Falklands War 2?

Users who are viewing this thread

Peter Parka

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,387
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.06z
Just hope Brown dosen't end up fucking up like Maggie Thatcher by weakening the defense to concentrate on the economy at home and pretty much inviting the Argies to invade.

UK prepared in Falklands, says PM
The UK has made "all the preparations that are necessary" to protect the Falkland Islands, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said.
Argentina has brought in controls on ships passing through its waters to the islands over UK plans to drill for oil.
Shadow foreign secretary William Hague told the BBC the Royal Navy's presence in the region should be increased.
The Ministry of Defence has denied reports a naval taskforce is on its way to the Falklands.
The Sun newspaper reported up to three ships were to join the islands' regular patrol vessel.
BBC defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt understands the destroyer HMS York and the oil supply tanker RFA Wave Ruler are in the area, as well as HMS Clyde, which is permanently based there.
However, the MoD said Britain already had a permanent naval presence in the South Atlantic as well as more than a thousand military personnel on the islands.
'Very clear'
Speaking on Real Radio in the North East, Mr Brown said he did not expect to send a taskforce to the area.
He said he hoped "sensible discussions" with Argentina would prevail, adding: "We have made all the preparations that are necessary to make sure the Falkland Islanders are properly protected."
After Argentina's invasion of the Falklands in 1982, a UK taskforce seized back control in a short war that claimed the lives of 649 Argentine and 255 British soldiers.
Our correspondent Caroline Wyatt said the UK appeared keen not to escalate the current row over oil and gas exploration in the South Atlantic despite Argentina's tightening of controls on all shipping using its ports that wished to travel to or from the Falkland Islands.

One of the things that went wrong in the 1980s is that the Argentines thought we weren't really committed to the Falkland Islands
Shadow foreign secretary William Hague

The BBC's Andrew Harding in Buenos Aires said it was difficult to find anyone in Argentina who believed the Falklands were in danger of triggering a military conflict.
But Argentine deputy foreign minister Victorio Taccetti said his country would take "adequate measures" to stop oil exploration.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Hague called for "some sort of increased naval presence - it may just be one more ship visiting more regularly" in the region.
He added: "That kind of thing would show very clearly to Argentina - with whom, again, we want friendly relations - that we will be very firm about this. It would send a signal not to misunderstand British intentions.
"One of the things that went wrong in the 1980s is that the Argentines thought we weren't really committed to the Falkland Islands. So, we mustn't make that mistake again. Our commitment should be very clear."
Buenos Aires claims sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, which it calls Islas Malvinas.
It has previously threatened that any company exploring for oil and gas in the waters around the territory will not be allowed to operate in Argentina.
On Tuesday, Argentine President Cristina Fernandez signed a decree requiring all vessels travelling between Argentina and the islands, or those wanting to cross Argentine territorial waters en route to the Falklands, to seek prior permission.
But a drilling rig from the Scottish highlands, the Ocean Guardian, is nearing the islands and due to start drilling next week, the UK-based company Desire Petroleum has said.
Last week, a ship carrying drilling equipment was detained by Argentine officials.
Geologists say the ocean bed surrounding the Falklands could contain rich energy reserves.
Last year Argentina submitted a claim to the United Nations for a vast expanse of ocean, based on research into the extent of the continental shelf, stretching to the Antarctic and including the island chains governed by Britain.
It is due to raise the issue at the UN next week.


On Thursday, an MoD spokesman said the government was "fully committed" to the Falklands, adding: "A deterrence force is maintained on the islands."
The Foreign Office said the UK and Argentina were "important partners" on issues such as the global economy and climate change.
"And we want, and have offered, to co-operate on South Atlantic issues," a spokesman added. "We will work to develop this relationship further."
Parliamentary Falkland Islands Group secretary Andrew Rosindell said "Argentina needs to behave like a modern democratic nation" and recognise "there is no way that any British government will concede sovereignty over the islands or the water around the islands".
The waters surrounding the disputed islands are considered by the UK to be part of the British Overseas Territories.
But Buenos Aires believes the UK is illegally occupying the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.

Story from BBC NEWS:
 
  • 12
    Replies
  • 390
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

Pabst

Active Member
Messages
2,009
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
The UK has made "all the preparations that are necessary" to protect the Falkland Islands, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said.

sounds foolhardy to make that claim if you ask me.
 

Peter Parka

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,387
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.06z
why don't the Argies take it to the world court or UN?


Because they haven't got a leg to stand on, everyone backed Britain or abstained during the Falklands war, if I remember correctly. The UN has jackshit power now anyway, since the Iraq war.
 

Pabst

Active Member
Messages
2,009
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Because they haven't got a leg to stand on, everyone backed Britain or abstained during the Falklands war, if I remember correctly. The UN has jackshit power now anyway, before the Iraq war.

the UN is a paper tiger. has been for a very long time now.
 

Zorak

The cake is a metaphor
Messages
9,923
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.01z
General consensus is that it was our aircraft carriers that turned the tide during the Fawklands.

Soon we'll have 5 of them, 3-4 in active service.

I'm not too paniced.
 

edgray

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,214
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Because they haven't got a leg to stand on, everyone backed Britain or abstained during the Falklands war, if I remember correctly. The UN has jackshit power now anyway, since the Iraq war.

so then end of story really. The argies need to back off.

I remember, barely though because I was very young, that the US left us swinging in the wind during that conflict... the international support for the war was small...
 

Zorak

The cake is a metaphor
Messages
9,923
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.01z
so then end of story really. The argies need to back off.

I remember, barely though because I was very young, that the US left us swinging in the wind during that conflict... the international support for the war was small...

From what I read, the US were very supportive. Almost all equipment needed was donated. Anyone who say's different has been suckered in by the British government's cover up; they wanted to keep how much help America gave under wraps so it looked a more impressive victory.
 

Peter Parka

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,387
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.06z
I dunno, Reagan was supportive but the reaction from the USA was pretty mixed. Jeanne Kirkpatrick seemed to view Argentina as allies because she thought the'd help prevent the spread of Marxism in Latin America.
 

Zorak

The cake is a metaphor
Messages
9,923
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.01z
I dunno, Reagan was supportive but the reaction from the USA was pretty mixed. Jeanne Kirkpatrick seemed to view Argentina as allies because she thought the'd help prevent the spread of Marxism in Latin America.

But she was no more than an ambassador, if I remember right. The government itself was pro UK.
 

edgray

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,214
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
From what I read, the US were very supportive. Almost all equipment needed was donated. Anyone who say's different has been suckered in by the British government's cover up; they wanted to keep how much help America gave under wraps so it looked a more impressive victory.

Well, at first, American support was tentative at best - it was a tough choice for them, a decision between Europe and Latin America is a close one. The US relies more heavily on trade with Latin America, so it's no surprise that Reagan didn't want to jump right onto Britain's side. By the time the conflict kicked off though, it seems that Reagan had given support, offered military aid and suggested sanction against Argentina, but were still looking for a peaceful solution.

It's very true, the US aid was kept under wraps, more for international relations (the US HAD to appear neutral on the issue) than to make the victory seem more impressive. The victory was impressive nonetheless, given the logistics of the conflict. As it has more recently become known, US aid is said to have come in 3 forms: Ascension Island fuel, weapons and equipment, and intelligence. (source: the Economist)
 

Peter Parka

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,387
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.06z
The victory was a terrible waste of human life which could have been prevented if Maggie Thatcher hadn't weakened British defenses and virtually given a green light to the Argies to invade.
 

Jazza1

New Member
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Just what do we gain from the Falklands anyway, (aside from the obvious oil reserves they're looking for).

Anyway, this has nothing to do with Argentina - it's to do with the UK government and the Falklands Government - only the Argentinians are getting on their highhorse.
 
78,875Threads
2,185,391Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top