Tension in Falklands rises as rig arrives and Argentina seeks help

reply to post by infinite
[more
The fact is that i doubt you speak other languages, what will they want..war with U.K or 100billion dollars hahahaha then im the ignorant lol have you seen Austin powers when Dr Evil says ! million dollars you just the same lol what stupi statment to make, and yes they refer to you as The Commons iv heard you not a laird areyou?

reply to post by Gloster


The fact that you seem to think that the term "House of Commons" is somehow a demeaning thing shows you actually know nothing about the UK. The term is over 1000 years old, which shows just how old the UK Parliament is and why it is called "the Mother of all Parliaments".

The House of Commons actually wields far more power than the House of Lords, who themselves are not heridatary Lords, but one's who have been made life peers for service to society and the nation. It has nothing to do with class or social background.

The House of Commons is also where the Prime Minister sits, you know, the Head of Government and the de-facto leader of the country?

reply to post by Gloster


Australia didn't want to remain under the Crown? Another display of your lack of understanding. The Queen is the Head of State for Australia and it is a Kingdom. Even today, the majority of Ozzies want to keep the Royal link and with Williams recent visit, he has boosted support even higher.

The Falklands conflict: tin-pot tyrant Hugo Chavez roars like a mouse against the British lion

Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s tedious Mini-Me in Latin America, has been raging against British rule over the Falklands, in a show of solidarity with the Peronist regime in Argentina. In a rather hysterical televised speech worthy of Saddam himself, the Butcher of Caracas and prominent state sponsor of terrorism declared yesterday:

“The British are desperate for oil since their own fields in the North Sea are now being depleted. When will England stop breaking international law? Return the Malvinas to Argentina!… The English are desperate, the Yankees are desperate and here we have the biggest petroleum reserves in the world.” He’s also quoted by The Washington Post as saying: “Get out of there, give the Malvinas back to the Argentine people. Enough already with the empire.”

blogs.telegraph.co.uk... /


interesting, i know posted in the other falklands thread that chavez has made threats towards britain in the past, and that it may be a matter of time before he pipes up with his anti-western rhetoric.
lets hope his comments gain the attention of OUR ally, the usa, and lets see if hes still spoiling for a fight. then we get falklands oiul, usa can have venezuelas!
then we can leave afghanistan and the the transnabco pipeline altogether.

though i must admit,with rising oil prices, morth sea oil fast running out, hes right we may be desperate for this oil.but as i said awhile ago, keeping the falklands gives us a claim on antarctica, and in the future who knows what riches it may hold.so we will always fight for falklands/antarctica.

here his other rant from 2007 for anyone whos interested.

Chavez vows revenge for Falklands war

www.timesonline.co.uk...

reply to post by stumason


You right about that commons things, stupid Scottish that told me that i thought it was like that there too SORRY

reply to post by hans kammler


No one wants war! Argentinian news are saying how both are talking things out

reply to post by Gloster


Don't take a Scotsman's words about Politics or the UK too seriously, as they are often clouded by a rose-tinted admiration for William Wallace, the war criminal and some bizarre idea that Scotland is under the English heel, all lies spread by the SNP so they can win seats. It's actually rather the reverse in real life........

reply to post by stumason


Thanks for the advice, i promice to control my impulsive behavior and not post more non sence with out educating about it first!

Hi everyone, my first post on ATS after being a long time lurker! This is the topic that finally made me join.

Although I am British myself, I'm not going to comment on the rights and wrongs of British sovereignty over the Falklands Islands. I want to mention something else, which no-one else has mentioned so far. Something that I think is important in this debate, and which I feel could sadly mean that there might be a military conflict over the islands. That "thing" is the Strategic Defence Review that will take place in the UK shortly after the next general election.

The purpose of this is to look at what the future needs and requirements of the military might be, according to what conflicts they are likely to be involved in. Now, there are currently plans for two new aircraft carriers, other new ships for the Royal Navy, more Joint Strike Fighters, new Trident submarines and various other hugely expensive things.

There are divisions politically over this military spending as you would expect, with the huge national debt and the need to cut costs. There are those that are arguing the nature of the threat faced by the UK has changed considerably since the last SDR in 1998, with today's threat being from terroist groups, not nation states. They therefore argue that there is no need for the two new aircraft carriers, or more JSF aircraft for example. Okay, finally getting to my point! It seems to me that a repeat of the 1982 conflict with Argentina would provide a lot of ammunition (forgive the pun!) to those in favour of not cutting these big expensive projects. Which includes many senior figures in the government and in the military itself. There is also the fact that any such conflict would of course be beneficial to the arms industry too.

As is often the case, it would seem that there are many that would benefit from another potential conflict with Argentina. For this reason alone, it wouldn't surprise me if it did happen again, though of course I hope it doesn't.

reply to post by TruthSeeker73


Funny you should mention that, as the `82 conflict was sparked because Argentina detected a perceived weakness on the part of the Uk precisely because an SDR had said their was no need to maintain a large navy and we were concentrating on ASW ops in the GIUK gap. We were on the verge of scrapping ALL the carriers, not just the Hermes and if it wasn't for the Falklands War we may well have a tiny navy today with no power projection.

In a nutshell, I bet the Admiralty are laughing their socks off at this latest spat. It is the exact reason they need to justify the new carriers and the JSF.

Personally, I would happily scrap any other programme, including the new Nuclear missiles if we could gurantee these carriers. There is no point pretending to be a world power if you don't have the biggest, shiniest toys to play with.

I wasn't aware of the SDR just prior to the conflict in 1982, but I'm not at all surprised! History has a funny way of repeating itself.

I agree with you that we should keep the carrier's and JSF, as a priority. Times change and the nature of the threats we may face change. Although the terrorist threat looms larger than anything else at the present time, that may well not be the case in the future. Far quicker than the time it would take to build more carrier's that's for sure!

I also agree with scrapping Trident completely, it's an expensive and unnecessary waste of money. As members of NATO I don't see any need for the UK (or France for that matter) to maintain their own nuclear deterrent. Any situation involving the UK or France deemed serious enough to warrant a nuclear response would surely receive that response from the USA (as members of NATO)? After all, surely that is the point of NATO. An attack on one member is seen as an attack on all.

I recall seeing a political debate on TV recently (don't remember what programme), and a politician was arguing against the suggestion of reducing the number of new submarines from 4 to 3, saying it would significantly reduce our deterrent and leave us at risk. I couldn't believe he could say that and keep a straight face! As if a potential enemy would think it's alright to attack now as they only have 3/4 as many nukes as they used to have! Absolutely preposterous!

reply to post by TruthSeeker73


I think we should keep a Nuclear detterent, purely so we can sit on the top table at the UN, without Nukes we just become another minor power. However, we should build our rockets indiginously (prior to the 60's, we had a world leading rocket industry, but budget cuts saw the end of that) which would be alot cheaper.

Also, we should think about tactical nukes and not the big strategic monsters we deploy, for the only reason that if our deterrent was seen as more "useable", it is more likely people won't push the buttons which would warrant a response from us.

Originally posted by Unplugged
The Israelis settling on illegally seized Palestinian lands are also happy to be Israeli and wish to remain so.

I don't see your point?

Are you comparing the UK to Israel?

I sure hope not.

Originally posted by Gloster
reply to post by infinite

 

Also review Pirates of England lol you still sendindg convicts to fight the wars? not even Australia wanted to remind under the crown. You people have been invading and killing for a long time, you COMMONS dont mean nothing to the crown.....dont talk about a reall man like Chavez you Elton John

Really? we the still are "under the crown" as you put it. Please check that Queen Elizabeth II official title is Queen of Australia.....still, oh and Canada, and New Zealand, and Jamaica, Belieze, Tuvalu, Barbadoa, and also .....th Duke of Normandy!! how funny is that!

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Originally posted by Unplugged
The Israelis settling on illegally seized Palestinian lands are also happy to be Israeli and wish to remain so.

I don't see your point?

Are you comparing the UK to Israel?

I sure hope not.

Coyld we even go so far to say as the Americans settling illegally on Mexican Lands??

reply to post by infinite


Nice display of imperialistic lingo, too bad its quite irrelevant in this day and age, concerning reality, of course. I'm sure you Brits wish you had such influence as your primitive empire did.

Originally posted by TSawyer
reply to post by infinite

 

Nice display of imperialistic lingo, too bad its quite irrelevant in this day and age, concerning reality, of course. I'm sure you Brits wish you had such influence as your primitive empire did.

You seem to think that THIS is the arguement here?

Please that's getting really old really fast, at least try and be original.

reply to post by TSawyer


Nothing more pathetic than a new member trying to gain the attention of an elder of ATS.

Grow up and learn the historical facts of this situation, something Argentina will not do.

This thread is such a laugh... The argies sabre rattling against a country that the most average infantry unit would destroy... Its a bit like the local sunday league pub footy team trying to take on Manchester united ... All we would have to do though is send the Gurkhas again because they peed their pants over them the last time.. Mind you.. They do have the tendancy of chopping off enemy deads heads with their Kukris, pickling them, then taking them home to talk to on those cold Nepal nights!!

My unit was based there in 94.. We spent most of the time on long range patrols, picking up penguins and blowing up seagulls with bird seed and baking soda ...

However if the argies want to take us on then thats ok by me.. We will send them back to deigo land with an I just pumped the neighbours cat look on their faces.. Or in cardboard boxes..

The islands are ours.. The people there are British.. We don't need anyones help to protect them.. And we WILL protect them!

reply to post by JakiusFogg


And the Mexicans occupied Aztec and Mayan land.

Why don't we just move everyone on earth back to the Rift Valley in Kenya and be done with it.