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 accused of plotting Falklands blockade

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Peruvianmonk
 


squabbling over barren islands with a population of less than 3,000 people with a crappy climate in the middle of nowhere.

Very productive.



very productive post




posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by DAZ21
 


If I were forced to side with anyone it would be the Brits just because of the population. As far as I know anyways there was no indigenous population on the Islands, and the concept of Argentina only existed since 1816. Aside from the oil, of all the wars raging around the globe it's almost humorous to see two nations fighting over these little islands. I mean, if it was a tropical paradise with beautiful native women I'd understand! But the Falkland Islands seem to gloomy.


Perfect British weather then


Seriously though I think it's a case of protecting our own interests, bending to the Argentinians might be considered a show of weakness, plus giving it up now would be an insult to those who died trying to protect it from the Argies.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolfie_UK
 


Ha ha yeh, I think I will leave this typo in there just for the banter.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
There was an interesting article in the Guardian about a week ago that said that young Argentineans don't care about the Falklands, especially those that have been there and seen how British the place is. What makes me wonder is how many Argentineans actually believe that the plucky tango-crazy people of the Falklands are yearning for a return to Argentinean rule?


Here is that article for anyone who wants to read it.

'The Falklanders eat fish and chips. How can they belong to Argentina?'



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Yeah can you believe it. We'll go to war for something that resembles the northern most tip of Scotland, but freely hand back Hong Kong!!!! ???? I don't get it either. Maybe we just feel an affinity for the place. Anywhere where is is cold windy and rains 364 days of the year MUST be British!



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by JakiusFogg
 


That's a good point.. even with the oil Hong Kong was worth more in terms of economic output. AND the folks in Hong Kong did NOT want to go back to China. I think that came down to Chinese interest though. Still, the UK should have held onto it like the USA holds on to Taiwan.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by elpistolero1
Go Argentina!. the Malvinas will be Argentinian once again!!, screw the UK


I suggest you read more books, preferably ones without pictures of cute puppies, that contain historical facts. The Falkland Islands, which is it's internationally recognised name, have never been Argentinian and they never will. They were claimed by the Spanish, the British and the Dutch if I'm not mistaken, all three of those powers were colonial at the time, so to acuse Britain of Colonialism is ridiculous, as the Spanish were far more brutal than we ever were. All countries in South America are Stolen lands from it's indigenous peoples by past Empires, (the majority of those Spanish) the Falklands had no indigenous people so it's Bristish settlers are by default Indigenous. There is also a part of Argentina, Patagonia, where the majority of people speak Welsh. The UK could lay claim to that if they wanted to, and demand 'Liberation fo Patagonia' from the tyranny of the South American Junta impossed upon it, but it would be just as baseless and frankly silly as the Argentinian claim to the Falklands, get the memo South America, the Islands are called the Falklands and are British, the people there wish to remain British, If they wanted be Argentinian there would be no arguement, it's not your fault as most South American Countries don't understand democracy, the amount of Dictatorships you've all had :-)
The Argentinian Governement were offered a very fair deal in Oil exploration from the UK which they turned down, so tough tities, the Argentianian President should concentrate on sorting her countries economic problems rather than stir up anti British xenophobia. I have nothing against Argentina, it's a great place, Fantastic Football team,(however I can never forgive Marradonna for his blatant hand ball in the 1984 World Cup, which he later admitted to, anyway back on topic) I was made to feel welcome their, most young Argentinians I spoke to couldn't give a rats bottom who owns the Islands, so all of this is just silly political rhetoric from a President whose trying to bolster 'National Pride' in something that was never Argentinian in the first place, because she is doing a very bad job as President. Any attempt to take the islands by force will be a very big mistake.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
To those not understanding why we would potentially go to war again over 'barren rocks' you need to understand britain.

1. Its a point of principle. The islanders are British and they will be defended as long as they wish to be.
2. We fought a war and servicemen died defending them within living memory. Any government who seriously suggested giving them up would be run out of office by a mob.
3. Potential for oil and as a base for potential future developments in the southern hemisphere.

As far as the british are concerned point 3 is the least important. In fact an offer was made of shared resource ownership a few years ago and was refused by Argentina.

Britain will go to war purely on points of principle. Even if it looks like we can't win and the purely rationale thing is capitulation. Nobody in the US state department actually believed we would sail a task force down in 1982 to reclaim some 'barren rocks'.

They were also wrong.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Yeah can you believe it. We'll go to war for something that resembles the northern most tip of Scotland, but freely hand back Hong Kong!!!! ???? I don't get it either. Maybe we just feel an affinity for the place. Anywhere where is is cold windy and rains 364 days of the year MUST be British!



Hong Kong wasn't ours, it was leased to us by the Chinese, our Lease ran out :-)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by JakiusFogg
 


That's a good point.. even with the oil Hong Kong was worth more in terms of economic output. AND the folks in Hong Kong did NOT want to go back to China. I think that came down to Chinese interest though. Still, the UK should have held onto it like the USA holds on to Taiwan.


Yes, but there was an iron-bound treaty involved with Hong Hong. We leased it off the Chinese in the 19th Century for 99 years and there was fat chance of China extending the lease in 1997. There's no such treaty involved in the Falklands.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Yeah can you believe it. We'll go to war for something that resembles the northern most tip of Scotland, but freely hand back Hong Kong!!!! ???? I don't get it either. Maybe we just feel an affinity for the place. Anywhere where is is cold windy and rains 364 days of the year MUST be British!




Hong Kong was only controlled under a lease for a set period of time

W



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


I would liken it to the US going to war over Guam!. if it sank a few thousand miles further south!!



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


Ever heard of a lease extension??



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
reply to post by blueorder
 


Ever heard of a lease extension??


The Chinese Government would never have granted it. It wasn't like the old days, when we'd send a gunboat over to bombard Johnny Foreigner, it was the 1990's. And the negotiations meant that the only way that the Chinese got Hong Kong was by granting it special autonomous region status. Honkers is pretty well off in China at the moment.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Ultimately many of you may mock about the few thousand people who live there, but at the end of the day, it IS ours - this isn't a complicated issue like Ireland is/was , nor is it a Palestine vs Israel scenario. But we do value the Falklands, it has a rich history of trade, some elements of WW1 and WWII were shaped due to naval battles and emergency repairs at Port Stanley.

So yes, mock us, but we do look after our own.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


Well said Mr Lizard.

Any country that can organise and fly old out of date, short range...well shortish.....bombers half way round the world, to do very little, well I think that says it all. Up against the wall we can do a lot.

The book Vulcan 706 (I think thats the title.) is a great read of this remarkable sortie.

Have we now, anything, that could do similar I wonder?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
reply to post by blueorder
 


Ever heard of a lease extension??


whether I have heard of it or not, it ran out, there is no lease on the Falklands, China didn't want to offer an extension so it would have been at their discretion



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Yeah find it kinda Strange that Any American would question this view and stance by us...

like America is intensley (for the most part) patriotic...

The Falklands is part of the UK it is british soil... it really doesnt matter where it sits geogrphically, it is Our land and we will defend it...

Like stupid wars with Iran, or any middle east oil countries quite simply does not come close to defending british citizens on british soil...

there is no way on earth Argentina will actually step up to the plate here.. this isnt us throwing about our weight.. this wouldnt be like iraq,iran syria... this wouldnt be a war on terror this would be an out right act of war on the UK if anything happened here...

a war fought to protect british citizzen on bitish soil would be much different, much more aggresive and much less forgiving.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
to bad the monroe doctrine conveniently doesn't apply to britain. it would be nice to see america and britain go at it for a third time over a rock full of sheep.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mackey1224uk

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
reply to post by mackey1224uk
 



Second, This ship This ship can track up to 300 targets and uses the sea viper missile. is a WMD........


The number of objects tracked has no relation to the number it can destroy in flight. All ships of this class can be overwhelmed by a missile barrage. You just need to fire one more missile than they can deal with. Still, it sounds cool1

P)
'



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join