http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080402/wl_afp/argentinabritainfalklandsdiplomacy_080402201109
What do you make of this article?
A president trying to defect attention from issues, or a possible future threat?
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 rcrum |
Argentine president lays 'inalienable' claim to Falklands |
Lead | |
|
Registered Member
Posts: 4 ( 3-Apr-2008 18:51:20) |
|
||
|
Alisdair Gillespie |
|||
|
Posts: 2434 ( 3-Apr-2008 20:12:25) |
I wonder why we are insisting on a sea voyage? I thought our policy was to try and normalise traffic so far as possible?
Alisdair. |
||
|
MSR |
|||
|
Posts: 2646 ( 3-Apr-2008 20:22:43) |
Deflection from domestic problems. Blow hot air and look nationalistic and strong in the face of strikes and labour disputes and an asthmatic economy.
As for the sea voyage, I can think of no logical reason either, so I must conclude that: a. there's something else influencing the decision that hasn't been reported b. the report is inaccurate/misleading/lost in translation (in other words, half-interested journalist got wrong end of short stick) It occurs to me to add that various nations around the world currently view Brit-bashing as a valid tactic to get some air time in international media, especially if they are a former colony or can claim that part of their God-given territory is currently colonised by the evil British. The most obvious offender is Mugabe, and his reasons for blaming Britain for everything from the price of grain to the bad smell from manure are very obvious - which is why only the African nations with a vested interest in not seeing a fellow African leader deposed (sets a nasty precedent!) have supported him.
The aim of diplomacy is to achieve results, not win arguments
Last Edited By: MSR
3-Apr-2008 20:25:44.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Alexius55 |
|||
|
Posts: 250 ( 3-Apr-2008 21:15:29) |
About the sea voyage- Argentina's main airline is owned and operated by the military. It is understandable that the FI authorities would not allow an
Argentinean military aircraft to land at MPA- MPA is a major target in the event of another war, and there is a risk of espionage.
*Looks things up* There is only one scheduled air service from Argentina to the Falklands. It is operated by LAN Chile, and flies once a month from Rio Gallegos. The lack of frequency might mean they don't want to take this, and obviously the other flight (from Brize Norton) is impractical. So possibly what happened was this: Argentina: We want to fly from Buenos Aires to the Falklands, but we want to stay for more than a few hours and less than a month. FI Government: Sorry, there are no scheduled flights. Argentina: Could we get LADE or the Air Force to lay on a flight? FIG: No, we don't want Argentinean military aircraft landing on the RAF base. You could charter a plane from someone else. ARG: No, we're not going to do that because: {lack of money, government don't want to use a foreign carrier, etc.}. Could you get the RAF to fly us there? RAF: No. If you're not taking the scheduled flight, you'll have to take a ship. Stanley harbour is not as risky as MPA.
Last Edited By: Alexius55
4-Apr-2008 12:28:34.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
 NoOneFamous |
|||
|
Posts: 1156 ( 3-Apr-2008 22:37:48) |
Sounds like the Argentines want to have their asses handed to them again. Is this a replay of the last time or is this about oil?
|
||
|
MSR |
|||
|
Posts: 2647 ( 3-Apr-2008 23:28:25) |
It will not come to shooting.
Alexius appears to have a very workable idea. Had the article above mentioned the military ownership of the airline, it might have suggested something other than that the UK Government were messing the Argentines around out of spite, which is the impression I'm sure the journalist was aiming for. Every good story has good guys/under dogs and the evil villain.
The aim of diplomacy is to achieve results, not win arguments
|
||
|
perfectgeneral |
Who says last time wasn't about oil? | ||
|
Posts: 328 ( 4-Apr-2008 00:05:13) |
NoOneFamous wrote: I was always under the impression that oil was at least a factor last time around. It was known at the time that oil fields were present.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Want10Destroyers/
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/4Subs88Months/
|
||
|
BenRoethig |
|||
|
Posts: 1743 ( 4-Apr-2008 19:37:34) |
NoOneFamous wrote: I wouldn't be over confident. A lot of weaknesses from 1982 haven't been corrected and be for close to a decade.
|
||
|
Alexius55 |
|||
|
Posts: 252 ( 4-Apr-2008 21:16:40) |
MSR wrote: Perhaps the UK government didn't want the military ownership of the airline mentioned, so they aren't seen by the world as accusing Argentina of
planning to spy on MPA.
|
||
|
Philip Sayers |
|||
|
Posts: 29 ( 4-Apr-2008 21:35:10) |
While Argentina is a democracy there is absolutely no chance they will ever try it again.
|
||
|
MSR |
|||
|
Posts: 2648 ( 5-Apr-2008 15:19:24) |
Anyone listening to 'From Our Own Correspondent' on BBC R4 earlier will have a much clearer idea of what is influencing Argentine politics right now.
It's the same problem we've all got. Rising food prices and falling production.
The aim of diplomacy is to achieve results, not win arguments
|
||
- Battleship Vs Battleship
- Should Battleships Be Back In Service?
- The United States Navy
- The Royal Navy
- The European Navies
- The Commonwealth Navies
- The Asian Navies
- Aircraft Carriers
- Fighting Ships Of The World
- Submarines
- Designing A Navy/Ship
- The Land Forces
- The Air Forces
- The Naval Fiction Board
- The Politics Of War
- Naval Help
