Royal Navy to deploy nuclear submarine to the Falkland Islands

Manic Moran

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Argentine Premier league is going to be renamed General Belgrano. Not after the man, but after the ship.

So much for keeping politics out of football.

Have you never heard of the Football War? El Salvador vs Honduras, during the 1969 qualifiers for Mexico 70.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_War

Famous for being the last time piston-engined fighters fought against each other. P51 Mustangs vs F4U Corsirs.

NTM

getz

lwould love to, http://.gib-action.com/restrictions.html

Batsy

Daily Mirror journalist Rob Burnett, a Falkland Islander, gives us an idea of what life is like in the Falkland Islands (which are the same size as Northern Ireland) and of the islanders' desire to remain British. There are also a lot of photos, including a couple of the Islands' quaint little parliament building, Gilbert House.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/falkland-islands-population-determined-to-remain-678754

We're not all sheep farmers and 18 other things you need to know about the Falkland Islands.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/falkland-islands-facts-19-things-679315

Border-Rat

Did they give their opinions on the 5 trillion debt they share responsibility for?

RMD

Can people just not accept the desires of the majority? Seems some ignore the principles of democracy when it doesn't suit their political views. They want to be British, let them remain British. If they want to join Argentina let them become the Malvinas. For now, it's the first option and the only people who should determine their future is the islanders themselves.

Jonny7

Timeline of (de facto) control

February 1764 – April 1767 France
January 1765 – July 1770 Great Britain
April 1767 – February 1811 Spain
September 1771 – May 1776 Great Britain
February 1811 – August 1829 None
August 1829 – December 1831 United Provinces
December 1831 – January 1832 United States
January 1832 – December 1832 None
December 1832 – January 1833 Argentine Confederation
January 1833 – August 1833 United Kingdom
August 1833 – January 1834 None
January 1834 – April 1982 United Kingdom
April 1982 – June 1982 Argentina
June 1982 – present United Kingdom

Sorry to drag this silly debate further but almost looks like France and Spain have historically more claim to the island than the Argentines.

Batsy

Border-Rat wrote: »

Did they give their opinions on the 5 trillion debt they share responsibility for?

The Falkland Islands are a sovereign state protected by Britain. Britain's debt has nothing to do with them.

getz

Batsy wrote: »

The Falkland Islands are a sovereign state protected by Britain. Britain's debt has nothing to do with them.

dont argue with him batsy,if he fell out of bed,he would blame the british,

Fratton Fred

getz wrote: »

dont argue with him batsy,if he fell out of bed,he would blame the british,

That would be just another example of US/UK/Zionist destabilisation policy.

KeithAFC

RMD wrote: »

Can people just not accept the desires of the majority? Seems some ignore the principles of democracy when it doesn't suit their political views. They want to be British, let them remain British. If they want to join Argentina let them become the Malvinas. For now, it's the first option and the only people who should determine their future is the islanders themselves.

I agree. Amazing how some people seem to argue against this. They want to remain British. Let them.

Jonny7

KeithAFC wrote: »

I agree. Amazing how some people seem to argue against this. They want to remain British. Let them.

I think the Agentinian PM is just using some old fashioned jingo-ism and hard-talk to bouy up domestic support.

OS119

Jonny7 wrote: »

I think the Agentinian PM is just using some old fashioned jingo-ism and hard-talk to bouy up domestic support.

thats certainly the conventional view: rule 101 of Argentine politics - economy in the toilet? corruption allegations? scream 'las Malvinas!' and suddenly you're at 90% approval in the polls.

however, a) its something she's been banging on about since she got elected - so this is long standing policy, not just the nornal rabbit-out-of-the-hat popullism, b) she's using language and tone that Argentine governments protesting over the FI haven't used before, and c) this is building up in the Argentine media and amongst the electorate - the concern being that even if it started out as the classic diversion tactic, its developing into something bigger and less controllable than a PR stunt or even government policy, that the 'drumbeat' that has been started might well be louder than Mrs Kirchners ability to shout 'stop' before we see conflict.

effectively that the government, media and electorate wind each other up in ever increascing levels of escalation, and that it gets to a point where the Argentine government is forced to decide between taking the chance of war and the certainty of being forced out of office by saying 'enough'.

irishh_bob

Jonny7 wrote: »

I think the Agentinian PM is just using some old fashioned jingo-ism and hard-talk to bouy up domestic support.

thats about the height of it

i spent a week in argentina several years ago , talked to a few people about the falklands , not all of them were supportive of what thier goverment did in 1982

this noise will die down in time , thier wont be a repeat of 1982 , thats for sure

belacqua_

getz wrote: »

lwould love to, http://www.gib-action.com/restrictions.html

Last updated on 13/09/2006

Good job.

Batsy

Argentina's foreign minister has accused the UK of sending a nuclear-armed submarine to the South Atlantic, after making an official complaint to the UN over the Falklands dispute.

I see no problem with that. Britain has the capability of destroying vast swathes of Argentina, and if we have got one of these weapons in the South Atlantic then Argentina, unless it is suicidal, will never attempt to take the islands.

Batsy

Is it time to disinvite the Argentinians from the Olympics?

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2096815/Falkland-Islands-Time-disinvite-Argentinians-London-2012-Olympics.html#ixzz1m4vHsc7d

Lemming

Batsy wrote: »

Is it time to disinvite the Argentinians from the Olympics?

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2096815/Falkland-Islands-Time-disinvite-Argentinians-London-2012-Olympics.html#ixzz1m4vHsc7d

I would disagree with the notion of dis-inviting a nation from the Olympics. It is not in Britain's power to do so; that would be a matter for the Olympic council. Personally, I'd say let them come. If they try to push a political issue during or in the run up to what is an apolitical event spectacle, the Argentinians leave themselves wide open to censure from the Olympic council without Britain ever having to do anything other than lodge formal complaint. From a global PR point of view, that is the much more sensible option to take and the one that gives the greatest mileage against the Argentinians, who have already started trying to push political agenda by using the Falkland Islands as an Argentinian Olympic emblem.

OS119

Batsy wrote: »

I see no problem with that. Britain has the capability of destroying vast swathes of Argentina, and if we have got one of these weapons in the South Atlantic then Argentina, unless it is suicidal, will never attempt to take the islands.

the UK could destroy huge swathes of Argentina with nuclear weapons from a Submarine tied up at Faslane, if we wished to introduce a nuclear element to this dispute we'd have no need the send a Vanguard class SSBN into the south Atlantic to do so.

Argentinas claims are laughable - the more so because the information to disprove them is publicly and indepentanly available. they lied about the range of Typhoon aircraft on the Islands, claiming it can strike targets far out of its actual range, they lied about the weapons systems carried by Typhoon - particularly Tauras - a weapon the UK has not bought, that no UK Typhoon has ever flown with, they lied about the Vanguad submarine ((a) they conduct deterence patrols in the North Atlantic, and are never used for conventional operations, and (b) the rest of the RN, and the USN almost never get a sniff of either the Vanguard class, or the equivilant US Ohio class of SSBN - the idea that Argentina has tracked and classified one is laughable). they also lied about 'military bases through out the South Atlantic' on Tristram du Chuna, St Helena and at the BAS station in the Antarctic. there aren't any - as any google earth visit will show any interested party.

its embarrassing.

Lemming

OS119 wrote: »

Argentinas claims are laughable - the more so because the information to disprove them is publicly and indepentanly available. they lied about the range of Typhoon aircraft on the Islands, claiming it can strike targets far out of its actual range, they lied about the weapons systems carried by Typhoon - particularly Tauras - a weapon the UK has not bought, that no UK Typhoon has ever flown with, they lied about the Vanguad submarine ((a) they conduct deterence patrols in the North Atlantic, and are never used for conventional operations, and (b) the rest of the RN, and the USN almost never get a sniff of either the Vanguard class, or the equivilant US Ohio class of SSBN - the idea that Argentina has tracked and classified one is laughable). they also lied about 'military bases through out the South Atlantic' on Tristram du Chuna, St Helena and at the BAS station in the Antarctic. there aren't any - as any google earth visit will show any interested party.

its embarrassing.

And yet despite the lies and blatant media propaganda, the Argentinian government have managed to garner a level of sympathetic support from Mercusor countries - and worryingly enough the US - over their manufactured claims of sovereignty.

I look at the news reports and am left bewildered, wondering how people are swallowing this hysteria? It would be interesting to see just how this is being reported across South & Latin America that Mercursor has bought into backing such an extraordinarily aggressive political stance by a country that has lied through its teeth consistently on pretty much everything to do with the matter.

LXFlyer

The best part of all this is that HMS Dauntless has not even set sail yet and is still on trial and HMS Montrose is now off Tristan da Cunha which is nowhere near the Falklands!

Batsy

The Falkland Islanders have marked the upcoming 30th anniversary of the Falklands War by producing mugs poking fun at Argentina.

The islanders have started selling commemorative mugs which call Argentina the “Sea of S**t”.

A map of South America is printed on the mugs, which have been produced to mark the 30th anniversary of the Falklands War.

But where Argentina should be there is an expanse of water, with the new bay labelled Mierda Sea – Spanish for s**t.

The mugs were being sold at the popular Victory Bar pub in Stanley.

Meanwhile, about 50 Chileans living in the Falklands have protested over fears that Argentina will pressure its neighbour into cutting off their only air link with their homeland.

They waved Union Jacks and Chilean flags as they urged Chilean president Sebastian Pinera to resist any moves to suspend the weekly flight between the capital Santiago and the Falklands.

The flight uses Argentina’s airspace and makes a stop-off in Argentinian city Rio Gallegos.

And there were protests in Buenoa Aires after the website of Falklands newspaper the Penguin News ran a photo of Argentina President Kirchner labelled "bitch".

Border-Rat

Batsy wrote: »

I see no problem with that. Britain has the capability of destroying vast swathes of Argentina, and if we have got one of these weapons in the South Atlantic then Argentina, unless it is suicidal, will never attempt to take the islands.

Unless of course the 5 trillion used to buy the submarines on credit finally hits home, or... one of them is ran aground... again?

RMD

Border-Rat wrote: »

Unless of course the 5 trillion used to buy the submarines on credit finally hits home, or... one of them is ran aground... again?

Can you add anything constructive to the topic other than constantly taking petty digs at the Brits?

What has the figure of 5 trillion got anything to do with the Falkland Islanders and their future?

LordSutch

Be warned Argentina, if this posturing continues
those rather yummy Fray Bentos pies will suffer.



Again!

woodoo

Batsy wrote: »

The Falkland Islanders have marked the upcoming 30th anniversary of the Falklands War by producing mugs poking fun at Argentina.

The islanders have started selling commemorative mugs which call Argentina the “Sea of S**t”.

A map of South America is printed on the mugs, which have been produced to mark the 30th anniversary of the Falklands War.

But where Argentina should be there is an expanse of water, with the new bay labelled Mierda Sea – Spanish for s**t.

The mugs were being sold at the popular Victory Bar pub in Stanley.

Meanwhile, about 50 Chileans living in the Falklands have protested over fears that Argentina will pressure its neighbour into cutting off their only air link with their homeland.

They waved Union Jacks and Chilean flags as they urged Chilean president Sebastian Pinera to resist any moves to suspend the weekly flight between the capital Santiago and the Falklands.

The flight uses Argentina’s airspace and makes a stop-off in Argentinian city Rio Gallegos.

And there were protests in Buenoa Aires after the website of Falklands newspaper the Penguin News ran a photo of Argentina President Kirchner labelled "bitch".

I think the Falklanders are in no position to get arrogant. If the remaining flight to the island is cut off then they are up the creek without a paddle.

I am pie

What most of the pro-British brigade here have quite astonishingly missed here is that all that Argentina are trying to force, through exclusively diplomatic means, is dialogue.

Only the UK is militarising this issue, the Argentines have not threatened military force. To suggest they would implies a child like understanding of the current political situation in Argentina. All this talks of warships & fighter planes is ludicrous.

The British war machine manufactures yet another phantom bogey man.

woodoo

I am pie wrote: »

What most of the pro-British brigade here have quite astonishingly missed here is that all that Argentina are trying to force, through exclusively diplomatic means, is dialogue.

Only the UK is militarising this issue, the Argentines have not threatened military force. To suggest they would implies a child like understanding of the current political situation in Argentina. All this talks of warships & fighter planes is ludicrous.

The British war machine manufactures yet another phantom bogey man.

I hope the Argentinians get to block the Chile flight. And if the Falklanders love being British so much they can all board that big ship and move to England.

Fratton Fred

I am pie wrote: »

What most of the pro-British brigade here have quite astonishingly missed here is that all that Argentina are trying to force, through exclusively diplomatic means, is dialogue.

Only the UK is militarising this issue, the Argentines have not threatened military force. To suggest they would implies a child like understanding of the current political situation in Argentina. All this talks of warships & fighter planes is ludicrous.

The British war machine manufactures yet another phantom bogey man.

Britain aren't making this a military issue though. The current deployment is no different to the norm.

Lemming

I am pie wrote: »

What most of the pro-British brigade here have quite astonishingly missed here is that all that Argentina are trying to force, through exclusively diplomatic means, is dialogue.

And Britain has said - repeatedly - that it is open to dialogue on matters other than soveriegnty unless the population of the Falkland Islands asks for it. It should also be pointed out that it was the Argentinians that withdrew - unilateraly - from existing dialogue around the Falkland islands during the 1990s and then changed their constitution to make it incumbent on the government to gain control over the Falklands, which is a fairly aggressive constitutional change.

Funny how Argentina does with its constitution exactly opposite to what the Irish government did to make the GFA possible.

Why should Britain - or any country for that matter - enter into a dialogue where demands (not requests or negotiating points) the other party have no legal or historical basis? Demanding that the only negotiation on the Falklands be over when the handover is is not a reasonable stance.

Only the UK is militarising this issue, the Argentines have not threatened military force. To suggest they would implies a child like understanding of the current political situation in Argentina. All this talks of warships & fighter planes is ludicrous.

Errrr .... "give peace a chance. give peace a chance, not war". That's quite a threat considering that that direct quote comes from De Kischner and her foreign minister, Timmerman. Also the only people thus far who have mentioned talk of "war" have been the Argentinians.

As Britain's representative to the UN pointed out so astutetly in recent days, is that prior to 1982 there was a minimal defense capability on the islands. That changed after the Argentinians invaded and refused to leave after the UN issued a resolution on the matter, forcing military conflict. And here we are only thirty years later, with the Argentinians sabre-rattling again on the matter. Not a good indicator for scaling down any military deployments in the near future is it?

They [Argentina] have consistently, and repeatedly lied or concocted fantasy about everything to do with the Falkland islands to date.

BostonB

Jonny7 wrote: »

Timeline of (de facto) control

February 1764 – April 1767 France
January 1765 – July 1770 Great Britain
April 1767 – February 1811 Spain
September 1771 – May 1776 Great Britain
February 1811 – August 1829 None
August 1829 – December 1831 United Provinces
December 1831 – January 1832 United States
January 1832 – December 1832 None
December 1832 – January 1833 Argentine Confederation
January 1833 – August 1833 United Kingdom
August 1833 – January 1834 None
January 1834 – April 1982 United Kingdom
April 1982 – June 1982 Argentina
June 1982 – present United Kingdom

Sorry to drag this silly debate further but almost looks like France and Spain have historically more claim to the island than the Argentines.

That wouldn't make much sense considering, its was under france for 3 years spain for 44 and the uk for 188 yrs.

I don't really understand why Argentina wants it. Is there some natural resource there of interest that is more valuable than anything they already have?