Is England trying to stir the pot over the Falkland Islands?

Message boards : Politics : Is England trying to stir the pot over the Falkland Islands?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 9 · Next

AuthorMessage
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1191352 - Posted: 4 Feb 2012, 1:45:11 UTC - in response to Message 1191346.  
Last modified: 4 Feb 2012, 1:48:20 UTC

The USA ia a very large island come to that.


I could've sworn we had land borders with other nations. Will have to check my atlas ;-).

I'll excuse the grammar as it's late at night.


Apologies for the mangled English, composing posts from an tablet is not my usual method. If I try it again I'll be sure to be more careful.

@Gary & Bobby - Look guys if you're gonna join forces to have a pop at yours truly, you're gonna have to do a bit better than this. OK old boy? :-)


Apologies, the post was meant to be humorous, hence the elaborate painting a picture. Though you have a point, a few smilies wouldn't have gone amiss.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1191352 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30593
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1191357 - Posted: 4 Feb 2012, 2:48:37 UTC - in response to Message 1191346.  

You can remind me of anything you like if you wish. The USA ia a very large island come to that.

Thought you boys learned something in 1812, that while you can take over parts it is vary hard to hold onto if the enemy has the ability to make weapons and you have a long supply line.

The serious part is that if both of you went at is all out, I don't think England could do a defensive hold on them, they would have to go offensive on the Argentinian mainland. The islands are just a bit too close to Argentina for the English to keep resupplied.

Of course under the Monroe Doctrine, the FalkMalLandsVinas are the USA's anyway. :)

I honestly don't think there are enough resources there for an all out over them and both sides know it. Negotiate something.


Chris, did you actually say to machine gun paratroopers? Thought there was something in Geneva about that.

ID: 1191357 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1191389 - Posted: 4 Feb 2012, 5:18:16 UTC - in response to Message 1191357.  

Monroe doctrine considered the Americas as the US's sphere of influence. Technically, we should be telling the Argentinians to back down.

You can't shoot the paratroopers but you can shoot their equipment. Like their helmets and webgear and rifles and their parachutes. If they are dumb enough to have those items then they may get shot in the act of destroying personal war equipment


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1191389 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24870
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1191413 - Posted: 4 Feb 2012, 9:02:49 UTC

Until warfare becomes a true technological affair without the need of manpower, to end/win a battle/war, boots will be needed on the ground.

I cannot see the EU or the US aid Britain should the Falklands kick off again & without that aid, Britain, this time around, cannot provide sufficient resources to attack, let alone retake the Falklands.

However, if the potential oilfield/s is large enough, then maybe the US will provide aid (basing this on the "Iraq Affair").
ID: 1191413 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30593
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1191461 - Posted: 4 Feb 2012, 15:33:52 UTC - in response to Message 1191421.  

There are three points here, firstly it would be that much more difficult to defend territory in the South Atlantic than it was in 1982. Secondly we were not expecting Argentina to take Georgia then invade the islands. Thirdly and conversely, military technologies have improved in the last 30 years, so we wouldn't need to send up helicopters to drop chaff to confuse missiles etc.

Argentinas forces are most likely carefully monitored in many ways 24/7 and any large scale build up or deployment would be immediately seen, and appropriate action taken. PM Cameron chaired a COBRA meeting before Xmas on this very point and was quoted as saying that he was assured that we had the capability required to deal with it if neccessary.

However it is worrying when senior Military figures disagree Army Head. I would agree that if the islands were invaded again we would have a very difficult job to re-take them, but I don't see it getting that far. Neither do I think that we would consider attacking the mainland, in that case we would formally have to declare war.

I can't see there being a political solution in the short term either, they call them the Malvinas and say they are theirs, we call them the Falklands and say they are ours, two fairly entrenched positions. We might agree to possibly discuss oil reserves as a separate issue at some point. Every so often due to home political pressures, the Argentine government raise the Falklands issue, and I expect that will continue.

Chris, missile tech has also advanced 30 years. Second how many spy satellites does England launch? While I'm sure the USA is happy to give data when there is free time on our birds, with the situation in the world today our birds aren't looking at Argentina.

If you haven't turned them into Midway island I doubt you can slow down the invasion long enough to project enough force to prevent it. Once taken projecting sufficient force to retake is going to be next to impossible as Argentina will turn them into Midway.

The USA has a little experience in island warfare and it is very very nasty.

ID: 1191461 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30593
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1191626 - Posted: 5 Feb 2012, 0:49:54 UTC

Type 45 destroyer: Windows for Warships.
During its first major warfare sea exercise aboard HMS Daring the ship's Combat Management System crashed while under simulated air attack due to a power failure. The ship lost use of its combat management system, i.e. PAAMS. The ship's crew reverted to use of binoculars to spot incoming airborne threats until the CMS had been restarted.


ID: 1191626 · Report as offensive
Nick
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 4344
Credit: 3,313,107
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1191692 - Posted: 5 Feb 2012, 8:34:38 UTC
Last modified: 5 Feb 2012, 8:53:06 UTC

Britain ceded control of the Falklands to the Spanish in the 1700's. During
this time Spain controlled Argentina and gave Argentina the responsibility
of managing this island. When Spain gave Argentina it's independence Argentina
took possession of the Falkland Isles. Britain did not like this so kicked
the Argentinians off the Island. So it boils down to what was in the written
agreement at the time, in the 1700's, between Britain and Spain. Did Britain
just give the Spanish control over the Falklands or did Britain actually
give the Island to them lock-stock and barrel. If the agreement was just to
give Spain the control over the Falklands then when Argentina gained their
independence this did not give Argentina the right to claim the Falkland Island.
Only if Britain ceded ownership of the Falklands to the Spanish during the
1700's could Argentina possibly now have a claim for this Island. My
suspicions are that Britain only gave Spain control of the Falklands and
not ownership because as soon as Argentina gained it's independence from
Spain, in about 1816, Britain quickly went over to the Falklands and turfed
off the Argentinians. Why, for as far as Britain was concerned it still owned
the Island and the controlling agreement over the Island was between Britain
and Spain but not with Argentina.

What's America's stance on this situation, all depends on who the president is.
Perhaps this Falklands issue will get discussed between Obama and Cameron
when Cameron flies over very shortly. Obviously the two are meeting up
to discuss the Syria issue and hence a joint operation together to bomb
that country.
The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.
ID: 1191692 · Report as offensive
Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1191699 - Posted: 5 Feb 2012, 9:34:44 UTC - in response to Message 1191692.  
Last modified: 5 Feb 2012, 9:36:19 UTC

Obviously the two are meeting up
to discuss the Syria issue and hence a joint operation together to bomb
that country
.


I hope not, as Western intervention will not have any benefits to our interests, and will bring in Iran which will widen the issue.

Indirect intervention by Britain should be the way, as Syria is much more complex than Libya. That was not taken in to account, nor history, when we got involved in Afghanistan.

Nick

A good summary, and our involvement with the Falkland islands goes back many more years than the 1700s when our people landed there which was more than Argintina did..
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



ID: 1191699 · Report as offensive
Nick
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 4344
Credit: 3,313,107
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1191922 - Posted: 6 Feb 2012, 8:26:35 UTC - in response to Message 1191705.  
Last modified: 6 Feb 2012, 8:34:47 UTC

Looks like the French had a hand in it all as well at one point ...

Falklands history


....and the Dutch too, for they were the first to place this Island on the
map of the world. You could say that Both Holland, France, Spain and the UK
have legitimate claims to the Falkland Island but certainly not Argentina.
There is suspicion that Argentina did land on the Falklands around about
the late medieval period but they did not lay a claim to it. Well it was
250 miles off from their coast line and one must assume that they did not
think much of this Island. Well this was their big mistake and the reason why
they are so sore about the UK having the sense later to claim it as their
own. Still, Argentina never officially laid claim to the Falklands until
around the late 1800's and no one took their claim seriously. Why H. Clinton
wishes to support the Argentinians claim today beats me other than she's out
looking desperately to make friends around the place...she must be a pretty
lonely girl...that or no one outside the Americas actually see's her as a
serious or worthy politician and this is playing on her mind. Perhaps she
feels she's still potential president material, unfortunately girl the
American population don't actually think this of you.
The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.
ID: 1191922 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1191978 - Posted: 6 Feb 2012, 15:30:13 UTC - in response to Message 1191922.  

Perhaps she feels she's still potential president material, unfortunately girl the American population don't actually think this of you.


Somebody really ought to let the Americans know this is how they feel:

A national poll conducted for TIME on Oct. 9 and 10 [2011] found that if Clinton were the Democratic nominee for President in 2012, she would best Mitt Romney 55% to 38%, Rick Perry 58% to 32% and Herman Cain 56% to 34% among likely voters in a general election. The same poll found that President Obama would edge Romney by just 46% to 43%, Perry by 50% to 38% and Cain by 49% to 37% among likely voters.


Source

NEW YORK , N.Y. - November 15, 2011 - As President Obama struggles to raise his own job approval numbers, he is not alone in being in negative territory. With two exceptions, other leaders in Washington are also viewed more negatively than positively. One exception is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. A majority of Americans (52%) give positive ratings to the overall job she is doing while three in ten (31%) give her negative marks. This is, however, lower than the last time this question was asked in May when three in five (61%) gave her positive marks and one-quarter (26%) gave her negative ratings.


Source
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1191978 · Report as offensive
BarryAZ

Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 16,982,517
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1192080 - Posted: 6 Feb 2012, 22:06:52 UTC - in response to Message 1191934.  

Indeed and the UK needs them for that reason, defend the world from German commerce raiders for sure.


Don't forget that that apart from there possibly being oil down there, the islands have generally been seen as being of strategic military significance due to their location. The British navy used that ability to help clear the South Atlantic of German warships during WWII.


ID: 1192080 · Report as offensive
Nick
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 4344
Credit: 3,313,107
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1192175 - Posted: 7 Feb 2012, 8:03:20 UTC - in response to Message 1192080.  
Last modified: 7 Feb 2012, 8:11:18 UTC

Indeed and the UK needs them for that reason, defend the world from German commerce raiders for sure.



By the way Barry, WWII is now over, it ended some 60 odd years ago. The Germans
abilities in commerce are much admired by us British, It's just a shame that the
French don't see the Germans in the same good light here as we do.
The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.
ID: 1192175 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24870
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1192418 - Posted: 8 Feb 2012, 10:54:44 UTC

Argentinan UN Appeal

From the BBC link above....

"She asked UK Prime Minister David Cameron "to give peace a chance"."

From the Virgin News link....

"this militarisation of the South Atlantic" because it was a region where "peace reigns".

So the events of 1982 did not happen then? Peace reigned back then?

So 904 military personnel didn't die?

Objecting over Prince William's military service? What would their reply had been if Prince Andrew's helicopter had been shot down?
ID: 1192418 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1192483 - Posted: 8 Feb 2012, 13:51:23 UTC - in response to Message 1192425.  

I liked how they would have preferred him in civies. I bet you would. I don't see the threat. If the Argentinians aren't being aggressive about the Falklands then they have nothing to worry about with a warship coming there. As if 1 warship were a national threat to anyone.


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1192483 · Report as offensive
Nick
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 4344
Credit: 3,313,107
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1192566 - Posted: 8 Feb 2012, 18:28:14 UTC
Last modified: 8 Feb 2012, 18:30:44 UTC

As it stands, Argentina will get no where with their continual claims of
ownership of the Falklands. Yet Kirchner will end up starving the Argentinian's
of hundreds of million of dollars from the revenue to be gained if they became
the major processor of the oil around the Falklands. Some other country will
get that money. So when the job of processing the oil comes up for grabs
see Argentina loose some of it's support from it's neighbours, Chile most
probably or possibly Brazil.
The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.
ID: 1192566 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24870
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1192873 - Posted: 9 Feb 2012, 16:40:19 UTC - in response to Message 1192805.  

Naw, as the Jocks want independance, send in "Jockey" Wilson. He'll keep hitting "Bulleyes" so there'll be no need of the British Army to mobilise.
ID: 1192873 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24870
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1193402 - Posted: 10 Feb 2012, 22:14:49 UTC

"Mr Timerman showed slides of the region which pinpointed the UK naval bases, saying: "Great Britain is the largest military presence in the South Atlantic, controlling access to the Pacific and Indian Oceans."

You sure of that Mr Timerman? I'm pretty certain that the US Navy can dispute that statement!
ID: 1193402 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30593
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1193411 - Posted: 10 Feb 2012, 22:33:06 UTC - in response to Message 1193402.  

"Mr Timerman showed slides of the region which pinpointed the UK naval bases, saying: "Great Britain is the largest military presence in the South Atlantic, controlling access to the Pacific and Indian Oceans."

You sure of that Mr Timerman? I'm pretty certain that the US Navy can dispute that statement!

Mr Timerman meant that statement for the hour he said it. Once one of the US Indian Ocean task forces heads back into their Atlantic port ...

ID: 1193411 · Report as offensive
Nick
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 4344
Credit: 3,313,107
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1193452 - Posted: 11 Feb 2012, 0:27:27 UTC
Last modified: 11 Feb 2012, 0:28:05 UTC

Our reporter says there is a fair bit of sympathy at the UN headquarters for Argentina's position that the Falklands are a British colonial holdover.


The UN would not see it this way had it been America and not the UK in dispute
over the Falklands. How long then before they tell Guernsey that it now
belongs to France again irrespective of how the Guernsey people feel about it.
How about handing Australia back to it's original inhabitants namely the
Aborigines and New Zealand back to the Maoris all taken as part and parcel
of British Colonialism. All in all then it's pretty clear that the strongest
argument Argentina can come up with is, "A colonial holdover" and the best
the UN can come up with is a sympathetic nod knowing full well that the UK
does actually hold full legal rights to the Falklands. And as for Mun-ki Moon
time he got himself a proper job of work to do.
The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.
ID: 1193452 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24870
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1193783 - Posted: 11 Feb 2012, 10:44:22 UTC

Jeebers, what planet do the Argies think their on? Demanding their enemy tells them what weapons they have? sheeesh.....

Nuclear Accusations Dismissed
ID: 1193783 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 9 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Is England trying to stir the pot over the Falkland Islands?


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.