Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Swoop on July 09, 2008, 12:00:15 PM
-
I sincerely hope not.
a) We're in no shape to go through that again.
b) Our present government is far too poofy to go through that again.
c) I've got friends in Argentina and have no wish to see our countries as war. Again.
from the telegraph:
Argentina's military threat raises fears over Falklands
By Graeme Baker
Last Updated: 11:54PM BST 08/07/2008
Argentina raised the prospect of posting military forces in the Antarctic region yesterday, with the announcement of plans to use troops to defend its interests.
President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner told defence chiefs that Argentina must be prepared to assert its sovereignty and protect its natural resources, as nations compete to claim areas of the region believed to be rich in oil.
The plans threaten to inflame tensions between Britain and Argentina over the Falkland Islands, which the South American nation still considers to be its sovereign territory despite losing a war in 1982.
Argentinian forces were driven from the islands by a British naval task force after three months of fighting and the loss of hundreds of lives. The victory proved decisive in the re-election in 1983 of Margaret Thatcher.
Article continuesadvertisement
"This world is no longer a world divided by ideology," Mrs Fernández said. "It is more complex, and it is necessary to defend our natural resources, our Antarctica, our water."
The Argentine president compared the plan to Brazil using its soldiers to protect natural resources in the Amazon rainforest.
The proposals come as Britain considers whether formally to claim exploration rights to extended areas of the sea bed around the Falklands, South Georgia and the British Antarctic Territory.
Moves are also being made by Argentina, Australia, China, France, New Zealand and Norway to boost their presence and lay claim to waters that could yield oil. Antarctica, protected under a 1959 treaty allowing only scientific research, is the only continent that remains free of military forces.
The Argentine president's comments are the first to suggest the use of troops to protect a country's interests.
The proposals come as Mrs Fernández faces growing opposition at home after winning power last year in a landslide victory to succeed her husband, Néstor Kirchner, as president.
Her ties to the Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez have strained relations with the United States and a sluggish economy has seen widespread protests against her policies.
Britain has plans to claim more than 350,000 square miles of sea bed under a United Nations convention that allows rights to areas that are a continuation of their territory's continental shelf.
However, a Foreign Office spokesman last night stressed that Britain had not made a formal submission to the UN "although we reserve the right to do so". The deadline is May next year.
The situation in part mirrors a rush for territorial rights at the North Pole, also believed to contain vast energy reserves. Russia sparked the race last August by symbolically placing a flag on the sea bed, claiming huge tracts of the region for itself.
In turn, Canada announced it would build military training bases in the region and step up patrols of shipping lanes. Denmark and the United States have followed suit since.
The Russian army said last month that it was prepared to send winter warfare forces to the region to protect its interests.
-
Sounds like a Tom Clancy novel.
This could get very interesting.
-
And I was made fun of on these very boards for saying that the Falkland Islands were still under contention.
But the truth is that the Socialist President Lady of Argentina is tanking so so so so so BADLY that she needs something to get the attention of their people off of them. Wag the Dog.
-
Great....yet ANOTHER war over SHEEP. :O
Baaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh.
ROX
-
just give them the damned island imo. those whiney argies will never shut up.
-
Best part about the Falkland's war.......
"We hereby declare WAR and will take back the Falkland Islands as soon as our warships get there.......see you in two weeks"
First time I heard war declared.......with a two week time lapse.
-
Fire up the Spits and Mossies Swoop........You've been drafted son....... :uhoh
-
What level of readiness has Arg's military attained since the 80's?
-
What do the Falklands have besides fishing rights and sheep?
-
What level of readiness has Arg's military attained since the 80's?
They had brought some land based missle technology from France. What shape it's in or if they have bought new stuff is the question.
They did have a small handfull of decent pilots. They are all retired by now.
ROX
-
What do the Falklands have besides fishing rights and sheep?
They have a face.
The face of being a subject of the empire.
BTW, the Falkland war of 1982 probably just did the Argentinians good, since it toppled the government. This time...I put my money on the UK being stiff as well, and I bloody well hope they will!!!!
(Right hand on the RAF badge :D)
-
Interestingly, the RAF keep 4 x Tornado F3s at RAF Mount Pleasant on the Falkland Islands, the three operational aircraft are supposedly called Faith, Hope and Charity like the legendary Gloster Gladiators used to defend Malta. These will be replaced by Eurofighter Typhoons before too long :aok
We need to test our our new Type 45's and Typhoons, maybe the argies will be kind enough to oblige?
-
And I was made fun of on these very boards for saying that the Falkland Islands were still under contention.
Who said they weren't under contention? It's not news to me. I had a long discussion 6 years ago with an Argentinian who refused to call the islands anything other than the Malvinas. You were made fun of because you denied the Falklands war was in fact a war.
Swoop is right. We don't have the Cold War sized military anymore and we are stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan as it is. Can't the Argies wait until 2014 when we have new carrier groups? Rather unsporting if you ask me.
-
No war for oil Britain!
Or at least get full UN approval first.
(Curious. Why don't doesn't this fall under the Monroe Doctrine?)
:),
Wab
-
You mean no war for sheep, right?
-
You mean no war for sheep, right?
There are a lot of penguins there too apparently, we shall defend our penguins, whatever the cost may be!
-
I'm sure if someone tried to invade Hawaii you'd find it very amusing. :aok
I watched a play the other day about the Falkland told from within Thatcher's cabinet - it was interesting to see our cousins trying to give a tin pot murderous dictator the same consideration as a long standing, democratic NATO ally. Glad they saw sense in the end. :)
Jeanne Kirkpatrick was a complete squeak, BTW.
-
I lived with an argentinian for a year, 2 years ago. He wanted to join the airforce but said it was almost impossible, he told me their airforce is very run down. He said there don't even have any frontline fighters.
The lack of funding + kit of our forces is nothing in comparison to the neglect of the Argentinian navy + airforce ,due to argentinas economic problems. The only real naval threat to the Royal Navy would be the 4 meko 360 destroyers with their 2 quad exocet missile launchers.
Despite our navy bing much smaller than it was at the time of the falklands, I feel it is much better equipped for amphibious assaults. I've little knowledge of the RFA so i don't know how our ability to supply our forces 8000miles away compares to 25 years ago.
-
As long as no one messes up antarctica...
-
As long as no one messes up antarctica...
do they have oil there?
-
What do the Falklands have besides fishing rights and sheep?
A population that wishes to remain protected by GB.
-
Ever study the Falklands war?
That was as mean and nasty a little war as you'll ever find.
Currently the Brits always have a surface asset in the area. A DD or a frigate.
I dont know what the current state of the Brit Astute class SSN is but the Argies had better hope none are in the area when/if they have their big adventure. They have several other classes of SSN as well, all armed with excellent torpedoes, Harpoon, and Tomahawk. The Argie Mekos would have a hard time dealing with them and any amphib group would probably be sunk. Not that they have much amphib assets anyways. They would have to rely on a airborne drop to capture an airfield.
The big news however is the Brits they plan to base their new Eurofighters there, if they aren't there already. Plus they have much bigger and better airfield facilities now. They could easily whistle up a dozen fighter bombers and piggyback them down there. The Argie naval air force is pretty ran down. Their regular air force is still flying Mirage-lll's.
At the least the Brits would have access to the Yank electronic Intelligence network. Which also probably precludes any surprise attacks.
My conclusion is "no" they couldnt do it.
My other conclusion is Britian isnt buying two supercarriers in order to give up Falklands oil exploration rights.
-
Who said they weren't under contention? It's not news to me. I had a long discussion 6 years ago with an Argentinian who refused to call the islands anything other than the Malvinas. You were made fun of because you denied the Falklands war was in fact a war.
Swoop is right. We don't have the Cold War sized military anymore and we are stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan as it is. Can't the Argies wait until 2014 when we have new carrier groups? Rather unsporting if you ask me.
Actually, not. I said that the Falklands didn't come to a resolution because total war wasn't used.
-
Where is the "REAL" H.M.S. ARK ROYAL when you need her?
(http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/8717/arkle0.jpg)
:salute
-
I believe the famous clipper the flying cloud is moored there in port stanley or there abouts.
-
Actually, not. I said that the Falklands didn't come to a resolution because total war wasn't used.
Even though the Falklands never came to a great conclusion, they can be viewed as a single battle, not a war.
Which came first, I wonder...?
-
The British claim to the Falklands has very little to do with the Falkland Islanders' desire to remain British and everything to do with having a legitimate claim to Antarctic mineral deposits.
If the Argies were ever to try something, now would be the time. After years of decline, our ability to project power is going to increase rather dramatically over the coming years.
That said, even today the British ability to defend the Falklands has probably diminished less than the Argentinian ability to take them. As Rich46yo pointed out, the a couple of British SSN's would render the Argentinian surface fleet unusable and their air forces are probably not operating at the level they were in 1982.
Our biggest problem would be that our three mini-carriers now carry the Harrier GR7 and GR9 - neither of which can carry out an air-to-air role.
-
Au contraire, this is her majesty's doorstep.
In the 80's some lefties claimed it was all about UK resources. Well, they must have thought well ahead, since they don't seem to be using them yet.....
-
I've been waiting for antartica to 'heat up', NZ has vested interests there and I do think people here understand where it's going. Sooner or later the rights of penguins will be meaninigless.
-
ABOUT BLOODY TIME brits pwn argentina hopefully no one gets hurt
-
About time...again?
The human history of conflict is littered with defeated nations who did the sole mistake of underestimating the British :devil
-
can't you guys just attack & bomb Venezuela instead? ......... I'm sure we'll help
(http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0aJq5qx5rhczO/610x.jpg)
i
-
Now THAT...is a good idea :aok
-
I mean.......they're in the neighborhood anyway..........right?
-
PS.........per the Monroe Doctrine..........don't we have a duty to sink British ships and shoot down British planes if they attack south america?
-
PS.........per the Monroe Doctrine..........don't we have a duty to sink British ships and shoot down British planes if they attack south america?
Pretty sure the Monroe Doctrine says something to the effect that we don't want Europeans to subvert or try to re-establish a hold on their former colonies in the Americas.
Also pretty sure nothing in the doctrine says we have to support an act of aggression by a South American country against one of our European allies.
-
The Monroe stuff sure did just fine...NOT!
-
The Monroe stuff sure did just fine...NOT!
LOL @ "The Monore stuff"
-
Do you get this? Monroeism was about staying insolated right?
Keeping out of WWI proved impossible since it was a WORLD war even before the US were getting the side effect of casualties.
And keeping the Monroe thing on-going in WW2 ticked on untill the japs attacked and Germany declared war. Didn't keep the USA out now did it?
Now I have been accused to be a USA hater and so-on, but I feel that is wrong. For I belive that since the USA tried to avoid both WWI and WWII and not achieving so, they should not be so easily blamed for trying to kill the fire at the start.
(however the debate will go forever about the effects of using tonnes of water in a second to kill a match, but that is an issue for a completely different thred.)
-
Pretty sure the Monroe Doctrine says something to the effect that we don't want Europeans to subvert or try to re-establish a hold on their former colonies in the Americas.
Also pretty sure nothing in the doctrine says we have to support an act of aggression by a South American country against one of our European allies.
No it doesnt. What the Monroe Doctrine does is more a declaration of spheres of influence. At the same time it was a declaration that America would stay out of continental European affairs and their affairs on the other continents. While Britain was considered part of Europe the Doctrine was aimed more at the colonial powers of France, Spain, and Russia. Remember in 1823 we had no idea what the future America was going to look like but we did know we were going to expand west and south and we didn't want anyone stealing land in front of us. And we sure as heck didn't want to pay for it like we did in 1803 when we bought the LA. territories from France. This westward expansion, precluded by the Monroe Doctrine, was later termed "Manifest Destiny".
So the doctrine does not specifically say we have to attack anyone for anything. It was a warning and a statement of policy.
And even after fighting several wars with Britain we still had a love/hate relationship with them in the 1800's. Thats what happens when you share so much culturally at the beginning. Eventually this matured in the 20'th century becoming what is known today as "The special relationship".
I remember this Falklands war very well and remember that goofball Yank UN ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick poisoning our relationship with England with her stupidity. The Yank public was overwhelmingly Pro-British and the Reagan administration eventually quit walking the fence. It must be said that The Cold War was in full swing and the Soviets/Cubans were looking for every opportunity to expand their influence in central and south Americas. The Argentine Junta was extremely anti-communist and were considered an ally in this regard, even if they used terror at home. It was the age old conundrum of Cold War reality. Do you back non-Democratic Govt.s that are anti-communist or do you sit back and allow a greater evil, communism, to take hold in the western hemisphere?
Part of what helped cause the Original Falklands war was that the Argentine Junta had convinced itself that America would back them in event of hostilities, or, at least not get involved. Partly the Reagan administration failed to get across to them that we wouldnt back them. The Argies had no idea of how the Yank public feels about the British. Today I think they finally understand the strength of those ties and since there is no cold war, and communism is no longer a threat, there isn't even that reason for America to not get involved. Partly what cause the war is the Brits had sent out mixed signals they would either not defend the islands, or couldnt defend them.
But it also must be said that even the Brits were surprised the Argies went for it. At the time it was pretty obvious they really had small hope of beating the Professional armed forces of Britain. To make matters even worse they attacked months before they had planned to and only had a small amount of exocet missiles in stock. The only Argie service that did well was there air force but even they took heavy casualties.
And If I remember right we imposed a arms embargo on Argentina during the Falklands war while speeding up arms deliveries to the Brits as well as providing electronic Intelligence to them. America provided out latest sidewinder AA mssiles and anti-radar missiles as well as gobs of jet fuel. The Argie junta had no means of replenishing their arms and even France refused to sell them more exocets.
Boy that has to be a low point when even the French wont sell you arms.
-
Do you get this? Monroeism was about staying insolated right?
Keeping out of WWI proved impossible since it was a WORLD war even before the US were getting the side effect of casualties.
And keeping the Monroe thing on-going in WW2 ticked on untill the japs attacked and Germany declared war. Didn't keep the USA out now did it?
Now I have been accused to be a USA hater and so-on, but I feel that is wrong. For I belive that since the USA tried to avoid both WWI and WWII and not achieving so, they should not be so easily blamed for trying to kill the fire at the start.
(however the debate will go forever about the effects of using tonnes of water in a second to kill a match, but that is an issue for a completely different thred.)
46 said it already..... monroe basically says.... you attack the america's....(north, south and central) ....we attack you.
-
just give them the damned island imo. those whiney argies will never shut up.
Yes, but everybody hates the Argies :D
-
Think of one thing.
Since the Iraq case, perhaps the argies are ready to try their luck again...
They can say, such as the Germans after WW1, that they were "not defeated".
-
Think of one thing.
Since the Iraq case, perhaps the argies are ready to try their luck again...
They can say, such as the Germans after WW1, that they were "not defeated".
That the people surrendered, not the Army.
-
What do the Falklands have besides fishing rights and sheep?
British subjects that overwhelmingly want to remain subjects of the Queen.
ack-ack
-
(Curious. Why don't doesn't this fall under the Monroe Doctrine?)
:),
Wab
Because the Brits are our friends.
ack-ack
-
ABOUT BLOODY TIME brits pwn argentina hopefully no one gets hurt
Maybe you're too young to remember or weren't born yet but the British did that to the Argentinians back in '82.
During the surrender ceremonies after the British recaptured the Falklands, I remember seeing on the news the British army band playing "Don't cry for me Argentina" at the beginning of the ceremonies. Reminds me of the Revolutionary War story of the British army band playing "The World Turned Upside Down" as we accepted the British surrender at Yorktown.
ack-ack
-
Yes, but everybody hates the Argies :D
There's a funny saying amongst Latin American countries about the Argentinians. If you were to sell an Argentinian for what they think they're worth, you'd be a millionare. If you sold them what they were actually worth, you'd owe money.
ack-ack
-
46 said it already..... monroe basically says.... you attack the america's....(north, south and central) ....we attack you.
Really? What part says that?
-
I watched a documentry on the Military network of the Argentinian Air Force practicing landing on US carriers as they round the point is this true :O That would make them allies would it not. :huh
-
Both the Astitute class and 45's are a few years away still.
The brits will do well enough without them. The lack of area defence destroyers could be a small problem tho if the argies have any missiles left that works
-
I watched a documentry on the Military network of the Argentinian Air Force practicing landing on US carriers as they round the point is this true :O That would make them allies would it not. :huh
They havnt done that for many years. Since they themselves had a carrier and a semblance of a naval air arm.
I dont remember them actualing landing either. Maybe just touch and goes.
Back during the Cold War we were keen on keeping the Argies free of communism. The hemisphere actually.
But the Brits are our closest Allies. The Yank public is mad for the bloody Brits, what with the accents, the lousy food, Monty Python, the stiff upper lips, the Beatles, Lynx leading the charge off the CVs. The Brits are a bloody good show wot?
Ever been to England? The Brits booze it up as if they were Yanks. Ever seen an Argentinian party?
-
Ehh... Let the Brits go to war. It can stuff it in those hippies faces.
IMO, the Brits will be a whole lot more prepared this time.
I remember watching the first half of a documentary of the Falklands and I nearly turned it off thinking I already knew the out-come. :aok
-
Really? What part says that?
since I'm the one who brought up the monroe doctrine in this thread..........I'll humor you with your request:
one of the most basic tenets: as I said....protect the americas from european colonization.
"As Monroe stated: "The American continents … are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers."
"Monroe's administration forewarned the imperial European powers against interfering in the affairs of the newly independent Latin American states or potential United States territories. While Americans generally objected to European colonies in the New World, they also desired to increase United States influence and trading ties throughout the region to their south."
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/jd/16321.htm
-
zeta, Monroe might be applicable if we invaded Argentina, but noone is suggesting that. what is under discussion is the UK defending itself from an attack by the Argies, so Monroe is irrelevant here.
-
zeta, Monroe might be applicable if we invaded Argentina, but noone is suggesting that. what is under discussion is the UK defending itself from an attack by the Argies, so Monroe is irrelevant here.
exactly
-
I guess that depends what side you are on. like I said.........I'm the one who brought monroe up........and I did it because I think there may be another side of this discussion not being mentioned here.....as there was in the last go-round of the falkland's (Malvinas) conflict.....that being some of the basic concers monroe covers with regard to european territorial conflicts with a south american nation.
China/taiwan
-
err no it doesnt, for the reason i gave above.
-
"Falkland Islands, which the South American nation still considers to be its sovereign territory"
-
they are wrong :D
-
I can give you around 3000 reasons why it isn't Argentinian territory.
-
That'd be Malvinas by the way. In the last Falklands conflict (was never upgraded to a war) - the only arm of the Argentine forces that really gave us trouble was the Air Force, and some of the land forces (inc their SF contingent).
When they attacked, there was a very small group of Marines there, that were ordered to surrender after taking the fight to the argentinians. This time round, there is a much bigger, more prepared garrison, with substantial assets in place.
Could we mount another fleet? Maybe, given time. Would we fight to win (again) - You better believe it.
That said, would this current joke of a Govt have the courage to actually stand up to them?
Wurzel
(Deeply saddened by what is going on in his country)
-
1. It's the brits
2. The argentines suck
3. How else is the world gonna piss em off....
4. Why is it even a big deal?
5. British Citizens live there.......... :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid
or so we think..... :noid
-
they are wrong :D
I completely agree with that. They are.
it's no different than the mexicans thinking half the western USA is still theirs....or the entire USA still belonging to native Indians....
this is why counties have armed forces....and the best armed forces get to create the borders on what we call the world map...and ocassionally enforce them again.
-
Well, the Brits have the Vulcans flying again...maybe for a reason :devil
-
since I'm the one who brought up the monroe doctrine in this thread..........I'll humor you with your request:
one of the most basic tenets: as I said....protect the americas from european colonization.
"As Monroe stated: "The American continents … are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers."
"Monroe's administration forewarned the imperial European powers against interfering in the affairs of the newly independent Latin American states or potential United States territories. While Americans generally objected to European colonies in the New World, they also desired to increase United States influence and trading ties throughout the region to their south."
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/jd/16321.htm
Like i said earlier there was no part of the MD that specifically said we would attack any European power. As I said it was a statement of policy and a declaration of spheres of influence. And it was as much a statement of American intent to stay out of European matters as well.
Its very possible we would have attacked say the French had they tried building empire in the new world again but the MD didn't say we had to as a matter of policy. Much of the doctrine was geared towards American monopolization of trade in the Hemisphere and other economic opportunities. Remember we were a nation of traders back then.
Your not humoring anyone. Ive read the thing. http://www.ushistory.org/documents/monroe.htm
-
Like i said earlier there was no part of the MD that specifically said we would attack any European power.
good lord please tell me you're kidding...............
-
good lord please tell me you're kidding...............
good lord please tell me your not this ------...........
A document like the NATO charter specifically says we would attack an aggressor. The MD doesnt!!
If it had we would have attacked Britain immediately because the colonized Canada. Canada remained a British colony for many years after the MD and British troops didn't leave it until after our civil war. Britain maintained numerous Caribbean colonies some not gaining independence until after WW-ll. Russia didn't sell us Alaska until 43 years after the MD was written. Spain continued to maintain colonies in the Caribbean until the war of 1898.
The Soviet Union meddled continuously. They even used Cuba as a military outpost and exported revolution throughout central and South America.
To this day Britain, France, Denmark, and the Netherlands, maintain colonies in the Hemisphere.
-
do we *really* want to get into what monroe was thinking?
I see a guy who wanted to protect the america's from euro intervention ... and use military force if need be.
I'll give you the final word.....
-
If it had we would have attacked Britain immediately because the colonized Canada. Canada remained a British colony for many years after the MD and British troops didn't leave it until after our civil war.
Point take. I hadn't thought about Canada.
Wab
-
do we *really* want to get into what monroe was thinking?
I see a guy who wanted to protect the america's from euro intervention ... and use military force if need be.
I'll give you the final word.....
"The Dominion of Canada"? - 1867 We never attacked the UK or Canada for this.
The Monroe Doctrine for all intents and purposes was created so that European powers would stop to colonizing and dabbling in the affairs of the newly independent nations of the Americas. The United States planned to stay neutral in wars between European powers and their colonies. However, if later on, these types of wars were to occur in the Americas, the United States would view such action as hostile.
-
do we *really* want to get into what monroe was thinking?
I see a guy who wanted to protect the america's from euro intervention ... and use military force if need be.
I'll give you the final word.....
It is irrelevant what Monroe would have done.
The doctrine is NOT a treaty. It has no force of law. No US congress would be compelled to declare war in the event of an "offense" against the doctrine, nor would any US president be compelled to use executive authority to wage one.
It is merely a statement of principle, which can be followed (or not) at the whim of those in charge.