SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)
-   -   Another Falklands war? (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=162078)

Oberon 02-19-10 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martes86 (Post 1273114)
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 02-19-10 05:18 AM

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

Skybird 02-19-10 05:35 AM

With 99.5% probability it's nothing.

martes86 02-19-10 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nordmann (Post 1273120)
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 02-19-10 07:58 AM

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 02-19-10 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heartc (Post 1273267)
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 02-19-10 08:29 AM

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 02-19-10 09:26 AM

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 02-19-10 09:51 AM

As an argentinian, Iīm 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 thatīs not a "blockade".

heartc 02-19-10 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martes86 (Post 1273288)
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 02-19-10 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcantilan (Post 1273403)
As an argentinian, Iīm 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 thatīs 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 02-19-10 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon (Post 1273528)
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 02-19-10 12:17 PM

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

EDIT:

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

Bubblehead1980 02-19-10 12:21 PM

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 02-19-10 12:58 PM

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?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Đ 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.