Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As we have all seen no doubt in the news the Argentinians have started to stake a claim to the Falklands islands again.I ask my fellow Dakkites what do you think this will result in

A: A Diplomatic solution i.e both sides come to a amicable solution and then nothing is heard of it till next time
B: The UN side with Argentina and the Oil and stakes to it are lost and a perminant argentinian presence is established in the Falklands.
C: The UN tell the Argentinians to do one unlikely because the UN's power has been degraded as of late.But still possible
Diplomatic tensions reach a high note and British and Argentinian forces face off over potential oil drilling rights
E: The Argentinians Invade second Falklands war kicks off high side to our chances in such an conflict now is the perminant presence of servicemen 1000 as opposed to the 500 Marines last time.

so I put it out on the floor......what will happen?

Alreadya thread about this skip.

But I say the Argies should put Teddy back in the pram and shut up. Our land, not their's, therefore our Oil. Falklands are internationally recognised as British Territory, and the Islanders by right of self determination wish it to remain that way.

Net result? Britain has dry balls, and it's Argentina's turn to suck them.

A.

The Argie administration is making rude noises because it's election year and they are in the mire.

Besides, they have a non-functioning economy, wtf would they be able to do? Their morale was terrible when they invaded first time round, sending their poorly motivated troops in a second time, knowing this time there is a larger military presence there and that they lost previously...

Can't see them being that stupid.

No chance of a war, as always, money rules the world and war is expensive. I think they just want some easy cash to be frank. If we cut them in with 20% of any revenue made from drilling and exploration i bet they will sharpish shut their cake holes. Well.. Or negotiate for 30. :-)

THing is, they have no legitimate claim at all to the Falklands. So therefore, they have no claim at all to the resources down there.

Best they can hope for is exclusive contracts for Argentinian firms to do the supplies and that. And they'd be lucky even then.

If they got 20% of the oil revenues they'd be so happy think they had just beat us in war. That's ridiculous.

Base line would be "Turkey Shoot"

So in conclusion no war....

BOSS_PIMPALOTZ wrote:As we have all seen no doubt in the news the Argentinians have started to stake a claim to the Falklands islands again.I ask my fellow Dakkites what do you think this will result in
so I put it out on the floor......what will happen?

A: A Diplomatic solution i.e both sides come to a amicable solution and then nothing is heard of it till next time
Most likely, though the only amicable solution is Argentina backs down.

B: The UN side with Argentina and the Oil and stakes to it are lost and a perminant argentinian presence is established in the Falklands.
So long as the UK has a Security Council veto this will not happen.

C: The UN tell the Argentinians to do one unlikely because the UN's power has been degraded as of late.But still possible
One what.

Diplomatic tensions reach a high note and British and Argentinian forces face off over potential oil drilling rights
Likely but only after a re-election of Gordon Brown. That man can be bulied by mice.

E: The Argentinians Invade second Falklands war kicks off high side to our chances in such an conflict now is the perminant presence of servicemen 1000 as opposed to the 500 Marines last time.
The garrison was 50 Marines, which is why they had a go first time around. The UK would find it difficult to repeat the operations of 1982, but it could be done at a pinch. Argentina doesnt have the same force levels either, they couldnt mount a naval invasion and would take too many casualties on the way in. The 1982 invasion by the Argentines had one advantage, it was bloodless, this gave Galtieri a better diplomatic standpoint than he deserved. However the governor and military commoander of the time knew there was little his small garrison could do and though it best not to fight. the current garrison is much larger and would fight.

the Argentine invasion would either have to include a large sneak bombing strike, which would be disasterous for Argentina politically. Or Argie ground troops will have to face the British garrison in battle in a defended position, which is something the Argentines wont attempt.

Argentina is better off keeping the military option at home and use the UK governments dogmas against it. After all the Falklands is naughty colonialism, the garrison costs too much that could be better spent on quangos and the local populace aren't even ethnic so they have whats coming.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/7280424/The-Botox-Evita-seeks-a-new-lift.html

Some more problems.

Obama is getting splinters in his arse and sitting on the fence on this one.

Meanwhile our soldiers get killed supporting US policy, we lost another soldier today from the Coldstream Guard.

Fair enough, pull some (all) of the troops out of Afghanistan and send them to the Falklands instead. I wonder if Obama can get the Argies to police Afghanistan.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Net result? Britain has dry balls, and it's Argentina's turn to suck them.

Mad Doc wins the thread.

Orlanth wrote:Some more problems.

Obama is getting splinters in his arse and sitting on the fence on this one.

Meanwhile our soldiers get killed supporting US policy, we lost another soldier today from the Coldstream Guard.

Fair enough, pull some (all) of the troops out of Afghanistan and send them to the Falklands instead. I wonder if Obama can get the Argies to police Afghanistan.

I will say this we do kind of owe you guys one on this. I guess fair is fair but hell no one thinks past the current decade. We gave up any rights to oil in Iraq because we are idiots maybe we could get a cut of yours. Hell I would fight for that better than dodging IED's and freezing my arse off in Afghanistan.

ounumen wrote:

I will say this we do kind of owe you guys one on this. I guess fair is fair but hell no one thinks past the current decade. We gave up any rights to oil in Iraq because we are idiots maybe we could get a cut of yours. Hell I would fight for that better than dodging IED's and freezing my arse off in Afghanistan.

The sentiment is much appreciated but we dont expect that even on a good day.

This is our problem, its just that Obama is more than cold towards us. There is a difference between saying 'we are staying neutral' (which is reasonable) and 'we flatly refuse to help you, we wont be drawn into this' (which is pretty much the same thing but with a different tone). The latter implies that if this goes against us the US government wont care. This plus Obama overtures to Chavez at the moment looks worrying. Chavez has been a very vocal supporter of Argentina and calls for nothing less than a complete surrender of British (and by extension the islanders) sovereignty to Argentina. Pretty much all the governments in the Spanish speaking world is singing this tune.

I do agree with Obama distancing himself from Bushes attitude to Chavez, Bush tried to have him removed by fair means or foul despite the fact that he is the Venezuelan peoples choice with a genuine democratic mandate.

Without support I can see our jellyfish in chief backing down. Brown really is gutless, he can bully his staff (which makes sense, most cowards are bullies) but he cannot effect a foreign policy. Its a worry in the country and in the military. Which is a great annoyance because if democracy means anything the wishes of the people must be first and the residents of the Islands are very clear who they belong with and do not feel even in the least bit Argentinian.

Obama could have remained neutral and made that point. Some governments have said precisely this and no more. Saying let the people for themselves decide who they are to be governed by is hardly an anti-Argentine message, and is in keeping with the office of the self styled leader of the free world.

Good post, Orlanth.