The Falklands thread

NathanE said:
Whilst obviously that is correct I think it is actually the wrong message to be sending out.

That's why we aren't getting through to these people. They view us as warmongering and aggressive in nature. They don't care about the Falklands people at all. They don't view them as Falklanders like us i.e. a separate colony, they view them as British. So the whole thing about self-determination is lost on them. They don't understand the principles behind colonisation as they've never done it and their recent attempts at doing it (with the Falklands) have been laughably bad.

It is also slightly arrogant to say that IMO because we know the Falklanders are more patriotic about being British than even we are in the UK. We're relying on their patriotism to send diplomatic messages. One wonders, hypothetically, if this patriotism were to be lost or significantly reduced for some reason; would we still be sending the same message? Or would we actually then consider letting the islands go? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Disagree, it's exactly the right message to be sending out. In fact the message should simply be "They are not yours, you are not getting them, go away and stop going on about it you total idiots", but that's not politically correct enough.

They are starting to go on about it more and more, so we move in more advanced assets to protect our land - or more likely as a small show of force, a reminder of who they are dealing with - from a country which has attacked us before and clearly shows they are thinking about doing so again.

It's them that's sabre rattling not us.

EDIT: It's not arrogant at all. If the islanders didn't want to be British we would enter negotiations - we have not said we would hand it straight over to them, of course that's never going to happen :p

Politics is so pathetic, it's like a bunch of school kids arguing in the playground!
 
Last edited:
NathanE said:
I tell you the best thing that could happen right now is some Argie fishermen get into trouble at sea. And our Prince charming flies out to rescue them.
Click to expand...

Except they would spin it as "Colonialist British Royal Kidnaps Brave Dad of Twenty Using Swirly Death Machine!"
 
If they want to play dirty tricks, i hope they realise that the British are masters of that game, just need to ask the Iranians!
 
Argentinia would be making a serious mistake to try and take the Falklands by force again. Lets be honest, they only got so far as they did last time due to a surprise attack against poorly armed Island defence forces. They even had time to dig in a bit and were still driven out. This time they would be facing the proper military presence on Mt Pleasant, that is anything but poorly armed.

Also the US kept out of the 82 war due to cold war politics. They are not constrained by that anymore. If push really comes to shove and the Islands are overrun and Argentinia starts killing or deporting the locals, I am certain the US would step in. I suspect that if Argentinia even goes so far as to build up forces on the coast for an assault that American/Allied ships will be en route.

It's all just inane babble from the Argentinians and Chavez just wants to tag along with anyone that is Anti-American/British. Did anyone really expect him to take England's side?
 
I really doubt the USA would step in... nor would anyone want them to. They want to be matey with their South American neighbours.

All the USA can do is act as a mediator.

The Argentines aren't about to invade again. And they didn't even "start killing the locals" last time around. That would be ridiculous for a civilised country.
 
TBH I think there probably still a bit bitter about and they like to rattle the sabre now and again its nothing more than that and I am very doubtful that this will escalate to armed conflict
 
NathanE said:
I really doubt the USA would step in... nor would anyone want them to. They want to be matey with their South American neighbours.

All the USA can do is act as a mediator.
Click to expand...

Typical when one only looks at the surface. The last 2 major military engagements America has been involved in (Iraq and Afganistan) have been undertaken with almost full British support. Despite some petty bickering from time to time America and Britian are staunch allies. Sure, the threshhold for American intervention might be higher than some people want, but they would hardly sell-out British interests in the name of a few brownie points with some 3rd rate South American banana republic. In that regard Chavez has proved himself more of a buffoon than ever. If the States was planning on staying on the sidelines his smart-ass comments have made that less likely now. If I was Argentinia I would ask him to shut his piehole. Imagine if Venezuelan troops actually took part in the attack..... American missiles would be raining down on him in no time.
 
NathanE said:
I really doubt the USA would step in... nor would anyone want them to. They want to be matey with their South American neighbours.

All the USA can do is act as a mediator.

The Argentines aren't about to invade again. And they didn't even "start killing the locals" last time around. That would be ridiculous for a civilised country.
Click to expand...

If as a member of NATO and we are attacked, in the spirit of the treating ALL NATO members are meant to help defend us.

Now in practice this is not always the case, and in FW1 we chose not to invoke it as we had the belief we could do it, and we did but was a lot more by luck than anything.

Had the Argentine air force dropped their bombs above 10,000Ft the required arming distance then the damage to our ships would have been a lot lot higher, as it was they were dropping most of them under the arming height so they never exploded.

On the flip side, while we had Rapier down there, the Army decided to put them on tops of hills, where the Airforce wanted them in the valleys since the Rapier has no look down, again this allowed the Argentine airforce to evade our air defences

Kimbie
 
Firestar_3x said:
I'll just leave this video floating around.

'Type 45'

End of last year i was down south on a MOD jetty looking at 4 of these moored up, it's really not something i'd want to poke with a stick.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but you could poke it with another Destroyer... seeing as Sea Viper cannot target ships or land targets.

Mind, I suspect our subs have also had 30 years worth of improvements so would be having a subtle word with anything Argentinian floating larger than a bathtub...
 
[TW]Fox;21220369 said:
4? Moored at the same time, in the same place? Are you sure?
Click to expand...

Yes 100%, it was the week before christmas, i was with several ex airforce and royal navy people talking about them.
 
Last edited:
matt_fsr said:
Agreed, but you could poke it with another Destroyer... seeing as Sea Viper cannot target ships or land targets.

Mind, I suspect our subs have also had 30 years worth of improvements so would be having a subtle word with anything Argentinian floating larger than a bathtub...
Click to expand...

Apart from when our subs get grounded on shingle around the Isle of Skye (exposing their top secret propulsion design), or when crazed cadets shoot the CO's to death with a rifle in the control room on the day of a press event, they are second to none. These are what provide real protection. Even back in the war the Argies only dared send one ship inside the exclusion zone as they didn't want to risk getting their others sunk!
 
Last edited:
Chavez is all talk..most of his oil goes straight up to Baton Rouge and Lake charles in the states

he talks a good fight for the public but when it comes to cold hard cash he still deals with the largest wealthiest neighbour
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom