Who should have rights to the Falkland Islands ?

[Greypatch]

agreed spike...


as for the arctic I believe there is an unwritten agreement wiat all the nations whose boundaries may extend to the pole.

its supposed to be a neutral zone.

as it should be with both poles.

[Skanky]

The British really don't care too much about it except for it's possible oil reserves..actually they started drilling today.

The Argentines on the other hand literally threatened me for not calling it the Malvinas Islands.

I spoke to Brits about it and they could care less(about 7 yrs ago) but every single Argentine was very passionate about their Malvinas.

I think it's just another example of politics and greed overcoming good sense....besides the place is full of seals,penguins and whales.

[Greypatch]

pal if you have pics of the place please post them

[Skanky]

Don't have pics.
I wasn't actually there I was on the Argentine side but those Argentines not going to take that so easy.

That part of the world in general nothing but cold and lonely arctic desert and arctic animals.

[Greypatch]

men have fought for worse...

[cacasplat3]

if there weren't inhabitants on Falkland Islands i think it would have been Argentina's........

when i went to Argentina last year it was less than 0 in September, and i was much further north than the islands......i could only imagine the climate there......

[d spike]

So when they fought the war in the ‘80s they knew it had oil back then too, or was it just Margaret Thatcher being a royal kant?

Death to the greedy fcuking imperialists!

Back in '82 they didn,t know about the oil. All they knew was a bunch of people, who had a valid claim in referring to themselves as members of the same Empire, were being invaded by others who claimed the land as theirs. They felt they had a duty to protect and defend their own - but duty and honour are misguided concepts that only occur to "greedy fcuking imperialists" and "royal kants", I suppose. Good men died defending a bunch of folks' right to call somewhere they lived "home".

[d spike]

Don't have pics.
I wasn't actually there I was on the Argentine side but those Argentines not going to take that so easy.

That part of the world in general nothing but cold and lonely arctic desert and arctic animals.

If you're talking about the Falklands, then I think you meant 'polar'. Arctic tends to refer to stuff at the other end of the globe.

[Skanky]

Don't have pics.
I wasn't actually there I was on the Argentine side but those Argentines not going to take that so easy.

That part of the world in general nothing but cold and lonely arctic desert and arctic animals.

If you're talking about the Falklands, then I think you meant 'polar'. Arctic tends to refer to stuff at the other end of the globe.

Waay bai allyuh cobo does nitpick

Well yes I meant polar or antarctic desert and aminals.

Ah geh confuse when in mid august I looking to break out meh tiger stripe jockeyshorts on the beach and outside is -10C.

[d spike]

Waay bai allyuh cobo does nitpick

Well yes I meant polar or antarctic desert and aminals.

Yes, we does nitpick. Jus' because dead dog on de menu, doh mean we does eat wit' we eyes closed.

An' is "corbeau", eh...

Ah go leave yuh an yuh "aminals" alone (dem is miniature creatures, or a mineral or what?)

[d spike]

To answer the question posed in the topic, "Who should have rights to the Falkland Islands?", shouldn't it be the people who have been living there all this time?

[Skanky]

I don't really know the nitty gritty of the situation and I bet both Argentina and England will have their views as to why they own Las Malvinas...... but spike if we go by your theory of it belongs to the people who living there all this time Miami would belong to Cuba

[geodude]

i think all the ppl who talking bout trini and veni, and cuba and miami forgetting that trini and cuba are both recognised countries with their own independant governments, so the idea of anyone claiming thes places if Argentina was allowed to clain these islands is rubbish.

the Falken islands on the other other hand is not an independent state with no formal government structure, these islands are just pieces of property which could go any way as it was back in the day with the caribbean islands, true their are are colonies there but such a small number of ppl could easily be relocatred if they want to , i think in all fairness the islands should be given over to the ppl of Argentina, its just common sence
,but sadly .. see Jokers sig

[d spike]

i think all the ppl who talking bout trini and veni, and cuba and miami forgetting that trini and cuba are both recognised countries with their own independant governments, so the idea of anyone claiming thes places if Argentina was allowed to clain these islands is rubbish.

the Falken islands on the other other hand is not an independent state with no formal government structure, these islands are just pieces of property which could go any way as it was back in the day with the caribbean islands, true their are are colonies there but such a small number of ppl could easily be relocatred if they want to , i think in all fairness the islands should be given over to the ppl of Argentina, its just common sence
,but sadly .. see Jokers sig

Your first paragraph shows your age (or absence) in '82 as well as during the build-up to that war. (I do believe the remark about Cuba and Miami was a joke.) Venezuela kept a very close eye on the entire affair. Our autonomy was never a consideration as far as "annexing" (to be polite) was concerned.

Relocation? Because some other country that you hold no allegiance to, says so? You need to live long enough somewhere to know what "home" is, my boy. Pieces of property, eh. What of Tuvalu? The Maldives? Why can't the people who live there just "relocate"? Handing over the Falklands to Argentina isn't either "fairness" or "common sense", as pointed out by many heads of state "back in the day" in 1982 when Argentina invaded.

The Falklands were British before Argentina was Argentinian.

No formal government structure? Where do you get your information from? So having a Constitution and a Legislative Council etc. doesn't count as a "formal government structure"?

As far as an economy goes:
Sheep farming was formerly the main source of income for the islands and still plays an important part with high quality wool exports going to the UK: according to the Falklands Islands Meat Company there are more than 500,000 sheep on the islands.
Since 1984, efforts to diversify the economy have made fishing the largest part of the economy and brought increasing income from tourism.
The government sale of fishing licences to foreign countries has brought in more than £40 million a year in revenues, and local fishing boats are also in operation. More than 75% of the catch is squid, and most exports are to Spain. Tourism has grown rapidly, with more than 36,000 visitors in 2004. The islands have become a regular port of call for the growing market of cruise ships. Attractions include the scenery and wildlife conservation with penguins, seabirds, seals and sealions, as well as visits to battlefields, golf, fishing and wreck diving.
Except for defence, the islands are self sufficient; exports account for more than $125 million a year.

[Greypatch]

^ one thing with you dwag...you does have the facts eh...Respect.

To answer the question posed in the topic, "Who should have rights to the Falkland Islands?", shouldn't it be the people who have been living there all this time?

Agreed to a degree.

here is some side news...ah think this thing now start.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8529605.stm

Argentina rallies regional support over Falklands

Felipe Calderon: document to give Argentina "unanimous support"
Latin American and Caribbean leaders have backed Argentina's claim over the Falklands, Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has said.

At a regional summit in Cancun, Mexico, a document has reportedly been drafted giving Argentina unanimous support.

It comes a day after a British oil company began drilling for oil off the islands, a move Argentina objected to.

The UK's defence minister said the government would take whatever steps necessary to protect the Falklands.

Argentina and Britain went to war over the South Atlantic islands in 1982, after Buenos Aires invaded the archipelago.

The conflict ended with UK forces wresting back control of the islands, held by Britain since 1833.



No official statement has been made in Cancun, but Mexican President Felipe Calderon reportedly said a document had been drawn up offering Buenos Aires full support in its territorial dispute with London.

The Argentine president accused the British government of ignoring international law by allowing a British oil exploration company to begin drilling near the islands.

She said: "I think the important thing is that we have achieved very strong support, something that legitimates our claims fundamentally against the new petroleum activity."

The BBC's Andy Gallacher in Cancun says that any broad agreement at the summit could put more pressure on the British government in what has become an escalating diplomatic row.

'Return the Malvinas'

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez reiterated his support for Argentina.



"We demand, and I think all of us should do the same, the withdrawal of the submarine platform, and that the English government... give that land back," he said.

Before leaving for the summit, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega called for "Britain to return the territory of the Malvinas to its real owners - to return it to Argentina" on Venezuelan Telesur television.

Leaders at the summit, between the Rio Group and the Caribbean Community (Caricom), are also said to have discussed plans for a new pan-American alliance which would exclude Canada and the United States.

The new grouping would serve as an alternative to the Organisation of American States, the main forum for regional affairs in the past 50 years.

The British-contracted rig Ocean Guardian began drilling 100km (62 miles) north of the Falklands on Monday, despite fierce opposition from Argentina.


Desire Petroleum, which is overseeing the operation, said drilling had started on the Liz 14/19-A exploration well at 1415 GMT.

Argentina claims sovereignty over what it calls the Islas Malvinas and has imposed shipping restrictions.

But UK Defence Minister Bill Rammell said the government had a "legitimate right" to build an oil industry in its waters.

Mr Rammell said the UK would take "whatever steps necessary" to protect the islands and that it had made Argentina "aware of that".

Argentina has ruled out military action and is trying to pressure Britain into negotiations on sovereignty.

During the seven-week war in 1982 over the Falklands, 649 Argentine and 255 British service personnel were killed.

Last year Argentina submitted a claim to the United Nations for a vast expanse of ocean, based on research into the extent of the continental shelf, stretching to the Antarctic and including the island chains governed by the UK.

It is due to raise the issue at the UN later this week.

[Greypatch]

Our PM may have signed this document in mexico as well

[cacasplat3]

^ one thing with you dwag...you does have the facts eh...Respect.

To answer the question posed in the topic, "Who should have rights to the Falkland Islands?", shouldn't it be the people who have been living there all this time?

Agreed to a degree.

here is some side news...ah think this thing now start.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8529605.stm

Argentina rallies regional support over Falklands

Felipe Calderon: document to give Argentina "unanimous support"
Latin American and Caribbean leaders have backed Argentina's claim over the Falklands, Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has said.

At a regional summit in Cancun, Mexico, a document has reportedly been drafted giving Argentina unanimous support.

It comes a day after a British oil company began drilling for oil off the islands, a move Argentina objected to.

The UK's defence minister said the government would take whatever steps necessary to protect the Falklands.

Argentina and Britain went to war over the South Atlantic islands in 1982, after Buenos Aires invaded the archipelago.

The conflict ended with UK forces wresting back control of the islands, held by Britain since 1833.



No official statement has been made in Cancun, but Mexican President Felipe Calderon reportedly said a document had been drawn up offering Buenos Aires full support in its territorial dispute with London.

The Argentine president accused the British government of ignoring international law by allowing a British oil exploration company to begin drilling near the islands.

She said: "I think the important thing is that we have achieved very strong support, something that legitimates our claims fundamentally against the new petroleum activity."

The BBC's Andy Gallacher in Cancun says that any broad agreement at the summit could put more pressure on the British government in what has become an escalating diplomatic row.

'Return the Malvinas'

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez reiterated his support for Argentina.



"We demand, and I think all of us should do the same, the withdrawal of the submarine platform, and that the English government... give that land back," he said.

Before leaving for the summit, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega called for "Britain to return the territory of the Malvinas to its real owners - to return it to Argentina" on Venezuelan Telesur television.

Leaders at the summit, between the Rio Group and the Caribbean Community (Caricom), are also said to have discussed plans for a new pan-American alliance which would exclude Canada and the United States.

The new grouping would serve as an alternative to the Organisation of American States, the main forum for regional affairs in the past 50 years.

The British-contracted rig Ocean Guardian began drilling 100km (62 miles) north of the Falklands on Monday, despite fierce opposition from Argentina.


Desire Petroleum, which is overseeing the operation, said drilling had started on the Liz 14/19-A exploration well at 1415 GMT.

Argentina claims sovereignty over what it calls the Islas Malvinas and has imposed shipping restrictions.

But UK Defence Minister Bill Rammell said the government had a "legitimate right" to build an oil industry in its waters.

Mr Rammell said the UK would take "whatever steps necessary" to protect the islands and that it had made Argentina "aware of that".

Argentina has ruled out military action and is trying to pressure Britain into negotiations on sovereignty.

During the seven-week war in 1982 over the Falklands, 649 Argentine and 255 British service personnel were killed.

Last year Argentina submitted a claim to the United Nations for a vast expanse of ocean, based on research into the extent of the continental shelf, stretching to the Antarctic and including the island chains governed by the UK.

It is due to raise the issue at the UN later this week.

see this is the technical part......if Argentina could prove that the islands are an extension of its continental shelf it has a good basis to claim the island as theirs (its the same thing Russia is doing with the Lomonosov Ridge to try to gain control of parts of the Arctic).......however, because the Islands are inhabited and are British administered it makes Argentina's claim a bit more difficult........i do believe that Argentina has the right to the islands, but the people on the islands have their reasons for wanting to stay with the UK, and i think one reason is they do not want to go from 1st world to 3rd world....i wouldn't want that either........

another thing, i think the UK is a bit foolish to start drilling when tensions are high..........it may be they are just flexing some muscle, but South America is not a region to be taken lightly.......Gordon Brown and his merry men should stop being childish and try to resolve the issues instead of chooking fire......

[d spike]

another thing, i think the UK is a bit foolish to start drilling when tensions are high.......Gordon Brown and his merry men should stop being childish and try to resolve the issues instead of chooking fire.....

This, I agree with.

[Skanky]

They've started drilling but it can't continue for long...the boats that transport drill pipe,supplies,food etc have to pass over Argentine waters to get to the rig's location and I don't think Argentina is going to allow them access.

[d spike]

Who should have rights to the Falkland Islands?

Whomever has the greatest firepower.

Dem Falkers dead.

Not necessarily so.

"Could 20 Sea Harrier Jump Jets really take on the whole of the Argentinean Air Force, an Air Force armed with French Mirage fighters and Exocet missiles?

When Argentina invaded the Falklands and South Georgia in 1982, the British turned to their Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, to see how the country would respond. The ‘Iron Lady’ did not disappoint, and soon a massive naval task force was organized to retake the islands.
The task force was lead by two small aircraft carriers, the Hermes and the Invincible that together could support just twenty Sea Harrier fighter planes. The task force assembled at the miniscule Ascension Island, a volcanic speck halfway between Britain and the Falklands. Along with the carriers, Britain could field 5 destroyers, 11 frigates, and three nuclear powered submarines. The rest of the force consisted of 70 transport ships, carrying ground troops, fuel and supplies.
Against this force, the Argentineans could field one aircraft carrier, a handful of warships, and 120 front-line fighter jets, including the French Mirage, which many thought a superior plane to the British Harrier.
The British plan called for their warships to arrive at the islands three weeks ahead of the cargo ships and, in that time, to establish sea and air superiority to facilitate an amphibious landing.
As this attack force neared the Falklands, Argentina launched several air attacks against the British. However, the Argentina fighters were unable to pierce the protective screen put up by the Harriers and 4 Argentinean planes were shot down.
Soon thereafter, the British nuclear submarine Conqueror, located the Argentinean warship, Belgrano. The submarine fired a spread of torpedoes, blowing the Belgrano’s hull apart. The ship sunk with a loss of 368 lives.
So shocking was the loss of the Belgrano, it convinced the Argentineans that their warships could not compete with the British submarines and the entire Argentine Navy returned to port immediately. They would play no further part in the war.
However, the Argentineans would answer this attack. Only a few hours later, they launched a major air-strike, including fighters equipped with top-of-the-range French Exocet missiles. From a distance of twelve miles the fighters fired their missiles and scored a hit on the HMS Sheffield. The Sheffield became the first British ship sunk by enemy action since World War II. Fearing the power of the Exocet, The British task force commander backed his carrier force away from the islands. The British then began to use their own ship-based missile systems to strike against the ongoing Argentine air-attacks. Everyday the Argentines lost a few more planes and were unable to penetrate the British defensives screen, but they had prevented the British from establishing the air-superiority they had desired.
On May 19, the full taskforce arrived at the Falklands ready to make an amphibious landing. The British Navy took up a new position forming a large square around the landing force. As the Brits began to land, the Argentinean’s sent everything they had against the British Navy. In order to avoid the British missiles, the Argentinean fighter pilots flew in low over the water. The British Harriers met them head on, destroying ten enemy planes during the battle, but there were far too many to stop. The Argentinean’s dropped a spread of bombs all over the British fleet, hitting five different warships. But, because they had flown so low, most of the bombs didn’t have time to arm and failed to explode on contact. Of the ships hit, only one, the Ardent took crippling damage.
Several days later, the Argentineans launched another major air strike. Again they hit four British ships, but their bombs failed to explode, while more fighters fell prey to the Harriers.
It was the high-water mark for the Argentinean Air Force. Although they would continue to attack ships for the rest of the war, they would never do so again in such numbers. The strategy of focusing solely on the British warships had left the Argentinean’s vulnerable to the Harriers, and they were running out of pilots and planes. The British had not lost a single Harrier.
[/b]

[psykomorf]

I think i remember reading that about 10 Harriers were lost due to ground fire, accidents and bad weather. Also the UK had cut down their military so much that the Navy had to "borrow" pilots and planes from RAF squadrons to form the task force and still maintain other overseas commitments.
The Argentineans only had a few tanker aricraft, the distance meant that their time over the target area was limited, few minutes.
Against that, though, the Brits were well versed in controlling and conducting an air defense using radar. Unfortunately they had no airborne early warning aircraft due to budget cuts. They had to resort to using submarines and frigates as radar pickets I think.

[nareshseep]

might be a good time to starting learning spanish

[d spike]

I think i remember reading that about 10 Harriers were lost due to ground fire, accidents and bad weather. Also the UK had cut down their military so much that the Navy had to "borrow" pilots and planes from RAF squadrons to form the task force and still maintain other overseas commitments.
The Argentineans only had a few tanker aricraft, the distance meant that their time over the target area was limited, few minutes.
Against that, though, the Brits were well versed in controlling and conducting an air defense using radar. Unfortunately they had no airborne early warning aircraft due to budget cuts. They had to resort to using submarines and frigates as radar pickets I think.

Yes, thats about right, but none were lost in any dogfights.

[d spike]

might be a good time to starting learning spanish

Quite the opposite (unless you're referring to us here in Trini ).
Now is a good time for the Argies to learn the English phrase, "peaceful negotiations"... but I think they would have learned that phrase already back in '82.

[Habit7]

Caribbean countries oppose Britain over Falklands
Published on February 7, 2012



by Caribbean News Now contributor

CARACAS, Venezuela -- The Commonwealth Caribbean countries of Antigua-Barbuda, Dominica and St Vincent and the Grenadines are among ALBA members that have agreed to block any ships flying the Falkland Islands flag from docking in their ports.

At the 11th summit of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our Americas (ALBA), made up of Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Dominica, Antigua and Barbuda, Ecuador and St Vincent and the Grenadines, participating heads of state and government on Saturday approved a special agreement to back Argentina's call for the restoration of the British Overseas Territory claimed by Argentina as Las Malvinas to Argentinean sovereignty.

President of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, said, "It is time for Latin America to decide sanctions against this mistaken power that pretends to be imperialist and colonialist in the 21st century. I think we have to apply more forceful things. We have to talk about sanctions."

Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela, said, "If it should occur to the British empire to attack Argentina militarily, Argentina won't be alone this time. Venezuela is no power, but we've got some weapons and the will to face any imperialist aggression."

Tensions have risen over the Falklands as the 30th anniversary of Argentina's 1982 invasion nears. Celebrations are planned in the UK for the anniversary of the Falklands War starting from May 20.

Britain has recently sent to the area HMS Dauntless, a Type 45 destroyer armed with enough firepower that one navy source told the Daily Mail newspaper, could “take out all of South America’s fighter aircraft, let alone those of Argentina”.

A British nuclear submarine is also reportedly being deployed to the area.

During the ALBA summit, Chavez praised the economic potential of several Caribbean nations such as Dominica, with its coffee production, and St Vincent and the Grenadines, with its tourist industry, and agricultural and fishing production.

He also referred to the bloc’s decision to maintain Haiti as a permanent guest of their meetings and to have Saint Lucia and Suriname as special guest-members.

http://www.caribbeannewsnow.com/topstor ... -9737.html

[Greypatch]

interesting development

[Habit7]

I don't know why these Caribbean countries love to be wooed by latin lovers.

[bushwakka]

Whomever has the greatest firepower.

dem days should be over post world war II

and yet if Iran wants to close the strait of Hormuz, the US et al will respond militarily? Thas Iran waters

energy run tings lol

[William18]

I wont fight the oil talk eh....but that point seem strategic from a military point of view?

Well seeing that Chavez not west friendly and russia is an ally to him seems like England has more than natural resources interest there.

History: The positioning of Pearl Harbor to prevent Japan from invading china and the Indies to get oil....
Just my 2 cents... Ok to prove me wrong....

But some people bold also... Little island ppl relaxing and living you just want to invade and when a bigger military power step in you is the victim...

The only people not complaining is the Falkland island people...

Where was diplomacy when argentina raised guns and trying to harass people mining there own business?

[Dizzy28]

The truth is we couldn't defend anything further than the other side of the Channel

By Admiral Sandy Woodward

Less than a month ago President Obama left these shores after a highly successful State visit that appeared to leave the ‘special relationship’ between Britain and America in better shape than it had been for years.

And yet only last week, the United States was not only signing a declaration calling for Britain and Argentina to begin negotiations over the future sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, but also providing an uncomfortable clue as to their preferred outcome.

They referred to the islands by their Argentinian name, the Malvinas. This doesn’t really leave too much doubt about which way the wind may be blowing, does it?
Indefensible? Falklands Task Force Commander Admiral Sandy Woodward argues that the islands are now perilously close to being indefensive thanks to lost American support and other factors

As one of those intimately involved in the successful retaking of the Falkland Islands in 1982 – indeed today is the 29th anniversary of their liberation at the end of the war – this marked shift in the American position sets all sorts of alarm bells ringing.

Indeed, if I was the Prime Minister I’d be on the first plane to Washington and asking my old table-tennis partner: ‘Hang on a minute; we’re your closest ally – what the hell’s going on?’

It really is that serious. For without American support, the Falklands, the reclaiming of which cost 253 brave British lives, are now perilously close to being indefensible.
Worried: Admiral Sandy Woodward does not share the confidence of politicians when it comes to Britain's defences

Worried: Admiral Sandy Woodward does not share the confidence of politicians when it comes to Britain's defences

Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope’s warning yesterday that Britain does not even have enough ships to continue even the small operation in Libya, highlights the weakened state in which defence cuts have left our navy; a position from which we are incapable of defending our territory in the south Atlantic.

The received political wisdom runs counter to this, of course. Westminster-based politicians will say that whoever controls the islands’ Mount Pleasant Airbase controls the Falklands and that with up to 1,000 RAF personnel stationed there and a further 500-1,000 Army troops garrisoned nearby, Mount Pleasant is firmly in British hands and staying that way.

Well, I wish I shared their confidence. Because what the politicians won’t tell you is that Mount Pleasant was, until recently, equipped with only four ageing and ineffective Tornados – the same attack aircraft that have made such heavy weather recently of providing air support in Libya. When they were needed at short notice, only three of the RAF’s 135 aircraft were ready for action.

Apparently these Tornadoes have now been replaced by four Typhoons, about which there have been many rumours of too few trained pilots, inadequate spares and poor ability in aerial combat. Neither type of aircraft has any anti-ship weapons systems, which would be vital against any invasion by sea.

Central to long-term plans for the defence of the Falklands is the idea that if attacked, Mount Pleasant could be rapidly reinforced by air. Unfortunately, any swift operation could take out the runways by lunchtime and air reinforcement would have nowhere to land. I’d like to know what our Government is planning to do about that.

Without aircraft carriers (today HMS Illustrious is our only remaining carrier, and she has no fixed-wing aircraft, which are much faster than other planes) it was always going to be pretty difficult, but without the Americans it would be nigh on impossible.

Despite much talk of sharing resources, I can’t see the French handing over the keys to one of their carriers so we can fight another war in the South Atlantic.

Very special relationship: The work of American Defence Secretary Casper Weinberger, left, and the bond between Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan aided Britain's victory and means that American support for the Argentinian cause is forgotten

In 1982, the American base on Ascension Island – handily placed mid-way between Britain and the Falklands – was vital to the British Task Force. The fact it was made available to us may well have earned the American defence secretary, Caspar Weinberger, his honorary knighthood. Then again, his ability to quietly supply us with Sidewinder missiles might have helped, too.

All that came about while the United States, under President Reagan, was officially adopting a neutral stance over the Falkland Islands. But if the Americans are now supporting Argentina’s claim of sovereignty, then clearly we wouldn’t be able to rely on their help again.

So why has the American position shifted so far that it was prepared to sign this highly controversial declaration over the islands’ future sovereignty at last week’s meeting of the Organisation of American States?

Well, one answer is that it actually hasn’t shifted that much. In 1982 there was widespread American support for Argentina’s sovereignty claim to the Falklands, particularly from the State Department. It’s only thanks to Weinberger, the special bond between Reagan and Thatcher and, indeed, the successful outcome, that this now gets overlooked.

But the other explanation for America’s warming towards Argentina is a more familiar one: oil.

There are believed to be huge reserves of oil and gas under that part of the South Atlantic and America’s oil industry would dearly love to play a significant part in its extraction.

The only way it can do this profitably, however, is if there is political stability in the area which would allow some of America’s biggest oil companies to invest billions of dollars in long-term infrastructure.

Someone at the State Department clearly believes that this sort of long term stability can best be brought about if the disputed sovereignty of the Falklands is settled in favour of Argentina.

You can see the economic logic – oil profits flow into the Argentine coffers, bringing prosperity and political stability to a key country in what is already one of the fastest developing regions of the world. America just wants a slice of that action.

However, there remains one rather big problem. The Falklands are British, their inhabitants want to stay British and too many good men lost their lives expecting they would stay British forever.

Now, it’s just possible that the Government has quietly decided, for both political and economic reasons, that the Falklands are no longer worth fighting for. If that’s the case, I can promise David Cameron one thing: he will lose the next election.

Far more likely an explanation is that the Government is sleep-walking towards disaster.
Haste: The scrapping of Nimrod surveillance aircraft seemed to be sustained on the vague hope we could muddle through until other aircraft were built

In its haste to save money by scrapping our aircraft carriers, mothballing our Harriers and chopping up Nimrod reconnaissance aircraft into tiny pieces, it seemed to be sustained by a vague hope that we could muddle through until the new super-carriers were built, the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) F-35C aircraft planes were ready and the British economy had dramatically improved.

But HMS Elizabeth, the new aircraft carrier, isn’t due into service until 2020 at the earliest, while the F35 planes won’t be in action until at least 2023. Also, there are the logistical and operational problems encountered since the Strategic Defence and Security Review was published just eight months ago. The problems the RAF has had honouring the PM’s pledge to provide air support in Libya are surely just warnings of worse to come.

And yet Britain – and its far-flung interests – is somehow supposed to get through another nine-plus years of this.

As things currently stand, we’d have serious trouble defending anything much further than the other side of the English Channel.

So as he prepares to fly to Washington, I hope David Cameron finds a moment to reflect on the damage his Government’s cuts have done in just nine months to Britain’s military capability.

Twenty-nine years ago today, we re-claimed the Falklands for Britain in one of the most remarkable campaigns since the Second World War. The simple truth is without aircraft carriers and without the Americans, we would not have any hope of doing the same again today.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z1lieJ36UF