New Falklands War Brewing

[Flightmech]

Theres a simple solution to this.

1. Give the Argies the Falklands, based on an agreement that Lionel Messi is given a full UK passport based on intelligence he has a Grandma born and still living in Kent.

2. Next World Cup, England V Argentina in the final. Messi scores the winner for England with a "hand of god".

3. Just shoot Morrissey anyway, who needs him

[hval]

Flightmech,

Give the Argies the Falklands back

How can you give the Falklands back to the Argentinians when they never owned them in the first place?

[Flightmech]

How can you give the Falklands back to the Argentinians when they never owned them in the first place?

Edited. It was supposed to be a joke (well like one but smaller):confused:

[hval]

Flightmech,

It was supposed to be a joke (well like one but smaller)

My apologies.

[Anthony Supplebottom]

Falkland Islands 'was nearly shared by Britain and Argentina'

Britain was on the verge of sharing the Falkland Islands with Argentina almost 40 years ago, with islanders having joint nationality, it was claimed on Tuesday.


The deal was accepted in 1974 by President Juan Domingo Perón with
"euphoria", but was never concluded because he died three weeks after the offer was made, according to a document seen by Argentine newspaper La Nacion.

Britain did not trust his wife and successor, María Estela Martínez, and so
the plan was dropped, the newspaper reported. Eight years later the two
countries went to war when Argentinian troops invaded the islands in 1982.


The "non-official document" from the Foreign Office, shows Britain offered "to settle the dispute about sovereignty".


"The British and Argentine flags would fly side by side and the official languages would be English and Spanish," the document states. "All 'belongers' of the island would possess dual nationality."


"Before final agreement the Islanders would have to be formally consulted and their acceptance sought by some form of popular representation.

"On this basis, Her Majesty's Government propose that, if the Argentine
Government agree, official or preliminary official talks should take place in Buenos Aires as soon as possible."

James Hutton, the British ambassador to Argentina, handed the note to Alberto Vignes, the Argentine foreign minister, at a meeting June 11, 1974.

When the Argentine president was informed of the offer, he reacted with
"euphoria", said Carlos Ortiz de Rozas, a diplomat in the Peron administration.

"(Vignes) confided in me that Peron had told him: 'Let's accept. Once we
have one foot in the Malvinas nobody will get us out and before long Argentina will have full sovereignty'" said Mr Ortiz de Rozas, 85.

However, Peron died from a heart attack having suffered pneumonia on July 1, and was succeeded by his dancer wife, known as Isabel. She proved incapable of uniting the country, and the military junta toppled her from power in a coup in 1976.

In 1980 Mr Ortiz de Rozas became ambassador to Britain, a position he still held when Argentina invaded the Falklands.

"As well as being a tragedy, the war was the wrong path, because concrete
steps had been taken to resolve the problem of sovereignty through peaceful means," he said.

A Foreign Office spokesman said: "This (document) does not detract from
Argentina's illegal and unjustified act of aggression in invading the islands, nor from our belief that the Falkland Islanders should have the final say in their own futures."

Tensions between the two countries have escalated in recent months in advance of April's 30th anniversary of Britain's successful war to liberate the Falklands.

Argentina's industry minister last month called for British imports to be
banned, in the latest attempt to compel Britain to negotiate over the
sovereignty of the islands.

Jeremy Browne, Foreign Office minister, on Tuesday denounced Argentina's "economic blockade" of the Falklands.

"Britain's position on this matter is very clear. We do not seek a dispute
with Argentina," Mr Browne said.

"But we have an absolute belief in the principle of self-determination. And we do not believe that an economic blockade of the Falklands is the right thing to do."


Falkland Islands 'was nearly shared by Britain and Argentina' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9141841/Falkland-Islands-was-nearly-shared-by-Britain-and-Argentina.html)

[Victor Inox]

on the tosser's left

I bet he can't wait for Palm Sunday celebrations :D

[Widger]

BBC News - Peru cancels Royal Navy visit over Falklands (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17442215)

That's the cocktail party off and the Captain's golfing trip cancelled then!

[TEEEJ]

ITV 1

21:00 Return to the Falklands
Thirty years after the Falklands War, three men travel back to the islands together. Veteran Simon Weston is given the opportunity to experience the stunning wildlife on Sea Lion Island, while for one-time war correspondent Michael Nicholson, it is a chance to witness the changes that have taken place since 1982. Former marine Nick Taylor has a poignant reason for his return - he found a camera left behind by an Argentinian soldier and wants to reunite the photos with their owner.

Also available on ITV +1 at 2200

After a bloody battle a Royal Marine found an enemy camera. Thirty years later Nick Taylor tracked down the Argentine soldier in the pictures | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2116389/After-bloody-battle-Royal-Marine-enemy-camera-Thirty-years-later-Nick-Taylor-tracked-Argentine-soldier-pictures.html)

[Milo Minderbinder]

Something to bear in mind was that the southern part of modern Argentina was never actually part of the Spanish empire. They never got that far, and the Mapuche Indians were able to hold them off until the late 1800's. It was really only when the Welsh settled in Patagonia that the Argentines and Chileans began to show an interest.
In 1860 the various Mapuche tribes got together and declared their own Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia - and appointed a frenchman as their king. The Chileans quickly moved in and deposed him, but since then the Kingdom still exists, though in exile in France. However the Kingdom predates any annexation of territory by Argentina or Chile.It also appears that the UK -at the time -recognised the Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia as the valid controlling power.
Wouldn't it be just deserts if the UK were to start a campaign at the UN to reinstate the Kingdom as the valid government, and to award compensation to the dispossesed Mapuche peoples, who have been subject to imposed rule by Argentina and Chile since 1862 and 1880 respectively?

Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia - Mapuche Portal - Index (http://www.mapuche-nation.org/english/html/kingdom/index.html)

Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia - Lomwiki, the micronation encyclopaedia (http://www.listofmicronations.com/lomwiki/index.php/Kingdom_of_Araucania_and_Patagonia)

Map of the Kingdom of Araucania and Patagoniahttp://www.araucanie.com/araucania/image005.jpg

[Courtney Mil]

A really great piece of history there, Milo. Thank you. And, let's face it, it wasn't too far displaced in time from when Argentina gave up it's brief claim on the islands. In fact, we'd probably inhabited the place the first time before they were even the country they are today.

Probably doesn't make any difference now, though. The point is, they are British and the Falkland Islanders want to remain so. End of story, I think.

[Churchills Ghost]

I sincerely believe Argentina are losing the plot in that these actions will only reinforce the concerns of many that the Argentinian government have little or no understanding of how to successfully order diplomatic relations. Moreover, their recent posturing on the issue of the Falklands makes them appear immature and possibly even desperate!

A group of British and American banks have been threatened with legal action by the Argentine government for advising and writing research reports about companies involved in the Falkland Islands’ £1.6bn oil industry

Argentina threatens to sue banks helping Falklands oil explorers as trade war with Britain escalates - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9178499/Argentina-threatens-to-sue-banks-helping-Falklands-oil-explorers-as-trade-war-with-Britain-escalates.html)

[Exrigger]

Don't worry it will be sorted soon as the government will see it as another saving for the defence budget by handing the Falklands back (they will also be seen in a good light on the world stage as we do seem to like apologising for our past history and giving things back) and withdraw the forces, negotiate over the oil and give most to Argentina and it's fawning, posturing neighbours and then close Ascension as why would we need that anymore.

They could then reduce the Typhoon future order by 4 as they would have 4 extra + support equipment and a few spares, oh and don't forget all the manpower and support savings.

[Anthony Supplebottom]

Exrigger be careful as with that line of thinking you could easily find yourself becoming the hero of Britain's left, possibly even nominated as candidate for leader of the LibDems! :bored:

[Courtney Mil]

Brian Hanrahan's Memories.

BBC News - Falklands 30: Brian Hanrahan's memories (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17542097)

[DADDY-OH!]

The Islands are more well defended than they were 30 years ago this very afternoon, and the Argies don't have the ability to go after the Islands with what they currently have in their inventories. But...

... it was with alarm that, whilst watching 'Question Time' last thursday noght, I saw the well respected, Left Wing 'Comedian Alexei Sayle' receiving applause from younger sections of the audience for suggesting a negotiated settlement with Argentina, thereby riding roughshod over the democratic rights of the Islanders. Also with another 'Darling of the Left' 'Gorgeous George' Galloway also courting Kirschner with hints of a negotiated solution.

The Argies AREN'T the threat. It's our own appeasing, Liberalist Lefties.

[Courtney Mil]

Hey, negotiate away. Let's all sit down together. We'll open with our position. The Falklands belong to Britain, the Islanders what to be British, we proved our resolve to keep them so 30 years ago. They will remain British. Now, what would you care to negotiate?

[NutLoose]

Ex rigger the British Government would never simply hand the Falklands over to Argentina without at least setting up a £1.5 billion trust fund to provide for the islanders, their needs, education and traumatic stress over the whole episode for at least the next 75 years, this would of course be paid to Argentina and administered by them.. :ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

I haven't read the thread as the standard bleet by their lordships is we couldn't retake the Falklands today.

Do they mean that if the status quo ante bellum exisited, ie we only had a couple of dozen RM in Stanley and Argentina staged the 1982 invasion today . . . ?

Or that Argentina stages an invasion today and captures the islands, ie the RAF and Army are defeated in their defence, the air bridge failed, and the invasion was successful?

Which leads me on to a question. While it is true that HM Forces of 2012 are not the same shape that they were in 1982 - they have modern long range well armed interceptors, highly effective fighter bombers, modern highly capable destroyers, battle hardened troops etc etc, just no carriers - what of the potential agressor?

A NATO partner, exercised with other countries including the US and in the Gulf but no carrier, 2 submarines, fewer surface combatants. A reasonable number of modern aircraft but numbers down?

It strikes me that our lordships are beating a holed drum trying to prepare to refight a war of 30 years ago.

[Courtney Mil]

PN,

BBC Radio 4, as expected, ran a few segments on it. The concensus was that they don't have anything like the capability even to try. Not a single new aircraft since 1982, defence spending slashed (I mean slashed so much that it makes the UK look like a superpower) and only enough money to pay the wages of those servicemen that are left.

One commentator noted that they couldn't even fight Paraguay, let alone the UK. There were also one or two that said they are even losing some support for their diplomatic campaign to gain the Islands.

If the Today Programme is to be believed (which it must be!) the potential aggressor is looking pretty feeble.

[Pontius Navigator]

CM, thank you, I saw that their armed forces are only slightly larger than the RAF.

So, is my supposition correct? Their lordships rattling an empty tin?

[cokecan]

PN, depends on the tune they're trying to play!

i'm a pessamist, i'm deeply concerned about the ability if the current Argentine government to back off and accept political defeat over the FI in the face of electoral defeat over economic missmanagement and allegations of corruption - i do not believe they can take the islands (the lack of amphib capability being a big part of that..), but i do believe that they can attack them to some degree or other, i do believe that they can make life unpleasent for the islands CivPop, and i do believe that when faced with the stark choice of certain electoral deafeat, and possible military defeat, Mrs Kirchner will opt for the route that sacrifices the lives of young men on the altar of her political career.

yes any attempt will end in defeat, but it will amost certainly include the deaths of British service personnel and civilians as well as those Argentines unfortunate enough to have this egotistical idiot as their CinC - and in my humble view, the likelyhood of her deciding to take the chance is inversely proportional to the assets she sees on the Islands. i don't really believe she understands the difference between a 45 year old Skyhawk and a Typhoon, nor a SSN and an SSK, or a T45 and a MEKO 360, and i don't think she listens to a word her military advisors say, so i think we should be extremely careful about believing that just because we think she should be detered by the force on the Islands, that she'll view the balance in the same way.

[Pontius Navigator]

CC, so we could recover all the Harriers, double the forces at MPA etc etc and the string of beans would look no different?

I agree though that sabre rattling with only a dagger in your scabbard is a bit stupid but equally their lordships are playing the wrong tune too. IMHO of course.

[Heathrow Harry]

read this weeks Economist for the financial shenanigans the current Argie Govt are up to - shades of 1982 with the wheels coming off all over the place

[cokecan]

PN, i think that she can count, and that she sees 4 fast jests, an Inf Coy and 8,000 miles of rather emptier ocean than was the case in 1982 - that the capabilities of those four fast jets means that her AF may as well be flying Sopwith Camels is probably not something that she really understands.

i'm not saying she's dumb, i'm saying that is a subject outside of her universe - i have a PhD, but i'll never really understand what electricity is or how it works until my dying day - i think she has a relationship with her military that hovers between loathing and outright contempt (understandable, given her political history), and that the intricacies of NEZ's, RCS, servicablity and sortie rates etc.. mean as much to her as you saying 'imagine the inside of a star' does to me.

i also think that we have a nasty habit of assuming that our own political decision making process is shared by everyone else - that whats logical or illogical to us will be the same to others - the big one being 'her military will tell her its not a winner, and she'll accept their advice'. i don't believe their dynamic works like that - i think they'll tell her it'd be hard, and that they'd take heavy casualties - but most importantly, unlike here, if her DS resign and go public, she won't fall, she'd probably reach sainthood.

if we want to stop a war taking place, rather than just win one, we have to convince her that its a no hoper from the start - and that, imv, means more than 4 fighters...

[StuartP]

BBC Radio 4, as expected, ran a few segments on it.

I didn't hear the R4 discussion but this is currently on the BBC website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17576856 (John Simpson)

[Pontius Navigator]

she sees 4 fast jests, an Inf Coy and 8,000 miles of rather emptier ocean than was the case in 1982

Jests, love it.

Empty ocean is what surface ships see :} although the do have P3Bs now I guess they don't have too much experience tracking SSNs.

The task force took weeks to ship thousands of troops south. Given enough serviceable transports and troops (bit lacking there I know) it could be done in a matter of days.

[cokecan]

PN, i know that, and you know that, and i don't doubt her DS know that - but she doesn't, and i don't think she knows or cares that doesn't know that.

which do you think is prefereable: us beating off an attack - and taking casualties doing it - or her staying in her box, gobbing off certainly, but knowing that he'd get a very quick, very hard shoeing long before her forces were able to meet their glorious destiny on 'Las Malvinas'?

the problem is not what will happen, but what she thinks will happen - and to the average civvy, if you put 30 old fighters against 4 new ones, they'd say it would be a nasty, messy fight that would end in the guy with the 30 fighters winning. why should she be any different?

[glojo]

Apologies if this is too political and I guess I have far too much time on my hands:

I have an intense dislike for people that use history to reinforce their argument. All it tends to do is divide and build up further hatred. If you go back in time, then how far back do we look? Should we all submit to the Romans and accept they once occupied our country? What about America or even Australia? History has its place and we should all be proud of what happened in days of yore but in my World I much prefer the democratic way of life. Let the people of a country decide their future. Why not call the bluff of Argentina and request the United Nations hold a referendum for the people of both the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar. Let the results be recognised and the future of those countries assured. If any nation then attempts an embargo or invasion then that is an act of war against the United Nations and should not be tolerated.

What on earth did the invading forces expect when they occupied a country that did not want them, did not welcome them and most certainly did not want to be a part of a country that talks a different language, has different cultural values and even drives on the wrong side of the road!!:sad::D

Much respect to the Argentine soldiers, sailors and airmen that took part in that conflict but let’s let democracy do the fighting, let the will of the people be mightier than that bloody sword that ruins the lives of so many brave young men.

If politicians want to fight, then let them, their sons, their daughters do the dirty work and not our sons or our daughters. Yes I am annoyed particularly after seeing the footage of Tony Blair denounce this conflict and pretend to be a left wing pacifist that abhorred the very thought of Great Britain declaring war on any nation!!!....

Yes my wife and I were on one of the bridges that spans the A38 and yes we were proud to wave our Union Jacks as those brave soldiers and sailors made their way back home after showing the World what we were capable of and STILL capable of! :ok::ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

she doesn't . . . knows or cares . . .

which do you think is prefereable: us beating off an attack - and taking casualties doing it - or her staying in her box, gobbing off certainly, but knowing that he'd get a very quick, very hard shoeing long before her forces were able to meet their glorious destiny on 'Las Malvinas'?

That is no choice. It is obvious what is preferable to us and from what you say the other is unknowable and irrelevant.

. . . what she thinks will happen

So I read you as saying we will be f***d if we do and f***d if we don't. We don't have the carriers but neither does she have the assets, so she will be f***d if she does . . . :)

That about it?

And 4 Typhoon? 15 shelters and a gocart club could possibly house 32. Would they know if the numbers had been inceased?

[cokecan]

PN, they would know if we told them!

what i'm say is there are 3 issues that conflate and produce a picture, and we should be wary about believing that the picture they paint to us is the same picture that Mrs Kirchner sees.

1. the actual, technical correlation of forces.

2. the political, subjective decisions she makes about the capability of our forces in situ, our ability to increace those forces, our willingness to increace those forces, and our willingness to re-inforce without 100% proof that a threat is developing.

3. the political, subjective decisions she makes about her chances political survival without a grand gesture/successful attack.

we also, imv, need to be careful about judging the success of our deterant on the basis that there has not been an attempt to re-take/attack the islands - its possible that there has not been any serious thought since the 1982 war within the Argentine body politic of military action, and so the concept of deterence hasn't really been tested. its also worth rembering that our deterence posture has changed - since 1982 we've said that if you attempt to invade we'll give you a shoeing, and even if you're succesful we'll sail down in our carriers and we'll give you another shoeing and take them back.

now however thats changed - we now say 'certainly we'll give you a shoeing if you try to invade, but if you do succeed, you can keep them'. its worth thinking about.

[NutLoose]

Maybe she realises who she is dealing with..

http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/558843_10150641890423741_640078740_9332986_1677098879_n.jpg

[Exnomad]

As Argentinian claims see to be based on proximity and on previous Spanish ownership, perhaps we could reclaim Calais. It was ruled by an English King for some considerable time, and is very close to Dover.

[Rocky181]

While we're here talking about history, who really are the real owners of Britain, the Vikings, Normans, Saxons... ? What a conundrum history can be. I say lets figure this out and give it back to their rightful owners.:ugh:

[Pontius Navigator]

But there is no enough room in Iberia for all the South Americanos.

Nor in India and Vietnam for all the North Americans :}

OTOH there may be a bit more room in UK.

[Courtney Mil]

Re Post #780. Good words, Glojo. Was just checking out for the night a glad I happened to catch that. Absolutely right with you there. :ok:

[Anthony Supplebottom]

Hundreds of protesters marched on the British embassy in Buenos Aires on Monday and launched Molotov cocktails in street clashes with police as Argentina commemorated the 30th anniversary of the Falklands War.

Four officers were injured as a group of around 200 people broke off from a peaceful rally, attended by 2,000 protesters from left-wing movements who called for the UK to give up sovereignty of the Falklands and branded the British as “pirates”.

Buenos Aires: protesters march on British embassy - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9182353/Buenos-Aires-protesters-march-on-British-embassy.html)

[alwayzinit]

I fear that this "silliness"of Ms Kurchner is beginning to have it's own momentum.
Shortly she will have painted herself and by her rhetoric the UK into a corner.
There reaches a point in any argument where the words stop and the primeval "put up or shut up" takes over.
Me thinks a "preplanned" rotation of forces on the FI takes place, air, sea and ground. Thus for the period of handover a doubling of assets and a very strong BACK OFF message gets sent to BA and the warmongering crazy lady.

[MAINJAFAD]

If there had been 200,000 protestors I would be worried. The words Storm and Teacup come to mind.

[Whenurhappy]

It was pointed out last night that the diplomatic surge orchestrated by Ms Kirchner was beginning to dwindle; I think her neighbours are getting a bit embarrased by the Chauvanistic rhetoric.

Anyway, the Argentine Forces haven't a snowball's chance of winning militarily (have they got Storm shadow, TLAM, C-17s, T-45, SSNs, combat hardned troops....? No, didn't think so).

[MAINJAFAD]

Might be a good idea to do a very well pubilcised (after they land at MPC of course) no notice Crab Stunt (deployment exercise to people in the real world) by a C-17, an E-3, a Few GR4's and Tiffys carrying the aformentioned Stormshadow/PWII/PWIV/Brimstone just to remind the Argies of the fact. Would shut Sharky and Woodward up as well (in fact worth doing just for the latter!!!):E:E:E.

[glojo]

This issue is quite clearly not going to be resolved by the 'My gun is bigger than your gun' type mentality.

The pen has ALWAYS been mightier than the sword and this issue needs wise people writing wise words. We need to somehow educate those that see Great Britain as being a colonial nation that is occupying a small country. We need to let the World see that the population of the Falkland islands are free to vote for their own destiny, it is solely down to those people to have the final say.

If we start throwing more and more men, women and hardware onto those islands then what type of image does that send out to those that claim we are a colonial people that rule over the proud people of those islands.

Jaw, jaw should trump war, war

a C-17, an E-3, a Few GR4's and Tiffys carrying the aformentioned Stormshadow/PWII/PWIV/Brimstone just to remind the Argies of the fact. Would shut Sharky and Woodward up as well Would it?;) Where would we get those aircraft from and what operation would suffer if they were deployed? We can all mock those two individuals but they have a RIGHT to be listened to.

John

[cokecan]

Glojo,

the problem is not one of information, its one of people not being interested in information.

the information that the FI is a self-governing territory that is entirely happy with its ciurrent status is out there, all verified by numerous independant media organisations, it has its own media that report the goings on within the islands and the political/social debates that take place there - all of which are immediately accessable to anyone who'se interested. unfortunately there are large numbers of Argentines who either don't believe it, or just don't care, and who believe that their 'rights' trump self-determination.

thats the problem, not one of information.

[Postman Plod]

I got the impression from her speech yesterday that she was backing off on the rhetoric a little. Commentators were suggesting that foreign ambassadorial presence at the Ushuaia ceremony would indicate what effect her rhetoric is having on the continent - fewer ambassadors would suggest the continent was growing tired of her and that she was starting to go too far.

[Pontius Navigator]

CC, you confuse me. Are you simply stating a view or do you have any suggestions as to courses of action?

[cokecan]

PN, both!

i don't believe there is a 'good' course of action available, there are merely a number of crap options with differing downsides.

i do not believe that any real headway can be made into the Argentine political psyche, i think we just have to live with the fact that they will always want the Islands, and that any Argentine politician who ramps up the rhetoric will be rewarded electorally.

given that, we have three options - to maintain a minimum defence that doesn't offend the other LA nations, and to attempt to use economics and diplomacy to ensure that LA solidarity on this issue stays as a very thin concept.

to ramp up the defence and running costs of the islands to the extent where all of LA could be based at Rio Gallagos and they'd still never get within 100 miles.

to give up the Islanders to independance and the rather shaky 'protection' of the UN.

Option 1 is preferable, but it carries risks - the diplomacy may not work, and the 'token' defence may have to be so 'token' in order to be friends with the other LA countries that the Argentines are able to get through it.

Option 2 works, but is hellishly expensive, and it probably means cutting off ourselves - and the EU - from LA and most importantly Brazil, while that situation remains.

Option 3 is pretty rubbish, it solves our problem, but i don't think the Islanders will feel that safe...

personally, i'd go for somewhere between 1 and 2, with 2 being the default option. do i believe that Brazil will go to economic war with the EU to make Argentina feel good? no, i don't, but i also don't underestimate how politically dominant Brazil would be within LA if it went hardline on this issue in the name of 'regional solidarity'.

[langleybaston]

The pen has ALWAYS been mightier than the sword


like the pen that wrote Neville Chamberlain's scrap of paper at Munich in 1938?

Don't offend our intelligence!

[SASless]

I have an intense dislike for people that use history to reinforce their argument.

Absolutely right....just what does mere history have to do with explaining why some thing is what it is....definitely bogus thought!:ugh:

[Pontius Navigator]

I have an intense dislike for people that use history to reinforce their argument.

So we are agreed then that their lordships should not use history to reinforce their arguement for new carriers?

I mean we could never do another evacuation like we did at Aden when we had, IIRC, 5 or maybe 6 flat tops offshore.

[cokecan]

is perhaps the big lesson from history is that when you don't buy enough shoe for the size of your feet, you're going to have a painful walk to the shops?

our defence posture problems are not, imv, caused by the shape of that defence posture or by the individual procurement/doctrinal decisions within it, they're caused by not providing enough money to pay for it.

[glojo]

I think we are trying to twist what I am saying.

Historically Island 'X' was inhabited by people from the land of Murphy. 300 years ago 'X' was invaded and occupied by people from country 'Y' and for the next 300 years that country developed into a very prosperous location.

The people from the land of Murphy now want their land back as historically it belonged to them. Do we allow those people to take possession? Do we accept they can use history to justify their claim?

Aden
It would be nice if we had indeed learnt from that counter-insurgency conflict and as you say there were indeed a number of both Aircraft carriers and Commando carriers.

I am as proud as anyone else on this forum of my countries history but to use that history as an excuse to fight a war, or go to war, or commit acts of violence, terrorism etc just makes no sense and I am thinking of the senseless hatred that still infects parts of Ireland.. listen to the vitriolic chants at some football matches 'North of the Border' they are based on so called historical events.. Madness, sheer lunacy and keeping this on topic it is madness for one country to lay claim to the Falklands because they once occupied those islands (as did France and Spain) Those events are now what I call 'history' They are over.... They are confined to 'history' The people of the Falkland Islands have the right to decide their own destiny.

[Pontius Navigator]

Only digging :)

Of history:

The Life of Reason, Vol.1, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana

But while what their Lordships say regarding our inability to repeat the 1982 campaign is true they are also at risk of doing what the Generals have long been accused of which it is preparing to fight the last war.

[Milo Minderbinder]

I'll counter that with the view of history as offered by Ford

"History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's damn is the history that we make today."

[Courtney Mil]

I think the quote about history was probably addressing people manipulating history and abusing it to support a false position. Trying to it incorrectly to support a claim such as Argentina's to the Falklands.

Just my thought.

[Whenurhappy]

I've posted a legal determination on the FI before, but can't find it. but here's the Time line - not from Wikipedia but from the rather more authoratiative Malcolm Shaw 'International law' 5 edn 2003 pp 452-453:

1592: Discovered uninhabited by English Sea Captain (successor state United Kingdon of Great Britain & Northern Ireland).
1764: Kingdom of France estatblished a settlement on East Falkland (sucessor state Republic of France).
1765: 'Britain' established settlement on West Falkland.
1767: France sold their settlement to the Kingdom of Spain
1770: British settlement conquered by Spain.
1771: Settlement return to English (UK) control.
1774: Settlement abandoned on economic grounds but left plaque asserting sovereignty.
1811: Spaniards left.
1816: United Provinces of River Plate (sucessor state Argentina) declared independence from Spain.
1820: Argentina took 'formal possession' of the Falkland Islands.
1829: Britain protested to Argentina.
1831: US warship evicted Aregentinian settlers (in response to treatment of US citizens elsewhere).
1833: Britain recaptured the islands.
1982: Argentiana retook the islands and evicted 8 weeks later.
1982: UNSCR 502 called for immediate withdrawal of Argentine Forces and sought to restore status quo ante, based on the principle of the 'inherent Right of Self Defence', even if the 'possession of the Terrirtory is subject to controversy'.

The conquest formed the original basis of the title, irrespective of the British employment of other principles (eg 1930s prescription as the basis of the title, rather than conquest and annexation; principle of self-determination 1980s et seq. This, coupled with the widespread recognition by the IC, including the UNSCR, of the status of the territory as a British Overseas Terriroty, resolves the issue.

[Pontius Navigator]

CM, of course you are right, it was just a gentle ribbing.

My real target was their lordships bleating about their battleships. We haven't got them; we won't get them for 10 years if that; the threat is now.

All their lordships are really saying is I told you so except of course the world has moved on. As a whole the UK Armed Forces are, as MJF
said, immeasurably stronger than in 1982, the Argentinian Forces are quantitively reduced from 1982.

It's a different ball game. Maybe in 20 years time we shall need the carriers and maybe in the next 10 years it will be proven that we were wrong to retire the Harriers but it is all financially driven risk.

[Whenurhappy]

I found the following (and slightly amusing) extract in Harris's thrilling read 'Cases and Materials on International Law'5 Edn 1998 p 214:
19. The Argentine Government formally protested against Britain's occupation of the Islands in 1833, 1834, 1841, 1842, and 1849, in the latter year sending a note to the British Government indicating that, although not intending to protest any further in view of Britain's inattention to her protests, Argentine silence should not be interpreted as aquiescence. [In other words, Britain gave Argentina a stiff ignoring until 1955, when as a result of claims agaisnt other South Atlantic Dependencies...]...Britain sought in 1955 to institute proceedings at the International Court of Justice [The Hague] both against Argentina and Chille concerning their respective claims to sovereignty over the Falkand Island Dependencies and British Antarctic Territory, but neither the Argentine nor the Chilean governments agrees to accept the jurisdiction of the Court...[probably because the outcome was clear - the titles would be formally ceded to Britain].

And finally, from Akehurst (1983):

A State, in order to acquire title to territory from another State by prescription, must exercise effective control over that territory for a long period The UK has clearly satisfied this requirement...[which should be] accompanied by acquiescence by the 'losing State.

Argentina has claimed that it has protested over the years, but apart from the invasion in 1982 [an action against international law], Argentina has never sought arbitration or taken further diplomatic steps, such as breaking off diplomatic relations with Britain. Moreover, within the doctrine of intertemporal law, conquest establishing title in 1833 is accepted as legitimate.

So, let Argentina take it to arbitration (not bilateral taklks) and see how, err, succesful they might be in gaining the Islands back, lawfully this time.

[taxydual]

Would not the simplest solution be, to grant the Falkland Islands independence (if the Islanders' agree) therefore allowing them to become a Sovereign State in their own right.

With membership of the Commonwealth (with suitable British Passport rights) and the UN thrown in, would that not stymie any Argentinian rhetoric?

Just a thought.

[Jollygreengiant64]

Here's a novel thought: If Argentina can't look after a few islands which, as they keep re-iterating, are only a few miles off their shore, and are half a world away from the UK, why should the welfare of said islands be left to them?

Honestly, you would think national pride was a crime.

[Whenurhappy]

Ahh, yes. That seems an elegant solution...however, for a 'unit' to be regarded as a State under international law it must conform with the legal conditions as to settled population, a definable area of land and the capacity to enter into legal relations. Other theories include the ability to defend oneself, economic viability and that there are no antecedent disputes regarding sovereignity, sucession and 'title'.

If the FI was granted independence, it could enter into a Defence Treaty with the UK, for example, and rely on a degree of political and diplomatic support from the UK and the wider Commonwealth. However, there would be a considerble bloc of nations who would refuse to recognise the Falkland Islands as an independent state - both as a result of legal objections and political grandstanding. Kosovo, similarly, is not recognised by a lot of States for a myriad of reasons, and the Latin American bloc of nations would probably view an 'independent' FI in the way the West regarded the Soviet Republics of Lithuanian, Latvia and Estonia - independent only in name and utterly reliant on the parent state.

As you can see it's a quiet day in the office and my advice is pro bono...

[Shack37]

Is the lovely Cristina trying to lose friends.

Argentina Plots Next Moves in Bid to Control YPF - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/argentina-plots-moves-bid-control-ypf-16128902)

[500N]

I see Barack put his foot in his mouth trying to be neutral.
Barack Obama makes Falklands gaffe by calling Malvinas the Maldives - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9207183/Barack-Obama-makes-Falklands-gaffe-by-calling-Malvinas-the-Maldives.html)


And the Argie President got all up tight and left early.

But Mrs Kirchner left the summit – attended by North, South and Central American nations – earlier than expected last night as Colombian press reported she was unhappy that a declaration of support for the Argentine claim to the British-controlled territory was not included in the summit's final document, which went unsigned after the USA and Canada used their vetoes.

"Mrs Kirchner also reprimanded Juan Manuel Santos, the Colombian president, for failing to mention the islands in his speech."

[Finningley Boy]

At the moment, De Kirschner is making a bit of a fool of herself. She's behaved in a petulant and loud manner, by trying to get other countries to back her sabre rattling she's come unstuck and quite publicly. By complaining like this she's making herself look all the more noisy, unreasonable and shallow.:ok:

FB:)

[500N]

It seems that way.

It will be interesting to see how other media outlets portray the same stories.

[500N]

It seems she really is getting up people's noses.

This action might cost Argentina a hell of a lot more in the long run as no one will invest if they are not secured.

Argentina angers Madrid with plans to seize control of YPFSpain has denounced Argentina's "hostile" plans to seize control of its largest oil company, in a move Spain's foreign minister said had "broken the climate of friendship" between the two countries.


Argentina angers Madrid with plans to seize control of YPF - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/9208174/Argentina-angers-Madrid-with-plans-to-seize-control-of-YPF.html)

[El_Presidente]

Whilst initially gaining support for her attempts to isolate the British position on the Falklands, De Kirschner is now rather rapidly burning all her bridges.

Her neighbours are increasingly alarmed at her sociopathic application of foreign policy; her increasingly left-wing position; and now she his managed to uniformly peeve off arguably their closest ally, Spain.

Keep up the good work, Ma'am.

:}

[langleybaston]

Pardon? What? An echo?

[langleybaston]

What? An echo?

Echo?

[SARF]

Sod Spain.. I think we should side with argentina over this economic spanish colonialism !! maybe put a big poster on the rock showing our support

[A and C]

Quote

The pen has ALWAYS been mightier than the sword


like the pen that wrote Neville Chamberlain's scrap of paper at Munich in 1938?

Don't offend our intelligence!

Chamberlain has always been an easy target for those who don't understand him, he went through the carnage of WW1 and had a deep desire to avoid another bloodbath, when it was clear that diplomacy was not going to work with Hitler he bought time with the piece of paper and presided over the biggest increase of defense spending in the history of the UK.

One quick look at the types in front line service with the RAF in 1938 will tell you that the UK was in no position to defend its self in 1938 and only in 1940 was the RAF able to field enough modern aircraft to defend the UK.

Winston Chuchill may have taken the credit for his leadership during WW2 but without the foundations of defense that Chamberlian layed Churchill would have had few weponds to fight with.

[Capt Pit Bull]

when it was clear that diplomacy was not going to work with Hitler he bought time with the piece of paper and presided over the biggest increase of defense spending in the history of the UK.

I'll back that up. Prior to me, all the Pitbulls were builders, and in the 30's we ran one of the largest civil engineering companies in the country. It was a family run business and as a result even as a young man my father was given immense responsibilities in overseeing the various projects that were underway. We were building military bases and in particular airfields all over the south west.

I once spoke to my father about Chamberlain and the charge of appeasement. Dad was adamant that everyone in positions of importance understood that Chamberlain bought us time to prepare and knew exactly what he was doing as well as what the likely consequences for his own reputation would be.

pb

[Lonewolf_50]

From an article I read on this Nationalization deal:

Fernandez said the government would ask Congress, which she controls, to approve a bill to expropriate a controlling 51 percent stake in the company by seizing shares held exclusively by Repsol, saying energy was a "vital resource."

"If this [the YPF's] policy continues -- draining fields dry, no exploration and practically no investment -- the country will end up having no viable future, not because of a lack of resources but because of business policies," she said.
{snip: the right wing press took a few shots at the Kirchner dame ...}

On the left, El Periodico spoke of "The New Evita", pointing out that Fernandez had announced the nationalization in a room decorated with a portrait of Eva Peron, the actress who was married to a president and revered by many Argentineans for her populist politics.

How has nationalization of the industries been working out for Hugo, lately?

:confused:

[ORAC]

Argentina: Making the Eurozone Look Good (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/304924/argentina-making-euro-zone-look-good-andrew-stuttaford)

[Victor Inox]

Argentina has fewer friends than expected:

Ghana holds Argentine frigate over debt: Buenos Aires (http://www.brecorder.com/world/south-america/83481-ghana-holds-argentine-frigate-over-debt-buenos-aires-.html)

[Evanelpus]

Ghana holds Argentine frigate over debt: Buenos Aires (http://www.brecorder.com/world/south-america/83481-ghana-holds-argentine-frigate-over-debt-buenos-aires-.html)

Unbelievable, pot and kettle come to mind instantly!!

[althenick]

A piccy of ARA Libertad Frigate


http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/37252570.jpg

[500N]

Good, might teach Argentina a lesson !

[Wander00]

Back to Nelson then

[ORAC]

Falklands: Britain calls on European Union to pile pressure on Argentina (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/9701416/Falklands-Britain-calls-on-European-Union-to-pile-pressure-on-Argentina.html)

Hard-line nationalists ransack shipping office after pelting it with stones as tensions rise between London and Buenos Aires over Falkland islands' status.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02409/Argentina_protest_2409063b.jpg

[Lonewolf_50]

Those guys are wearing rag head rags like a few Palestinians I've seen on TV.

Note the checkered pattern.

On purpose, or by accident?

[PTT]

You're kidding, right? A VERY widely available item of clothing and somehow you are trying to link the two? Next we'll be castigating people because they wear sunglasses "just like those ayrabs!" :ugh:

[Milo Minderbinder]

I've got some of those dishcloths, tasteful black/green ones
Used to buy them from Survival Aids (before they went bust) who - I believe - did most of the urgent UK forces desert uniforms for GWI ('twas delay in payment by HMG that made them go bust)

[Temp Spike]

There is oil down there. Expect to fight for it. I wonder if the Israelis are going to help the Argies again this time?

[glojo]

I must confess that I have heard lots of rumours about there being oil down south but they have been rumours for over thirty years. If there is oil then it is in a very deep part of the ocean and will not be the easiest of locations to extract.

[farsouth]

Glojo - You say "if there is oil", and that it will be "in a very deep part of the ocean" and not easy to extract.

Rockhopper's SeaLion field (in about 450 metres of sea depth, about 150 miles North of the Falklands) has an estimated production life of 25 years, is considered to be economically viable in isolation (i.e. with no other fields being developed alongside it throughout its life), has recently had a billion dollars of investment into the company and is almost certainly going to go into production even in the unlikely event that no other viable fields are discovered. They are expecting to have first oil to market by 2017.

I think your "rumours" have already become "facts"..............

[glojo]

Fair comment farsouth and hopefully that oil will be extracted. It has still certainly taken an awful long time to locate that oila nd whehn reading the reports there are a lot of 'ifs' and 'maybes' but as you say it does look like there is oil.

Lots of companies did go south looking for that 'black gold'and a lot did come back out of pocket. (my brother to name but one company)

[Temp Spike]

May I suggest you try TOTAL or Canadian Occidental. BP has been having some trouble with explosions.

[parabellum]

Lonewolf_50 has a point, the black and white scarves were very popular with the PLO, remember Yassar Arafat was hardly ever seen without one. They definitely are an item that is commonly associated with Palestinians and their sympathiser too, (as many BBC journos demonstrate!).

[Heathrow Harry]

"hehn reading the reports there are a lot of 'ifs' and 'maybes' but as you say it does look like there is oil."

yeah but any oil company is going to put in a lot of ifs and buts - if only so they don't get sued by their US investors if it turns to to be different (Better/worse) than forecast

It's definitely going ahead tho - remember when the last set of companies pulled out oil was about $12 a bbl :eek::eek:

[PURPLE PITOT]

If there is oil there, it will surely be "liberated" by the americans.

[Heathrow Harry]

A big US company has already taken up an interest in the S Falklands area

[WhiteOvies]

The key to the oil in the Falklands is that the expensive recovery techniques are now economically viable and should turn a profit. There's oil buried deeply all over the place but it's only with the recent high market prices that it has become worth making the effort to bring it to the surface.

You do need to be careful though, as BP found out...:=

[Milo Minderbinder]

this tells an interesting tale about the state of the Argentine armed forces
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/11/22/argentine-navy-short-on-spares-and-:bored:resources-for-training-and-maintenance

If its true, their Navy and Air Force won't be invading anywhere soon.

"The corvettes ARA Spiro and ARA Gomez Roca and the destroyer Argentina experienced different breakdowns attributed to lack of maintenance and human error, according to sources from the Defence Committee of the Argentine Lower House.

Apparently naval experts believe that “the absence of conflict hypothesis and a scarce budget have led to a very week patrolling of the 200 miles economic exclusive zone, which impedes an active combat of illegal fishing”.

Three corvettes are deployed for that task, corvettes Drummond, Granville and Guerrico, which “hardly sail because of lack of resources for operational expenses”, added the sources.

Likewise these incidents are happening when the 2013 budget approved for the Navy means vessels will have lesser sailing time to patrol maritime and fluvial spaces. “Resources for next year are sufficient for 161 sailing and practice days compared to 329 days only two years ago”.

“It is clearly insufficient for the Navy’s 15 vessels that are currently on condition to operate” said lawmaker Julio Martinez from the opposition Radical party and member of the Defence Committee. Proper training demands at least 90 sailing days for each vessel, which means sufficient funds for “a period equivalent to 1.350 days sailing for the whole fleet”.

“The ARA Espora and the fellows on board would have avoided the bad moment they are going through in South Africa if the corvette Spiro, originally assigned for the Altasur naval exercise, had not suffered the accident of running into a sand bank when leaving Mar del Plata”, said Martinez. ARA Spiro has been on service since 1987 and was sent to the first Gulf War in 1990/91 by then president Carlos Menem.

Another vessel knocked out of action is the icebreaker Admiral Irizar when as a consequence of the 2007 fire in the engine room was virtually burnt down. The original timetable for her return has long gone by and now apparently she could be back towards the end of 2013. Over 100 million dollars have been spent on the vessel plus the cost of leasing the Russian icebreaker Vasily Golovnin for the annual three-month Antarctic campaigns at a monthly cost of 2 million dollars.

A similar situation is faced by the four destroyers: Almirante Brown, Heroína, La Argentina and Sarandí, with engine problems and they need spares, plus the fact all the ordnance has expired.

Of the six MEKO corvettes, ARA Parker and ARA Rosales are waiting for spares. ARA Gomez Roca and ARA Robinson are on duty for search and rescue operations, a duty sometimes passed on to the Coast Guard. Furthermore, two Fokker F-28s from the Navy are grounded since they have spares retained in Customs because of Argentine restrictions on imports.

However according to former Defence minister Horacio Jaunarena the situation is not different in the other services: the Mirage fighter-bombers are not flying since they are not safe enough for the pilots and in 2006 the Army informed then Defence minister Nilda Garré the force was in inferior conditions to neighbouring countries and thus “it was impossible to make compatible a common defence system in the region”.

Finally the submarine crews which operate from Mar del Plata need at least 190 days of immersion practice and in the last year only spent 19 hours submerged. Submarines Salta, Santa Cruz and San Juan have maintenance difficulties and “only few remember that in August 2010, Defence minister Nilda Garré announced Argentina was planning to build a nuclear submarine”, concluded lawmaker Martinez.

[glojo]

Totally agree with White Ovies and we should also consider the fact that there are still huge areas of our North Sea that would be FAR cheaper to develop.

It is so easy to suggest these conflicts are all about oil but by crikey it will be an expensive operation to recover it.

Reassuring to read that the Argentine Navy is in a worse state than our own reduced force.

[Heathrow Harry]

Pot-kettle-black

"Another vessel knocked out of action is the icebreaker Admiral Irizar when as a consequence of the 2007 fire in the engine room was virtually burnt down. The original timetable for her return has long gone by and now apparently she could be back towards the end of 2013. Over 100 million dollars have been spent on the vessel plus the cost of leasing the Russian icebreaker Vasily Golovnin for the annual three-month Antarctic campaigns at a monthly cost of 2 million dollars."

"In December 2008, while on an 18-month deployment, Endurance suffered extensive flooding to her lower deck resulting in the near loss of the ship.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Endurance_%28A171%29#cite_note-inquiry-report-6) A serious engine room flood left her without power or propulsion,[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Endurance_%28A171%29#cite_note-7) and she was towed to Punta Arenas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punta_Arenas,_Chile) by a Chilean tug. After an extensive survey was completed, the estimates to refit the ship were put at around £30M.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Endurance_%28A171%29#cite_note-8) On 8 April 2009 Endurance arrived off Portsmouth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portsmouth), on the semi-submersible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-submersible) transporter ship MV Target (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Target).[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Endurance_%28A171%29#cite_note-9)
] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Endurance_%28A171%29#cite_note-13)
On 22 March 2011 it was announced that the Royal Navy intended to hire MV Polarbjorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Polarbjorn), to be renamed HMS Protector (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Protector_%28A173%29), for three years whilst a final decision on whether to repair or scrap Endurance is made."

[WE Branch Fanatic]

HH

What are you on about? At least we have got an icebreaker (not withstanding the limitations, such as lack of an embarked helicopter).

On which note, has a decision been made about the future of Endurance? Surely that role demands a ship with a flight?

[Dwardy01]

The Endurance replacement would need two helos to provide mutual SAR. With the demise of the Mk 3 Lynx the organic aviation task could not be executed by the military. The Navy don't have enough Mk 8 SRU Lynx to man the Grey Fleet, Merlin is too big and expensive for the Ice Patrol task and with Seaking going in 2016 that would only leave Wildcat and the Navy is unlikely to use any of their allocated 28 in that role. No helos in Antartica has a massive effect on British Antarctic Survey tasking and ultimately a lack of influence in Antarctica.

[Heathrow Harry]

WEBF -we're in the same situation as the Argies in the deep south - both of us have a specific vessel for use in the area, both of them are buggered and will cost too much to fix

both of us have hired (at some cost) a temporary icebreaker or ice capable vessel from third parties to keep up the fig leaf that we have capability

Actually there is no reason why the BAS couldn't hire commercial helicopters for resupply use

[Jabba_TG12]

They dont need any of that stuff to take the Islands.

All they need to do is take MPA.

And for that, all you need is one or two ships, dont even have to be armed.

One or two other military aircraft with good endurance, dont have to be armed.

And, two Hercs, at most three, or similar aircraft of similar size, packed with their best commandos and pilots who are capable of flying at very low level.

And reasonably reliable intel about where significant elements of the RIC are.

Thats all it would take.

One surprise commando raid on MPA and Mare Harbour.

And, when you've secured the airfield, you bring in a couple of airliners with reinforcements. The British government hasnt even got the stomach to expel Abu Qatada let alone shoot down a 707 or two packed with Argentine troops.

Once disembarked, the troops fan out and mop up any resistance from the FIDF and RIC in the field. As soon as the situation is clearly lost, there is no way that COBRA will demand a suicide mission from those that are left. The order would go out to surrender.

Woodward and Thompson both concur and are on record to that effect. You dont need subs, you dont need destroyers, you dont need aircraft carriers, you dont even need Mirages.

If we lose MPA, we lose the Islands. End of.

We are absolutely in no position whatsoever to retake the islands by force - we dont have the tools, we dont have the people, we dont have the leaders or the national will and it'll take probably about 10 years of re-arming & retraining of capabilities that have been lost, by which time 90% of the sheeple will have forgotten about where the Falklands are and will find it very difficult to give a f**k.

It will bring down the UK Government of the day and whoever succeeds them will sweep the whole bloody lot under the carpet, not attempt to re-take the Islands (they cant - what would they do it with??) and will only drag out this reminder of national humiliation every now and again to remind the sheeple why their political opponents on whose watch it happened, why they are not fit to be elected again for a generation.

I reckon it'll happen sometime between 2015 and 2017. Just call it a gut feeling.

[parabellum]

So, following on, the two ships are seen by the submarine force in the area and warned off, they don't take any notice and are sunk. Everyone placed on high alert, first sign of aircraft approaching, Rapier, or other, missiles take them out, MPA remains secure and aircraft are launched.

707s turn back, invasion cancelled, street parties arranged to cover up yet another Argentinian SNAFU.

[cokecan]

while 'airline commando raid' scenario has some holes, lets not forget that there is not always an SSN on station. most of the time, yes, theres one somewhere south of Ascession, but that does not equate to there being an SSN 100 miles west of the FI 24/365 by a long shot. just because the Daily Mail says it, doesn't mean its true.

moreover, while plan 'A' may be a good plan, there is no - and without embarked fixed wing aviation - cannot be a plan 'B' if plan 'A' turns out to be not quite as well thought through as we thought. we aren't that clever, and we should remember that.

personally, i find the current status of their military, and as importantly, the political intelligence about the relationship between CFK and the military, and CFK's concerns about handing the Argentine military political rehabilitation by initiating military action, fairly comforting - however, i accept that despite having a brain the size of a planet, that i could be wrong, that views/circumstances may change, that the 'in their place' judgement call about risks and benefits to initiating action may be incorrect.

we should, imv, always remember that theirs is a political system the like of which is utterly foreign to us - it is not appropriate to use our system and our understanding of what is and is not politically wise to make judgements about what they might or might not do, and the risks they may or may not be prepared to run, and indeed to attempt to determine what they actually want to achieve.

such things mean that we should be very cautious about deciding that just because objectively our military capability in/around the Islands is some way ahead of their capability to attack the Islands, that they will take the same view, or that they would view glorious military defeat as political defeat.

[cokecan]

Parabellum.

if you believe that a British PM would order an RN SSN to sink an Argentine civilian ship approaching the FI, outside a period of war, then you really need to check whether you're putting sugar on your cornflakes, and not crack cocaine.

my own view is that the airliner theory has the massive flaw of having to land at MPA or Stanley, both places where a landing aircraft can very quickly be surrounded by lots of men armed with belt-fed weapons. however a civilian rustbucket that lands a group of political activists and media at a remote bay on West Falkland and sets up a 'las Malvinas camp' would not only be far less likely to be interdicted whilst getting there/setting up, but would not justify being machine-gunned into the water, and would be a major propaganda victory for CFK, and a defeat for FIG because a) it would 'show' that the FI was empty of people (something of an accepted truth in Argentina), and b) that there aren't enough civil poliemen on the islands to enforce an eviction/arrest, and that they'd have to rely of hairy squaddies - all on live TV.

[parabellum]

civilian ship


Who said they would be civilian and what would be the point? I assumed he meant Argentinian Navy ships, albeit possibly unarmed ones.

[cokecan]

the point would be that against Typhoon, whatever the current APT(S) ship is, and possibly an SSN, that an Argentine naval vessel is effectively unarmed, and a civilian vessel has the advantage over a naval vessel that it won't be sunk.

two ships, same capability, one will be fired on, one won't - which would you use?

[Heathrow Harry]

Arriving at MPA they are quite ready to shoot you for taking a picture of the old rustbucket VC-10 that is parked in the same place as it is on Google earth every day -

I just can't see how you can deplane enough people quickly from a commercial airliner to capture MPA - it's bloody enormous

and anything like a Herc would be spotted a longgg way away - they do have radar on the tops of the hills lads.........

[WE Branch Fanatic]

The Endurance replacement would need two helos to provide mutual SAR. With the demise of the Mk 3 Lynx the organic aviation task could not be executed by the military. The Navy don't have enough Mk 8 SRU Lynx to man the Grey Fleet, Merlin is too big and expensive for the Ice Patrol task and with Seaking going in 2016 that would only leave Wildcat and the Navy is unlikely to use any of their allocated 28 in that role. No helos in Antartica has a massive effect on British Antarctic Survey tasking and ultimately a lack of influence in Antarctica.

If Endurance had not had her flood, what would the current situation be regarding her aircraft? Why have they gone?

[Dwardy01]

Without the flood Endurance would have been available until 2015 and the 3 x Mk 3 ICE Lynx would have probably supported her until then on a stand alone maintenance support package, meaning the the last trained crews (air and ground) would have extented to see her out of service operating on the bespoke ICE release to service. After 2015 it was always going to be hard to justify the military/aviation ice patrol for the reasons stated above. The flood just shifted everything left.

Off topic the flight then moved onto the Carrier/Ocean as HDS support and flew a shed load of hours in that role. I'm not sure anybody has thought of how we are going to support that role when Wildcat arrives and the Seaking/Lynx has gone?

[Jabba_TG12]

Dont count on it Harry. :E There are ways and means. Have seen our own Hercs do it on exercise down there often enough.

And remember, its not like Afghan.... not everyone at MPA is tooled up, all of the time.

[Heathrow Harry]

The FFA has 5 C-130H - if they are all working, which I doubt , that's a total lift of circa 300 troops.

A company of infantry at MPA is circa 250 men plus another 1000 odds & sodds

I think it would be hide-and-seek for a couple of days but how would the FAA be resupplied?

[Biggus]

HH

I believe that when South Vietnam was being overrun by the North, and many South Vietnamese were fleeing for their lives, a South Vietnamese Hercules aircraft flew with about 300 people on board....

My point is, 60 people per aircraft is a standard load, if you're gambling and throwing the dice, why not overload aircraft that may well not be coming back anyway, or you already plan to disable on the runway to block it....

If you could put say 500 specialist armed troops, in one compact fighting unit rather than spread out, on MPA in one go, then you can have a considerable impact. Take the airfield, and hold it, or at least render it unusable, for say 48 hours, and you have immediate air superiority and time to follow up with amphibious landings opposed only by whatever the RN has left down there (probably one frigate).

That's not even taking into account any pre infiltrated SF units which might help your initial air assault succeed...

I haven't been to the Falklands for many years, so am only going on second hand information, but it is hardly "Fortress Falklands", no routine carriage of arms (no doubt all correctly locked up in armouries), accompanied tours, married quarters, etc. Is there a mind set down there still that it is potentially vulnerable, or is it another Singapore scenario?

An Argentine assault on the islands might work, it might not, but if you're a gambler maybe you have little to lose?

[Jabba_TG12]

Exactly Biggus.

Exactly.

[500N]

Biggus

The way you are thinking is fine, just a couple of points.

300 Vietnamese is vastly different from 300 Americans,
even in the 60's and 70's and I would imagine Argies
are of a similar western size.

So overloading is one thing - 60 - 90 Combat troops - but factor
in the size of the people.

"If you could put say 500 specialist armed troops"
In 5 Hercs ? or are you planning to use other planes ?


Secondly, the plan has bugger all reserve built in. Lets say you lose
1 or 2 of the 5 Hercs, is the plan still viable ? And since you say the
planes are not going back, no chance of them doing another load.

So is 3 over loaded planes full enough ?


"pre infiltrated SF units" would be the best way to get more
on the ground but again, what if compromised ?


Support / Resupply ?
If they get into a prolonged fight, who / what is going to resupply
them ammo, food etc.


And the above is not taking into account 3 to 1 ration needed to take
whatever.

And what about people in the rest of the Falklands ? Once it starts,
they will take up arms and join the fight so the Argies will be fighting
even more people.

[cokecan]

a wry glance at the shotgun above the mantlepeice is one thing while hypothetically discussing what would happen if 'the Argies' had another go - counting on its appearence against a 2 or 3 Coy sized formation armed with GPMG's is quite something else.

Personally i found the attitude at MPA more casual that i would have thought being on a lump of turf that another country claimed, had invaded within my lifetime, and being 8,000 miles from help warrented, and that the attitude went through pretty much every unit i came into contact with. many of the units could doubtless swing into 'warfighting' mode pretty much instantainously - the RIC, the radar and Rapier units etc.. but what i'll descibe as the 'rump', the people who work at MPA day in and day out, were not in the kind of condition/training/frame of mind to run outside on hearing the klaxon, pick up a rifle/GPMG and tear down to the runway or airfeild perimitor to surround the arriving Argentines with overwhelming firepower.

it, to me, seemed pretty obvious that if the RIC was elsewhere, then the famed 'they'd land, and be surrounded by 200 rifles and half a dozen GPMG's' scenario would be rather more hyperbole than fact.

[Biggus]

500N

A couple of points in reply to your "couple of points":

I (fairly obviously in my opinion) wasn't advocating putting 300 Argentinians in each Hercules. I was simply pointing out that a nominal peacetime figure of say 60 wasn't set in stone, and could be increased considerably for a one off (maybe one way) operation.

Yes the plan has bugger all reserve built in - IT'S A GAMBLE!!

Pre infiltrated SF units may be compromised, that is a risk you take - IT'S A GAMBLE!!

Support/resupply - what support/resupply did the troops who landed at Pegasus Bridge get, or have planned. "Hold until relieved". What did the troops at Arnhem effectively get? The plan might only require these troops to hold on for 48hrs, so they go in with food/ammo for that timescale. Might there be options for helo resupply from vessels at sea once the 4 x Typhoon and rapier are not a threat, a couple of UH-1Hs every few hours with ammo?

Taking MPA by airborne assault would not be the way I would envisage ultimately taking the Falkland Islands. It's more about denying the use of MPA to the Brits for say 48hrs as part of an overall plan. That would give the Argentinians TOTAL air superiority, and deny the UK any resupply option to the Islands. The Falkland Islands are ultimately taken by helo/amphibious assault while the air assault on MPA ties up UK ground forces and denies the UK any FJ assets to disrupt Argentine operations.

Yes, you can debate the paucity of Argentine amphibious assets, but it doesn't have to be done by hi-tech specialist naval units, rather by make do and mend platforms, perhaps civil assets converted with make do helo platforms.

It's about thinking outside the box, putting together a package/plan that COULD work, and a country/political elite WILLING TO TAKE A GAMBLE on the basis they have everything to gain, and maybe not that much to lose! Whereas we have everything to lose, and nothing much to gain.

It's also about us taking the threat seriously...

[500N]

Biggus

No problems with your thoughts. :ok:

Pre infiltrated SF units may be compromised but with the way
the Falklands are, they shouldn't have any problem landing
and staying hidden until needed.

It was never said before but I understand now, the MISSION
is to capture the Falkland Islands.

Phase 1 is to take the MPA by some means and / or tie up all the people
and assets we have there.

Phase 2 is to land an Amphib force by any means to help the initial
force and capture the islands.


As to assets, why not do what Australia did and
use a civilian Catamaran when they went to Timor ?

[Biggus]

500N

The air assault wasn't originally my idea, so don't give me the credit, Jabba first mentioned it in post 850 I think.

I just happen to believe it is potentially viable, especially as the first part of an overall plan.

I also happen to believe that the best way for the UK to re-take the Falkland Islands is not to lose them in the first place, and given the potential wealth that might be found in that region over the next 20-50 years, a greater investment in the security of the Islands now can only be money well spent!


By the way - would that be a "Trojan catamaran" the Aussies used? :ok:

[500N]

Re Air Assault onto the runway by landing the C130,
I am pretty sure Australia did that at the start of the Timor
op, landed and deplaned on the runway and then spread out.

Of course they were not under fire and were covered by
some troops on the ground beforehand but the scenario
is the same, just a faster pace !!!


Yes, it is viable, if all goes to plan.

Someone needs to do some serious joint ops planning
because these joint ops can easily turn to **** without
any help from the MPA forces !!!

[500N]

"By the way - would that be a "Trojan catamaran" the Aussies used? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif "


Not sure what you mean by that ?

[TBM-Legend]

The Trojan Horse my boy....:ok:

[500N]

Sorry, am a bit slow tonight.


When I saw that, I thought, hold on, they (the manufacturers) are called Incat, not Trojan !!!:O

I do know my history and what the Trojan horse is.

[BBadanov]

I do know my history and what the Trojan horse is.

hi 500N

I think he is referring to the innocent looking grey cat ferry - that can be filled with Aussie troops...

[500N]

Yes, I realise that, it's called or was called the Jervis Bay.


She used to run from near my home to Tasmania
across Bass Strait.

[Wander00]

Jervis Bay - named after a wartime armed merchant cruiser sunk by the "Admiral Scheer", and for which action Capt Fogarty Fegan was awarded a posthumous VC?

[Heathrow Harry]

The Aussie landings at Dilli are real red herring - they weren't opposed and the government & rebels are hardly up to any standard what-so-ever

I have a feeling Air North & Merpati were able to get in & out even before the RAAF arrived

I'm just surprised we never invested in some medium/long range ground-air missiles TBH

[Heathrow Harry]

"Pre infiltrated SF units may be compromised but with the way
the Falklands are, they shouldn't have any problem landing
and staying hidden until needed.2


there's not on square metre of cover in the whole place for heavens sake - you can see for miles - if they are anywhere near MPA someone will see them in about 2 hours - anywhere else they might as well be on the moon as far as military effectiveness goes

Without transport you have to WALK everywhere across some horrendous territory (as we proved in the war) - and the Argies were losing men to exposure in static positions long before the Task Force turned up - why do you think they'd be seriously better now?

[500N]

HH

I was just thinking laterally. Hell, we managed to hide people
inside the Argie positions during the war, what is to stop them ?

Why not land them a bit away and have them rest up in
and LUP until needed ? Move in as a raiding force when ...........

Walking ? Er yes, the Army does walk,

Re Exposure, I think equipment and such in use would be a bit better now
- and recruits that didn't want to be there versus SF soldiers with good gear ?

Anyway, just trying to have a discussion.

[Jabba_TG12]

"I also happen to believe that the best way for the UK to re-take the Falkland Islands is not to lose them in the first place, and given the potential wealth that might be found in that region over the next 20-50 years, a greater investment in the security of the Islands now can only be money well spent!"

Nail
Head
BANG :D:D:D:D:D

Wasnt originally my idea actually, something I caught wind of in the press when Sandy Woodward and Julian Thompson were getting a tad worked up about defence matters during the latter days of the Brown administration. This was the scenario they figured we were vulnerable to and if they figured that it would work and they were two of the most senior commanders where CORPORATE was concerned, thats good enough for me. But I'm in complete agreement that the best way is to make sure you dont lose them in the first place which means taking the requirement to defend the joint seriously, not just paying lipservice to it as we appear to be doing at the moment.

[Milo Minderbinder]

"use a civilian Catamaran "

I had the **** taken out of me when I suggested that a year or so ago

I'm not sure if there are any Argentinian registered large high-speed ferries, but theres joint Argentine / Uruguayan company with a Uruguayan registered fleet on the River Plate which includes one of the larger Incat cats, plus a sister to the Superseacat high speed monohulls.
They'll each take 500 people plus 50 cars, and there are a number of smaller passenger-only cats capable of carrying ~300 people.
If the Argentines were to use those (they'd need reasonable weather) and launch from Rio Gallegos (the nearest military port) they'd only need a few hours transit.
Think about it. Airborne commando force to knock out the aircraft at MPA, then a landing by marines from the high speed ferries, followed up a few hours later by troops and tanks on conventional RORO ships
And if you're wondering about loading ramps - they could use something like a mexeflote, or even tow in a floating linkspan

[500N]

Milo

The Incat Cat Australia used transited Melbourne - Tasmania
via the Bass Strait - not the calmest waters by any means !!!

Why not drop the Soldiers by parachute, then the C130's
can go back and get another load and come back, possibly
landing on the airfield the 2nd time ?


I still think they would need a heap of Soldiers to achieve it.

.

[glojo]

Aren't we all getting carried away with our Tom Clancy or Andy McNab theories? No doubt in theory there are numerous ways of successfully incapacitating the airfield and the few aircraft that are located on the island but once captured it has to be held.

If we are talking successful operations then my thoughts are the Israelis holders of the Gold medal with their excellent, well executed raid on Entebbe. That operation has never been equalled, it has set the bar for what is possible. I would also put forward our Sierra Leone operation that was another well planned, well executed raid but and it is a huge

BUT.....

We never occupied and KEPT possession of those locations and to highlight how difficult that can be I would put forward any US led conflict in recent times. How many of these conflicts where we have removed a so called enemy and our forces have taken up residence have been successful? Would Argentina ever win the hearts and minds of the islanders? Could they afford to keep a large military presence on those islands?

Would Great Britain impose a blockade and sink without warning ANY ships that entered a defined 'No Go' area? Taking the islands would be relatively easy, keeping them would probably be a HUGE drain on the military resources which Argentina might not have and can you imagine the ramifications of another failed attempt at taking those islands.

Just me thinking aloud

[500N]

glojo

Agree.

I just didn't want to complicate the discussion with the "aftermath" scenario.

To be honest, let's just say the Argies won the war, it would be like Iraq
where they would lose the peace.

Entebbe was a special case, albeit a good one because it was not a well defended airport and not a high number of people around.

[glojo]

Totally agree about Entebbe and this was no doubt considered during the planning. I was judging it on the 'whole' as opposed to just the freeing of the hostages. Distances, refuelling, foreign airspaces... An amazing operation which I feel deserves the recognition :) It would be easy, peezy to say, 'We could have done that!'

Talk has always been easier than deeds and the risks surrounding that operation were formidiable and I am not just talking about the risks involved in the actual combat side of that operation.

[500N]

The raid on Osama shows just how the best laid plans can
go wrong - ref the Helo crashing.

Luckily they pulled it off.

[cokecan]

again, its worth thinking about what a success looks like from the Argentine side, rather than thinking about it from our side.

for Argentina a success is any confrontation which trumpets British military supremacy and persuades/coerces other LatAm states (regardless of how they feel privately) to show public support for Argentinas claim, and to enact measures that make civil life in the FI harder, and our military garrison there more expensive.

Argentina knows that it is about as likely to be able to undertake a full invasion of the Islands, defeating the current garrison/assets, and to then successfully defend its new possession as it is to build a new Death Star - moreover, it knows that an initial military victory would lead to a political and then military defeat: the UK's political/diplomatic/economic clout means that an Argentine invasion creates harsh words at the UN, sanctions from the EU and NATO countries, and the release of the LatAm countries from the political support they are currently obliged to give to Argentina - a political claim is one thing, a military invasion is quite another... it also knows that even without the CVS/SHAR/GR9, and with Argentine A-4's and Super Etendards at MPA, the RN's T45's and TLAM/SSN combination could make life there very difficult for the invaders.

Argentina knows that the Isladers are the biggest hole in its attempts to gain the Islands, it has to remove their legitimacy or their desire to remain in the British fold - to do that it has to either get Islanders/their government to be seen as aggressors towards Argentine Civilians, or make life there so expensive that they either leave, or the UK decides to leave.

[ricardian]

Cruise ships avoiding the Falklands (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/cruises/cruise-news/9741833/Cruise-ship-row-strangling-Falkland-Islands.html)

[500N]

I read that, they are not exactly winning the hearts and minds
of the Islanders !

[Lonewolf_50]

I note that the cruise ship companies roll over for the bullies.

Lovely bunch of cowards in management.

Gee, there's a shock.

[500N]

Lonewolf

Yes, I agree.

[Morley1]

Another version of events

Falklands (http://en.mercopress.com/2012/12/12/falklands-dispute-triggers-concern-among-argentine-tourism-operators-after-two-cruises-omit-ushuaia)

[parabellum]

A major oil find right now would help, close enough for the oil to be piped to the islands for, at least, a storage station but preferably a refinery, should keep all the islanders happy, worked in the Shetlands.

[500N]

With an announcement that a pipeline direct to Chile to a new processing
plant would be built !

That would get the Argies changing heart quick smart.

Economic Blackmail can work both ways !!!

[A2QFI]

The version I read, in a tabloid, said that the cruise ship was detained/blockaded
in an Argentinian port and only released on condition that it is did not sail to the Falklands. However, the Telegraph reports British cruise ship tests Argentine blockade in Falklands - Telegraph (http://tinyurl.com/ygnbfmt)
The detained ship is sailing to the Falklands

[Captivep]

Last year I was on a Norwegian ship which sailed from Ushuaia to Antarctica, then on to South Georgia and then the Falklands, subsequently sailing direct from there to Buenos Aires.

I must admit I did wonder what the Argentine authorities would make of my British passport with a stonking great Falkland Islands stamp in it but they couldn't have been more pleasant. All a bit odd, really, particularly given how all-pervasive the "malvinas" thing is there. Even the news programmes include the islands on the weather forecasts - can't imagine they have many viewers in Stanley!

[ColdCollation]

... I was at a conference earlier this year and was introduced by a mutual US acquaintance to an Argentinian. I made a throw-away comment about whether we should be talking to each other and got, 'Oh, don't worry - we think our president's a rabble-rousing idiot as well.'

It's a bit like assuming every Iranian is a screaming zealot whose only aim is the West's downfall, I suppose.

[Biggus]

Historically one of reasons behind the start of a "conflict" is to distract the home population from bad news, give them a single unifying point of focus, hopefully a welcome patriotic success, etc...

Indeed this is usually cited as the reason why the Junta embarked on the first Falklands conflict.

With that in mind, such news as:

BBC News - IMF data deadline looms for Argentina's fragile economy (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20632769)


Doesn't bode well, in terms of Argentinian leaders today perhaps once again looking for distractions/successes elsewhere.

[Heathrow Harry]

"A major oil find right now would help, close enough for the oil to be piped to the islands for, at least, a storage station but preferably a refinery, should keep all the islanders happy, worked in the Shetlands."

Wake up, man!!

Rockhopper found 450 million barrels a year or so ago and have sold a major interest to Premier who are planning first oil in 2016/17 - but I don't think any will land in the Falklands and there is no refinery there either

The 3000 locals will be richer than the UAE

[Churchills Ghost]

The United States wanted to give Argentina advance warning that Britain was going to retake South Georgia in 1982 in a move that would have spelt disaster ahead of the Falklands campaign, according to newly released files

So what else is new?

Time for Britain to battle on by herself (maybe with the aid of Canada and Australia) and (especially) to leave the EU!

US wanted to warn Argentina about South Georgia - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9767707/US-wanted-to-warn-Argentina-about-South-Georgia.html)

[dat581]

The yanks can be a bit strange, most seem to like Britain but there is always a sprinkling of anglophobes around to cause trouble. Admiral King in the second world war being a prime example.

[Robert Cooper]

Most of us "yanks" will side with you brits. The special relationship still exists, despite the nay sayers.

Bob C

[Temp Spike]

There is not going to be another war. Argentina don't have enough military equipment to fight it's way out of a wet paper bag. It's broke.

[Heathrow Harry]

Churchills ghost wrote:-

"Time for Britain to battle on by herself (maybe with the aid of Canada and Australia) and (especially) to leave the EU!"

ahh the old Empire calls - whenever I mention this sort of thing to Australians or Canucks they look at me quite oddly and ask why the hell would they want to be allies with the UK at the expense of the yanks.......... what do we bring to the party in 2013??

[keesje]

Pls hold on to a few useless islands thousands of miles away.

For oldtime sake.

History will judge you..

What if Obama says he think its time to move ahead iso backward?

[glojo]

Shouldn't we be asking what we bring to this so called 'Special Relationship' as I am thinking we could easily suggest the USA is more than pulling her weight when it comes to all these latest confrontations.

Whilst I am supporting America might I tactfully suggest that without their aid the Falklands Conflict might not have ended the same way as it did?

We are up the creek without very much of a paddle and although I have no idea how the RAF are coping with all our overseas commitments, it has now got to the stage of where the Chief of the Defence Staff has voiced his concerns over the lack of frigates and destroyers. For this person to come out and voice these concerns whilst still in office is not going to win him many friends in the corridors of Eton (Whitehall)

Are we beyond overstretch, the only good news is that Argentina is in the same situation but what about Spain and its stance over Gibraltar?? :\:\

[Temp Spike]

Harry, a little study into the Potsdam Treaty documents will reveal that the United States was pretty much responsible for the down turn in your empire. That is because your empire, as you/yours then described it, was contrary to U.S. political goals. Note that your colonies and everybody else’s began a serious decline during and after WWII. As fellow capitalists, you cannot really hold taking advantage of an opportunity against the U.S.. You/we have very similar international goalkeeping ideologies. I say that with great reservation.

[cokecan]

Argentinas military capability - or otherwise - has never been a factor in deciding whether there'd be more fisticuffs, for the Argentine government its a purely political calculation with purely political costs and benefits.

they have no interest in the technical correlation of forces because they aren't interested in the military result, only the political result.

them being skint also has no bearing on the matter - they are only skint in 'big picture' terms, they still have enough ready cash to spend on expendables like munitions, fuel, some spares etc.. and enough assets to use those expendables in a militarily limited, but politically driven, operation.

[keesje]

The Falkland Island have 2.841 or inhabitants. Curaçao has 150.000 inhabitants, industry tourism etc. Aruba idem 108.000 inhabitants. 100 times as much.

That said we give them all opportunities to become (more) independent. Some Islands do, other decided to become closer. No pressure from Europe at all to proudly remain Dutch, contrary..

It seems to me the inhabitants think they (and their kids) have more to loose then to gain with independence..

http://www.dcpnetwork.com/assets/images/islands/Luchtfoto's/Curacao_Willemstad_Otrobanda_Luchtfoto.jpg

[Heathrow Harry]

Temp Spike -I think you misunderstand me - I was getting at Churchills Ghost who posted the usual British anti-European idea that we should get out and then (somehow) revive our contacts with the old Empire

They don't want us was my point

The Old British Empire had reached it sell by date by 1939 anyway - we then vapourised it after the War - though we hung on for far too long in some places and too many of my family served in such pointless fights. After WW2 we couldn't afford it American policy or no

On the military front if we aren't allied with the USA then we are essential useless anyway

[Heathrow Harry]

keesje

there is a lot of difference between a population of 2,500 people (the Falklands) and 100,000+

Most people in the Falklands hold down several jobs and they are still dependent on contract workers for many jobs (shades of the UAE)

From a defence perspective they couldn't hold off a small Company of the Argentinian armed forces without outside help

Now when the oil starts flowing in 2017/18 they may be able to hire Gurkhas (as Brunei does) etc but I doubt they'll ever be able to afford an SSN. In teh long term the best answer would be fro Argentina to back off and take the very long view (say 100 years) when The FI might want to join Argentina as some sort of self -governing teritory

[OutlawPete]

Shouldn't we be asking what we bring to this so called 'Special Relationship'

I'd be more inclined to ask what exactly are we (the British) getting out of it? Not a lot I'd say. A case of you play ball with us and we'll ram the bat up your ar$e when we feel like it.

[Heathrow Harry]

wellllllll... read any book on practical politics etc and you'd be amazed how interwoven the UK & the US are in defence and strategy at a working, day-to-day level

Things like GCHQ and NSA are hand in glove, the Brits normally have at least one senior senior civil servant at RAND working (sorry "assisting") on US military issues such as the Future Bomber

And of course we play games - say the USMC are having problems with the Administration on a piece of kit - they get the Brits to bring it up which escalates the issue and improves their chances of getting their way ("look! it's not just us who think this is a great idea!") and they do the same for the RN or RAF in the future

We have cross posting of personnel, we share new technology (the drive for most modern SSN's is a British invention) and we get missile technology at cut -price in return.

WIKILEAKS listed a whole slew of UK companies that provide top secret kit to the Americans

[glad rag]

There is not going to be another war. Argentina don't have enough military equipment (http://www.pprune.org/#) to fight it's way out of a wet paper bag (http://www.pprune.org/#). It's broke.

Funny, that's the jist of what the yanks said the last time too...:=

[SaddamsLoveChild]

The Falkland Island Company are a very rich bunch and the people themselves make alot of money from RnR etc for the Service Pers fortunate enough to be posted down there in comparison to Herrick etc. What do they actually give back to UK PLC, when you consider all the subsidies on education and taxes that they enjoy do they actually pull their financial weight, having spoken to many of them whilst down there I get the disitinct impression that they dont and are content to live their lives the way they do milking UK Def PLC for all they can get whilst escaping the UK.

I say reduce the subsidies and give it back to UK PLC and then see how many actiully remain there hiding from the realities of being british. Bah humbug maybe but per capita there are more millionairs there I believe than there are in the UK. I have no time for them personally and as for the prices they charge for the RnR B&B's they are ripping off a captive audience who are deperate to escapte the Death Star.

[keesje]

You won't find many people in the Falkland Islands who'd prefer to be Argentinean. Similarly in Gibraltar, a place more bedecked with Union flags than anywhere I've ever seen in the British Isles... The Falklands would be similarly plastered in Union flags except they don't last in the bracing breeze

Yes, its all because of the flag isn't it. Much of the rest seems windowdressing. There are even rocky islands, without people, but full of flags, that cause major international tensions. Patriotic dog and pony shows all around.

Internet proved to have a moderating effect on these events. Always unproffesional guys around quickly defusing false aquisations, asking questions publicly that weren't supposed to be asked ("are we the good guys here?"), forwarding the wounded/ killed civillians undeniable in HD, unasked for, unfiltered, faster then any official cameras.. It seems it used to be far easier to start a war 20 years ago..

[parabellum]

I'm looking for the "Translate into English" button, anybody?:confused:

[Heathrow Harry]

"do they actually pull their financial weight"

They make their money as follows:-

The Falkland Islands have a GDP of $105 million, and a per capita GDP of $35,400 (2002 estimate) placing the islands on a par with the United Kingdom (GDP per capita of $35,200 – 2009 estimate).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Falkland_Islands#cite_note-cia-2) The contributors to the GDP by sector (2010 forecast) are:[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Falkland_Islands#cite_note-overview-8)


Fisheries – 52.5%
Government (including health and education) – 14.0%
Communications, Finance and Business services – 11.4%
Hospitality & Transport – 7.7%
Construction – 6.6%
Housing and other services – 3.2%
Mining. Quarrying & Manufacturing – 2.1%
Agriculture – 1.6%
Utilities – 0.9%

In the 2009/10 financial year, the government revenue was £42.4 million of which £14.5 million came from fishery licences and services and £10.5 million from taxes. During the same period the government expenditure was £47.6 million.[/URL]


they have a very healthy bank balance and they also make a contribution to defence costs


when the oil comes in it could be worth several billion in taxes
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Falkland_Islands#cite_note-9"] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Falkland_Islands#cite_note-9)

[Lonewolf_50]

Harry, well done to save "the bottom line" for your bottom line. :ok:

[EMU_1]

Quote: David Cameron must return Falklands to Argentina, Cristina Kirchner demands in open letter

See telegraph website, link <here> (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9776580/David-Cameron-must-return-Falklands-to-Argentina-Cristina-Kirchner-demands-in-open-letter.html)

[dat581]

Applying the warped logic from the letter all argentines not decended from the original native population should pack up and head back to Spain and Italy.

[ORAC]

French might want to raise their claim as well......

Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Araucania_and_Patagonia)

Conquest of the Desert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_the_Desert)

[keesje]

I'm afraid the younger generations are raised differently. Historical rights, defending the flag, serving the queen, not asking questions and getting the job done..

Colonialism, boycots of the rising S. America Democracies, times have changed George Galloway on Britain and the Falkland Islands (02Mar12) - YouTube

[Biggus]

keesje,

While your English is far better than my Dutch will ever be, we don't always fully understand what you are trying to say.


At the end of the day, continued UK retention of the Falkland Island isn't about Colonialism, Flag waving, jingoism, etc - it is about the basic right of self-determination as enshrined in (Article 1 I think) the Charter of the United Nations.

I don't know if you have ever been to the Falkland Islands, I have, as have many UK military personnel posting on Pprune. The people there are totally committed to staying British, it is their choice, not one forced upon them. If they wished the Islands to become Argentinian then the British government would have no choice but to agree to their wishes, but quite simply THEY DON'T.

There is a nice comment on a Palestinian website about self determination, part of which I have copied below:

There is a recognised right to self-determination in international law..... It is clearly illegal under international law to deprive a people of their right to self-determination by using forcible actions including use of violence.


I'm pretty sure that George Galloway is a strong avocate of Palestinian rights, it seems ironic that he doesn't support the Falkland Islanders in essentially the same situation. It would appear that they have less rights in his eyes simply because there are fewer on them then there are Palestinians...where is the logic in that argument?



At the end of the day, Argentina is flouting International Law, and the important point, irrespective of Argentine or UK government opinions, is the wishes of the indigenious Islanders! I'm pretty sure that if they couldn't stay British the islanders would opt for independence as their prefered option!

I suggest you consider this the major, indeed only, issue in this situation!

[melmothtw]

There is a nice comment on a Palestinian website about self determination, part of which I have copied below:

There is a recognised right to self-determination in international law..... It is clearly illegal under international law to deprive a people of their right to self-determination by using forcible actions including use of violence.



But I wonder if the Palestinians would apply that logic to Israeli settlers, say 100 years from now.

As someone whose father served in the Falklands I'm no apologist for the Argentinians, but I would say their position is that those living on the islands now are not native to the islands and therefore not subject to the same rights of self-determination that would normally apply.

Like I said though, I'm no apologist and fully subscribe to the notion that, as the Argentines aren't native to South America themselves, they should be careful when throwing colonial stones.

[glojo]

Well said Biggus :ok:

[keesje]

I think in reality the UK (& Netherlands) gave up up enormous amounts of territory after 1945. Did the HKG residents get an fair vote in recognition of their right to self-determination under international law? Maybe sent some ships to scare the Chinese?

http://web2.globalpost.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/gp3_fullpage/hongkong8.jpg

Falkland Islands 3.000 inhabitants, Hong Kong: 6.000.000+. Economic value and history; why even compare.. turned over to the Chinese 15 yrs after the Falklands..

Of course we should protect the rights of people. And does the amount of people involved really matter in keeping up those rights? Well, yes actually.

We don't want (more) small minorities setting the world on fire everywhere. It's irresponsible.

[Odigron]

Keesje,

There will always be examples of where something has happened differently, but that doesn't mean that it was right.

A simple question for you though; do you, or do you not, believe that the Falkland Islanders have the right to self determination?

A more complicated follow on question on the assumption that you do not believe they have the right to determine their own futures; why not?

[Heathrow Harry]

what do you mean "not native to the Falkland Islands"???

When do people become "natives"??

The Falklands have been British for longer than Texas has been part of the USA and is approx the same age as Belgium

What I find funny is that no Argentinians (over 50% of whose ancestors arrived post 1945) want to go to the bloody place (and I don't blame them) - it's all political flim-flam

[Torque Tonight]

And who is native if not us? The islands were uninhabited and there were no indigenous people there. Many seafaring nations had a go at settling the islands. We were the only ones who made a success of it. The Argie argument about colonialism is so tangled up in hypocrisy that it cannot be taken seriously. After the Argies failed to accept international law and diplomacy, the matter of sovereignty was settled militarily, and yet they still beat their chest over it.

[Evanelpus]

Whilst the people of the Falklands want to remain 'British' my two word answer to that Pete Burns lookalike, Argie bitch, would be Foxtrot Oscar :ouch:

[Lonewolf_50]

The Falklands have been British for longer than Texas has been part of the USA and is approx the same age as Belgium

What I find funny is that no Argentinians (over 50% of whose ancestors arrived post 1945) want to go to the bloody place (and I don't blame them) - it's all political flim-flam

Well said, Harry. :ok:

[howiehowie93]

I found this very interesting, especially the table showing ownership through the ages::

fleet street fox: Dear Argentina... (http://www.fleetstreetfox.com/2013/01/dear-argentina.html?m=1)

There is an interesting comment too that Argentina didn't come into existence until 29 years AFTER the UK took ownership of the FI.

regards
HH93

[Courtney Mil]

I have never seen any evidence of Argentineans being ejected from the islands by force apart from in 1982 - which was thoroughly deserved.

The vote in March will reveal what we already know about about the islanders' wishes, so self-determination law will stand. End of story.

If there are any doubts, we can reinforce the islands with all three services. That will have a number of useful effects. For one thing it will tie up a lot of equipment and manpower, showing that it is in-use post-AFG and, therefore, not available for scrapping. For another it would provide great training opportunities (as the place has since 1982) and require us to maintain some sort of logistics capability. It could also provide the bonus of of a really good punch-up that would to serve to remind their crazy president that she has even less chance than Leopoldo Galtieri of taking our territory by force. Oh, and it would mean that we wouldn't need to be so concerned that we scrapped Harrier.

Bring it on! I'll even turn up for my reserve commitment voluntarily to help out. Hey, that would make me a serving member again so I can stay on PPRuNe!!!

[keesje]

From the BBC:

Our correspondent said there was now a "diplomatic stand off" because Argentina's view is that the referendum is illegitimate and will have no bearing on their claim because they see the islanders as occupiers, rather than residents.

Ms Fernandez says her letter is published on the same date - 3 January - when, 180 years ago: "Argentina was forcibly stripped of the Malvinas Islands, which are situated 14,000 km (8,700 miles) away from London".

She goes on: "The Argentines on the Islands were expelled by the Royal Navy and the United Kingdom subsequently began a population implantation process similar to that applied to other territories under colonial rule.

"Since then, Britain, the colonial power, has refused to return the territories to the Argentine Republic, thus preventing it from restoring its territorial integrity."

In her final paragraph, she ends: "In the name of the Argentine people, I reiterate our invitation for us to abide by the resolutions of the United Nations."


The Falkland Islands has a population of around 3,000 people
Argentina says it inherited ownership of the islands from Spain, arguing that British colonists occupied the islands by force in 1833 and expelled settlers, violating Argentina's territorial integrity.

BBC News - UK prime minister rebuffs Argentina over Falklands (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20897675)

http://wander-argentina.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/WAO-Obama-reelection-Kirchner-and-Obama.jpg

We won't reclaim the Sebald Islands. I promise.

[Courtney Mil]

You're welcome to try, friend. You're also welcome to join in the fight when it comes. I think round about 2015 would be good for us. Mark your diaries.

[Trim Stab]

As Heathrow Harry said, Argentina's best option is to develop a strategy that will make it more attractive in the long-term for the Falklanders to adopt allegiance to Argentina. There was a recent example (much feted in Argentina) of a Falklander who adopted Argentine citizenship, because he thought it the best long term option for his children. If Argentina were to concentrate on consolidating its sporadic progress to becoming a stable, prosperous and respected democracy then perhaps more FIs would take the same view. It would be considerably cheaper for Argentina to spend on incentives for FIs to become Argentine (eg fund local schooling, health care to compete with UK provision, and offer free tertiary education and healthcare on the mainland) than spending on a military solution.

Bear in mind, also, that the bellicose and populist statements of Kirchner are not universally applauded in Argentina. I'm from an Anglo-Argentine family, and even have second-cousins serving in the Argentine military - they and most of their acquaintances are appalled at Kirchner's populist pronouncements blatantly aimed at voters who are the Argentine equivalent of "The Sun" readers in the UK. Unfortunately there are a higher proportion of them over there than in UK.

[CoffmanStarter]

Bookies Falklands : Latest Odds 03/01/13

Outcome of Referendum

Yes (Remain in British Sovereignty) 1/500
No (Change from British Sovereignty) 25/1

Number of votes against British Sovereignty

Under 20.5 5/6
Over 20.5 5/6

Cameron & Kirchner to have official bilateral meeting in 2013 25/1

Cameron to visit The Falklands in 2013 12/1

Lionel Messi to make a demand in 2013 that the Falklands come under Argentinian Sovereignty 25/1

Simples :ok:

PS Courtney no need to strap on your leg restraints just yet :ok:

[Courtney Mil]

Not giving up hope yet. Until I hear Michael Fish say there'll not be an Argentinean invasion attempt, I won't believe it.

[keesje]

Few bombers, aircraft carriers and Harriers around these days..

Luckely Argentine hardly spends any money on defense these days and the air fleet is a flying museum.

[yotty]

keesje, it's wrong to compare Hong Kong with the Falklands. UK was ceded some of the territory in perpetuity at the time of the Opium Wars. We then leased further land for 100 years. It wasn't feasible to carry on with HK whilst handing the leased land back. PS Kirchner does remind me of a brunette Miss Piggy !:E

[keesje]

What if people believe British colonists occupied the islands by force in 1833 and expelled settlers and began a population implantation process on a lonely pair of cold islands, 8700Nm from London? (see BBC article)

The people (or more importantly, the media :( ) from USA, China, Brazil and Russia could think it's nothing but a belated farfetched neo-colonial war..

The holy rights of 3000 (!?) "implantated" fully UK government dependent people seems constructed. Get real. What about the millions Kurds, Armenians, Basques, Palestinians, Tibet..

.. Playing the devils advocate here ;) But IMO better ask the USA and Brazil first how they think about it. Little chance of new old glory I'm afraid.

[AR1]

Bloody scandanavians Invading our country. How long shall we go back? It's the regurgitation on history that stops us all moving forward. Humans never really leave the playground we just get bigger toys.

[Heathrow Harry]

Trim Stab wrote:- "Argentina's best option is to develop a strategy that will make it more attractive in the long-term for the Falklanders to adopt allegiance to Argentina. There was a recent example (much feted in Argentina) of a Falklander who adopted Argentine citizenship, because he thought it the best long term option for his children. If Argentina were to concentrate on consolidating its sporadic progress to becoming a stable, prosperous and respected democracy then perhaps more FIs would take the same view. It would be considerably cheaper for Argentina to spend on incentives for FIs to become Argentine (eg fund local schooling, health care to compete with UK provision, and offer free tertiary education and healthcare on the mainland) than spending on a military solution."

I believe that WAS the their policy pre- about 1978 - treat them FI decently, offer some incentives like decent University education cheaply etc etc and just wait - then it all went pear shaped..............

[Thud105]

"Few bombers, aircraft carriers and Harriers around these days.."

Keesje, its not about the size of the dog in the fight, but about the size of the fight in the dog. And as you seem to like your history, do you know exactly how long it took the Germans to completely over-run your country in 1940? Here's a clue - an embarrassingly short time.

[keesje]

Thud105, I'll take that as an "out of ammo"

& size matters, principles tend to adjust to realities (unfortunately)

[westernhero]

The simplest way of the FI people being listened to would be if they took on board some of the 'New British' i.e. some of those who have arrived in the last 50 years or so, a few hundred of them and The BBC, New Labour, New Tories , G Galloway esq, and all 50 readers of The Guardian would be the first at the barricades to defend them ! Simples !!

milo

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

The BBC, New Labour, New Tories , G Galloway esq, and all 50 readers of The Guardian

I suggest moving the above to the FI - two birds with one stone.

Though I suspect the Argies would be a lot less likely to want the FI with them as part of the package...

[Thud105]

"principles tend to adjust to realities (unfortunately)"

That depends very much Keesje, on whether or not you feel that its better to die on your feet than to live on your knees. In 1940, the Dutch opted for the latter. Luckily, the British preferred the former.

[LeggyMountbatten]

A bit harsh Thud105...

In 1939, the Dutch government repeated the neutrality of 1914. In 1940, German strategy (right flanking) wasn't bothered about neutrals.

[His dudeness]

That depends very much Keesje, on whether or not you feel that its better to die on your feet than to live on your knees. In 1940, the Dutch opted for the latter. Luckily, the British preferred the former.

Mhhh, maybe that and a tad of salty water between the heroic brits and the not so heroic rest of the continent?

And by 'the Dutch opted' you mean they had a vote wether they wanted to kneel or fight?

BTW, the german airforce on the western front in 1940 was around 900 fighters, 220 destroyers, 1100 bombers and 320 divebombers strong, the Dutch had 140 airplanes all together.

Dutch ground troops: 8 infantry divisions, almost no tanks
German: 117 infantry divisions plus 6 motorized divisions, 10 tank divisions.

Hardly a match, don`t you think?

[peter we]

The Argentinians are nothing more than Spanish and Italian colonists who exterminated the indigenous population. Other South American nations view them are white men, intent on invading and occupying their neighbors (Chile).

Why on earth Britain gives them the time of day is beyond me, they speak bull**** and teh UK doesn't point out the flaws in theri bizzare logic.

Remember, the Spanish "Argentinians" used force to kick out the British from Buenos Aires, when the British has just as much right to be there ..having invaded.

Now, tell the Spanish/Italians settlers in 'Argentina' that Britain wants the country back, the settlers have no rights as they are colonists, only the indigenous people have a right to reside in 'Argentina'.

[dragartist]

I honestly can't see them [the Argies]mounting any kind of military invasion. surly our brace of Typhoons will see them comming and take them out. they would need such overwhelming forces and be prepared to take severe losses.

However if they did I feel quite certain that as a Nation we would be more behind retaking the Islands by force than we are about Afg and Iraq.

In 1982 my team worked balls out around the clock, long hours, week ends until we were shagged. Similar during the first gulf. however inspite of having endorsed UORs the majority in the UK MoD still works 9 - 5 in support of HERICK. Expediture still needs high level approval and enormous debate and scrutiny leading to delay. (If folks don't believe me just check out the Public Accounts Ctee report). How Marshall managed to deliver C130 refuelling in 19 days flat I can't imagine today. it would take a month to form an inception meeting and capability working group!

I wish back in 1982 we had thrown some ordanace onto the mainland (did polaris only have a nuclear option?) I am pleased Maggie ordered the sinking of the Belgrano.

Frankly even if they do find any black stuff down there the Argies will stay at home if they know what was best.

[parabellum]

http://wander-argentina.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/WAO-Obama-reelection-Kirchner-and-Obama.jpg

[Thud105]

The point I'm trying to make to Keejes His Dudeness is that aggression needs to be resisted. And yes, in 1940 the Dutch did have options - resist or surrender, die on your feet or live on your knees. They opted to live on their knees.
Oh, and in 1940 the Germans also outnumbered the British, and at the start of the Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe outnumbered the RAF. Indeed, on paper it was "hardly a match."
Using your logic should the British have also surrendered?

[keesje]

The Argies have found a cheaper and far more damaging weapon: the media.

Making the Brits "colonialists" explain everywhere why exclusively the Falklands stand for everything in civilization, democracy and selfdetermination.

Brazil seems to stick with Argentina anyway. (Brazil: neither small, poor, unsuccessful or shy)

A growing majority of the global public will be making jokes and asking even more questions. For a decade and then see how things look.

Shooting at them would be so much easier and glorious.

[Thud105]

"Shooting at them would be so much easier and glorious."

Seemed to work out pretty well last time.

I guess its just lucky for The Netherlands that in 1944 rather than "making jokes and asking even more questions. For a decade and then see how things look" the British, Americans, Australians and Canadians decided to resist the German's aggression and give your ancestors their country back.

You don't seem to either be willing or able to accept that the people who live in the Falklands don't want to be bossed about by the Argentineans. I imagine that in 1940 your grandparents weren't exactly enamoured at the idea of being bossed about by the Germans. Think about it.

[keesje]

Thud, I see changing the subject to a period neither you or I were present and trying to extract some backup from it as something close to
http://www.unsustainablefuture.com/forum/Smileys/SoLoSMiLeYS1/white_flag.gif

[vetflyer]

I believe a lot of Dutch fought along with the Germans

More per head than any other country

What that has to do with the FI , I am not sure but it stopped me calling Keesle a ****, at the very least.

[parabellum]

I believe a lot of Dutch fought along with the Germans


I have never heard that, nor has my Dutch wife, (her denial was much stronger!). I know a lot of Dutch risked their lives, (and many lost their lives), taking part in active resistance, they even had their cycles confiscated by the Germans in an effort to stop them communicating. Many Dutch families around Arnhem and Nijmegen did their very best to protect allied troops during the fighting and afterwards, at the risk of being shot if found out. To this day the graves of the Allied troops are proudly tended by local school children and the job passed down year by year.

[Biggus]

para,

I'm not trying to start, or continue, a Dutch "bashing", argument. I'm also not sure the Dutch were any better or worse than a variety of other nations (including the British) in terms of volunteers fighting for the Germans in WW2, but for the sake of accuracy, you might like to show your wife this:

23rd SS Volunteer Panzer Grenadier Division Nederland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23rd_SS_Volunteer_Panzer_Grenadier_Division_Nederland)

Yes, I know it's from wikipedia, but I'm sure it's simple enough to confirm from other sources.






Just to confirm I'm not "bashing" the Dutch, here's an article that talks about British volunteers fighting for the Germans:

British Volunteers in the German Wehrmacht in WWII (http://www.feldgrau.com/gb.html)

[parabellum]

OK Biggus, point taken, hopefully there were more Dutch in the resistance than in the SS!

[vetflyer]

Fairly sure it was from Max Hastings recent book where I gleamed the info about the Dutch.

I have no doubt about their actions either at Arnhem

Guess there were masssive shifts in opinion from '39 to '44 in Holland and indeed else where.

I wonder if it was more a desire to stop the Soviets rather than support for Germany per se

Oh I also was not trying to bash the Dutch either, honest

[Gene Genie]

Anyway, back to the thread. It would seem that only the Argentine Navy has had any investment post '82 conflict, with the Meko series of vessels. Both their Army and Air Force lack modern eqpt and numbers. Although their SF are probably still current.

However, they are way ahead in publicity and propaganda. It's an area. that HMG need to get to grips with, especially post referendum as "we" always seem to be on the back foot.

Gene

[keesje]

Well, I know folks are trying to drag attention away from the topic on hand, the Argentine claims on the Falklands. I'm neither trying to bash to Brits, just introducing some different perspectives next to the usual patriotic get'm emotions.

I'm sure some further "research", next to sixties movies, (try wiki Battle of the Netherlands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Netherlands), Dutch resistance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_resistance) ) will show you a more accurate and objective picture of events.

Lots of folks love to identify with historic actions they weren't present with, or even born. Often it is what was/is used by war makers to motivate the men that have to do the job. Defend god given values against evil do'ers. On all sides. Problem is these days the evil do'ers are online, have great kids, play soccer and didn't look so evil / aggresive the last time you spoke to some..

Do a google on Argetine before attacking if you dare, you might find out it's a save, civilized, fun place..

I think looking at history we also have to identify with the bad things our grandfathers did. The stuff we didn't hear during our history classes, for a reason. I'm sure "Research" will come up with events everyone has been trying to ignore / forget for ages. Make them part of your identity too. Slavery, colonialism, instituted discrimination, greed, theft, defeat, arrogance, selective anger, crimes against humanity.. We shouldn't cherry pick history, IMO that's for the simple souls.

[His dudeness]

The point I'm trying to make to Keejes His Dudeness is that aggression needs to be resisted. And yes, in 1940 the Dutch did have options - resist or surrender, die on your feet or live on your knees. They opted to live on their knees.

Is that so? With todays knowledge maybe. Your point that the brits should have surrendered than too is....well who had the biggest Navy in these days? Exactly, Brittania ruled the waves. And to to conquer an Island it takes a navy, at least ships n`boats. If you cant protect em from the really big boats the brits had, than....

The appeal of nazism to Dutch and other folks (there were quite a lot foreigners in the SS, eben Russian and Ukrainian) is evident, when we look at these things we need to remember what information these people had. We look back at these things and say: "they should have...".

And its not like the Dutch said: hey come on Fritz, take our country and we will be your ally and applaud you for it.

Your opinion "they opted to live on your knees" weeps of arrogance. My best guess is that you simply have no idea how it is to live in a small country with neighbours more powerful.

[Heathrow Harry]

there were a lot of Hitler admirers in the UK as well - some in the cabinet

I'm sure if we'd been invaded the usual creeps would also have "come round" to see Nazism as the only true way

[keesje]

It seems thud105 and vetflyer have a rather unique, new vision on the war in the Netherlands. While we quickly surrendered the Germans somehow lost 400 aircraft had a para operation being suppressed and so had started bombing RTM city center and where preparing to flatten other cities too.

During the first few years the Germans tried to integrate the Netherlands (supposed to Belong to the right race) but things turned grim after Jewish citizens started to get deported, young men had to join workforces and underground started attacks.

Pretty soon SD torture centers where opened everywhere, dirty wars full of unknown hero's and unknow traittors were close, not on the other side of a sea. Mass executions took place and many people were on the wanted lists and had to hide (my grandfather) to escape arrest, torture concentration camps and execution.

Blokes like thud105 and vetflyer, well, they will always be there..

[Thud105]

Sorry Keesje, just woken up. Apologies, I don't get that white-flag waving icon - is it a Dutch thing?
But seriously - and to get things back on track re the FI. You still don't seem to either be willing or able to accept that the people who live in the Falklands don't want to be bossed about by the Argentineans. It is that simple - they have a right to self-determination. Why can't you accept that?

[The Helpful Stacker]

One wonders how our Dutch friend feels about Venezuela's claims towards the constituent countries of the Netherlands Antilles, described by Chavez's government as "the Dutch Falklands"...... Small islands, large potential oil wealth, claimed through colonial expansion, protectorate of a European nation state, very close in geographic terms to the claiming nation.......

6897km from the The Hague yet proud equal partners in the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

[Deepsixteen]

Hi Keesje

I fought for the place in 82 which was worthwhile then and would be today. Why exactly do you think that members of my family who live on the islands are any less worthy of defence from tyranny than anyone else?

Why should the people of the Falklands expect the Argentinians to treat them any better than they did the indigenous people of Patagonia, what steps is the plastic president taking to decolonise Patagonia?

Deepsixteen

[Thud105]

So Keejes, do you have a "different perspective" on "the Dutch Falklands"?
His Dudeness, I never suggested the British should have surrendered. I was just pointing out that as the Luftwaffe outnumbered the RAF at the start of the BoB and that (to use your words) it was "hardly a match" - that by applying your logic the British should have surrendered.
I am very grateful they didn't. If the Nazis had won, the World would be a very dark place.

[Courtney Mil]

This thread has lost its way. It's about the FI not the Dutch. Or, indeed, about about anything to to do with WWII.

I think the posts are becoming unbecoming of PPRuNes.

[The Helpful Stacker]

CM - The purpose of posting comments regarding the Netherlands Antilles is an attempt to provide our Dutch friend with a comparator regarding the Falkand Islands relationship to the UK.

Both the countries that make up the Netherlands Antillies and the Falkland Islands are protectorates of European nation states and both are also claimed by South American countries. I'm purely interested to see if his claim about 'trying to introduce different perspectives' allows introspection of his own nation's colonial acquisitions or whether by introducing a familar comparrison he will understand better the Falkland Islander's and British view of the situation.

[vetflyer]

Indeed

Keesje

Cristina Kirchner, Argentina’s president is using these claims to deflect attention away from her domestic issues and problems with IMF etc

UK is no more colonist than Spain , France or the Netherlands

Argentina's population speak spanish which suggests that is their ethic origin

FI population have chance to vote on their future but Mrs President possibliy does not care what they think.

[keesje]

CM, agree.

Dutch Antilles: reply #908

What's this sh.t !?
UK names Argentine Antarctic territory 'Queen Elizabeth land' - BuenosAiresHerald.com (http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/119723/uk-names-argentine-antarctic-territory-queen-elizabeth-land)

[The Helpful Stacker]

Keesje - So you believe that Falkland Islanders have less rights to live in their homeland than the residents of those countries that make up the Netherlands Antillies based purely on population numbers? Interesting ethical stance.

Out of interest, what would you say is the cut-off regarding population numbers before a people can live in their homeland unmolested by a foreign power's attempts at colonisation?

[keesje]

Helpful stacker, thats an interesting question. If it were 3 people living on a lonely rock far away, directly or indirectly paid by the dutch government, with extreme immigration laws. Do they have the right to self determination and should we send out a fleet to protect their rights. Yes, No? Why? 50 people? 100? Were they the first to live there? Not?

Does it depend if big Brazil or tiny Peru makes claims? Of course.. No? Does the ROW agree? Ignore? The UN, ignore them (this time only)?

What about rebuilding the villages and farms somewhere in Scotland, same climate, fishing, oil, an RAF base.. Problem is, it just isn't the same. Scotland is a so much better, more interesting, historic and beautifull place to live if you (and your children) feel British. Or is there more? what?

[The Helpful Stacker]

......Or is there more? what?.....

Its quite simple really, the Falkland Islands are the homeland of the Falkland Islanders.

Transporting Falkland Islanders to Scotland is no more an option than it is to transport the population of Aruba to Drenthe. The right to self-determination is enshrined by the UN, as too is the concept of living in your homeland unhindered by other nation states.

Falkland Islanders are not colonists. They are, as Arubans are, the lawful occupiers of their homeland.

[keesje]

The US urges the two countries to negotiate.
The Obama Administration knifes Britain yet again over the Falklands – Telegraph Blogs (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100162100/the-obama-administration-knifes-britain-yet-again-over-the-falklands/)

Reagan didn't like it either, the latests released docs show.
Reagan's Falklands plea to Thatcher - Channel 4 News (http://www.channel4.com/news/thatcher-reagan-falklands-plea)

Brazil..
Brazil reiterates support for Argentina, denies any blockade to the Falklands &mdash; MercoPress (http://en.mercopress.com/2012/02/01/brazil-reiterates-support-for-argentina-denies-any-blockade-to-the-falklands)

It seems the rest of the world just doesn't understand..

[Aerodramatics(UK)]

I've read the latter part of the debate with interest & did a little research that might add something useful

1. Non-Self Governing Territories (NSGTs)

It appears that in the UN Treaty effective from 24th October 1945, that Articles 73 & 74 of the Charter Chapter XI addresses the international law regarding such territories as the Falkland Islands

Charter of the United Nations: Chapter XI: Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories (http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter11.shtml)

Article 103 states that the UN Treaty prevails over any other agreement

Charter of the United Nations: Chapter XVI: Miscellaneous Provisions (http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter16.shtml)

Britain listed its overseas colonies with the UN in 1946, one of which was the Falkland Islands, who were subject to colonial rule and government. It appears the aim of Articles 73/74 of UN Treaty is to free people from colonial rule to allow them to freely chose their own form of government and rule and to be represented by their own population - i.e. by the people, for the people, of the people. That's why the FI are listed

In 1960 the UN General Assembly passed resolution 1514(XV) which urges the Administrating Countries of NSGTs to speed up implementation of Articles 73/74

Resolution 1514 (http://www.falklands.info/history/resolution1514.html)

and in 1961 the UN provides for a Decolonization Committee for Administrating Countries to report on progress, with terms of reference given in resolution 1654

Resolution 1654 (http://www.falklands.info/history/resolution1654.html)

In 1965 Argentina raises the existence of its sovereignty dispute with Britain and the UN GA invites both countries to negotiate a peaceful solution which bears in mind:

a. The provisions and objectives of the UN Charter (legally binding)
b. Resolution 1514
c. Interests of the population

Resolution 2065 (http://www.falklands.info/history/resolution2065.html)

These negotiations are begun and a framework agreed but are famously terminated by Argentina in 1982, because it refused to accept the validity of a, b or c and argued they did not apply to the Islanders

As to the "how many" question, New Zealand via the UN applied Article 73 to the Tokelauns who are a population of c. 1400

Tokelau (http://www.tokelau.org.nz/About+Us/Government/Self+Determination+Package/History+of+Self-Determination.html)

[Deepsixteen]

Hi

The USA and many other countries were against the UK taking action to end slavery as well (glad we do not always listen to them) they were wrong then acting in their own interests and not respecting the rights of others as they are now in not respecting the rights of the islanders to self-determination.

You do seem a little fixated on the Falklander’s what about the Patagonian’s?

Deepsixteen

[AR1]

Wonder why the US might sit on the fence. Their own interests? Yes I think that's it.
Clearly through these posts we have arrived that both the Argentinian stance and the UK stance albeit at a much smaller granularity than the world stage. I call on our very own United Nations Council (the PPRUNE Moderators) to make a ruling on this thread to which we should abide.

[keesje]

We all have to obey to the terms and conditions set by PPRune.
Site Terms (http://www.internetbrands.com/ib/terms/enthusiasts?site=www.pprune.org)

As long as we keep friendly / respectfull and provide some back-up for our opinions they probably won't intervene. Nor will they let themselves be used to end discussions some want to avoid/ supress.

[SilsoeSid]

If the Nazis had won, the World would be a very dark place.


A phrase often used, but never really explained how.

Back to thread;
Bottom line is that if Argentina invaded the Islands again, with disabling the runway the immediate objective, there's no way we could defend it, let alone take it back!

[Torque Tonight]

The difference between then and now is that the islands are now well defended. The valid problem of retaking the islands should be sidestepped by not losing them again in tne first place. I do not see the Argie threat as credible. They do not have the economic resources, the military capability or the public will to have another go. The constant noise is annoying but that is all. It is an irritation. Argentina will most likely engage in a perpetual campaign of low level harassment because they know that if they go for Guerra Malvinas Dos they'll have their gaucho arses served to them once again. That would not be a vote winner for Cristina.

[OutlawPete]

A phrase often used, but never really explained how.

I take it you've never heard of the Holocaust then?


Cant find any news reports on it but on Sky News this morning they mentioned that the Argentinian president, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has resorted to using a chartered British aircraft to swan around the world in due to the fact that if she used their own it would most likely be impounded because of the money they owe to so many nations. Ironic really if it's true!

[SilsoeSid]

The difference between then and now is that the islands are now well defended.

But still on an island(s) thousands of miles away with no chance of air support should the runway be denied!

[SilsoeSid]

I take it you've never heard of the Holocaust then?

Which was in it's final stages towards the end of the war!
Then what?


Ironic really if it's true!
Which of course, as she is still in Buenos Aires , is not :rolleyes:

[SilsoeSid]

In the unlikely event that they try it on and actually get their hands back on the Islands; This time round, this is probably the best we could muster to retake them!

Retaking The Falklands

[SilsoeSid]

Should we have a referendum in Northern Ireland to see who they would like to be ruled by?

[Rob Courtney]

But still on an island(s) thousands of miles away with no chance of air support should the runway be denied!

So no airfield for the Argies to seize and land troops which means an amphibious landing, which means running the gauntlet of the SSNs plus whatever surface assets we have down there and then an opposed landing!

Maybe with a half decent naval force you could risk it but somehow I cant see the Argies going for it

[ex-fast-jets]

But still on an island(s) thousands of miles away with no chance of air support should the runway be denied!

Now, if we still had some Harriers...............................................

:{

[SilsoeSid]

Now, if we still had some Harriers...............................................:{
...and something to put them on :ouch:

[sisemen]

I take it you've never heard of the Holocaust then?

Which was in it's final stages towards the end of the war!
Then what?


Well.....there was the small matter of all the Jewish people in the UK and then possibly the US - which was where Germany was heading eventually.

Oh, and let's not forget the torture and deaths for anybody that disagreed with the Nazi party and Hitler or anybody that tried to thwart their aims. And the diet of propaganda.

No, on second thoughts Silsoe it would probably have been nirvana had they won - not dark at all.

[ex-fast-jets]

...and something to put them on

Large, modified cargo boat for the RAF.......:hmm:

Any passing Spanish trawler would do for the RN........:O

[SilsoeSid]

Well.....there was the small matter of all the Jewish people in the UK and then possibly the US - which was where Germany was heading eventually.

Rubbish!

Oh, and let's not forget the torture and deaths for anybody that disagreed with the Nazi party and Hitler or anybody that tried to thwart their aims. And the diet of propaganda.

As 988 :rolleyes:

[SilsoeSid]

With all our might over the remaining Argentinian and S.American forces, you have forgotten the large chink in the armour of The Falkland Islands and its defence......

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47563000/jpg/_47563522__44766357_bbc_news_channela_512-1.jpg

http://cdn-static.cnet.co.uk/i/c/blg/cat/televisions/sky_news_hd.jpg

[keesje]

The US has some historical perspective in conflicts like these.

(wiki:) The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), the American War of Independence,[8] or simply the Revolutionary War in the United States, began as a war between the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Thirteen Colonies, but gradually grew into a world war between Britain on one side and the newly formed United States, France, Netherlands and Spain on the other. The main result was an American victory and European recognition of the independence of the United States, with mixed results for the other powers.

http://cdn.nativeamericanencyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/American-Revolutionary-War.jpg

Redcoats bravely protection the Kingdom, Law and Order, Civilization, Christianity, Honor, depending from which side you look at it.

[Biggus]

keejse,

You seem to have great difficulty appreciating, indeed you seem to be unable to understand or recognize in any way shape or form, this simple statement:

The people of the Falkland Islands want to remain British!

[keesje]

Biggus maybe it isn't all black and white.

Falkland Islands census shows fewer than a third of people identify as British | UK news | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/sep/13/falkland-islands-census-british-identity)

A third of the people (children & elderly included) work for the British government and have little alternative.

Better stick to "self determination" in this case to avoid complications / grey areas..

[thowman]

I think maybe the correct thing to say in this case is that the people DON'T WANT to become Argentines.

[OutlawPete]

Which was in it's final stages towards the end of the war!
Then what?

I doubt very much that the Nazi's would have stopped there had the outcome been different.


The Falkland Islanders are soon to have a referendum and most of us have accepted how it will go. Hopefully Argentina will wise up after the results but if they dont and should they ever decide to start anything, there will be no shortage of volunteers to go down and sort it out again. And despite what people think, British Armed forces are still very capable despite all the cuts.

[SASless]

The people of the Falkland Islands want to remain British!

Quite unlike the American's when we sent you Brits packing....while allowing the Germans to stay.