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.

If we actually have any true respect for democracy then this isn't even up for debate.

The inhabitants WANT to remain British. Case closed.

If we have a war ill join back up to machine gun some Argie conscripts. I will gleefully hose them down with my GPMG and a hearty dose of rage and hate. Then ill swim over to Buenos Aires and off that fat midget Maradonna for bonus points.

I tried imagining matty as a remf, I lol'd so hard and failed epically...

mattyrm - Britains #1 force multiplier

Frazzled wrote:Pro tip, Brazil's economy is bigger than yours. In an all out fight, you will be beaten. Badly. It aint the 80s any more.

Protip - you're wrong. By nominal GDP Britain is larger than Brazil by about 10%, but PPP it's a tick under 1%. Not that any of that matters, because armies aren't fought by economies but the people in them. If you look at defence expenditures, then Britain almost doubles the Brazilians.

Go to the FI.
Set foot in any pub.
Ask them if;
a) they are Argentinian.
and
b) If they want to leave.

remember to ask your friends to pick up your teeth after you're carried out.

The locals have definite views on the subject.

How do I know?
I spent the best part of a year down there surveying for an oil company

Frazzled wrote:
Why is this even an issue? Just liquor up Matty (ok that might require the full Scotch production of the world for the next nine months), give him a swiss army knife, and a letter from the Queen stating "Matty, I need you to kick some ass, pretty please."

Problem solved.

If we got her to seal the letter with a kiss, some pink lipstick maybe, we wouldn't even need to give him a knife!

But really, if the people of the Falklands want to be British, and the UK claims them. Argentina can cram it?

Oh what a surprise.

Tory Government cuts defense spending (Thatcher stopped Naval patrols around the Falklands) and Argentina starts it's sabre waggling.

Add to this the fact that Oil has been found and we get a lovely mix.

Brazil may well stand by Argentina in the hope of some cheap oil out of the deal.

The U.S. would obviously have no interest in a war fought over oil or pipelines.

We need to station a squadron or two of the RAF at Port Stanley because Mr. Myopic is determined to cut the gonads off Britains ability to project power abroad; or maybe he is looking for the election winner that is a Falklands conflict.

It's a shame some kind of compromise can't be reached.

The problem is, look at where the Falklands is on a map:



Even if you are arguing that the inhabitants of the island have a right to their own choice of government (which I agree with), I can imagine the reaction now if the Argentinians started drilling in areas around the UK and taking the fossil fuel wealth. Actually, we could just sell it to them I suppose, like we did with our North Sea oil to the Koreans..
Although apparently a Conservative MP tried to arrange selling the Falklands some years ago, but the press picked up on it and there was an outcry which ended with him resigning.

Sorry I was wrong about relative military forces, the UK's is still much bigger than the Argentinian's despite the cuts over the last 30 years. But, again if it comes to bloodshed then again our politicians have failed in their task IMO, in not being to negotiate anything over what is essentially a barren poke-hole.

International law defines national sea boundaries and rights to the underlying seabed and resources.

While on the large scale map the Falklands look close to South America, they are actually 250 nautical miles away and well outside Argentina's area of exclusive economic interest which extends 200 miles.

The Argentinians therefore have no claim on the Falklands or the immediate area of possible resources. Obviously there is an overlap between the zones of the Falklands and Argentina. This would have to be resolved by negotiation and treaty.

Conversely the oil bearing areas in the North Sea are all within the 200 nm limit of the surrounding nations such as the UK and Norway. It would be illegal for Argentinians to pitch up and start drilling without permission.

The historical claim of the UK to sovereignty over the Falklands is clear and solid. It is also backed by post-WW2 treaties on the right to self-determination.

If the islands are sitting on rich natural resources, perhaps they are worth fighting for.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Pro tip, Brazil's economy is bigger than yours. In an all out fight, you will be beaten. Badly. It aint the 80s any more.

Protip - you're wrong. By nominal GDP Britain is larger than Brazil by about 10%, but PPP it's a tick under 1%. Not that any of that matters, because armies aren't fought by economies but the people in them. If you look at defence expenditures, then Britain almost doubles the Brazilians.

Err... ...guys we are talking about ARGENTINA not Brazil.

If Brazil steps in along side Argentina in an all out conflict they would set a very bad precedent that would drag other nations in as well.

All Brazil has done is refuse one warship permission to dock. This could be for any number of reasons that no-one will talk about; it could just be a diplomatic snub for some petty business deal gone wrong; Prince whoever may have pinched the backside of ambassador's wife...

I would like to just to raise the small point that THE DAILY MAIL IS NOT AN UNBIASED COMMENTATOR it is a bile ridden tiolet wragg of a paper with dubious sources and a vested interest in making people angry.

As a person who is neither British nor Argentinian, feth the Argentinians in this issue. If the population wants to be British, let them!

Sonophos wrote:Oh what a surprise.

Tory Government cuts defense spending (Thatcher stopped Naval patrols around the Falklands) and Argentina starts it's sabre waggling.

Oh what a surprise, lefties using ANY news story as a stick to beat the Tories with. The Argentinians were making similar noises when we were under a Labour government.

Add to this the fact that Oil has been found and we get a lovely mix.

Old news.

Brazil may well stand by Argentina in the hope of some cheap oil out of the deal.

No, Brazil won't declare war on one of the world's most powerful nations. They value their status as a rising economic power too much.

The U.S. would obviously have no interest in a war fought over oil or pipelines.

I'm sure you think that's fairly witty.

We need to station a squadron or two of the RAF at Port Stanley because Mr. Myopic is determined to cut the gonads off Britains ability to project power abroad; or maybe he is looking for the election winner that is a Falklands conflict.

Read more. That is all.

Sonophos wrote:

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Pro tip, Brazil's economy is bigger than yours. In an all out fight, you will be beaten. Badly. It aint the 80s any more.

Protip - you're wrong. By nominal GDP Britain is larger than Brazil by about 10%, but PPP it's a tick under 1%. Not that any of that matters, because armies aren't fought by economies but the people in them. If you look at defence expenditures, then Britain almost doubles the Brazilians.

Err... ...guys we are talking about ARGENTINA not Brazil.

If Brazil steps in along side Argentina in an all out conflict they would set a very bad precedent that would drag other nations in as well.

All Brazil has done is refuse one warship permission to dock. This could be for any number of reasons that no-one will talk about; it could just be a diplomatic snub for some petty business deal gone wrong; Prince whoever may have pinched the backside of ambassador's wife...

I would like to just to raise the small point that THE DAILY MAIL IS NOT AN UNBIASED COMMENTATOR it is a bile ridden tiolet rag of a paper with dubious sources and a vested interest in making people angry.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:

Sonophos wrote:Oh what a surprise.

Tory Government cuts defense spending (Thatcher stopped Naval patrols around the Falklands) and Argentina starts it's sabre waggling.

Oh what a surprise, lefties using ANY news story as a stick to beat the Tories with. The Argentinians were making similar noises when we were under a Labour government.

Add to this the fact that Oil has been found and we get a lovely mix.

Old news.

Brazil may well stand by Argentina in the hope of some cheap oil out of the deal.

No, Brazil won't declare war on one of the world's most powerful nations. They value their status as a rising economic power too much.

The U.S. would obviously have no interest in a war fought over oil or pipelines.

I'm sure you think that's fairly witty.

We need to station a squadron or two of the RAF at Port Stanley because Mr. Myopic is determined to cut the gonads off Britains ability to project power abroad; or maybe he is looking for the election winner that is a Falklands conflict.

Read more. That is all.

You know you can be very patronising when you want to Albatross.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yes I err towards the leftwing but probably not as far as you think. I remember Thatcher. I remember very well indeed. I remember the desolation that was Manchester (where you live) from my frequent visits from the rich south. I remember the news reporting practically every job gained and lost. I remember North sea oil being sold on the cheap. I remember privitisation of things that had no business being private, in fact I remember every time my bills come in. I remember every time we have to turn away a family in distress because we don't have any social housing. I remember the loss of manufacturing that is only now being bemoaned by politicians.

Please feel free to dispute the points I make but please refrain from actual personal attacks.

AustonT wrote:The real problem Ketara is that no aviators are rated to fly ONTO her.

Not really a problem as we have a sodding great RAF base on the Falklands. Don't really think we need a carrier this time around. Easier to repair holes in tarmac than in the side of a ship that's in the middle of the Atlantic.

My point exactly. Put a few more planes there to deter offensive action against the islands.

One of the big problems we had during the Falklands war was establishing air superiority in the area.

The Falklands people said they wished to stay British citizens. Thats all that needs to be said.

If Argentina attacks; nuke them a couple of times. I'm serious. They won't try it again.

I'm not sure how well that would go down with the rest of South America.

If the islands are sitting on rich natural resources, perhaps they are worth fighting for.

Well yes, if you value that above the human life that would be lost in such a conflict.

Kilkrazy wrote:If the islands are sitting on rich natural resources, perhaps they are worth fighting for.

So the English are in favor of war for oil?*

Also, I don't necessarily see a problem with going to war for natural resources.

* Kilkrazy isn't the only one making this kind of statement

It seems the main motivation of the UK public on this issue would be self determinacy.

The people want to be British, I for one think that is worth fighting for.

The motivation of Argentina in this seems to be one of territorial pride that at the moment just looks like hubris.

As for using Nukes...

...Nukes are nasty, dirty and tend to get everybody's back up when used. Daisy cutters would be far more politically correct.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:If the islands are sitting on rich natural resources, perhaps they are worth fighting for.

So the English are in favor of war for oil?*

Also, I don't necessarily see a problem with going to war for natural resources.

* Kilkrazy isn't the only one making this kind of statement

They would be our natural resources by international law and the will of the Falklands population.

I don't see a problem in waging a legal war of defence in support of a morally justified goal which has a beneficial economic result.

Also, casualties would essentially be confined to services personnel, hopefully mainly on the Argentinian side.

Wolfstan wrote:

AustonT wrote:The real problem Ketara is that no aviators are rated to fly ONTO her.

Not really a problem as we have a sodding great RAF base on the Falklands. Don't really think we need a carrier this time around. Easier to repair holes in tarmac than in the side of a ship that's in the middle of the Atlantic.

When one is answering a post about an aircraft carrier, one generally talks about the aircraft carrier instead of the island.

AustonT wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:

AustonT wrote:The real problem Ketara is that no aviators are rated to fly ONTO her.

Not really a problem as we have a sodding great RAF base on the Falklands. Don't really think we need a carrier this time around. Easier to repair holes in tarmac than in the side of a ship that's in the middle of the Atlantic.

When one is answering a post about an aircraft carrier, one generally talks about the aircraft carrier instead of the island.

Your post may be correct, but I was just pointing out that it's a moot point concerning the Falklands as they have a RAF base there. Obviously what you are saying would impact any future carrier operations.

I demand that the thread title be changed to "The Malvinas."
Excellent destination for ornithology evidently. Hope to get there some day to add a few species to the old life list.

The US won't help you.

The Monroe Doctrine is that the "U.S." controls affairs in South America.

Wait... what's that..... what do you mean the Monroe Doctrine is a bit out-of-date?

Can we use the Bush Doctrine then to invade first?

I am watching developments of this situation daily, and have been for a while now.

Argentina is getting its excuses lined up, an invasion is not unlikely. If they do, the UK will get little support, and if they win they will get away with it.

Argentina are playing the 'colonial card' and the 'race card', playing it daily and don't look like they are going to give up anytime soon. Much of their support is garnered around the ideology of Latin nations ganging together against a non-Latin population. Which is just blatant racism. The colonial card is used because British = colonialists in many eyes, which is more than a little hypocritical, but a powerful tool nonetheless.

The rights of the islanders will be ignored by Argentina if they can get away with it. The only solid recourse is a strong defence. At least with oil there, that is affordable.

Warrior Squirrel wrote:Go Argentina! Death to GB!

I wonder how Britain feels about gaining Argetina as a new colonial holding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
They could reignite thier empire and feed off thier colonial economies to fuel a resurgent Britian.

Okay, I'm probably going to regret this...

Invasion. Very unlikely, while Argentina has made it part of their constitution to regain the Malvinas, Kirchner has stated publically that force would not be used and that they would be recovered by diplomatic means. Unfortunately the precondition of any talks is that the Isles will be handed back. Not if but will and when. Unfortunately such a promise is only as good as the President, and once she leaves office such 'grace' may dissappear.

It is unlikely that after the 'arab spring' and the support of the UN and various sovereign goverments to the right of self determination that any invasion would actually be sucessful in the long term. In the short term terrible damage could be wrought on the infrastructure and population.

The 'Monroe Doctrine' raised it's head in the first conflict and was neatly avoided because the UK never attacked Argentina. All hostilities took place in and around FI, which meant that the US could sit back and say that Argentina started it and so could finish it themselves.

The 82 invasion suceeded because of lack of local manpower. Another invasion could only suceed with overwhelming superior forces, because the 'trip wire' is considerably better manned, and equipped, than 40 odd RMs, the level of force to be mustered makes it very hard to conceal. I would not like to be in the shoes of anyone trying to get here in one piece.

If push comes to shove I do not think that the US will back an Argentinian claim, afterall if they accept that Britain 'stole' and colonised the Islands, does that not mean that President Obama should hand back the US to the native americans?

Cheers

Andrew

AndrewC wrote:
If push comes to shove I do not think that the US will back an Argentinian claim, afterall if they accept that Britain 'stole' and colonised the Islands, does that not mean that President Obama should hand back the US to the native americans?

The claim is actually much flimsier than that. British control of the isles predates the existence of Argentina. Argentina claims the Falklands are theirs due to the fact that Spain once had a claim, and they inherited much of Spains land holdings. However, all this means is that if anyone had the right to exercise a historical claim, it would be Spain, not Argentina. Argentina as a nation has never possessed them.

Argentina's claim is essentially reduced to, 'We want it. Give it to us.' It has no basis in history, self-determination, or even geogrpahical location necessarily.

You know, I'm all for self determination and all, but has anyone ever bothered to look at the Falklands population? A bit over 3,000 people... its the second least densely populated region in the world, second only to Greenland (which has 57,000 people living in an area that is technically much larger but mostly uninhabitable). Two-thirds of that population live in Stanley, the other third are scattered farmers and live in small communities. When cruise ships come into port, the tourist population can easily outnumber the local population.

At that point, when the population is so small, and so concentrated in one area, it really begs the question, do they have the right to self-determination over such a large, mostly uninhabited area? It seems to me the British should either star colonizing the islands, or seek out a compromise with the Argentines and pull a Northern Ireland type situation, giving most of the territory to them and keeping a small sliver of it around the Stanley area for themselves. I'm sorry but the reality is that you cannot claim the right to self-determination when the vast majority of a very very very small population is 1. non-aborignal and 2. mostly concentrated into a very very small area of a much larger territory that is mostly uninhabited.

BTW, the Falklands were an American territory prior to being an Argentinian territory ;P

And in regards to Ketaras comment about Spain, I will point out that Spain backs Argentina's claim (as does the Peoples Republic of China oddly enough...)

Dreadwinter wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Why is this even an issue? Just liquor up Matty (ok that might require the full Scotch production of the world for the next nine months), give him a swiss army knife, and a letter from the Queen stating "Matty, I need you to kick some ass, pretty please."

Problem solved.

If we got her to seal the letter with a kiss, some pink lipstick maybe, we wouldn't even need to give him a knife!

But really, if the people of the Falklands want to be British, and the UK claims them. Argentina can cram it?

unless they want to fight of course. There's oil there and national politics. Britain's ability to project force is limited and if Brazil supports its no bueno.
Unless Matty pulls a NEO of course...

Perhaps the USA might like to take that principle to the United Nations for consideration.