Falklands

[Yoshi525]

I don't associate Argentina with racism, certainly not to any great degree.

Now the pleasantries are concluded, let’s discuss the Falkland Islands.

Historically, Argentina does have a claim on them. But in modern reality? Sorry, but I can't bring myself to care about what happened in the 1830's - it has very little (if any) relevance to the current situation. The UK has governed the Islands for a long time now, the populace strongly oppose a change of governance. Finally, Argentina invaded the islands - as far as myself and the British government are concerned, that ended the already small possibility of a diplomatic solution. You made your play, you lost. Diplomatically it's a non-issue.

If Argentina wants the Falklands so badly, I would advise she try again - by force - within the next 10 years. Strike whilst we are carrier free, because in a decade we will have the capacity to project 30+ F-35's down there, concluding any military question completely.

How many Dagger's and Dassault's does it take to bring down a Typhoon?

[/Arrogant nationalism]

 

[aboniks]

...How many Dagger's and Dassault's does it take to bring down a Typhoon?

One, if you can get it close enough to hit the typhoon while it's on the deck.

 

[Gonzalez]

what about all those Dictators before the ones we put in? Where they come from?

You don't know because you are ignorant about our history, instead you just herd some stuff about dictators and immediately assumed it must be a nation of racists, hence you said people must think we are racists because of that assumption you made out of ignorance.

"The UK and Agentina fought over the world's biggest turd one time......Humans are silly silly people"

Already answered that, for you it's a turd, for others is an important part of their culture, history and identity. Also this is the question I was asking if it was being answered since you made it (what were they thinking).

also nice not-mention of the people that live there. Fuck those guys

Well there was Argentinean people living there before under an Argentine local government and they were taken away by the British and relocated to the mainland, and no one asked them if they wanted to stay or what government they wanted to belong to. So fuck them too I guess.

How many Dagger's and Dassault's does it take to bring down a Typhoon?

I don't know but they sink you ships and frigates pretty well.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zhPiYKuDbKE" frameborder="0"></iframe>

[/Arrogant nationalism]

 

[Yoshi525]

Already answered that, for you it's a turd, for others is an important part of their culture, history and identity. Also this is the question I was asking if it was being answered since you made it (what were they thinking).

Rest assured that the British government doesn't view it as a turd; rather a future point of strategy, with respect to our share of Antarctica’s resources.

Well there was Argentinean people living there before under an Argentine local government and they were taken away by the British and relocated to the mainland, and no one asked them if they wanted to stay or what government they wanted to belong to. So fuck them too I guess.

So? That was 1833, long time ago. Virtually every nation on Earth could harbour similarly asinine qualms from past centuries. Achieve much?

One, if you can get it close enough to hit the typhoon while it's on the deck. Very Happy

At present, Her Britannic Majesty's blue water fleet has an unfortunate lack of flight decks. Your point is equally valid when it comes to typhoons on a runway though, unless Mount Pleasant has SAM's, which it probably does. Still, utilising all her destroyers Argentina could definitely overcome our four typhoons down there. That's where HMS Astute comes in

I don't know but they sink you ships and frigates pretty well.

Touché. Your fightinghawks don't look too shabby at ground attack, although your air force has shrunk considerably overall. Daring Class destroyers would not be sunk so easily though, in fact attacking them with anything short of F-22's or modern heavy bombers would be pretty suicidal, unless you have a very large and disposable air force (which Argentina does not).

 

[Gonzalez]

At present, Her Britannic Majesty's blue water fleet has an unfortunate lack of flight decks. Your point is equally valid when it comes to typhoons on a runway though, unless Mount Pleasant has SAM's, which it probably does. Still, utilising all her destroyers Argentina could definitely overcome our four typhoons down there. That's where HMS Astute comes in

Good thing we are currently making our own nuclear subs to rid our territorial waters of possible brit infestation.

 

[aboniks]

...Daring Class destroyers would not be sunk so easily though, in fact attacking them with anything short of F-22's or modern heavy bombers would be pretty suicidal, unless you have a very large and disposable air force (which Argentina does not).

Drones.

Mexico in 2008 deployed its own drones to crime-plagued Ciudad Juarez (across the border from El Paso) and today operates up to 30 UAVs nationwide, says Guevara. Programs also exist in Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela. None are armed and most are discreet.

linkie

If they're already training drone pilots for paramilitary law enforcement, shifting over to military use is a cinch.

 

[Yoshi525]

Good thing we are currently making our own nuclear subs to rid our territorial waters of possible brit infestation.

*Shrug* Submarine warfare is one of two military specialities we still serve very well. TR-1700's are good submarines, but we have better and more of them besides. I won't even bother to compare the respective skills of the officers commanding them.

Drones.

True, however Argentina have few and their primary role is intelligence. Anyway, a single type 45 is designed to provide defence to an entire battlegroup - i.e. defend against saturation attacks featuring large numbers of mach 3 anti-ship missiles.

 

[aboniks]

Damn. That's a hell of a boat. I mean ship, ship. If it's designed for saturation defense, drones are probably of minimal value.

In that case...um...sharks with lasers?

On the drones, I'd think that having experienced pilots and mechanics, even in a law enforcement capacity, is a lot of the trick.

After that you just need cash and a supply chain for weaponized versions, and you can conscript your subject matter experts.

EDIT: On the OP though, I can't say I've really considered racism at all in South America. Aside from maybe the lingering indios/spaniard friction.

 

[Yoshi525]

Speaking of drones, as of two weeks ago the UK's second squadron of Reaper drones is based a few miles from where I live. It's a little surreal seeing UAV's, armed to the teeth with hellfire missiles, when your out walking your dog

 

[aboniks]

I think you're just jealous.

solution

 

[Gonzalez]

*Shrug* Submarine warfare is one of two military specialities we still serve very well. TR-1700's are good submarines, but we have better and more of them besides. I won't even bother to compare the respective skills of the officers commanding them.

As for the skills may I remind you that in one of those old diesel submarines (comparable probably to WWII U-Boats) the commander managed to attack the fleet three times with torpedoes and to stay undetected right under the fleet for over 24 hours (yes, you had an Argentine sub right under your noses (or keels) an entire day and the fleet didn't even knew about it.

The torpedoes failed because of the faulty targeting computers and because the torpedoes guidance system failed to work, but I don't think MK-48's in propper working conditions will have any problems hitting any kind of submarine in existence to date. And, as you may well know, no better weapon to hunt a sub than another sub.

Our submarines are smaller, made for hunting. The only advantage I see on the HMS Astute is that it can launch tomahawk missiles (BTW ours can use their torpedo tubes to launch Exocet). So you may or may not really have the advantage there, difficult to say. I don't want to go into detail since I'm no naval expert myself, if I gave any specific data I would be lying because I don't have it.

In any case I think it would be safe to assume that our subs would have a reasonable chance of taking down a Royal Navy sub should it come to it (otherwise why bother spending millions making inferior submarines that won't do their job).

That being said I don't think our government has any intentions to attack the islands any time soon, so it's not much use making an hypothesis on what a war would be like today or in the near future.

On the topic of what reasons did we had to attack the islands back when we did, well, I will not talk about the real reasons of why it actually happened, since it's long and complicadted and there's also a lot of conspiracy talk about it, but I will quote someone who I think explains the feeling of why we want the islands back:

"War is terrible. In war men die, sometimes there was people here who didn't understand that. But war is sometimes necessary, above all when it's just. A person who doesn't defend what he has or what belongs to him doesn't deserves what he has. Then I think that after 150 years of patience, this war was necessary. When a man walks down the street with his mother and a gang attacks her, he defends her beyond loosing or winning or whether he has the means necessary to do so or not, he must fight. And I think this was the situation." -Captain Pablo Marcos Carballo.

 

[Yoshi525]

As for the skills may I remind you that in one of those old diesel submarines (comparable probably to WWII U-Boats) the commander managed to attack the fleet three times with torpedoes and to stay undetected right under the fleet for over 24 hours (yes, you had an Argentine sub right under your noses (or keels) an entire day and the fleet didn't even knew about it.

The torpedoes failed because of the faulty targeting computers and because the torpedoes guidance system failed to work, but I don't think MK-48's in propper working conditions will have any problems hitting any kind of submarine in existence to date. And, as you may well know, no better weapon to hunt a sub than another sub.

Our submarines are smaller, made for hunting. The only advantage I see on the HMS Astute is that it can launch tomahawk missiles (BTW ours can use their torpedo tubes to launch Exocet). So you may or may not really have the advantage there, difficult to say. I don't want to go into detail since I'm no naval expert myself, if I gave any specific data I would be lying because I don't have it.

I'll hasten to add that likewise I'm no naval expert, aviation is my area. Diesel electrics are often harder to detect than their nuclear counterparts, as odd as it seems. In all fairness the Argentine armed forces fought well in the Falklands and caused are navy no end of problems.

As for hitting submarines, you obviously have to see them first. The Astute class is possibly the most silent nuclear-sub the world has yet seen, though the French navy would no doubt contest this. We currently only have one though, which is rather big limiting factor.

That being said I don't think our government has any intentions to attack the islands any time soon, so it's not much use making an hypothesis on what a war would be like today or in the near future.

You're right of course. Going back to your first post concerning Falklands - you mention that the islands have a special significance in your country's history. I'd be interested in learning more, and will read up on it, however if you could give me a quick history lesson on this point It would be greatly appreciated!

 

[Gonzalez]

This not being the original purpose of the post I considered sending it as a PM because of the risk of going off topic, but as the person I quoted before said on another ocation "I am a combatant and I keep fighting, you fight with a plane, you fight with words, you fight with peaceful means..." So I guess that if I try to get my point across to more people is also a way of contributing to the fight. So I'll just post it here where everyone can read.

Where to begin? In 1807 and 1808 the british tried to take Buenos Aires twice, both times they were unable to do it. The first time the spanish authorities fled and and the british troops just walked in and occupied the city, until the locals formed a militia themselves and expelled them. The second time they had intentions of taking Buenos Aires once more and sent a considerable force, but the militia, already formed from the previous invasion, managed to defend Buenos Aires. Eventually in 1810 the local population decided they didn't needed the spanish authorities who had failed to defend them twice, and decided to form a new local government, as a result Argentina was born, the new nation being composed of a series of territories that were formerly spanish.

The islands (had to look up precise information for dates and such).

In 1764 the french took possession of the islands, the spanish protested and the french agreed to evacuate and recognized spanish sovereignty of the archipelago and other buildings. In parallel the british funded Port Egmont in Isla Trinidad, and Spain managed the withdrawal of the british under a series of agreement called "Convenciones de Nutka". In 1811 the Falklands were evacuated by the spanish, until 1820 where the newly formed argentine government sent a frigate to take possession and reaffirm their rights over the archipelago as part of securing the new territories that would compose the new nation. A settlement was formed and a new local argentine government was created with headquarters in Soledad island and with jurisdiction over the islands adjacent to Cape of Horns.

British occupation.

Because of foreign whaling boats were forbidden from fishing in the zone an United States war corvette attacked and destroyed the settlement installations and defenses. Then in 1833 a british war frigate arrived and the british told the locals that they were going to take possession of the islands and reaffirm british sovereignty on them. Unable to fight back the settlers returned to Argentina.

Dispute

Ever since then (1983) the sovereignty of the islands has been in dispute between the United Kingdom and Argentina. The islands and and the waters around them are under United Kingdom control for who the Falklands are overseas territories. Argentina does not recognize british sovereignty over the Falklands wich are considered integral and indivisible part of their territory illegally occupied by an invading foreign force. In such sense this makes them part of the Tierra del Fuego province, Antartida and Islands of the South Atlantic, where are grouped with the South Georgias, south Sandwich and South Orcadas.

Our feelings about it

Legally under local government all maps of the nation must include the islands. In all maps of the world made here the islands are included as part of Argentina's territory as well. Every kid in school knows that the islands are argentine, as british sovereignty over them has never been recognized by the argentine government.
Our war of independence was not just form the independence of Spain, but of every single colonial power, included the british, who tried to invade us twice before, and had we let them succeed what we know today as Argentina would be part of United Kingdom overseas territories. So the islands are a part of our nation that we still have not be able to liberate from colonial powers, they are a symbol that foreign powers will always be there to threaten us and our liberty. And being only about 400 kilometers from the mainland that threat is very present. With every claim the UK makes over those territories and the waters around them, every time the UK tries to take natural resources from there, and every single military exercise they perform in the area is nothing but a show of the constant threat from powerful foreign nations that would want to subdue us to their will.

Now on the topic of the people currently living there, because I know someone will bring this one up.

In a nutshell: It has been approved and ratified in the UN that, for self determination to be valid it must meet two conditions: 1)I must be invocated by "peoples". 2) It must not affect the territorial integrity of a state.

It is understood that "people" is an ethnic group that has differential objective characteristics that give them personality and a conscience of that difference in personality. The populations in the islands do not constitute a nation, nor people, nor ethnical group differentiated themselves from Britain. This right therefore belongs only to an ethnical group on a territory of their own belonging and not over illegally occupied spaces. It would make no sense to ask the usurpator if he wants to stay with what he stole. There is no nationality, ethnic group nor people that can be denominated kelper or falklander, there are only british that have always manifested their will to stay british.

The second condition for a people to have right to self determination is that it does not affect totally nor partially the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country. All attempt to do so would be in conflict with United Nations resolutions.

The british living in the Falklands islands meet neither of these conditions.

 

[TheGM]

I do see where it fits in the whole history thing.

The long line of people taking things from other people who took them from some other guy who took it from yet another party who took it from someone else and how they got a hold of it in the first place....nobody knows.(Wizard involvement is suspected)

And I totally get the not recognizing that somebody else owns it because "Fuck Those guys".

I don't recognize Texas being part of the union, I call all Texans foreigners and my flag only has 48 stars on it. (Still on the fence about Iowa)

FIGHT THE POWER!!!(who ever that power might be)

 

[Gonzalez]

There are two possibilities, either you don't understood what my point was, or, paraphrasing Captain Carballo, you are the kind of person that would let others step all over him rather than fight for what is his, and therefore not deserve to have it.

The comparison with Texas suggest you didn't get it, so maybe I should enlighten you with a different kind of example. Suppose China invaded some islands off the coast of Alaska, claiming them for themselves. Would you recognize them as theirs? Would you just let them have the islands just because they took them by force? Or would you try to get them back? Maybe even complain in the United Nations? What if the Chinese would just simply refuse to negotiate and make deaf ears to everything you say?

No one in UK even knew what the Falklands were until we forced their hand, mostly to get some kind of reaction since the idea was to return the isles to the UK and start negotiations until the security council at the UN voted against it. A Royal Navy sailor who served at the time even said he thought maybe they were some islands off the coast of Scotland, but for us they were important, everyone in our country knew what they were and what they represented, and the UK kept making deaf ears to all our complains because they were more powerful than we were.

They were part of our territory and they were taken away from us. That is why we do not recognize their sovereignty over them. Or should we just sit back and let others do whatever they want to us? If we did there would be no Argentina at all today. Is fighting for what is ours so difficult to understand?

It's no rocket science really, a territorial dispute is a territorial dispute. It has existed for millennia. In modern times, since we are more civilized, whenever two countries have a territorial dispute, rather than attack each other, they sit and discuss at the UN. The UK just wouldn't (and still refuses to) sit and discuss, out of arrogance for being far more powerful than we are or for whatever reason. But they just did not wanted to sit and resolve our differences.

 

[aboniks]

There are two possibilities, either you don't understood what my point was, or, paraphrasing Captain Carballo, you are the kind of person that would let others step all over him rather than fight for what is his, and therefore not deserve to have it.

The comparison with Texas suggest you didn't get it...

This is a fine example of why we need a specific font for sarcasm on the internet.

He was just pulling your leg, Gonzalez, unless I'm totally mistaken.

 

[popej]

That's some pretty bias argument you've posted Gonzales. That's not neccessarily such a bad thing of course, you're a proud Argentinian after all.

The Spanish were Argentinias forebears as you inherited Spains interest in South America when you gained independence.

Spain succeeded control of one colony from the French who were the first inhabitants on any of the islands. The British colony, which was founded a year after the French one, was later captured by the Spanish. It then changed hands x number of times depending on which agressor had the superior force in the South Atlantic at the time, and eventually ended up British again after the Argentinian (Spanish) residents were turfed out once and for all.

Why is the Spanish occupation of the British settlement more justifiable than the British occupation of the Argentinian settlement? What is the Argentinian claim exactly?

Is it "Because Argentinians lived on the Islands for a couple of generations before being turfed out"? What about the British occupants who lived on the island long before Argentina was even a nation?

The only possible Argentinian claim I can see is one of geographical proximity.

So, unless you're arguing for the original Patagonian indians who possibly visited the islands before the French then your argument is a bit poor. In fact, I'd argue that Britiain in fact has the older interest in the islands, older than Spains anyway.

You've twisted the argument to make it sound like Argentina is an innocent party in all of this. You don't get to shed all of your Spanish ancestors troubles and keep it's conquered lands because your country gained it's independence. Sins of our fathers and all that.

You've also stated that Britain has snubbed Argentinian claims to the islands and has done since day one. That isn't true, in fact the UK initiated attempts to resolve the Falklands ownership dispute during the 40's by offering to submit the case to the Int. court of justice in the Hague. Ie, and attempt to let an arguably independent body decide the outcome. Argentinia refused and even stated that it would not respect the ruling of the court. Fair enough, your governments back then weren't exactly democratically elected but that's not the UK's problem is it?

I'm no expert and some of this information has come from Wikipedia. I'm pretty confident it has the basics right however.

In summary and in my opinion, Argentinas claim on the islands is definitely no better than the UK's with the possible exception of geographical proximity.

 

[Gonzalez]

Is it "Because Argentinians lived on the Islands for a couple of generations before being turfed out"? What about the British occupants who lived on the island long before Argentina was even a nation?

Easy, there were overlapping claims about the islands and other territories between the spanish and the british and to avoid a war agreements were made, amongst them it was agreed that the islands were spanish.

About the bias, if you are talking about what I think you are, I was asked about what special significance the Falklands had in our culture, not the real factual reasons why the islands "should" be ours. Our diplomats know that far better than I do.

EDIT:

You've twisted the argument to make it sound like Argentina is an innocent party in all of this. You don't get to shed all of your Spanish ancestors troubles and keep it's conquered lands because your country gained it's independence. Sins of our fathers and all that.

I'm not sure I follow you here, no one is innocent of anything. We have our arguments the UK has theirs, a claim is a claim. When we got there the islands were deserted and we stablished ourselves there, the british kicked us out and we have all the right not to agree with what they've done. I don't think it's too complicated.

 

[Yoshi525]

Cheers for the detailed response Gonzalez, I'll expand this post into a more detailed reply - including more re the original topic - when I have time this evening.

 

[popej]

Easy, there were overlapping claims about the islands and other territories between the spanish and the british and to avoid a war agreements were made, amongst them it was agreed that the islands were spanish.

No, the UK never renounced it's sovereignty claim. I assume you're referring to the Spanish seizing control of Port Egmont in 1770. Britain threatened war over this so a treaty was drawn up with neither side relinquishing it's sovereignty claim.. The former British colonists then returned within a year.

Britain was then forced to leave the islands a few years later because of economic pressure, apparently due to the costs of fighting the Yanks in the US and France in Europe.

In fact, one of the key British arguments is and always has been that she has never relinquished claim since 1690.

So my point remains, what's the difference between the Spanish occupation of a former British settlement, and the subsequent British occupation of the Argentinian settlement 60 years later? Both acts of aggression but with an important caveat 'Britain were there first'.

About the bias, if you are talking about what I think you are, I was asked about what special significance the Falklands had in our culture, not the real factual reasons why the islands "should" be ours. Our diplomats know that far better than I do.

This is at least a better argument, in that some common sense is applied to the modern situation.

I'd argue that the interests and opinion of the current residents of the islands, who are now presumably about 10th generation is just as valid an argument as the "culture" one is for Argentina though.

Again, my source for this information is, for better or worse, largely Wikipedia. With some prior reading about the arguments from both sides in other publications.

Edit: Maybe this thread should be split? The discussion about the Falkland Islands is a worthwhile I think.