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.

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

Luckily they pulled it off.

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.

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

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

Lovely bunch of cowards in management.

Gee, there's a shock.

Lonewolf

Yes, I agree.

Another version of events

Falklands

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.

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 !!!

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
The detained ship is sailing to the Falklands

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!

... 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.

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


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

"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

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

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.

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

Bob C

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.

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??

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?

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?? :\:\

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.

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.

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/ima..._Luchtfoto.jpg

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

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

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.

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

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

What do they give back to the UK Def Ind
 

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.

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..

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

"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] The contributors to the GDP by sector (2010 forecast) are:[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.


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

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

She is at it again....
 

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

See telegraph website, link <here>

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.

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

Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia

Conquest of the Desert

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

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!