View Full Version : Another Falklands War coming up?
Does this mean, we are going to war with Argentina once more? Or are the Argentinians sabre rattling once more?
Where are we going to find an Iron Lady in this day and age?
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article7025799.ece
Boozeburglar
18-Feb-10, 11:25
Who would want to find another one? Turned out she was a Tin Woman, and full of rust at that.
Aye, she had the cajones to send innocents to fight the ill equipped Argentinians, but she somehow misplaced them when her moral compass was tested regarding Pinochet, South Africa, her evil arms dealing son and a host of other undesirables she courted.
riggerboy
18-Feb-10, 11:31
lets go to war the falklands have huge oil reserves thats why we fight for it, its ours so lets fight for it how can we sit back and let all who died last time round be in vain,
Boozeburglar
18-Feb-10, 11:33
Why don't we come to some arrangement to work with Argentina, then truly all those lives and disablements would not be in vain.
Who would want to find another one? Turned out she was a Tin Woman, and full of rust at that.
Aye, she had the cajones to send innocents to fight the ill equipped Argentinians
Innocents!?!? The British Armed Forces are a professional fighting force.... Show some bloody respect!!!
What the hell do you think a professional standing army is for??
Maggie Thatcher was correct, she met an act of aggression with force which they counted on not happening
She was correct in sinking the Belgrano aswell, it was hovering on the edge of the exclusion zone and if we lost sight of it and it got in it was game over for us and many a British life.
Iron Lady making Iron decisions...wish more people in the world had the Cajones she did.
Boozeburglar
18-Feb-10, 11:46
Innocents!?!? The British Armed Forces are a professional fighting force.... Show some bloody respect!!! . . . Iron Lady making Iron decisions
Just for clarification, not that it should be needed, I am referring to the fact that the soldiers do not make the decisions.
I have utmost respect for all who put themselves in harm's way, over and over.
That does not mean I consider the reasons they are there to be just.
But in that respect, they are truly innocents.
Perhaps you could think some before throwing accusations of disrespect around.
Just for clarification, not that it should be needed, I am referring to the fact that the soldiers do not make the decisions.
I have utmost respect for all who put themselves in harm's way, over and over.
That does not mean I consider the reasons they are there to be just.
But in that respect, they are truly innocents.
We are doing it again! Looking back on events with contempory feelings and thinking.
At the time everyone (almost) thought it was the right thing to do. There was very little decent.
And in terms of being ill equiped, I would argue that it was indeed the Brits who were. There certainly wasn't anything wrong with the Argantine Airforce.
Boozeburglar
18-Feb-10, 12:04
I am making a general point about our involvement in actions, not the Falklands Crisis.
Overall as a fighting force the Argentinians were certainly poorly equipped, and even worse poorly trained.
It is in interesting topic, let us not resort to the normal bola bola.
northener
18-Feb-10, 12:26
Does this mean, we are going to war with Argentina once more? Or are the Argentinians sabre rattling once more?
Where are we going to find an Iron Lady in this day and age?
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article7025799.ece
The Argentines will certainly make a lot of noise over this. There's a lot at stake. I'd say that diplomatic relations will certainly be very sour soon....
Britain won't give ground on the oil issue as this would be tantamount to stating that Argentina has some validity in it's claim to the Malvinas. The Argies won't give ground because they want to keep alive the issue of sovereignty.
Military action? There certainly may be a certain amount of support for action in Argentina. But the Argie government know that to take such a step would be skating upon very, very thin ice. I don't think they'd get any support from the International Community and they know that military opposition in the early stages would be a damn sight fiercer than it was first time around.
Let's see how it goes.
Opinon Poll in 1982. (wonder what it would be now, if it kicked off again - although very very much doubt it)
Q Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way the Government are now handling the situation in the Falkland Islands?
Satisfied 70 %
Dissatisfied 23%
Don't know 7%
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=52
Tubthumper
18-Feb-10, 13:06
So once again its all about oil. And it looks as though 1982 was also all about oil, so was all that stuff about 'the Falklanders desires to remain British' cack as well?
If Argentina were staking a claim on Britsh sheep, would we be getting all worked up?
Just for clarification, not that it should be needed, I am referring to the fact that the soldiers do not make the decisions.
I have utmost respect for all who put themselves in harm's way, over and over.
That does not mean I consider the reasons they are there to be just.
But in that respect, they are truly innocents.
Perhaps you could think some before throwing accusations of disrespect around.
Yes they do make the decision!! They made a decision to join HM Armed Forces, when you join a professional fighting force you have to be and are prepared to fight. And make note the word professional, a professional standing army is not some last resort force only to be used if you about to be invaded in the most dire of circumstances. They can fight anywhere in the world and in other wars which do not directly affect Britain.
It is disrespectull to call them "innocents" as it sounds like they are mere sheep led to the slaughter. Nothing could be further from the truth with regards to the fighting men who fought in the Falklands.
They are men and women who have made the DECISION to serve thier country and are proud to do so.
How you can even contemplate the Falklands War as unjust in any way is lost on me. There is no better reason for a casus belli than what Argentina done in 1982.
Does this mean, we are going to war with Argentina once more? Or are the Argentinians sabre rattling once more?
Where are we going to find an Iron Lady in this day and age?
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article7025799.ece
By the way in answer golach-No, but I am prepared to be proved wrong.
Just as an aside, Hell of a feat towing the platform all the way from the Cromarty Firth ay?
The Pepsi Challenge
18-Feb-10, 14:07
Pass the popcorn, someone, please.
northener
18-Feb-10, 14:18
So once again its all about oil. And it looks as though 1982 was also all about oil, so was all that stuff about 'the Falklanders desires to remain British' cack as well?
........
The main issues back in 1982 were the armed agression against British troops and the Falklanders, plus the very real understanding that the Falklands was the major staging post for any form of Antarctic region exploration.
We were certainly welll briefed on the potential riches of the South Atlantic as well as the sovereignty issues at the time. So yes, it is partially about protecting British interest in a region. Nothing wrong with that in my eyes.
"Argentine president Cristina Fernandez signed a decree on Tuesday requiring prior permission for ships travelling between Argentina and the island, or those crossing Argentinean waters en route to the island."
(Source - http://uk.news.yahoo.com/14/20100218/tpl-falklands-tensions-rise-81c5b50.html )
Lumberjack
18-Feb-10, 15:19
Upon checking the price of oil against the estimated reserves at the Falklands, there is approximately 4.5 trillion dollars worth of oil to be had.
($4,500,000,000,000). that is comfortably enough to wipe out the UK national debt, and some.
Do you really think Argentina will sit back and let us exploit this?
There is nothing here to suggest Sovereignty or International Politics, only pure greed.
How many politicians will grow fat on kickbacks and slush-funds on the back of this?
Disgusted,
Tunbridge Wells.
Who would want to find another one? Turned out she was a Tin Woman, and full of rust at that.
Aye, she had the cajones to send innocents to fight the ill equipped Argentinians, but she somehow misplaced them when her moral compass was tested regarding Pinochet, South Africa, her evil arms dealing son and a host of other undesirables she courted.
I am far from being a Tory but I have to say I have the greatest respect for the abilities of Maggie Thatcher and she lifted the spirit of the whole country with her stand for the poor people of the Falklands - our people, many of them Scots. The country is not in a great state now but would have been far worse if it had not been for our Maggie. Unfortunately our present bunch of politician cann lace her shoe laces and are not fit to carry her impressive handbag.
Boozeburglar
18-Feb-10, 16:07
Yes they do make the decision!! They made a decision to join HM Armed Forces I am not disputing they make that decision, but not one of the rank and file is consulted about what action they get involved in. You are chasing your tail.
It is disrespectull to call them "innocents" as it sounds like they are mere sheep led to the slaughter I am sure you have had an opportunity to read my post clarifying, so I will leave it there. Historically your description has had its appropriate applications.
How you can even contemplate the Falklands War as unjust in any way is lost on me. There is no better reason for a casus belli than what Argentina done in 1982.
I never felt it was. That would be clear to anyone who read my posts without eyes blinded by misplaced indignation.
Does anyone remember the initial panic when the first reports of the Argie flag going up on South Georgia? The first press reports coming out mentioning the Falklands? The panicky parents grabbing of school atlases and looking around the north of Scotland??
I'm a fan of SS Great Britain so I of course new already.
The great question was, why the hell would the Argies want to invade Shetland [lol]
Boozeburglar
18-Feb-10, 16:18
Oil..................?
Sweaters?
;)
northener
18-Feb-10, 16:30
They wouldn't stand a chance against Shetland, they'd all get battered by the locals at chucking out time outside Captain Flints in Lerwick.:Razz
They wouldn't stand a chance against Shetland, they'd all get battered by the locals at chucking out time outside Captain Flints in Lerwick.:Razz
Are you messing with my head?
Are you messing with my head?
Or are them removing posts again :eek:
northener
18-Feb-10, 18:35
Or are them removing posts again :eek:
It's Ok someone deleted a post after getting the wrong end of t'stick, so I deleted my response in return.
Nothing to see here, move along please.:Razz
We had more justification going to war in 1982, than we have in Afghanistan now. If we did declare war on Argentina now we would more than likely need the assistance of the US or our new "European friends" due to the vast reduction of the Royal Navy. IMO.
northener
18-Feb-10, 21:13
We had more justification going to war in 1982, than we have in Afghanistan now. If we did declare war on Argentina now we would more than likely need the assistance of the US or our new "European friends" due to the vast reduction of the Royal Navy. IMO.
The big difference now is that we control the (extended) airstrip. So we could get a fair amount of aircraft down in a relatively short period of time. Whereas before the RN had to ferry down what few planes we could carry.
1982 proved the need for air superiority over the need for warships. That's why we are now going down the road of building honking great aircraft carriers.
Back in the day, it was Type 42 destroyers that provided the long range surface AA capability - two of the three were sunk by the Argie Air Force and the third was badly damaged. The Harrier Combat Air Patrols were more effective overall in seeing off the AAF, there just wasn't enough of them.
Boozeburglar
18-Feb-10, 21:14
We had more justification going to war in 1982, than we have in Afghanistan now. If we did declare war on Argentina now we would more than likely need the assistance of the US or our new "European friends" due to the vast reduction of the Royal Navy. IMO.
Without doubt, as there was an act of aggression by a foreign power.
I still think we would go it alone in such an event, but it won't happen I am certain.
RN 1982....... 104 major fighting ships inc Aircraft Carriers, Cruisers, Destroyers, Frigates, Subs.
RN 2010...... 42 fighting ships including three ancient Aircraft Carriers that should have been decommissioned years ago.
More to the point, would we be allowed to declare war without the permission of our European masters.
Boozeburglar
18-Feb-10, 21:36
Of course we could declare war.
It will never happen though.
RN 1982....... 104 major fighting ships inc Aircraft Carriers, Cruisers, Destroyers, Frigates, Subs.
RN 2010...... 42 fighting ships including three ancient Aircraft Carriers that should have been decommissioned years ago.
Two aircraft carriers, the Invincible is being scavenged for spare parts to keep the other two running.
The new UK CVF Royal Navy aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, are expected to enter service in 2016 and 2018.
The new UK CVF Royal Navy aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, are expected to enter service in 2016 and 2018.
Better keep 'em talking for a bit then?
Better keep 'em talking for a bit then?
Those Argies take their time to decide most things....
bluechesse
19-Feb-10, 01:53
It wont end up as anything serious, just a bit of argie bargie.........[lol]
Argie opinion:
"Let me stress that we are only pursuing this through diplomatic channels and protests," said Ruperto Godoy, a Congressman and now the government's nominated spokesman on the Falkands question.
There is no possibility of having any kind of confrontation with the United Kingdom. We want to sit down and have a dialogue."
"We have no money and no soldiers. You can't beat the United Kingdom with bows and arrows."
"It would be a military disaster," agreed Eduardo Diez, from the Centre for Argentine-American dialogue. "Would we send people without arms, without weapons?"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8524001.stm
bluechesse
19-Feb-10, 22:02
Argie opinion:
"We have no money and no soldiers. You can't beat the United Kingdom with bows and arrows."
Dunno like, a large percentage of our armed forces are currently in Iraq and Afghaistan.
And if our aircraft carriers are that bad, they might manage to sink a few with their bows n arrow..........
2 years of planning to get four Tiffys to the Malvinas!
Better wait for them big boats to get built, that is if they don't cut one due to costs.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/no1group/news/index.cfm?storyid=6ECC2A45-5056-A318-A89447B37F78758A
"Argentina don’t hate the English, they are surprisingly anglophiles"
northener
20-Feb-10, 11:25
"Argentina don’t hate the English, they are surprisingly anglophiles"
Very true. We've aways had close links to the Argies.
And they can knock out a half decent red wine too!
I'd like to visit Argentina. It has more diverse historical European connections than many other Latin-American countries. It had close connections with Britain for more than a hundred years and there's a big Italian influence too.
northener
20-Feb-10, 14:28
I'd like to visit Argentina. It has more diverse historical European connections than many other Latin-American countries. It had close connections with Britain for more than a hundred years and there's a big Italian influence too.
And a community that still speaks Welsh IIRC.
A friend of mine (British) has just emigrated there with his (gorgeous) Brazilian girlfriend. He has met with nothing but friendliness and good humour. I'll try and get an idea of what Senor Bloke on the Street thinks about the Malvinas mularkey.
The inescapeable fact is, what are we doing with some sort of colonial presence in the Falklands islands and it's surrounding waters 8000 miles from home. It does look like the equivalent of Argentina claiming the Shetlands, but if they had, perhaps we would all be able to dance a mean tango.
Better to develop some sort of exit strategy fast rather than my hard earned taxes going to prop up a military expedition to support the international oil companies profit making activities.
Tubthumper
20-Feb-10, 22:59
Why can't we talk about partnership in developing the assets? We have the expertise, they have the convenient infrastructure. Are we really that superficial that we're getting posessive of the stuff, getting all jingoist before it's even found?
The Argentinians are our friends for gods sake!
northener
20-Feb-10, 23:14
It's all sabre rattling, Tubs. Regardless of what the odd shouty bloke here and there might say, it will be diplomacy and negotiation that will settle this.
northener
20-Feb-10, 23:16
....... It does look like the equivalent of Argentina claiming the Shetlands, but if they had, perhaps we would all be able to dance a mean tango.
.........
Argies ain't interested in Shetland.
But keep you eyes on those Norwegians.....;)
Argies ain't interested in Shetland.
But keep you eyes on those Norwegians.....;)
Get off this thread and go back to Rant people are waiting :lol:
northener
20-Feb-10, 23:27
Get off this thread and go back to Rant people are waiting :lol:
Oops......
Aaldtimer
21-Feb-10, 03:53
What a lot of people don't realise is that by having the Falklands as British Territories, it also gives GB a right to claim mineral rights to that part of the Arctic coast which faced the land in question!
That's what all this was about in the first place.
Thatcher's Goverment was warned well in advance of the Argies intentions by our own Royal Naval people down there.
She let it happen to have a nice little war to boost her ratings...same as Galtieri was trying to do.
Jim Callaghan had faced the same problem some time before and just sent down a hunter/killer submarine and the Argies had backed off tut suit!(Twice IIRC)
Now it seems there is Oil off the coast as well...quelle surprise![disgust]
Just give falklands back!
Aaldtimer
21-Feb-10, 04:22
Just give falklands back!
Not gonna happen!
Too much potential wealth involved.
Nothing to do with the 1800 Bennies who want to stay there but be British at the same time.[disgust]
Now it seems there is Oil off the coast as well...quelle surprise![disgust]
Who would have believed it? :roll:
Its ok saying hand falklands back to argentina but its what the people who live in falklands want.But i do think the oil revenue should be shared between uk and argentina its only fair
Just give falklands back!
Then we would have to give back Gibraltar back to the Spanish. [disgust]
Then we would have to give back Gibraltar back to the Spanish. [disgust]
AND the Argies would have to give their land back to the Diaquita of northwestern Argentina who lived on the edges of the expanding Inca empire; the Guarani, the Quechua peoples, and the Tehuelches until the Spanish nicked it from 'em in about 1502..
How about the rest of South America? then North America?, near enough all the world has been taken over from the indigenous peoples - nothing new there then.
Tubthumper
21-Feb-10, 11:44
And Scotland would have to give Caithness & Orkney back to Norway.
Hmmmm......
And Scotland would have to give Caithness & Orkney back to Norway.
Hmmmm......
And the Germans would have to give us back Heligoland...
And the Germans would have to give us back Heligoland...
The Germans have got legoland? :eek:
Tubthumper
21-Feb-10, 12:29
They annexed it. They have their eye on Disneyland Paris, but the French have established massive fortifications along most of their vulnerable flanks.
The Germans have got legoland? :eek:
Nope, the Danes have that.. oh dear it's all such a mess
They annexed it. They have their eye on Disneyland Paris, but the French have established massive fortifications along most of their vulnerable flanks.
I think your imaginotion has got the better of you.
No there isn't a spelling mistake in that. :D
And the Queen has annexed Legoland near her castle on the Thames.
northener
21-Feb-10, 18:19
AND the Argies would have to give their land back to the Diaquita of northwestern Argentina who lived on the edges of the expanding Inca empire; the Guarani, the Quechua peoples, and the Tehuelches until the Spanish nicked it from 'em in about 1502..
How about the rest of South America? then North America?, near enough all the world has been taken over from the indigenous peoples - nothing new there then.
Game, set and match.
Applies all over the world.
Historical cobblers brought up by flag-waving agendaists.
Get over it.
oldmarine
21-Feb-10, 23:15
Does this mean, we are going to war with Argentina once more? Or are the Argentinians sabre rattling once more?
Where are we going to find an Iron Lady in this day and age?
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article7025799.ece
I was in on the 1st one. Supported the Brits from Tiger Island off the coast of Honduras when we sent classified information by way of satellite communications to one of their ships.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.