Falkland Islands: Tensions Rising

[blackthorn]

Originally Posted by Damien

Which is a handy way of shutting down debate, that I have seen more and more often recently. Someone debates the merits of an armed intervention and are dismissed because they themselves won't be doing the fighting. The Military has always been at the disposal of the Government and when someone joined the armed forces they follow the orders they are given. That's not to say their views are not important but they are not the only views that matter.

Yes you are perfectly correct and if I was to ask my daughter and son in law they would both probably say "its allright dad, dont worry" but when they went from Iraq to Afghan and now to Bahrain, from a really selfish point of view I would like them to come home and not be sent off to the Falklands. I remember being there myself and telling folk at home it was ok but in reality I hated the place. I`m just being a parent who having been in that position knows exactly what is going through their minds.

Originally Posted by Damien

I thought that we were still quite capable.

But surely the question should be how capable are Argentina?

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Damien

Which is a handy way of shutting down debate, that I have seen more and more often recently. Someone debates the merits of an armed intervention and are dismissed because they themselves won't be doing the fighting. The Military has always been at the disposal of the Government and when someone joined the armed forces they follow the orders they are given. That's not to say their views are not important but they are not the only views that matter.

There is a very real difference between debating "the merits (or otherwise) of an armed intervention" and simply calling for same.

Originally Posted by Damien

It's British soil. That is a given. It's people are British and it's owned by Britain. Just because Argentina want it doesn't make it disputed.

It is "British soil" in only the most rudimentary sense of possession being nine tenths of the law. Again, I am not disputing the chosen nationality of its population but with all due respect I suggest you do a bit of reading on the history, geography and the disputed constitutional standing of the Falklands and you'll see that its ownership is anything but a given.

Originally Posted by Damien

If France started laying claim to the channel islands we would rightly tell them to go away.

Yes, you probably would - but for entirely different reasons as they are not part of Britain but are crown dependancies (and not forming part of Britain) rather than overseas territories.

[papa smurf]

how did all those Spanish speaking folk arrive in Argentina ? did some one claim it for spain or something ?

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Like most of your propositions - extremely unlikely to happen....

I never said that the whole of South America WILL invade the Falklands, but they do back Argentina claim!

---------- Post added at 13:23 ---------- Previous post was at 13:21 ----------

Originally Posted by DocDutch

The problem i see is that if Argentina would decide to invade which would be a hard 1 the British military hasn't got the capability to take it back again without massive assistance from either nato or just the us navy

We have a RAF base in the Falklands and we should put what remains of the British Armed forces (after Afganistan) to be based at the RAF base!

---------- Post added at 13:26 ---------- Previous post was at 13:23 ----------

There have been many claims over the Falklands Islands over the many hundreds of years but since the 1840s they have been under British Rule and as far as I know the people of the Falklands want to keep it that way"

LMAO.

You want to put "what remains of the British Armed forces (after Afg(h)anistan) to be based at the RAF base!".

OK, and I know this may hurt, but how about Mr Reality coming to visit, just this once.

RAF Mount Pleasant can currently hold between 1000 and 2000 personnel, and the current Falkland Islands population (not including the visiting servicepeople) is approx 3000.

Won't it get a bit crowded with 90,000 army personnel, 30,000 TA, 30,000 Navy personnel, 35,000 RAF personnel, 1000 aircraft, 97 active service ships, and all the tanks and artillery?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

how did all those Spanish speaking folk arrive in Argentina ? did some one claim it for spain or something ?

and how did all those Spanish speaking Argentines arrive to live on the islands before the nasty British, oh that's right they never bothered to set up proper settlements and gave up and went home.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

It is "British soil" in only the most rudimentary sense of possession being nine tenths of the law. Again, I am not disputing the chosen nationality of its population but with all due respect I suggest you do a bit of reading on the history, geography and the disputed constitutional standing of the Falklands and you'll see that its ownership is anything but a given.

If all concerned actually read the history rather than tub-thumping over the bits of it that support their cause, Uruguay's status as a sovereign nation would be up for debate as well. After all, at the same time as the Falklands were part of the Viceroyalty of the River Plate, so was the territory north and east of the river estuary where Uruguay is now established.

Perhaps we should do as the Argentines argue, and ask the aboriginal peoples of that area what they think of Argentina and Uruguay. Mustn't ask the ethnic Europeans though, they're non-native and therefore they don't count.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chris

If all concerned actually read the history rather than tub-thumping over the bits of it that support their cause, Uruguay's status as a sovereign nation would be up for debate as well. After all, at the same time as the Falklands were part of the Viceroyalty of the River Plate, so was the territory north and east of the river estuary where Uruguay is now established.

Again, I don't disagree.

Originally Posted by Chris

Perhaps we should do as the Argentines argue, and ask the aboriginal peoples of that area what they think of Argentina and Uruguay. Mustn't ask the ethnic Europeans though, they're non-native and therefore they don't count.

Perhaps indeed.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Again, I don't disagree.



Perhaps indeed.

Indeed perhaps. And seeing as there are no aboriginals in the Falklands, we had best just leave the current inhabitants alone.

Meanwhile on the mainland, once the few remaining ethnic Amerindians have given the European conquistadores their marching orders, the Argentine government might just wake up to the fact that every modern nation state in the Americas owes its existence to violent conquest, revolution and establishment of government against the wishes of the indigenous peoples.

Argentina's borders do not - and have never - matched the borders of the Spanish Viceroyalty which it claims to be the successor state of. As with all the nation states in the Americas, its borders and territories consist of whatever its government was able not only to claim but also to defend with force. The government of Argentina had a go at claiming and defending the Falklands with force in 1982. It didn't get them very far. By the same rules that allow Argentina itself to exist, that really is the end of the matter.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Damien

I thought that we were still quite capable.

Not without aircraft carriers or harriers

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Not without aircraft carriers or harriers

Well we can rely on the French for those... lol

I really don't see the Argentinians mounting any sort of offensive with submarines in the area and see this as just more political point scoring by their leadership to divert attention away from other issues going on over there.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chris

Indeed perhaps. And seeing as there are no aboriginals in the Falklands, we had best just leave the current inhabitants alone.

Meanwhile on the mainland, once the few remaining ethnic Amerindians have given the European conquistadores their marching orders, the Argentine government might just wake up to the fact that every modern nation state in the Americas owes its existence to violent conquest, revolution and establishment of government against the wishes of the indigenous peoples.

Argentina's borders do not - and have never - matched the borders of the Spanish Viceroyalty which it claims to be the successor state of. As with all the nation states in the Americas, its borders and territories consist of whatever its government was able not only to claim but also to defend with force. The government of Argentina had a go at claiming and defending the Falklands with force in 1982. It didn't get them very far. By the same rules that allow Argentina itself to exist, that really is the end of the matter.

Regrettably "the end of the matter" as far as territorial ownership is concerned is not for us to speculate.

History and time have taught us that were there is sufficient will and resources for those who are minded to reclaim territories which they assert to be subject to foreign occupational ownership there is the very real likelihood that they will, by one way or another, achieve their aims.

Originally Posted by Damien

I thought that we were still quite capable.

We could mount a very effective defence of the islands with the hardware at our disposal but invasion of hostile territory would be incredibly difficult without carrier-borne aircraft.

If Argentina were to successfully invade, and maintain Mount Pleasant airfield in operational condition, they would have air supremacy over the islands, making an amphibious assault all but impossible.

There would still be options, mind you; the new Daring Class (Type 45) destroyers could set up an aerial defence blockade while our submarine force could set up a picket and deny access to the islands from the sea. But what we would then have would be a siege situation, and one which the Argentines would be better placed to ride out than we would given the inconvenient geography.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chris

We could mount a very effective defence of the islands with the hardware at our disposal but invasion of hostile territory would be incredibly difficult without carrier-borne aircraft.

If Argentina were to successfully invade, and maintain Mount Pleasant airfield in operational condition, they would have air supremacy over the islands, making an amphibious assault all but impossible.

There would still be options, mind you; the new Daring Class (Type 45) destroyers could set up an aerial defence blockade while our submarine force could set up a picket and deny access to the islands from the sea. But what we would then have would be a siege situation, and one which the Argentines would be better placed to ride out than we would given the inconvenient geography.

Mike Jackson has said as much also. It's a bit of a tactical nightmare.