BBC News - Argentina to raise Falklands UK 'militarisation' at UN

Duncs:ok:

Full story

We've not heard a peep from Castro in ages and now, when he does say something, its to do with backing Argentina's claim to the Falklands.

Aside from her re-election campaign this can only be an effort by Argentine Presidrnt Cristina Kirchner (aka The Hag) to stake a claim upon the now verified commercially viable oil reserves off the Falkland's cost!

In that case, Castro need to piss off to elsewhere, since he is trespassing on sovereign Spanish ground.

In 1835 Cuba was Spain's territory.

Does he now reject the outcome of the Spanish American War of 1898 that released the Spanish colonial bonds from Cuba?

FFS, the 1982 war resolved via a tried and true method, war and bloodshed, who owns what.

The inanity never ends. The only people being imperial in this regard are the Argentines. The residents of the Falklands wish NOT to join Argentina, just as Cuba does not wish to become our 51st state.

BBC News - Argentina to raise Falklands UK 'militarisation' at UN

Duncs

Did I not just say that?

i think we should be careful about confusing arguments about military capability with those about politics. war and conflict are political acts, they have political drivers, not military drivers

as an example, the Argentine defence minister made a statement in the last few days headlined 'Argentina is ready for war' that was about Argentinas willingness and capability to defend her mainland sovereignty against a British attack on the Argentine mainland.

now, we know that we're about as likely to invade Argentina as we are to invade the moon, but i wonder does the Argentine political class, the media, and the electorate know that? - can we put ourselves in their place and ask ourselves what the reaction of ITN, Sky News, the Sun, Times, Torygraph etc. would be if the UK's SoS for Defence made a statement on the steps of the MOD that the UK was ready and able to repulse any French aggression on UK soil?

the truth is that on hearing such a statement the media, and the public, would go mental - it would be politically impossible, once that kind of cat had been let out of the bag, for any UK government to back down from its most strident and aggressive possible position.

my concern gents, is that whatever the exact correlation of forces, Argentinas government, media and electorate are whipping themselves into a vicious circle state where it will be impossible for any of them to stop escalating the rhetoric over the Islands, and the top of that escalation tree is not making complaints to the UN or banning flights, its war.

they are saying things, and doing so in language and tone that they have not used before - we should be very careful that what we rather dismissively describe as 'sabre-rattling' is not actually a drumbeat for war that the Argentine government could not now turn off even if it wanted to. it is quite possible/likely that Mrs Kirchner started this in the normal way to take the pressure off her government for the normal reasons, and that she had no intention whatsoever for it to get within a thousand miles of fisticuffs - but these things develop a momentum of their own, and she may very quickly get to a point where she cannot retreat and hope to stay in office, or indeed where she comes to believe that war is an inevitability, and the sooner its done the more likely the chances of success.

Cokecan: Your final paragraph is, in my view, insightful. Well done.

I tend to agree and believe that their hope is that even if they cannot realise their dream of taking over control of the Falklands that they would (after benevolent UN intervention) be apportioned a slice of the oil pie.

However, Britain has not done anything to justify any UN intervention and so, war aside, I tend to think that the Argies are going to be a long time waiting for their brand of justice.

Tell Obama that Exxon can have a 50% stake in all oil exploitation projects in Falkland waters, as long as the USA keeps the Argentines under control.
Warn him that as soon as the Argentine military sneezes, then Exxon's stake would be nationalised.
Somehow I think Miss Piggy would be kept very quiet....

Churchills Ghost

Do you really believe that the UK will hand over a slice of oil revenues to the Argies. I don't and would hope the UK would tell the UN where to stick it.
.

NO, I'm suggesting that we allow the USA (not Argentina) to take a major part in the exploitation of any oil reserves. They'd still have to front up any discovery and production costs in the normal way - but they would make profits
What I'm saying is that we'd tell the USA that as soon as Argentina made any threats, we'd then nationalise the USA interests. With O'bama being so pally with the Argentine Fuhreress, I'm sure he'd keep her under control. And when the republican gets elected next, he's sure to see the sense
I am not suggesting we route oil money to Argentina through a back door, simply suggesting we give the seppos a reason for knowing who their friends are

'simply suggesting we give the seppos a reason for knowing who their friends are' :D like your style.

Maybe Ive been in the commercial sector or outside of the UK looking in, too long. This isnt just my opinion, more of a European UK skeptic p.o.v and for the sake of lives I almost hope its true. But doesnt this all look a bit stage managed on both sides.

Where we are in fact heading toward a negotiated settlement? what ever that might be of course!

US didnt back us
Both premiers are seeing a run on their popularity and one certainly needs it more than the other
the Arg want a peaceful settlement
Oil
Closing of ports, air access
Depleted UK mil capability up against several Latin American nations, not just one this time
Yes there is a lot more kit in the Falklands this time and it would certainly give the Arg a bit more than a bloody nose, but a concerted, coordinated effort would probably win the week, then what?

"Due to the last governments mismanagement of the RN in particular and all our other commitments around the globe, we wouldnt be able to seriously consider re-taking the Falklands, but we will go to the UN and demand the wishes of the Falkland islanders are taking into consideration" I can see DC saying with a very concerned look. But more likely and before it got to the stage there will be a negotiated settlement on the oil, as without the ports and support of the Arg, the cost of extraction would be too high, or something like that.

I dont know, there are many imponderables.

Dauntless is routine, there isnt much else to send, Wills is PR but also routine, nuke sub, probably could also be considered routine, probably there as well. But is there anything going down there that isnt routine that signifies we are taking the threats seriously? Like a AEW without which, as history will show, you are b_ggered.

If we are taking it seriously and we are sending something else there, that sends a clear message and negates all this cr_p. If we are taking it seriously and not sending anything extra, it kind of backs it up I would say.

--

On a side note, did you hear the one about Miss Piggy saying that they needed to increase expenditure in intelligence gathering? No, well apparently the head of the military said 'why, we have pprune'!!

T

Tangoe, while your logic is reasonable, it is - IMO - based on an incorrect political start point.

whatever DC feels personally about the FI, he will know, or at least the grown-ups around him will know, that if Argentina took the FI, and the BG of the day (particularly a conservative government that had undertaken significant defence cuts) was militarily unable to take them back, the government would face a vote of no confidence, which it would lose heavily.

he would be revieled in history, he would be the Chamberlain of 21st century UK politics - he would genuinely face less public and political opprobrium if he was found between the thighs of a nine year old boy.

that is a poltical fact of UK politics that the FI are talismanic - lose them and die.

cokecan,

..."the FI are talismanic - lose them and die."


Very true.

It really does make it so ironic that the Prime Minister who came the closest to losing the Falklands was Thatcher.

cc, I totally agree, but I wasnt clear enough with my point.

Which was that we wont lose the FIs militarily because it wont get to that stage, that its possible this has been stage managed and is leading to a negotiated settlement based on my points and more I didnt have time to mention.

If this wasnt open forum I would say that politicians on the whole, Eton educated doubly so, were self serving barbarians with no regard for history, national identity etc. and would sell there own grandmother for a fast buck, but it is so I wont!

But as I also mentioned, this is from a mostly european, actually CEE & CIS (where I do business) perspective where by default the politicians are expected to be a little shall we say, creative :-) and that this, the FIs, is just business.

For the record Im not saying I agree with this, but its an interesting alternative point which has before been covered.
T

Breaking News: The Argentinian foreign minister has lodged a formal complaint at the UN SC regarding the 'militarisation' of the South Atlantic, by the UK. He will have a meeting with the Sec Gen, Ban Ki Moon, later today.

I wonder if Ban will raise the question of the indiscriminate laying of mines in the FI by the Argies in 1982. Now that was real militarisation!

She did lose the Falklands. But Maggie and her Armed Forces (that's us) got them back! And we'll do it again if we have to.

Oh, insufficent resources, no carrier, supply chain, ect. But we still would if it happened.

CM, i bloody hope not!

in the event that we had to try, our concept of operations would be the SSN's/TLAM doing the counter-air mission, Ocean/Lusty with AH-64's doing CAS and interdiction, and every T45 and T42 that was seaworthy providing AD.

in that event we'd be facing every servicable aircraft the Argentines could put at Stanley and MPA, with the happy chance that old Hugo would, in a fit of LA unity, station some of his SU-30's (with AShM's) there as well.

fancy taking a stab at the losses such a force would take, and the chances of its success?

Just watched the argie presentation to the UN and that nice graffiti painter, Banksey Moon, has asked that it would be awfully nice if we Brits would stop spending all our hard earned and rather scarce money on further militarisation of the islands...

I'm not too sure where he's coming from?

No, not really.:uhoh:

Rigga,

''I'm not too sure where he's coming from?''

simple, man's a cnut.

i must admit - despite not reading the Sun or Daily Mail - to getting a little bored of hearing all this crap from our hyper-inflation, throwing-students-out-of-helicopters friends, and yet hearing nothing of substance from our government in reply.

i don't want to hear 'routine', i want to see some stamping on toes - i want to see Argentine military ships and aircraft chased out of the south atlantic by a bulked up Typhoon and Tornado force - and i want to see the BG tell that nice Mr Obama that if he doesn't fancy making a statement about the US's absolute commitment to the right of self determination of the Fakland Islanders, then he can fcuk himself off and find one of his own fcuking divisions to control central Helmand.

i get very bored with us being the quiet, civilised and supportive ones and for those we support to piss on us at every given opportunity.

Cokecan - astonishingly, not drunk...

Cokecan.

Top rant fella.

I'll second that. :D