More Argie Bargie
Discussion
scenario8 said:
Very few countries would be sympathetic to the British if the British are being seen to be militarily hostile is my point. Argentina do not need to invade to provoke a military response from the UK (not necessarily in the form of an all out or even partial attack). Argentina would be very foolish to actually invade and I doubt this time the Argentinian leadership would be as foolish as the previous Junta.
I think pretty much any British escalation in the area would be frowned upon (at best). As I've mentioned in this thread before I truly hope Argentinian politics moves back to focus on its own domestic problems before this simmering international dispute heats up any more but eventually ownership of the islands and issues around the natural resources surrounding them are going to bring matters back to the fore.
None of that will happen. It is always the case with Argentinian government that when they have domestic problems they focus on the Falkland Islands in some misguided attempt to stir a nationalistic cause.I think pretty much any British escalation in the area would be frowned upon (at best). As I've mentioned in this thread before I truly hope Argentinian politics moves back to focus on its own domestic problems before this simmering international dispute heats up any more but eventually ownership of the islands and issues around the natural resources surrounding them are going to bring matters back to the fore.
The UK doesn't need any countries to be sympathetic to it and will simply and quietly maintain its stance unless Argentina attacks.
Essentially its game, set and match to the people of the Falkland Islands and the UK especially given what Ban Ki Moon has recently said in re-iterating the UN's position in support of self-determination.
The UK doesn't need to do anything other than make sure the islands are sufficiently protected.
scenario8 said:
Very few countries would be sympathetic to the British if the British are being seen to be militarily hostile is my point. Argentina do not need to invade to provoke a military response from the UK (not necessarily in the form of an all out or even partial attack). Argentina would be very foolish to actually invade and I doubt this time the Argentinian leadership would be as foolish as the previous Junta.
I think pretty much any British escalation in the area would be frowned upon (at best). As I've mentioned in this thread before I truly hope Argentinian politics moves back to focus on its own domestic problems before this simmering international dispute heats up any more but eventually ownership of the islands and issues around the natural resources surrounding them are going to bring matters back to the fore.
No need for escalation really. Remember that in 1982 we were severely lacking in assets on the Falklands. This time around with a couple of Typhoons on station, early warning radar, a thousand troops and the possibility of a hunter killer sub on station, landing would be a struggle for any invasion force. I think pretty much any British escalation in the area would be frowned upon (at best). As I've mentioned in this thread before I truly hope Argentinian politics moves back to focus on its own domestic problems before this simmering international dispute heats up any more but eventually ownership of the islands and issues around the natural resources surrounding them are going to bring matters back to the fore.
davepoth said:
scenario8 said:
Very few countries would be sympathetic to the British if the British are being seen to be militarily hostile is my point. Argentina do not need to invade to provoke a military response from the UK (not necessarily in the form of an all out or even partial attack). Argentina would be very foolish to actually invade and I doubt this time the Argentinian leadership would be as foolish as the previous Junta.
I think pretty much any British escalation in the area would be frowned upon (at best). As I've mentioned in this thread before I truly hope Argentinian politics moves back to focus on its own domestic problems before this simmering international dispute heats up any more but eventually ownership of the islands and issues around the natural resources surrounding them are going to bring matters back to the fore.
No need for escalation really. Remember that in 1982 we were severely lacking in assets on the Falklands. This time around with a couple of Typhoons on station, early warning radar, a thousand troops and the possibility of a hunter killer sub on station, landing would be a struggle for any invasion force. I think pretty much any British escalation in the area would be frowned upon (at best). As I've mentioned in this thread before I truly hope Argentinian politics moves back to focus on its own domestic problems before this simmering international dispute heats up any more but eventually ownership of the islands and issues around the natural resources surrounding them are going to bring matters back to the fore.
im said:
98elise said:
Dr Jekyll said:
im said:
Sorry the ship was well outside the 200 mile 'Total Exclusion Zone' that the British had declared around the Falklands and was on a westerly heading at the time it was attacked - and a Peruvian peace proposal was still on the table at the time of the attack.
The point of the exclusion zone was that any ships inside it would be sunk, not that ship outside it wouldn't be, so it's irrelevant.The westerly course was to a temporary holding point until the weather had improved sufficiently for the Argentine carrier to launch an attack.
The Peruvian peace proposal involved British forces withdrawing and leaving the Argentinian occupation in situ pending 'negotiations'. So was a non starter.
It wasn't a game of cricket, it was a war.
(Ex-RN 1982-1990)
Jus' sayin'
I cannot understand this wishy washy "war was not declared" bit (from all quarters). They were going to try to sink the aircraft carriers, that includes the inhabitants. No aircraft carriers and the rest are open to attack if they could. They landed troops on the islands. They set up an operation to sink a British ship in Gibraltar.
It was like a footballer saying "Who Me!?" to the ref after deliberately chopping the legs from under another player in front of the cameras and all the match officials and getting the hump when the red card was shown.
It was like a footballer saying "Who Me!?" to the ref after deliberately chopping the legs from under another player in front of the cameras and all the match officials and getting the hump when the red card was shown.
jmorgan said:
I cannot understand this wishy washy "war was not declared" bit (from all quarters). They were going to try to sink the aircraft carriers, that includes the inhabitants. No aircraft carriers and the rest are open to attack if they could. They landed troops on the islands. They set up an operation to sink a British ship in Gibraltar.
It was like a footballer saying "Who Me!?" to the ref after deliberately chopping the legs from under another player in front of the cameras and all the match officials and getting the hump when the red card was shown.
Thatcher did it, so it must be wrong, see?It was like a footballer saying "Who Me!?" to the ref after deliberately chopping the legs from under another player in front of the cameras and all the match officials and getting the hump when the red card was shown.
DJRC said:
War was never declared? Just exactly how undeclared was it?
Er, completely undeclared.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war
DJRC said:
Im suspecting an invasion counts as declaring war.
Then you'd suspect wrong. It was of course treated as a "war" and reported as such but legally it wasn't a war so various conventions etc didn't apply.I believe a truer description would be "conflict".
Edited by im on Tuesday 8th January 09:57
IroningMan said:
Thatcher did it, so it must be wrong, see?
That does seem to percolate through for some but not all. I think there is a bit of "being unfair" or "bully boy" feel to the attitude, you know, the old Empire at it in a last gasp. They started an action with some serious gear aimed at us and that gear was a valid target if the UK was achieve its aims. HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse found out what happens with no air cover, I am sure the situation was not lost on the British and the Argentines knew full well what they could do with the carriers out the way.
In a perverse way the UK probably saved more lives.
im said:
andymadmak said:
im said:
andymadmak said:
douche bag? how old are you?
ts.
skinley said:
Get a room you pair of tts.
We don't need any of your cliches either, thank you!ts.Anyway, back on topic, I don't think the Argentinians will try anything anytime soon. If they are going to do anything it would be sometime in May or June, so that the weather window would be closed for any attempt by the British to regain the islands.
Fact is im, whether you are old enough to remember the conflict at the time or not, those of us who are are fiercely pro the action that took place.
Consequently, those of us who have family in (or had)the RN or live close to RN bases are still fiercely patriotic with regard to the Falklands. There is no way any of us old enough would ever consider any other action than to do it all again should the Argies decide to be stupid again.
Consequently, those of us who have family in (or had)the RN or live close to RN bases are still fiercely patriotic with regard to the Falklands. There is no way any of us old enough would ever consider any other action than to do it all again should the Argies decide to be stupid again.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff