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.

 

Cameron slams argentina

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Cameron slams argentina


www.bbc.co.uk

Cameron reminded Argentina that "Argentina lost the Falklands war".



(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Firstly I would like to apologise in advance if this has already been posted.

Secondly if I was the Argentinian president I wouldn't do anything silly. As cameron said, we won the last war.

I still cant believe he's cut the armed forces budget, I knew something like this would happen.

What are your thoughts in this news?

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
If you had read the full article then you would see those were not Cameron's words.
edit on 18-1-2012 by HallamFoe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Britain won the last war because it still had the forces and reach of an Empire with U.S. backing under Thatcher with Reagan's full and enthusiastic support. I wonder....with British forces tied up helping to start the next World War far to the north....what forces are left to have a nose to nose fight over the Falklands when Argentina has homefield advantage to the point of being almost laughable??

Sure...nothing was funny last time. The UK HAD a world class military for strength and numbers back then...now they had a sidekick force to help support the United States. No offense guys....but with cuts and lack of new systems to replace old ones...what *CAN* the UK actually field to the Falkland islands this time which will win?



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by HallamFoe
 


My apolagies, you are correct, I'm probaly just reading what I want to read again.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
To be honest the UK policy seems to be double check the defences and refuse to comment much beyond that. They are playing it correctly IMHO.

We won't abandon the Islands, the Islanders want to be British, the Argentinians lack the capability to force the situation otherwise.

Argentina hasn't exactly turned into a military powerhouse in the last 30 years either.
edit on 18-1-2012 by justwokeup because: TYPO



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Cameron did not say that



During prime minister's questions on Wednesday, Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell branded Argentina's actions "wholly deplorable" and urged Mr Cameron to "remind Argentina they lost the Falklands War".



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Krono
 


Relax , there is no way that Cameron and co would let Argentina do anything to threaten Margaret Thatchers bloody legacy. Bad enough that UK tax payers will have to pay for her state funeral.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
Cameron did not say that



During prime minister's questions on Wednesday, Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell branded Argentina's actions "wholly deplorable" and urged Mr Cameron to "remind Argentina they lost the Falklands War".


I'm aware of that now, this is my first thread in this section so let me have this one eh?



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
great piece thanks



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Droidinvoid
reply to post by Krono
 


Relax , there is no way that Cameron and co would let Argentina do anything to threaten Margaret Thatchers bloody legacy. Bad enough that UK tax payers will have to pay for her state funeral.



I'm relaxed, just found it curious. Still can't believe then blithering idiot cut the budget, if anything we needed more money.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Krono
 


Blithering idiot Cameron cut the budget , hey Krono how do we know the budget has been cut !!!
The grey men who juggle the stats and figures can make things look one way or the other , just because we are told and shown numerical fiscal figures ,............so what , they seem to find millions in famine relief all the time, go figure .
Good to have you on ATS



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Despite the defence cuts we are in fact currently in a militarily advantageous position relative to last time around.

Most of the griping with respect to the defence cuts concerns a situation where we have to forcefully take the Falklands back from Argentina; it ignores the fact that for the foreseeable future (i.e. before we come into possession of 2 supercarriers and beyond) Argentina has no hope of taking them again in the first place.

Since the UK has no intention of withdrawing its claim, Argentina would not only have to take the Falklands but hold them indefinitely, which in the long term is even less feasible than an initial successful invasion.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Well today the Falklands garrison is far larger (over 1,100 personnel vs about 70 in 1982). In 1982 there were just 70 Royal Marines (thankfully both the incoming and outgoing detachments were present), plus a few Royal Navy sailors and the 100 odd members of the local militia - the Falkland Islands Defense Force.

Today:

British Army - 1 rifle company (currently drawn from the Scots Guards but I could be wrong), an engineer company, and some miscellaneous support elements (medical, Signals, Logistics, etc). Then there is still the Falkland Islands Defense Force which has been modernized and better trained then it was in 1982.

Royal Air Force - a composite squadron of fighters, transport planes, surveillance planes, an helicopters + their ground support elements. I believe there is also an RAF Regiment troop for ground and low level air defense of RAF Mount Pleasant.

Royal Navy - a rotating frigate or destroyer, a rotating Royal Fleet Auxiliary support ship, a dedicated River Class Offshore Patrol Vessel permanently stationed in the Falklands, also there is the Royal Navy's Antarctic Patrol Ship HMS Protector which is in the area something like 9 months a year. There is also supposedly at least ONE Royal Navy nuclear submarine at all times as well.

If this is not enough then they could send additional forces via the UK -> Gibraltar -> Ascension Island route.
edit on 18-1-2012 by ChrisF231 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Given we'll get the demented Argentinian people in here soon who seem to think that because its off the shore of their country its their property but while the British armed forces are not the power in numbers since we dont have the imperial desire anymore (we're leaving that to our American cousins to have their time realising that empire aint all its cracked up to be) but we've concentrated on doing the job 'well' as its better to have one missile land on its target and just kill the enemy soldiers than fire off 50 and kill nothing but the local wildlife and some goat herder and his family, its just a pity its taking so long and if we could get rid of some of our forces love of tanks and other outdated methodology we could be as deadly as anyone just we'd get it done for 1/10th the cost



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Soshh
 

Thanks for the information... My post really is coming from a lack of knowledge and depth for what the UK still has that can be projected around the world...while engaged in hostilities elsewhere in at least two different places. That tends to answer it. So..as long as Argentina remains alone and other South American nations don't decide to lend a hand, the Falklands are safely British for the duration. That is good to know with some reasoning to explain it.


edit on 18-1-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: typo



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisF231
Well today the Falklands garrison is far larger (over 1,100 personnel vs about 70 in 1982). In 1982 there were just 70 Royal Marines (thankfully both the incoming and outgoing detachments were present), plus a few Royal Navy sailors and the 100 odd members of the local militia - the Falkland Islands Defense Force.

Today:

British Army - 1 rifle company (currently drawn from the Scots Guards but I could be wrong), an engineer company, and some miscellaneous support elements (medical, Signals, Logistics, etc). Then there is still the Falkland Islands Defense Force which has been modernized and better trained then it was in 1982.

Royal Air Force - a composite squadron of fighters, transport planes, surveillance planes, an helicopters + their ground support elements. I believe there is also an RAF Regiment troop for ground and low level air defense of RAF Mount Pleasant.

Royal Navy - a rotating frigate or destroyer, a rotating Royal Fleet Auxiliary support ship, a dedicated River Class Offshore Patrol Vessel permanently stationed in the Falklands, also there is the Royal Navy's Antarctic Patrol Ship HMS Protector which is in the area something like 9 months a year. There is also supposedly at least ONE Royal Navy nuclear submarine at all times as well.

If this is not enough then they could send additional forces via the UK -> Gibraltar -> Ascension Island route.
edit on 18-1-2012 by ChrisF231 because: (no reason given)


Wouldn't wanna mess with that.




posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soshh
Despite the defence cuts we are in fact currently in a militarily advantageous position relative to last time around.

Most of the griping with respect to the defence cuts concerns a situation where we have to forcefully take the Falklands back from Argentina; it ignores the fact that for the foreseeable future (i.e. before we come into possession of 2 supercarriers and beyond) Argentina has no hope of taking them again in the first place.

Since the UK has no intention of withdrawing its claim, Argentina would not only have to take the Falklands but hold them indefinitely, which in the long term is even less feasible than an initial successful invasion.


Your absolutely right about the relative military strength then and now.

And remembering the struggle the Argentinian forces had with 70 Royal Marines first time around, it would prove a difficult task to dislodge over one thousand British servicemen with some air and naval support.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Britain won the last war because it still had the forces and reach of an Empire with U.S. backing under Thatcher with Reagan's full and enthusiastic support. I wonder....with British forces tied up helping to start the next World War far to the north....what forces are left to have a nose to nose fight over the Falklands when Argentina has homefield advantage to the point of being almost laughable??

Sure...nothing was funny last time. The UK HAD a world class military for strength and numbers back then...now they had a sidekick force to help support the United States. No offense guys....but with cuts and lack of new systems to replace old ones...what *CAN* the UK actually field to the Falkland islands this time which will win?


Your grasp on history is abysmal as proven in another thread.

The US in fact refused to offer direct help, and labelled the victory we gained as an impossibility. Norway provided far more assistance to us in that conflict than you ever did, mind you in those days you were too busy funding and importing arms for the IRA to use against innocent people in our cities.

I wouldn't brag about US military strength either, since I am having trouble thinking of a war you have won in the last 30 years without another country backing you up.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Russians,Iranians could do Argentina a favour. Iran could provide some longe range Shahab-3 conventional missiles. and Russia some S-300,Buk-m1's and Tor-m2. plus iglas and kornet ATGM's. A few Brahmos/Yakhonts anti-ship missiles or urans will do.

It could help in liberating Falklands from the oppressive British empire and allow the reentry into the Argentine union.




edit on 18-1-2012 by mkgandhas because: (no reason given)







 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join