Warning on Falklands

LONDON. The Falklands will be lost forever if Argentina invades again, one of Britain's senior military figures has warned. The former head of the army, General Sir Michael Jackson, told The Sunday Telegraph that defence cuts had made it ''impossible'' to win the islands back, in the way the British task force did in 1982.

''What if an Argentinian force was able to secure the Mount Pleasant airfield? Then our ability to recover the islands now would be just about impossible,'' said General Jackson.

''We are not in a position to take air power by sea since the demise of the Harrier force.''

Britain no longer has an aircraft carrier and the Harrier fleet has been sold to the US Marine Corps.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/world/warning-on-falklands-20120129-1qnzx.html#ixzz1kxElZTBU

Never mind the armed forces there's no merchant marine left to supply them. There were over 60 British Merchant Navy ships down there. BP alone had 8 tankers down there. P&O (my mob) had the Uganda and the Canberra (the Canberra cruises where the QE2 refuses ). We simply don't have access to a UK merchant fleet any longer.

Britain no longer has an aircraft carrier and the Harrier fleet has been sold to the US Marine Corps.

Interesting that at least Britain got some of their money spent on Military tools back.

I do remember that after WWII civilian pilots were allowed to buy disarmed aircraft in the US

P-51's, Corsairs etc.

I don't want anyone else to die over this but I think the Malvinas should be Argentinian. I have heard the British argument and witnessed British emotion about it, and also heard from the Argentinian side. I can't get past the geography of the thing. Does the US always have to side with the UK on every issue? I thought you US let the Americas down on this one.

Of course it didn't help my sympathies during the actual war that Thatcher was almost as fascistic as the Argie-pargie dictators she was fighting.

I don't want anyone else to die over this but I think the Malvinas should be Argentinian. I have heard the British argument and witnessed British emotion about it, and also heard from the Argentinian side. I can't get past the geography of the thing. Does the US always have to side with the UK on every issue? I thought you US let the Americas down on this one.

Of course it didn't help my sympathies during the actual war that Thatcher was almost as fascistic as the Argie-pargie dictators she was fighting.

Don't the people who live there have a say in this?

An English-speaking population who have only minor trade ties to Argentina - they are surely entitled to choose either complete independence from either party, or to live under benevolent control of their own chosen protector.

That would never be the Argies.

I don't want anyone else to die over this but I think the Malvinas should be Argentinian. I have heard the British argument and witnessed British emotion about it, and also heard from the Argentinian side. I can't get past the geography of the thing. Does the US always have to side with the UK on every issue? I thought you US let the Americas down on this one.

Of course it didn't help my sympathies during the actual war that Thatcher was almost as fascistic as the Argie-pargie dictators she was fighting.

Don't the people who live there have a say in this?

An English-speaking population who have only minor trade ties to Argentina - they are surely entitled to choose either complete independence from either party, or to live under benevolent control of their own chosen protector.

That would never be the Argies.

the people of the falkland inlands WANT to remain british !, and how we can give billions out in Aid, yet we are not able to defend our own turf is beyond me, esp as they have discovered untold oil riches !

I don't want anyone else to die over this but I think the Malvinas should be Argentinian. I have heard the British argument and witnessed British emotion about it, and also heard from the Argentinian side. I can't get past the geography of the thing. Does the US always have to side with the UK on every issue? I thought you US let the Americas down on this one.

Of course it didn't help my sympathies during the actual war that Thatcher was almost as fascistic as the Argie-pargie dictators she was fighting.

Don't the people who live there have a say in this?

An English-speaking population who have only minor trade ties to Argentina - they are surely entitled to choose either complete independence from either party, or to live under benevolent control of their own chosen protector.

That would never be the Argies.

the people of the falkland inlands WANT to remain british !, and how we can give billions out in Aid, yet we are not able to defend our own turf is beyond me, esp as they have discovered untold oil riches !

That's all the Argies are interested in!

Keep the warships and a decent force out there. If they can't invade then they have no chance of taking the islands.

Last postage stamp of the empire, eh?

Face it, Thatcher used Las Malvinas the same way Reagan used Grenada.

The other aspect of this is the changes in the world. South America is on the rise. Brazil has become a major economic and political power. Argentina's economy has been booming in a time when Europe and the US are faltering. Brazil and the Americas south of the U.S. are on Argentina's side. The force of history is that Las Malvinas WILL be Argentinian. This could be negotiated in a way to compensate the current residents without any further war. I know British people are passionate about this issue but Argentinians are about 100 times more passionate. They will win in the long run.

Last postage stamp of the empire, eh?

Face it, Thatcher used Las Malvinas the same way Reagan used Grenada.

The other aspect of this is the changes in the world. South America is on the rise. Brazil has become a major economic and political power. Argentina's economy has been booming in a time when Europe and the US are faltering. Brazil and the Americas south of the U.S. are on Argentina's side. The force of history is that Las Malvinas WILL be Argentinian. This could be negotiated in a way to compensate the current residents without any further war. I know British people are passionate about this issue but Argentinians are about 100 times more passionate. They will win in the long run.

You are telling us that Grenada (the people thereof) begged Ronald Rayguns Reagan to come and protect them from an invading army?

I think not.

You have no idea of the world outside your own little WeHo world, do you?

The people of the Falklands are British, have always been British, and still want to be British. I remember well the last time when we spent large sums to defend their rights; never mind it was a political godsend to Thatcher.... it was also the right thing to do.

One of the reasons for the Commonwealth's existence is to prevent little people being steamrollered by those much more powerful than themselves. The Argentinians first attack was largely to distract attention from the junta's troubles at home; if they attack again, it will be for oil. Who but the British cares about what the Falkland Islanders want?

There are two sides. There are other ways that Argentina will eventually get their goal in this conflict other than war. Naturally if you're British, you support Britain in this. However the international support Argentina has gets wider and stronger every day. For Britain, it is a provincial issue.

There are two sides. There are other ways that Argentina will eventually get their goal in this conflict other than war. Naturally if you're British, you support Britain in this. However the international support Argentina has gets wider and stronger every day. For Britain, it is a provincial issue.

If tensions continue to rise so too will British military activity in the area. There will be no easy invasion second time around.

When the Argentines invaded there was no air defence for the islands, and no standing defence force other than a token marine detachment that was little more than platoon strength. Now they have Typhoons at RAF Mt. Pleasent, a small naval detachment, and ten times the ground forces.

Argentina still has the same aging aircraft they used in 1982. The Typhoons would shoot them out of the sky before they got close enough to fire.

The Argentinians may continue to claim the Falklands, but they never settled it. The first settlement was British. Argentina has no legal basis for a claim... the best they can do is proximity.

Anyway, who has the best right to Argentina itself? The Hispanic (and Welsh) settlers, or the indigenous inhabitants? Or somebody else who likes to claim it by force? One can, of course, take this sort of argument to extremes.... anything goes!

Sorry, just checked my facts!

The Falklands was named by the British Captain Strong in 1689-90. It was settled by the French in 1764, a British base was established in 1765, the French handed their settlement to the Spanish in 1767. It was occupied in the name of the Republic of Buenos Aires in 1820. The British asserted possession, and it became a Crown Colony in 1833. Formal annexation did not take place until 1908.

Out of that confused story, little is clear. By far the longest occupiers have been the British, and the occasional occupation by Argentina or its predecessors lasted for very short periods. For the past 180 years, it has been British. Many modern countries have not existed half that long.

I understand the intellectual basis for the British position, but I am telling you this issue lives in the hearts of Argentinians of all political stripes, and over time they will find a way to get their islands back. Sure it might be 100 years from now but its going to happen.

I understand the intellectual basis for the British position, but I am telling you this issue lives in the hearts of Argentinians of all political stripes, and over time they will find a way to get their islands back. Sure it might be 100 years from now but its going to happen.

I don't understand the 'back'. The Falklands were never Argentinian. They were a territory of the State of Buenos Aires, when it was not part of the Argentinian Confederation, but have been British since before the establishment of the Argentine Republic.

I suppose you'll be wanting to secede the Shetland Isles to Norway next... and hand Calais 'back'.

Anyway, same as with the six counties, let's stick with the principle of self-determination for the time being...

SC

I'm gazing out over St Ouen with a pitchfork in hand and a look of grim determination.....

Back off! British show of strength as Navy sends £1billion warship HMS Dauntless to the Falklands

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2094347/HMS-Dauntless-sent-Falkland-Islands-Royal-Navy-deploys-1bn-warship.html#ixzz1l45tqyQO

Those new destroyers are apparently the dogs nadgers

Those new destroyers are apparently the dogs nadgers

but will it be enough? , this is one war that is worth fighting !, revoke the troops from silly missions they are on now , and station them in the falklands !

Those new destroyers are apparently the dogs nadgers

but will it be enough? , this is one war that is worth fighting !, revoke the troops from silly missions they are on now , and station them in the falklands !

How are you going to get them there? P&O sold its cruise division to Carnival and all the Cunard passie ships are registerted in Bermuda.

Those new destroyers are apparently the dogs nadgers

but will it be enough? , this is one war that is worth fighting !, revoke the troops from silly missions they are on now , and station them in the falklands !

They can fire something like 8 anti air missiles every ten seconds. Tracking 300 targets at a range 250 miles-ish.

Just the one should be enough to handle the outdated Argentine air force. They had might as well not bother attacking from the air.

I suppose the most interesting thing about this discussion is that Argentina is no longer ruled by a military junta. We are a long way from a political "war" never mind invasion.

This "conflict" is economic.

I suppose the most interesting thing about this discussion is that Argentina is no longer ruled by a military junta. We are a long way from a political "war" never mind invasion.

This "conflict" is economic.

Oil

Those new destroyers are apparently the dogs nadgers

but will it be enough? , this is one war that is worth fighting !, revoke the troops from silly missions they are on now , and station them in the falklands !

How are you going to get them there? P&O sold its cruise division to Carnival and all the Cunard passie ships are registerted in Bermuda.

I don't think it would be beyond the capability of the British forces to get their troops to other territories. They got tens of thousands to Iraq, Afghanistan and other such places.

I think they have planes and boats and stuff.

Those new destroyers are apparently the dogs nadgers

but will it be enough? , this is one war that is worth fighting !, revoke the troops from silly missions they are on now , and station them in the falklands !

How are you going to get them there? P&O sold its cruise division to Carnival and all the Cunard passie ships are registerted in Bermuda.

I don't think it would be beyond the capability of the British forces to get their troops to other territories. They got tens of thousands to Iraq, Afghanistan and other such places.

I think they have planes and boats and stuff.

I suggest you look at a map. There are multiple staging points between the UK and the Middle East. The main staging point between the UK and the Falklands is Ascension Island which is 4000 miles from the UK and 4000 miles from the Falklands. The vast majority of troops moved to the Falklands last time embarked on merchant ships. Royal Navy ships aren't designed to facilitate large troop movements. You can't stuff 1000 men into a ship that only carries stores and shitters for 300. The Vulcans which did the Black Buck raids on Stanley airport were decommissioned long ago. We don't have any aircraft that can do an 8000 mile bomb run any more.

I understand the intellectual basis for the British position, but I am telling you this issue lives in the hearts of Argentinians of all political stripes, and over time they will find a way to get their islands back. Sure it might be 100 years from now but its going to happen.

This is of course the same argument that we British have over our former colomies over the pond.

They;re ours, we wabt 'em!!!

the people of the falkland inlands WANT to remain british !, and how we can give billions out in Aid, yet we are not able to defend our own turf is beyond me, esp as they have discovered untold oil riches !

that the people of the Falklands want to remain British does not justify the claim "our own turf". there are areas in West Africa where people would have liked to remain british or "semi-british" which didn't make it "british turf".

I understand the intellectual basis for the British position, but I am telling you this issue lives in the hearts of Argentinians of all political stripes, and over time they will find a way to get their islands back. Sure it might be 100 years from now but its going to happen.

This is of course the same argument that we British have over our former colomies over the pond.

They;re ours, we wabt 'em!!!

Are you sure we want them back, HB? More trouble than they're worth, I think.

The Falklands never belonged to the Argentinians, Jingthing.

Amid all the flag-waving and drum-bashing, we should not overlook the fact that Argentina is a relatively weak country, and we can therefore afford to face up to its threats. If it were a strong country, we would hand the islands over like a shot (or without a shot). I say this sadly, but from bitter experience.

Witness the 3.4 million Hong Kong people, born British, who were handed over to China without their consent.