Falkland Islands to Argentina?

My opinion remain the same... Actually for UK it will be a big problem to sustein a new war in these islands...
No Aircraft Carriers (Hely Carriers only)
4 (probably 3) old Trident Class SM to replace
Dunno about new Naval Aircraft... F35? Or they have to carry old Harriers?
ALBA Organization is against UK... (Ugo said "we'll fight with Argies") so no friendly Naval Base near Islands
I'm not a senior strategist of STRATFOR.... but these are facts...
 
Mike, in this modern day of war fighting you have to take into account the UK's allies and their assets. I'm sure there could be a full naval fleet with ground forces on board, floating off the coast in short order.
 
Of course... Allies are Allies....but do you really think that US or Kiwi will fight for Falklands? (maybe assets... but wich?)

I don't know about conventional combat troops on the ground but I have no doubt the Commonwealth would have naval and air assets there if they were needed.
New Zealand sent a frigate to replace a British one in 1982 so that it could fight in the Falklands.
 
Naw, this thread is OK.

As the First World reports in English, the wiki articles and all the hoopla has a demonstrably English / British slant, "We found it, we made a map of it, we landed there first...blah blah".

I invite you to take a few minutes and read the history of "Las Malvinas" from a different side of the world: [this link you will not find on a basic search for info]

http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/

[Look at this as from a Democratic POV and a Republican POV]


History

The Malvinas Islands became part of an area under Spanish jurisdiction with the entry into force of the first international instruments to delimit the “New World” soon after the discovery of the Americas in 1492. The Papal Bulls and the Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494 were the first instruments that conferred titles on Spain in accordance with the international law of the time.

Since the early 16th century and for most of it, only navigators at the service of Spain travelled the maritime routes along the South American coast, advancing southwards in their search for an inter-oceanic passage. In this process, the Malvinas Islands were discovered by members of Magellan’s expedition in the year 1520. From then on they were recorded on European maps under a variety of names and remained as part of the spaces under effective control of the Spanish authorities.

During the 17th century, the Malvinas Islands were sighted by navigators from other nations who had ventured into Spanish domains at the risk of provoking reactions and protests from Spain whenever it received news of such expeditions. But the whole southern region of the Americas, with its coasts, seas and islands, was indisputably preserved under Spanish sovereignty through the different treaties signed in that period, such as the “American “ Treaty of 1670 between Spain and England.

[Don't just read the quote, search a bit more]


In present day, I look at it this way, with regards to American History.

IMHO, If the Argentinians put up a fight for Las Malvinas, the Argentines might certainly lose in the initial stages, but not in the long run. Let's go back to the American Revolution. Britain could not sustain a war from across the ocean, so they finally abdicated the "Americas" to the BRITISH colonists who left England . British troops couldn't land, much less walk the streets of a large populated area.

I see more or less the same situation in Argentina. If England did in fact go to war with Argentina, they would have to sustain the war from VERY long distances, as all of the South American countries surrounding Argentina are on the Argentine side of the argument for Malvinas. No landings, no flights. British are disliked in the surrounding countries as it is, much much less so if a "war" were on.

Just as many troops from foreign countries supported the US in the initial stages of war with Britain in 1775, so it would be in Argentina. Look at the weaponry used in 1775, peasants with muskets, axes, hatchets, very little to no military training VS. a vastly superior British military force. The Brits got there collective asses handed to them and went scurrying home in defeat.

I understand the economic POV from Britain, but in my estimation the Argentines aren't so much interested in the economy as they are the integrity of a sovereign nation laying claim to islands within their globally recognized territorial waters.

2c.
 
I, for one, am quite happy with the way content is reported in the first world. The values we typically stand for mean that a lot of said content is very good (along with some very bad, but it's fairly easy to tell apart).

On the other hand, there's a hell of a lot of brainwashing going on in certain South American countries. Through media, through education, through the whole lot.

So, yeah, I guess I can't complain about how things work in our parts, even if it's not always perfect.

As a polar opposite to this, I almost always need a few grains of salt to believe any information disseminated by governments which are pals with Hugo Chavez et al. I think we all know how they tend to operate. It's nothing like Democrats vs Republicans.

It's certainly true that information tends to be different in other parts of the world... I could read all I want on Iranian websites (whether government or civilian) about how their country only wants nuclear power for civilian energy. That's certainly a different slant to what's being reported in the first world, isn't it? We know whose side of the story is more factually based and grounded in reality, though.

in my estimation the Argentines aren't so much interested in the economy as they are the integrity of a sovereign nation laying claim to islands within their globally recognized territorial waters.

Argentinians who follow a skewed version of the facts, in a curriculum imposed by the government, may genuinely believe in this 'cause', but the government doesn't. They only use this issue to distract their citizens from more important issues at home (the very reason the government at the time started the first conflict), and, more recently, because they found out there were resources in those waters. That's why they've only stepped up their pressure on this issue again since this was discovered.

Anyway, the islanders don't want anything to do with Argentina, so what would Argentina to do if they got the islands back? Force the people out? Oppress them?

Argentina has about as much of a claim to the Falkland Islands as Britain has to America. In other words, they need to drop their ridiculous colonialist attitude.
 
Argentina has about as much of a claim to the Falkland Islands as Britain has to America. In other words, they need to drop their ridiculous colonialist attitude.

Pot, here me roar, LOL.

la paja en el caldero negro

What I find most interesting about this thread is the reach of the Queens blue blood thumb. The majority of posters against Argentina are those who are / were under her infamous thumb and must still claim her allegiance.
 
Of course... Allies are Allies....but do you really think that US or Kiwi will fight for Falklands? (maybe assets... but wich?)

I could almost guarantee that there would be at least Canadian frigate there to assist, even if it is just for security of the fleet or blockade maneuvers and if a suitable air base within the region was found; I'm sure we'd provide air assets. Don't rule out the Aussies, Kiwi's, etc. from providing support. As for the US, it's in their best interest to keep the region "stable". ;)
 
I could almost guarantee that there would be at least Canadian frigate there to assist, even if it is just for security of the fleet or blockade maneuvers and if a suitable air base within the region was found; I'm sure we'd provide air assets. Don't rule out the Aussies, Kiwi's, etc. from providing support. As for the US, it's in their best interest to keep the region "stable". ;)

Wow... WWIII for Falkland Islands...
 
Uhm.. wait.. uh... Cristoforo Colombo discovered America...ROFL!

I think you'll find it's not as simple as "finders keepers".
facepalm_smiley.png


oh... Rack... please.... dont compare the Arab spring or the fight against AQ with the Falklands.. LOL

Don't compare WW3 with a conflict over the Falkland Islands then.

I think you have a different concept of what a "World War" is, because Russia and China wouldn't want anything to do with this. This would be a very localised conflict, just like it was last time.
 
I think you'll find it's not as simple as "finders keepers".
facepalm_smiley.png
LOL

I think you have a different concept of what a "World War" is.

Oh wow... you know what is my concept of "World War"...interesting... but especially you know the Real Concept... Please let me know mine...I'm so stupid and young... especially illiterate... I never been to 760 United Nations Plaza NY, I never been to Boulevard Leopold III in Brussels... I never studied models of war, International relations, International Law... you too? Please tell me what is a "World War"
 
Mike,

I'm sure you'll be invited to the "party" as well but I'm not sure if your leaders would accept the invitation.
LMAO!... our what? Leaders?.. bwahahaah since 8 sep '43 we have not a leader... and we have no money to spend.... our battle is inside Italy... thanks for the invitation anyway...
 
Back
Top