New Falklands War Brewing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keesje, you clearly have your own agenda here and your partiality is clear to see. Regarding the preposterous press release that you posted, any independent observer who takes that at face value and see the Uk as the aggressor here would have to be very naive indeed.
Some of the more ludicrous points:
'Britain militarised the S Atlantic.' Until 1982 the extent of British military in FI was a small handful of Royal Marines. There are surely greater numbers of more heavily armed soldiers standing guard outside various government buildings in The Hague or Buenos Aires. The military presence was only increased after a war initiated by.... Argentina. So who militarised the S Atlantic?
'Argentina's peaceful claim on the islands'. Peaceful? They came guns blazing last time, and would again if they thought they stood a chance.
'Britain's colonial aggression.' Argentina's 'colonial' argument is so tangled up in hypocrisy that it cannot be taken seriously. No indigenous people existed let alone were displaced. Argentina didn't exist when we successfully settled the islands. Argentina could only have had control of the islands through colonialism. Argentina only exists through colonialism. Perhaps they should lead by example and pack up back to Spain and Italy, leaving Argentina to the native S Americans.
UN, International law, blah, blah, blah. They conveniently ignore the UN right of self determination. There will be no conflict or bloodshed if this right is respected by Argentina. There are no people with a greater claim on the islands than the UK and the islanders, the only successful non-transient settlers of the otherwise uninhabited islands. The Argentine claim is based solely on proximity, which is basically irrelevant. By this principal they should invade Chile.
Cristina would do well to focus on problems within her actual, not imagined, borders.
Some of the more ludicrous points:
'Britain militarised the S Atlantic.' Until 1982 the extent of British military in FI was a small handful of Royal Marines. There are surely greater numbers of more heavily armed soldiers standing guard outside various government buildings in The Hague or Buenos Aires. The military presence was only increased after a war initiated by.... Argentina. So who militarised the S Atlantic?
'Argentina's peaceful claim on the islands'. Peaceful? They came guns blazing last time, and would again if they thought they stood a chance.
'Britain's colonial aggression.' Argentina's 'colonial' argument is so tangled up in hypocrisy that it cannot be taken seriously. No indigenous people existed let alone were displaced. Argentina didn't exist when we successfully settled the islands. Argentina could only have had control of the islands through colonialism. Argentina only exists through colonialism. Perhaps they should lead by example and pack up back to Spain and Italy, leaving Argentina to the native S Americans.
UN, International law, blah, blah, blah. They conveniently ignore the UN right of self determination. There will be no conflict or bloodshed if this right is respected by Argentina. There are no people with a greater claim on the islands than the UK and the islanders, the only successful non-transient settlers of the otherwise uninhabited islands. The Argentine claim is based solely on proximity, which is basically irrelevant. By this principal they should invade Chile.
Cristina would do well to focus on problems within her actual, not imagined, borders.
Last edited by Torque Tonight; 7th Jan 2013 at 12:16.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AS HAS ALREADY BEEN POINTED OUT, NUCLEAR POWERED IS DIFFERENT FROM NUCLEAR ARMED!
I never said anything about miss piggy, don't tar everyone with the same brush!
Torque Tonight? My own agenda?! Not that I know of.. It seems to me in (possible) war situations like these the truth is always the first victim.
IMO every person has the duty to inform himself rather then adapt and run with the mob. And recognize "with us or against us" patriotic emotions. Something the press mostly doesn't dare.
I think everything Argentine says about the Malvinas is meant to lindicate that they haven't given up and will keep inflicting PR damage on the UK as long as an agreement isn't reached.
Now, what about Queen Elizabeth Land?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Very close to the Theatre of Dreams!
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to correct you Biggus. The UK send Vanguard-class to Falklands. They are build to carry Tridents.
BTW you still havent answered my question
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I have to correct you Biggus. The UK send Vanguard-class to Falklands. They are build to carry Tridents.
Prime Minister David Cameron has personally approved plans for one of the Navy’s most sophisticated Trafalgar-class submarines to sail to the region.
So your own posts show you to be either militarily ignorant, illiterate or duplicitous. Which is it?
sorry, but the RN has never, ever sent a Vanguard anywhere near the FI. its total, absolute bollocks.
let me make that crystal clear - no Vanguard class sub has gone within 5000 miles (at the very least) of the Falklands. ever.
the only person ever to make that claim was the Argentine gimp at the UN who claimed that the UK was building up a military power in the FI to attack Lat Am. no one else, ever, and with not a shred of evidence to back up the claim.
so, either you admit its bollocks and that you're talking about **** you have no idea about, or you're knowing peddalling Argentine government propaganda...
Dutch my greasy ringpeice.
let me make that crystal clear - no Vanguard class sub has gone within 5000 miles (at the very least) of the Falklands. ever.
the only person ever to make that claim was the Argentine gimp at the UN who claimed that the UK was building up a military power in the FI to attack Lat Am. no one else, ever, and with not a shred of evidence to back up the claim.
so, either you admit its bollocks and that you're talking about **** you have no idea about, or you're knowing peddalling Argentine government propaganda...
Dutch my greasy ringpeice.
keesje
Sorry to disillusion you, but how do you know that the UK send Vanguard subs to the South Atlantic?
Where any nation (UK, US, France, China or Russia) sends nuclear armed subs is usually very highly classified. No-one would announce where an SSBN would go, it defeats the logic of nuclear deterrence if you tell people where they are (particularly as they don't need to be anywhere near any country to threaten that country with Trident missiles). There is, as has been pointed out, a big difference between nuclear powered and nuclear armed. I am afraid you are simply wrong on this one.
Sorry to disillusion you, but how do you know that the UK send Vanguard subs to the South Atlantic?
Where any nation (UK, US, France, China or Russia) sends nuclear armed subs is usually very highly classified. No-one would announce where an SSBN would go, it defeats the logic of nuclear deterrence if you tell people where they are (particularly as they don't need to be anywhere near any country to threaten that country with Trident missiles). There is, as has been pointed out, a big difference between nuclear powered and nuclear armed. I am afraid you are simply wrong on this one.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Age: 56
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Vanguard bit is irrelevant. With weapons of a range of 7,000 miles they hardly need to get close to Argentina to be considered a threat - not that in a million years they would ever be used as an offensive weapon.
The Argentines are just deluded. Rob Liddle wrote a good piece in the Times about it yesterday basically summising that no american country can ever make complaints about colonialism seeing as the countries that now make up the continent all have an origin as colonies of european powers, the north as much as the south and central bits - and perhaps they still suffer from the latin jealousy complex because the countries that speak English have done a lot better than those that don't.
The Argentines are just deluded. Rob Liddle wrote a good piece in the Times about it yesterday basically summising that no american country can ever make complaints about colonialism seeing as the countries that now make up the continent all have an origin as colonies of european powers, the north as much as the south and central bits - and perhaps they still suffer from the latin jealousy complex because the countries that speak English have done a lot better than those that don't.
And on top of that, the range of a Trident missile- at least as far as is available in the public domain - doesn't exactly require an SSBN to go anywhere near Argentina. Indeed, what we might call the 'Wikipedia Stated Range' suggests that it wouldn't need to be anywhere near Ascension Island (even the USN website concedes the fact that it has a range of over 4,000 nm).
Edit - beaten to it!
Edit - beaten to it!
Last edited by Archimedes; 7th Jan 2013 at 13:18.
Just a quick point keesje,
If the UK wanted to nuke Argentina, they would't have to go anywhere near the South Atlantic to do it. They could probably do so from Faslane, while still berthed.
So any hyperbole about nuclear this and that in the South Atlantic is just distractionary fluff.
If the UK wanted to nuke Argentina, they would't have to go anywhere near the South Atlantic to do it. They could probably do so from Faslane, while still berthed.
So any hyperbole about nuclear this and that in the South Atlantic is just distractionary fluff.
The Antilles were created when we did slavery from our West African Colonies, very successfully, a black page in our history.
First they were governed from Suriname. We would honor the Antilles independence as soon they want to. They love to bash the Netherlands but sofar hold-off from independency.
Some choice quotes from the Brits:
We didn't start the last Falklands war, we just finished it.
Preventing the next one will be less costly to both nations.
Similarly we're not threatening to start another one, just cautioning that they really wouldn't be wise to start another one, for the same reason.
For both nations, no war will be a beneficial state of affairs. Argentina can hardly afford a war.
keejse: have to correct you Biggus. The UK send Vanguard-class to Falklands. They are build to carry Tridents.
The UK can hardly afford a War either.....and might be a bit strapped to fight a Second Falklands War.
There is but a single Vulcan flyable...able to be made flyable.....so there is hope.
How many Aircraft Carriers in the RN inventory?
How many Harriers left in the inventory of the RN and RAF?
It shall be a very much different War than last time it would appear.
Balloons on sticks at three paces Gentlemen!
There is but a single Vulcan flyable...able to be made flyable.....so there is hope.
How many Aircraft Carriers in the RN inventory?
How many Harriers left in the inventory of the RN and RAF?
It shall be a very much different War than last time it would appear.
Balloons on sticks at three paces Gentlemen!
Maybe it is time to take a lesson from the Swiss and make everybody a member of the "reserves" complete with rifle, and basic ammo loadout. While your at it send a squadron of Apaches down with the "other Prince" don't need runways for that.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, no nuclear armed subs to the south sofar. (Does anyone know for sure?) Although some want so. Falklands War | Whale Oil Beef Hooked | A blog by Cameron Slater
Btw the Argentine minster was talking about a nuclear weapon. Is a nuclear powered sub a weapon?
Re: the more testosterone driven individuals, the personal attacks are against the forum rules.
Now, what about Queen Elizabeth Land? Makes you proud?
Btw the Argentine minster was talking about a nuclear weapon. Is a nuclear powered sub a weapon?
Re: the more testosterone driven individuals, the personal attacks are against the forum rules.
Now, what about Queen Elizabeth Land? Makes you proud?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Very close to the Theatre of Dreams!
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Btw the Argentine minster was talking about a nuclear weapon. Is a nuclear powered sub a weapon?
Still no answer to my question yet I see
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now, what about Queen Elizabeth Land? Makes you proud?
Still not answering adressing points we've raised Keesje. Oh dear.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Times a couple of days ago.
Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, President of Argentina, has taken out an advertisement in British newspapers that offers a new year history lesson on an old theme: she asserts that on January 3, 1833, the British Navy expelled Argentinian citizens from the Falklands Islands and began 180 years of illegal rule.
“Argentina was forcibly stripped of the Malvinas Islands”, she states, “in a blatant exercise of 19th century colonialism.”
In Argentina, this is the accepted view of the islands’ history, but it requires some modifications: no force was used in 1833, and so far from kicking the settlers out, the British tried to persuade them to stay; Britain’s claim to the islands begins long before 1833; some of the islands inhabitants were undoubtedly Argentinian cowboys, but there were also Uruguayan Indians, two Germans, a Frenchman, a Jamaican and at least two Britons, one of whom was the leader of the settlement and the other its storeman.
And Argentina was not yet Argentina, but the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata.
“Argentina was forcibly stripped of the Malvinas Islands”, she states, “in a blatant exercise of 19th century colonialism.”
In Argentina, this is the accepted view of the islands’ history, but it requires some modifications: no force was used in 1833, and so far from kicking the settlers out, the British tried to persuade them to stay; Britain’s claim to the islands begins long before 1833; some of the islands inhabitants were undoubtedly Argentinian cowboys, but there were also Uruguayan Indians, two Germans, a Frenchman, a Jamaican and at least two Britons, one of whom was the leader of the settlement and the other its storeman.
And Argentina was not yet Argentina, but the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata.
“in a blatant exercise of 19th century colonialism.”
Speaking as a Welshman though, I'd just like to point out that England is a product of 5th century colonialism. Just saying....
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
The UK can hardly afford a War either.....and might be a bit strapped to fight a Second Falklands War.
There is but a single Vulcan flyable...able to be made flyable.....so there is hope.
No, the Vulcan is civvy now with no bomb systems installed.
How many Aircraft Carriers in the RN inventory?
I believe HMS ILLUSTRIOUS & HMS OCEAN Still exist! However we have an airbase on the Falklands this time with Eurofighter Typhoons and the ability to reinforce at short notice! Defended by a British Army Garrison.
How many Harriers left in the inventory of the RN and RAF?
None, We could muster quite a few Apaches though!
It shall be a very much different War than last time it would appear.
Balloons on sticks at three paces Gentlemen!
How about cruise missiles landing on the Argentine Mainland?
There is but a single Vulcan flyable...able to be made flyable.....so there is hope.
No, the Vulcan is civvy now with no bomb systems installed.
How many Aircraft Carriers in the RN inventory?
I believe HMS ILLUSTRIOUS & HMS OCEAN Still exist! However we have an airbase on the Falklands this time with Eurofighter Typhoons and the ability to reinforce at short notice! Defended by a British Army Garrison.
How many Harriers left in the inventory of the RN and RAF?
None, We could muster quite a few Apaches though!
It shall be a very much different War than last time it would appear.
Balloons on sticks at three paces Gentlemen!
How about cruise missiles landing on the Argentine Mainland?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Age: 56
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Btw the Argentine minster was talking about a nuclear weapon. Is a nuclear powered sub a weapon?
When we were knocking on the door in 1806/7, they should have welcomed us with open arms as their country would probably now be on the same level as our other ex colonies instead of being basket cases.