Argentina to invade Falklands

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Mintwithahole.

 

Feel free to continue in ignorance, if that is your wish. I tried to deny it, as the saying goes.

Don't take life so seriously! Chill out, grab a Miller and relax. . .
God, you English toffs are so uptight.

reply to post by Mintwithahole.


Toff? Couldn't be further from the truth ! I just wanted to correct some falsehoods, namely that the "Great" in Great Britain is not some sort of National arrogance, but rather just geography.

But you're right. We're all Great in the UK, our history proves it.

Originally posted by thesaint
What makes you think people were put there after the war??

It had a striving community long before the war began and i should know i have spent 12 months there (2 Six month tours)

Man i can even tell you about one man and his wife who sat in their living room in a armchair with the curtains open and out of their panoramic living room window on the shoreline watched battles at port san carlos live.

To beat that one minute they would have British knocking on the door asking for tea then half hour later argintinians knocking on the door asking for milk!!! I know because i sat in his armchair and was amazed at what he told me.

Yes the population slightly rose since the war but there was a hefty community there already before the war

Thanks for that fantastic insight to the war(star for you sir),I think with the experience our great troops have had in Iraq and afghanistan we would be well prepared for anything that may happen there.

It's pathetic to see people on the 21st century being "patriotic", in particular in this forum, where everybody supposedly is aware of what governments are, how countries were formed, and be loyal to a flag that was imposed to you by birth without you having anything to say about it.
A flag that even has his agenda probably against you.

[edit on 23-11-2008 by seb2882]

reply to post by Kolmo


I read that Kilmo and was starting to lean towards Argentina over this issue. I decided to to check the Nootka Conventions and I must say that i have swung the other way and Argentina have NO CLAIM WHAT SO EVER and have been the aggressors on 2 occassions now, the conventions that matter are below:

"The first Nootka Convention plays a role in the disputed sovereignty of the Falkland Islands between the United Kingdom and Argentina. Article VI provided that neither party would form new establishments on any of the islands adjacent to the east and west coasts of South America then occupied by Spain. Both retained the right to land and erect temporary structures on the coasts and islands for fishery-related purposes. The Nootka Convention's applicability to the Falklands dispute is controversial and complicated.[5]

The second Nootka Convention was signed in February 1793 and awarded compensation to John Meares for the Spanish seizure of his ships at Nootka in 1789.[6] The third agreement was signed on January 11, 1794.[7] It called for the mutual abandonment of Nootka Sound. Britain and Spain were both free to use Nootka Sound as a port and erect temporary structures, but, "neither ... shall form any permanent establishment in the said port or claim any right of sovereignty or territorial dominion there to the exclusion of the other. And Their said Majesties will mutually aid each other to maintain for their subjects free access to the port of Nootka against any other nation which may attempt to establish there any sovereignty or dominion."

I see no aggreement with Argentina here, but lets not be pedantic, lets say all the aggreements with Spain roll over to Argentina, still they have no claim as they broke the aggreement ,

"neither ... shall form any permanent establishment in the said port or claim any right of sovereignty or territorial dominion there to the exclusion of the other"

So why did you send people there to settle and tell everyone else to get off, you broke the conventions and the UK rightlfully reverted to their original claim which pre dates Spains anyway. It is a pity that everything was fine with these aggreements until Argentina got greedy, you should start to teach your children the correct history, it isnt fair on them. No wonder the USA blasted your lot off the Islands, its because you turned up acted like you owned the place and you didnt. Argentina is responible for the deaths of nearly 1000 men and coutless injured and they were wrong in the 1830s and they were wrong in 1982 and they are wrong now! They should apologise to the Islanders and the UK and pay the £2billion cost of the war back to the UK.

Shame on Argentina

Prof

Shame on Argentina?


The British Empire's seizing of land around the world has been shameful. Diego Garcia and kicking off all those islanders and stealing that island for a military super base.....

Shame on England.

Originally posted by UK Alien Buff
the argie navy has been buzzing fishing aships about what they were doing whilst the boats were inside falkland isle waters.

also spending for the air force and the navy has been increased.

and isn't it just the right time to do it at the celebrations of independance and when the british navy is down to less then 30 active ships.

I MAKE NO APOLOGIES FOR MYargiesUSE AS I'M BRITISH AND WE'RE WILLING TO GIVE THEM A DAMM GOOD TRASHING AGAIN


mod edit, spelling in title

[edit on 6-2-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]

i am not a fan of the argentines.they are 3rd world country with guns and corrupt and rotton to the core.

i am afraid you are quite delusional and the uk cannot do anything as the mod has wasted all the money on fat pensions on about 10000 generals and other fat cats.

they have more admirals then ships.

they have scrapped the carriers.

the harriers were scrapped also!

they spend £4 billion on 9 air reconnisance planes which did not work then they spent £200 million scrapping them!

they spend 3 billion on helicopters which cant fly in cloudy weather!

their ships have no weapons apart from a few guns!
no money.

a report indicated the m.o.d wastes 60% of the budget and has no clear accountability chain hence the waste.

so the UK is totally impotent now and cannot repeat what they did before.

Originally posted by nobodysavedme
so the UK is totally impotent now and cannot repeat what they did before.

Argentina would not attempt to invade the Falklands again. Argentina is now a democracy. One good thing that came out of Argentina’s silliness in 1982 was the Junta collapsed and democracy followed.

To address your point. The UK military had developed since 1982 by several orders of magnitude, regardless of the waste and cancelled projects et al. The Argentinean armed forces have not. The Falklands has a flight of fast jets – (Typhoon’s being arguably the best jets in the Southern Hemisphere at the moment), a garrison and the prospect of rapid reinforcement. In theory, the UK does not need the Royal Navy in situ, although a T45 destroyer parked off the coast would be highly problematic for the Argentinean air force, bha, blah, blah.

... A full scale war would not happen. Argentina would not go down that road.

Regards

reply to post by nobodysavedme


utter twaddle - instead of your irrelevant list of what UK forces " lack " , lets review the list of what they have - the list that matters :

1 - a full streghth light infantry battalion graarisoned in the falklands full time , with ample supplies and munitions / ordnance

2 - attached units from the royal engineers [ combat engineering ] , royal artillery [ artillery ] , RAF regt. [ air defence artillery ]

3 - a detachment of strike fighters , with munitions and fuel stockpiles - superior to any argentinian aircraft - both in preformance , crew training and having the advantage of operating defensivly over ` home ` terretory

3b - radar and C3I [ command control communcations & intelligence ] to direct RAF air assets and ground defences against any attack

4 - strategic airlift capability - capable of delivering a further infantry battalion + support units within 24h , plus others

5 - the ability to ferry additional fighters / strike aircraft via ascencion using inair refueling

6 - RN SSN hunter / killer submaries [ capable of interdicting any south american naval force afloat ]

7 - superior satalite inteligence - including real time imagery plus commint [ communications inteligence ] and other intelligence assets

now - what the argentinians lack [ still ]

ASW [ anti sbumarine warfare ] assests capable of engaging the RN or even protecting any surface forces from attack

long range stike and air-superiority aircraft - capable of operating over falklands airspace with adequate loiter time or payload - they can send aircraft with adequate payload [ weapons ] but only 3~4 min loiter time , or adequate loiter time [ drop tanks ] - and inadequate weapons load-out

amphibious warfare capacity to effect a invasion agaist a defended target

so - now feel free to add your views on the RELEVANT assets both sides actually posess

Originally posted by Pervius
The British Empire's seizing of land around the world has been shameful. Diego Garcia and kicking off all those islanders and stealing that island for a military super base.....

What about the Spanish Empire (Ironically the very reason Argentina even exists)?

The French Empire?

The German Empire?

The Russian Empire?

The Japanese Empire?

Even the USA got involved in colonialism!

It is simply disingenuos to try to paint out that only the British are evil empire builders when everyone else was doing the exact same thing.

Originally posted by nobodysavedme
Shame on England.

It's the UK, not England. There are 3 other countries in the Union and, for factual accuracy, the islanders are descended from Scottish settlers, not English.

Muppet.

Originally posted by nobodysavedme
they have more admirals then ships.

Nopt true. There are around 40 odd serving Admirals, not including retired as they keep the title anyway, and there are over 100 ships in the Fleet and Fleet Auxiliiary.

Originally posted by nobodysavedme
they have scrapped the carriers.

The UK hasn't had a carrier since 1986 and we've done alright. In two years there will be a new one bobbing around the Solent, which is the largest warship ever constructed by the Navy.

Originally posted by nobodysavedme
the harriers were scrapped also!

About time. They were brought in during the 1970's and are ancient, although capable, little planes. The JSF and new UCAV's being developed, such as Taranis, will be more than a fair replacement.

Originally posted by nobodysavedme
they spend £4 billion on 9 air reconnisance planes which did not work then they spent £200 million scrapping them!

I'll give you that one, but the project was so buggered up from the start it would have simply been to costly to be worth it. That said, the Sentinel is a far cheaper and almost as capable as the Nimrods.

Originally posted by nobodysavedme
they spend 3 billion on helicopters which cant fly in cloudy weather!

That is an old problem and was solved years ago.

Originally posted by nobodysavedme
their ships have no weapons apart from a few guns!

What? Obviously, you don't really know what you're talking about but are simply parrotting media hype. I assume you're referring to the Type 45 Destroyers, not the whole Fleet and again, you're quoting old news which refers to a problem with the Astor missiles which has been resolved during Sea Trials, which is precisely why they have them.

I can tell you now, the Type 45's in service are fully operational with all weapons.

Originally posted by nobodysavedme
a report indicated the m.o.d wastes 60% of the budget and has no clear accountability chain hence the waste.

"A report"? Show me. I do get annoyed when people quote "reports" or "studies" and don't produce them.

Originally posted by nobodysavedme
so the UK is totally impotent now and cannot repeat what they did before.

Actually the Fleet in 1982 was in a far worse state than now. The only carrier available, the HMS Hermes, was in mothball and had to be refit en route, troops were transported by liner and cross channel ferries and most of the warships didn't have CIWS systems, leading to many being lost to those damned Exocets.

One thing the BRitish are good at is doing the seemingly impossible with the £5,87 in change they had in the back pocket, a small ball of string and some gum. Don't ever underestimate us. We built the worlds largest Empire with an Army barely bigger than it is today.

Looks like all that hot air and nationalistic chest thumping has taken it's told on the stringy old cow

President Kirchner has Thyroid cancer

Now, I don't wish ill on anybody, but maybe this will concentrate her mind and make her realise what is truly important.

Originally posted by stumason
Looks like all that hot air and nationalistic chest thumping has taken it's told on the stringy old cow

President Kirchner has Thyroid cancer

Now, I don't wish ill on anybody, but maybe this will concentrate her mind and make her realise what is truly important.

Did she go to Japan this summer or something?

But seriously, this plus the suspicious death in Montevideo earlier, the timing... it's a little weird. How long would it take to get thyroid cancer if someone poisoned you with a big dose of radioactive iodine, I wonder?

I think the British should have sunk the whole Argentinian fleet, destroyed the airfields, razed the barracks to the ground, permanent reminders not to do it again, just like the Romans did to Carthage, except for not shoveling salt everywhere.

reply to post by UK Alien Buff


The Falklands war was nothing but an election campaign, for both sides. Thatchers support was very low coming up to the general election, the Falklands war got her voted in again, so she could continue her destruction of the working class. Galtieri needed to boost his popularity, as it was also extremely low after only being in office for a few months. Within days after the defeat he was removed from power.

1982 was a bad year of riots, strikes, high unemployment, in Britain and Argentina. Argentina was encouraged to invade the Falklands when Britain removed their Navy, that had been protecting the island since the last time Argentina tried to invade in the 70's.

The whole thing was planned, people died for politicians careers, and had the British public fell for it, and I see still do...

reply to post by ANOK


Whilst there is certainly more than just an element of truth in what you posted I think it's only fair to point a couple of things out.

Irrelevant of all the political posturings and rhetoric etc the simple fact of the matter is that the Falkland Islanders themselves have repeatedly expressed their wish to remain British.
In accordance with the UN Charter which safeguards the right of self-determination as long as this is the case then the British PEOPLE are almost unaminously supportive of protecting the Islanders wishes.
That is nothiing to do with being brainwashed, controlled or manipulated etc but everything to do with protecting your own.

Of course the prospect of oil and possibly other mineral deposits in the area are a consideration.
Despite having no legal, moral or historical responsibility to do so the UK offered Argentina an equal share in the development of all drilling / mining activities in the region - Kirchner turned down the offer.
The offer would have included building a pipeline to mainland Argentina and refineries.
All in all it would have provided a massive financial boost not just to the Islanders and possibly the UK but also to the Argentinian economy.
Kirchner has put personal ambition ahead of the interests of ordinary Argentinians who again are being misled and manipulated.

Many myths - some based on fact some not - have sprung up around the '82 conflict and it's origins, I've often threatened to start a thread on it but I haven't really got the time.

Originally posted by pikestaff
I think the British should have sunk the whole Argentinian fleet, destroyed the airfields, razed the barracks to the ground, permanent reminders not to do it again, just like the Romans did to Carthage, except for not shoveling salt everywhere.

They could have done what they did when they sunk the Belgrano and "moved" the total exclusion zone to give them a reason to sink ALL enemy ships,but in true British fashion that just wouldn't be cricket would it?

Originally posted by Freeborn
Irrelevant of all the political posturings and rhetoric etc the simple fact of the matter is that the Falkland Islanders themselves have repeatedly expressed their wish to remain British.

That may be true, and the reason for protecting the island in general, but I really doubt that was the motivation for the '82 war.

Argentina would not have invaded if the Navy had remained where they had been since the last time Argentina tried to invade. There was no reason to remove the Navy, other than to allow Argentina to invade. The Brits knew they would win, to the point of seriously underestimating the Argentine military. The war wasn't expected to be so vicious.

War is a racket. The Brits tried to sell the Argentine's Harriers in the 70's. Then there is the rumour, that came from a pretty good source at the time, that the Invincible was moved to a safe area because Prince Andrew was on it, allowing the Sheffield to be sunk. The controversy continues...

Today controversy still rages, as veterans continue to fight for an inquiry. How could one of the Navy's newest ships, specifically built to defend against missile attacks, be almost literally be caught napping.

hmsmaxton.tripod.com...

Then there was the...

THATCHERGATE TAPES

Originally posted by ANOK
Argentina would not have invaded if the Navy had remained where they had been since the last time Argentina tried to invade. There was no reason to remove the Navy, other than to allow Argentina to invade. The Brits knew they would win, to the point of seriously underestimating the Argentine military. The war wasn't expected to be so vicious.

I think there is a danger to read too much into the origins of the Falklands War and it is wrong to suggest that it was all a "set up" and somehow the Argentinean's were given “permission”.

Simply put, the Argentine Junta thought they would get away with it. There is no evidence that the UK wanted a war to help with elections. The Junta gambled their survival on one last throw of the dice and lost.

As far as a “vicious” war, I doubt any of the military planners were under any impression that it was going to be like a Sunday stroll to the pub with Rufus the Jack Russell.

Originally posted by ANOKThen there is the rumour, that came from a pretty good source at the time, that the Invincible was moved to a safe area because Prince Andrew was on it, allowing the Sheffield to be sunk. The controversy continues...

As for the loss of HMS Sheffield. That has been covered by all sorts of investigations and was just bad luck. There is nothing to hide and no conspiracy or controversy.

www.mod.uk...

Regards

reply to post by ANOK


There are many rumours and myths about the '82 conflict and as interesting as they are they are totally irrelevant to the current situation.

The simple fact is that as long as the Islanders wish to remain British then they will.
And we have more than enough firepower to ensure they do.

It seems strange that you would rather concetrate on Thatcher's actions during '82 rather than Kirchner's duplicity today.
I wonder why that is?

Originally posted by UK Alien Buff


I MAKE NO APOLOGIES FOR MYargiesUSE AS I'M BRITISH AND WE'RE WILLING TO GIVE THEM A DAMM GOOD TRASHING AGAIN

so you think of war as pretty much the same as a football match... allegiances treated as such etc.. brilliant..