Another Falklands war?

[Bubblehead1980]

Looks like another war in the Falklands is brewing, Argentina is showing it's arse again.Some countries never learn.......

Thoughts?

[Blackhawk1006]

It's just because of the British Oil Drilling that will be happening there next week.

I can hardly see another war happening there though, remember that in 1982 Argentina was run by a Militarist Government, unlike today.

[August]

It doesn't take a military government to start a war though.

Hopefully Britain will take it as a sign that she needs to maintain the military strength necessary to defend her possessions if she wishes to keep them.

[ReFaN]

Drop the bomb on them!

[Bubblehead1980]

Blackhawk, LOL @ the Conan, Colbert, Stewart thing, ahh that was good times.

True Argentina is not ran by a military govt anymore BUT they are pushing Britain again.

Agreed that maybe the Brit govt will see it as sign they should not cut defense budget.

[Diopos]

Second war? Don't know...
But at least know we know what the first one was probably all about ...







,

[Highbury]

It doesn't take a military government to start a war though.

Hopefully Britain will take it as a sign that she needs to maintain the military strength necessary to defend her possessions if she wishes to keep them.

Very true, but at the time the Argentine invasion was a gamble by a newly placed regime to divert attention from internal problems, and give a reason for national pride. In '82 even the US Navy said it would be impossible for the UK to take the Falklands back by force and the Argentinians believed it themselves, and bet on it. (The RN had very little sea-based air power at the time) I would say Argentina now knows this in not the case. I would be very surprised if they took military action again.

On your second point, I do agree fully. If I didn't my first point would be useless.

[bookworm_020]

A couple of subs with some tomohawk missles would make it a bad day if they tried to take the islands.:arrgh!:

[diver]

In '82 even the US Navy said it would be impossible for the UK to take the Falklands back by force and the Argentinians believed it themselves, and bet on it. (The RN had very little sea-based air power at the time) I would say Argentina now knows this in not the case. I would be very surprised if they took military action again.


I'd argue strongly that they have even less Sea-based Air Power now.

[Highbury]

I'd argue strongly that they have even less Sea-based Air Power now.

That could be true, I don't know what the RN has now. In '82 they had 34 Harriers.

Unfortunately for the Argentinians, and not considered in the 1982 US Navy report, was the airbase the British set up on Ascension Island two weeks after the invasion, which they used for Vulcans and their tankers. :up: In the modern era such land based planes would be devastating to Argentine technology.

I just don't think they could beat the UK and I think they would be less motivated, and better informed this time around, so won't even try it. Of course as with any speculation on future events, I could be dead wrong.

[Tarrasque]

That could be true, I don't know what the RN has now. In '82 they had 34 Harriers.


Unfortunately and very embarassingly they abolished the Sea Harriers in 2006. All the RN has now is the ground attack version (GR7) which whilst it can carry AA missiles, lacks any form of radar.

Also we no longer have a carrier of the size of the HMS Hermes (28 harrier capacity). All we have are the ships of the Invincible class which are significantly smaller (around 9 harriers) due to budget cuts in the 60s that decided that the UK didn't need aircraft carriers. (The invincible were snuck through the budget as 'through deck cruisers'.)

[Nordmann]

Argentina will pout and posture, but I seriously doubt they will engage in any activity of a military nature. After all, they were sent well and truly packing last time, and if they dare attempt round two, we will gladly oblige them once again.

Some countries never learn, and if they do, it's always the hard way. The Falkland Islanders are British citizens, they do not want Argentinians walking all over them. If they were given the island, where to you think these residents would go? They would be forcibly moved, and to my mind, this is no different from the German antics of WWII.

[Oberon]

We have more forces on the Falklands than we did before the last war, and as the old saying goes "Fool me once..."
Argentina should know that and shouldn't try anything stupid. :yep:

[martes86]

War is not nice, at least according to Barbara Bush. Anyways, if there was another war, I'd really hope that Argentina won (I can't really say otherwise, I feel closer to argentinian people in all ways). Some countries also need a "Being humble: How to". If the UK dropped all the colonies it still posseses (or rather say, that the Crown posseses), it would lose a lot of problems. They could start by letting go of colonies within friend's (or so told) territories, like Gibraltar.

Cheers :rock:

[Nordmann]

What you mean to say, is that we should be crushed, and told what to do by other nations that have no damned right to. Sorry, but to me, it just sounds like you are sore because Spain has no "colonies" left.

[Oberon]

War is not nice, at least according to Barbara Bush. Anyways, if there was another war, I'd really hope that Argentina won (I can't really say otherwise, I feel closer to argentinian people in all ways). Some countries also need a "Being humble: How to". If the UK dropped all the colonies it still posseses (or rather say, that the Crown posseses), it would lose a lot of problems. They could start by letting go of colonies within friend's (or so told) territories, like Gibraltar.

Cheers :rock:

What problems? There is no problems, just Argentina being full of hot air again. :03: There's not going to be a war, Argentina isn't that stupid.

[TarJak]

Can't see the Argies being that stoopid a 2nd time. Meh who knows?

[Skybird]

With 99.5% probability it's nothing.

[martes86]

What you mean to say, is that we should be crushed, and told what to do by other nations that have no damned right to. Sorry, but to me, it just sounds like you are sore because Spain has no "colonies" left.

No sore... actually it's better that way. I'd definitely pass on Ceuta and Melilla too, which are the last real colonies outside our territories (kind of a not-so-good place to have colonies anyway). The only reasons they're still part of Spain are because the Constitution says so, and because the people there prefer very much to be live in "Europe" than to be part of Moroco and their rightless arab monarchy (which, sounds logical anyways).

Crushed... no country should be crushed, but it seems power grants that right, and the right to tell everyone what to do. I'd prefer to be told what to do from the USA than from the UK, which BTW, is no longer an Empire, and the colonialism era is long gone. :shifty:

[heartc]

Britain should leave the Falklands as soon as she wants to, and not a minute earlier. This crap of giving in to the whining and childish demands of third or second world nations got to stop. They can hardly run the lands they own and feed their people with propaganda about the evil world via their state run banana television to cover their own asses. Heck, sometimes I think it would have been good on the Europeans to stick in some places in Africa - or the Middle East, for that matter.

Anyway, didn't we have the same topic about 1 or 2 years ago? I seem to remember that.

[martes86]

They can hardly run the lands they own and feed their people with propaganda about the evil world via their state run banana television to cover their own asses. Heck, sometimes I think it would have been good on the Europeans to stick in some places in Africa - or the Middle East, for that matter.

Yeah... um... that was the likely excuse on which colonialism and slavery was built on for centuries, because we were doing them a favour... right. :shifty:

[OneToughHerring]

Hey I have an idea. How about the US gets the Falkland Islands.

The US has more revenue, they could stimulate growth and wellbeing on the Falklands islands and turn them from a desolate, seagull turd encrusted island into a thriwing, lively community. They could organize cruises from the Caribbean that would take a tour there, maybe gambling in some tax-free casinos etc. I wonder how much taxes the Falklanders now pay, and majority of it goes to the UK. Also the US would be closer to the Argentinians through NAFTA and other Americas-based trade agreements and thus would create economic synergy with the Argies and also appease their wishes to have the islands to themselves.

[Oberon]

There are various arguments for and against colonial rule, one might point out several states which have not done particularly well since the departure of Britain, Zimbabwe and Yemen for example. However, such arguments are often underlined with more emotion that historical fact and as such I will refrain from entering into them at this stage.

However, in this case, the Falkland Islanders are British, and have expressed their desire to remain so, and as such, the Islands are not occupied by an invading force, they are a part of Britain, as they have been since 1833. In an Argentine inspired poll in 1994, 87% of the population rejected any form of discussion of sovereignty under any circumstances. This is not an occupation.

Likewise, with Gibraltar, again, a poll was held in 2002 where joint sovereignty with Spain was the question and it was rejected 17,900 votes against to 187 for. The people who live in Gibraltar want to remain British. Any attempt to revoke this status would be against what the people of the locations want and surely this is not the right way to proceed in these situations?

[Marcantilan]

As an argentinian, I´m not very pleased about some "Bomb and kill" attitude from some members of this forum.

Argentina and G. Britain has a long standing dispute about the islands, both countries arguing about its rights about the land (How many on this threat studied seriously the issue?). Of course, GB actually posses the lands, so it could do whathever the Queen want on the islands and the adjacent sea.

The only thing Argentina could do is protest. And is the only thing Argentina did. No military threat at all. I think the warmongers are on the other side of the Atlantic.

The "blockade" is just The Sun crap. Just the Argentine government asked ships from the mainland to the islands to notify the trip. Of course, they could denied the entrance to local ports. But that´s not a "blockade".

[heartc]

Yeah... um... that was the likely excuse on which colonialism and slavery was built on for centuries, because we were doing them a favour... right. :shifty:

No offense, but this is just a typical knee-jerk reaction. Try to take all things into consideration before giving me the PC crap. It isn't as simple as "Colonies were evil. Next chapter."

I'm no friend of slavery, God forbid. What I think is that with civil / human rights constantly improving in Western societies, it would have had a positive effect on the colonies as well. And with the people then demanding more say in political matters, this could have been granted and used to build something meaningful there. And people had at least some basic education. In some places, all the education they get now is for boys how to pick up an AK-47 and for girls how to whore themselves on the street to stay alive. And there were no vast famines and barbaric slaughterings of whole communities in constant civil wars going on as it is now.
So, just packing up and leaving didn't work out too well either, that is for sure. Also, not all colonies of the different countries were run the same.

But whatever, I'd just like to call it a mood point now, even though living with false or zeitgeist-adjusted memories never bodes well for the present or future.

[Oberon]

As an argentinian, I´m not very pleased about some "Bomb and kill" attitude from some members of this forum.

Argentina and G. Britain has a long standing dispute about the islands, both countries arguing about its rights about the land (How many on this threat studied seriously the issue?). Of course, GB actually posses the lands, so it could do whathever the Queen want on the islands and the adjacent sea.

The only thing Argentina could do is protest. And is the only thing Argentina did. No military threat at all. I think the warmongers are on the other side of the Atlantic.

The "blockade" is just The Sun crap. Just the Argentine government asked ships from the mainland to the islands to notify the trip. Of course, they could denied the entrance to local ports. But that´s not a "blockade".

That wouldn't surprise me in the least, looking at the wiki article recently about the permits it shows itself as the innocuous thing it is, but of course, with the memory of the war still fresh in quite a few peoples minds naturally they're going to think the worst thing first, particularly with the Sun cheering them on from the sidelines. I have stated and continue to state that Argentina would not be foolish enough to attack the Falklands a second time, particularly not under a democratic government. To be honest though, most people on the street don't really care if Argentina is democratic or not, they hear two words put together 'Argentina' and 'Falklands' and its OMGWTFBBQ Argentina is going to invade again. Forgetting that the low level sabre rattling has been going on for decades, centuries even. I've personally got nothing against the Argentinian people, in fact I admire the skill of the pilots that flew down Bomb Alley against our shipping during the conflict, displaying some amazing low level skill under fire. :yep: This is one of the reasons I doubt that the Argentine government would be willing to put itself in armed conflict with the United Kingdom once again, even in our weakened state, the element of surprise is gone and there are more forces on the Falklands than before. It doesn't take a military genius to see that a successful operation will require more resources than it would gain and is thus not worth it.
On the other hand, this is a perfect governmental opportunity to push for better military budgets on both sides during a time when most governments are looking to make cut backs.

Basically, a PR stunt on both sides, business as usual, nothing to see here, move along. :haha:

[Jimbuna]

That wouldn't surprise me in the least, looking at the wiki article recently about the permits it shows itself as the innocuous thing it is, but of course, with the memory of the war still fresh in quite a few peoples minds naturally they're going to think the worst thing first, particularly with the Sun cheering them on from the sidelines. I have stated and continue to state that Argentina would not be foolish enough to attack the Falklands a second time, particularly not under a democratic government. To be honest though, most people on the street don't really care if Argentina is democratic or not, they hear two words put together 'Argentina' and 'Falklands' and its OMGWTFBBQ Argentina is going to invade again. Forgetting that the low level sabre rattling has been going on for decades, centuries even. I've personally got nothing against the Argentinian people, in fact I admire the skill of the pilots that flew down Bomb Alley against our shipping during the conflict, displaying some amazing low level skill under fire. :yep: This is one of the reasons I doubt that the Argentine government would be willing to put itself in armed conflict with the United Kingdom once again, even in our weakened state, the element of surprise is gone and there are more forces on the Falklands than before. It doesn't take a military genius to see that a successful operation will require more resources than it would gain and is thus not worth it.
On the other hand, this is a perfect governmental opportunity to push for better military budgets on both sides during a time when most governments are looking to make cut backs.

Basically, a PR stunt on both sides, business as usual, nothing to see here, move along. :haha:

Agreed (in the main).

The last announced British military presence (Falklands Garrison) IIRC was a frigate or a destroyer on station at Mare Harbour plus either a frigate or a destroyer 'within calling distance'.

The Royal Navy also has Swiftsure and Trafalgar class attack submarines that it can deploy to the area, though such deployments are classified.

The Royal Navy's submarines also carry BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles which have a range of 1500 miles and can strike at targets within an enemy country.

The army have approx 500 personnel based at Mount Pleasant and includes an infantry company, an engineer squadron, a signals unit, a logistics group and supporting services.

The RAF contribute:

No 1435 Flight – 4 Eurofighter Typhoons
No 1312 Flight – 1 Vickers VC-10, 1 Hercules C3
N0 1564 Flight – 2 Sea King HAR3s.

Not a particularly large force perhaps but one with enough muscle/bite to deter a second invasion IMHO.

[krashkart]

Certainly enough force to hold out until help arrives, if need be.

EDIT:

Although, I wonder how such a scenario might play out.

[Bubblehead1980]

President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has decreed that all ships must get prior permission before entering Argentine waters, which she claims covers the entire South Atlantic continental shelf.


The above is taken from the article I read that caused me to start this thread.Sounds like a country that was taken to town so to speak last time acting up again.Decree is meaningless unless they use force, maybe they intend to at some point thinking Brits are weak right now and lets face it, Brown is no Thatcher.

The Colonialism debate somehow(lol) got started on here.Someone else pointed out, look how former colonies are doing now, most are third world and all the problems that come with it and not "free", prob would have been better off to stay under the Brits.

[XabbaRus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8523894.stm

Well this is interesting. Even if it isn't a blockade in the normal sense if Argentina does get its way and the rest of SA joins in then diplomatically it is a rattling sabre.

I don't know how it can be policed though. Also what are they considering territoral waters? the 12 mile limit or the 250 mile limit?

[Stealth Hunter]

The Colonialism debate somehow(lol) got started on here.Someone else pointed out, look how former colonies are doing now, most are third world and all the problems that come with it and not "free", prob would have been better off to stay under the Brits.

Well now that we look back at it seems they would have been, but that's also not noting that a lot of these countries that were colonized already had stable, well-formed governments running in them before someone else came along and decided "We're your sovereigns now. Deal with it.". India is a perfect example. The Marthans and Mughals and Sikhs had for centuries ruled over it and made it one of the most successful countries in the whole of Asia, moreso in many respects than China. Then the French and British began trading with it, there were disputes over who owned what, and eventually the British took over the entirety of it, reducing French influence to a near nonexistent level.

When the British were unable to control it any further (due not only to civil unrest but also the fact that their "empire" was gradually declining in capability because of the severe after effects of both World Wars in such rapid succession- speaking strictly on economic and military grounds-- which had forced them to relinquish lands to their former and rightful owners in favor of the homeland's well-being) and the people finally did gain the independence they had previously had 150 years before that, they were basically left with nothing but what they had- which didn't amount to much by that time; not to mention the confusion and mass dissent which is always a factor to show up when a nation is created or reformed drastically. The result of these things was civil war (excluding the effects on literacy and such), and now we have India AND Pakistan. If the British had just left the Indians alone and acted as a responsible and fair country, negotiating honest trade agreements, none of this would have happened in such a way.

Many will argue that it was their own faults, despite the fact that they were forced to be subjugates to a foreign nation and had what was in the first place rightfully theirs taken. And yes you will get further arguments when this point is made that that "Well- colonialism brought the savages all these wonderful new things, like democracy, railroads, etc." That's true, but does that justify the colonist nations' actions, which were motivated by nothing more than greed and yearning in the first place? Hardly. Furthermore, what good do these things do them if they're treated like dirt and driven about like cattle, not given the same equal treatment as their "sovereigns"?

The fact is, the British, French, Germans, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, ALL of these nations that practiced colonialism just wanted to take over these lands that had natural resources on them for their own benefit, and they didn't care at what cost (immediate and future). Nor did they even try to consider what the effects would be given any number of possible future scenarios they might face. But it's not just India or Pakistan. It's also places like South Africa, Jamaica, Nigeria, Sudan, New Guinea, Malaysia, and the Congo. Countries like Egypt, Australia, and New Zealand however have done very well compared to their peers since they were given independence, though.

[Marcantilan]

Argentina is a signatory state of the 1982 Montego Bay Convention. Territorial waters has a 12 miles limit, adjacent waters up to 24, and Economic Exclusive Zone 250. The Ocean bottoms issue is a separate (and very interesting!) thing.

And also I must say that I´m bored about some posters attitude, that the "civilized" world is England and allies and we people down south are treated like naked indians.

And no offense intented for the British posters, specially Oberon who is a good chap.

[Jimbuna]

Argentina is a signatory state of the 1982 Montego Bay Convention. Territorial waters has a 12 miles limit, adjacent waters up to 24, and Economic Exclusive Zone 250. The Ocean bottoms issue is a separate (and very interesting!) thing.

And also I must say that I´m bored about some posters attitude, that the "civilized" world is England and allies and we people down south are treated like naked indians.

And no offense intented for the British posters, specially Oberon who is a good chap.

Care to point out who you mean regarding posters with an 'attitude' because like Oberon, I'm also British and consider myself a 'good chap'? :hmmm:

[XabbaRus]

Me too....:06:

[Marcantilan]

Drop the bomb on them!

Britain should leave the Falklands as soon as she wants to, and not a minute earlier. This crap of giving in to the whining and childish demands of third or second world nations got to stop. They can hardly run the lands they own and feed their people with propaganda about the evil world via their state run banana television to cover their own asses. Heck, sometimes I think it would have been good on the Europeans to stick in some places in Africa - or the Middle East, for that matter.

Anyway, didn't we have the same topic about 1 or 2 years ago? I seem to remember that.

Argentina will pout and posture, but I seriously doubt they will engage in any activity of a military nature. After all, they were sent well and truly packing last time, and if they dare attempt round two, we will gladly oblige them once again.

Some countries never learn, and if they do, it's always the hard way. The Falkland Islanders are British citizens, they do not want Argentinians walking all over them. If they were given the island, where to you think these residents would go? They would be forcibly moved, and to my mind, this is no different from the German antics of WWII.

My last post was inspired on that.

Don´t get me wrong, my point is that I don´t have nothing about britons (I remarked about Oberon because is a very civilized guy, as you Jimbuna and XabbaRus BTW). In fact, I really like England and the British people.

Of course, I have another point of view about the Islands.

[Jimbuna]

Ah yes, now I understand :hmmm:

Apart from one thing....Oberon being perceived as being a civilised person, after all he is a Brit :DL:03:

[Oberon]

Thank you, and it's nice to be able to talk about such things without dissolving into emotional debates on the subject. I recognise you have a differing view than I on the subject, as has the entire nation of Argentina, and I respect that. :yep:

[Oberon]

Ah yes, now I understand :hmmm:

Apart from one thing....Oberon being perceived as being a civilised person, after all he is a Brit :DL:03:

Of course I'm civilised, unlike you northern monkeys :O:

[Jimbuna]

Of course I'm civilised, unlike you northern monkeys :O:

Hey, I resemble that remark http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/1853/angry8ro5.gif


http://www.criticallayouts.com/images/rsgallery/original/monkey-0214-1.gif

[Schroeder]

Of course I'm civilised, unlike you northern monkeys :O:

There are people on the continent who believe that all Brits are... uh...never mind...:D

[Oberon]

There are people on the continent who believe that all Brits are... uh...never mind...:D

:O::O::O::O::O: Bloomin' Jarmin ;)

[TarJak]

:DAh Britain the cradle of civilisation!

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02_04/brixton010308_468x317.jpg

Just joking Poms.:D

[Oberon]

:DAh Britain the cradle of civilisation!



Just joking Poms.:D

Don't forget the breeding ground for our mighty army of chavs, innit.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_4JWtIEhnGLY/SdYmwNsCdjI/AAAAAAAAAA8/wbo7iKcI68c/S1600-R/chav2.jpg

[TarJak]

http://www.shof.msrcsites.co.uk/chavs.jpg

Puts on best cockney accent I can do: "Well done my son!":haha:

http://www.letsgetfreestuff.com/chav/chavs.jpg

[Nicolas]

aBritain should leave the Falklands as soon as she wants to, and not a minute earlier. This crap of giving in to the whining and childish demands of third or second world nations got to stop. They can hardly run the lands they own and feed their people with propaganda about the evil world via their state run banana television to cover their own asses. Heck, sometimes I think it would have been good on the Europeans to stick in some places in Africa - or the Middle East, for that matter.

Anyway, didn't we have the same topic about 1 or 2 years ago? I seem to remember that.

What is this:

"They can hardly run the lands they own and feed their people with propaganda about the evil world via their state run banana television to
cover their own asses."

Which countries do that? Chavez, Fidel..

Be informed that a lot of '3rd world' countries can manage theyre own lands, and live in peace, people get educated and work, and have strong institutions.
-

Argentina it's only opening the big mouth it has. I don't think will be any war.

About: Drop the bomb!! :nope:

And "Some countries never learn", sure, like a lot countries in europe that created the bloodiest wars, massacres, and horrible other things.

[Nickolas]

please forgive me if i go "too far" with this joke but this is how i see it:

Argentina: WTF? don't drill on my continental shelf!
Britain: It is MY continental shelf, those islands are mine!
Argentina: AT LEAST ASK FOR PERMISSION! you know we agreed to disagree on who owns those little rocks.
Britain: did... did you just yell at me?
Argentina: I'M ONLY ASKING YOU TO ASK ME BEFORE YOU DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT! *speaking softly while drinking mate, trying not to be heard* not that you actually should...
Britain: *drops monocle on his cup of tea* I BEG YOUR PARDON?! YOU ARE ASKING FOR WAR! you are deviously planning to invade once more! *presses "panic button" under the desk*

[Oberon]

:har::har::har::har::har:

That's perfect, right down to the 'monocle in tea' moment :yeah:

[krashkart]

America: What are you two doing while I'm not looking??

Argentina: Hey! Mind your own...!! Uh, hi.

Britain: Argentina, sshhh... he's.... just.. cranky today..:timeout:

Both: We're having a Tea Party! :roll:

America: That so, eh. :hmmm: Very well. If you will excuse me, there is meddling to attend to elsewhere. Later! :rock:


Author takes full responsibility for his own lack of knowledge outside Fortress America. :oops:

[HundertzehnGustav]

*Brits check their Storage for a bunch of retired Buccaneers and Tornadoes*

excepot for the loss of life, i would love to see 5000 more Brits on That Godforsaken island, a couple of frigates and a squadron of FighterBombers.

[Jimbuna]

*Brits check their Storage for a bunch of retired Buccaneers and Tornadoes*

excepot for the loss of life, i would love to see 5000 more Brits on That Godforsaken island, a couple of frigates and a squadron of FighterBombers.

Allow me to differ because that would more than likely lead to further loss of life.

During the 74 days of the Falklands conflict approximately 907 people lost their lives (649 Argentinian, 255 British and 3 Civilians).

I hope any further conflict over the ownership of the islands is carried out across a diplomats table.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/roh.html#g

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/index.html

[OneToughHerring]

*Brits check their Storage for a bunch of retired Buccaneers and Tornadoes*

excepot for the loss of life, i would love to see 5000 more Brits on That Godforsaken island, a couple of frigates and a squadron of FighterBombers.

Yes, I would love to see that too.

[HundertzehnGustav]

okay so let me wish the British would send 250.000 troops, Tanks, Arty and 5 Squadrons of Fighterbombers of all sorts over there.
and a nuke-missile sub too.
(do they have nuke subs? do they have nukes at all?)

should minimize the loss of life to either zero (no argie ever gonne make a dumb move) or 100% losses for the agressor.

That better?

:woot:

[Kapitan]

It could possibly be the same as last time only this time the british know what the argies can do and with that in mind we now have more capible units in the fleet such as the type 23 and if they hurry up about it atleast one type 45 maybe, we have 3 carriers at our disposal unlike the falklands 1 where we had one and a half (half being invincible she limped into battle)

But the one thing we do have that the argies dont is nuclear submarines and this unit alone kept the entire argie navy in port for the entire war because they have nothing to combat a nuke sub.

More to the point the argentine navy is a handful of frigates and patrol craft now, the two type 42's are decomissioned and planning to be scrapped or sold, they do have some meko FFG's but these wouldnt be much of a match for a submarine or indeed one of our type 23 FFG's or 42 DDG's.

They themselvs do posses submarines but i dont think they would put them to much use.

The falklands is gaurded now by a force of 2 to 1 ie 2 soldiers to 1 civilian so theres a good size of armed troops artillery and also aircraft to keep the argys at bay untill we were able to send down reinforcements.

As proved in the last war you dont have to be fast to shoot down a fast plane harriers did well i do recall there were no losses for a harrier in air to air combat?

Whats more our navy is more equiped for large overseas amphib warfare last time we relied on the fearless and intrepid and a few RFA belvedere LPD's well today we have the 4 bay class LPD the ocean which can carry apaches and to a limited area harriers and also is amphib capable, we also have ocean and bulwark so thats 7 LPD's plus what we can take from the merchant marine service.

I think if the argies invade they wont win.

[Jimbuna]

okay so let me wish the British would send 250.000 troops, Tanks, Arty and 5 Squadrons of Fighterbombers of all sorts over there.
and a nuke-missile sub too.
(do they have nuke subs? do they have nukes at all?)

should minimize the loss of life to either zero (no argie ever gonne make a dumb move) or 100% losses for the agressor.

That better?

:woot:

LOL its been quite a well since Britain had an entire army strength of 250,000.

Plenty/ample nuke subs and nukes though :DL

[August]

Allow me to differ because that would more than likely lead to further loss of life.

I'd say it would more likely reduce the chance of further loss of life. Had those 5k troops, AC and naval assets been there in '82 I doubt the Argentinians would have attacked at all.

[Jimbuna]

I'd say it would more likely reduce the chance of further loss of life. Had those 5k troops, AC and naval assets been there in '82 I doubt the Argentinians would have attacked at all.

Agreed but I doubt we had the capability even then for an area that was considered so low on the British armed forces list of priorities.

There is a common belief in the UK that the British government were aware of the possibility of an invasion a few months before it actually took place.

At that point in time Maggie Thatcher and her government found their popularity waining and an election not that far off (not certain but within 12 months IIRC).

Planning was well in preparation for a task force deployment but first the Argentinians had to make their move.

The minute that happened Maggie revitalised her popularity on the back of the British public outcry at the invasion and the strong sense of patriotism that pervaded as a consequence.....this was manner from heaven for her.

All the pre-planning was brought to the fore and in a matter of only a few weeks the task force set sail.

The outcome is already well documented but the greatest benefit was to come at the hastily held general election soon after where a previously mortally wounded and unpopular Tory government and its 'Iron Lady' leader were elected to a further five year term in office.

We all know (at least the Brits anyway) how the Tory backbenches soon got sick of her totalitarian behaviour towards her supporters and forced her resignation and public humiliation on the steps of Downing Street in front of the cameras of the worlds media.

She was the closest example to Churchill (and I mean that in no disrespectful context to him) I can recall...a strong leader in times of war but a poor one in peacetime.

The above I draw from my own memories but I'm confident there should be ample internet resources to confrm.

[Kapitan]

Unfortunatly i cant draw on the memories of 1982 it was 6 years before i was born i have a few friends much older than me who served in the falklands and back then they stated under thatcher it was rubbish the only thing she did get right was getting rid of BR and the falklands for these two things she improved the country, but the rest well down hill all the way in top gear with a following wind.

I can just about remember the last year or so of john majors rein as PM, if we were to go to war with argentina again then gordon brown i dont think is the one to lead us tony blair maybe but i dont think brown has a clue.

we had a more numerous navy back then, but even with the numbers we have of today 87 commissioned warships with 16 auxilaries and the ability to pull 600 merchant vessels will make us still one tough opponant.

Our systems back then and weapons were not as advanced as they are now we learnt not to rely on point defence missiles and hence why today we have phalanx and goal keeper, our units deminished and have been replaced with more capible ones we have only 3 classes of warship from that era the carriers type 42 and type 22 we learnt alot so this time round i dont think it will be so easy given the lessons learnt.

Plus i dont think the cash strapped argentine government would be so dumb to try again.

[bookworm_020]

Plus i dont think the cash strapped argentine government would be so dumb to try again.

I don't think they could muster the forces to take, let alone keep the Falklands, but nations don't always look at the bank balence when they go to war

[Jimbuna]

One area where the UK is majorly deficient is in the air department, especially now that the Sea Harrier is no longer deployed...maintaining a CAP until reinforcements arrived would be key to any successful defence.

I reckon creating an air bridge to bolster the fighter capability from the UK to Ascension then onward to the Falklands using mid air refueling tankers could take up to 48 hours and would be a mammoth task.

It would be vital the infantry could protect the airbase long enough until those additional fighters arrived.

I wouldn't be too concerned on naval reinforcements coming inbound from Argentina because our submarines would probably neutralise them.

Whoever commanded the air would have a huge advantage.

But as I said earlier....I sincerely hope it never comes to this, let the diplomats and politicians earn their wages for a change.

[OneToughHerring]

All the Brits need is one little island to suck out all the oil in the continental shelf. They will deplete all the oil from Argentinian areas that the Argentinians haven't gotten to yet.

[CaptainHaplo]

OTH - your just mad because Finland can't get to any resources there...

The islands have been a source of discontent for ages between these two countries. I really don't understand why the UK, in completing the last Falklands war, didn't require Argentina to recognize in perpetuity the British claim to the island as the cost to stop the war. Had they done so, while the Argentinians may have not liked it, it would have meant that as time passed, generations would have moved PAST the issue of the island, and it would be less of an issue. Not to mention it would have legally resolved the ownership question.

[OneToughHerring]

Yes because the UK is not really a part of EU in any way so UK wealth will not be a part of any kind of common EU budget so yes, Finns will not benefit from that oil in any way.

And neither will the Argentinians.

[Bubblehead1980]

All the Brits need is one little island to suck out all the oil in the continental shelf. They will deplete all the oil from Argentinian areas that the Argentinians haven't gotten to yet.



Okay, the islands are British territory, does not matter what they want to do with it, it is theirs to do with as they please.Argentina invaded them which started the war and then LOST, so they and everyone else need to get over it and quit claiming them and whatever resources they have etc.Again, they LOST the war and that is what happens when you lose a war.

This reminds of how in children's ball games and the winners get the prize but the losers get participation trophies etc I am 23 now and this started around the time I was a kid and always hated it, such Liberal BS.There are winners and losers, when you win you call the shots.The loser can always challenge them to another "game" but still they lost.Basically Argentina with it's demands are asking for a participation/losers trophy.Argentina is basically saying "yea we lost but we still want to feel like we run the show so will make demands and whine" No! Argentina you lost, deal with it and if you want to roll the dice and challenge the Brit's to another "game" then go ahead, maybe you will learn a lesson this time.

[OneToughHerring]

I just think it's funny how US and UK pretend at least some of the time to be the goody-goody guys of the planet. Like, when the Balkan wars were raging they were all "Stop fighting! Don't you know that fighting wars is really, REALLY wrong!"

And then some presidential aide whispers to the US president's ear "Mr President, there's this poor little country that might have lots and lots of oil." and the president is like "WHAT!? Sound the trumpets, we're going in!" :haha:

[Bubblehead1980]

I just think it's funny how US and UK pretend at least some of the time to be the goody-goody guys of the planet. Like, when the Balkan wars were raging they were all "Stop fighting! Don't you know that fighting wars is really, REALLY wrong!"

And then some presidential aide whispers to the US president's ear "Mr President, there's this poor little country that might have lots and lots of oil." and the president is like "WHAT!? Sound the trumpets, we're going in!" :haha:

That is a rather well, ignorant view of US and UK policy Herring and honestly one of the most offensive to me, esp when I hear our own citizens talk that way because they are just WRONG.The US said Balkans was bad because it was due to the ethnic cleansing and such and it was awful.Your comment about oil, I assume its a dig at the 2003 invasion of Iraq? Well while no G.W. Bush fan(he set real conservatism back many years) anyone whoe honestly believes he went in for ulterior motives such as oil or revenge, is just wrong.Sadam had WMD's before and they had intel and evidence suggesting he had them and instead of waiting around for Americans to die, he launched the war.Now, Sadam had plenty of warning, pretty sure he figured Bush was bluffing because he had nothing but bluffs from Clinton in the 90's.Would be money what weapons Sadam did have, he hid in the desert of sent them elsewhere knowing in unlikely event it did happen, it would be a great source of embarassment.

Now, we went in to Iraq, things were bad but have greatly improved(taking this from people in the military I know who have been there before and after, early days and now) We are in Afghanistan because their brutal and opressive government (Taliban) made sure the country was a training ground for terrorist.Now, it took a backseat to Iraq and was mismanaged and one area I will give Obama points for is he's trying to work that mess out, it can be done, not easy but nothing worth while is easy.Afghanistan is a craphole of a country, we had nothing to gain by invading other than to prevent Bin Laden and his ilk from having their own little Terrorist Chuck-E-Cheese.Going in, we had nothing to gain from Iraq than getting Sadam out of the way and stopping his weapons program, well we didnt find any weapons but on bright side, we did free an opressed people.As far as the oil goes, pretty sure the profits from it are used to help rebuild that country and bring them out of the friggin dark ages.If the do give us a low price etc, so what? Allies do that Does not mean we invaded oil.

I suspect you may bring up the Desert Storm back in early 90's so will go ahead explain the truth of that.Iraq invaded a country for no other reason than what you wrongly alleged the US did.Iraq wanted Kuwait's oil and invaded and from what I have heard, they were rather brutal.Coudl you imagine if Sadam controled that much oil? After multiple warnings to leave, half the damn world joined together and sent Sadam packing, once his Army was back in Iraq, we didn't push to Bagdad, we showed restraint.We could taken the country, which is what many Iraqis wanted because they started an uprising thinking that was what was coming.

Now, the Falklands are long time territories of the Brits.Argentina invaded them and then lost the ensuing war that THEY started.So now here they are 30 years later whining and moaning about things when they have no rightto.They lost the war so frankly it is none of their business what the Brits do there.Now, if they do not like it they can roll the dice and try to fight for them again or they can just shut the hell up about it.

[CaptainHaplo]

Oh joy... another "The US invaded Iraq for Oil...."

Once again - facts prove that the accusation is blatently untrue.

When did Iraq provide the MOST oil to the US? Answer - the year 2001. Thats right - the year OF 9/11 - Iraq provided a WHOPPING 4.5% of the total oil imports to the US. That amounted to 298 Million barrels imported to the US. In 2002 the US imported 165 Million barrels from Iraq.

Conspiracy theorists will point out that the amount of crude oil imported from Iraq dropped in 2002 and 2003, thus pushing the U.S. government to invade Iraq to get more oil. But Iraq was not holding oil from the U.S. In fact, all oil production in Iraq dropped in 2002 and 2003. (Source: Iraq Energy Profile: 10 Year Energy Data Series published by Energy Information Association.)

Now - the Second Gulf War started in March of 2003. How many barrels of Iraqi oil did the US get in 2003? About 175 Million barrels.

2004? 240 Million barrels
2005? 195 Million barrels
2006? 202 Million barrels
2007? 175 Million barrels

(Source: U.S. Crude Oil and Petroleum Products Imports from Iraq published by Energy Information Association)

From 1999 to 2002 - the average imports to the US from Iraq averaged 261 Million barrels. Even factoring in the years of 2002 and 2003 (where production in Iraq overall dipped by about 20%) - the average import still equals 224.6 Million barrels. From 2004 to 2007? Average is 203 Million barrels of oil. A drop of almost 10% - or 21.6 Million barrels of oil.

If the Iraq War is all about oil, then the U.S. has spent a lot of money and resources to topple Saddam, run elections, and train the military/police to get less oil from Iraq.

The reality is that the Iraq was has never been about oil. A quick google search will show you that - if you actually care about stuff like facts and truth.

But then again - some people would rather throw out what are known as "red" Herrings..... isn't that right OTH?

[Nickolas]

All the Brits need is one little island to suck out all the oil in the continental shelf. They will deplete all the oil from Argentinian areas that the Argentinians haven't gotten to yet.

What OTH said...

http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/6650/malvlands.png (http://img202.imageshack.us/i/malvlands.png/)

please excuse silly paint skills, but this is basically why this issue is not as simple as "the islands are theirs, they should do whatever the f**k they want"

on the left the Argentine portion of the sea, on the right, United Kingdom's part of the sea, plus a ship taking oil... from a single reservoir that crosses over to the other side.



*disclaimer: aparent depth compared to the ship on the picture does not represent real life proportions. oil reservoir might not be so close to the surface, size might differ and it might not even be there. The amount of the reservoir on each side of the picture might not correlate truthfully to the actuall location of said oil reservoir. Also, the picture does not portray the correct method to drill for oil at sea *

[CaptainHaplo]

Nickolas,

Actually the paint skills were better than mine - but there is a valid point there. However, what stops Argentina from doing the exact same thing?

To be fair - stick a ship on the Argentinian side of the shelp and start sucking up that oil too. After all - half of its yours. Then either both sides in their respective waters get to exploit the resources - or they can decide to both stop being petty and pool the efforts to figure out roughly how big the deposit is (if its there at all) and then based on how much exists where (which can be determined by mapping) - figure out how much each side is entitled to.

While your picture does present a valid point - the reality is that a ship - or even fleet of tankers, cannot empty the suspected deposit - if it exists as the experts think. The exploitation of the field will take many years, during which both sides have ample time to make use of what is there. The premise that just because the Falklands exist means that the UK is going to drain a deposit dry before Argentina can do anything about it is simply propaganda.

I don't dispute that if a resource exists that Argentina may have a claim to it depending on the location. But current treaties accepted by Argentina defines boundaries for where those claims terminate. Argentina is a signatory state of the 1982 Montego Bay Convention. The treaty defines territorial waters as those extending 12 nautical mi (22 km) beyond a country's coast and gives to each country exclusive fishing and mining rights in waters extending to 200 nautical mi (370 km) from its coast. Coastal nations are granted exclusive rights to the fish and marine life in waters extending 200 nautical miles from shore. Every nation that has a continental shelf is granted exclusive rights to the oil, gas, and other resources in the shelf up to 200 miles from shore. Any legal disputes concerning the treaty and its provisions may be adjudicated by the new Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, by arbitration, or by the ICoJ.

Before you get all excited however, the SAME benefits per the treaty would be granted to the UK because of their ownership of the Falklands - so you would have a "shared shelf" where both countries have a legal claim to the rights in the shelf. Thus, the matter would require adjudication.

I say WOULD - because the UK is NOT a signatory of the treaty in question. While I see both reasons for and against acceptance of the treaty (which the US is also not a signatory - along with 28 other countries) - the fact remains that Argentina cannot expect the UK to abide by a treaty it has refused to sign.

Instead of worrying about the UK exploiting the resources - Argentina needs to get moving and make use of them itself. I mean - lets face it - if a deposit exists - who has the logistical ability CLOSE BY to make use of it????

[Nickolas]

the point is... that every single drum of oil removed from the reservoir, regardless of wich side it was pumped out of... is X% argentine and x% british.

I'm not saying "bu bu bu bu bu, they should let us drill";)

Thus, the matter would require adjudication.

exactly, so it's both not fair for the UK to just go and drill (being that they could "potentially steal our oil"*), but it also wrong for our... <sarcasm> beloved </sarcasm> president to act as if the argentine flag was flown on the islands.

anywho, i don't think any inversion will be made from the mainland to drill on our part of the continental shelf, there are more pressing matters for the president and her staff, like choosing who's next in line to be "charged" of being "pro coup d'etats"...

we dont know how much is ours, it could be less than 1%, or it could be close to 80%, sadly, we lack both the technology and the capital to go out there and "do it ourselves".


*they will drink our milkshake... they will drink it up!
just adding some tension breaking humor :rotfl2:

[Letum]

Drill it or lose it Argentina.
It's not yours under any law The UK recognises.

If you must insist it is yours, then think of it as payback. Although you owe blood, not oil.

[Nickolas]

Drill it or lose it Argentina.
It's not yours under any law The UK recognises.

If you must insist it is yours, then think of it as payback. Although you owe blood, not oil.

if it lays outside of the 200 mile radious then it IS ours, whether you like it or not.

also, i though that for certain nations blood and oil were worth the same
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/4218/nowar.jpg (http://img163.imageshack.us/i/nowar.jpg/)
i think you forget that argentine youth died there too.

also, unless british law can void physics laws (as in... some form of magic barrier holding the oil on OUR continental shelf spilling to your side when you remove yours)*, you may very well "drink our milkshake" (refer to the doodle posted earlier).

*or is Patagonia part of the falklands? maybe you'd like Buenos Aire too? if you do, you could take the regimental color that Lt. General John Whitelocke forgot over here in 1806


-------------------
i'm also done reading this thread, nothing good will ever come of this, and i wont force myself to read posts from people that instead of gentlemanly discussion want to sink in a "my country is better than yours" flame war. we have enough of that over here already.

[bookworm_020]

What OTH said...

http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/6650/malvlands.png (http://img202.imageshack.us/i/malvlands.png/)

please excuse silly paint skills, but this is basically why this issue is not as simple as "the islands are theirs, they should do whatever the f**k they want"

on the left the Argentine portion of the sea, on the right, United Kingdom's part of the sea, plus a ship taking oil... from a single reservoir that crosses over to the other side.



*disclaimer: aparent depth compared to the ship on the picture does not represent real life proportions. oil reservoir might not be so close to the surface, size might differ and it might not even be there. The amount of the reservoir on each side of the picture might not correlate truthfully to the actuall location of said oil reservoir. Also, the picture does not portray the correct method to drill for oil at sea *

I think a quote in the movie "There will be blood" sums it up

"Here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is, that's a straw, you see? You watching?. And my straw reaches acroooooooss the room, and starts to drink your milkshake... I... drink... your... milkshake!"

[Hakahura]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8529605.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/7296721/Latin-America-backs-Argentina-in-Falkland-Islands-drilling-dispute-with-Britain.html

So Argentina realises the military futility of trying for a re-match of '82.
What has it been promising to these other Nations?

1. The Islanders are British
2. The Islands were British before the Republic of Argentina even existed.

These are not disputed facts.

Britain will not be sharing or surrendering in any hurry at all.
No matter who else gets invited to the party.

[August]

I think a quote in the movie "There will be blood" sums it up

"Here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is, that's a straw, you see? You watching?. And my straw reaches acroooooooss the room, and starts to drink your milkshake... I... drink... your... milkshake!"

I saw that crappy movie. I kept waiting for someone to put a bullet in that horrible man.

[Kapitan]

Ok some points made by a documentary i saw, the islands have been in british hands since 1883 before then they have been in spanish, argentine and french hands.

Also if you do the math falklands islands acctually lie aproximatly 320 miles away from the coast of argentina, and if argentina is a signatory to the 200 mile economic exclusion zone then the flaklands and its oil remains firmly british. (the UK never signed the argrement).

Operating on those perameters it doesnt matter how much the argentines can protest thier nearest land point is well over the 200 miles set by the UN and is out side thier zone so tuff luck argentina.

Our millitary although smaller than in 1982 comprises of far newer ships and more capible ones at that, our navy is better equiped than that of the 1980's for example:

We didnt have a helicopter carrier in 1982 and thus relied on merchant vessels to ferry the choppers to the war zone, today we have HMS ocean which can carry sea king merlin apache and chinhooks, and with that combination it means the apaches can deliver air support to ground forces and the others can operate in EAW ASW and also logistic support.

Our fleet of auxilaries are better equiped and newer faster than the older ships and thus can also aid in refueling at sea more effectivly than the older vessels, and also comprises of four large landing platform docks which are twice the size of the old ones (round table class we have two of these in reserve also)

In 1982 we sent down the type 42 which was new then we now have type 45 ok not in any great number at the moment but when operational would give a close air support advantage to us in the escort role.

We have 2 operational carriers and one carrier that is in reserve so giving us 3 capible carriers in which to operate aircraft spare harriers can be carried on ocean and also to a point the bay class ships.

We have bulwark and albion also large landing docks capible like the bay class, the UK is rated the 2nd most capible country in the world to launch an amphibious assualt the only other nation above us is the USA.
Given the merchant fleet has 600 ships we would probably only take around 5 or 6 to ferry troops and stores with supplies giving us a much more flexable time in which to complete the war.

In all i think todays fleet although small is fully capible of taking out any threat argentina tries to impose on the falklands, given that they are trying to blockade the islands britian could see this as an act of war because a forign country is trying to blockade a soverign part of the UK over seas terratories and effectivly emposing an unoffical and illigal sanction not to mention running the risk of entering british waters which would be an act of war.

argentina maintains a small fleet herself and an airforce that is still a threat the navy would most likely like last time not venture out again they dont have much in the way of combatting a nuclear submarine whats more the etandard fleet has been grounded (apparently only from what ive read this isnt gospel) since the 25 of may was decomissioned, the argentines will still have the same issue as before.

The aircraft would have to fly over 300 miles to get to target have minuets in the zone then out with our AWACs planes already on station in the assencion islands and given they can fly for atleast 10 hours we wouldnt have a problem trying to pick them upand pre warn the fleet of thier pressence.

If argentina is going to try and re take the islands i dont think they know exactly what they bargain for our troops are more experianced in warfare and most have atleast one tour in afghanistan already.

The UK learnt alot from the 1982 conflict the number of troops on station is alot more we have a permanant gaurd ship in the area and also some aircraft that could delay the argentine landings basically we wont be as easy the second time round.

[OneToughHerring]

Kapitan (The UK Husky?),

So? What is the UK going to do? A pre-emptive strike? Going to bomb them into liking you?

The Argentinians aren't happy, that's the point and by ignoring their point in this will further erode the UK's already tarnished reputation world wide.

[Kapitan]

The only tarnished relation will be argentinas they are already shunned by the USA in 1982 the USA helped us by not only giving us complete access to satalites but also offering us a carrier and warships if we needed them.

I dare say they will do the same this time as they kinda owe us one if you get me.

Not only is argentina shunned by the USA its two nieghbors Chile (allied to the UK) and brazil (also in some form allied to the UK) offered thier support back in 1982 chilie would have invaded mainland argentina if the british had done so, so the only black sheep really is argentina.

Going to war with britian argentina faces a rough time they have nothing to match the capability of our navy, nor the finace availible to them i dont want to sound to c**tish but realistically they are 2nd world nation.

It is entirely thier own doing if they want to proceade learn a lesson from last time look what happened the junta got over thrown and argentina nearly went bankrupt another war would finnish them.

I have no sympathy for any nation who wants to invade another simply because they are upset about something that is not thiers.

My answer tuff sh*t

[Kapitan]

No we wouldnt because that means we have declared war, let them do it first because then that opens the gate to other areas such as other nations sanctioning argentina not to mention allying with us and also gives us reason to go to war let them do the leg work first.

We are not ignoring thier protest just mearly pointing out to them its our get lost.

[OneToughHerring]

I'm not saying that Argentina is necessarily the darling of the international community but what is absolutely certain is that the UK isn't either. And to cry for your 'special friend' US wouldn't improve that one bit.

I think the only way you're going to get some kind of final settlement into this is by un-anchoring the islands and sailing them beside the UK. And then maybe un-anchoring the British isles and sailing them beside the US. Although I kind of doubt that will happen...

[Kapitan]

If you got paid 500 euros would you like me to come bargeing in and saying i want 250 of your euros? i dont think you would would you the point is these are our little islands its in our zone therefore what ever is under it on it or 200 miles surrounding it is ours.

Dont you think you would get a bit pi$$ed if i kept parking my car on your drive? i think you would tell me to move it basically what britain is saying to argentina this is my land i do what i want with it and believe me we will.

We are not by any shape of the immagination the best nation on earth no country is that includes finland USA Russia china and argentina.

If the russian army came into finalnd and said ok from now on your all russian your identities need to change and nationalities and your now governed under russian rule i think you would be slightly effed off at that so why should we do that to the BRITISH PEOPLE in the falklands?

[kranz]

I get diesel oil at BP so I say YES :D

[OneToughHerring]

IMO it would better to compare the UK to Russia and Argentina to Finland. Two big, old imperialist nations vs. two smaller countries who's areas are occupied by the old imperialist nations (in Finland's case Karelia is occupied by Russia). And the way I see it imperialism is no longer in vogue as much as it was, say, 150 years ago.

[August]

You guys keep feeding the troll. How's it working out for you?

[OneToughHerring]

And more trolling by August. :down:

[Oberon]

Good? Bad? We're the guys with the guns.

[Bubblehead1980]

Actually it is simple.They lost the war, so they have no claim.

[OneToughHerring]

Actually it is simple.They lost the war, so they have no claim.

And India will never get it's independence because...Oh wait! :hmmm:

[Oberon]

To iterate further upon the above phrase. It is indeed incredibly unfair from a strictly black and white perspective that the United Kingdom has the Falkland Islands, and indeed it is unfair that it will be drawing oil from reserves underground which will probably drain reserves from Argentinian territory.
However, it's also unfair that MOSSAD uses British passports for assassinations, it's unfair that Britain was invaded by the French in 1066, it's unfair that France was invaded by the Nazis and then by the Allies.
The world is not a fair place. It would be quite nice in some circumstances but not in others if it was fair to everyone, after all, the Nazis and the Communists would demand a fair go, since to Nazis it's unfair that the Third Reich fell, every action is unfair to the person or people which suffer negative consequences of it.
Social history is strung together by a series of dominant empires, with each generation the scope and strength of the empires grows, after all, the British empire touched more, geographically, of the globe than the Roman Empire (not many Romans in China or Australia). Some empires are born not out of geographical mass but of military and political strength. At the moment we are seeing the decline of the American empire with the growth of the Chinese empire, the next generations may well see Beijing as the new Washington, although the Chinese foreign policy is not that of a empire, not in the manner which we have become accustomed to over the centuries, but it is nevertheless extremely powerful, particularly in the financial sector, perhaps it is more accurate to call China a financial empire? However, that is not the discussion for the moment.
One can draw a line back through the ages and witness at each stage a stronger nation dominating a smaller one, with varying degrees of success. Witness how Rome conquered Gaul and Britain in the early ages, only to find itself centuries later invaded by British, French and American forces during the Second World War. However, it's not always a perfect cycle, smaller nations do not always get their chance for revenge, although some do by subverting themselves to the will of larger nations, look at the trouble that Cuba caused the United States during the 1960s when it palled up to Khrushchev, it forced the United States to invest time and resources in firstly a failed invasion and then a successful blockade as well as continual unsuccessful covert missions in an attempt to assassinate Castro and bring down the Communist regime. Could Castro have done that alone? Perhaps but probably not as successfully. This is, perhaps why Argentina is pulling on its friends in South America to add more voices to the UN and other councils to make their voices heard, however, at the end of the day, unless the British government changes its position (which is always possible but considering we're going to be in a Conservative government before the year is out, I'd say pretty bloody unlikely) then all its best attempts to a diplomatic solution will fail, because at the end of the day we are more powerful than they are, and we have more powerful friends than they do.
If Argentina had, I don't know, US support both diplomatically and militarily, then the British Army wouldn't be out of there fast enough! However, it does not, and so the forces will stay.
Unfair? Yes. But then again, the world is unfair and nothing you or I can say or do will ever change that fact, it has been unfair since the dawn of time, and it will be unfair long after our bones have crumbled into dust.

TLDR? The world is unfair, deal with it. :yep:

(Disclaimer: No offense is intended to any party except those who choose to take it as such. As I have stated elsewhere in this thread, I have nothing against Argentinian people...and as my signature says: 'People don't start wars, governments do.')

[Bubblehead1980]

And India will never get it's independence because...Oh wait! :hmmm:

Whole different issue....

[OneToughHerring]

I think the UK thinks that the only way it can maintain the current level of life for it's citizens (well at least the upper class) is through holding on to the last remnants of it's empire, Falklands included. Although if the UK were to make any wealth from the Falklands it would only end up making some lord or earl somewhere even more richer while the average Brits would be left with nothing. The UK truly is the last monarchy of Europe.

And don't think I'm alone in thinking that the UK should give up a kind of system of inherited wealth and title in favour of a more egalitarian society which would also extend to the foreign politics. Many Brits are getting increasingly fed up with their system as well but since they are from the 'lower classes' their voices are seldom heard.

[Oberon]

From a basic standpoint I can't really argue with you on that, however I think we'd just swap one set of fat-cats for another and thus your argument is fatally flawed.
In the 2008 top ten rich list of the United Kingdom, only one member was a member of the upper class that you describe, and that was the Duke of Westminster. Other rich people included Roman Abramovich, and a gentleman called Lakshmi Mittal, ironically a steel magnate.
In 2009 it would seem that the same kind of people dominate, with our good friend Lakshmi Mittal at the top again. Mr Mittal, was born into his family's steel-making business in India and was born in Sadulpur village in India.
Not exactly inherited wealth although his family owning a steel industry no doubt helped, but this is hardly a Indian or English phenomenon.
As such, you will find that the richest people in the United Kingdom are not those who are born into riches, but those who have worked the market one way or the other to get their riches, although it cannot be denied that a fair few of them were not exactly born into poverty. This is not exactly inherited wealth in the terms that you mean it, however.
As such, although I cannot deny that there is a rich-poor divide in the United Kingdom, I do not think that it is for the reasons that you think although it is often how it is perceived by people.
Most, if not all, nations have a rich/poor divide, however in some nations it is larger than others, naturally these nations are rich nations, as so there is more money it is inevitable that some will have more than others. So it has been, so it shall always be, from the Egyptian empire to the British empire. Again, it is another unfairness in an unfair world. I would certainly like to be as rich as Mr Mittal, however I have no way of becoming so short of winning the Lotto and with the odds stacked against me, it is more likely that I will spend more money buying lottery tickets than I would ever win in my lifetime, however with all unfair scenarios there is the strange human emotion called 'hope', 'hope' that things will improve, 'hope' that I will win a couple of million pounds on the Lotto, but also, for those in that strange inbetween void between rich and completely bankrupt, gratitude that we are not as poor as some, but hope that we will be richer than others.

[OneToughHerring]

Well the top 10 would be the 'super rich', I'm talking more about the 11 - 5000 most rich, or even 11 - 10 000. Quite a few of these are of 'noble birth' or have inherited wealth.

I remember hearing that a member of the house of lords can just go and sign his/her name into a book at the house of lords and they get 100 quid for it. They don't have to take part in any sessions, don't have to stay there to do anything, just sign the name and that's it. Although we have inherited wealth in Finland too I wouldn't say it's as quite as should I say blatant as in UK.

And to segway this to the original topic, I hope there won't be war but I'm pretty sure the're will be this kind of festering of bad feelings especially from the Argentinians now with this drilling thing in full swing.

[Oberon]

And to segway this to the original topic, I hope there won't be war but I'm pretty sure the're will be this kind of festering bad feelings especially from the Argentinians now with this drilling thing in full swing.

That, is something we can agree on OTH. :yep:

[August]

The feelings of Argentina are about as relevant as those of Finland in this matter.

[Oberon]

The feelings of Argentina are about as relevant as those of Finland in this matter.

As are the feelings of any of us. We're just the people after all. ;)

[XabbaRus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8529969.stm

It's comedy time.

[Oberon]

Well...there's only one way Her Majesty's Armed forces can reply to that speech by Mr Chavez.

Yes...we're going to have to go all out...and deploy:

http://cdn3.knowyourmeme.com/i/7588/original/tactical_facepalm.jpg

[Onkel Neal]

I get one more bad post report from a troll about other trolls, I will ban the bunch of ya :arrgh!:

Make your points with respect, and stop banging on the BPR button, unless you are very sure you are not trolling, too.

[Oberon]

I get one more bad post report from a troll about other trolls, I will ban the bunch of ya :arrgh!:

Make your points with respect, and stop banging on the BPR button, unless you are very sure you are not trolling, too.

Can I report Chavez for trolling? :hmmm:

[Onkel Neal]

Yes, but the Subsim Hit Team in on furlough, so any punitive action will have to wait.

[nikimcbee]

Yes, but the Subsim Hit Team in on furlough, so any punitive action will have to wait.

I've got my crab trap. Maybe if I put some rotten chicken in it and throw it in this thread, I'll catch you a troll, but it won't come cheap. My fee: 1 large bowl of Neal's mom's banana pudding.:yeah::haha:

[Jimbuna]

I've got my crab trap. Maybe if I put some rotten chicken in it and throw it in this thread, I'll catch you a troll, but it won't come cheap. My fee: 1 large bowl of Neal's mom's banana pudding.:yeah::haha:

Jeebus :o I'm away for three days in Manchester and it looks like I've missed the second Falklands conflict :DL

Let the diplomats sort it.

Argentina, Chavez et al have one alternative....put up or shut up!

@Jason

That is one excellent choice mate...that particular dish is still in the forefront of my memory banks :rock:

[krashkart]

UK, you know better than not to wage war. Argentina, please stop picking on our Allies. That oil is rightfully ours.... erm... dammit! :damn:
I mean that island belongs to Britain. *wink wink* :smug:

Sorry guys, I couldn't resist. I'll throw myself out of your thread now. :D


*trudge trudge trudge*

[Hakahura]

Well looks like someone somewhere has decided to crank things up to the next level.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7313829/Navy-intercepts-Argentinian-warship-near-British-waters.html

Let's hope for an outbreak of common sense in Buenos Aries.
Innocent navigational blunder my arse.

[Oberon]

Wait a minute:

“We can confirm that on 28 January this year during rough weather and at night, HMS YORK and an Argentine ship were operating in the same locality in international waters around 50 miles from Falkland Island Territorial Waters. After a friendly dialogue by radio they each continued with their own exercises.”

:damn: Headlines make it sound like a recent attempt instead of being nearly a month old.

It's nothing new though, we did similar things to the Soviets all the time back in the day and they did it to us. How many times after all did US carrier groups have to shoo away snooping AGI trawlers?
Still, it's not going to help tensions, even if it is a month old the newspapers are going to hype it up like there's no tomorrow. :damn: And that will make the public more jumpy and more hostile and generally sour the milk.
Bah, bloody media. :damn:

[Hakahura]

This, is what happens, when you mix posting with Shiraz.
My bad.
:damn:

[Marcantilan]

Let's hope for an outbreak of common sense in Buenos Aries. Innocent navigational blunder my arse.

According to local sources, ARA Drummond changed her course to avoid a storm, while engaged in a routine fisheries patrol (after all, her normal duty).

Apparently, both ships communicated in a very friendly way and carry on.

I think The Sun is looking for another Gotcha! headline...

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2868056/Destroyer-HMS-York-sends-Argentine-warship-packing-in-the-Falklands.html

[Jimbuna]

I wonder how much cod is swimming about in those waters :DL

[Tribesman]

Actually it is simple.They lost the war, so they have no claim.

:har::har::har::har::har::har:
Can you find the peace treaty betweeen the two countrys that says that Bubblehead?

So in the treaty between the UK and Argentina over oil rights in the Falklands and surrounding waters(not including S.Georgia or S. Sandwich islands) after they had renewed diplomatic relations what does it say about the Argentine claim of soveriegnty?
What does it say about British claims of soveriegnty?

Doesn't this current spike in "hostility" between the two states really consist of little more than a minor dispute over tax on shipments.
It amazing how a little thing like that can be turned into a populist tub thumping flag waving charade by the politicians and media on both sides which is taken up with enthusiansm by segments of the population.
Humans eh:rotfl2:


I wonder how much cod is swimming about in those waters
You would have to ask the south Atlantic fisheries commision which studies fish stocks and regulates fishing around the falklands, its a joint venture run by ...Argentina and Britain

[Oberon]

Doesn't this current spike in "hostility" between the two states really consist of little more than a minor dispute over tax on shipments.
It amazing how a little thing like that can be turned into a populist tub thumping flag waving charade by the politicians and media on both sides which is taken up with enthusiansm by segments of the population.
Humans eh:rotfl2:

Isn't that the truth? I think both sides need a spot of nationalistic flag waving during the gloom of the depression and this has given them a good excuse.

[Jimbuna]

Isn't that the truth? I think both sides need a spot of nationalistic flag waving during the gloom of the depression and this has given them a good excuse.

Precisely :DL

[Marcantilan]

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/type-42-destroyers/hms-york/news/hms-york-on-patrol-in-the-falklands/*/changeNav/6568

The HMS York / ARA Drummond "incident" related there by a RN sailor, on Feb 8th...

[Bubblehead1980]

:har::har::har::har::har::har:
Can you find the peace treaty betweeen the two countrys that says that Bubblehead?

So in the treaty between the UK and Argentina over oil rights in the Falklands and surrounding waters(not including S.Georgia or S. Sandwich islands) after they had renewed diplomatic relations what does it say about the Argentine claim of soveriegnty?
What does it say about British claims of soveriegnty?

Doesn't this current spike in "hostility" between the two states really consist of little more than a minor dispute over tax on shipments.
It amazing how a little thing like that can be turned into a populist tub thumping flag waving charade by the politicians and media on both sides which is taken up with enthusiansm by segments of the population.
Humans eh:rotfl2:



You would have to ask the south Atlantic fisheries commision which studies fish stocks and regulates fishing around the falklands, its a joint venture run by ...Argentina and Britain



Tribesman, does not matter.When you lose a war, you lose and give up your claim to whatever.To the victors go the spoils of war.Typical Liberal to throw some piece of paper around.The US lost Vietnam, sure I could put a spin on it and say we chose to withdraw, which we did.However, we left because we lost the will to win and thus lost.North Vietnam then invaded and reunited North and South, thus winning the war.End of story.Argentina invaded British colonies, were defeated and sent packing.End of story or should be but Liberals like to whine.

[Marcantilan]

Tribesman, does not matter.When you lose a war, you lose and give up your claim to whatever.To the victors go the spoils of war.Typical Liberal to throw some piece of paper around.The US lost Vietnam, sure I could put a spin on it and say we chose to withdraw, which we did.However, we left because we lost the will to win and thus lost.North Vietnam then invaded and reunited North and South, thus winning the war.End of story.Argentina invaded British colonies, were defeated and sent packing.End of story or should be but Liberals like to whine.

Sorry, but doesn´t work that way in the real world.

[antikristuseke]

Tribesman, does not matter.When you lose a war, you lose and give up your claim to whatever.To the victors go the spoils of war.Typical Liberal to throw some piece of paper around.The US lost Vietnam, sure I could put a spin on it and say we chose to withdraw, which we did.However, we left because we lost the will to win and thus lost.North Vietnam then invaded and reunited North and South, thus winning the war.End of story.Argentina invaded British colonies, were defeated and sent packing.End of story or should be but Liberals like to whine.

You aren't exactly the yellowest banana in the toolbox, now are you?
The real world does not work that way.

[Tribesman]

Tribesman, does not matter.When you lose a war, you lose and give up your claim to whatever.To the victors go the spoils of war.
Blimey I must have missed that, which computer game was that the rules of?

Typical Liberal to throw some piece of paper around
Errrrr... the British minister who negotiated the petrol/gas deal with Argentina was a conservative, though formerly he was a unionist , so he might be a "liberal" if you want to compare him to a real way out wingnut, but not if you are on any any plane of reality.

[Bubblehead1980]

Actually it does work that way, that is what Argentina fails to see.I admit the US lost Vietnam and did you see us whine about it when the North took the South over? not really and we pulled out because we lost.Win some, lose some.Simple point is Argentina lost, so they should shut up about it or try to man up and fight for it if they feel that strongly about it.

I can see how a Lib disagrees because they are the people who came up with the idea for "participation trophies" for childrens ball games :har: You win or you lose, same in a ball game, same in life and same when it comes to war.The Falklands was not a draw though, Argentina invaded, was the weak sister so she lost and was kicked out, should be the end.Bottom line, the islands belong to the UK, get over it.

[antikristuseke]

Does the concept of international politics completely elude your grasp?

Conflicts between nation states are ended with peace agreements, it has been that way for ages. Just because you want something to be simple, does not mean it is going to be. The world is a pretty complicated place it gets more complicated as you go up the hierarchy.

[Kapitan]

Argentina flew the white flag over port stanley, the commander incharge of the forces for argentina signed the surrender which means he has signed to say his side lost, thats the end of it the islands after that bit of paper was signed were back under british control just like they have been for over 120 years.

Argentina lost surrendered and sent home end of.

[XabbaRus]

Argentina unilaterally pulled out of the deal with the UK to share any profits in oil found down round the Falklands. I don't know why but I think what you are seeing here is a country that has realised it did somethine stupid, the UK now look to reap all the benefits so is making these moves in order to get some share of the oil.

If there was no oil down there either Argentina wouldn't give a monkeys or we would have given them back.

The thing is both countries claims to the Falklands is arguable if you go back in history with the French also being able to make a claim.

[Kapitan]

And the spanish as well, however if i got this right the falklands have been under british control the longest not 100% sure on that im gunna look it up

[Kapitan]

"Sovereignty over the islands again became an issue in the latter half of the 20th century. Argentina, in the pursuit of its claim to the islands, saw the creation of the United Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations) as an opportunity to present its case before the rest of the world. In 1945, upon signing the UN Charter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Charter), Argentina stated that it reserved its right to sovereignty of the islands, as well as its right to recover them. The United Kingdom responded in turn by stating that, as an essential precondition for the fulfilment of UN Resolution 1514 (XV) (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_1514) regarding the de-colonisation of all territories still under foreign occupation, the Falklanders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklanders) first had to vote for the British withdrawal at a referendum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum) to be held on the issue"

I dont think the falklanders will vote for argentina to be totaly honest.

"An agreement with Argentina had set the terms for exploitation of offshore resources including large oil reserves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves); however, in 2007 Argentina unilaterally withdrew from the agreement.[64] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_Islands#cite_note-63) In response, Falklands Oil and Gas Limited has signed an agreement with BHP Billiton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BHP_Billiton) to investigate the potential exploitation of oil reserves.[65] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_Islands#cite_note-Times_Oil_Deal-64) Climatic conditions of the southern seas mean that exploitation will be a difficult task, though economically viable, and the continuing sovereignty dispute with Argentina is hampering progress"

Again argentina pulled out stop crying over a dumb mistake you made

[Tribesman]

Actually it does work that way
:har::har::har::har::har::har:

I admit the US lost Vietnam and did you see us whine about it when the North took the South over?
Hold on, what was americas claim of soverignty in South East Asia?
oh yeah it didn't have any so that nonsense doesn't belong in this topic.
France had a claim there though, but you will find several pieces of paper where they signed those claims away.

Does the concept of international politics completely elude your grasp?

The really funny thing is he says he has just started working in law, all those "meaningless" pieces of paper he will have to deal with are going to be really confusing for him.

Argentina flew the white flag over port stanley, the commander incharge of the forces for argentina signed the surrender which means he has signed to say his side lost, thats the end of it the islands after that bit of paper was signed were back under british control just like they have been for over 120 years.

Where is any document signed by the countries that says the issue is agreed?
Every document signed by the two countries states that both countries still claim soveriegnty.

[Kapitan]

:har::har::har::har::har::har:


Hold on, what was americas claim of soverignty in South East Asia?
oh yeah it didn't have any so that nonsense doesn't belong in this topic.
France had a claim there though, but you will find several pieces of paper where they signed those claims away.


The really funny thing is he says he has just started working in law, all those "meaningless" pieces of paper he will have to deal with are going to be really confusing for him.


Where is any document signed by the countries that says the issue is agreed?
Every document signed by the two countries states that both countries still claim soveriegnty.


On the surrender document the british refused to put the islands down as falklands malvinas, or any other form other than falklands, thus meaning the british have overall authority and overall sovreignty of the islands.

Argentina invaded for 6 weeks it maintained sovrignty then was booted out so that the british re took that.

Point is the islands have been british for over 120 years the people on the island hold british citizen ships and passports have voted numerous times before to stay british the islands are british end of discussion end of the day if i walked into your home and said i want half of it you wouldnt be to chuffed so why should the UK do it to thier own people on the falklands ?

[OneToughHerring]

Excuse my stupidity but what exactly are the international or other laws that govern wars, warfare etc.? There is the Geneva convention that even I am aware of. Are there some old UN or even League of nations treaties in the line of "Thou shalt not smiteth thy neibour with thy halbard". :)

If you for example do what the US did in the Vietnam war which is to kind of 'hop in' to a war it otherwise has no geographical stake in, then is that 'illegal', on an international or national level, somehow?

Sorry, I only have questions this time. :):salute:

[Kapitan]

I believe all bar one nation has to forfill a certain criteria before they can go to war to justify thier actions.

In order to go to war they must have a legitamate reason hence why we went into afghanistan in 2001 because of the 9/11 attacks that gave us a reason.

The UK has to forfill a requirement criteria the bill then passes to the queen and then back to parliment in the case of the falklands it was done in hours not days or weeks.

Thats my take on it though so it might not be 100% im not a politician

[Jimbuna]

@Kapitan

"Best pleased to inform Her Majesty that the Union Jack once again flies over Stanley. God Save the Queen."
Major General Jeremy Moore [on capture of Port Stanley]

http://imgcash6.imageshack.us/img91/5841/greatbritaincj6.gif

Nuff said

~SALUTE~

[August]

@Kapitan

"Best pleased to inform Her Majesty that the Union Jack once again flies over Stanley. God Save the Queen."
Major General Jeremy Moore [on capture of Port Stanley]

http://imgcash6.imageshack.us/img91/5841/greatbritaincj6.gif

Nuff said

~SALUTE~

I just wanted to say that the whole way you Brits handled that war and the lead up to it impressed the hell out of me and my fellow soldiers.

[Tribesman]

On the surrender document the british refused to put the islands down as falklands malvinas, or any other form other than falklands, thus meaning the british have overall authority and overall sovreignty of the islands.

Oh dear, can you tell me Kapitan exactly what that surrender document was?
Could you then tell me how insignificant the military surrender of a force is in relation to a diplomatic agreement over terriotorial claims between two states.

Argentina invaded for 6 weeks it maintained sovrignty then was booted out so that the british re took that.

No, Argentina invaded and for a short term had defacto soveriegnty, britain kicked them out and now has defacto soveriegnty. The issue in question and the issue being contested is dejure soveriegnty.
If I stole your car I would have it in my possesion, I wouldn't own it under law though.
If I took your car due to a dispute over ownership I could legally own it if we came to an agreement on ownership and the agreement was that my claim on your car was valid.
Simple isn't it.

I just wanted to say that the whole way you Brits handled that war and the lead up to it impressed the hell out of me and my fellow soldiers.
Well it ain't often anyone could call the removal of rights for the Falkland islanders and the cutsd in defense spending impressive, though sending troops off in very bad ships, a severe lack of equipment and highly inflammable uniforms is rather inmpessive....if you are impressed by how much a government can get away with when it comes to looking after its servicemen.
Though I think the most impressive thing was the mistreatment of the veterans, especially those that were really badly ****** up during the conflict.

[Marcantilan]

Argentina flew the white flag over port stanley, the commander incharge of the forces for argentina signed the surrender which means he has signed to say his side lost, thats the end of it the islands after that bit of paper was signed were back under british control just like they have been for over 120 years.

Argentina lost surrendered and sent home end of.

That was wrong, Gen. Menendez only surrendered the forces under your direct command. In fact, a problem arises when some British admiral realized that Argentine Air Force (and Navy, and Army, etc) on the mainland was NOT under Menendez command.

And the problem about the island is not so simple. For starters, the British KICKED the Argentine government in the islands back in 1833...

[Decoman]

Ah, I remember having come across some odd news about Argentine, England and the Falklands Islands: http://www.janes.com/news/security/jiwk/jiwk100217_1_n.shtml

[August]

http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf

Above all, Argentina effectively ceded the islands to Britain by
the Convention of Settlement in 1850 and abandoned all claim to them, ceasing all protests and
performing many acts of omission and commission that indicated acquiescence in Britain’s possession of
the islands (sections 23, 28, 32 and 34 above).

The principal arguments put forward by the Argentinians in their 3 December 2007 seminar, and repeated in both the 2007 pamphlets, are untrue. The truth of the matter is that:

(1) The 17th and 18th-century treaties between Britain and Spain did not prohibit British possession of the Falklands.
(2) The Argentinians have quoted the 1771 Anglo-Spanish agreement incorrectly. The agreement as finally signed preserves the claims of both Spain and Britain, not Spain alone. There was no secret promise by Britain to evacuate the Falklands after the restitution of Port Egmont.
(3) The Argentinians and Professor Dolzer have incorrectly described the history of the 1820s in the Falklands. David Jewett did claim the Falklands then for Argentina, but he had not been sent there. He did not attempt to apply fishing regulations, or Argentine laws, or tell any foreign ships to leave. His claim was not announced formally in Argentina or even mentioned in his report. Professor Dolzer has also incorrectly described the activities of Pablo Areguati in the Falklands in 1824. Areguati was never given any official rank, nor did he attempt to enforce Argentine law or fishing regulations. It was all he could do to survive himself, and his expedition collapsed after a few weeks. Britain did object promptly when Louis Vernet was given an official title in 1829. Professor Dolzer’s assumption that Argentina did establish itself adequately in the islands in the early 1820s is based, as we have shown, on a profound distortion of history.
(4) Argentina’s claim that the 1825 Treaty of Friendship and Navigation with Britain supports its claim to the Falklands is incorrect. There was no one from Argentina in the Falklands at that time, and the Treaty does not describe Argentine territory at all.
(5) The Argentine claim that Britain expelled an Argentine population from the Falklands in 1833 is false; the settlement continued, and most of its inhabitants were from Buenos Aires.
(6) Argentina did not inherit a unitary claim to the Falklands from Spain, and its claim is further weakened by the lack of foreign recognition in the 19th century and by Louis Vernet’s preference for British sovereignty.
(7) Argentina dropped its claim to the Falklands by ratifying the Convention of Settlement in 1850. The failure to mention that this ended Argentina’s claim to the Falklands is a gross distortion of history, as are the statements by Argentine historians that the British Foreign Secretary accepted in 1849 that the matter was “pending” or “postponed” – the reverse is true. After 1850 Argentina dropped all protests to Britain over the Falklands, and did not mention the Falklands to Britain for 34 years. The dropping of the Argentine claim was confirmed by Argentine leaders in their Messages to Congress in the 1860s, and the Falklands were not mentioned in any Message to Congress for 91 years until 1941.
(8) The Argentine claim was artificially revived in 1884, by non-diplomatic means – the “Affair of the Map” – but after failing to change Britain’s position Argentina dropped the matter again for several decades.
(9) The Argentinians have never had a valid claim to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. These islands were only claimed by Argentina after the Second World War, after decades of acquiescence and after acknowledgement of Britain’s sovereignty there.
(10) The Argentine argument that Islanders have no right to self-determination is absurd. They have the same rights as any other immigrant population of the New World.

We conclude that the Argentine seminar of 3 December 2007 and the two Argentine 2007 pamphlets do not make a case for Argentine sovereignty over the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. All these islands are rightfully British. The Falklands dispute was ended over 150 years ago with Argentina’s agreement; there is no need for any “solution”

[Marcantilan]

Well, here is the other side of the coin:

According to the inform "by failing to mention Argentina’s claim to the islands in the Convention, he effectively dropped it."

As far as I know, the 1850 treaty didn´t have a "please fill all territorial claims here or that will be dropped" clause, so it´s a curious interpretation after all...

The rest of the inform is a piece of cheap propaganda too.

Look at the opinion of some (past) british leaders about the islands:



Duke of Wellington, Prime Minister in 1834: (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=es&sl=es&tl=en&u=http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/1834&rurl=translate.google.com.ar&usg=ALkJrhjZhGMMPRHLl8SbOZ2LAHn8GaFYEQ) "I have reviewed all the papers relating to the Falklands. Is unclear that we've ever been holders of the sovereignty of these islands."



Sidney Spicer, head of the Americas Department at the Foreign Office in 1910: (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=es&sl=es&tl=en&u=http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/1910&rurl=translate.google.com.ar&usg=ALkJrhj675RUS4d6AXnxa-O5aHZ0NvdjNQ) "... the Argentine government's attitude is not entirely unjustified and our action has been somewhat despotic"



R.
R. Campbell, assistant secretary of the Foreign Office in 1911: (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=es&sl=es&tl=en&u=http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/1911&rurl=translate.google.com.ar&usg=ALkJrhjtH3TujvATHvci72X7Tcj0Y-pLrw) "Who had the best right while we are attaching the islands. I think the government of Buenos Aires [...] We can not easily make a good claim and we have done a wisely effort to avoid discussing the issue in Argentina. "



Sir Malcolm A.
Robertson, the British ambassador in Buenos Aires in 1928: (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=es&sl=es&tl=en&u=http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/1928&rurl=translate.google.com.ar&usg=ALkJrhjEVG9lqUgUPppqjbLX749Reg3eRA) "Argentine claims to the Falkland Islands in any way are unfounded" and insisted in another document that "English case is not strong enough to face a public controversy."



George Fitzmaurice, counsel to the British Foreign Office in 1936: (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=es&sl=es&tl=en&u=http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936&rurl=translate.google.com.ar&usg=ALkJrhgSacF9F3XE1_t95rLKkcYtkXY_Qw) "Our case has a certain fragility" and advised it finally came: "Sitting on the islands hard to avoid discussing, in a policy to drop the case."



John Troutbeck, a senior British Foreign Office in 1936: "... our taking of the Falkland Islands in 1833 [...] was so arbitrary that it is not so easy to explain our position without showing us themselves as international outlaws. "

Or ask the Foreign Office about the S17111 (AS – 5728/311/2) document.

Or, for a different opinio, read this column in The Telegraph:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/expat/tessamayes/10137786/the-day-the-queen-was-asked-to-hand-over-the-falklands/

Is a complex matter, after all.

[Tribesman]

August, could you tell us what jobs or qualifications Pascoe and Pepper have that give them such an insight on which to base their article?

[CaptainHaplo]

OK - lets look at the question of who should own the Falklands....

A British chap by the name of John Strong sailed to them in 1690. At the time - the region was unpopulated. The French were the first to settle the area, in 1764 - resulting in de facto control. So initially we have a claim between the French and British.... In 1765 the British landed and claimed the region. They later found the French Colony and the first disagreement about who had claim began. However, the French basically sold their control to the Spanish in 1766 and vacated the area. So now it becomes a British claim and a Spanish claim - though the Spanish claim is now "second-hand". Then, in 1770, the Spanish expelled the British colony via "expedition" - a nice way of saying they got run off by an armed force. In 1771, over the threat of war, the Spanish backed off and the English returned to the region. However, due to the economic strains of the American War of Independance, the English left the Falklands in 1776. They left a plaque claiming the land as British at the time, but also left total defacto control to the Spanish. The Spanish then left the Falklands for good in 1811 - also leaving behind their own plaque claiming the land as Spanish. Note that during this time - one country claiming the Falklands is not mentioned..... that would be Argentina. Why would that be? Because Argentina didn't even EXIST at the time. It is interesting to note that British (and American) seal hunting ships continued to put in to the region though it now was unpopulated again. Now - in 1816 the people of what is now Argentina declared independance from Spain, and in 1820 actually realized that through conflict. They became known as the "United Provinces".

We now move forward to 1826 - and enter Luis Vernet - a German by birth. He requested the authority to colonize the islands. Who did he ask? Not the "United Provinces" - but he DID ask the British. When that attempt failed - he again asked the British in 1828 for the chance to try again. The reason this is important is because Argentina's claim rests heavily with Vernet, as we will soon see. Vernet was a merchant, and the United Provinces owed him quite substantially, so when he succeeded in seeing the area settled in 1828, they made a deal with him. They would appoint him "governor", basically giving him the region as payment. In 1828, the Argentine government granted Vernet all of East Falkland, including all its resources, with exemption from taxation if a colony could be established within three years. He took settlers, including British Captain Matthew Brisbane, and before leaving once again sought permission first from the British Consulate in Buenos Aires. The British asked for a report on the islands for the British government, and Vernet asked for British protection should they return.[ (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-briefhistory3-13)So, in 1829, Vernet was named Governor by the United Provinces, though its quite important to note that he continued to send "reports" back to the British Consul (which shows he continued to accept and recognize the British claim to the Falklands). In 1831 Vernet seized the American sealing ship Harriet (he had also siezed two other ships) and the US sent the sloop Lexington to the region with orders to recover the Harriet. This the American warship did, while taking Vernet into custody. The colony was evacuated - the Lexington giving the choice to the colonists to stay or leave, and offering them transport to Montevideo. The majority chose to leave, except for a few "cowboys"who remained in the interior of the islands (and not within the settlement inself). Vernet then sold most of his holdings in the Falklands to a British merchant and never returned to the Falklands.

The United Provinces - aka Argentina - tried to turn the region into a penal colony - with no success. The new leader was murdered and no control was ever established. In fact, the only "civilized" part of the area is Port Louis - and it is manned by BRITISH mercenaries who keep the riff-raff that the UP had sent over (trying to create the penal colony) at bay.

Meanwhile, events play out with Vernet and Britain makes the decision that its sovereignty over the Falklands should be asserted - else those uppity Americans might just decide to take a liking to the area. In 1833 the HMS Cleo arrives in Port Louis and the Captain makes note the settlement is flying the wrong flag - since it happened that it wasn't a British flag. He also sent the Argentinian bureacracy packing, and they left without firing a shot. Thus the first permanent settlement of the Falklands was established in 1833 - by the British. Vernet's deputy was allowed to return to the Falklands and his position under the condition that he did not traffic - as Vernet had done - with Argentina.

Its also quite interesting to note that Argentina offered to relinquish any claim to the region - in 1841 - for the cancellation of debts. Britain refused to consider the offer.

Britain has repeatedly offered (in 1947, 1948 and 1955) to let the matter be mediated by the ICoJ at the Hague - Argentina has refused all three offers.

Argentina's claim to the Islands stands on its investure with Venet - claiming his acceptance of title from them showed the leader of the colony recognizing their claim to the region. It also arises from the Nootka Sound Conventions - a treaty between Spain and Britain dating from 1789 that states that the coast of South America and its islands were Spanish Territory. However - the Spanish unilaterally repudiated those conventions in 1795, making the agreement null and void.

Thus it boils down to this....

Britain found it. France settled it. Spain then had a second-hand claim to it. Argentina then tried to claim it after becoming independant - meaning that the the Argentinian claim is now "third hand". If one were to consider their claim valid - they gave the region to a merchant in 1829 - who ultimately ended up selling the majority of it to a British citizen! As for the Nootka Bay agreement - the idea that Argentina could think a country would respect a contract with a THIRD party and the agreement was already terminated (and not by the British) is ludicrous. History shows that Argentina has tried to use the Falklands as payment for its debts - and not just once. First they used the Falklands to pay Venet - then they tried to pay of London debts with the region in 1841 - and now the Argentinian government sees economic profit once again in the Islands - and so it again tries to lay claim to them.

Finally - and to those Argentinian members of subsim - this does NOT reflect on you, but rather your government - but there were no indigenous people in the region - and the people that are there now want to remain under the British flag. Given the bloody history or Argentina (which not all of that is the fault of Argentina - and what country doesn't have blood on its hands) - its time to respect the rights of those that live there - especially since Argentina gave the Falklands to Venet and he sold them.

[OneToughHerring]

Haplo,

interesting history, I haven't read up much on the history of the islands. I would say that the Argentinians have a +50% claim to the islands. First through the 'inheritance' of the French-Spanish claim. It stays valid no matter what you say. If not then it's still France's or Spain's.

The Vernet-thing is trickier. I'd say that there was economic dealings to and from meaning that UK as well sold them. When Vernet came into the picture the islands were 50-50 French-Spanish - UK. So how could Vernet be anything but for a pro-Argentinian claim? That's the way I see it.

Also, you think the UK's motives for holding on to the islands is any more noble then that of the Argentinians? Aren't they the ones who are actively trying to empty the entire continental shelf out of oil as we speak.

So today UK'ers, US'ers and possibly other English language natives think the islands belong to the UK, the Argentinians and others who have Spanish as their native language think it belongs to the Argentinians. So it's a kind of a anglo-spanish head bashing bonanza. Personally I'd like there to be some kind of nature refuge, maybe governed by the UN or something.

Or to begin to think about nations for the native people of the Americas and their rights for the natural resources near them. For a European nation to go half way across the globe to rob natural resources from 'no man's land' is more of the ol' imperialistic mentality that at least to me doesn't seem just anymore.

[Marcantilan]

...especially since Argentina gave the Falklands to Venet and he sold them.

I must agree with a lot of CaptainHaplo points, but I must disagree with the above mentioned.

Argentina gave the land to Vernet (in fact I attended University with one of the grand-grand-grand children of Mr. Louis and he had those documents), but not the sovereingty.

Is not the same, for sure...

[CaptainHaplo]

Marcantilan - first off thank you for not just flaming me outright and instead giving a fair hearing to the data. That is to your credit! :yeah:

You bring up a very interesting point - the land was given - but not the soveriegnty. I see where your coming from - as the US did land grants during its times of expansion. It very likely is a valid point. So let me ask a few questions that will help me make up my own mind.

Naming Venet governor of land already granted to him to own - when in that time period a colonial governor was the proverbial "local king" - would one consider that like a feudal heirarchy where a knight owed loyalty to a Duke, a Duke to a King, or would it be considered a full transfer of soveriegnty? Taxation bears on this question - and history says that Argentina stated to Venet that if a colony could be established within 3 years, it would no be taxed by the UP. Now - this arguement goes 2 ways - as it shows the UP claiming the RIGHT to tax the region - but also can be viewed by the UP as saying "if you get it going in three years - we have no claim on you". I honestly don't know enough to know for sure - so perhaps you can shed some light on which one it would be?

Also - Argentina (United Provinces of the River Plate) was formed out of the Viceroyalty of the River Plate. The Viceroyalty as established owed allegience to the monarchy of Spain. Argentina cast off the yoke of feudalism and pursued self-determination. What is the difference between that and the Falklands having the same right to self-determination?

My biggest problem with seeing the Argentinian side is that I don't know what other claims (other than Nootka and the fact they are "closest) Argentina may legitimately have. If there are some - please point me to some places where I can learn about them. Thanks again!

[Tribesman]

Argentina gave the land to Vernet (in fact I attended University with one of the grand-grand-grand children of Mr. Louis and he had those documents), but not the sovereingty.

Is not the same, for sure...
So it was a business charter, just the same as the Falkland island company.

[Marcantilan]

Captain, I think your post described perfectly the chaos (Argentina not being Argentina, Spain and its alliances, the treatys, the Pope, et al), claims and counter claims that happened until 1833 and beyond.

About Argentina "official" position, is here (in English):

http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/portal/seree/malvinas/homeing.html

Regarding your questions, Argentina abolished slavery and "titles" (King, Earl, so on) on 1813 (have ni mind that 1789 "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" was in vogue at the time), so is clear that Vernet was appointed as governor and paid in advance with land (lot of). Same thing happened with most places in the Patagonia.

I think the tax exemption was a carrot in front of Vernet.

The self determination thing is very interesting. The United Provinces at the time of independence (1816) covered not only Argentina but Uruguay, Paraguay, parts of Bolivia, etc. Not so much years later, those places asked for independence and Buenos Aires sent military expeditions to suffocate the revolution...

But I think is not the same in the Islands. The former population was evacuated by force and a new population was implanted by the UK. Of course the new ones wants to stay loyal to the King (or Queen). But, why if you ask the descendents of the 1833 emigrees?

I should say that I understand the islanders. If I belong to a prosper colony of a world major power, why on earth I would ask to be a citizen of a third world country governed by peronists!

Anyway, is not a simple matter. A pleasure to chat pacifically about it.

Regards!

[Hakahura]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7055925.ece