Falklands mark II

First topic message reminder :

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

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.

On 20 May 1776 the British forces under the command of Lt. Clayton formally took their leave of Port Egmont, leaving a plaque asserting Britain's continuing sovereignty over the islands( not kicked out,left of our own accord)

1828 - Luis Vernet arrives in the Falklands to set up settlement sanctioned by the British Government.After receiving consent, Vernet agreed to provide regular reports to the British consul and expressed the desire for British protection for his settlement should they decide to re-establish their presence in the islands.

The United Provinces proclaimed Luis Vernet as governor of the islands in 1829. British diplomatic protests at the appointment and declarations of sovereignty were ignored.


In 1831, Luis Vernet seized three American vessels (Breakwater, Superior and Harriet) hunting seals in Falklands waters, confiscating their catch and arresting their crews. Vernet returned to the mainland, bringing senior officers of the American vessels to stand trial for violating restrictions on seal hunting. The American consul protested violently against the seizure of American ships and the USS Lexington sailed to the Falklands. The log of the Lexington reports only the destruction of arms and a powder store, though in his claim against the US Government for compensation (rejected by the US Government of President Cleveland in 1885) Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed

Onslow arrived at Puerto Luis on 2 January 1833. Pinedo sent an officer to the British ship, where he was presented with the following written request to replace the Argentine flag with the British one, and leave the location.

I have to direct you that I have received directions from His Excellency and Commander-in-Chief of His Britannic Majesty's ships and vessels of war, South America station, in the name of His Britannic Majesty, to exercise the rights of sovereignty over these Islands.

It is my intention to hoist to-morrow the national flag of Great Britain on shore when I request you will be pleased to haul down your flag on shore and withdraw your force, taking all stores belonging to your Government

Shirina wrote: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.

You may be surprised how well they would be defended.

Back to exploding penguins.

I believe that Camoron is bigging up this Falklands stuff just so the British public will have something other than the state HIS government has made of the Finacial Crisis.........

Remember when the Libyan stuff was going on how little was said about the state of the Economy.

If we are as broke has they have been claiming how will we be able to afford another Purely British Military opperation?

Now we have Herr Cameron the declared Son of Thatcher, posturing over the Falklands.

"

Prime Minister David Cameron has issued reassurances to Falklands Islands residents

David Cameron has promised that Britain would never surrender sovereignty of the Falklands against the wishes of the islanders.

In his Christmas message to the islands, the Prime Minister said he could not accept challenges by Argentina to their right to self-determination. He also condemned what he described as "unjustified and counter-productive" efforts by the government in Buenos Aires to disrupt shipping links to the islands.

His intervention comes after Argentina led a group of South American nations in banning ships flying the Falklands flag from docking at their ports.
MSN

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.

Shirina, dear heart, Britain now has NO harriers, either the Sea Harrier or the RAF Model!

Illustrious is the only ship that WAS a Carrier in our fleet still afloat. This has now been converted to a Helicopter carrying vessel, and is due to be de-commissioned in 2014.

The British Lion and Bulldog have both had their teeth pulled, by the very "people" who are very highly paid to protect this countries intrests!

They are failing in this enterprise


Miserably

This has now been converted to a Helicopter carrying vessel, and is due to be de-commissioned in 2014.

I hadn't heard about it being converted to only a helicopter carrier. That being the case, Britain has NO chance of defending the Falklands without US assistance.

In the Aesop fable, a dog went into a stable and fell asleep on the hay in a manger (an open box designed to hold food for livestock). Later a hungry ox (in some versions, a horse) entered the stable and tried to eat. But the dog, angry because it had been awakened, barked and snapped and would not let the animal eat.

Finally the ox said, "Dog, if you wanted to eat my dinner, I would have no objection. But you will neither eat it yourself nor let me enjoy it."

References to this story, including the expression dog in the manger, have been recorded in English since the 16th century.

There is an early reference without the use of the specific phrase itself: "Like unto cruell Dogges liyng in a Maunger, neither eatyng the Haye theim selves ne sufferyng the Horse to feed thereof hymself" (1564, Oxford English Dictionary).

On 20 May 1776 the British forces under the command of Lt. Clayton formally took their leave of Port Egmont, leaving a plaque asserting Britain's continuing sovereignty over the islands (not kicked out, left of our own accord)

The Falkland Islands have always been a matter of controversy, having been claimed by the French, Spaniards, British and Argentines at various times in the past. The French founded the first settlement on East Falkland in 1764. The following year, the British captain John Byron claimed West Falkland, named the harbour Port Egmont and constructed a settlement in 1766. Unaware of the French presence, he claimed the island group for George III. Spain acquired the French colony and placed it under a governor subordinate to the Buenos Aires colonial administration. Spain attacked Port Egmont, and kicked out the British, in 1770, which brought the two countries to the brink of war. However, war was avoided by a peace treaty and the British returned to Port Egmont.

With economic pressures, and trouble brewing in the American colonies, Britain pulled out of the Falklands in 1776, leaving behind a plaque asserting her continued claim to the islands. Spain maintained its governor until 1806 who, on his departure, also left behind a plaque, asserting Spanish claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands

I don’t see how leaving a plaque in a territory in 1776, and then deserting it for the next 57 years, amounts to a legitimate claim for sovereignty. On that basis, because the Americans put a flag there in 1969, the moon belongs to them.

When Thatcher came to power in 1979, it was decided Britain could not afford to maintain a sufficiently powerful military presence on the Falklands to deter an invasion. The Minister of State at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office responsible for the Falkland Islands was Nicholas Ridley. He was sent to the Falklands in November 1980 to try to persuade the inhabitants to accept a proposal for 'leaseback', whereby nominal sovereignty would be given to Argentina but British administration would be maintained for a fixed number of years until the final handover, as happened with China and Hong Kong. The islanders were unconvinced and Parliament gave the proposals a hostile reception. Perhaps those people who place so much store on the right of the Falklanders for self-determination could be consistent and also speak up for the Palestinians, who would like their own homeland.

In February 1981, with the support of the Falklands' councillors, the British government met with Argentine representatives in New York, but a British proposal for a sovereignty freeze was rejected by the junta. British intelligence reports continued to suggest that Argentina would invade the islands only if it was convinced there was no prospect of eventual transfer of sovereignty. Ridley advised that leaseback remained the only feasible solution.

The cumulative effect of stalled sovereignty negotiations, the British Nationality Act 1981 (which would deprive many Falklanders of their rights as full British citizens), the announced withdrawal of HMS Endurance, the shelving of plans to rebuild the Royal Marine barracks at Moody Brook, and the proposed closure of the British Antarctic Survey base at Grytviken on South Georgia, convinced Argentina that Britain had no future interest in the islands. The rest of course is history, and Thatcher – who, to save money, had wanted to get shot of the Falklands just a couple of years earlier - resurrected her political career, which until then had been such a disaster that the Tories were consistently third in the opinion polls.

I don’t see how the wishes of about 3,000 people, who live 7,920 miles away from the UK, justified a war in 1982 which cost the lives of 907 people, the expense of keeping the islands British ever since, and the risk of further conflict and more casualties. It would be far better for the Falklanders to be offered resettlement grants to come to the UK, and let the ownership of the islands go to where geography suggests it should. If you need surgery in the Falklands, you have to wait for the British surgeon to arrive from the UK, yet Argentina is only about 290 miles away. It’s been estimated that the UK has spent in excess of £23 billion on what Ronald Reagan called “that little ice-cold bunch of land down there”. Given that the British taxpayer has to pick up the tab to enable those people to live so far from the UK, there should be a debate about the pragmatism of the current strategy. With Hong Kong we decided the best option was to leave.

How much this renewed Argentinean interest in the Falklands is due to another round of Tory defence cuts is anybody’s guess, but I agree with Shirina and suspect that another conflict would have a different outcome; I don’t think the UK could defend the islands, short of the nuclear option. No doubt interest is also maintained in the islands because early seismic surveys suggest that the surrounding waters contain substantial oil reserves capable of producing 500,000 barrels per day. Depressingly, many will think that makes the Falklands worth fighting for, even if it means another round of human casualties. Profits before people every time, we never learn.

On that basis, because the Americans put a flag there in 1969, the moon belongs to them.

Well, actually, the only reason why the US couldn't claim the Moon is because of Article IV of the UN Outer Space Treaty which prohibits any national claim on any celestial body beyond earth.

There has been more than one occassion when the history of the Falkland Islands has had an American dimension, like for example in in 1966.

PLEASE READ ** THIS IS NOT A JOKE ** THIS REALY HAPPENED

1966: An Aerolíneas Argentinas DC-4 hijacked by 20 terrorists calling themselves 'Condors' crash lands on Stanley race course. Islanders assuming the aircraft was in trouble rush to assist and are taken hostage. Subjected to Country and Western music for 24 hrs the terrorists surrender and are repatriated to Argentina.

ARGENTINA’S government is “grandstanding” and acting illegally in imposing a blockade on ships from the Falkland Islands, Henry Bellingham has claimed.

http://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/campaigns/incinerator/grandstand_jibe_over_falklands_row_1_3397437

oftenwrong wrote:Back to exploding penguins.

It has now been revealed that the penguins had arrived prior to your comment. Apparently there were eight, but due to an unfortunate incident on arrival there were only seven available for the team photo.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/8970153/Falkland-Islands-timeline-of-tensions-since-the-war.html

If the Argies don't behave, we'll send our Defence Secretary to talk to them.

Until they are ready in 4 to 6 years time, we will send out the artists impressions and shout BOO!!

Wonder if we could fool 'em with Meryl Streep?

Nah! I suggest we fire the original at them from one of those tube things on a submarine...

Not even the Spitting Image team thought of that one!

Phil Hornby wrote:Nah! I suggest we fire the original at them from one of those tube things on a submarine...

Dear God man, is there no limit to your depravity?

Not sure. I am still digging deeper and deeper...

Foreign Secretary statement to the House of Commons on the Falkland Islands
10 January 2012

Foreign Secretary William Hague responds to statements made in South America regarding the Falkland Islands.

"I would like to update the House on the British Government’s response to statements made in South America regarding the Falkland Islands during the Christmas recess.

On 15th December the Government of Uruguay declared that they would deny access to their ports to ships flying the Falklands flag. This was followed five days later by a statement from the summit of the Mercosur group of countries (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, with associate members including Chile) that echoed the Uruguayan announcement.

Our response has been justifiably robust. The Uruguayan Ambassador was formally summoned to the FCO and I spoke twice to the Uruguayan Foreign Minister to underline how seriously we regard this development. Our Ambassadors in the region were instructed to call on their host governments to express our strong objection to the Mercosur statement and to assess the practical implications for vessels operating between the Falklands and South America.

We made clear that the decision to close ports to ships flying the Falklands flag has no legal basis, and that it would be unacceptable and unbecoming for any Latin American democracy to collaborate in Argentina’s attempts to economically blockade the Falkland Islands. We reiterated our strong support for the rights of the Islanders to determine their political future, and also made clear that any attempts to coerce them through economic or other pressures would be resisted by the British Government. Such actions are inconsistent with the principles of the United Nations Charter and the rights of the Falkland Islands people to trade openly and without hindrance.

Whilst we do not accept that the decision to refuse entry to vessels flying the Falklands flag has any basis in international law, our priority has been to ensure that the trade and commercial links between the Falklands and South America are not compromised by this political declaration. We have had productive and honest discussions with Uruguay, Chile and Brazil. All three countries have said that they have no intention of participating in an economic blockade of the Falkland Islands and that all Falklands-related commercial shipping will continue to enjoy access to their ports, in accordance with domestic and international law, if they are flying the Red Ensign or another national flag when docked.
I hope that others in the region will continue to recognise that differences of opinion over UK sovereignty of the Falkland Islands can not justify collusion in efforts to intimidate an innocent civilian population through economic pressure. The British Government will always ensure that the Falkland Islanders’ right to determine their political future is respected.
More broadly, we will continue to strengthen our engagement of Latin America, as I set out in my Canning House speech in November 2010. The UK has considerable political, economic and security interests in the region, with high potential for future economic growth through partnership with Latin America. I am confident that this important agenda is consistent, and indeed mutually reinforcing, with our desire to ensure that the interests and wishes of the Falkland Islanders are protected."

Now, what were we saying ........?

oftenwrong wrote:Now, what were we saying ........?

Do you not recognise a stern talking to?

"Stern?"

As in the rear end of a Warship?

WE DON'T HAVE ANY!!


And it's not as if that is the kind or 'rear end' that Haig in intrested in anyway.

Is it now

astra wrote:"Stern?"

As in the rear end of a Warship?

WE DON'T HAVE ANY!!


And it's not as if that is the kind or 'rear end' that Haig in intrested in anyway.

Is it now

Ok in place of stern we could use "firm" or "stiff" or "robust", who know's what you will come up with next?

Quote : "...who know's what you will come up with next?"

I do hope that Mr Astra will not suggest that Mr Hague is a 'keen knob server'...

Phil Hornby wrote:Quote : "...who know's what you will come up with next?"

I do hope that Mr Astra will not suggest that Mr Hague is a 'keen knob server'...

You just go too far, don't you!

I do hope that Mr Astra will not suggest that Mr Hague is a 'keen knob server'...

Why now!!


He may enjoy a knob on the soldiers


That he consumes with his breakfast boiled egg!!



Butter it any way yer desires!

"The PM's most senior ministers swapped Downing Street for the handball arena at the Olympic Park in east London, to mark 200 days until the Games begin." 09 January 2012

Perhaps they'd like to have a cabinet meeting in Port Stanley to mark a last gasp demonstration of support.

meeting in Port Stanley

Surely that would frighten the Penguins!!

Where's Greenpeace when you want them?

Butter with the Sweetbreads Sir??

PM accuses Argentina of 'colonialism' towards Falklands

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16617666

Confusion of description among similar kitchen utensils as to respective hue.

Confusion reigns

The Argentine government have managed to persuade other neighbouring countries to ban any ship or vessel from entering their ports flying the Falkland Islands flag.

Recently HMS Protector, an ice patrol vessel, stopped off at Montevideo on route to the Falkland Islands, several local newspapers displayed front page pictures of Protector which prompting calls for Royal Navy ships to be banned from Uruguay, but navy ships do not display Falkland Island flags, they fly the British white ensign instead.

The only way to defeat the Argentinians is not to let them onto the islands in the first place, the number 1 priority is defence, the number 2 priority is defence.

There is one very big difference between 1982 and 2012, and that is the Mount Pleasant Airport on the islands which is capable of handling any kind of aircraft, whoever controls this facillity controls the islands.

If the Argentinians were to sucessfuly launch an invasion, then it would be virtualy impossible for Britain to retake the islands, my guess, and I bet I am not wrong, is that as we speak, extra manpower, hardware and equipment is quietly been prepared for the long journey south.

"The Australian navy plans to recruit up to 1,000 Royal Navy sailors facing redundancy under the Government’s defence cuts."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8979283/Australian-Navy-eyes-British-sailors-facing-axe-in-defence-cuts.html