Load your weapon, hoist the union flag and prepare to set sail dune

We're coming for you....

Careful, that image will have Dun©e creaming his pants...

Cameron has to do something about this. Argentina is going to keep upping the ante. If he loses the Falklands, his party will be out for a generation.

We need to send some additional RAF presence down for the duration (suggest a flight of 4 x Tornado GR4s with anti-shipping missiles), and up the sporadic RN presence, maybe another patrol boat.

It seems to refer only to the 4 core Mercosur countries, which at least means Chile is not involved.

Cameron has to do something about this. Argentina is going to keep upping the ante. If he loses the Falklands, his party will be out for a generation.

 

We need to send some additional RAF presence down for the duration (suggest a flight of 4 x Tornado GR4s with anti-shipping missiles), and up the sporadic RN presence, maybe another patrol boat.

 

It seems to refer only to the 4 core Mercosur countries, which at least means Chile is not involved.

Chile has often supported the UK and the Falkland Islands against the other South American countries that ally with Argentina. (They don't get on!) That is why Thatcher honoured Pinochet in spite of his appalling record in human rights etc.

This whole thing is really only posturing. Although the media talk of 25 'ships' flying the Islands flag, they are mostly small fishing boats, and very few FI flagged vessels would ever go as far as to South America, let alone to these 3 countries. So in practical reality it means virtually nothing. However we must be careful not to overlook such posturing, and to be seen to ignore it. That was the mistake Thatcher made before 1982 with similar posturing, encouraging Argentina to think we wouldn't react to an invasion. That mistake cost many lives and many millions of pounds in a war that might never have happened had the UK reacted more strongly earlier.

Such gestures will occur every time an Argentinian politician wants to score points in his/her domestic politics, especially if an election is due. Argentinians are taught from the cradle that 'the Malvinas' are theirs, 'occupied' by the British, so anything that smacks of 'regaining' the islands gets votes (even though they've never actually held the islands). It's a bit surprising that this has happened now, since Argentina has only just held a general election, but maybe the resultant coalition relies on giving apparent weight to the pre-election promises of a few nutters? (cf the UK?!)

Chile has often supported the UK and the Falkland Islands against the other South American countries that ally with Argentina. (They don't get on!) That is why Thatcher honoured Pinochet in spite of his appalling record in human rights etc.

 

This whole thing is really only posturing. Although the media talk of 25 'ships' flying the Islands flag, they are mostly small fishing boats, and very few FI flagged vessels would ever go as far as to South America, let alone to these 3 countries. So in practical reality it means virtually nothing. However we must be careful not to overlook such posturing, and to be seen to ignore it. That was the mistake Thatcher made before 1982 with similar posturing, encouraging Argentina to think we wouldn't react to an invasion. That mistake cost many lives and many millions of pounds in a war that might never have happened had the UK reacted more strongly earlier.

 

Such gestures will occur every time an Argentinian politician wants to score points in his/her domestic politics, especially if an election is due. Argentinians are taught from the cradle that 'the Malvinas' are theirs, 'occupied' by the British, so anything that smacks of 'regaining' the islands gets votes (even though they've never actually held the islands). It's a bit surprising that this has happened now, since Argentina has only just held a general election, but maybe the resultant coalition relies on giving apparent weight to the pre-election promises of a few nutters? (cf the UK?!)

Good post. The key to it all is of course, as you have touched on yourself, is that the UK govt make sure they never for one milisecond let the resolve they demonstrate in the direction of Argentina with regards to the Falklands to slip.

I've just read somewhere that the UK Government is funding a significant airfield building exercise in St. Helena. This sounds to me like a Plan B over the Ascension Island replenishment/reinforcement route, since perhaps the US cannot be relied upon to allow access (bizarre considering its ours, but apparently it took direct intervention from Caspar Weinberger to get the USAF to let our Victors and Vulcans use the base in 1982).

Cameron has to do something about this. Argentina is going to keep upping the ante. If he loses the Falklands, his party will be out for a generation.

 

We need to send some additional RAF presence down for the duration (suggest a flight of 4 x Tornado GR4s with anti-shipping missiles), and up the sporadic RN presence, maybe another patrol boat.

 

It seems to refer only to the 4 core Mercosur countries, which at least means Chile is not involved.

The RAF has no specialist anti-shipping missiles for Tornedo in the Exocet/Harpoon class since the withdraw of 'Sea Eagle' over a decade ago. But you are essence correct, with the Royal Navy on its knees almost, the real defence of the Falklands now depends largly upon the runway at Mt Pleasant airport - take that out and things could get very ugly, very quickly.

The RAF has no specialist anti-shipping missiles for Tornedo in the Exocet/Harpoon class since the withdraw of 'Sea Eagle' over a decade ago. But you are essence correct, with the Royal Navy on its knees almost, the real defence of the Falklands now depends largly upon the runway at Mt Pleasant airport - take that out and things could get very ugly, very quickly.

But that would require the Argentinian airforce crossing 250miles of open sea to get there. The only way I see them doing that with a sure fire measure of success is a large formation of aircraft, because the Typhoons would dispatch a small formation.

Our intelligence services would pick up on such an operations preparation and by the time they got in the air they would be dealing with 24 Typhoons, not 4.

But that would require the Argentinian airforce crossing 250miles of open sea to get there. The only way I see them doing that with a sure fire measure of success is a large formation of aircraft, because the Typhoons would dispatch a small formation.

 

Our intelligence services would pick up on such an operations preparation and by the time they got in the air they would be dealing with 24 Typhoons, not 4.

I hope you're right, but our intelligence services let us down badly in 1982 and history has a habit of repeating itself. The Argies would face a formidable military problem in retaking the Falklands for sure, but what if a covert special forces raid were to crator the runway say ?

Everything depends on that runway - lose it (if only for a few hours maybe) and the islands could be lost. Given the run down (carrier less) state of the navy the prospects of our mounting another operation of the scale we managed 30 years ago look remote.

I hope you're right, but our intelligence services let us down badly in 1982 and history has a habit of repeating itself. The Argies would face a formidable military problem in retaking the Falklands for sure, but what if a covert special forces raid were to crator the runway say ?

 

Everything depends on that runway - lose it (if only for a few hours maybe) and the islands could be lost. Given the run down (carrier less) state of the navy the prospects of our mounting another operation of the scale we managed 30 years ago look remote.

The loss of the carriers is a red herring here. They were useful for retaking the islands, but the key this time would be to not lose them in the first place. Since it took the Task Force at least 2 weeks to get there last time, carriers are of no use in that case. Yes, we are dependent on the intelligence services doing their job this time. I am hoping we have a satellite taking lots of nice pictures sat in full view of the Argy airforce bases in Tierra Del Fuego or wherever they are. Not sure a ground covert operation is a realistic threat.

Obama weighed in on this earlier in the year, mostly on the side of the Argentinians.

Bit hypocritical, in my view. They've administered Guam for less time, and they don't seem to mind the British presence in Diego Garcia.

The UK has very little moral right to the Falklands in reality - I'm sure that if the Isle of Wight had Argentine sovereignity the UK would be up in arms (!) - but very much more so if big reserves of oil were suspected to be within the boundaries. The scale is pretty similar in relative distances per size of country. I'm not suggesting that sovereignity should be fought over but does the UK really have any moral negotiating position?

The UK has very little moral right to the Falklands in reality - I'm sure that if the Isle of Wight had Argentine sovereignity the UK would be up in arms (!) - but very much more so if big reserves of oil were suspected to be within the boundaries. The scale is pretty similar in relative distances per size of country. I'm not suggesting that sovereignity should be fought over but does the UK really have any moral negotiating position?

Geographically, you have a very good point. However, the islanders apparently want to be administered by the United Kingdom, which provides some degree of moral authority.

The UK has very little moral right to the Falklands in reality - I'm sure that if the Isle of Wight had Argentine sovereignity the UK would be up in arms (!) - but very much more so if big reserves of oil were suspected to be within the boundaries. The scale is pretty similar in relative distances per size of country. I'm not suggesting that sovereignity should be fought over but does the UK really have any moral negotiating position?[/QUOTE]

 

We have both a strong legal and moral case - as the Falklands Islands inhabitants would no doubt testify !

The UK has very little moral right to the Falklands in reality - I'm sure that if the Isle of Wight had Argentine sovereignity the UK would be up in arms (!) - but very much more so if big reserves of oil were suspected to be within the boundaries. The scale is pretty similar in relative distances per size of country. I'm not suggesting that sovereignity should be fought over but does the UK really have any moral negotiating position?[/QUOTE]

 

Yes we do.

 

1. The history. See link below ,as I don't have time to re-hash. In short Argentina has no strong legal claim over islands a good 300 miles off its nearest bit of coast. (It is some 900 miles from Port Stanley to Buenos Aires)

 

http://www.falklands.info/history/history1.html

 

2. The principle of self-determination, as recognised by the UN. The Islanders want to remain connected to the UK. They are nearly all of British descent. (Some are 8 or 9 generations from original settlers.) There is no Argentinian 'native' population under occupied rule. Self-determination is considered the over-riding principle of international law regarding this.

The UK has very little moral right to the Falklands in reality - I'm sure that if the Isle of Wight had Argentine sovereignity the UK would be up in arms (!) - but very much more so if big reserves of oil were suspected to be within the boundaries. The scale is pretty similar in relative distances per size of country. I'm not suggesting that sovereignity should be fought over but does the UK really have any moral negotiating position?

P.S. On that basis ought we to give the French the Channel Islands?

P.S. On that basis ought we to give the French the Channel Islands?

Gibraltar to Spain, Malta and the list goes on...

If we are looking at the principle that the islanders have, down the generations, become the indigenous population of the island then they would have the right to UN protection as their own entity rather than a UK outpost...wouldn't they?

I hope you're right, but our intelligence services let us down badly in 1982 and history has a habit of repeating itself. The Argies would face a formidable military problem in retaking the Falklands for sure, but what if a covert special forces raid were to crator the runway say ?

 

Everything depends on that runway - lose it (if only for a few hours maybe) and the islands could be lost. Given the run down (carrier less) state of the navy the prospects of our mounting another operation of the scale we managed 30 years ago look remote.

The loss of the carriers is a red herring here. They were useful for retaking the islands, but the key this time would be to not lose them in the first place. Since it took the Task Force at least 2 weeks to get there last time, carriers are of no use in that case. Yes, we are dependent on the intelligence services doing their job this time. I am hoping we have a satellite taking lots of nice pictures sat in full view of the Argy airforce bases in Tierra Del Fuego or wherever they are. Not sure a ground covert operation is a realistic threat.

But we do have aircraft carriers.

That nice M. Sarkozy is letting us use his fleet. And I'm sure France will not 'twiddle its thumbs...'

The plan to share aircraft carriers looks as if it will be quite ambitious. David Cameron talked of developing an "integrated strike force" to be used in jointly agreed operations.

At the same time both sides are saying they will have a veto on the use of their carrier. This raises the "South Atlantic question".

What would happen, for example, if Britain needed the only available carrier, which happened to be the French one, to defend some threat to the Falklands? And the same for the French with the British carrier of course.

President Nicolas Sarkozy evaded a query on this, saying that France would not "twiddle its thumbs", though that is precisely what it did in 1982.

It is perhaps a mark of the confidence between the two countries that they do not think this will be a real problem

Good job we've got a stable relationship with the French. I just hope historians won't be looking back in centuries to come asking questions of how we could get into such a situation.

Geographically, you have a very good point.

No he doesnt. There is no right to land 300 miles off your coast and the wishes of the islanders should be the paramount determinant.

No he doesnt. There is no right to land 300 miles off your coast and the wishes of the islanders should be the paramount determinant.

Fair enough - didn't realise it was that far off the coast.

And yep, self-determination trumps the lot.

Good job we've got a stable relationship with the French.

Especially as they sold the Argies the Mirages, Super Etendards, and Exocets used in 1982.

But we do have aircraft carriers.

 

That nice M. Sarkozy is letting us use his fleet. And I'm sure France will not 'twiddle its thumbs...'

 

Good job we've got a stable relationship with the French. I just hope historians won't be looking back in centuries to come asking questions of how we could get into such a situation.

So when are the Argies moving in?

Gibraltar to Spain, Malta and the list goes on...

 

If we are looking at the principle that the islanders have, down the generations, become the indigenous population of the island then they would have the right to UN protection as their own entity rather than a UK outpost...wouldn't they?

Errm.... they do. The islanders do have the support of UN resolutions in remaining separate from Argentina, and have chosen not to be independent of the UK. And just to reiterate there was never any true indigenous population of the islands. They were uninhabited when first discovered by Europeans, and have been occupied continuously by people of British descent and have been under various forms of British rule, since 1830 something. Do read the link I gave before on the history. http://www.falklands.info/history/narra.html That site also tells you about life on the Islands now. You can see just how Britsh the people are.

dronskisaint, I cant even start to debunk your comment, it is wrong in so many ways. Geographical, historical, legal, etc etc. I'll let others with greater patience explain.....

As for the carrier-share idea with the French, well that was always going to be a one-way street, just like their resgination from the military strucutre of NATO in 1966 (aka, if we get attacked, NATO must help us, if any part of the rest of NATO gets attacked, go f**k yourself). I really do wonder how the rest of the world puts up with the French and the way they see things.

What worries me most is that our carrier-trained pilots are very dependent on the French, their Rafales and their carrier CdG to "keep their hand in" until QE goes oeprational (God knows when)

Especially as they sold the Argies the Mirages, Super Etendards, and Exocets used in 1982.

To be fair, we also sold them Canberra bombers, Type 42 frigates, Sea Dart missiles, loads of other hardware, and an AIRCRAFT CARRIER (Vienticinco de Mayo, ex HMV Venerable)

EDIT : Actually, the carrier came via the Dutch Navy.

Errm.... they do. The islanders do have the support of UN resolutions in remaining separate from Argentina, and have chosen not to be independent of the UK. And just to reiterate there was never any true indigenous population of the islands. They were uninhabited when first discovered by Europeans, and have been occupied continuously by people of British descent and have been under various forms of British rule, since 1830 something. Do read the link I gave before on the history. http://www.falklands.info/history/narra.html That site also tells you about life on the Islands now. You can see just how Britsh the people are.

That's good then...if they are independent and, as they are such a long way from Argentina they would not expect to be defended by an island they have historical links but not sovereign connection to that is many thousands of miles away.

I'm not doubting how British they feel (the Antipodeans, for example, use a largely British model of so many things within their countries)- just questioning how it can be considered that the UK has a greater geographic or moral claim than the Argentinians. If they are genuinely independent then it's not an issue for anyone other than the parties concerned and the UN should anything that breaches their protocol occur. At the moment there's nothing but a fart in a thunderstorm size resolution that is largely driven by the prospect of oil riches...this self-governing independent nation with oil riches will be able to choose who they pay to defend them.

Fair enough - didn't realise it was that far off the coast.

 

And yep, self-determination trumps the lot.

unless your a Palestinian........

unless your a Palestinian........

Onwership of that land is disputed between two ancient peoples with equal claim, imho. Totally different from the Falklands, which have been British since time immemorial.

That's good then...if they are independent and, as they are such a long way from Argentina they would not expect to be defended by an island they have historical links but not sovereign connection to that is many thousands of miles away.

 

I'm not doubting how British they feel (the Antipodeans, for example, use a largely British model of so many things within their countries)- just questioning how it can be considered that the UK has a greater geographic or moral claim than the Argentinians. If they are genuinely independent then it's not an issue for anyone other than the parties concerned and the UN should anything that breaches their protocol occur. At the moment there's nothing but a fart in a thunderstorm size resolution that is largely driven by the prospect of oil riches...this self-governing independent nation with oil riches will be able to choose who they pay to defend them.

Are you actually reading anybody else's posts? They are not independent and choose not to be. As to the legal claim, for the third time, try reading http://www.falklands.info/history/narra.html It answers your questions quite clearly.

But that would require the Argentinian airforce crossing 250miles of open sea to get there. The only way I see them doing that with a sure fire measure of success is a large formation of aircraft, because the Typhoons would dispatch a small formation.

 

Our intelligence services would pick up on such an operations preparation and by the time they got in the air they would be dealing with 24 Typhoons, not 4.

The argie airforce

The FAA operates 181 aircraft of various types (2011). This includes 15 fighter aircraft and 26 ground-attack aircraft. In addition the FAA has 24 turboprop ground-attack aircraft.

The turbo props are Pucara developed for COIN operations so the full argie airforce of combat planes if they are all operational is 41 mostly Mirage and Lockheed Martin A-4AR Fightinghawks. Hardly state of the art.

The UK has 80 odd typhoons with anthor 80 on order and 136 tornados...even a small portion of that deployed to the islands on top of the typhoons already there should be enough to put the Argies off unless they are completely nuts (which they aren't)

If we go to war with them again we shouldn't pussy foot around like last time, we need to just stuff a few missiles into Buenos Aires.

The argie airforce

 

The FAA operates 181 aircraft of various types (2011). This includes 15 fighter aircraft and 26 ground-attack aircraft. In addition the FAA has 24 turboprop ground-attack aircraft.

 

The turbo props are Pucara developed for COIN operations so the full argie airforce of combat planes if they are all operational is 41 mostly Mirage and Lockheed Martin A-4AR Fightinghawks. Hardly state of the art.

 

The UK has 80 odd typhoons with anthor 80 on order and 136 tornados...even a small portion of that deployed to the islands on top of the typhoons already there should be enough to put the Argies off unless they are completely nuts (which they aren't)

Didnt know the FAA was in such a bad state nowadays.

Onwership of that land is disputed between two ancient peoples with equal claim, imho. Totally different from the Falklands, which have been British since time immemorial.

These 'ancient peoples' are, on the one hand, Palestinians (or more legally precisely Israeli Arabs, since they are Israeli citizens) whose documented legal rights to their homes in East Jerusalem for example failed to protect them from the evict-and-demolish squads, and on the other hand, Russians, Americans and other emigres. The violent evictions in East Jerusalem have been going on for decades, in a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing. East Jerusalem is a microcosm for the systematic dispossession that has been going on since 1948 that was 'necessary' for the emigres arriving in such waves after the second world war.

That there is a deep-rooted injustice at the heart of the 'Palestinian Question' is not disputed by any other than rabid Zionists. The rights and wrongs of the campaigns against each other is a separate matter, though just as tragic. (As someone who's been into Palestinian refugee camps in Jordan, the price that ordinary people have paid for this is horrendous.)

So, yes, I agree with you: this is totally different to the Falklands.

Are you actually reading anybody else's posts? They are not independent and choose not to be. As to the legal claim, for the third time, try reading http://www.falklands.info/history/narra.html It answers your questions quite clearly.

Apparently not, sorry, mea culpa...apologies for misreading the 'not independent' as independent.

I would still question the geographic, moral and now also financial merit in supporting militarily any further intervention...financially it would be cheaper to give them all compensation to move elsewhere - one figure that the statisticians seem to agree on is that the population is below 3k or about half the population of Netley, for instance. If population is to be the driver...let's give every adult a million to move back to the mother country...it will be much cheaper and less life-expending than another war!

If, however, the geographical and population questions being considered as being surmountable (moral 'ownership' being the same, assumedly as correctable as the rest of the former Empire i.e. not any more) - it just leaves oil riches to fight over - and there would have to be a lot that weren't negotiable in any other way, to make that stick...particularly morally.

As anyone who has ever been there will testify, they're not worth a drop of blood.

God forsaken sh ithole.

As anyone who has ever been there will testify, they're not worth a drop of blood.

 

God forsaken sh ithole.

You could apply that logic to Grimsby, Hull half of Glasgow and 20 other major places in the UK. There is more logic to defending the Falklands than troops in Afghanistan or Iraq.

You could apply that logic to Grimsby, Hull half of Glasgow and 20 other major places in the UK. There is more logic to defending the Falklands than troops in Afghanistan or Iraq.

There is no logic in Iraq, Afghanistan or the Falkland Islands.

These 'ancient peoples' are, on the one hand, Palestinians (or more legally precisely Israeli Arabs, since they are Israeli citizens) whose documented legal rights to their homes in East Jerusalem for example failed to protect them from the evict-and-demolish squads, and on the other hand, Russians, Americans and other emigres. The violent evictions in East Jerusalem have been going on for decades, in a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing. East Jerusalem is a microcosm for the systematic dispossession that has been going on since 1948 that was 'necessary' for the emigres arriving in such waves after the second world war.

 

That there is a deep-rooted injustice at the heart of the 'Palestinian Question' is not disputed by any other than rabid Zionists. The rights and wrongs of the campaigns against each other is a separate matter, though just as tragic. (As someone who's been into Palestinian refugee camps in Jordan, the price that ordinary people have paid for this is horrendous.)

 

So, yes, I agree with you: this is totally different to the Falklands.

Whatever.

As anyone who has ever been there will testify, they're not worth a drop of blood.

 

God forsaken sh ithole.

There are several thousand residents who disagree with you, and would find your self-centred attitude insulting.

Whatever.

What a master debater you are!

What a master debater you are!

I am sure it is his lifelong ambition to be considered an important poster when it comes to dicussing politics on an annoynomous football forum.

I am sure it is his lifelong ambition to be considered an important poster when it comes to dicussing politics on an annoynomous football forum.

What should we discuss then Turkish darling? Needlework? Or how some posters on here aren't the knuckle-headed, racist-but-don't-call-me-that, schoolyard bullies that you clearly aspire to be?

What should we discuss then Turkish darling? Needlework? Or how some posters on here aren't the knuckle-headed, racist-but-don't-call-me-that, schoolyard bullies that you clearly aspire to be?

How about best medications and therapists available on the market? You'll excel at that subject.

Oh dear. That rather proves my point.

Oh dear. That rather proves my point.

How pleasing it is not to disapoint. Although quite who would give any value to the views of a middle aged, pill popping mad man with a persecution & superiority complex remains a mystery. THe only person that values your views appears to be yourself. Although prehaps we should be nice to you, we dont want you going all Edmund Kemper on us.

I am sure it is his lifelong ambition to be considered an important poster when it comes to dicussing politics on an annoynomous football forum.

I think that you've invented a new word.

People that you don't know but who get on your nerves.

I think that you've invented a new word.

 

People that you don't know but who get on your nerves.

How apt for this forum.

 

Our intelligence services would pick up on such an operations preparation and by the time they got in the air they would be dealing with 24 Typhoons, not 4.

you would be correct

Obama weighed in on this earlier in the year, mostly on the side of the Argentinians.

 

Bit hypocritical, in my view. They've administered Guam for less time, and they don't seem to mind the British presence in Diego Garcia.

probably because they are british islands..???

the falklands would be over quicker than last time....in our favour

god knows how many lessons were harshly learned last time that are practiced and practiced again and again since