Skip to comments.UK: No talks on Falklands, [PM] David Cameron tells Argentina
Posted on 06/26/2010 4:02:07 PM PDT by bruinbirdman
David Cameron is set to restate "robustly" Britain's sovereignty over the Falkland Islands in unscheduled talks with the Argentine president at the G20 gathering of world leaders.
British sources said the Prime Minister would starkly turn down a fresh request from Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner for talks on the issue as tensions rose once again between the two nations.
Argentine president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner
Mr Cameron was expected to make his point to Ms Kirchner either during an official leaders' dinner at the Toronto summit last night or at some point in the "margins" of official discussions on Sunday.
A source close to Mr Cameron said: "He will be robust. He will make the point again that our position on the sovereignty of the Falklands has not changed and will not change."
Tensions have risen since Rockhopper, a British drilling company, announced "potential signs" of oil in Falkland Island waters - although they did not say that commercial quantities were present.
British sources say Argentina has used the find as a pretext to "revisit the sovereignty issue". Last week a United Nations committee passed a non-binding resolution calling for the two countries to restart talks.
Mr Cameron was telling Ms Kirchner there would be no talks so long as Islanders said they still wanted to be governed by Britain under the internationally recognised legal principle of "self determination."
Since the 10-week Falklands War in 1982, which claimed 257 British and 649 Argentinians, Argentina has continued to claim sovereignty over the islands and officially refers to them as "Las Malvinas."
The US recognises Britain's "administration" of the Falklands, stopping short of fully endorsing its sovereignty.
Some observers were surprised that Mr Cameron was ready to use his first attendance at a major international gathering to
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
“Don’t make us come over there and kick your ass again.”
Happy to remind them about Sandy Woodward, Jeremy Moore, Col. Jones and Sgt. McKay. A lot has changed in 28 years but never underestimate the British.
I would guess the Brit’s are not counting on any Intell regarding invasion fleets from Argentina from President Obozo and the VP Dolt.
Do they even have a carrier these days
Not to mention friends like Ron Reagan and the people who elected him. They liked the Obamaites during our election campaign and will have to live with them just like the american Jews will have to live with the Obamaite Israeli policies.
“This is not Thatcher’s Britain. It’s highly unlikey the Brits could prevail in another military campaign. They lack the Naval assets they had back in the 80’s.”
...which is exactly why there is new saber-rattling.
Nice to say but this time the government of the United States, and its Supreme Leader is siding with the Argentines.
Considering that England no longer has even that pathetic remnant of a once mighty deep water Navy, they ought to mind their English manners.
This time Argentina might just kick their ass off again for good.
So do the argies. And this time, they would be facing more than a mere score of Royal Marines like they did last time they invaded. They would be facing over 1,000 troops (most of them battle-hardened from a stint or two in Helmand), a Squadron of Eurofighters, artillery, and AAA missile batteries, at least one warship, as well as the local FIDF acting as an auxiliary to the main garrison.
The airbase at RAF Mount Pleasant also means that more men and equipment could be strategically airlifted in during the rise in tensions that would precede an invasion...
Way to Go Cameron, now if only you could get Hong Kong back from the Chinese..!
Hmm...does the UK still have a navy?
UK has a new PM.
So, if a bet were to be laid . . . .?
The UK still has three of these I believe... One is in reserve and may need 18 months to reactivate.
Jump jet mini-carriers - but that is what they had in 1982 as well...
No blood for oil. ;’)
The best defense the Brits have of the Falklands is a couple of nuclear subs ready to sink any vessel that approaches the islands. Any airborne troops could be handled by the troops on the ground.
Ark Royal class?
It's the Invincible Class.
But HMS Ark Royal is the newest, with HMS Illustrious still active, while it's the Invincible that is in storage.
I still remember going on the previous HMS Ark Royal when I was a kid - it was about twice the tonnage of the present one. Going up to the flight deck on the airplane lift was a thrill.
What absolute horse manure.
The Argentines have scrapped their only amphibious vessel and the islands are defended by state of the art fighters and 1,000 troops.
You clearly do not have a clue.
Airborne troops would be dead in the sunken wreck of their aircraft before it came within a hundred miles of the place.
The Falkands has air defense radars and fighters on constant alert.
They have no amphibious ships anymore, they scrapped their last one in 1997.
They are still flying the same aircraft that had they lost 21 of in air combat without making a single kill in return.
Just how, in your rather intresting scenario are they going to kick anyone off anything, never mind the 1,000 troops, air defense radars, SAM sites, Typhoon fighters etc etc ?
Seriously everytime this thread appears some fool spouts this BS without even bothering to use Google.
The UK expediture on the defence of the Falkands exceeds the ENTIRE defence budget of Argentina !!!
Before you accuse anyone else of being obtuse, look at a map - then the mirror.
They can attack the falklands far easier than can England defend them and it is not impossible for them to do it.
England no longer has the will to expend resourse & effort & everyone knows it - Except perhaps you.
I predict that Stolly will shortly point out that the UK (of which England is a part) has sufficient military assets in place in theater to kick Argentina’s ass and that it has a greater ability to resupply its forces than do the Argentines.
Its the United Kingdom, since you have a desire for accuracy. It wasn’t New York that invaded Afghanistan in 2001 was it ?
Yes, lets look at the map. Lets look at that 300 miles of ocean that is patrolled by fighter aircraft that outclass and within a few days match in numbers the fighter aircraft of Argentina. Lets also express wonder at the clueless people who think an invasion force that consists of Argentina’s single amphibious assault vessel (built in WWII) can escape destruction by the SSN believed to be on patrol, just like the General Belgrano didn’t.
Never mind the fact that their LST doesn’t even exist anymore since it was scrapped in 1997.
What a very strange place you inhabit.
Heh i didn’t see your reply before i posted ;)
I would also point out that Argentina really needs to hurry up with this invasion since by 2019 the UK will have two new carriers in service (currently being built) carrying as many as 100 F35’s which compare interestingly with Argentina’s grand total of 21 fighters all based on 40 year old designs.
That’s probably one of the best ideas i’ve seen for a very long time :)
In fact i’d suspect a Fairy Swordfish would be able to take off unassisted from the new class, i’d pay money to see that happen.
Be careful, Britain...those Argentines can throw a mean snowball.
Part of me wishes England could have beaten Germany in the WC, just so they could shut up that cheater Maradona once and for all.
In the late 90s/early 00s when I was going to Argentina on business trips, they were all ga-ga over Fangio-Somebody.
Maradona is the coach of Argentina.
The UK should make a deal to sell them and get their people out of there before the Argentines occupy the island.
The Argentines can count on Obama sitting on his hands. This would be the time for them to act.
I guess I should start paying more attention now that it's almost over.
It's been a looooong day...
The only way they are going to get onto those islands is via a secret 300 mile long sub ocean tunnel.
Some of them might wash ashore.