The Falklands
24 February 2010, 07:30 PM
#31
The difference may be this time if we have to fight then we would not have the air cover/ support that we had the first time .We cant supply it ourselves and the Americans are busy elsewhere(as are many of our troops)
Its not a popular view but im not sure we would defend them now or be capable of it
Its not a popular view but im not sure we would defend them now or be capable of it
24 February 2010, 08:09 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
24 February 2010, 09:05 PM
#34
The difference may be this time if we have to fight then we would not have the air cover/ support that we had the first time .We cant supply it ourselves and the Americans are busy elsewhere(as are many of our troops)
Its not a popular view but im not sure we would defend them now or be capable of it
Its not a popular view but im not sure we would defend them now or be capable of it
That aside - the Navy, Army and Air Force would just man up and get on with it in spite of public and political indifference like they always do
It is stated UK government policy, supported by all parties, that talks regarding the future of the Falklands will only take place as and when the Islanders request them. Which I think may be a few years off!
24 February 2010, 09:08 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
I'm not so sure about that. The Falklands of today are actually defended - as opposed to 1982 when there was a couple of dozen RM's on the Islands. There are over 1000 members of the military permanently stationed there. There are four Typhoon's based in the Falklands maintaining the integrity of the Falkland Islands airspace; and the UK Joint Harrier Force currently have no operational commitments as the Tornado fleet are meeting the Afghanistan commitment. That means they could fully ramp up for carrier ops pretty quickly. Notwithstanding the commitment to Afghanistan, we are probably better equipped to deal with a situation such as repelling/retaking the Falklands than we were in 1982. The forces of today are an expeditionary force designed to project force into other continents, where as the British Military of 1982 was structured to face off the Warsaw Pact on the German plains and NATO's northern flank.
That aside - the Navy, Army and Air Force would just man up and get on with it in spite of public and political indifference like they always do
It is stated UK government policy, supported by all parties, that talks regarding the future of the Falklands will only take place as and when the Islanders request them. Which I think may be a few years off!
That aside - the Navy, Army and Air Force would just man up and get on with it in spite of public and political indifference like they always do
It is stated UK government policy, supported by all parties, that talks regarding the future of the Falklands will only take place as and when the Islanders request them. Which I think may be a few years off!
24 February 2010, 09:48 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
24 February 2010, 09:53 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: liverpool
Posts: 2,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
have not read everyones comments so forgive if re-post. it always has been about the access to the oil, NOT the island itself. last time the Argies landed their intentions was to control the main route, its just that Maggie (god bless her patriotic senile soul) at the time did nort crack on to us that this was why the invasion was so critical. if it was to kick off again tbh i think it would be a flash in the pan as we are now MUCH more experienced than what we were then with regards to guerilla tactics which is much more difficult to combat than your every day conventional warfare.
24 February 2010, 10:08 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
24 February 2010, 10:11 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: liverpool
Posts: 2,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
. granted the SAS cocked it up somewhat (on that occasion) but they have more than made up for it
24 February 2010, 10:20 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 9,368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
24 February 2010, 11:37 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Croydon - returned to democracy! Yay!!
Posts: 3,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was there the first time, would prefer not to go back.
Will the yanks back us? Hope not - we'll suffer enough casualties as is without them adding the inevitable friendly fire.
Joking aside, we're massively overstretched, but as Prasius said earlier if there's a job to do then we'll man up and do it. We can get harriers down there fairly quickly and though 4 Typhoons doesn't sound much they'd be more than a match for the Argentine Air Force. And if they've got Harpoon or Sea Eagle as well (which I suspect they have) then they could probably hold an invasion force off for a while... Plus there's a runway big enough to airlift reinforcements out there pronto now.
The present government is probably hoping to God that the Argentines do invade - it worked for maggie, maybe Gordon thinks it'll work for him as well...
Oh, and unless I've misunderstood, Argentina's claim is totally spurious anyway. Britain occupied and colonised the islands before Argentian existed as a country. We left for a bit, they moved in. Then they left and w emoved back. Not through force, either - they just left. So I'd say the Falklands are British. The Falkland Islanders certainly are, so we should defend them.
As for the nonsense about Argentina occupying the Orkneys and claiming our oil, if they had been there three hundred years ago and ever since then it would be a different story. But as they haven't, I can only suggest that the argument is nothing more than poppycock.
With respect, of course.
SB
Will the yanks back us? Hope not - we'll suffer enough casualties as is without them adding the inevitable friendly fire.
Joking aside, we're massively overstretched, but as Prasius said earlier if there's a job to do then we'll man up and do it. We can get harriers down there fairly quickly and though 4 Typhoons doesn't sound much they'd be more than a match for the Argentine Air Force. And if they've got Harpoon or Sea Eagle as well (which I suspect they have) then they could probably hold an invasion force off for a while... Plus there's a runway big enough to airlift reinforcements out there pronto now.
The present government is probably hoping to God that the Argentines do invade - it worked for maggie, maybe Gordon thinks it'll work for him as well...
Oh, and unless I've misunderstood, Argentina's claim is totally spurious anyway. Britain occupied and colonised the islands before Argentian existed as a country. We left for a bit, they moved in. Then they left and w emoved back. Not through force, either - they just left. So I'd say the Falklands are British. The Falkland Islanders certainly are, so we should defend them.
As for the nonsense about Argentina occupying the Orkneys and claiming our oil, if they had been there three hundred years ago and ever since then it would be a different story. But as they haven't, I can only suggest that the argument is nothing more than poppycock.
With respect, of course.
SB
25 February 2010, 12:50 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: South Bucks
Posts: 3,213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, I blame the Americans 
We didn't really have a permanent presence in the Falklands before Argentina. They had people living there. Until they tried to impose quotas on the Yanks catching seals, I believe it was... They tried to get tough and arrested an American ship. Unfortunately, an American warship was visiting Buenos Aries at the time. They erm... destroyed the Falklands settlement, declared the islands free of government or nationality and left.
Then we popped along and nicked them before the Argentinians could react. We've been there ever since and the Argentinians have been fuming about it ever since.
J.
We didn't really have a permanent presence in the Falklands before Argentina. They had people living there. Until they tried to impose quotas on the Yanks catching seals, I believe it was... They tried to get tough and arrested an American ship. Unfortunately, an American warship was visiting Buenos Aries at the time. They erm... destroyed the Falklands settlement, declared the islands free of government or nationality and left.
Then we popped along and nicked them before the Argentinians could react. We've been there ever since and the Argentinians have been fuming about it ever since.
J.
Last edited by vindaloo; 25 February 2010 at 12:50 PM. Reason: Go read Vulcan 607, the history is there...
25 February 2010, 01:21 PM
#49
Argentina didn't exist as an independent nation until 1816 -- well after our claim was made to the Islands.
Historically - not geographically - the only other nations who have a claim over the Falklands are France and Spain.
Historically - not geographically - the only other nations who have a claim over the Falklands are France and Spain.
25 February 2010, 01:36 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 4,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Operation Corporate: The Story of the Falklands War, 1982 - Martin Middlebrook
One Hundred Days: The Memoirs of the Falklands Battle Group Comments - Sandy Woodward
Both are very good reads. Not sure if the first is still in print. I've got them both somewhere in the house. Must read them again.
25 February 2010, 07:07 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: No, don't tell me, i know this one.
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was there the first time, would prefer not to go back.
Will the yanks back us? Hope not - we'll suffer enough casualties as is without them adding the inevitable friendly fire.
Joking aside, we're massively overstretched, but as Prasius said earlier if there's a job to do then we'll man up and do it. We can get harriers down there fairly quickly and though 4 Typhoons doesn't sound much they'd be more than a match for the Argentine Air Force. And if they've got Harpoon or Sea Eagle as well (which I suspect they have) then they could probably hold an invasion force off for a while... Plus there's a runway big enough to airlift reinforcements out there pronto now.
The present government is probably hoping to God that the Argentines do invade - it worked for maggie, maybe Gordon thinks it'll work for him as well...
Oh, and unless I've misunderstood, Argentina's claim is totally spurious anyway. Britain occupied and colonised the islands before Argentian existed as a country. We left for a bit, they moved in. Then they left and w emoved back. Not through force, either - they just left. So I'd say the Falklands are British. The Falkland Islanders certainly are, so we should defend them.
As for the nonsense about Argentina occupying the Orkneys and claiming our oil, if they had been there three hundred years ago and ever since then it would be a different story. But as they haven't, I can only suggest that the argument is nothing more than poppycock.
With respect, of course.
SB
Will the yanks back us? Hope not - we'll suffer enough casualties as is without them adding the inevitable friendly fire.
Joking aside, we're massively overstretched, but as Prasius said earlier if there's a job to do then we'll man up and do it. We can get harriers down there fairly quickly and though 4 Typhoons doesn't sound much they'd be more than a match for the Argentine Air Force. And if they've got Harpoon or Sea Eagle as well (which I suspect they have) then they could probably hold an invasion force off for a while... Plus there's a runway big enough to airlift reinforcements out there pronto now.
The present government is probably hoping to God that the Argentines do invade - it worked for maggie, maybe Gordon thinks it'll work for him as well...
Oh, and unless I've misunderstood, Argentina's claim is totally spurious anyway. Britain occupied and colonised the islands before Argentian existed as a country. We left for a bit, they moved in. Then they left and w emoved back. Not through force, either - they just left. So I'd say the Falklands are British. The Falkland Islanders certainly are, so we should defend them.
As for the nonsense about Argentina occupying the Orkneys and claiming our oil, if they had been there three hundred years ago and ever since then it would be a different story. But as they haven't, I can only suggest that the argument is nothing more than poppycock.
With respect, of course.
SB
Seeing as he's had her around No10 twice and gave Obama books on Churchill (which he didn't want).
He'll be riding round on open tanks next.
25 February 2010, 08:38 PM
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dunstable, Beds.
Posts: 576
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just don't stray too far from the roads if you ever go down there.
Taken when I was down there in May 2008.
On the road from Mount Pleasant to Stanley :
Surf Bay :
Dave.
Taken when I was down there in May 2008.
On the road from Mount Pleasant to Stanley :
Surf Bay :
Dave.
25 February 2010, 09:29 PM
#54
Scooby Regular
Our stance over sovereignty of the Falklands has certainly hardened over the last 30 years
Indeed throughout the 70’s high-level talks were conducted between the UK and Argentinean governments over sovereignty -- often over a leaseback arrangement and these talks lasted into the immediate period before the invasion
Coupled with the fact that the original iteration of the 1981 British Nationality act would have stripped the Falklanders of the right to a British passport it all served to give the Junta the idea that the Islands were - understandably - up for grabs
History will probably show that they “shot their (military) bolt” to soon, and had they, as they are doing now pursued a vigorous diplomatic course they might have prevailed in their objectives over time
(America has always been very very ambivalent about our colonial claims – being an ex colony themselves, and they would have probably given Argentina diplomatic support if they had persued a diplomatic course)
Indeed throughout the 70’s high-level talks were conducted between the UK and Argentinean governments over sovereignty -- often over a leaseback arrangement and these talks lasted into the immediate period before the invasion
Coupled with the fact that the original iteration of the 1981 British Nationality act would have stripped the Falklanders of the right to a British passport it all served to give the Junta the idea that the Islands were - understandably - up for grabs
History will probably show that they “shot their (military) bolt” to soon, and had they, as they are doing now pursued a vigorous diplomatic course they might have prevailed in their objectives over time
(America has always been very very ambivalent about our colonial claims – being an ex colony themselves, and they would have probably given Argentina diplomatic support if they had persued a diplomatic course)
26 February 2010, 01:15 AM
#55
Our stance over sovereignty of the Falklands has certainly hardened over the last 30 years
Indeed throughout the 70’s high-level talks were conducted between the UK and Argentinean governments over sovereignty -- often over a leaseback arrangement and these talks lasted into the immediate period before the invasion
Coupled with the fact that the original iteration of the 1981 British Nationality act would have stripped the Falklanders of the right to a British passport it all served to give the Junta the idea that the Islands were - understandably - up for grabs
History will probably show that they “shot their (military) bolt” to soon, and had they, as they are doing now pursued a vigorous diplomatic course they might have prevailed in their objectives over time
(America has always been very very ambivalent about our colonial claims – being an ex colony themselves, and they would have probably given Argentina diplomatic support if they had persued a diplomatic course)
Indeed throughout the 70’s high-level talks were conducted between the UK and Argentinean governments over sovereignty -- often over a leaseback arrangement and these talks lasted into the immediate period before the invasion
Coupled with the fact that the original iteration of the 1981 British Nationality act would have stripped the Falklanders of the right to a British passport it all served to give the Junta the idea that the Islands were - understandably - up for grabs
History will probably show that they “shot their (military) bolt” to soon, and had they, as they are doing now pursued a vigorous diplomatic course they might have prevailed in their objectives over time
(America has always been very very ambivalent about our colonial claims – being an ex colony themselves, and they would have probably given Argentina diplomatic support if they had persued a diplomatic course)
Good luck chaps
26 February 2010, 09:25 AM
#56
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: liverpool
Posts: 2,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the oil argument is not poppycock. the threat of a major decline in a nations revenue IS more reason to defend a previously virtually unheard of island.
26 February 2010, 11:39 AM
#57
Scooby Regular
The thing I don't understand is why people complain about Britain no longer being Great, but at the same time don't care about the Falklands. You lot are aware just why Britain was so great in the first place?
SBradley summed it up perfectly.
SBradley summed it up perfectly.
26 February 2010, 11:50 AM
#59
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Far Corfe
Posts: 3,618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The oil hadnt been discoverd when Mrs Thatcher fought to save the Falklands, the surveys had not been done, so she went to war for the right reasons.
However even though the present Government knows about the oil (and boy do we need a cash injection) you may have noticed there has been no strongly worded statement from Gordon. There has only been supposition from various people, like journalists and retired military types. But nothing from HMG.
Sadly the US are not backing the UK due to the release of the secret torture documents. Which I think is total ****. We are the US's oldest ally and their refusal to stand with us or at least support us diplomatically is an insult to alll those brave soldiers who have died supporting the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.
WRITE TO THE US GOVERNMENT AND TELL THEM WHAT YOU THINK
Contact the White House | The White House
However even though the present Government knows about the oil (and boy do we need a cash injection) you may have noticed there has been no strongly worded statement from Gordon. There has only been supposition from various people, like journalists and retired military types. But nothing from HMG.
Sadly the US are not backing the UK due to the release of the secret torture documents. Which I think is total ****. We are the US's oldest ally and their refusal to stand with us or at least support us diplomatically is an insult to alll those brave soldiers who have died supporting the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.
WRITE TO THE US GOVERNMENT AND TELL THEM WHAT YOU THINK
Contact the White House | The White House
