[Closed] South American block on Falkland registered vessels.

still waiting for Junkyards figure for how far for how away is too far away?

I would also love to know if Hawaii or Texas for example are each a colony and needs to be returned to it's former owners etc etc etc

also are we going to redraw the boundaries in Africa as most of them are arbitary legacies of the former colonial powers etc etc

😉

the fact that your link from earlier cites statements made by colonial states such as russia and the south americans makes it all the more absurd.

My link states UN resolutions - do you actually understand what they are ?

And if you think that the UN resolutions are "beyond absurd" then fine - say so. But don't try to make out they originate from TJ.

Unsurprisingly the UN resolutions on the Falkland Islands command widespread international support - including throughout Latin America. Although I do appreciate that they don't have the support of a handful of punters on here. Perhaps a strongly worded letter from STW to the UN is needed ?

Don't forget the laughing emoticon btw....it adds so much to a sensible discussion.

Just for arguments sake, the Argintineans [i]could[/i] make our forces life very difficult and severely test the resolve of the UK public for a fight. With no carrier currently serviceable, if the argies could take the strip out of action at Stanley grounding the Typhoons that have no short/rough strip capability, it would be a huge challenge to repel a large invading force with little or no air support. I should imagine that Tornadoes could sortie from Ascension, but I suspect that their loiter time 'in theatre' would be very short and quite possibly ineffective for combat air patrol purposes.

I should imagine that the UK would once more prevail, provided it did not bow to international or TJ pressure, but I think that it would be a nasty bloody business, with far greater rates of attrition than recent conflicts have made is used to.

Widespread international support is for "negotiation", not transfer of the FI to the argentines.
It's pretty clear that the argies won't settle for much less and the British will never agree to it so really what's the point?
It'll only end in political disaster for any PM (Blair and brown were having none of it either) so its never likely to happen.

Squatters dont want to leave houses flashy so i suppose you support them

still waiting for Junkyards figure for how far for how away is too far away?

If they own the house, then YES.

The UN approved the war in afghanisan, are you sure that you want to place them on a pedestal?

Who's putting the UN on a pedestal ? I'm countering the claim that UN resolutions are "beyond absurd". You don't have to agree with them but that doesn't mean they have no substance at all.

Plus of course British governments have always emphasised the importance of UN resolutions, and how countries must comply with them - [i]specially on sovereignty issues[/i]. Makes Britain ignoring the ones on the Falklands for the last 40 years or so rather strange. What with Britain being a UN Security Council member and all.

My link states UN resolutions - do you actually understand what they are ?

yes but please don't let that stop you from being a patronising asshat.

so when i said.........

the fact that your link from earlier cites statements made by colonial states such as russia and the south americans makes it all the more absurd.

i was referring to the u.n link

Delivering statements on the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) were the representatives of Cuba, China, Syria, Russian Federation, Indonesia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Côte d’Ivoire, Mali and Sierra Leone.

so it seems that the widespread support that you claim this resolution receives is in fact provided by the colonial states that i quite rightly described.

but maybe i recognise this contradiction because i bother to educate myself in my spare time rather than trying to appear a wise ass on internet forums.

don't forget the patronise emoticon - it adds so much to sensible discussion.

Fair point Ernie, I was simply pointing out that they don't always get it right and are often compromised by the agenda of others.

Edit; funny how sierra leone added support. I bet they regret that now, seeing how we pulled them out of the shit loosing British lives in the process. Cheeky bastards.

If they own the house, then YES.

Repeating what the islanders want [ as if it is in debate] is pointless as it is down to "ownership".

But maybe i recognise this contradiction because i bother to educate myself in my spare time rather than trying to appear a wise ass on internet forums.

don't forget the patronise emoticon - it adds so much to sensible discussion.

JY, my opinion is only slightly based on the islanders wishes.
It's mainly based on the fact that the argies have no legitimate claim to the islands. They have never owned them. It's just based on proximity which is nonsense.

Repeating what the islanders want [ as if it is in debate] is pointless as it is down to "ownership".

and why do you think the Argies "own" the islands?

I assume we are missing out the bits about having regard to the islanders 😉

It's just based on proximity which is nonsense.

you can't dismiss the Junkyard distance rule like that! 😉

so it seems that the widespread support that you claim this resolution receives is in fact supported by the colonial states that i quite rightly described.

You obviously don't understand what a resolution is if you are mortified to discover that a whole range of opinions is allowed to be expressed - and you claim "i bother to educate myself in my spare time" ?

I'm fascinated by your claim that Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua, for example, are "colonial states" btw. Does talking complete bollox come easy ?

to you it would seem.

what language do those countries speak btw ?

i mean the russian federation supporting a draft resolution on decolonization ?

are you completely unaware of what the russian federation is ?

you must be if you can't see the absurdity in this.

I'm not in your league mate. That's for sure.

What's wrong with these South American countries? Haven't they done enough by exporting cocaine, I mean coca, to the world? They can't even deal with their own poors in their backyard yet trying to boost their own political standing by blaming the world ... FFS! Put them maggots to hard labour! Send in the Spanish conquistadors ... and get Spain to sort out their own financial problem.

B n D i do like the way you post nothing but questions on these debates it makes it much easier to mock folk..... that said i liked the second part

you can't dismiss the Junkyard distance rule like that

This seems like a very one sided discussion. I've heard several very good reasons why th FI should stay British, I've heard an argument that is a little persuasive that the UK should at least discuss the sovereignty of the Isles with interested parties, although what constructive purpose that would serve is less well explained. I have yet, however, to hear a single persuasive point of view explaining why, other than proximity (which isn't persuasive at all) the Argintineans have any genuine claim AT ALL over the Falklands, other than they would like them.

Anyone?

Why not tell me why you think it is irrelevant

because plenty of countries are spread across large areas of ocean and have a linked history and cultural identity any "distance" would be an arbitary number

now "whats your number?", how far is too far? 😉

and junkyard, why do you think the Argies "own" the islands?

other than they would like them.

I think you'll find that forms the basis of the British claim. Backed up nicely by the fact that they have 3000 citizens there, at the exclusion of non UK citizens.

Here's a sobering thought, the number of posts on this thread now exceeds the number of British servicemen who died during the Falklands War.

Doubtless, TJ will still be bollocking on well past 649 posts, so let's also spare a thought for the brave Argentine servicemen who also lost their lives.

It should be noted that three Falklanders were also killed, though none deliberately.

Well said Bravo.

No, I'd say that the basis of the British claim is that they've GOT them. Which is a far more persuasive argument, and one which is successfully repeated throughout history by most nations of the world.

so let's also spare a thought for the brave Argentine servicemen who also lost their lives.

don simon - Member

so let's also spare a thought for the brave Argentine servicemen who also lost their lives.

A large proprtion of them were not brave, they were children that had no choice in the matter.
DEP.

That makes them braver still in my eyes.

if the argies could take the strip out of action at Stanley

I'll stop you right there. You might as well not have bothered writing the rest of your post. What makes you think they have the capability to do that?

bravohotel8er - Member
That makes them braver still in my eyes.

That makes them bullies ...

chewkw - Member

That makes them bullies ...

I was referring to the Argentine military (whether professional or conscripted, but conscripted in particular) and not to the junta that sent them there.

What makes you think they have the capability to do that?

Let's hope they haven't, but fast jets, the balls to fly very* low and fast, and cluster bombs could do it, at least for a while. It's certainly not impossible, and would certainly be the first objective if they were barmy enough to have another go. Of course, our chaps in Stanley know this, and I'm sure they're ready. However, to be ready, 24/7, for 30 odd years has got to take the shine off the alertness level a tiny bit, and even when we had constant interceptor patrols several fast jets got through and caused damage during the conflict, when alert levels were fever pitch...

*like [i]reeeeally[/i] low...

I have yet, however, to hear a single persuasive point of view explaining why, other than proximity (which isn't persuasive at all) the Argintineans have any genuine claim AT ALL over the Falklands, other than they would like them.

The French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville founded the first settlement on Berkeley Sound, in present-day Port Louis, East Falkland in 1764.[15] In 1765, the British captain John Byron explored and claimed Saunders Island on West Falkland, where he named the harbour Port Egmont[16] and a settlement was constructed in 1766. Unaware of the French presence he claimed the island group for King George III. Spain acquired the French colony and placed the colony under a governor subordinate to the Buenos Aires colonial administration. Spain attacked Port Egmont, expelling the British presence in 1770, this brought the two countries to the brink of war but war was avoided by a peace treaty and the British return to Port Egmont.[17]

so we could debate whether tBuenos Aires is Spanish or Argentinian but we cannot really debate who was there first.
PS we kicked them out in 1833
probably answers B n D as well I assume
no idea what the ideal mileage is but that is on the other side of the world and our link is as a conqueror.
I am sure what ever rule we come up with we can find anomalies - I mean we claim Gibraltar despite it being taken from the Spanish and then given to us by the dutch..again a bit far away to be ours ..we even call them overseas territories which kind of gives it away that they are not really ours IMHO

in terms of distance i doubt there is an ideal that works universally [ have you googled which one is the furthest not disputed ? I have not FWIW - would be interesting Antartica- Russia? Some island nation] but I dont think we can ignore the fact they are on the other side of the world and nowhere near us whilst making a territorial claim.
Like gibraltar it is a tenous claim base don conquering and taking stuff we wanted

Aye but Sea Harriers, for all their worthyness are not and never were intercept fighters.
The new Typhoons are a world apart from the old Harriers and have a far longer reach with both weaponry and threat detection.

MPA is defended by Rapier batteries though, factor in the resident Typhoons (and they can be reinforced if necessary) plus the possibility of stationing a Type 45 offshore(or perhaps a couple of them) and you have a game changer.

A large proprtion of them were not brave, they were children that had no choice in the matter.
DEP.

the best memorial to those who fought in the 1982 conflict is that there isn't another one

so we could debate whether tBuenos Aires is Spanish or Argentinian but we cannot really debate who was there first.

well from your link, i make it the french.

let's give it back to the french. at least they don't cheat at football, oh hang on........

[img] [/img]

i see a pattern developing.

Hawaii and Guam are [i]quite[/i] (>7,000miles) a long way from the US mainland, and Japan was quite keen to take them over at one point. I wonder if Japan asserted a claim today they would be given the time of day?

This thread got boring as ****.

Can we get back onto the proper, non-political, topic of blowing stuff up please?

so we could debate whether tBuenos Aires is Spanish or Argentinian

Bravo do you also mourn the brave German soldiers who valiantly overcame whole armies in Poland, Belgium and France?

No of course you don't. They were the invaders. The Argentinians got all they had coming to them.

I'd like to know why Brazil took their stance though.

so we could debate whether tBuenos Aires is Spanish or Argentinian but we cannot really debate who was there first.

Does the acquisition of the colony by Spain have more significance than the agreement between Spain and Britain? I think you need to explain that one if you think Spain or Argentina has any claim.

glitchy bump

Junkyard - Member

so we could debate whether tBuenos Aires is Spanish or Argentinian but we cannot really debate who was there first.

I reckon this lot ...

[img] [/img]

🙄

trailmonkey - Member

i see a pattern developing.

Yes, I guess shorty is a bit cheese off with recent veto and now I bet he is not lending his aircraft carrier ... or is he behind the scene pouring petrol on fire?

ok now one where a country a close as this looses out to a country 8000 miles away.

[img] [/img]

in terms of distance i doubt there is an ideal that works universally

arbitary number then? 😉

so we could debate whether tBuenos Aires is Spanish or Argentinian but we cannot really debate who was there first

we found it first, (using your source)

Although first sighted by an English navigator in 1592, the first landing (English) did not occur until almost a century later in 1690,

settled it second (beat by the French) and have maintained ownership and occupation since 1833 after sending home a couple of people, the rest of the occupants of the island staying under British rule quite happily

sounds a pretty strong claim to me

[img] [/img]

MPA is defended by Rapier batteries though, factor in the resident Typhoons (and they can be reinforced if necessary) plus the possibility of stationing a Type 45 offshore(or perhaps a couple of them) and you have a game changer.

I'm sure you are right. It's just that defending against fast air is probably one of the most challenging problems in modern warfare (not the game!) and several simultaneous strikes from different directions at low level would be almost impossible to completely defend against. It would only need to render the runway unusable for a short time to make the argument of Typhoon, resupply, and reinforcement moot. It would be a desperate throw of the dice by the Argies, but not one that they are completely incapable of. Especially if talk of Argentinian nuclear subs is true, that would take your destroyer argument out of the equation too, potentially.

Anyway, my main point is not that they could win, just that they might see that they had a chance, and that THAT is a worry in itself.

I'd like to know why Brazil took their stance though.

😀 Oh the innocent beauty of self-belief. And the arrogance, and the lack of comprehension, and the delusion......but how can this be ? We are so obviously right !

[img] [/img]

Fact is, that 'possession is 9/10ths of the law' is never so true as in geopolitics. And the big difference between this colony and the colonies that have gone back or been granted independence is there was no original indigenous population to start with.

It's just that defending against fast air is probably one of the most challenging problems in modern warfare (not the game!) and several simultaneous strikes from different directions at low level would be almost impossible to completely defend against

A rapier battery has more than one launcher, each launcher can cope with more than one target. Properly sited (and they have had plenty of time to recce every post there will be a GDA that keeps the airfield open

this assumes that the Argies are using conventional weapons that need to be lauched LoS. Stand-off over the horizon weapons need fast air to tackle them or a close in weapon system

also assumed that there isn't concurrent Argies special forces acting to disrupt the air defnce plan, etc, etc, etc

OMG

Its the bomb nerds wetting themselves. 🙄

Its not a game you know - real people die

Rapiers look awesome...
[url= http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=593_1255018191 ]Rapier test launch, Falkland Isles [/url]

Want some pictures of mangled people? bet they are awesome as well.

Its the bomb nerds wetting themselves

I'm sure if you google GDA you'll find out what it is 😉

Its not a game you know - real people die

No shit. And we will remember them, and not insult the cause they died for in this instance by either giving th FI to Argentina or 'releasing them to UN supported independence' that they don't even want, FFS.

Want some pictures of mangled people? bet they are awesome as well.

It's alright TJ, if we want to see the mangled remnants of a doomed defence in the face of superior forces, we can just look back at your posting history!

TandemJeremy - Member
Want some pictures of mangled people? bet they are awesome as well

I don't think they are awesome, look at the ones here

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR13/002/2011/en/92609f9e-c461-4311-be18-43a6145d4b1e/amr130022011en.html

tm, you bastard for posting that picture. I was enjoying the thread. 😛

OMG

Its the bomb nerds wetting themselves.

Its not a game you know - real people die

I'm not reading all that posturing toss, but has anyone actually pointed out the utter irrelevance of the 'ban?'.

All Falklands registered ships are also registered with the UK authorities.
They carry both flags.

So they can still dock anywhere they like.

Apologies if this has already been done, just thought I'd mention it.

Rusty Spanner - Member

I'm not reading all that posturing toss, but has anyone actually pointed out the utter irrelevance of the 'ban?'. ...

I wonder if they will succumb to our pen pushing prowess considering how incapable they are in talking sense. Good point that.

Its not a game you know - real people die

Indeed. Now why did the last war over them start? I'm pretty sure a main contributor was that they thought we were no longer interested. In fact, to flirt with Godwin's law, most of the Third Reich's expansion that led to WWII was a result of pacifism suggesting that the Germans were 'only' reclaiming what was really theirs - just they got a bit carried away.

So really, agreeing to negotiate (what, exactly?) is probably far more dangerous than ignoring a very weak symbolic gesture. There is no middle ground here. The Argentinians want the islands, we have them, and the people who live there would like it to stay that way. What is the point of negotiating something as intractable as that?

We were accused of 'warmongering' by placing the typhoons down there after we started oil prospecting, but seeing as they haven't tried to invade a second time, I'd suggest that their deployment was more war-stopping. There really isn't much that the Argentinians could do that would not be enormously high-risk to take the islands, even without a carrier. As discussed, the Type 45 was designed for precisely this purpose, and I do believe we have our own submarines, should an Argentinian one happen.

N Korea was seen by many to be distinctly war-mongering when it tested its first nuke. But at the same time, posturing by the US took two steps backwards. The only reason the USSR and NATO never made the cold war hot was because the consequences were too great to comprehend. There is a great irony that most of the work done by the horrific machinery of war is not when it's in use, rather that it exists and that it is ready to be used.

Notice how they haven't tried any acts of aggression in the last 30yrs? Not even a 'accidental' sinking of a fishing boat etc etc?

Its because the Argentinians are scared. They are hardly renowned as fighters historically are they? I wish the slack-jawed bint would shut up with the typical south american faux-machoism that they bollock on about 😆

At least this time we will be ready with the Argie jokes.
Will we let Ardilles play,is he still with Spurs?
I remember the first invasion, all those programmes showing what and where The Falklands were. Also seem to remember the islanders getting upset pre invasion that the British government wanted to get rid of them.
I'm sure our leaders can sort it all out. There may be a few more Exocets sent free of charge this time though.

Nazis; "got a bit carried away" 😀

I understand that 16 Air assault Bde and 3 Commando Bde have been taken out of the Afghanistan rotation. Can't think why our two most aggressive formations have been freed up.

😆

zokes - Member

So really, agreeing to negotiate (what, exactly?) is probably far more dangerous than ignoring a very weak symbolic gesture. There is no middle ground here. The Argentinians want the islands, we have them, and the people who live there would like it to stay that way. What is the point of negotiating something as intractable as that?

Three years after the Falklands War UN Resolution 40/21 called on both sides to initiate negotiations concerning the future of the Falkland Islands. The vote was overwhelming, 107 in favour to 4 against.

So I think it's fair to say that your view does not receive widespread global support. And yes, the United States voted in favour, the 4 countries who voted against were the UK, Belize, Oman, and Solomon Islands.

Britain is isolated, almost every country in the world supports Argentina's position on the Falklands. I think some people need to ask themselves "why?"

.

hora - Member

Notice how they haven't tried any acts of aggression in the last 30yrs? Not even a 'accidental' sinking of a fishing boat etc etc?

Its because the Argentinians are scared. They are hardly renowned as fighters historically are they? I wish the slack-jawed bint would shut up with the typical south american faux-machoism that they bollock on about 😆

That's the good ol' patriotic fighting talk we need hora.

Not like the whimpering protestations of Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon, General Sir Michael Rose, Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham, and Air Commodore Andrew Lambert.

They produced a report for the United Kingdom National Defence Association :

[url= http://british-news-portal.co.uk/defence-cuts-mean-britain-could-lose-the-falkland-islands/ ]Defence cuts mean Britain could lose the Falkland Islands[/url]

[b][i]In a bleak assessment, ex-top brass said Britain’s dwindling military budget left the South Atlantic territory a ‘plum ripe for picking’ if Buenos Aires, backed by ally China, invaded.

The UKNDA report, compiled by five former defence chiefs including Air Commodore Andrew Lambert, who commanded UK forces in Iraq, and General Sir Michael Rose, commander of UN forces in Bosnia in the early 1990s, flagged up the vulnerability of the Falkland Islands.

The islands, which have belonged to Britain since 1833, are defended by a deployment of 1,000 soldiers, four Typhoon fighter jets, a warship and occasionally a nuclear attack submarine.

The military presence was established after the UK recaptured the Falklands after a 74-day war following the Argentine invasion in 1982.

But in a withering assessment the UKNDA said underfunding of the military meant that Britain would struggle to repel Argentine forces, especially if supported by the Chinese.

"Our assessment is that current force levels are inadequate to hold off even a small-size invasion"

"Once lost, the islands would be very difficult to retake, particularly with no air cover over a task force"[/i][/b]

Obviously it's complete bollox and your assessment of the situation is far more realistic hora, I don't doubt that. But why do these spineless former top military knobs and the highly regarded United Kingdom National Defence Association lie to the British people so ?

Britain is isolated, almost every country in the world supports Argentina's position on the Falklands.

Sorry to pick this particular quote out, ernie but that statement is false.
Argentinas position is that they want the FI as theirs.
The UN voted for negotiation.
Very very different things.

Oh and that link is just a top brass trying to scare the govt into not making heavy cuts. They do it all the time.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon, General Sir Michael Rose, Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham, and Air Commodore Andrew Lambert:

We want spend spend spend and we have no ulterior motive dear Sir.

Three years after the Falklands War

and occasionally a nuclear attack submarine

I imagine there would be a few Nuclear Submarines in there area though if an idiot started upping her threats with troop movements, reading etc. I imagine Spy sattelites etc are watching.

especially if supported by the Chinese

Would they really be that stupid? To back an invasion of a British land? 😆

This whole topic is a non-story.

almost every country in the world supports Argentina's position on the Falklands

That's quite a leap you're making there, ernie.

Would they really be that stupid? To back an invasion of a British land?

Yes, when you put it like that hora, the Chinese with their tiny army and shitty weaponry have a lot to fear from a superpower like the UK.

aracer - Member
almost every country in the world supports Argentina's position on the Falklands
That's quite a leap you're making there, ernie.

Actually, serious question, what are the figures? Do we know? I'd be interested. I know the whole of South America supports Argentina, but does the rest of the world give a sheet?

DD,

China invade? Why don't invade Taiwan and 'take it back under central Government?

Just because you have a million men in uniforms means nothing. As Saddam found out.

Weaponry? They were trying to buy an old British aircraft carrier.

If you want weaponry I think you need to look at the words Nuclear...

Sorry to pick this particular quote out, ernie but that statement is false.
Argentinas position is that they want the FI as theirs.
The UN voted for negotiation.
Very very different things.

Durrrrrrr................the UN voted for negations concerning "sovereignty". Do you understand what that means ?

And did I mention that it was by 107 in favour to 4 against ?

And that the 4 against were the United Kingdom, Belize, Oman, and Solomon Islands ?

Wakey!wakey! ........smell the coffee

Durrrrrrr................the UN voted for negations concerning "sovereignty". Do you understand what that means ?

Durrrrrrr, negotiations concerning sovereignty DOES NOT mean they all think that the argies should get the FI.
Negotiation is negotiation, not a mandate to handover.
Durrrrrrrrrr

Can anybody summarise why Ernie believes Argentina have any claim over the FI, given they've never had ownership? I'd ask him myself but he doesn’t like me calling him a far-left fantasist.

There's only one island group* that China is interested in making an attempt on and it isn't the Falklands.

*(It's the Channel Islands, they LOVE Bergerac).

Wakey!wakey! ........smell the coffee

Indeed you should. Negotiations are always aimed at reaching a compromise. In this instance, there is no compromise that can be reached - only one country can 'own' the islands and their resources. They can either be a colonial hangover of the British empire, or a colonial hangover from Spanish conquests.

When are you giving back your newly revealed country to the Incas, Ernie?

Can anybody summarise why Ernie believes Argentina have any claim over the FI, given they've never had ownership? I'd ask him myself but he doesn’t like me calling him a far-left fantasist.

It transpires that he's actually mostly Argentinian, despite happily living in someone else's country all these years. Oh the irony...