Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[tunnie]

also looking at our rather pathetic fleet level now, with just 7 destroyers, don't think we could last long 

Only thing we have is the subs, which proved cruical last time

[Dishevelled Den]

US refuses to endorse British sovereignty in Falklands oil dispute

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7040245.ece

Obama's no friend of ours. 

You're quite correct Nick.

This relationship has always been a one way street - ask almost anyone connected with the Foreign Office or those who tried to have convicted terrorists - after their escape - returned here to lawful custody from their safe havens in the United States.

As I have said on many occasions we always were, and will remain, the streetwalkers of the US.

The following proposal holds a much more sinister intent than the so-called 'close relationship' being given for its creation.



Revealed: The new $1billion high-security U.S. London embassy... complete with moat

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253378/Revealed-The-new-650m-high-security-US-London-embassy--complete-moat.html#ixzz0gY5Dzg7m

Interesting reading the comments on that artical, quite interesting point raised that the US are neither backing nor condeming what we are doing.

Think if another country was doing what we were doing, might be more of an out-cry from the US.

Without any long-range bombers, and if they don't let us use Ascension Island, we are stuffed 

As far as I can see T this is a development the US doesn't really need at the moment - hence the apparent ambivalence. 

The entire sub-Continent holds a degree of interest for the US in one way or another, however there are difficulties emerging that will demand closer attention by virtue of their being in the backyard of the US, so to speak - difficulties that will oblige the US to seek closer ties with the few remaining friendly nations there.

You are correct when you point out in a subsequent post that our capital holdings (military) had deminished by a substantial amount - for whatever reason.  This fact alone, aside from the considerable draw on resources from operations in the Middle East, makes a repeat campaign in the South Atlantic very doubtful indeed.

The infrastructure, hardware - but more importantly the human resources - doesn’t appear to be available in the density necessary to afford a realistic chance of success.

[tunnie]

the upside is, the financial benifits from drilling the oil. Depends, if there is none to be found, this issue will be gone. But if its found to swimming in oil, could be worth investment. But as you say, hardware is an issue, and so is time to build more  :-/

[Martin_1962]

Demothball Invincible and get some of the Shars back in the air 8-)

[Martin_1962]

US refuses to endorse British sovereignty in Falklands oil dispute

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7040245.ece

Obama's no friend of ours. 

That is well known by now

[albitz]

The Argies should have raised this when B.liar was PM. He would have given it to them as long as he had a cut off the profits from the oil and had a guarenteed consultancy role in introducing new business partners to the islands. He could then have hired a company of PR experts to convince all concerned that it was a great historic day for British democracy and anyone who said different was a Daily Mail reading right wing little Englander mentalist who should be totally ignored.