Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 370 total)
  • The Falklands
  • Ewan
    Free Member

    Didn't they build a massive runway down that way after 82? Presumably the argies wouldn't get near it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Mount_Pleasant

    Zulu-Eleven
    Free Member

    Thatcher had also withdrawn( or in the process of doing so) the military presence form the region IIRC – not that it was much anyway but it was taken as a signal that britain was not interested.

    I think its difficult to overlook there the fact that there were years of mixed messages from various governments, leading to a false expectation of the outcome of negotiations by Argentina.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Fair enough Zulu

    downshep
    Full Member

    Troll mode……

    Why not give the Argies the Shetland Isles? It makes as much geographical sense as us having The Falklands.

    /Troll mode

    Saccades
    Free Member

    Its Latin-American political posturing. In addition, isn't the stationed force on the Falklands larger now? In the Falklands War the small detachment of Marines gave them a bloody nose didn't they? I imagine a larger force (well equipped) wouldnt be a nice prospect.

    There were ~70 marines on the Falklands at the time, as I recall they hit an armoured personal carrier (killing 1, wounding a few?) before they were ordered to surrender by the governer due to the overwhelming forces the argies had.

    Does that class as a bloody nose?
    /me plays macc lads bunous aeries..

    BermBandit
    Free Member

    Why not give the Argies the Shetland Isles? It makes as much geographical sense as us having The Falklands

    At the time the offer was Northern Ireland for the Falklands…..it was not seen to be a fair offer by the Argies.

    pjd
    Free Member

    what nick c said.

    It's a commercial move isn't it. "We ain't, can't do anything but if you want to use our waters/ports it will cost"

    And the daily wail, linked from the BBC, headline is that the argie's have taken control of the Falkland's waters. Amazing, as are some of the reader comments.

    epicsteve
    Free Member

    Last time our forces had no realistic non-nuclear capability to attack mainland Argentinean military facilities. One difference this time is that we do, and that I think would be a key factor in any conflict.

    Argentina would also need absolute surprise in launching an attack in order for their invasion force to make it to the Falklands this time, given the threat from nuclear subs and from the aircraft based in the Falklands.

    I was a naval intelligence officer in the late 80's and a lot of lessons were learnt, including that it shouldn't take much of a force stationed in the Falklands to render any invasion attempt by Argentina risky and costly.

    Teetosugars
    Free Member

    Ewan – Member
    Didn't they build a massive runway down that way after 82? Presumably the argies wouldn't get near it.

    Yep. they built it allright, Last time I was down there it was being used as a rather awesome Go-karting Track….

    El-bent
    Free Member

    El-Bent,

    the GR9 has no radar therefore has practically no air-air capability unless you're really wishing to put all your faith in AIM-9M. I wouldn't! No radar = total reliance on visual acquisition. Oops!

    You haven't learned much from the last conflict. The Argentine airforce who are still using the same generation of fighters as in 82, will be at the limit of their endurance and would not want to mix it up with harriers, like in 82. The only way the Argentine airforce could survive is to adopt the tactics of 82 and fly low but while the gr9's don't have radar the Royal navy now have airborne early warning, which removes the low fly tactic and will vector the gr9's onto target.

    You would be right about the lack of requirement for long range assets if we had a deployable air-air capability, but we sold those to the Indians!

    What?

    and exactly where do you propose all these extra troops will come from?
    The major draw through NATO is Afghanistan.

    Like I said, if the situation warranted it, what would you think the UK Government would do eh? Keep troops in Afghanistan and leave the Argentinians to occupy UK territory?

    Dick.

    All of which doesn't matter as Argentina is not currently capable of invading and holding territory and we will know the minute they try anything.

    kimbers
    Full Member

    the argentines must be very bitter about it

    imgine if there was a potentially oil rich island off our coast owned by a foreign power that was based in another hemisphere

    there cant be that many of these imperial anachronisms left in the world, we will have to give it back one day

    flippinheckler
    Free Member

    I think if the current goverment stay in power then they will probably give the Falklands back as they have no backbone…they virtually gave away our gold reserves so why not the chance of a nice big oil resrve.

    Hopefully though to preserve the honour of the fallen british Soldiers we should get heavy with them, and say hoi give us back our ship or else we will senf in the Ghurhas to scare the crap out of you. I have some friends who served in the Falklands and they said the Argies where terrified of the Ghurhas as they liked to sneek up on them and slit their throats.

    gonefishin
    Free Member

    Give them back to whom exactly? The "ownership" of the islands has been disputed since before Argentina gained it's independance. There are many countries that have laid claim to them and Britain's claim is as good (or bad) as anyones. Given that the entire population want to stay as part of the UK then I can't see any compelling reason to give it to anyone.

    Zulu-Eleven
    Free Member

    we will have to give it back one day

    A ridiculous statement – the driving force should always be the decision of the residents, the Bennies have identified themselves as "British" for as long as the Argentines have been trying to claim ownership.

    Its like saying that we should hand "ownership" of the Channel islands to France, even though they have no history or cultural ties with modern France (they have been a possession of the Duchy of Normandy since time immemorial)

    kimbers
    Full Member

    Now im no no expert on international territorial disputes but come on!!!!

    infact we do seem to have a lot of imperial relics!
    The oil and gas potential of the faklands means its the one that people care about

    gonefishin
    Free Member

    Geographical anomolies exist all over the world, look at Alaska for example. Decisions are better made by the population rather than geography.

    mafiafish
    Free Member

    Indeed, colonialism was a bad, bad time we caused a holocaust's worth of deaths all in the name of bringing exotic food and goods to Britain while enslaving or dominating other populations. These relics or at least those which are wanted by their former sovereign states should be handed back.
    Is it really worth another thousand deaths and hundreds of millions of pounds and loss of international diplomatic legitamacy for a chunk of rock and a few people?

    kimbers
    Full Member

    so when the population of catholics in NI passes the 50% mark as i believe its due to in a few years everyones agreed it will become part of ireland?

    nickc
    Full Member

    look at Alaska for example

    Bought by America from the Russians, all legit and everything. hardly the same at all really

    flatfish
    Free Member

    by their idea that the falklands being argentinian, should they not give tierra del fuego to the chileans?

    nickc
    Full Member

    Is Tierra del Fuego claimed by the Chileans

    mansonsoul
    Free Member

    A fair few of you sound quite war-mongering.

    kimbers
    Full Member

    Is it really worth another thousand deaths and hundreds of millions of pounds and loss of international diplomatic legitamacy for a chunk of rock and a few people?

    sadly its not just a chunk of rock and a few people its about all that potential oil

    but with so many on here getting all misty eyed at recollections of slitting argy throats and the red tops ready to beat the propaganda drum so we all get blinded by patriotism
    till we turn on the pm and realise we went to war for teh wrong reasons, if there is a right reason

    gonefishin
    Free Member

    everyones agreed it will become part of ireland?

    If the people of NI decide that that is what they want then I've got no issue with it.

    Bought by America from the Russians, all legit and everything. hardly the same at all really

    And how did the Russians get hold of what is clearly part of Canada then?

    What exaclty is not legit with the UK having soveriegnty over the Falkland isles? There was no indiginous population there when they were discovered by europeans so they had a bit of a fight over then and britain won.

    hainey
    Free Member

    My work colleagues kitkat chunky is closer to me at the moment than it is to him, i'm not going to suddenly lay claim to it though.

    midgebait
    Free Member

    I'd go for the Kitkat if I was you!

    kimbers
    Full Member

    My work colleagues kitkat chunky is closer to me at the moment than it is to him, i'm not going to suddenly claim to it though.

    does it have oil?

    midgebait
    Free Member

    Hainey, I'd argue that it wasn't a 'Kitkat' but rather 'la barra de chocolate kitkata'. Then grab it and barricade yourself on their desk. Make sure you ask him if he's got any Typhoons first.

    Zulu-Eleven
    Free Member

    Maybe the Americans should hand Texas back to Mexico?

    actually, to be fair they should both hand the whole lot back to the Indians.

    And, really, the Argentines should hand their whole country over to someone else since they were just a Spanish colonial possession themselves… what real claim can they hold when the Falklands have been British since BEFORE Argentina as a nation was created?

    kimbers
    Full Member

    good point Z11 but i still cant see people sitting happily with it if teh situation were reversed

    porterclough
    Free Member

    kimbers – so any island 500km from the coast of a larger nation should be invaded by that nation so it can exploit its mineral reserves? Not to mention that Argentina is trying to lay claim to South Georgia too, which is 1500km or more from Argentina.

    By your logic Iceland should never have been Danish and so we should invade immediately.

    And don't go on holiday to the Canary Islands, Madeira or the Azores, that would be supporting imperialism by Spain and Portugal 😉

    hainey
    Free Member

    I think we should lay claim to France.

    ocrider
    Full Member

    Already have.
    You ever been to the Dordogne? English is the first spoken language in some villages. 😛

    duckman
    Full Member

    It will all come down to the oil,Argentina will want part of it,and will end up giving concessions on it's ports for a share.Until then we will play poker with warships and highly expensive missiles.Going to the UN would be a waste of time as we are one of the holders of a veto.
    Hora;Argentina does not have the clout with the US that it used to. It all about Muslims now,Communists are so 1980's. Also the truth coming out about what the Argentinian secret police did to anybody browsing the Billy Bragg section in HMV Cordoba made even the US pale.The Falkland Islanders wanted to stay part of the UK,more so after their brief taste of the military Junta and the half-Irish secret policeman sent to head up internal security during the occupation,so IMO their geographical location becomes of secondary importance.

    Although not relevant or succesful, Thatcher sending the Vulcans down was an amazing logistical feat.Must have been busy at Diego's underwear emporium the next morning.

    duckman
    Full Member

    Hainey; large parts of France were in the posession of England until the 16th century.Should you not be elsewhere fighting with rprt and Junkyard? 😀

    hainey
    Free Member

    Who me? I just wander from room to room.

    pjd
    Free Member

    All the little red dots in the map above are potentially sitting on large oil deposits, if you consider where the main oil basins are today, they just may be a little more inhospitable to develop (at the minute)

    Just no other country is really disputing them thats why no one cares

    kimbers
    Full Member

    yeah id like to see the american reaction if we started drilling in the carribean!

    im not sure about falklands but a firend did his geology phd looking for oil in the falklands (lived there for 2 months) and he is of the opinion that there isnt much

    but if oil prices keep rising and more favorable studies have been done then it becomes more viable to extract from there

    westkipper
    Free Member

    I recently found out I have Argentinian kin…
    so I have no strong opinion on this matter (makes a change) 😉

    ChunkyMTB
    Free Member

    infact we do seem to have a lot of imperial relics!

    Most of those are now just strategic military bases.

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 370 total)

The topic ‘The Falklands’ is closed to new replies.