Trouble brewing in the Falklands?

[Hibbyradge]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16280613

[The_Exile]

Yep, the next oil field we're getting ready to pound into submission (again).

[Twa Cairpets]

Yep, the next oil field we're getting ready to pound into submission (again).

What does this post mean?

[The_Exile]

What does this post mean?

I didn't word it very well, I know the Falklands are ours, but I reckon Argentina are ready for a fight (there's oil been discovered, hence they're now pretty majorly "cash valuable").

[bighairyfaeleith]

not sure we could pound them into submission

[The_Exile]

I meant the Argies, I didn't word it very well, what I should have said is "We'll be ready to pound the Argies into submission over the major oil discovery off the Falklands", or possibly should have said nothing at all :greengrin

Wondering whether this blockade and last weeks further oil find is a coincedence? :cb

[steakbake]

I meant the Argies, I didn't word it very well, what I should have said is "We'll be ready to pound the Argies into submission over the major oil discovery off the Falklands", or possibly should have said nothing at all :greengrin

Wondering whether this blockade and last weeks further oil find is a coincedence? :cb

I think they've been aggrieved about it all for a bit longer than that.

It's all a bit of grandstanding because from what I have read, it affects no more than 25 small vessels under Falkland naval flags which rarely if ever, use the ports in question. Secondly, if the ship is under a UK naval flag, then they won't be affected. It's essentially little more than a flag debate to make a point.

Interesting to see Dennis McShane, an avid supporter of the Iraq war, have the nerve to claim the current government is weakening the UK's international standing. He'd know.

[Hibrandenburg]

I think they've been aggrieved about it all for a bit longer than that.

It's all a bit of grandstanding because from what I have read, it affects no more than 25 small vessels under Falkland naval flags which rarely if ever, use the ports in question. Secondly, if the ship is under a UK naval flag, then they won't be affected. It's essentially little more than a flag debate to make a point.

Interesting to see Dennis McShane, an avid supporter of the Iraq war, have the nerve to claim the current government is weakening the UK's international standing. He'd know.

Here we go!!!

[steakbake]

Here we go!!!

...a 22 pager...

[steakbake]

...a 22 pager...

...at least. :wink:

[ginger_rice]

I think they've been aggrieved about it all for a bit longer than that.

It's all a bit of grandstanding because from what I have read, it affects no more than 25 small vessels under Falkland naval flags which rarely if ever, use the ports in question. Secondly, if the ship is under a UK naval flag, then they won't be affected. It's essentially little more than a flag debate to make a point.

Interesting to see Dennis McShane, an avid supporter of the Iraq war, have the nerve to claim the current government is weakening the UK's international standing. He'd know.

Problem is the Argies have previous here, try something small and see what the reaction is, the last time it was scrap metal dealers on South Georgia.

Compare what happened in 82 to today, Tory government decided on massive reductions in the UK armed forces, especially in the RN, where the surface fleet was to be to cut to 25% with all aircraft carriers decommissioned and sold off, thousands of servicemen made redundant. Sound familiar?

Today we couldn't send a task force to regain Arran never mind the Falklands.

[ronaldo7]

Problem is the Argies have previous here, try something small and see what the reaction is, the last time it was scrap metal dealers on South Georgia.

Compare what happened in 82 to today, Tory government decided on massive reductions in the UK armed forces, especially in the RN, where the surface fleet was to be to cut to 25% with all aircraft carriers decommissioned and sold off, thousands of servicemen made redundant. Sound familiar?

Today we couldn't send a task force to regain Arran never mind the Falklands.

:agree: We could never do what was done back then. However the silent service could do enough damage to any of their vessels who dared venture too close.

[Lucius Apuleius]

And we certainly would not have a merchant fleet to support it either.

[steakbake]

I don't believe for one minute that present day Argentina has any wish to seize the islands by force. Most of those kind of scenarios are being dreamed up by paranoid folks in the UK and old time militarist buffoons in Argentina.

I think that Argentina will use South America's increasing influence to force the issue onto agendas at the UN and other international bodies. This will be solved by lengthy diplomatic battles so we needn't worry about a wee aircraft carrier being available or not. The UK need diplomátic allies who will see it from our point of view. Problem with that is that we've spent the past 10 years out on a limb 'doing the right thing' in Iraq/ v terrorism for example, alienating some of the countries we would otherwise have counted on.

[magpie1892]

Problem with that is that we've spent the past 10 years out on a limb 'doing the right thing' in Iraq/ v terrorism for example, alienating some of the countries we would otherwise have counted on.

Like the US? Blair was Bush's poodle and Brown/Cameron bent over for Obama but he and Clinton (H) hate us with a passion despite the UK's human sacrifice in their illegal wars.

Cameron's position is (thankfully) fairly simple: as long as the Falkland Islanders want to remain British Citizens/Subjects, then there's not going to be any discussion. And, bar one, the FIs do want to remain British.

It's just Argentinian sabre-rattling to score political points, and not on any serious agenda.

[RyeSloan]

Like the US? Blair was Bush's poodle and Brown/Cameron bent over for Obama but he and Clinton (H) hate us with a passion despite the UK's human sacrifice in their illegal wars.

Cameron's position is (thankfully) fairly simple: as long as the Falkland Islanders want to remain British Citizens/Subjects, then there's not going to be any discussion. And, bar one, the FIs do want to remain British.

It's just Argentinian sabre-rattling to score political points, and not on any serious agenda.


Is this not the line we took the last time?

Seems to me that Argentina are looking to slowly get a political position on this and complacency is not going to help.

I'm with Cameron on this and to be fair he is only repeating quite a long standing UK position . . The population of the Falklands should get the choice.

Does the UK have a permanent military presence there? Bet there is a few anti aircraft and possible anti ship missiles based on the island. . .the parallel to the decison to scrap aircraft carriers at the same time as a rising Argentine threat to the islands is not one easily ignored though!

[magpie1892]

Is this not the line we took the last time?

Seems to me that Argentina are looking to slowly get a political position on this and complacency is not going to help.

I'm with Cameron on this and to be fair he is only repeating quite a long standing UK position . . The population of the Falklands should get the choice.

Does the UK have a permanent military presence there? Bet there is a few anti aircraft and possible anti ship missiles based on the island. . .the parallel to the decison to scrap aircraft carriers at the same time as a rising Argentine threat to the islands is not one easily ignored though!

I take your point but the '82 invasion was the result of a 'perfect storm' and the conditions are not the same this time.

If the Falkland Islanders were begging to be set free from the British yoke then Argentina would be able to build the political position you speak of and, while I, too, would warn against complacency, I don't see another invasion as realistic. Force, of course, is the only way that FI and South Georgia would become an Argentinian concern.

[Pete]

Is this not the line we took the last time?

Seems to me that Argentina are looking to slowly get a political position on this and complacency is not going to help.

I'm with Cameron on this and to be fair he is only repeating quite a long standing UK position . . The population of the Falklands should get the choice.

Does the UK have a permanent military presence there? Bet there is a few anti aircraft and possible anti ship missiles based on the island. . .the parallel to the decison to scrap aircraft carriers at the same time as a rising Argentine threat to the islands is not one easily ignored though!

How "long standing" is this UK position?

Britain has no business governing such lands any more and this is simply a hangover from the british empire. You can ask the "population" but that means nothing.

Las Malvinas...similar to so many disputed lands...invading Brits with colonial tendencies causing havoc.

[Eyrie]

How "long standing" is this UK position?

Britain has no business governing such lands any more and this is simply a hangover from the british empire. You can ask the "population" but that means nothing.

Las Malvinas...similar to so many disputed lands...invading Brits with colonial tendencies causing havoc.
Remind us how many Argentinians lived there before Britain settled the Falklands almost 200 years ago.

Actually, whilst we're on the subject of invading Europeans with colonialist tendencies, what about the Spanish oppression of the natives in Argentina?

[Jack]

If the Falklands were independent would Argentina be causing bother with anyone?

I don't think so.

[Leicester Fan]

How "long standing" is this UK position?

Britain has no business governing such lands any more and this is simply a hangover from the british empire. You can ask the "population" but that means nothing.

Las Malvinas...similar to so many disputed lands...invading Brits with colonial tendencies causing havoc.

If you study the history you'll see that it's not that clear cut, most neutral observers would probably say the UK has the better claim to sovereignty.

The ironic thing is that the govt was negotiating a 25 year lease back arrangement with Argentina when their military junta decided to invade to prop up their failing popularity. If they hadn't been so stupid the Falklands would be in Argentine hands by now.

[magpie1892]

How "long standing" is this UK position?

Britain has no business governing such lands any more and this is simply a hangover from the british empire. You can ask the "population" but that means nothing.

Las Malvinas...similar to so many disputed lands...invading Brits with colonial tendencies causing havoc.


This is either a wind-up, in which case it's not bad, or you're still pissed from New Year...

'you can ask the population but it means nothing' - yes, you're on the wind-up!

[Hibs Class]

This is either a wind-up, in which case it's not bad, or you're still pissed from New Year...

'you can ask the population but it means nothing' - yes, you're on the wind-up!

You're being kind. It isn't even a good wind up. Historically ignorant and a bewildering position on self determination. I just assumed the poster was a bit daft.

[steakbake]

Dont shoot the poster. HK didn't wish to be taken over by China but there was hee-haw they could do about it. Sometimes things happen despite the wishes of the local population.

[magpie1892]

Dont shoot the poster. HK didn't wish to be taken over by China but there was hee-haw they could do about it. Sometimes things happen despite the wishes of the local population.

You can't conflate the two. Hong Kong is attached to the Chinese mainland, and was/is full of culturally, linguistically and ethnically, Chinese people.

No realistic comparison with FI on any level.

[Eyrie]

Hong Kong was on a 99 year lease from China so legally it had to go back to them.

[steakbake]

You can't conflate the two. Hong Kong is attached to the Chinese mainland, and was/is full of culturally, linguistically and ethnically, Chinese people.

No realistic comparison with FI on any level.

Apart from it being a relic of our colonial past?

[magpie1892]

Apart from it being a relic of our colonial past?

Not even that!

[Pete]

This is either a wind-up, in which case it's not bad, or you're still pissed from New Year...

'you can ask the population but it means nothing' - yes, you're on the wind-up!

You're right I was a bit...but it was pre match nerves.:greengrin

However blasé the post might have been it doesn't change my basic sentiments.

I wasn't referring to the British being an invading force in this specific incident....it was in general....and just because a bunch of invading colonial powers decide amongst themselves that one will have sovereignty does that mean that it's right given the location of the territory in question?

Just have a look at the geographical location...our influence and population of this island is a colonial hangover. Three quarters of the population of this island are of British descent and I wouldn't expect them to vote for anything other than British involvement. Why the hell are there so many "Brits" on an island so far away in this day and age?

For those who think I'm "daft"...Should this factor of location, that is glaring everyone in the face, not have some influence when it comes who should really be "looking after" these islands? Times have changed I'm afraid and the arrogant stance of the British government and lack of discussion on sovereignty will ultimately lead to more international criticism as the world moves on over the years.

For it not to be even an issue for discussion due to an artificially planted population less than the size of Pilton is ridiculous.

[Leicester Fan]

You're right I was a bit...but it was pre match nerves.:greengrin

However blasé the post might have been it doesn't change my basic sentiments.

I wasn't referring to the British being an invading force in this specific incident....it was in general....and just because a bunch of invading colonial powers decide amongst themselves that one will have sovereignty does that mean that it's right given the location of the territory in question?

Just have a look at the geographical location...our influence and population of this island is a colonial hangover. Three quarters of the population of this island are of British descent and I wouldn't expect them to vote for anything other than British involvement. Why the hell are there so many "Brits" on an island so far away in this day and age?

For those who think I'm "daft"...Should this factor of location, that is glaring everyone in the face, not have some influence when it comes who should really be "looking after" these islands? Times have changed I'm afraid and the arrogant stance of the British government and lack of discussion on sovereignty will ultimately lead to more international criticism as the world moves on over the years.

For it not to be even an issue for discussion due to an artificially planted population less than the size of Pilton is ridiculous.

They're not Brits they are Falkland Islanders, in the same way that Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians aren't Brits either. These were uninhabited islands, as colonial hangovers go these are probably the least offensive.

[PeeJay]

They're not Brits they are Falkland Islanders, in the same way that Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians aren't Brits either. These were uninhabited islands, as colonial hangovers go these are probably the least offensive.

Don't they have full British citizenship?Aren't they then British nationals - and Falkland Islanders? :confused:

[Eyrie]

For those who think I'm "daft"...Should this factor of location, that is glaring everyone in the face, not have some influence when it comes who should really be "looking after" these islands? Times have changed I'm afraid and the arrogant stance of the British government and lack of discussion on sovereignty will ultimately lead to more international criticism as the world moves on over the years.
Should location be a factor? Yes, but only if the islands are uninhabited (eg Rockall).


For it not to be even an issue for discussion due to an artificially planted population less than the size of Pilton is ridiculous.
And for the views of the native islanders (which is what they are after all this time) to be completely ignored is even more ridiculous. Are you saying they should be deported, or forced to live in a country different to their own to suit some random line on a map? Isn't that the true colonialist attitude, the same one that carved up Africa?

The Shetlands are closer to Oslo than London, and used to be Norwegian. By your logic we should hand them back.

[Hibs Class]

How "long standing" is this UK position?

Britain has no business governing such lands any more and this is simply a hangover from the british empire. You can ask the "population" but that means nothing.

Las Malvinas...similar to so many disputed lands...invading Brits with colonial tendencies causing havoc.

Out of interest, why did you refer to the Falklands as Las Malvinas in your post? I could understand it if you were argentinian but I assume you are not, in which case it appears quite odd.

[Pete]

Out of interest, why did you refer to the Falklands as Las Malvinas in your post? I could understand it if you were argentinian but I assume you are not, in which case it appears quite odd.

I don't know how you can read my post, quote it and then ask a question like that.....and I'm not sure why you find it odd that only Argentinians are able share my opinion and use the more appropriate name given their location and who I think should be in charge of them.

If you're going to reply try doing it without the personal insults or patronising tone. Also, if you have an opinion or any information to add then please share it as you haven't really so far. Otherwise what's the point?

[ginger_rice]

I don't know how you can read my post, quote it and then ask a question like that.....and I'm not sure why you find it odd that only Argentinians are able share my opinion and use the more appropriate name given their location and who I think should be in charge of them.

If you're going to reply try doing it without the personal insults or patronising tone. Also, if you have an opinion or any information to add then please share it as you haven't really so far. Otherwise what's the point?

Peter I've thought long and hard about replying to your posts.

I'm no sure how old you are and what your understanding of the situation in the Falklands was in '82.

One thing I will say straight off is that you are entitled your opinion,and if you wish to call the islands Las Malvinas then that's up to you, however I know of only 1 resident of the Falklands who would agree with the use of that name, try going into the Globe tavern in Stanley and saying how much you enjoy being in the Malvinas, I think you'd get the same response you'd get going into an Edinburgh pub and stating that you love visiting North Britain!

To me the crux of the matter is the right of self determination of the islanders, I also have to declare a vested interest here, I served in HMS Ardent during the last conflict and witnessed 22 of my mates losing their lives. FWIW I actually agree with you regarding the post colonial hangover left behind in many regions owing the demise of the British Empire, however the Falklands is a one off situation.

In many countries where the British imposed their rule there was an indigenous and often tribal population many of whom were subjugated in many of the worst ways that domineering imperial powers do. This is not the situation in the Falklands, I spoke to quite a few Argentinian POWs in 82 who to a man were shocked to discover that the islanders did not, as they had been told, welcome them with open arms as liberators. Here's a hypotetical question for you if the islands were to be handed over to Aregentina, what would be the likely outcome for the current population, how do you stand on ethnic cleansing?

So for me it still comes down to the right of self determination of the islanders, so long as they wish to remain under a British protectorate then that's how it should be.

[Peevemor]

Don't they have full British citizenship?Aren't they then British nationals - and Falkland Islanders? :confused:

:agree:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islander

[HKhibby]

Hong Kong was on a 99 year lease from China so legally it had to go back to them.

Actually the whole of HK was not on a 99 year lease, hk island was given to Britain after the first opium war, along with part of the kowloon peninsula, the new territories were leased from china on a 99 year lease for more space from the original china , not the so called communist ruled china, so technically the present china had no claim at all on hk, as they refuse to recognise the old china before the civil war, but thats another story!, and china were actually happy enough for the British to remain here in hk, but certain things couldnt be agreed on, and were un-workable the way things would have ended up as most of the electricity supply etc.. comes from the new territories, thats why the chinese and the uk came up with the one country 2 systems thing with high degree of self autonomy, as alot of commercial business and massive companies based in hk would have up rooted and moved to singapore.
so hk wasnt taken over by the chinese, and the hk chinese are culturely very different from the mainland chinese and more western.
The British made HK and only they could have done it too! because the Chinese couldnt have done it, all they do is copy!

[Hibbyradge]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16810417

[Lost_Mackem]

^A "show of force" surely?

Prince William is also on duty in the Falklands I think.

I think our permanent military base on the islands is more substantial than it was in the early 80's and we'd be better equipped to fight off an invasion than perhaps we were back then, lets hope so anyway because as some people have already stated, with the current state of the Royal Navy there is no way we will be able to retake the islands if the Argies do take over. Our best bet would be to try and keep an airfield open from where troops can immediately be dispatched from the UK or Afghanistan.

We're already losing young soldiers in Afghanistan without something like this going on. Every year except one since the end of the second world war a British soldier has died on active service, we seem to have constantly been at war since the beginning of my lifetime anyway.

Change is needed.

[Betty Boop]

^A "show of force" surely?

Prince William is also on duty in the Falklands I think.

I think our permanent military base on the islands is more substantial than it was in the early 80's and we'd be better equipped to fight off an invasion than perhaps we were back then, lets hope so anyway because as some people have already stated, with the current state of the Royal Navy there is no way we will be able to retake the islands if the Argies do take over. Our best bet would be to try and keep an airfield open from where troops can immediately be dispatched from the UK or Afghanistan.

We're already losing young soldiers in Afghanistan without something like this going on. Every year except one since the end of the second world war a British soldier has died on active service, we seem to have constantly been at war since the beginning of my lifetime anyway.

Change is needed.

I wouldn't hold your breath. We'll soon be indulging in a spot of humanitarian bombing on Syria, followed up with some military action in Iran.

[HKhibby]

How "long standing" is this UK position?

Britain has no business governing such lands any more and this is simply a hangover from the british empire. You can ask the "population" but that means nothing.

Las Malvinas...similar to so many disputed lands...invading Brits with colonial tendencies causing havoc.

And the Americans arent invading imperialists?, at least we (British) did something with the world and educated the colonies to an extent! not like the Americans start a war and everyone else including the UK clean up after them!

[HKhibby]

Is this not the line we took the last time?

Seems to me that Argentina are looking to slowly get a political position on this and complacency is not going to help.

I'm with Cameron on this and to be fair he is only repeating quite a long standing UK position . . The population of the Falklands should get the choice.

Does the UK have a permanent military presence there? Bet there is a few anti aircraft and possible anti ship missiles based on the island. . .the parallel to the decison to scrap aircraft carriers at the same time as a rising Argentine threat to the islands is not one easily ignored though!

I say bring it on to Argentina! let them try!! i would love to see the UK bomb them again! and more!, yes some are right! The likes of Obama and Hilary Clinton hate the UK! Americans in whole hate the fact that the UK were the original dominant force in the world! and we finished things too! not like them...creat war zones and retreat! because they cant win or dont have the know how to win a battle!!

[HKhibby]

Hong Kong was on a 99 year lease from China so legally it had to go back to them.

not the whole of HK! check the history. i live there i know, it wasnt clear and cut as that!

[HKhibby]

Apart from it being a relic of our colonial past?

whats wrong with colonial past? would rather have that than be part of the EU!!

[Dashing Bob S]

If you study the history you'll see that it's not that clear cut, most neutral observers would probably say the UK has the better claim to sovereignty.

The ironic thing is that the govt was negotiating a 25 year lease back arrangement with Argentina when their military junta decided to invade to prop up their failing popularity. If they hadn't been so stupid the Falklands would be in Argentine hands by now.

Can't believe we're agreeing here LF, but that's exactly the case.

People forget that the fascist junta in power at the time was enthusiastic about this blood-shed solely to divert people's attention from the fact the the country was falling apart under their disastrous policies.





And don't even get me started on the Argentinians...

[steakbake]

I say bring it on to Argentina! let them try!! i would love to see the UK bomb them again! and more!, yes some are right! The likes of Obama and Hilary Clinton hate the UK! Americans in whole hate the fact that the UK were the original dominant force in the world! and we finished things too! not like them...creat war zones and retreat! because they cant win or dont have the know how to win a battle!!

Seriously? If so, you sir, (with all due respect), are a complete and utter trumpet.

[Dashing Bob S]

Seriously? If so, you sir, (with all due respect), are a complete and utter trumpet.

He's either 14, ******ed, or you've just had the biggest whooooosssshhhing ever...

[steakbake]

He's either 14, ******ed, or you've just had the biggest whooooosssshhhing ever...

It could be all three.

[ginger_rice]

I say bring it on to Argentina! let them try!! i would love to see the UK bomb them again! and more!, yes some are right! The likes of Obama and Hilary Clinton hate the UK! Americans in whole hate the fact that the UK were the original dominant force in the world! and we finished things too! not like them...creat war zones and retreat! because they cant win or dont have the know how to win a battle!!

What planet are you living on? It's pretty obvious you've never been in action or you would never talk like that.

Have you ever seen what a bomb does to a human body, I have, and it's not a pleasant sight, and for one or two that I saw a very very painful death.

[ginger_rice]

^A "show of force" surely?



Well maybe a tad, however Daring is just simply taking over as Falkland Islands Guardship (FIGS), there is usually a type 23 frigate and a type 42 destroyer, these rotate now and again which as it's been happening now for almost 30 years is no big news.

This is the first operational deployment by a type 45, so a bit more of a newsworthy story, albeit with a bit of sabre rattling thrown in for good measure.

[stoneyburn hibs]

Well maybe a tad, however Daring is just simply taking over as Falkland Islands Guardship (FIGS), there is usually a type 23 frigate and a type 42 destroyer, these rotate now and again which as it's been happening now for almost 30 years is no big news.

This is the first operational deployment by a type 45, so a bit more of a newsworthy story, albeit with a bit of sabre rattling thrown in for good measure.

Ginger/Anyone, how many servicemen/women are actually based there permanently ?

[ginger_rice]

Ginger/Anyone, how many servicemen/women are actually based there permanently ?

Not a huge amount AFAIK, apart from the two or three ships, there's I think 4 Typhoon jets, a couple of SAR Helo's and perhaps a thousand or so troops.

Having said that, compared to '82 when there was 20 Marines, and the pretty much unarmed HMS Endurance, it's a bit more of a deterrence.

[Dashing Bob S]

What planet are you living on? It's pretty obvious you've never been in action or you would never talk like that.

Have you ever seen what a bomb does to a human body, I have, and it's not a pleasant sight, and for one or two that I saw a very very painful death.

Maybe just the second biggest whoooosssing?

[ginger_rice]

Maybe just the second biggest whoooosssing?

Aye, I thought about that when typing my reply...should really have gone for the :troll: option instead!

[steakbake]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16867936

I can see why some people in Argentina might see this as provocative - the timing could have been better. Or not, depending on your point of view.

[ginger_rice]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16867936

I can see why some people in Argentina might see this as provocative - the timing could have been better. Or not, depending on your point of view.

I don't know why they just didn't send him out there without the need to broadcast it to the whole World, he could have been there for half of his tour before anyone noticed!

[Leicester Fan]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16867936

I can see why some people in Argentina might see this as provocative - the timing could have been better. Or not, depending on your point of view.
Argentina seem determined to be provoked about anything. Best to just ignore them.

[steakbake]

I don't know why they just didn't send him out there without the need to broadcast it to the whole World, he could have been there for half of his tour before anyone noticed!

This is the thing. Yes, perhaps there are Argentinians ready to be provoked. But the fanfare is no accident.

[ginger_rice]

Argentina seem determined to be provoked about anything. Best to just ignore them.

Aye they remind me of the Huns "up to their knees in Fenian blood" one minute then apoplectic with rage when a foreign substitute crosses themselves coming on to the pitch.

[ginger_rice]

This is the thing. Yes, perhaps there are Argentinians ready to be provoked. But the fanfare is no accident.

In 82 the message being given out by the UK government was that the Falklands didn't seem to be a high priority, perhaps this high profile kind of stuff is supposed to give the opposite impression.

I've actually been involved twice with the Falklands the 82 conflict and before that in 78 Jim Callaghan sent out a pretty impressive task force into the Atlantic which caused the junta to think twice about trying anything. John Nott and Thatcher responded to increasing Argentine aggression by decided to decimate the RN surface fleet, looks to me like history could repeat itself unfortunately.

[steakbake]

In 82 the message being given out by the UK government was that the Falklands didn't seem to be a high priority, perhaps this high profile kind of stuff is supposed to give the opposite impression.

I've actually been involved twice with the Falklands the 82 conflict and before that in 78 Jim Callaghan sent out a pretty impressive task force into the Atlantic which caused the junta to think twice about trying anything. John Nott and Thatcher responded to increasing Argentine aggression by decided to decimate the RN surface fleet, looks to me like history could repeat itself unfortunately.

Different times, just now anyway. Argentina is a stable democracy, relatively economically prosperous and unlikely I think to embark on a new adventure in the Falklands. They'll make a big diplomatic noise over it. The trajectory this is going is as Mercosur becomes an ever powerful block of countries, and our politico-economic importance dwindles further, they'll maybe get some kind of concessions out of us. Maybe not shared sovereignty or anything as far as that, but this current set up is not going to last for ever, primarily because we are politically, economically and militarily weaker than at any point in the past.

[Leicester Fan]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9063065/Hugo-Chavez-says-Venezuelan-troops-would-fight-with-Argentina-over-Falklands.html


Hugo Chavez has pledged that Venezuelan armed forces would fight alongside Argentina against Britain in any future conflict over the Falkland Islands at a regional meeting this weekend.

[steakbake]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9063065/Hugo-Chavez-says-Venezuelan-troops-would-fight-with-Argentina-over-Falklands.html

"Nice one, Hugo. Thanks for the offer - we'll get back to you if we need that, yeah?" (pffft).

Next we'll have Evo Morales telling the world he's ready to offer his troops in exchange for Bolivian access to the sea.

[Betty Boop]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/feb/07/argentina-football-league-general-belgrano

:rolleyes:

[Beefster]

Sean Penn's waded into the crisis. This ****'s about to get real.

[steakbake]

Was on a long drive yesterday and ended up listening to George Galloway. He made the suggestion that if this is about Falklanders being able to remain British, then why not negotiate some form of Argentinian ownership as we had been doing in the 70s and 80s and allow the islanders to keep British nationality under that? The islands could retain some form of self government through devolved authority.

I also agreed with his view that sending a warship, a nuclear sub and a leading member of the royals is a provocation.

[Future17]

Was on a long drive yesterday and ended up listening to George Galloway. He made the suggestion that if this is about Falklanders being able to remain British, then why not negotiate some form of Argentinian ownership as we had been doing in the 70s and 80s and allow the islanders to keep British nationality under that? The islands could retain some form of self government through devolved authority.

I also agreed with his view that sending a warship, a nuclear sub and a leading member of the royals is a provocation.

I think there are several reasons not to follow that strategy, but the reasons that immediately spring to mind are:

1) Why would we want to do that? I've yet to see a good reason for deviating from the status quo.

2) Argentinian ownership would mean Argentinian control. More than British nationality, the Falkland Islanders don't want that.

3) When there is a prospect of war (however remote that may be) why would you want to surrender the defendable position to your adversary?

[Eyrie]

I also agreed with his view that sending a warship, a nuclear sub and a leading member of the royals is a provocation.

The warship is a standard rotation - we always have either a frigate or a destroyer down there.

The nuclear sub is an Argentinian allegation rather than a proven fact. The UK government never comments on the deployment of such vessels, so can't deny this claim. It may be correct though.

The leading member of the royals has been rotated there in his day job as a search and rescue pilot. He isn't making a royal visit or taking over as governor.

There is no provocation taking place, other than the Argentinians organising a ban on ships flying the Falklands flag from South American ports. Everything else is business as usual.

[Gatecrasher]

The warship is a standard rotation - we always have either a frigate or a destroyer down there.

The nuclear sub is an Argentinian allegation rather than a proven fact. The UK government never comments on the deployment of such vessels, so can't deny this claim. It may be correct though.

The leading member of the royals has been rotated there in his day job as a search and rescue pilot. He isn't making a royal visit or taking over as governor.

There is no provocation taking place, other than the Argentinians organising a ban on ships flying the Falklands flag from South American ports. Everything else is business as usual.

I also read that there were never war ships in the area until the war.

[ginger_rice]

I also read that there were never war ships in the area until the war.

HMS Endurance was normally on lone patrol in the South Atlantic until 82, it was John Nott's decision to decommision her (along with most of the surface fleet) which prompted the Junta into taking the stance that the UK were in no position to either defend or retake the islands. At that time there was also the West Indies guardship which could be deployed into the South Atlantic fairly quickly.

In 78 there was a similar period of tension and it was widely thought that Argentina was ready to invade, the then Labour government sent a sizeable task force including HMS Ark Royal and one of the cruisers IIRC it was HMS Blake, into the South Atlantic, this was enough to discourage any armed invasion.

It's true to say though that the Falkands Island guardship was a reaction to the 82 war.

[Hibs Class]

The warship is a standard rotation - we always have either a frigate or a destroyer down there.

The nuclear sub is an Argentinian allegation rather than a proven fact. The UK government never comments on the deployment of such vessels, so can't deny this claim. It may be correct though.

The leading member of the royals has been rotated there in his day job as a search and rescue pilot. He isn't making a royal visit or taking over as governor.

There is no provocation taking place, other than the Argentinians organising a ban on ships flying the Falklands flag from South American ports. Everything else is business as usual.

Perhaps the other provocation is George Galloway coming out with his latest opinions which, as is usually the case, are attention-seeking and anti-UK. He's built a career on it and is best ignored.

[Betty Boop]

Perhaps the other provocation is George Galloway coming out with his latest opinions which, as is usually the case, are attention-seeking and anti-UK. He's built a career on it and is best ignored.

Just because you don't agree with foregn policy, doesn't mean you are anti-UK.

[Hibs Class]

Just because you don't agree with foregn policy, doesn't mean you are anti-UK.

You're right, I knew I wasn't wording it especially well when I wrote that last post. I suspect GG was just being provocative and attention seeking in much the same way as when he fawned over saddan hussein. (I do also suspect he isn't Britain's most vehement patriot though!)

[Gatecrasher]

HMS Endurance was normally on lone patrol in the South Atlantic until 82, it was John Nott's decision to decommision her (along with most of the surface fleet) which prompted the Junta into taking the stance that the UK were in no position to either defend or retake the islands. At that time there was also the West Indies guardship which could be deployed into the South Atlantic fairly quickly.

In 78 there was a similar period of tension and it was widely thought that Argentina was ready to invade, the then Labour government sent a sizeable task force including HMS Ark Royal and one of the cruisers IIRC it was HMS Blake, into the South Atlantic, this was enough to discourage any armed invasion.

It's true to say though that the Falkands Island guardship was a reaction to the 82 war.

Thanks for the info, interesting stuff :agree: