Falklands tensions

[RobWilliams]

Well, I guess The President of Argentina called HERSELF a queen in the press......so it;s kind of all aver the international press now........so that's why i refered to her as the "queen".....

have you read any of the quotes from the Minister of Defence.....he;s totally out to lunch .so I guess in a democratic world....we CAN belittle their actions and words....does that directly effect my opinion of YOu as a person..nope......like I said Politics and politicians.......no matter were just do and say what they want.....they NEVER actually represent the opinions of the people..not here, not there.not anywhere......

So as you state if " the chance of war is zero"....then I guess this entire thread is redundant.

See, I guess the main issue is this...no one thought the chance of war was high the last time Argentina took the Falklands by force, no one believes that they won;t try again.....

I'm actually really sorry that you seem to equate disapproval of what your Government says and does to insulting you personally.

Perhaps Argentina really isn;t as democratic as is publically stated, perhaps you can;t voice disaproval with fear of reprisal, if that is the case then I;m sorry....

I really don;t see anything that I wrote that is "insultive" towards you......or the average people of Argentina.....

As has been mentioned over and over in the press and even here in the thread.....just because Argentinian children have been taught for decades that Los Malvinas is a part of Argentina, doesn;t make it so nor right.....that is NOT an insult to you.....just fact.....

As for NATO.....again that is fact......NATO exists.....Argentina is NOT a member, only an associate "ally"....IF an attack is made against the Falklands again, well by all rights the UK could request assistance from NATO. As well, It is a logical assumption that the NATO countries will in the very least condemn any agressive action by Argentina right?....especially now that Argentian has "enlisted" help from other south american countries too.

Reality is this.....a neighbourhood "bully" is only tough as long as he stays in his own "hood"....cause there is ALWAYS a bigger tougher guy somewhere....

Like I said and I will say again.....there is NO hatred or ill will towards you or your fellow countrymen......but your countries politics are a threat and are simply idiotic to push this issue...and it is a democratic ability to assess and speak out against such things that are the basis of democracy...thats not wrong.....

If you feel better than by all means insult any politicians or royalties you want.....I doubt anyone would be to insulted....

I find it kind of suprising that you are trying to come across as the "victim" in this debate....after all it is your nation that is stirring up the issue, it is your nation that has a history of instigating violence towards this issue.

I;m not insulting you at all......there is no direct attack towards you or your character, just a disaproval of your countries politics and stance on an issue that should NEVER have ever surfaced again.

You know, The Argentinian President's own statement about "having an Argentinian president go to los malvinas and visit the graves of the war dead within a decade" is such a loaded one it isn;t even funny....there would be NO war dead IF Argentina hadn;t invaded in the first place

Perhaps you shouldn;t take everything so personally......don;t act the inocent victim.....all I did was state an personal opinion based on historical fact and public record ( international press).....not attack you personally

anyway..I;ve said my piece......and really won;t say anymore........what happens happens..and the results will be the results.........

I feel compelled to link the forum rules

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php

The first part of rule 18 is the part I wish you to look at.

The issue with Brazil is, although they share Argentinas view on the Falklands situation they know better than to make a massive issue with the UK about it.

Should mention that Brazil has signed a contract with BAE Systems for 3 OPVs and to be able to produce the ships under license indingenously. Not the act of a country which is as 'anti-UK' as the Argentinian government is appearing to be at the moment.

Brazil Buys Ocean Patrol Vessels - BAE Systems

 

[Astute]

Well what can i say, if a thread is opened which has such emotional and strong opinons surrounding it sometimes comments in posts can be very strong,

I for one have watched my countries flag been burnt, mass protesters shouting all sorts of rubbish out side our embassy,followed by threats and attacks on British business interests,
They have been plotting to blockade the falklands for years and have taken a course of action to cut the islands off to isolate them , maybe they think this will make the British citizens who live there and the community which as lasted over 180+ years leave , they are wrong, the only thing the few thousand islanders have done to Argentina is the fact they exist. The UK will never turn are back on them,

I have listened to to the Argentian goverment talk about how they want to solve this peacefully yet they inflame there patriotic fire of there people with dramatic statments about retaking the islands which they have no right to, its land grabing but on a international scale,
They act like the victims but the real victims are the islanders they are victims of Argentian politics and Argentian ambition ,
I must say i have not seen any Argentian flags been burnt or any protests out side there embassy in London or any type of protests shouting anti Argentian chants anywhere in the UK
This BS is very one sided the world must see that.

The Argentian goverment is creating the drama,and the fire in this story. i have no bad feeling towards the Argentian people but your goverment seems to be taking you down a dark path of becoming some thing your say you hate.
But this i feel is not the whole story,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

On the topic of surpport for Argentina there are some countries who have expressed there surport more than others. some relise they share the same land mass, same trade links etc and have just gone along with what the others say and do under the promise of great things, I think this drama is a test to see what a South American block can do on the main stage, if things did get hot (which i hope doesnt happen)i dont think many would still tag along on the course set by Argentina,

Brazil is on the up oil,trade,GDP etc they will become a real power house in South america and the world ,would they jeoperdise that being involved in a real conflict and a wrong one at that i dont know but guess not

On the topic of bae contracts, yes we have signed a contract with Brazil for OPVs and yes we can choose who to sell things to but , not how they are used once in another countries armed forces, look how we sold arms to iraq only for british troops to be killed by them in the gulf wars, the fact Brazil wanted these craft doesnt mean they are anti or pro UK they just liked what bae was offering ,,,,,,

I feel Argentina as seen the growth of Brazil and feels it will be left behind becoming less and less important in the big picture, im sure the oil fields off the Falklands would do nicely in there effort to regain some weight in the balance of things,
In every power block there is the power houses i feel the contest as just began in south america to find the leading nation, To take South America on to the global stage, and they think if they can force Britain to leave the Falklands who they believe is at its weakest it would be a great victory for south america and this would annouce there arival on the world , this would also harden the surpport of the shacky members of the South American block.

Over hundreds of years large powers have looked at are small group of islands of the coast of europe and licked there lips thinking they could just walk in and take are freedom and way of life away from us by force, they have failed, we are still here and Argentina would be a fool if they think we are at are weakest and would let them or any one else take by force anything, Its the British people which makes us strong, If peace is what you want great we will be at peace, if its a fight you want you should check are history you will get one hell of one,,,,,,,,,

But this is just my opinon...................................

 

[RobWilliams]

On the topic of bae contracts, yes we have signed a contract with Brazil for OPVs and yes we can choose who to sell things to but , not how they are used once in another countries armed forces, look how we sold arms to iraq only for british troops to be killed by them in the gulf wars, the fact Brazil wanted these craft doesnt mean they are anti or pro UK they just liked what bae was offering ,,,,,,

At a time where Argentinians are burning the Union flag, vandalising HSBC (i think that was one buisness targetted) and seeming extremely "anti-British government" recently, it seems pretty big that a major player + ally of Argentina to buy British vessels built in British shipyards.

In the case of Iraq, IIRC it was equipment only. Whereas BAE is selling 3 ships + 5 (i think) to build under license + the offer to be a partner in the T26 frigate program.

Looks like BAE are fairly confident Brazil isn't as anti-UK as Argentina as otherwise I believe they wouldn't have been offered the chance. BAE + the government are fairly confident that the OPV sale indicates promising things in regards to the Brazil/UK relationship.

 

[jaffo4011]

the Argentinian govt claims are getting more and more outrageous yet almost hilarious at the same time!

you have to feel for the intelligent and balanced members of Argentina who must be cringing at the drivel coming out of the govt at the moment which is obviously targeted at the lowest common demographic and purely to get re elected by the lower educated and brain washed majority...poor sods.

its all very very sad and is best dealt with by a dignified british response whilst all the time carrying a big stick....

what the Argentinian govt are failing to to grasp is their actions are only reinforcing the need to deploy strong resources to the area on a long term basis and ensuring our new carriers will actually be finished and utilised as they should be

the raf and ran should send the president a big thankyou card.....:nutkick

 

[Armoured Recce]

wow,
funny ....those last comments almost mirror exactly what I was saying last night.

Undoubtedly they may be worded better and present the information in a more enlightened manner, yet they say the same thing. That the Argentinian Government is acting up, that they are causing the issue to become enflamed with their actions and retoric and resoundingly presenting themselves to the world as buffoons, it is Argentinians that ARE burning flags, calling for invasion and blockades, they are the instigators...propriety be damned.

well, I'm not saying anything else incase the sensitivity police come down on me again. In this day and age, and after I have served in my countries armed forces and in the civilian fire service that I haven;t "earned " the right to post my opinion, even when backed by fact without it offending ONE person.

sad state of affairs in this world when the sensitivities about ones Government can cause an issue to become "protected"on behalf of the instigators country.

Well said ASTUTE and JAFFO!

Cheers

 

[RobWilliams]

well, I'm not saying anything else incase the sensitivity police come down on me again.

The 'sensitivity police' as you put it keep the forum adult and professional and are old hands at the game in regards to defence tech + regulating public forums. They weren't asking you to stop posting what you were posting but merely asking you to communicate it more . . .efficiently i would say which you said yourself others had done more effectively.

In this day and age, and after I have served in my countries armed forces and in the civilian fire service that I haven;t "earned " the right to post my opinion, even when backed by fact without it offending ONE person.

If you've served in the armed forces, then talk to a mod and prove it to them (don't ask me how, i have no connection to the defence industry so haven't done it), it gives you a nifty new colour for your forum name + you're recognised as a "professional" rather than an "enthusiast".

If, however, your claims are false then your standing in this forum will diminish rapidly so I hope for your sake it is true (so many people claim to be in the forces on the internet so can't be too careful)

Again i must emphasise, they weren't stopping you from posting your opinion.

 

[exPrivate]

After defending continental Argentina from British invasion, now Argentina is attacking right into the heart of the UK!
London Olympics 2012: Argentina proposes pro-Falkland Islands logo for team clothing - Telegraph
I love this game!

 

[Armoured Recce]

yeh, cool.........

If some mod actually asks I'll be happy to share what info I can.....I;m not concerned...I have served...Got my records etc.....what I;d share with some unknown in God knows where country is another thing?.........

My service is ligitimate and in good standing for 6 years......and in the Fire Service since then....

Wow, a "new coloured" user name ...neat....nothing like impressing keyboard stats studiers eh?...

what ever mod wants to ask...I'll answer away.......lol, not exactly a huge priority in my life, but whatever.

 

[RobWilliams]

yeh, cool.........

If some mod actually asks I'll be happy to share what info I can.....I;m not concerned...I have served...Got my records etc.....what I;d share with some unknown in God knows where country is another thing?.........

My service is ligitimate and in good standing for 6 years......and in the Fire Service since then....

Its up to you to go to them, they'll explain it, until they verify it I won't believe it. I could sit here and claim to high heaven i've served but i wouldn't expect people to believe me because I say so.

Wow, a "new coloured" user name ...neat....nothing like impressing keyboard stats studiers eh?...

what ever mod wants to ask...I'll answer away.......lol, not exactly a huge priority in my life, but whatever.

Nice patronising tone there, especially the coloured comment (Jeez i was only trying to lighten the mood unless it was sarcasm, something which never translates well via text), again up to you to go to them and prove it. Otherwise you're just like every other "internet soldier" on the web.

You should remember the following rule in the forum

Proper punctuation is a must. Do not add excessive dots as a replacement for a comma. this....isn't really....fun..to read

Anyway, back to the original topic

 

[RobWilliams]

After defending continental Argentina from British invasion, now Argentina is attacking right into the heart of the UK!
London Olympics 2012: Argentina proposes pro-Falkland Islands logo for team clothing - Telegraph
I love this game!

It'll never happen will it? AFAIK theres some clause that prevents political slogans being put onto sportsmens kits?

 

[jaffo4011]

It'll never happen will it? AFAIK theres some clause that prevents political slogans being put onto sportsmens kits?

well,poppies were banned initially,so who knows?

 

[Astute]

At a time where Argentinians are burning the Union flag, vandalising HSBC (i think that was one buisness targetted) and seeming extremely "anti-British government" recently, it seems pretty big that a major player + ally of Argentina to buy British vessels built in British shipyards.

In the case of Iraq, IIRC it was equipment only. Whereas BAE is selling 3 ships + 5 (i think) to build under license + the offer to be a partner in the T26 frigate program.

Looks like BAE are fairly confident Brazil isn't as anti-UK as Argentina as otherwise I believe they wouldn't have been offered the chance. BAE + the government are fairly confident that the OPV sale indicates promising things in regards to the Brazil/UK relationship.

Well first HSBC was targeted yes and the Union flag was burnt yes and the same people who did that the Quebracho also threated to target a different British business every week,
and on to Brazil i never said they were anti or pro but statements made by miss Rousseff the Brazilian president one of many which she reiterated her surpport for Argentina in its claims over the Falklands, many experts said she is playing the anti colonial card to satisfy the left wing factions in her political party known as the workers party, the fact that Brazil refused to let HMS Clyde dock in Rio de janeriro to resupply ,it had to go to Chile,up to then ties between Brazil and Britain were good but things can change with new people in charge.

The OPVs Brazil bought were an order which was placed in 2007 for Trinadad and Tobago the deal went bad and BAE started to market them in 2010 Brazil bought them but at a cut down price, with brazilian oil production on the up they were in need of this capability a good opv to patrol there new and existing oil fields it was a good deal for them,
Whats interesting is the fact Britain sold type 42s to Argentina before the falklands conflict one was built here the other in Argentina the last one was commisioned in around july 1981 less than a year before they invaded the Falklands,,,,

Brazil was asked to join the type 26 project but so was Canada,Turkey,Austrailia and a few others most turned it down as they had other options ,or the time frame wasnt compatible, Brazil was one of the top candidates .
Brazil is looking outward and sees the need to improve its navy this project would offer them a great deal in experience in building this type and size of warship.
My own opinon is that in the current tensions Britain should not be doing any major deals in south america to risky we might regret it,we should see how things pan out first,

And finaly the issue of arms to iraq this subject could cover whole volumes the internet is full of info of shady goings on for years before the gulf war but other countries were involved to,,,,

 

[Palnatoke]

In all fairness I think one can say that while Argentine's claim to the islands are weak, the same can be said of the british claim. And eventhough feelings run high on the subject, both countries got a point.

The typical way civilised nations deals with such problems is through international mediation (f.ex. International Court of Justice, Haag) , and as far as I understand it, that's also the Argentine position, and I know that the rest of the world (including UK's close allies) also surport that solution, but the UK does not surport such a solution, as the only country in the world. There are ofcourse reasons for the british position; the war and all that.

Personally I think this issue once again underlines Cameron's weaknesses as an leader for what should be a great power. It can not be in UK's interest to have a permanent territorial conflict running with Argentine and their friends (who surport them warmly on this single issue) in the entirety of South America - that's a lot of people, including a potential future great power.

The UK could do the following; Have an internationally overseen refferendum on the islands: Do you want to be: A) british, B) Argentine, C) Independent

Assuming (A), Britain should surrender the case to mediation at Haag, citing "self determination of the peoples" - And that argument will carry the day.

It appears that "Thatcherist hardliners" prevents Cameron from engageing his brain, just like at his serious defeat back in december at the EU.

I think Britain had the varm surport of the public oppinion of the entire free world, when she re-took the islands in a difficult battle, but britain failed to turn the millitary victory into a political victory: a permanent political solution, to the advantage of Britain.

 

[the concerned]

why can't both countries come to a economical deal because if argentina keeps trying to blockade ports then the falklands will build facilities to bypass that and at the moment thats fishing boats and the occasional cruise ship but in a few years time thats going to include oil distirbution and i think the neighbouring countries might react differently to that kind of currency

 

[Lindermyer]

In all fairness I think one can say that while Argentine's claim to the islands are weak, the same can be said of the british claim. And eventhough feelings run high on the subject, both countries got a point.

I think its fair to say that as England has claimed sovereignty of the Islands longer than Argentina has existed and they have been occupied by british subjects continuosly for over 130 years, I would suggest that Britains position is a tad more defencible. also note despite claims of displacement and genocide the only indegionos population on the islands is the penguins

The typical way civilised nations deals with such problems is through international mediation (f.ex. International Court of Justice, Haag) , and as far as I understand it, that's also the Argentine position, and I know that the rest of the world (including UK's close allies) also surport that solution, but the UK does not surport such a solution, as the only country in the world. There are ofcourse reasons for the british position; the war and all that.

Personally I think this issue once again underlines Cameron's weaknesses as an leader for what should be a great power. It can not be in UK's interest to have a permanent territorial conflict running with Argentine and their friends (who surport them warmly on this single issue) in the entirety of South America - that's a lot of people, including a potential future great power.

The UK could do the following; Have an internationally overseen refferendum on the islands: Do you want to be: A) british, B) Argentine, C) Independent

Assuming (A), Britain should surrender the case to mediation at Haag, citing "self determination of the peoples" - And that argument will carry the day.

It appears that "Thatcherist hardliners" prevents Cameron from engageing his brain, just like at his serious defeat back in december at the EU.

Britain will not discuss the Islands not because they are harking back to Empire days or because they fear mediation, the British government cannot enter into negotiations because the islanders wish to remain british. It is the british goverments position that the islanders have a right to self determination and therefore any discussion can only be with there permission, unsuprisingly this is not forth coming

I think Britain had the varm surport of the public oppinion of the entire free world, when she re-took the islands in a difficult battle, but britain failed to turn the millitary victory into a political victory: a permanent political solution, to the advantage of Britain.

Youre probably right on the last point.

Note though that Britains recent militarisation is merely a rotation of assets yes our latest ship has gone down but this is simply because it has replaced the type 42 -

sadly the Media is doing its usual mountains out of mole hills and only encouraging the Argentine Government, who as in 1982 are trying to deflect from national problems.

 

[Bonza]

wow,
funny ....those last comments almost mirror exactly what I was saying last night.

Undoubtedly they may be worded better and present the information in a more enlightened manner, yet they say the same thing. That the Argentinian Government is acting up, that they are causing the issue to become enflamed with their actions and retoric and resoundingly presenting themselves to the world as buffoons, it is Argentinians that ARE burning flags, calling for invasion and blockades, they are the instigators...propriety be damned.

well, I'm not saying anything else incase the sensitivity police come down on me again. In this day and age, and after I have served in my countries armed forces and in the civilian fire service that I haven;t "earned " the right to post my opinion, even when backed by fact without it offending ONE person.

sad state of affairs in this world when the sensitivities about ones Government can cause an issue to become "protected"on behalf of the instigators country.

Well said ASTUTE and JAFFO!

Cheers

If the thought of having your opinions held up to our abhorrent standards is too much for you, then you can take them elsewhere. Regardless of where a poster is from or what their resume says, the mod team expects a measure of coherence and respect - and you've amply demonstrated your lack of either. If in your mind that equates to oversensitivity so be it, but it is what it is.

To the other posters in the thread, thanks for making the effort to maintain a mature discussion.

 

[Palnatoke]

@Lindemyer

The conflict seems to be that a certain country doesn't see the sovereignity question so easely setteled? We can also note that Spain is still claiming Gibraltar, and I belive that the Falklands also became british in the same round as Gibraltar?

As I said, we have an institution to sort out who's right and who's wrong, and I underline that both Argentine and the UK has signed the UN charter. So what's the problem?
Personally I think the the UK got a good case under those circumstances, and a refferendum on the islands could give the UK the fundamental, undeniable claim to the islands via the Right to self determination (of the islanders), a basic principle in international law.

Whether Argentine is going to accept a defeat at such international mediation, we can't know. But it will give britain every legal right.

It is the british goverments position that the islanders have a right to self determination and therefore any discussion can only be with there permission

That line of argumentation has zero international credibility. It is the goverment in London that represent the british people and makes the calls - regardless of excuses.

 

[Lindermyer]

@Lindemyer

The conflict seems to be that a certain country doesn't see the sovereignity question so easely setteled? We can also note that Spain is still claiming Gibraltar, and I belive that the Falklands also became british in the same round as Gibraltar?

As I said, we have an institution to sort out who's right and who's wrong, and I underline that both Argentine and the UK has signed the UN charter. So what's the problem?
Personally I think the the UK got a good case under those circumstances, and a refferendum on the islands could give the UK the fundamental, undeniable claim to the islands via the Right to self determination (of the islanders), a basic principle in international law.

Whether Argentine is going to accept a defeat at such international mediation, we can't know. But it will give britain every legal right.



That line of argumentation has zero international credibility. It is the goverment in London that represent the british people and makes the calls - regardless of excuses.

A referendom was held on Gibralter it was in favour of remaining british

You are arguing that there is a case for them remaining british because post referendem there is an argument for self determination, i am saying that they wish to remain british and because of there right to self determination the british government wont negotiate on soverigenty. I fail to see how you can claim this position is not defencible as it is pretty much what you propose.


If Argentina tries 50 years of carrot then the islanders may seek to become independent or indeed become an Argentine protectorate. However whilst Argentina seeks to inflame, threaten and harrass the islands they will only push them closer to the UK.

 

[Palnatoke]

A referendom was held on Gibralter it was in favour of remaining british

You are arguing that there is a case for them remaining british because post referendem there is an argument for self determination, i am saying that they wish to remain british and because of there right to self determination the british government wont negotiate on soverigenty. I fail to see how you can claim this position is not defencible as it is pretty much what you propose.


If Argentina tries 50 years of carrot then the islanders may seek to become independent or indeed become an Argentine protectorate. However whilst Argentina seeks to inflame, threaten and harrass the islands they will only push them closer to the UK.

My point being that if Britain leaves it to the court in Haag (Haque) to decide and with a positive refferendum on the islands (you have to make the refferendum, the british goverment can't just state the, perhaps, obvious), Britain will not only most likely win the case, it will also abolish any legal claim that Argentine might think it has.

The other way around, which is the status as of now, is that Britain in a long forgotten war with Spain got hold on the islands and moved her own population onto them- Something that Argentine along with friends questions the legality/relevance of and claim that the islands rightfully and naturally is part of Argentine, which, by looking at a map, they might have a point in.
For now Britain can continue inforcing her sovereignity by raw force, but I question the prudence and long term sustainability in that strategy.

 

[RobWilliams]

well,poppies were banned initially,so who knows?

True, but I suppose in that case it was a symbol for remembering the fallen in WW1 whereas what the Argentinians are proposing is a slogan which to me is massively more political than the poppy emblem ever was. Although thats from my point of view.

Hmm, looks like claiming the UK has sent a Vanguard class submarine to the Falklands wasn't enough, looks like Timerman is also claiming the UK has another non-existant weapon in the Falklands.

HMS Dauntless which has left for the South Atlantic is the most modern destroyer of the Royal navy and with this element the UK has increased four-fold its naval power in the south”, pointed out Timerman who mentioned the presence of Typhoon fighter jets, similar to those used in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus Taurus missiles with a range of 500 kilometres that can reach the south of Brazil.

http://en.mercopress.com/2012/02/11...entina-and-uk-to-scale-down-falklands-dispute

He seems unphased by the fact that the UK doesn't use Taurus - we use Storm Shadow and that as it stands the EF cannot carry Storm Shadow so unless there's a flight of Tornados down there we don't know about, I mean they must be able to hide them down there right? . . . .

Interesting link to an article from the Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...of-sending-nuclear-missiles-to-Falklands.html