http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...Falklands.html

After enjoying watching Britain going back to doing what it does best last week I truly hope that this story does not turn out to be true. It would undermine all the good vibes built during the royal wedding for the country to be so arrogant as to deploy William to the Falklands during the 30 year anniversary of the conflict. It would be the diplomatic equivalent of inviting the Argentines to war - only this time I believe the British armed forces are rather less well equipped. Not that I've failed to be astonished by the arrogance of the Ministry of Defence in the past.

__________________
Expat In Switzerland website and FREE monthly e-newsletter containing articles on life in Switzerland & what's on events guide

Why are you so concerned with this non-story.

1. HRH is a serving officer in the RAF, why shouldn't he be posted?

2. Do you really think that the Royal Wedding has helped warm relations with Argentina?

3. Do you really think that the UK/MOD/FO give a toss what the Argies think about it?

4. More to the point, do you think that posting him there is not purposefully reinforcing the message that the Falklands are UK's?

5. I'm betting that we'd still whip their butts if there was another fight over the Falklands, otherwise don't you think they'd already have tried again?

__________________
Never let right or wrong get in the way of a good opinion

Agree with previous post - he's a serving member of the forces and will go where he's told, unless there is an issue of security and safety, and cost.

Am still laughing at the "less well equipped" comment.....but with a husband in the MOD for 25 years perhaps I would be slightly biased.

Very simply I am concerned because quite frankly it appears to me to be the idea of an embarrassing old uncle. As I said I think it would be a very arrogant, albeit symbolic, gesture. I don't see any good coming from such a move whatsoever and rather a lot of negative press - remember the Argentines are far from alone in considering their claim to the Falklands to be more just than Britain's.

Take a look at this for example http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7040245.ece
which includes "Washington refused to endorse British claims to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands yesterday as the diplomatic row over oil drilling in the South Atlantic intensified in London, Buenos Aires and at the UN."

Where oil is involved war can surely quickly follow. Sending Wills off to the hotspot will not calm the situation.

__________________
Expat In Switzerland website and FREE monthly e-newsletter containing articles on life in Switzerland & what's on events guide

Eh? This is hardly specific to the Royals, this is an issue that is faced by any married couple where one half is in the military.

Prince or not, he's in the service of and commissioned by The Queen and will go where the Service requires him to be, I'm sure.

Talking of embarassing old Uncles, didn't Prince Andrew serve in the Falklands?

I think some of the responders to my original post have misinterpreted my criticism - it is not directed at Prince William as I am well aware he is not the decision maker in this one. My criticism is directed at the misguided foolishness of whoever would make the decision to deploy him to the Falklands. It would be a wholly unnecessary and potentially very damaging "F U" to the Argentines and would benefit nobody - apart from providing potentially a brief burst of patriotic pride for readers of tabloids.

I am simply saying "Why pick at old wounds?" It is certainly not worth risking the UK's claim to the oil reserves down their to prove some sort of point. As far as ill-equipped goes I am thinking of the fact that in '82 the UK armed forces were not heavily engaged in the Middle East.

__________________
Expat In Switzerland website and FREE monthly e-newsletter containing articles on life in Switzerland & what's on events guide

Hardly foolish, he has to serve somewhere, and to be seen to be treated as an equal to the other pilots so why shouldn't he go to the Falklands?
There is no 'F U' to the Argies, I don't see where you are drawing this from to be honest.
And for sure, no one in the UK will be cheering that he's over there. The war was 30 years ago, the pride of that victory is long gone. The Falklands have cone back to being what they always were, a few islands a long way away.
Now if he went to Afghanistan, then that would be a story..

From the original article which I posted the link too!

"Speculation two years ago that the Prince could be sent to the Falklands prompted condemnation from Argentina's foreign minister, Jorge Taina."

I'm surprised I'm the only one here who seems to consider this an arrogant move, were it to happen.

<scatches head>

What exactly would you expect the Argentinian Foreign Minister to say?

Yes but in 1982 there was one runway on Port Stanley not even long enough I believe for a Jet to take off, a token military force and HMS Endurance.

The military presence in the Falklands, South Georgia and the Ascension Islands has been boosted somewhat since then especially the development of Mount Pleasant. I believe they are also a lot more "alert" to an attack since the invasion.

To me it's less about the arrogance of the MOD and more about the fact that history is repeating itself - struggling leader, needs a diversion, "hey why not the Falkland Islands, that'll get the people back on my side and win me another term in office"

What never seems to come up is the opinion of the Falklanders. If we are going tit for tat on who got there first, hmmm well Argentina as a country didn't even exist then did it? How far back do we want to go...do the USA want to "give back" New Mexico?

The key matter is, the people living on those islands the "Falklanders" were asked if they wanted to remain an overseas "UK Territory" and they said yes. They don't want to be part of Argentina. It's not even ours to "give". As part of a UK Overseas territory they rely on the UK MOD as part of their homeland security. I don't remember the Argentinian Government giving the people residing on the islands an option in 1982.

As for sending William - it's probably seen as one of the lighter tasks as he can't do combat duties. Generally a big thing isn't made of it, most people weren't even aware he was on Anglesey.

Sorry, are you talking about Cristina Fernández de Kirchner or David Cameron?

..both...possibly...

Well it worked for his Auntie Maggie...

On a Saturday night Anglesey is probably more dangerous than the Falklands.

Erm. The Falkland Islands is a British Overseas Territory. Why wouldn't the RAF go there? Prince William is being deployed to....a place. If he doesn't want to go, he can resign his commission. I don't get the story. And if the Argentinians....or even the entire Southern Hemisphere has a problem with it, there isn't much they can do about it.

That and "come try our steak, it's the best!"

When did I say the RAF shouldn't go there?

There is a huge difference between maintaining business as usual there and sending the future king to serve there even if this is purely a symbolic difference. There are potentially huge OIL reserves down there.

Right now we clearly see the one thing sure to bring normally peaceful nations to war is OIL. This situation will not get any easier, the black stuff is disappearing fast, being gulped down in increasing quantities and rocketing in price.

Many nations would view the deployment of William to the Falklands as a somewhat provacative symbolic gesture. It would not garner the UK any extra support in the UN for its claim to the Falklands. I see the UK standing to lose support for such a move and gaining nothing. The Empire is long gone and to behave like this could provide a very costly reminder of this fact.

__________________
Expat In Switzerland website and FREE monthly e-newsletter containing articles on life in Switzerland & what's on events guide

The people of the Falklands want to stay a British territory. End of story. Nothing to do with the UN whatsoever, and nothing to do with the Empire, it's just a serviceman getting posted somewhere.
If the Argies want to get het up, they can, but it's a NON STORY.
You can flog it as much as you want, it ain't going anywhere.

Who, exactly, other than the Argentinians (maybe)?

Who cares what the UN thinks? Ownership is 9/10'ths of the law. The current citizenry has no desire to be part of Argentinia. Britain owns it. If the UN cared, they shouldn't have told Argentinia to pull their troops out.

Just Google and you can find lots of info including:

The obvious stuff such as Chavez http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wor...01002315554704

But also items such as "the word on the wire via emails between ex-senior officers from the UK forces is that USAN Union of South American Nations planning a diplomatic 'assault' on the UK (including sanctions on exports) in an effort to 'restore the Malvinas to their rightful owners.'"

I go back to my original point. What purpose does it serve to make the provactive gesture of posting Prince William to the Falklands?

And put aside rights, wrongs, national pride, and all other points, take a big step back from the detail and answer for me please what the UK's net gain from this posting would be? I can't help but see the balance to be weighted to the downside.

__________________
Expat In Switzerland website and FREE monthly e-newsletter containing articles on life in Switzerland & what's on events guide