It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Argentina to invade Falklands

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lysergic
So why does the UK need the Falkland islands any how?


Clinging to those old imperialistic nostalgia?

I don't know much about the conflict other than UK beat them, Argentina fired a ?harpoon? missile and messed up a ship?




Lysergic, The UK holds the Falkland Islands becuase there are Huge Oil reserves in the vicinity. I apologise for my countrymans response


UK Alien Buff
Lysergic
you don't know anything do you?
we lost hundreads of people and quite a few ships.
i beleive you are calass B....rd to say messed up a ship


that was uncalled for


No imperialistic feelings at all, When the UK claimed the Falklands as a British territory the Islands were uninhabited.

The falklands Today is a permanent military base, there is no such thing as a native Falklander, (apart from shed loads of penguins
)

[edit on 6/2/07 by Jimmy1880]

[edit on 6/2/07 by Jimmy1880]




posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lysergic
So why does the UK need the Falkland islands any how?


Clinging to those old imperialistic nostalgia?

I don't know much about the conflict other than UK beat them, Argentina fired a ?harpoon? missile and messed up a ship?




shouldn't you at the very least do a google search before posting about a war you say you know little about btw it was exocet missiles (french) that were fired



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jimmy1880

Lysergic, The UK holds the Falkland Islands becuase there are Huge Oil reserves in the vicinity. I apologise for my countrymans response


pluss fishing rights ....... way back when they told us that " krill " was the next big thing , 25 years later i am still waiting to see krill in tescco


pluss sea bead mineral rights

heck the whole EEZ - ecconomic exclusive zone

not to mention the value of the islands as a gateway to the antarctic

and a strategic military / political prsence


No imperialistic feelings at all, When the UK claimed the Falklands as a British territory the Islands were uninhabited.


not strictly true - there were some french and spanniards - they were tossed into the see in short order



The falklands Today is a permanent military base, there is no such thing as a native Falklander, (apart from shed loads of penguins
)


there are over 1000 bennies still down there - they had a reffurendum to stay brittish subjects

seals and sheep outnumber the penguines

[edit on 6-2-2007 by ignorant_ape]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Firstly to everyone who says "we gave em a frashing of er life".. if it had not been for the Americans and Chile, the islands would currently be Argentine.



Argentina to keep most of its elite troops on the mainland, distant from the Falklands theatre. In addition, Argentine military planners had trusted that the United States would remain neutral in the conflict, but, following unsuccessful mediation attempts, the United States offered full support to Great Britain, allowing its NATO ally to use its air-to-air missiles, communications equipment, aviation fuel, and other military stockpiles on British-held Ascension Island, as well as cooperating with military intelligence.


Not to mention it's neighbore country Chile giving full support to the British army as well as providing airfields for their planes.

Secondly, Im sure most of you have no idea were the islands are even located.. they are right next to Argentina, and around half the world away from Britain.

The islands were first captured by France, and then given to Spain who handed them over to Argentina, thats a fact! Britain illegally stole them, and the United Nations doesn't care.

The "Falkland citizens" are in fact 3/4 of the army and the rest are probably their families who were placed there around 1983 after the war.

I find it funny that Britain mentions that aslong as the Falkland citizens wish to remain British there will be no negotiations.. those people were placed there after the war WTF! doesn't make sense


If I was Nestor now, I would retake the islands.. (we have support from all S.America) no need for the British to be so arrogant.. specially when they hardly won a war were Argentina was under dictatorship and were the war was only a distraction from it's internal problems.

One last thing, Paki/Blackie/Argie is diminutive and is racist so dont say it.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   
What makes you think people were put there after the war??

It had a striving community long before the war began and i should know i have spent 12 months there (2 Six month tours)

Man i can even tell you about one man and his wife who sat in their living room in a armchair with the curtains open and out of their panoramic living room window on the shoreline watched battles at port san carlos live.

To beat that one minute they would have British knocking on the door asking for tea then half hour later argintinians knocking on the door asking for milk!!! I know because i sat in his armchair and was amazed at what he told me.

Yes the population slightly rose since the war but there was a hefty community there already before the war



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   
If the Argentines took the falkland islands, then why shouldn't Venezuala or Cuba go Island hopping in the carribean. It sets a bad precedence when we allow any country to just roll over neighbouring countries that are weaker.

If the Argentines had a claim to the Falkland Islands before the war then they don't really have one now. They lost the war its belongs to the British by conquest and that supercedes any claims to the territory.

.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kolmo

The "Falkland citizens" are in fact 3/4 of the army and the rest are probably their families who were placed there around 1983 after the war.

I find it funny that Britain mentions that aslong as the Falkland citizens wish to remain British there will be no negotiations.. those people were placed there after the war WTF! doesn't make sense



You don't really know what your saying do you Kolma. Find out the truth Kolma and maybe you wouldn't be dismissed by people who know better.




If I was Nestor now, I would retake the islands.. (we have support from all S.America) no need for the British to be so arrogant.. specially when they hardly won a war were Argentina was under dictatorship and were the war was only a distraction from it's internal problems.

One last thing, Paki/Blackie/Argie is diminutive and is racist so dont say it.


Yeah some of us are arrogant but ther in the minority and anyway they have to put up with baseless opinion like yours so I can understand there contempt.

Who mentioned the word Paki. And the term Blackie in my opinion originates among english speaking Afrikaners. So what are you doing here generalising about a nation in an attempt to slur them. Yeah we do call Argentinians argies so what!

And if you were Nestor you'd be attempting to sort out the economic mess your country is in, or maybe a bit of truth and reconciliation for the victims of a dictatorship.

.



[edit on 6-2-2007 by carslake]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kolmo

If I was Nestor now, I would retake the islands.. (we have support from all S.America) no need for the British to be so arrogant.. specially when they hardly won a war were Argentina was under dictatorship and were the war was only a distraction from it's internal problems.

One last thing, Paki/Blackie/Argie is diminutive and is racist so dont say it.


I've got a cat called "Blackie"


Oh yeah if Argie's racist then so is calling someone a "Brit" or a "Yank"!

I say "yank" all the time maybe I should say "Tommy's" instead, OMG I must be a horrible racist


Those horrible bloody limey's



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by avro

Originally posted by Lysergic
So why does the UK need the Falkland islands any how?


Clinging to those old imperialistic nostalgia?

I don't know much about the conflict other than UK beat them, Argentina fired a ?harpoon? missile and messed up a ship?




shouldn't you at the very least do a google search before posting about a war you say you know little about btw it was exocet missiles (french) that were fired



Why should I? I asked a question and admitted I didn't know much about it, forgive me for asking a question on a forum of all places. Sheesh.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   
then don't post on here!



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   
KOLMO :

you are gleefully advovating an act of war , on the one hand

but on the other crying that being called " argies " is racist

un bloody believable

you sir are a chuffing hypocrite



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Alien Buff
then don't post on here!


I'll post anywhere I want bebbeh, if you don't like it hit that ignore button under my name.




posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Alien Buff
then don't post on here!


All members are welcome to post within the Terms & Conditions... No member should try to rescind the priveledge of participating on ATS.

Think of Lys as like this.

I do, and it works out fine (I keep the butter hidden
)



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   
WOW!!! Argentina would have the support of ALL of South America. Do you honestly think that would matter in the least? What country do you think would send troops to help? Logistical support will only take you so far my friend.

Britain could do it on their own, but even if they couldn't America would certainly help out if they asked.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 09:00 PM
link   
This post is meaningless, the financial crisis has crippled the Argentinian Navy! They have a few destoyers nothing more, nothing like they had in '82!

The sad sad very sad state of the Argentinian Navy!


[edit on 2/6/07 by mel1962]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kolmo
Firstly to everyone who says "we gave em a frashing of er life".. if it had not been for the Americans and Chile, the islands would currently be Argentine.


Thats BS. We had help, yes, but you also had some very good units on the Islands yet we still kicked your arse. Your AF was a joke and lost 30 odd planes to 0.


Originally posted by Kolmo
Not to mention it's neighbore country Chile giving full support to the British army as well as providing airfields for their planes.

Secondly, Im sure most of you have no idea were the islands are even located.. they are right next to Argentina, and around half the world away from Britain.


I know exactly where they are, thankyou. If you like, I can draw a map of the world from memory. Who gives a monkey's where they are, anyway? That has no bearing on who controls them.


Originally posted by Kolmo
The islands were first captured by France, and then given to Spain who handed them over to Argentina, thats a fact! Britain illegally stole them, and the United Nations doesn't care.


Thats utter BS. Would you like the actual course of events?



The first European explorer widely credited with sighting the islands is Sebald de Weert, a Dutch sailor, in 1600. Although several English and Spanish historians maintain their own explorers discovered the islands earlier, some older maps, particularly Dutch ones, used the name "Sebald Islands", after de Weert. However, the islands appear on numerous Spanish and other maps beginning in the 1520s[citation needed].

In January 1690, English sailor John Strong, captain of the Welfare, was heading for Puerto Deseado (in Argentina), but driven off course by contrary winds, he reached the Sebald Islands instead and landed at Bold Cove. He sailed between the two principal islands and called the passage "Falkland Channel" (now Falkland Sound), after Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland (1659-1694), who as Commissioner of the Admiralty had financed the expedition and who later became First Lord of the Admiralty. From this body of water the island group later took its collective English name.

The first settlement on the Falkland Islands, called Port Saint Louis, was founded by the French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764 on Berkeley Sound, in present-day Port Louis, East Falkland.

Unaware of the French presence, in January 1765, English captain John Byron explored and claimed Saunders Island, at the western end of the group, where he named the harbour of Port Egmont, and sailed near other islands, which he also claimed for King George III of Great Britain. A British settlement was built at Port Egmont in 1766. Also in 1766, Spain acquired the French colony, and after assuming effective control in 1767, placed the islands under a governor subordinate to Buenos Aires. Spain attacked Port Egmont, ending the British presence there in 1770, but Britain returned in 1771 and remained until 1774. Upon her withdrawal in 1774 Britain left behind a plaque asserting her claims, and in 1790, Britain officially ceded control of the islands to Spain, and renounced any and all colonial ambitions in South America, and its adjacent islands, as part of the Nootka Convention. In addition, the Nootka Convention provided for equal British, Spanish, and US rights to fish the surrounding waters of, as well as land on and erect temporary buildings to aid in such fishing operations, in any territory south of parts already occupied by Spain - the Falkland Islands being one of them since 1770 [2]. From then on Spain ruled the islands unchallenged under the name "Islas Malvinas", maintaining a settlement ruled from Buenos Aires under the control of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata until 1811. On leaving in 1811, Spain, too, left behind a plaque asserting her claims.


So, as you can see, it was first French, then there was also a British colony.

Then the Spaniards took control of the French colony and attacked the British colony.

We left a plaque asserting our claims. A treaty was signed, ceeding it too the Spanish, but the Spanish lost control due to Argentina's independence.

The Americans then attacked and destroyed the Argentine colony, leaving the islands inhabited by Pirates and criminals.

We decided, for various reasons, to re-assert our claim and took control.

So, your claims of it was spanish first are a bare faced lie and distortion of the facts.


Originally posted by Kolmo
The "Falkland citizens" are in fact 3/4 of the army and the rest are probably their families who were placed there around 1983 after the war.


More BS. There has been a sizeable population on the islands for a bloody long time. No one was "placed" there, barring the small Military contingent, which are cycled in and out.


Originally posted by Kolmo
I find it funny that Britain mentions that aslong as the Falkland citizens wish to remain British there will be no negotiations.. those people were placed there after the war WTF! doesn't make sense



That's because your lying.


Originally posted by Kolmo
If I was Nestor now, I would retake the islands.. (we have support from all S.America) no need for the British to be so arrogant.. specially when they hardly won a war were Argentina was under dictatorship and were the war was only a distraction from it's internal problems.


Try it. I dare you, just try it. You think you have problems now? I reckon the Yanks owe us a favour or two this time round, but even without them, we would kick your sorry military back to the mainland. Don't believe the BS about us only having less than 30 active warships.


Originally posted by Kolmo
One last thing, Paki/Blackie/Argie is diminutive and is racist so dont say it.


I didn't realise Argentinians were a race. So how can "Argie" be a racist term? You call us Brits, don't you? Then I will call you a damn Argie if I like. Nothing is meant by it, it's just easier to say.

Also, I find it funny how Kolmo is claiming they were there fist so it's theres, even though that is a lie. What about the indigineous population you wiped out, sugjegated and still force to live in abject poverty? No mention there....



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 05:46 AM
link   
The falklands now have a much bigger military presence rather than the token force before the war - thats how the argies were able to invade so easily, not to mention there's still hundreds of mines on the beaches...

Current Force: 4 Tornado F3's, 1 Herc, 1 VC10, 2 Seakings, at least 500 Army Troops including a REME detachment, Several light armoured vehicles, a couple of rapier batteries, a small castle class patrol vessel, there's usally a type 42 in the area (HMS Edinburgh i belive) and always the possibility of a trident roving around (classified). Also the FIDF (Falklands Islands Defence Force) - Angry Locals who arent in a hurry to be ruled by argies, who frankly have no right.

Thats more than enough to hold out for a while untill they could fly in more troops and air support form Ascention Island.

If you leave it a couple of years we'll have a nice testing ground for some shiney eurofighters...


[edit on 7/2/07 by C ROBERTSON]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 10:05 AM
link   
TO stumason:

You really know nothing do you.. making up your own facts, and how many times are you going to say BS, stfu, learn some vocabulary.

Of course the US would help UK, whatever Bush does, Tony does, vice versa.. look at the impression the world has on these 2 countries, going to yet another war would be incredibly bad for their reputation, specially as they are in Iraq now.
I know many countries would not be content with this.

The reason we lost many planes was because you had the harrier, logical.

I still fail to comprehend how you can continue to function on any level with an IQ that is three degrees below whale hsit.
So please, as the lil chavy brit that you are, after u finish ur baked beans and what not, do me a favour and go back to primary school. "ta"



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 10:13 AM
link   
one more thing, you may have stolen a small insignificant island with a couple of penguins, but we got you were it hurts most





posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by
TO stumason:

Of course the US would help UK, whatever Bush does, Tony does, vice versa.. look at the impression the world has on these 2 countries, going to yet another war would be incredibly bad for their reputation, specially as they are in Iraq now.
I know many countries would not be content with this.

The reason we lost many planes was because you had the harrier, logical.

Kolmo - in the nicest possible way mate, your a numpty!
The facts are there!

1) The guys mainly right with the falklands stuff - cut him some slack
2) There's been a british presence there for years - and thats well before 82"
3) The US would help automatically, rubbish - they didnt in 82" and they would'nt now, why? Cause its a British internal affair.
4) We won cause we had the harrier - Thats rubbish, the harrier (while being a great aircraft) is subsonic and meant for ground attack whereas the argies had supersonic mirage fighter jets - a clear advantage, we won cause we have the worlds best trained forces, and the argies are a joke of course, even more so of late.
5) In 82" the harrier was an uncombat proven aircraft.
6) The people of the Falklands didn't ask to be "Liberated" by the argies - They clearly want to remain British.
7)I'd like to see you try take them again!




[edit on 7/2/07 by C ROBERTSON]

[edit on 7/2/07 by C ROBERTSON]




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join