howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#1
there have been rumblings about this for some time, another problem for dave and nick or ed and nick to ponder.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/22/britain-asleep-over-falkland-islandsGuest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#2
I saw a headline the other day that spoke of ports in S America not allowing ships that are Falkland Island registered to berth etc.
This is something that is better dealt with than left for another bout of glory seeking.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#3
Very true......................someone might need it...............perhaps fox and his friend is enroute......before the FO
again ?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#4
the problem is tom that by all accounts the foreign office are ignoring warnings about the problem of an emerging south america where al countries support each other.
the islands will always be an achilles heel for argentina and now that oil and minerals are likely to be in abundance there then it could lead to a joint expeditionary force taking them back.
wouldn't take very much.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#5
Cameron`s lack of diplomacy raises the stakes with provocative statement.Best he leaves the matter in Hagues and the
Foreign Office hands.We all know we will not give up the Falklands and defend it if necessary but shoving it down
Argentina`s throat will not help.
Headline seeking Flashman will only antagonize the situation.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#6
dave chose the wrong time to make the statement, reg is right - best left to the diplomatic people.
the thing that stood out was he only said about not renegotiating sovereignty, he said nothing about defending the islands.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#7
easy answer have a refarendum,a consultaion then let the argies have the islands but the uk to keep the oill rights,and useing the falklanders as oill workers.a win win stiuation.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#8
bit of a war of words between the two governments, let's hope it just stays like that.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/18/falkland-islands-argentina-anniversary-warGuest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#9
DC picked the perfect time to say what he said. He was absolutely accurate too, it is the Argies trying to act like a colonial power in wanting to force the inhabitants to accept them. Britain is respecting the UN right to self-determination.
This will not come to a shooting war, the Argentinians are even weaker militarily than when they lost the 1982 war while the Islands are much better defended than before the invasion even without re-enforcement.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#10
"the UN right to self-determination"
How are things re:Palestine?
None of this apparent bluster (I missed PMQs) answers the point I made in post #2.
It must be easier, and not so fraught with 'danger, to talk with Argentina and the rest than it was to engage with the IRA.
'Tough-talk' often ensmallens the speaker. Pekinese and Chihuahuas don't half talk-tough.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#11
Tom, whenever there is sabre-rattling going on there are usually diplomatic initiatives happening behind the scenes. The Argies only want the Falklands because there's oil.
And what has Palestine to do with it?
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#12
The Falkland Islands never belonged to Argentina, and are very distant from that country. What if Colombia claimed half the Caribean island states, which are closer to Colombia than the Falklands are to Argentina, or Mexico claimed the Bahamas?
It's all just Argentine mumbo jumbo and colonialism, but for something they never had. Indian tribes never lived on the Falklands, and most Argentines descend from Spannish and Italian settlers.
The Americans are our allies and would soon tell the Argentines where to get off!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#13
always makes me smile when the spanish lecture us on gibraltar whilst having two enclaves in morrocco.
dave was right but not diplomatic in his comments on colonialism from our argentine friends.
Guest 686- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 556
#14
Talking with Argentina hasn't worked in the past!!
As soon as it was announced that the MOD were doing away with the Harrier and our aircraft carriers my first thoughts were that it was an open invitation to Argentina to have another go at the Falklands. I don't think we've got a snowball's chance in hell of stopping them without some major assistance from the USA - and that ain't going to happen. We have no way of reinforcing the very small garrison on the islands in a hurry and, to be perfectly frank, I doubt HMG would even bother to try - just make a lot of noise at the UN instead.
Phil West
If at first you don't succeed, use a BIGGER hammer!!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#15
i tend to agree phil, the states will not help us - we know that from last time and the president has made clear that he doesn't see his country policing the world in future.
another issue is this has become a south american thing rather than an argentine one.
Guest 686- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 556
#16
Maybe we should hope that other South American countries will be able to dissuade Argentine from doing anything silly, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Phil West
If at first you don't succeed, use a BIGGER hammer!!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#17
Phil - we have Typhoon fighters (4, I believe) stationed on the Falklands and, while few in number, they are more than a match for the old and worn out Argentinian jets that would be operating at the extremes of their range. There is no way Argentina can invade without air superiority, plus the RN with a frigate based there and about 1000 troops, not to mention an (alleged) nuclear sub lurking, we present a far more formidable problem for them if they want to have a go. The airfield also enables a quick airlift of the quick response battalion to support them.
As an ex RN matelo you will remember that we only ever had a platoon of Marines (about 40 men) stationed there up to the '82 war. When they did invade was when the platoons stationed there were being swapped so we actually had 80 men to defend the Islands and no aircraft.
Guest 686- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 556
#18
You may be right Barry, but the Argentinians could, I believe, overwhelm the islands by force if they were prepared to accept a few losses in the process. 4 aircraft and a frigate wouldn't stand up to a huge sustained assault for long and reinforcements from the UK would take a while to organise let alone get them there. Don't forget where Argentina gets it weapons from either - we're not looking at bows and arrows here!! Just one major assault which takes out the airport and we're up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
Maybe a pre-emptive first strike....?
Phil West
If at first you don't succeed, use a BIGGER hammer!!
Alec Sheldon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 18 Aug 2008
- Posts: 1,037
#19
Waste of time having a nuclear deterrent then. Might just as well get rid of it, that will save us a few bob.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#20
I just did a Google to check on the Argentinian Air Force strength which would be crucial if they were to invade. Any preparations for an attack of sufficient size to overwhelm the British forces could not be hidden and done in secret, specially given their limited capabilities.
Their most modern aircraft are 32 A4 Fightinghawks - essentially upgraded 1960's vintage Skyhawks, They have a 'downgraded' F16 radar and are used in the attack role.
Their air defence are 39 Daggars and 28 Mirage all of 1960's and 1970's vintage and without upgraded radar capability.
Chances are that only a small proportion of such old aircraft will be serviceable as well.
These aircraft would be working at the extremes of their range and they have no in-flight refuelling capability. Even 4 Typhoons, among the most deadly air superiority fighters in the world, would have no trouble dealing with these old outdated aircraft.
What with a sub lurking and looking for the hulls of any invasion force to sink and the 1000 plus British troops, supported by a frigate off-shore and the Falkland Island Defence Force, needing only to defend the airfield for the 48 hours it would take to reinforce them with over 500 men of the quick response battalion - an invasion really is a no-go.
Sabre rattling for domestic consumption is all we will see from Argentina and as long as they get a robust response from the UK that is and they have had that.