scootz
|
| posted on 2/1/12 at 10:16 AM |
|
|
Falklands... Could We Defend It!?
I see the Argentinean govt is getting quite noisy again and I suspect that the entire south american sub-continent would rally around them should they
decide they want to have a go.
Do we have the staff, equipment and will to repel any invasion of the islands?
Would the USA honour our 'special relationship' and help out?
Would the EU stand up for one of its own?
Be interested to hear what folks views are on this one...
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
|
|
blakep82
|
| posted on 2/1/12 at 10:21 AM |
|
|
in short, no.
________________________
IVA manual link http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1081997083
don't write OT on a new thread title, you're creating the topic, everything you write is very much ON topic!
|
|
|
whitestu
|
| posted on 2/1/12 at 10:32 AM |
|
|
quote:
Would the EU stand up for one of its own?
Possibly, but not for us!
Stu
|
|
|
IainL
|
| posted on 2/1/12 at 10:42 AM |
|
|
No, 1 aircraft carrier but no aircraft for the carrier! That was a clever defence cut!
|
|
|
jeffw
|
| posted on 2/1/12 at 10:52 AM |
|
|
I was in the RN last time this happened. The major difference this time is there is a decent standing force on the Islands which would deter most
attacks.
If the question is "could we take it back again, assuming it was invaded" the answer is unlikely given the lack of fixed wing aircraft on
carriers, although the Sea Harriers where hardly the last word in fighter aircraft and we have only had RAF Harriers on the carriers for many years
now.
We could certainly make it very uncomfortable for anyone trying to hold the Islands and have the amphibious & helicopter capability to invade but
the lack of air cover would be the deciding issue. How many warships are you prepared to lose this time?
|
|
|
doddy
|
| posted on 2/1/12 at 10:53 AM |
|
|
i spent 4 months there we have a lot of things there all on standby ready for a kick off
https://www.ebay.co.uk/str/4x4wheels
|
|
|
jeffw
|
| posted on 2/1/12 at 10:53 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by IainL
No, 1 aircraft carrier but no aircraft for the carrier! That was a clever defence cut!
No aircraft carriers currently (except HMS Ocean)
|
|
|
BenB
|
| posted on 2/1/12 at 11:01 AM |
|
|
We likely would cos there's oil involved 
though personally I don't understand the rationale for claiming ownership of tiny islands miles away from our own shores and right next to the
shores of another country..... It would seem more logical to give them back.
e.g. who should these islands belong to? It's a bit like the French owning the Isle of Wight (though I don't think they want it!)
|
|
|
off-road-ham
|
| posted on 2/1/12 at 11:33 AM |
|
|
I think that the UN would have to help, if not just sell the oil to the chines at a discount and ask them to go and get it.
South America would not want that.
|
|
|
DRCorsa
|
| posted on 2/1/12 at 11:49 AM |
|
|
The question is, do you British people feel that Folkland islands defence is a patriotic affair?
I believe that Mrs Thatcher, back in '90s, took over the islands to "conquer" people's confidence (and vote ) and the
result was austerity measures and uneployment.
[Edited on 2/1/12 by DRCorsa]
|
|
|
edspurrier
|
| posted on 2/1/12 at 12:17 PM |
|
|
The Falklands have not, at any time in history, been a legitimate Argentine territory. There's no "Give them Back" because they have
never belonged to any South American nation.
|
|
|
Toprivetguns
|
| posted on 2/1/12 at 12:29 PM |
|
|
I'm still in hope of Turkey leaving Cyprus, same difference.
Only drive as fast as your angel can fly... !
|
|
|
DRCorsa
|
| posted on 2/1/12 at 12:43 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Toprivetguns
I'm still in hope of Turkey leaving Cyprus, same difference.
I hope that too, the problem is that TurkoCyprians have become equitimate community while they were a minority some years ago. This is the games of
politics and you know that there is not such a thing as who is right but who is stronger.
Cyprus is an integral part of Hellenic civilization. It has nothing to do with Turkey. I may sound a bit bad for you but Cyprus has nothing to do with
England as well.. Colonialism is a "habit" that modern civilization should ban..forever..
OK, the island (Cyprus) is close to Turkey and far away of Greece but please go quite some centuries back and look what was Greece land back then and
what is now.
So, if British people think that Falkland is an integral part of UK, then go for it. You certaily have the power and alliances.
|
|
|
mad-butcher
|
| posted on 2/1/12 at 12:50 PM |
|
|
Probably upset a lot of people, But if it wasn't for Maggies stuborn nature we wouldn't be having this discussion they'd already be
Argentinian,
tony
|
|
|
franky
|
| posted on 2/1/12 at 12:57 PM |
|
|
The americans are already siding with Argentina over the islands, oil talks to the americans. No such thing as a special relationship when oil is
involved.
|
|
|
bobinspain
|
| posted on 2/1/12 at 01:21 PM |
|
|
You could offer every Islander (approx 2,000 of 'em) £1,000,000 each and it would be a far cheaper option than trying to preserve British
sovereignty. (Quite apart from any loss of life involved).
I believe we wouldn't be successful in defending the Falklands (and equally, in attempting to re-take them) because we have so little of what we
had last time around. (a leader with cojones), no Harriers and no carriers, a much reduced surface fleet and no long range bomber force.
If you read the history of the last conflict, it was a far closer-run affair than most folk realise, especially when the exocets started hitting their
targets and incinerating our troops. The political will of Mrs T in her standoff with Galtieri and his military junta meant he 'blinked
first' following the sinking of the Belgrano.
Oil may be a factor now, (as it doubtless was 30 years ago), but we live in a different world now. N. Korea, Iran, Al Qaeda and the Middle East in
general are festering sores that need addressing long before the Falklands appears on the radar screen.
Half a world away, is it really worth risking yet more service-lives in a conflict for which are not equipped for a few barrels of oil? Don't
forget, that in the eyes of many, we are still seen as a former colonial power, and thus are always tagged as the aggressors, whatever the
circumstances and public perception is crucial for any support we may seek.
As for Obama! He's trying to save his skin and get re-elected for a second term. I can't see any evidence that US support would be
anything other than luke-warm at best. (Just like last time when Reagan was president).
I don't think we'd get much support from the 'cheese-eating surrender-monkeys' nor the rest of the EU come to that.
(just my two penn'orth).
Bob.
|
|
|
wilkingj
|
| posted on 2/1/12 at 01:41 PM |
|
|
Its easy...
ASK the People who live on the Island, who they want to be ruled by.
In some ways they are more British than a lot of people living in the UK today.
If they wanted it, it might be different.
We have No Right to say these islands should be given away to any other country. We have a duty to the current inhabitants who hold UK passports by
right of birth.
You would like it if you lived there, to be told you are to become a foreign national of another country which you probably don't want to live
in or be under their Gov't.
Lets face it living in the UK may not be ideal.
We do a have a decent health service (compared to the majority of the rest of the world).
A Pension scheme and many more benefits that just simply do not exist in other countries.
We dont have death squads, and people dont just "dissapear" due to their religeous or political beliefs.
You can get on your podium at Hyde Park Corner, and say more or less what you please to anyone with the time to listen to you.
Try doing that in Iran, or North Korea, or a host of other countries, including some South American ones.
The Falklands have been under the UK's Control and part of our teritories continuously for 170+ years. Why the hell should we give it away, or
not protect those people who live there? Its ours, and it should stay ours.
Would you give parts of your garden away to a neighbour just becuase he starts partolling his boundary waving his cricket bat... NOT FRIGGING
LIKELY... Would You?
Sorry but I feel quite strongly about giving bits our our lands and peoples away, just because some NON UK person / country covets / wants it.
</Rant>
1. The point of a journey is not to arrive.
2. Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.
Best Regards
Geoff
http://www.v8viento.co.uk
|
|
|
T66
|
| posted on 2/1/12 at 01:49 PM |
|
|
So I guess when oil is discovered by the French on the Isle of Wight, nobody will mind them invading and throwing all the brits off it then ?
Good debate Scott - If Norway invaded Scotland, count me in for the fight, as they would get one from me....
Whether this half arranged, consortium government could make a decision that Clogg could comfortably nod too, I very much doubt it.
Falkand Islanders deserve our support, the world corn beef suppliers only remain interested in Malvinas for the same reasons we are !
|
|
|
mookaloid
|
| posted on 2/1/12 at 01:52 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by wilkingj
Its easy...
ASK the People who live on the Island, who they want to be ruled by.
In some ways they are more British than a lot of people living in the UK today.
If they wanted it, it might be different.
We have No Right to say these islands should be given away to any other country. We have a duty to the current inhabitants who hold UK passports by
right of birth.
You would like it if you lived there, to be told you are to become a foreign national of another country which you probably don't want to live
in or be under their Gov't.
Lets face it living in the UK may not be ideal.
We do a have a decent health service (compared to the majority of the rest of the world).
A Pension scheme and many more benefits that just simply do not exist in other countries.
We dont have death squads, and people dont just "dissapear" due to their religeous or political beliefs.
You can get on your podium at Hyde Park Corner, and say more or less what you please to anyone with the time to listen to you.
Try doing that in Iran, or North Korea, or a host of other countries, including some South American ones.
The Falklands have been under the UK's Control and part of our teritories continuously for 170+ years. Why the hell should we give it away, or
not protect those people who live there? Its ours, and it should stay ours.
Would you give parts of your garden away to a neighbour just becuase he starts partolling his boundary waving his cricket bat... NOT FRIGGING
LIKELY... Would You?
Sorry but I feel quite strongly about giving bits our our lands and peoples away, just because some NON UK person / country covets / wants it.
</Rant>
couldn't have put it better myself
"That thing you're thinking - it wont be that."
|
|
|
bobinspain
|
| posted on 2/1/12 at 01:52 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by wilkingj
Its easy...
ASK the People who live on the Island, who they want to be ruled by.
In some ways they are more British than a lot of people living in the UK today.
If they wanted it, it might be different.
We have No Right to say these islands should be given away to any other country. We have a duty to the current inhabitants who hold UK passports by
right of birth.
You would like it if you lived there, to be told you are to become a foreign national of another country which you probably don't want to live
in or be under their Gov't.
Lets face it living in the UK may not be ideal.
We do a have a decent health service (compared to the majority of the rest of the world).
A Pension scheme and many more benefits that just simply do not exist in other countries.
We dont have death squads, and people dont just "dissapear" due to their religeous or political beliefs.
You can get on your podium at Hyde Park Corner, and say more or less what you please to anyone with the time to listen to you.
Try doing that in Iran, or North Korea, or a host of other countries, including some South American ones.
The Falklands have been under the UK's Control and part of our teritories continuously for 170+ years. Why the hell should we give it away, or
not protect those people who live there? Its ours, and it should stay ours.
Would you give parts of your garden away to a neighbour just becuase he starts partolling his boundary waving his cricket bat... NOT FRIGGING
LIKELY... Would You?
"It's easy."
Oh Dear oh dear oh dear!
It is easy when you sit in an armchair with no idea of what military conflict and it's consequences mean.
Desensitization by playing too many shoot-em-up computer games I fear.
"Sorry but I feel quite strongly about giving bits our our lands and peoples away, just because some NON UK person / country covets / wants
it."
Strong enough to go and fight for them 'armchair warrior?'
I did last time. Now it's your turn.
|
|
|
Wheels244
|
| posted on 2/1/12 at 01:57 PM |
|
|
They're ours - keep them.
Don't forget we've got some brave boys and girls buried
down there, if we give them away ( not back !) they died
for nothing.
Logistical nightmare to defend but never under estimate
true British grit - we have the best armed and special
forces in the world - just less of them thanks to successive
Governments short sightedness.
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 2/1/12 at 02:10 PM |
|
|
Thought this was an interesting piece by Ian Dunt (a rarity for him!)...
Argentina's (mostly illusionary) economic resurgence has a disappointing side-effect. It prompts regular bouts of sabre-rattling over the
Falklands Islands.
Its glamorous president, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, is prone to issuing tetchy attacks on Britain, not least of all her insistence that the UK is
"a crass colonial power in decline". That last point is neither entirely false nor particularly interesting, but it is about 50 years out
of date.
It's been getting worse recently. British licensed fishing boats are being intercepted by Argentina. It announced last year that boats sailing
to or from the Falkland, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands would require permission to pass through Argentine water.
Kirchner's neighbours, eager to win the approval of a country with a strong economy and a long history of cultural and political dominance in
Latin America, have helped where they can. Uruguayan president Jose Mujica last week announced a ban on Falklands boats using his country's
ports. This week, in a move that surprised the Foreign Office, the Mercosur bloc, which includes major players like Brazil, voted to close their ports
to ships flying the Falklands flag.
Thanking her allies, Kirchner painted a picture of a predatory British state patrolling the waters of the world, looking to snatch up land.
"Malvinas [the Argentine name for the islands] is not an Argentine cause," she said. "It is a global cause, because in the Malvinas
they are taking our oil and fishing resources. And when there is need for more resources those who are strong are going to look for them wherever and
however they can."
Stereotypes of the British as Victorian-era imperialists are as cack-handed and ignorant as jokes about the Germans still being Nazis, but they play
well to her domestic audience, who are still bruised by the war and Argentina's perpetual obsession with its own cultural superiority - a sort
of Japan of the Latin Americas.
Given that the islands are of very little strategic or resource value, one might wonder why Britain should bother to spend considerable money and
diplomatic capital just so everyone can assume that we're violent imperialists in the Braveheart vein. The reason is very simple. We are
protecting the people of the Falklands from a foreign government whose only claim to the territory is at the intellectual level of a five-year-old
child: namely, that it is close by.
Historians are uncertain who landed on the islands first, but it was either the Portuguese, the Spanish or the British and it happened sometime in the
16th century. The Patagonian Indians may have, and indeed probably did, visit earlier. They weren't there when the Europeans got there. These
were uninhabited islands. After much coming and going, the British set up a naval station in 1834, and a permanent colony six years later. It's
from this colony that the inhabitants of the islands come.
Part of the British stake is therefore that it has overseen a continuous administration of the islands since the 19th century. But its real claim is
that it is protecting the islanders' self-determination. There is one person on the Falklands islands who wishes to be Argentinean. His names is
James Peck and he is 43 years old. Everyone else is a British citizen, wishes to remain under British government, and is entitled to our
protection.
The Argentine claim, that it acquired the islands from Spain when it became independent in 1811, is a telling signal of who the imperialists really
are. By piggybacking on the contested properties owned by its former colonial master, the Argentine case shows how superficial that bluster about the
'rule of the powerful' really is.
The ownership of small islands does not derive by geographical proximity, or else we had better start redrawing the world map. Perhaps Cuba should be
enveloped by the US. The idea that small islands near larger countries should be folded into their control is international relations reduced to mere
thuggery. That is the real rule of the strong over the weak. The protection of peoples' self-determination to choose their own government is the
protection of the weak from the strong.
With so cheap a reasoning behind its continued claims, the Argentine case for the Falklands can be seen for what it really is: an aspiration to
express national pride through territorial ownership. It is no coincidence that a far-right military junta decided to try to take the islands by force
in 1982, partly to distract from its own economic inadequacies and partly out of the need for right-wing dictatorships to gather momentum by virtue of
perceived strength.
This bullying approach has always been a feature of Argentine aspirations towards the islands. They appealed to the UN in 1945 to establish their
sovereignty but when the UK tried to submit the case the international courts of justice at the Hague two years later, Argentina refused the offer. Of
course it did. The court would have put the rights of the islanders first, a factor which instantaneously dismisses Argentina's claim.
This is not a profitable venture for Britain. Reports of oil in the 1970s proved to be over-enthusiastic, even though, according to some histories,
their promotion in the British press encouraged moves in Buenos Aires. There was an agreement between Britain and Argentina to explore for offshore
resources in 1995 after some optimistic geological surveys, by the Latin American country pulled out two years later. Climate conditions make
exploration difficult and test well results are mostly disappointing. It doesn't look commercially viable.
British protection of the Falklands is not about money or resources or strategic advantage. After all these years and the temporary humiliation of the
Falklands invasion, of course there is an element of emotion about it. Losing the Falklands after all Britain has sacrificed for it would lose face as
well. It would be absurd to pretend otherwise. But this is primarily about self-determination, the rights of people to live free from the expansionist
folly of their arrogant, stronger neighbours.
Any Latin American with a sense of history should know what that is like. For over 100 years, the US has overthrown democratic left-wing governments
in the continent. It has trained genocidal paramilitaries, it has funded tyrannical murderers, it has invaded and privatised and tested chemicals on
the people of Latin America. It has watched the region turn into a hotbed of crime and anarchy due to its imposition of social-Darwinist economic
policies.
To daub Britain in the colours of the US for doing the precise opposite, for respecting people's self-determination, is a historical irony of
extraordinary cruelty. Argentina's claim to the Falklands is that of the bully towards his victim.
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
owelly
|
| posted on 2/1/12 at 02:41 PM |
|
|
As I seem to recall, its not the oil on/under the Falklands that keeps it British, its the islands proximity to the mineral and oil deposits within
the SouthPole. The Falkland Islands, and South Georgia, are just stepping stones for us to reach the good stuff further South.
Have we got the balls to defend the islands? Our government can't stop a bunch of kids from raping the streets of London so I doubt they could
even if 'we' had the money. We'd need the A-Team. The proper one with Mr T. And perhaps the Equaliser for some UK brains.
http://www.ppcmag.co.uk
|
|
|
wilkingj
|
| posted on 2/1/12 at 03:29 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bobinspain
"It's easy."
Oh Dear oh dear oh dear!
It is easy when you sit in an armchair with no idea of what military conflict and it's consequences mean.
Desensitization by playing too many shoot-em-up computer games I fear.
"Sorry but I feel quite strongly about giving bits our our lands and peoples away, just because some NON UK person / country covets / wants
it."
Strong enough to go and fight for them 'armchair warrior?'
I did last time. Now it's your turn.
First of all. You have absolutely NO IDEA of who I am, or what my experiences in life are.
Please do not assume that I am a 20 year old who sits in front of a Playstation or X-Box all day shooting animated characters on their TV screen.
I have not played computer games since owning a BBC micro 30 years ago. (4 colours and 32kb of Ram!)
I am not desensitized by playing games. (I dont play them, I have far better uses for my PC)
I was mainly referring to the situation being discussed, and the rights of the people who are living in those lands.
They have rights as nationals of the UK, and its our Gov'ts job to defend them and their rights. Let alone the issue of the sovereignty of our
lands.
The armed forces are there for the Gov't to fight on behalf of the people of the UK, and to defend our lands. It is their job to fight, and
sometimes be injured or even die.
If you have been a front line soldier, airman or sailor, and seen action, then I can certainly understand your point of view.
As for "Its Easy" I was referring to the decision making of WHO should have the biggest say in whether the Falkands should be handed over
to any foreign power. Namely the people who live there, and NOT referring to taking any military decisions or actions.
The logistical actions of ANY modern conflict are a complete nightmare. Even the best laid plans don't cover every eventuality.
As for your "LAST TIME" and "YOUR TURN" I dont know which conflict you are referring to, so cannot guess your age.
However, I suspect that I am more than likely to be old enough to be your father! Hence its unlikely that I would ever be able to go into battle at my
age.
Ask yourself, the question I raised about the garden. Would you give your property away to a neighbour who threatened you? I dont think so.
The Falklands or any other UK territory should be treated the same.
I worked very closely with the RAF and ARMY for 20 years, and was involved in the Falkands conflict, and the 1st Gulf War as well.
OK, I wasn't at the front line. However, my dealings gave me a good insight to what was happening and the aftermath. I am well aware of the
issues raised by such confilicts.
War is dirty, nasty, sh**ty, deadly and there are people who pay a terrible price for our freedom. I am more than well aware of this.
IMHO War should be an absolute LAST RESORT. However, due to the actions of the opponent, going to war may be the only course of action left.
Please do not assume that everyone else is a Gung Ho "Armchair Warrior" with no knowlege of what happens in the real world.
Many of us have been around for a long time, and been involved in a lot more than you could ever possibly know.
Finally, I belive that I am old and wise enough to not take offence by you considering me to be a Playstation Playing Armchair Warrior!
Now, lets put this to bed, and get on with the New Year, and building cars.
[Edited on 2/1/2012 by wilkingj]
1. The point of a journey is not to arrive.
2. Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.
Best Regards
Geoff
http://www.v8viento.co.uk
|
|
|
bobinspain
|
| posted on 2/1/12 at 05:50 PM |
|
|
First of all. You have absolutely NO IDEA of who I am, or what my experiences in life are.
Please do not assume that I am a 20 year old who sits in front of a Playstation or X-Box all day shooting animated characters on their TV screen.
I have not played computer games since owning a BBC micro 30 years ago. (4 colours and 32kb of Ram!)
I am not desensitized by playing games. (I dont play them, I have far better uses for my PC)
I do not need to know what your experiences of life are. They are immaterial to me.
My replies to posts are made based on the content of the topics to which I reply and the opinions expressed therein. In your original post, in my
opinion, yours were trite, gung-ho and ill-considered.
I make no assumptions as to your age. I don't care if you're as old as Methuselah (which you'd need to be to be my father). Your age
provides no indemnity from criticism in any event and if I think you're wrong I'll say so, whether you be Prime Minister or pauper.
Good for you that owned a computer 30 years ago.
40 years ago, I was a fast-jet navigator so 'borrowed' my anti-deluvial on-board computer from HMG for the duration of every sortie.
There's too much sabre-rattling by the Argentinians and jingoistic nonsense spouted by our side at present. There needs to be rational
discussion, not confrontation. I am not an 'appeaser' and certainly, no apologist.
Have a peaceful 2012. (It is in your power to do so)
Bob.
|
|
|
