and the only major ship they lost was the General Belgrano which was an ex-US Brooklyn class light cruiser from WWII. British surface ships had little effective defense against Exocet missiles.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Deja vu all over again....

Sounds like Cameron's spoiling for a fight; just like Thatcher, he wants to distract the British public from his government's incompetence and screw-the-poor policies by engaging in a nice little war: just a few thousand young men drowned, shot or burnt to death. A price well worth paying to keep the Tories in power and the populace on side. Evil, evil people.

Absolutely, well said. Let's hope we've learned from last time & don't support these war mongers.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It's not the number of ships you have it's what you have and how you use them. The Falklands war showed how just one submarine could effectively paralyse an opponent. I can't imagine many Argentinian admirals even today would fancy their chances against British submarines.

And presumably everyone saying the Falklands should be given to the Argentinians are equally vocal about Taiwan being given back to China?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

How do we know the Falklands residents want to remain British? Was there a vote, or a trustworthy poll? Just wondering, since that seems to be the crux of the disagreement.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

war mongering

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

As far as know there have NEVER been any Argentinian people on the islands. They were uninhabited and settled by the UK. In fact if Argentina took the islands they would be the occupying power. As for the ships the UK should let their ships be under the UK flag. Second if the UK needs help defending the islands the USA should send 3 or 4 Aircraft battle groups to defend them. The Americans used force to change out one set of thugs for another even worse set. It is like whose side are you on?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Eff Argentina. Britain needs to finish them off for good if something starts up.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

As far as know there have NEVER been any Argentinian people on the islands. They were uninhabited and settled by the UK. In fact if Argentina took the islands they would be the occupying power. As for the ships the UK should let their ships be under the UK flag. Second if the UK needs help defending the islands the USA should send 3 or 4 Aircraft battle groups to defend them. The Americans used force to change out one set of thugs for another even worse set. It is like whose side are you on?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Is 5 ships (+2 landing craft) considered "many" these days?

Most sailors would say yes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is 5 ships (+2 landing craft) considered "many" these days?

Yes, those numbers are high, considering the only major surface combatant ship the Argies lost was the WWII relic General Belgrano. Most British surface ships did not have adequate protection against cruise missiles such as the Exocet, that's why they lost 2 destroyers and 2 frigates.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

What - they didn't learn the first time? Well, the Paras and the Royal Marines probably do need some exercise to get a bit of the rust out. Increase the RAF presence a bit this go around.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Didn't the Argies learn the first time? I suppose the Paras and Royal Marines do need a good exercise to get the rust out. Just need a slightly bigger RAF presence next time.

How do we know the Falklands residents want to remain British? Was there a vote, or a trustworthy poll? Just wondering, since that seems to be the crux of the disagreement.

yes, they actually did conduct a pole before or after the last bit of trouble, and overwhelmingly the inhabitants wished to remain under British rule. In the 1960's there was even a plan for the UK to cede the Falklands back to Argentina, while keeping the rights of the citizenry to have free self-reign - or something to that effect. The Falkland Islanders went nuts. They consider themselves to be British, and want to keep it that way.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The Argies need to realize that they should back off from this. They never occupied the Falkland Island, its not a part of their territory, the people that live there want British rule not Argentinian rule. They lost the first time around so by that point they should of sat down and shut up. Might not have that too many ships now but the RN still has subs which can attack from pretty much anywhere and we also still have the Marines and Paras who would be more than happy to kick some argie ass.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Prime Minister David Cameron accused Argentina of “colonialism” toward the Falklands

And if anyone knows about colonialism, it's the British. ;-)

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

People keep saying "back to" Argentina, like give back or cede back. There is no "back to" Argentina! Argentina never possessed these islands. There was talk of giving the islands to Argentina, yes. But there was no talk of giving them back. You can't give someone back what they never had.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

They consider themselves to be British, and want to keep it that way.

God knows why - they are thousands of miles from "home" and most of them have never even set foot in the British Isles.

I dont really know the details of Argentinas claim to the islands (other than the fact that they are closer to Argentina than the UK - is that their reason?) but - surprise surprise - the oil issue crops up and suddenly everyone is out to grab what they can. Is that really what this is all about? That there might be oil there?

The last thing I want to see is another "conflict" (we were never allowed to say "war" as I remember?!) and thousands more young men and women dead. Have we not had enough of Afghanistan? My hometown was the one that repatriated all the bodies coming back from the Middle East. They were driven up the high street in convoy every week or so. Everyone came out to pay their respects. It was somber and very sad. The last thing I want to see is more of the same.

I can absolutely see Cameron using this as an opportunity to galvanise the nation though. Nobody could relate to Afghanistan but OUR islands - that is going to stir up some emotions. Perfect time to distract everyone from the failing economy, social unrest, etc etc. No chance of solving this issue diplomatically?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Obama has shown he will stand with Argentina. Tough luck, Cameron.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

All wars are about oil.. the economic blood line to any country.. land grabs from back in the day from the Americas, Africa, Asia, are still in question though the main emphasis has and always will be about oil.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

scotchegg wrote

And presumably everyone saying the Falklands should be given to the Argentinians are equally vocal about Taiwan being given back to China? Interesting point. The comparison with the Senkaku Islands is interesting too. Both I think, hinge on the question, can one legally or fairly inhabit and or claim a "terra nullis" inside the continental shelf of another nation? China and Argentina say not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the people there want to be British then let them. Argentine needs to be qiet on this one because they got spanked once already... The Argies are in no way ready to fight a war with Britain. Now if they bought a few more Mirages, like, Rafale, and a couple of sporty Mistral ships, some really good Russian SAM systems like S-300 then they could give it a try!! But really, this is stupid!!!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Obama has instructed the US State Dept to refer to the islands in question as The Malvinas. Unlike when Reagan was in office our ally Great Britain is on their own this time.

Hope !

Change !

0 ( +1 / -1 )

unreconstructed, so much for America helping its friends. If Obama lets the Argentinians invade the Falklands, it would mean that Japans treaty with them is garbage. Well the UK does possess nukes. America is going to allow a slaughter to take place to placate its "friends" in South America.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites