1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Falklands - Discuss

Discussion in 'Politics & The Economy' started by WeegieAVLover, Feb 2, 2012.

  1. WeegieAVLover

    WeegieAVLover Active Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,942
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +589
    Righty-ho...

    I was quite young (abt 2 or 3 yrs old) when the Falklands war happened.

    The UK whooped the Argies then an I think (just) we could beat them again.

    However I do not understand why Argentina think They should be in charge of the Falklands other than it is close to their mainland AND HAVE VAST OIL RESERVES.

    The UK are the ruling nation of the Falklands and the vast majority people on the Falklands do not want Argentina to be in charge of them.

    Is it just me or does anyone else think bugger off Argentina and leave oor wee islanders alone?

    Col
  2. dc8900

    dc8900 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    12,286
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +2,451
    There is already a thread over the politics and economy forum, however, one should point out that the Falklands were British before the Argentines ever secured their independence, if we apply the principle of self-determination, Kelpers have consistently stated their wish to remain British. For as long as they want to be British, the UK should always defend her citizens in the Falkland Islands from an aggressive foreign power.
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  3. IronGiant

    IronGiant Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Messages:
    33,969
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +11,149
    Moved :thumbsup:
  4. Kebabhead

    Kebabhead Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    7,150
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +509
    It's 1966 all over agin :rolleyes:
  5. johntheexpat

    johntheexpat Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2006
    Messages:
    6,778
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,290
    I was under the impression that it was much closer than 'we whipped their arse'. Another couple of warships/supply ships on the receiving end of bombs and it may have been a different result.
    But it is about oil.
  6. Pecker

    Pecker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    18,832
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +2,478
    I think they probably believe this because the islands are close to their mainland and have vast oil reserves.

    Steve W
  7. Kebabhead

    Kebabhead Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    7,150
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +509
    So we went to war 30 years ago because of oil
  8. MikeP1

    MikeP1 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Messages:
    331
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +68
    I was very young at the time too. I don't believe we fought this war because of Oil. Argentina took the island because there was allot of pressure from there society for some type of positive event, they were suffering many problems and needed something to distract.

    I don't believe for the British it would have been acceptable to the public at that time to simply roll over & accept someone taking a British Island.

    I'm not disputing Oil is a huge reason now why they remain important to us, but I don't buy into the idea we wouldn't have gone to war had there been none.
  9. BISHI

    BISHI Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    8,314
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +760
    The Channel islands are virtually in France - Don't see the French claiming them.!
  10. johntheexpat

    johntheexpat Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2006
    Messages:
    6,778
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,290
    What is interesting to speculate is if we would have gone to war if the election had just happened rather than looming. At that time Mrs Thatcher was really rather unpopular and it can't be denied that the 'result' caused a huge groundswell of popular support for her.

    (from Wiki)

    Of course, now that the precedence has been set, it is taken as read that the UK would have to go back to war if Argentina succesfully re-invaded.
  11. nheather

    nheather Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    11,824
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    Not really.

    Our Navy took quite a beating. Losses to the sea skimming Exocet missile were understandable and very difficult to avoid. But most of the attacks were made by A4 Skyhawk aircraft, a design that was 26 years old at the time of the conflict. They were dropping unguided iron bombs.

    So despite our technology we were being pummled by antiquated aircraft dropping unguided bombs. We were very fortunate that in Carlos Bay (Bomb Ally) British ships were hit by 13 bombs that failed to explode. Had they done, we would have probably lost the war.

    Our biggest deterrent were the submarines. This kept the Argentina task force (including it's carrier) at a distance. Like it or not the sinking of the Begrano was necessary to the UK war - had that got within firing range which would allowed the rest of the task force to close it would have all be over for the UK.

    There is no doubt that the UK had better equipment, better platform, better troops but all the same they came very close to defeat.

    As for the Argentinian claim to the Falklands - they have none. No historic ties, no territorial ties. The French, Spanish and Portuguese have a stronger claim than the Argentinians.

    Cheers,

    Nigel
  12. Kebabhead

    Kebabhead Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    7,150
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +509
    Who gave us the sidewinder missile

    Who gave us the location of their subs

    The rapier defense system was a pile of crap
  13. BISHI

    BISHI Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    8,314
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +760
    It doesn't matter - we had sidewinders and their sub locations, it doesn't matter from where..? The Argentinians got Exocet from France but the supply dried up through UK diplomatic pressure. The politics of war are more complicated and often more effective than the actual fighting..
  14. Kebabhead

    Kebabhead Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    7,150
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +509
    Of course it bloody matters because it gave us the edge over them

    If we had applied diplomatic pressure back then the islands would still be under the control of Argentina
  15. Sonic67

    Sonic67 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    21,954
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +3,190
    Even more interesting is if the war had happened later we wouldn’t have had Invincible it was to have been sold to Australia.
    This was reported by the news and the reason given was that the bombs were being dropped to low and so they failed to arm. Argentina was supposed to have heard the news and instructed its pilots to drop bombs from a higher altitude as a result. Lives may have been lost as a result.
  16. BISHI

    BISHI Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    8,314
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +760
    Point missed .............. by a mile............!!
    I am pointing out that it didn't matter WHERE we got them from, we had them and it was a war winning weapon..!!
    And it was DIPLOMACY that secured them from the Americans and ensured the French did not sell further Exocet to the Argetinians. I am not talking about diplomacy with Argentina but that with our allies..!
  17. Pecker

    Pecker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    18,832
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +2,478
    I wasn't discussing the French.

    I didn't say a country had to claim a territory that was close to them.

    Steve W
  18. nheather

    nheather Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    11,824
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    I only said that the UK had better equipment - who originally made it is irrelevent, we HAD it all the same.

    If you think we should only consider home grown equipment then practically all the argentinians had was the Pucara. Pretty sure they wouldn't have invaded if that is all they were allowed to use.

    Cheers,

    Nigel
  19. phil t

    phil t Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,869
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +171
    I’m not sure I’d describe 290 miles as close?
  20. Alan CD

    Alan CD Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    9,928
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +2,068
    Nearly 300 miles away from Argentina - not close at all.

    Vast oil reserves: has that been established or just conjecture or wishful thinking?

    :confused:
  21. dovercat

    dovercat Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    The British Geological Survey estimates the oil at about 60 billion barrels.
    I guesstimate that is about £3.7 trillion worth.
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 4, 2012
  22. Pecker

    Pecker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    18,832
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +2,478
    It's all relative. They're certainly closer than the mainland UK, and Argentina are the closest nation.

    Steve W
  23. pragmatic

    pragmatic Previously gazbarber

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Messages:
    9,070
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +827
    Same as channel islands then ...
  24. Trollslayer

    Trollslayer Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    9,392
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,425
    I would point out the since then the UK has seen action in the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan and other places.
    Argentina hasn't.
    There is also a new generation of weapons around including some nice toys for attack submarines that let them take out specific ground targets.
  25. Cloverleaf

    Cloverleaf New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    992
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +42
    Irrelevant. Gibralter is a bloody site closer to Spain, but we ain't giving that up either.
  26. Pecker

    Pecker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    18,832
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +2,478
    Cloverleaf, in international law it isn't irrelevant.

    Steve W
  27. Wild Weasel

    Wild Weasel Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2005
    Messages:
    5,336
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +633
    Maybe we should claim Argentina.
  28. Pecker

    Pecker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    18,832
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +2,478
    :rotfl:

    The mad thing is, apart from the Falklands, we get on really well with them. It's often referred to as being the most British country in South America.

    Steve W
  29. Jamezinho

    Jamezinho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    8,955
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +2,160
    Perhaps we should claim the Faroe Islands from Denmark?
  30. Alan CD

    Alan CD Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    9,928
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +2,068
    Strange way to word it - a double negative.

    Do you mean in international law it's relevant?

    :confused:

Share This Page