Hugo Chavez demands Queen returns Falkland Islands to Argentina

reply to post by Vitchilo


Where do you come from Vitchilo?

[edit on 23-2-2010 by Mr Moon]

Click here for more information.

If it came to a war there isn't any need for nukes we can launch plenty of cruise missiles from the sea and I'm sure the RAF Typhoons and soldiers stationed there can more than deal with anything coming.

The only way the Falklands are ever changing hand's is if the Islanders want it to themselves. Argentina have no valid claim on the island and if they try to invade we should take the gloves off.

If Chavez want's to keep pushing his luck it would be a shame if one of the missiles malfunctioned and headed in his direction.

Did you just hear the comments from Sir Ming Campbell, significant figure of the foreign select committee;

Sir Campbell spoke out on the growing feud over oil drilling in the Falklands today, saying that he thought conflict was 'highly unlikely,' but that in the event the UK was 'more than ready and could not be taken by surprise.'

He pointed to the fact that the UK had over 100,000 service men and women, as well typhoon aircraft at its disposal.

PoliticsHome

He's very close to Gordon Brown, makes you wonder what Campbell is privy too.

I simply cannot believe that there are posts in this thread suggesting nuking parts of South America is acceptable, whatever the political circumstances might be! THAT IS MADNESS!

Regardless of whether the people wish to remain British or not, to suggest a possible solution is to use nuclear weapons is ridiculous. The combined forces of GB would push the Argentinians back in 24 hours, if that.

reply to post by 0010110011101


I'm in favour of protecting the rainforest, so yes, I really do not favour turning South America into glass.

We have the capability to eliminate majority of their military complex within one significant strike.

reply to post by infinite


In fairness that wouldn't take much more than an air rifle at the moment

Although it would be a different proposition if other countries joined in, I can't see that happening either.

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by stumason

The UK has had nuclear subs for 60 years. Bring it.

So, are you saying, right there, that you want a nuclear conflagration?

It seems you represent the dark side of Nationalism.

Haven't we had enough of war and bloodshed?

We're not very evolved at all, are we, if this attitude still prevails into the 21st Century.

What an Arse.

Not at all and I resent being called an arse. I expect an apology.

Nuclear subs doesn't mean nuclear weapons. The Astute and Trafalgar class attack subs would do quite nicely, no need to send the Vanguards.

Originally posted by NightFlyer96
reply to post by amazing

 

the one aircraft carrier we had was sent to the scrapper, and another one of our ships, ( which my grandfather once served in, I think) was sunk while heading back to port in neutral waters

Ahh, one of the myths of `82.

The Belgrano was zig-zaggind towards the British Task Force AND inside the exclusion zone. Just because it happened to have zig-zagged away from the task force when it was hit, that doesn't exclude the fact it was heading in the general direction. had it been allowed to get close, then the Task force would have been gravely threatened.

Originally posted by LibertyLover
(yes, Hugo, I'm talking about you) Britain has troops with battle experience, not just patroling in Northern Ireland. Battle hardened and experienced British troops are not what you want to see on your front door step.

If it went down.
It would not be a repeat of 1982. It would go down a hell of a lot quicker!

Everyones talking of a war that wont happen.
Everyone knows its simply the last ditch effort of a dying government who desperatley wants to drum up something that resembles national pride in the faint hope that a coup de état wont put them out of power.

Argentina is economically sunk, with social unrest and a goverment who doesnt know its arse from its elbow.

Its sabre rattling in an effort to draw attention away its many mistakes which has left the country in the ruin.

reply to post by hans kammler


Says much about the ignorance of Mr Chavez - assuming he's being correctly quoted. There is no 'Queen of England' (well, no more than there is a 'Queen of Worcestershire' or a 'Queen of Sydney' or a 'Queen of Ontario') and it's nowt to do with her since she devolves decisions to her government. So Chavez should have directed his comments to Gordon Brown. Though he might have been better off sorting out his own country's mess caused by his incompetence

Edit: posted in response to the OP without having realised how many other posts has been made and how the thread had progressed

[edit on 23-2-2010 by Essan]

In an "intensive attack" a single Type 45 could simultaneously track, engage and destroy more targets than five Type 42 destroyers operating together.[7] The Daring class represents the largest escort type ever built for the Royal Navy.[Note 1] After Daring's launch on 1 February 2006, former First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West stated that it would be the Royal Navy's most capable destroyer ever, as well as the world's best air defence ship.

Perhaps a chance to mobilise the first of our new destroyers?



[edit on 23-2-2010 by Maykay]

Originally posted by infinite
reply to post by gusan

 

But the population of Argentina grew out of an invasion

Would you politely return the land to its rightful owners, you cannot be a hypocrite now. Or are the rules different the third world pseudo democracy of Argentina?

YES, back to the native population..(not that i know HOW it can be done when most of them are dead) just like the british empire in Australia and NZ and all over all seas, should give it back to their respective natives.
Ah..yes the problem is you guys would be eating sheep intestines 4ever the day third world countries get their land back. This is not about land, it is about the natural resourses underground or for geographical/strategic reasons.

reply to post by gusan


So, you want us to give the falklands back to the penguins, in the hope that the indigenous people around the coast of what is now argentina will one day paddle out there and exploit the resources?

yep, that makes SUCH a lot of sense

Originally posted by 0010110011101
I simply cannot believe that there are posts in this thread suggesting nuking parts of South America is acceptable, whatever the political circumstances might be! THAT IS MADNESS!

Madness... THIS IS SPARTA!!!!
*ahem*

Britain or any of it's allies wouldn't nuke a 3rd world country that poses little threat. Even a top government official said that Argentina stands no chance against us and that it would be suicide.

So I doubt anything will happen apart from more arguments.

Originally posted by 0010110011101
I simply cannot believe that there are posts in this thread suggesting nuking parts of South America is acceptable, whatever the political circumstances might be! THAT IS MADNESS!

Regardless of whether the people wish to remain British or not, to suggest a possible solution is to use nuclear weapons is ridiculous.

On the contrary, that is now STANDING BRITISH POLICY since 1982.

NO MORE MISTER NICE GUY... You came once and we kicked you out nicely with conventional weapons, come again and next time we vapourize your country.

A British nuclear submarine is kept at all times off the the coast of the Falklands with a minimum of 8 nukes armed and targeted on Argentine cities - I should know, one of my ex-school buddies is a boomer captain.


[edit on 23-2-2010 by aristocrat2]

reply to post by budski


The peoples money...same kind of money your gov has been stealing from your people for long now. (one day you brave ones will stop this instead of killing people abroad) We all know who and how is profiting from those wars.. if you dont know this it is because your owners, your master workes 24/7 since long time back to keep you ignoring this..
And i do not know how much, but simply put; all wars are about "money" because we live in a world were money equals power so based on that it should be a lot of money. The man we are talking about -the one your government put in place- is dead now, but before he died he was inprsinoed for among many (lika all but the crimes against human rights he is responsable of) things, for kidnapping children. So what the h..do you expect from this kind of person? He claimed the islands for "nobel" reasons? Your gov put him there, your gov knew exactly what was going on and they followed the plan just as 9/11 in reasent years.
How easy it would be if people like you just said "no more".
Sometimes i think you have to defend your gov because realising the truth would imply you are guilty of horrible things..and "god" would not like that. Its easier to justifie the wars with crap like this i guess.

[edit on 23-2-2010 by gusan]

reply to post by gusan


Apart from the fact that it's well over 200 years since britain populated the falklands.

But hey, don't let a little thing like the facts get in the way of your weird fantasy.

reply to post by budski


But you still dont understand me.
We could discuss this issue from many many angles, and i am open for being wrong i can live with that and i can even be friend with any one discussing the facts on a peacefull level.
I could be wrong about who has the right to the islands. OK? Its not an easy question.
BUT, i am not wrong about the blood thirsty empires and about your gov screewing you, about you feeding the corporations, about nationalism being used as a major tool to make you think this way and being willing to comit horrible crimes in war. This i am 100% sure of.
Like i said; you can be proud of so many things your country represent, but being proud of how many nuclear force or how many aircrafts you got is nothing to be proud of man. Those are tools YOU, the population have to use, those tools KILL and make terrific damage. But it is YOU who are responsable for pulling the trigger...think about that next time you go to church or you pray to god.

[edit on 23-2-2010 by gusan]