Argentina pulls out of pact with UK on Falklands

 

https://www.brusselstimes.com/388221/argentina-pulls-out-of-pact-with-uk-on-falklands-malvinas

Who do they think they are .......Russia 

 

regards Worgeordie

14 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

Who do they think they are .......Russia 

 

regards Worgeordie

Who? The UK?

 Where's Mrs Thatcher when you need her?

This might not end well.  Britain's navy is now severely depleted and no PM was as tough as Maggie.  I'm sure the Argies know this and realise that they can take the Falklands by force and Britain will be unable to do anything about it.

2 minutes ago, simon43 said:

This might not end well.  Britain's navy is now severely depleted and no PM was as tough as Maggie.  I'm sure the Argies know this and realise that they can take the Falklands by force and Britain will be unable to do anything about it.

Really? You honestly think the military resources Argentina has comes close to the UK?

4 minutes ago, simon43 said:

This might not end well.  Britain's navy is now severely depleted and no PM was as tough as Maggie.  I'm sure the Argies know this and realise that they can take the Falklands by force and Britain will be unable to do anything about it.

And anyway. It says they want to renegotiate. Not try and retake the islands. 

26 minutes ago, RickG16 said:

And anyway. It says they want to renegotiate. Not try and retake the islands. 

Population of The Falkland Islands voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. Anyway, it doesn't matter even if UK had no Navy. NATO has to back-up any member nation if invaded.

Like they did the last time.

3 minutes ago, The Fugitive said:

Population of The Falkland Islands voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. Anyway, it doesn't matter even if UK had no Navy. NATO has to back-up any member nation if invaded.

Like they did the last time.

20 minutes ago, The Fugitive said:

NATO has to back-up any member nation if invaded.

No they don't (with regard to the topic at hand), perhaps you need to have a more in-depth look at the agreement.

 

8 minutes ago, norfolkandchance said:

Like they did the last time.

We didn't need any assistance.

3 minutes ago, The Fugitive said:

We didn't need any assistance.

Nevertheless, assistance was excepted from various nations.

8 minutes ago, Salerno said:

No they don't, perhaps you need to have a more in-depth look at the agreement.

Because of geographical location? It's still UK territory inhabited by Brits. We have 'special arrangements' with non-NATO Countries (such as Chile) which proved most useful in 1982. I've personally taken part in a NATO exercise hosted by Chile (USA in command of course). Any more monkey business from those Italians who speak Spanish and think they're English and they won't know what (or who) has hit them!

Well... to be fair, If Argentina owned the Shetland Islands, many would see a very fair claim from Scotland, particularly if Scotland has always historically laid claim. 

 

To the independent observer it would only seem fair that the Islands are returned to Argentina. 

Obviously there is a ‘human’ side to this thus a prolonged handover would seem reasonable.

 

OR... We just go to war again over a ‘fishing island’ with no other resources, half the size of wales with the population of a village some 13,000 km away...  27x further than the Patagonian mainland. 

 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Well... to be fair, If Argentina owned the Shetland Islands Scotland many would see a very fair claim from Scotland, particularly if Scotland has always historically laid claim. 

 

To the independent observer it would only seem fair that the Islands are returned to Argentina. 

Obviously there is a ‘human’ side to this thus a prolonged handover would seem reasonable.

 

OR... We just go to war again over some land half the size of wales with the population of a village some 13,000 km away...  27x further than the Patagonian mainland. 

Valid points Richard! At the time we thought 'The Falklands' was going to be a mere skirmish with a very rapid conclusion with Argentina quickly withdrawing when they realised we were serious.   

7 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Well... to be fair, If Argentina owned the Shetland Islands, many would see a very fair claim from Scotland, particularly if Scotland has always historically laid claim. 

 

To the independent observer it would only seem fair that the Islands are returned to Argentina. 

Obviously there is a ‘human’ side to this thus a prolonged handover would seem reasonable.

 

OR... We just go to war again over a ‘fishing island’ with no other resources, half the size of wales with the population of a village some 13,000 km away...  27x further than the Patagonian mainland. 

 

 

 

 

Why should the UK hand over the Islands with all its natural and mineral resources ?

20 minutes ago, norfolkandchance said:

Why should the UK hand over the Islands with all its natural and mineral resources ?

It is complicated, to say the least. Stolen by colonials (Spanish), not part of Argentina when became independent, then stolen by Britain and a number of Argentinian inhabitants expelled. Vast majority of present inhabitants wish to remain Brits. Who are the actual original owners? 

3 minutes ago, The Fugitive said:

It is complicated, to say the least. Stolen by colonials (Spanish), not part of Argentina when became independent, then stolen by Britain and a number of Argentinian inhabitants expelled. Vast majority of present inhabitants wish to remain Brits. Who are the actual original owners? 

Similar could be said about the USA, Australia, New Zealand etc.....????

Las Malvinas Son Argentinas innit?

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Las Malvinas Son Argentinas innit?

It's called the Falklands..................

3 minutes ago, transam said:

It's called the Falklands..................

That's debateable.

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

That's debateable.

When the French were previously in residence, they named it Malovines, the Spanish did their thing there too...

5 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Well... to be fair, If Argentina owned the Shetland Islands, many would see a very fair claim from Scotland, particularly if Scotland has always historically laid claim. 

 

To the independent observer it would only seem fair that the Islands are returned to Argentina. 

Obviously there is a ‘human’ side to this thus a prolonged handover would seem reasonable.

 

OR... We just go to war again over a ‘fishing island’ with no other resources, half the size of wales with the population of a village some 13,000 km away...  27x further than the Patagonian mainland. 

 

 

 

 

Returned to Argentina? That's impossible.

 

The Falklands have never been Argentinian.

20 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

Returned to Argentina? That's impossible.

 

The Falklands have never been Argentinian.

Well, a few French lived there before the British laid claim in about 1833...  

So the French may have laid claim before that...   but before that the Spanish passed on Las Malvinas to the Argentinians in circa 1800.... 

 

so... I think you’re just avinalaff.... 

11 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Well, a few French lived there before the British laid claim in about 1833...  

So the French may have laid claim before that...   but before that the Spanish passed on Las Malvinas to the Argentinians in circa 1800.... 

 

so... I think you’re just avinalaff.... 

Incorrect. 

 

When Argentina achieved independence from Spain, the Falklands were already under British control.

If I'm not mistaken the reason the UK wanted to hang on to those islands was because oil reserves were suspected nearby. Now those islands are only a dead loss. If I were the Argentines I'd let the UK pay until the cows come home to maintain the life-line.

The UK will never stop paying.

The UK will never stop paying.

36 minutes ago, JackGats said:

If I'm not mistaken the reason the UK wanted to hang on to those islands was because oil reserves were suspected nearby. Now those islands are only a dead loss. If I were the Argentines I'd let the UK pay until the cows come home to maintain the life-line.

 

1 hour ago, JackGats said:

If I'm not mistaken the reason the UK wanted to hang on to those islands was because oil reserves were suspected nearby. Now those islands are only a dead loss. If I were the Argentines I'd let the UK pay until the cows come home to maintain the life-line.

I think you'll find it's  because the Falkland Islanders are British citizens. They voted to remain as such by way of self determination