More Argie Bargie
Discussion
warch said:
Didn't this all kick off again when BP or someone announced there were huge oil reserves within Falklands waters. Argentina is and has been for a long time completely f
ked financially, its all the other South American countries I'm suprised by, they don't exactly have a long tradition of getting on with each other. I wouldn't be that suprised if the US weighed in on their side too, they have a traditional dislike of the UK hanging onto our colonial assets and they weren't exactly on our side last time round...
The American's actually did quite a bit during the Falklands, as did a number of our other Nato allies interms of putting pressure against Argentina and publically calling for Argentina to withdraw.ked financially, its all the other South American countries I'm suprised by, they don't exactly have a long tradition of getting on with each other. I wouldn't be that suprised if the US weighed in on their side too, they have a traditional dislike of the UK hanging onto our colonial assets and they weren't exactly on our side last time round... Regiment said:
The American's actually did quite a bit during the Falklands, as did a number of our other Nato allies interms of putting pressure against Argentina and publically calling for Argentina to withdraw.
In a break with America’s conventional policy on the matter, the Obama administration announced earlier this week that it would once again be siding with Argentina, this time in the dispute between the UK and Argentina over the Falkland Islands. By default, Obama has sided against Britain in the ongoing conflict over the island chain at the center of a 1982 war (Source The New American June 2011). You were right about 1982, notwithstanding the supply of materiel to Argentina (i.e. shonky old warships etc). I don't think we can expect any help this time, unless the Republicans get back into power (and given some of the potential options for their presidental candidate I be reluctant to hope for that).
ApexJimi said:
Mr_B said:
Look back at the Falklands war and something that keeps coming up is the claim that had they lost a carrier, it was game over. If you do beleive that to be true, then they were one lucky missle strike away from victory, and a very different Britain.
I see we have solved this problem by just not having any carriers to Exocet now. Out of interest, do they still have Exocet or a similar weapon that could take out a carrier ?
I'm not sure how this is supposed to read, is it - I see we have solved this problem by just not having any carriers to Exocet now. Out of interest, do they still have Exocet or a similar weapon that could take out a carrier ?
A) If we lost a carrier?
or
B) If they lost a carrier?
I would be very disappointed if Obama truly sided with the Argies. Primarily for the reason that the islands have been ours for approaching two centuries and they have never been the property of Argentina. It would be rank hypocrisy if they did and the proper response from the British Government should be to review the help we offer the U.S through our international territories, such as the British Indian Ocean Territories and U.K based operations. Using the same flawed logic that the Argies are using then Canada should start getting shirty about Greenland (Canada formed after Greenland was claimed by Denmark).
What happens here will be the precursor to future struggles over territory at the poles.
What happens here will be the precursor to future struggles over territory at the poles.
Mr_B said:
Look back at the Falklands war and something that keeps coming up is the claim that had they lost a carrier, it was game over. If you do beleive that to be true, then they were one lucky missle strike away from victory, and a very different Britain.
I see we have solved this problem by just not having any carriers to Exocet now. Out of interest, do they still have Exocet or a similar weapon that could take out a carrier ?
Let's not forget all the perfectly good bombs that hit our ships but failed to detonate because they were dropped too low....I see we have solved this problem by just not having any carriers to Exocet now. Out of interest, do they still have Exocet or a similar weapon that could take out a carrier ?
If I were in charge when they invaded again I’d just move all our nuclear subs to surround South America and tell them to back the f
k off or we’ll turn the whole continent to molten, radioactive glass.probably a good idea I’m not in charge
MX7 said:
warch said:
I wouldn't be that suprised if the US weighed in on their side too
Righty oh.warch said:
International politics are never straightforward, and tbh South America has much more to offer the Yanks than we do (Venezuela is likely to be the next oil producing giant). Plus they're a load of ungrateful barstards...
Venezuela without Chavez of course. South America would likely be split when it comes to cosying up to the U.S but yes this whole Mercosur thing and Obama's licking of Argie bum is all because they see what resources can be had from that area and fancy getting in on the act. MX7 said:
warch said:
International politics are never straightforward, and tbh South America has much more to offer the Yanks than we do (Venezuela is likely to be the next oil producing giant). Plus they're a load of ungrateful barstards...
Oh, you don't like America. How original.TTwiggy said:
bp1 said:
TTwiggy said:
bp1 said:
psgcarey said:
The Type 45 I was shown around in September was certainly very operational, and by now is either already at the Falklands or will be there soon, it was their next assignment.
Are these the type 45's that can turn up anywhere in the world and defend themselves but have very little in the way of offensive armament?Although the chap who told me that did have dolphins as his service badge, so may have been biased
Still, they've got a 4.5in gun, and can launch Tommahawk missiles, so hardly toothless.
As was the decision to cut the number ordered from 12 to 6.
warch said:
That last comment was tongue in cheek, quite a lot of my family are American! I'm just stating the truth about American foreign policy. America has always been very anti Empire, they see the Falklands as similar to other overseas 'colonies', you may not know about NORAID for example, a (now defunct) US based campaigning group aiming to reunify Ireland which also supplied funds to the IRA. The US (and the UK) also supplied arms to Iraq during the same period, and also the Taliban (or the Mujahadeen) who were then freedom fighters stopping the Soviets invading Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden was also working for the US during this period...
Thanks for the lesson. anonymous said:
[redacted]
The potential oil reserves under the Falklands are predicted to be huge incidentally. I don't suppose relations between Obama and British Petroleum are all that after that oil spill stitch up a few years ago in the Gulf of Mexico (Obama gained considerable political capital from that incident). Caulkhead said:
Personally I'd put money on our 4 Typhoons plus a Type 45 destroyer, an Astute class sub and a Vanguard class sub against their entire three armed forces of fifties and sixties vintage kit. . . . .
All 4 of our Type 45s appear to be sitting in Portsmouth Dockyard not doing very much at the moment. MX7 said:
warch said:
That last comment was tongue in cheek, quite a lot of my family are American! I'm just stating the truth about American foreign policy. America has always been very anti Empire, they see the Falklands as similar to other overseas 'colonies', you may not know about NORAID for example, a (now defunct) US based campaigning group aiming to reunify Ireland which also supplied funds to the IRA. The US (and the UK) also supplied arms to Iraq during the same period, and also the Taliban (or the Mujahadeen) who were then freedom fighters stopping the Soviets invading Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden was also working for the US during this period...
Thanks for the lesson. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff