Welcome to Cutting Edge. Guests can see and read the contents of most of the boards on this forum but need to become members to read all of them. Currently membership is instant, but new accounts may be deleted if not activated within fourteen days.

If you decide to join the forum, please open your welcome message for further details. New members are requested to introduce themselves on the appropriate thread on our welcome board.

Members may post messages and start threads, but it is essential that they read our posting rules and advice before doing so. If you have any immediate questions or queries, please post them on the suggestions board.

After posting at least ten messages, members are able to contact each other and the staff through our personal messaging system.

This forum is administrated by Ivan and moonbeam and moderated by boatlady and astradt1.

Thank you for visiting Cutting Edge.

Falklands mark II

Page 1 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Falklands mark II

Post by keenobserver1 on Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:43 pm

A South American trading bloc has agreed to close its ports to ships flying the Falkland Islands flag.

Mercosur, which includes Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay, came to the decision at a summit in the Uruguayan capital, Montevideo.

Looks like this could become quite interesting!


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16286134
avatar
keenobserver1

Posts : 201
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by keenobserver1 on Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:45 pm

More details -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16280613
avatar
keenobserver1

Posts : 201
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by Shirina on Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:15 pm

I'm sure Argentina and her supporters have been eyeing the depletion of the Royal Navy with more than a passing interest. The world of air-to-air combat has gotten decidedly more dangerous since 1982, and South America has been catching up. Some of them are even fielding MiG-29 Fulcrums and Su-33 Super Flankers armed with the deadly R-77 Adder anti-air missile. They would make short work of the 18 or so aging Sea Harriers carried by an Invincible class "harrier carrier." If you happen to need 4.5 acres of nuclear propelled sovereign American territory complete with accompanying battlegroup, just pick up the phone.

avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by oftenwrong on Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:32 pm

There's no question of a re-run of 1982, but we could perhaps breed Penguins that explode upon hearing Spanish being spoken.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11749
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by keenobserver1 on Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:48 pm

Shirina - quite impressive bit of kit there, but would Mr President be willing to assist, going with the anti-empire rhetoric that we hear from him I don't think it would be his first instinct.

I do believe however that there are many Americans who would be willing to step in without being asked.
avatar
keenobserver1

Posts : 201
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by keenobserver1 on Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:52 pm

oftenwrong wrote:There's no question of a re-run of 1982, but we could perhaps breed Penguins that explode upon hearing Spanish being spoken.

We don't want a re-run of '82, give the islanders a referendum with 3 options - British, Argentinian or Independent, then get the UN to back it, no matter what the outcome.

Exploding Penguins??????

Greenpeace and the WWF will be looking for you.
avatar
keenobserver1

Posts : 201
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by Phil Hornby on Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:11 pm

(petsfunnies.com)

" Is it me or was that a bang I heard...? "
avatar
Phil Hornby
Blogger

Posts : 3942
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Drifting on Easy Street

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by Shirina on Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:21 pm

but would Mr President be willing to assist, going with the anti-empire rhetoric that we hear from him I don't think it would be his first instinct.

I don't know. He might lend assistance, but probably NOT ground troops. The Brits would have to handle that on their own. I think it's pretty well known that the Falkland residents are very content with being a part of the Empire; it would be like Japan trying to take Hawaii from the US. Hopefully the president would back Britain's play. Lord knows, Britain has been backing our play for the last 10 years!
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by ROB on Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:27 pm

keenobserver1 wrote:
Shirina - quite impressive bit of kit there, but would Mr President be willing to assist, going with the anti-empire rhetoric that we hear from him I don't think it would be his first instinct.

I do believe however that there are many Americans who would be willing to step in without being asked.

Keen Observer, several points,

Anti-empire is inherently pro-righteous; an examination of standard operating procedure (sop) during British, French, Dutch, Portuguese, and other European nations’ occupation and subjugation of various nations/cultures on at least five non-European continents. Let’s not mince words here; empire meant white European domination of “colored” peoples wherever these peoples were found on land desired by European conquerors.

That being said, the Falklands are not and have never been part of the British Empire in that sense. The Falklands were unoccupied when first discovered by Europeans, so it was “finders-keepers” in another manifestation, “settlers-keepers”, as in settlers from Britain, who wrested control of the Falklands from the harsh elements native thereto and have muscled it into the desirable territory it is today.

Self-determination should be the operative rule here; the current Falkland Islanders, descendants of those original hearty settlers, wish to remain Falkland Islanders under British rule, and as far as most Americans are concerned, including Barack Hussein Obama Jr. I, they said it (I’ve heard them) and that settles it. As Shirina said, four and one half acres of sovereign American territory serving up a whole lottta whip-ass mean at your service, my brother; just give us a call, an we’re still listed in the Yellow Pages.

One last point. Those Sea Harrier pilots did far more than their aircraft were capable of doing, which is a tribute to British aviators and a serious knock of successive British governments that, since maybe the mid-1950’s, have declawed and defanged the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. Shame on those myopic suits whose shortsightedness was paid for in blood by the Falkland Islands War dead who would be alive today if Argentinean exocet-carrying fighter/bombers had been blown out of the sky over Argentina by RN F-14 Tomcats launched from non-existent RN big deck carries.
avatar
ROB
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by ROB on Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:42 pm

Shirina wrote:
Hopefully the president would back Britain's play. Lord knows, Britain has been backing our play for the last 10 years!

He would certainly lose a few votes if he didn’t back y’all’s play, Keen, including one that I can guarantee personally. As Shirina said, y’all have backed us straight up since 11 September 2001.



God Save The Queen! Yeah, I said it!
avatar
ROB
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by oftenwrong on Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:44 pm

Support for any Colonial Power must be at an all-time low in the world.

Argentina could take control of Las Malvinas any time it chooses. But Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, current President of Argentina, is not as stupid as General Galtieri and will undoubtedly understand the meaning of "a Pyrrhic victory".

avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11749
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by keenobserver1 on Wed Dec 21, 2011 8:30 pm

Shirina wrote:
but would Mr President be willing to assist, going with the anti-empire rhetoric that we hear from him I don't think it would be his first instinct.

I don't know. He might lend assistance, but probably NOT ground troops. The Brits would have to handle that on their own. I think it's pretty well known that the Falkland residents are very content with being a part of the Empire; it would be like Japan trying to take Hawaii from the US. Hopefully the president would back Britain's play. Lord knows, Britain has been backing our play for the last 10 years!

I admire your spirit, but there was an extremely tentative approach when Regan was in charge.
avatar
keenobserver1

Posts : 201
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by keenobserver1 on Wed Dec 21, 2011 8:35 pm

Rock - self determination - this is what I meant by referendum backed by the UN

Not everything about "Empire" is inherentley bad, but not essentially good either.
avatar
keenobserver1

Posts : 201
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by keenobserver1 on Wed Dec 21, 2011 8:42 pm

The Chinese have offered some unwitting support to the training of the Penguins in Edinburgh!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-16270214

avatar
keenobserver1

Posts : 201
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by astra on Wed Dec 21, 2011 8:47 pm

OK, so Brazil are in this also?



Right!


Withdraw the financial aid to Brazil, given by the UK gubmint just larst munf.

T'were only £800 million.

GET IT BACK HERE NOW! Twisted Evil
avatar
astra
Deceased

Posts : 1864
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : North East England.

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by keenobserver1 on Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:57 pm

A nuclear submarine should be sent to the Falkland Islands to illustrate Britain’s anger at a decision by South American countries to ban boats bearing the island's flag, the former head of the Royal Navy said.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/8970880/Nuclear-submarine-should-be-sent-to-Falklands-to-show-British-anger-at-boat-ban-decision.html

Nothing like upping the ante, a nuclear sub, at last a positive use for these things.
avatar
keenobserver1

Posts : 201
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by oftenwrong on Thu Dec 22, 2011 5:15 pm

Previously we have always been told that the strategic value of Britain's nuclear submarines is that no foreign combatant knows where they are.

But then prior to 1982 we had also been told that the Royal Yacht Britannia was designed to be a Hospital Ship if so required. Obviously the Falkland Islands were not on its cruising schedule.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11749
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by Phil Hornby on Thu Dec 22, 2011 5:17 pm

Quote : " A nuclear submarine should be sent to the Falkland Islands to illustrate Britain’s anger ..."

It doesn't have quite the same ring as 'Let's bomb Russia...!' Shocked
avatar
Phil Hornby
Blogger

Posts : 3942
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Drifting on Easy Street

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by oftenwrong on Thu Dec 22, 2011 5:24 pm

So let's bomb Russia. It's time for a futile gesture from the remnants of the British Empire.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11749
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by keenobserver1 on Thu Dec 22, 2011 5:30 pm

Calm down a bit, there is a limit to how many wars we can go in to at a time, leave the Russians for a few years, they aren't doing anything to upset us at present......are they?
avatar
keenobserver1

Posts : 201
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by keenobserver1 on Thu Dec 22, 2011 5:31 pm

Phil Hornby wrote:Quote : " A nuclear submarine should be sent to the Falkland Islands to illustrate Britain’s anger ..."

It doesn't have quite the same ring as 'Let's bomb Russia...!' Shocked

It is however a bit more powerful than recalling your diplomats. Typically French idea!
avatar
keenobserver1

Posts : 201
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by oftenwrong on Thu Dec 22, 2011 5:39 pm

Why don't we send them a stiff letter from the Foreign Secretary?
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11749
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by astradt1 on Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:20 pm

Let's play devils advocate...

How much does the British government spend on the defense of the Falkland Islands each year?

How many people live on the Islands?

How much would they accept to move back to Britain?

Would this be more 'cost effective'. as this Government keeps say all public service must be these day?

Yes British military personnel were killed there 25 years ago, but then again the same can be said of Aden and we gave that back to the Yemen.

Are we just trying to keep them to justify Thatchers little war?
avatar
astradt1
Moderator

Posts : 961
Join date : 2011-10-08
Age : 62
Location : East Midlands

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by Shirina on Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:59 pm

I'm not sure why anyone would want to live on an island where the average high temperature during the peak of summer is a blistering 13 degrees Celsius.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by astra on Thu Dec 22, 2011 7:04 pm

Submariners are a RUM BUNCH - meaning 'CAGEY' as in tight lipped




I asked one, how many Subs were stationed or 'Lurking' by Port Stanley at any time, and he gave me the 'V' sign. It was an innocent question, he did not have to be rude
avatar
astra
Deceased

Posts : 1864
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : North East England.

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by keenobserver1 on Thu Dec 22, 2011 7:32 pm

Shirina wrote:I'm not sure why anyone would want to live on an island where the average high temperature during the peak of summer is a blistering 13 degrees Celsius.

Not been to the UK then?
avatar
keenobserver1

Posts : 201
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by keenobserver1 on Thu Dec 22, 2011 7:33 pm

astradt1 wrote:Let's play devils advocate...

How much does the British government spend on the defense of the Falkland Islands each year?

How many people live on the Islands?

How much would they accept to move back to Britain?

Would this be more 'cost effective'. as this Government keeps say all public service must be these day?

Yes British military personnel were killed there 25 years ago, but then again the same can be said of Aden and we gave that back to the Yemen.

Are we just trying to keep them to justify Thatchers little war?

Lets not play devils advocate - think about the oil!
avatar
keenobserver1

Posts : 201
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by keenobserver1 on Thu Dec 22, 2011 7:35 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Why don't we send them a stiff letter from the Foreign Secretary?

Now OW you know thats how rumours start, mentioning stiff and the foreign secetary! Shocked
avatar
keenobserver1

Posts : 201
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by Phil Hornby on Thu Dec 22, 2011 7:42 pm

(mirror.co.uk)

" They don't like it up 'em Mr Mainwaring. But who cares what they like..."
avatar
Phil Hornby
Blogger

Posts : 3942
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Drifting on Easy Street

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by ROB on Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:22 pm


One Los Angeles class SSN (fast attack submarine, nuclear) can control an almost unimaginably extensive volume of ocean. Two such boats could deny access to Rio, Sao Paulo, Montevideo, and Buenos Aires.

Royal Navy SSNs are comparable to Los Angeles class boats, maybe even comparable to the more advanced Virginia class. The RN has the capability of shutting down sea trade to Argentina and its cohorts in despicableness by rendering the Port of Buenos Aires not so bueno.

If they don’t like it, they can go **** themselves, for all I care; any Argentinean beef loss can be more than made up by Texas, Australia, and New Zealand. And yeah, Texas is a whole other country.

Astra, submariners are forbidden to talk about what they do and what their boats are capable of doing. That’s as it should be, particularly since USN and RN fast attack subs won the Cold War, partially by keeping mum about that stuff.


Last edited by RockOnBrother on Thu Dec 22, 2011 10:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
ROB
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by astra on Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:25 pm

I did take the manner of the "Salute" to mean tha amount of ironware on station
avatar
astra
Deceased

Posts : 1864
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : North East England.

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by ROB on Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:58 pm


Astra,

As in they're already there? I hope!
avatar
ROB
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by astra on Thu Dec 22, 2011 10:09 pm

Affirmative
avatar
astra
Deceased

Posts : 1864
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : North East England.

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by ROB on Thu Dec 22, 2011 10:28 pm


Right on. One US SSN is nicknamed "USS Who's Your Daddy." Perhaps RN SSN skippers can “ask” a few Argentinean bullies that question?
avatar
ROB
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by keenobserver1 on Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:11 pm

Prime Minister David Cameron has said Britain would "never negotiate" the sovereignty of the Falklands against the wishes of the islanders.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16320959
avatar
keenobserver1

Posts : 201
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by Ivan on Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:38 pm

We've just had a re-run of 1981, even as far as the riots. Are we about to have a re-run of 1982? I doubt it, because I suspect we could no longer defend the Falklands.

We have a government which is prepared to deny benefits to the disabled (including children) and to people receiving chemotherapy, and which is prepared to sack soldiers, some of them while they're still on duty in Afghanistan, along with others who are wounded, all to save money. Wouldn't the expedient thing be to give every inhabitant of the Falklands a re-settlement grant to come and live in the UK, so that the islands which we stole in the 1830s can go back to their rightful owner? Or do we have to witness another failed Tory PM, just like Thatcher, grubbing for votes by resorting to the phoney 'patriotism' which Dr Johnson dubbed "the last refuge of a scoundrel"?
avatar
Ivan
Administrator (Correspondence & Recruitment)

Posts : 7044
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : West Sussex, UK

http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by oftenwrong on Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:45 pm

Announcements such as the one recently released from Montevideo have two purposes, both of which seem to have been achieved at no great cost: The principal intention was to rattle London's cage in case we were feeling complacent, and the second was to cheer up the Locals.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11749
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by keenobserver1 on Fri Dec 23, 2011 8:07 pm

Ivan wrote:Wouldn't the expedient thing be to give every inhabitant of the Falklands a re-settlement grant to come and live in the UK, so that the islands which we stole in the 1830s can go back to their rightful owner? Or do we have to witness another failed Tory PM, just like Thatcher, grubbing for votes by resorting to the phoney 'patriotism' which Dr Johnson dubbed "the last refuge of a scoundrel"?

The islands were first claimed as being British in 1765.
avatar
keenobserver1

Posts : 201
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by Ivan on Fri Dec 23, 2011 8:29 pm

The islands were first claimed as being British in 1765.
True, but that remark doesn't begin to tell the whole story. The French were the first to make a settlement on the Falklands, in 1764. The British stay was short-lived, 1765-1770, before the Spanish kicked us out. South Americans from what is now Uruguay and Argentina occupied the islands in the 1820s (which is the basis of their claim), until we took them over in 1833.
avatar
Ivan
Administrator (Correspondence & Recruitment)

Posts : 7044
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : West Sussex, UK

http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by Shirina on Fri Dec 23, 2011 8:40 pm

There is no doubt that Britain would be unable to defend the Falklands today, and they were barely defended in 1982. That was with two carriers containing then state of the art aircraft and Sidewinder missiles. These days, the Argentinians are much better armed; they aren't sailing around in WWII surplus cruisers like they were in 1982. Sea Harriers can carry the longer range AIM-120C anti-air missile, but with only one operational carrier, those 18 aircraft would be overmatched and overwhelmed. Without air superiority, the British ground troops wouldn't get very far.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Falklands mark II

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum