# They are called The Falkland Islands ...



## Sukerkin (Jun 17, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13803111

Can someone remind your President that that little group of islands in the South Atlantic is NOT called the Malvinas.

We paid for them in blood last time there was a weak Argentine leader who wanted a "short victorious war" to prop up popularity at home.

They are British subjects and want to stay that way, other than one man whose father is no doubt now turning in his grave.

If it comes to a shooting war again, will we be able to call on a bit more support than we got last time from America? 

With Obama cosying up to the Argentinians that doesn't look likely and as we got rid of our aircraft carriers we'll have to start mobilising early (using the airstrips we built there after last time).


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 17, 2011)

All depends on if he can buy your votes.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 17, 2011)

Marc, you do realize that Obama is vehemently anti-colonialism? In his mind, the Falkland Islands are only 250 miles from Argentina, and over 7000 miles from England, so they *must* be Argentinian: _Islas Malvinas,_ no matter what the people who live there want.....:lol:


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 17, 2011)

Damn it then, Canada has to retake St-Pierre and Miquelon from the French. After all, it is 10km from Canada. :uhyeah:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 17, 2011)

Can you anex Buffalo?

As to the Falkland's, I don't see the US getting involved.
1- Obama 'dislikes' the Brits.
2- No oil there for us
3- Probably already has a McDonalds so no reason to 'spread democracy'.
4- If we did get involved, they'd have to be freed, Haliburton given a 'no-bid' 'rebuild' contract, and some car bombs would have to go off first so we can claim we're 'fighting terror'
5- Did I mention Obama isn't too fond of our British allies?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 17, 2011)

OK, can those in Britain that still call the USA the Colonies please stop and while we&#8217;re at it could you stop calling an Elevator a lift and the hood of a car a bonnet and don&#8217;t get me started on what you call Cigarettes and the whole fanny pack debacle

I'm sorry but I don't care what you call them. We have enough trouble to deal with in the USA and enough trouble globally on an environmental scale to worry about. Sorry but if he called the Bob I would not care it is a name and makes him look foolish so what. The people of the USA have little power to change anything he says or does, at least for a little longer.

I know people fought for them and died for them and that their sacrifice should not be forgotten but it is a name and if the US president calls it by any other name, who cares it is not ours. I am also betting that Hu Jintao, Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev don't call it The Falkland Islands either so why is there no complaint about what they call it.... now post to all Chinese and Russians too and you might have something...but you know.... I still would not care


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 17, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13803111
> 
> Can someone remind your President that that little group of islands in the South Atlantic is NOT called the Malvinas.
> 
> ...


 
Wasn't it 29 years ago that the US told Britain that they couldn't win the war over the Falklands and they did anyway.
I can't believe Argentina have the brass balls to demand talks over souverignty. They should've thought more about 'talks' before their soldiers took photos of themselves smiling while standing on the heads of Royal Marines they had lying on the ground.
When it comes to US intervention from Argentina trying the same trick again, the President should remember that the US owes Britain for Iraq and Afghanistan, (Including Desert Storm) and even if Obama doesn't want to play ball, the Argies should realize that the new conservative leadership in 2012 will.
Oh, and the bastard who took that Argie citizenship should be kicked off the island. 
I hope to God, I'm deployed to that one!


----------



## Big Don (Jun 17, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Can you anex Buffalo?
> 
> As to the Falkland's, I don't see the US getting involved.
> 1- Obama 'dislikes' the Brits.
> ...


I don't think that is it. I don't think he really dislikes the Brits or the Israelis. I think he is one of those people who is so full of himself he has very little regard for anyone else.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 17, 2011)

When reading the title, I thought someone had mispronounced the Falkland Islands' name, like my teacher did in 6th grade... UC instead of AL, it was a memorable day...


----------



## granfire (Jun 17, 2011)

Big Don said:


> When reading the title, I thought someone had mispronounced the Falkland Islands' name, like my teacher did in 6th grade... UC instead of AL, it was a memorable day...




LOL, now what ever did the little rock in the middle of nowhere turn out to be called that fateful day?
:lfao:

(maybe that's why the dude called them Malvinas....so the perma detractors could not photoshop him saying a bad word on TV?)

(what do they fight over over there anyhow? Can't be the couple of sheep running around there...)


----------



## tshadowchaser (Jun 17, 2011)

You have to remember that the USA is spending more than 10 million a day against a nation we are not at war with but have troops and bombs attacking. Oh excuse me we are simply help out across the ocean in that country. 
Why wouldn't we want to help out defend something much closer. Thats right Oil and a chance to bring more refugees here to support. 
As had been said before if it will make him look better and get votes or campaign funds he will side with whom ever can do the most for him


----------



## crushing (Jun 17, 2011)

yorkshirelad said:


> Wasn't it 29 years ago that the US told Britain that they couldn't win the war over the Falklands and they did anyway.
> I can't believe Argentina have the brass balls to demand talks over souverignty. They should've thought more about 'talks' before their soldiers took photos of themselves smiling while standing on the heads of Royal Marines they had lying on the ground.
> When it comes to US intervention from Argentina trying the same trick again, the *President should remember that the US owes Britain for Iraq and Afghanistan,* (Including Desert Storm) and even if Obama doesn't want to play ball, the Argies should realize that the new conservative leadership in 2012 will.
> Oh, and the bastard who took that Argie citizenship should be kicked off the island.
> I hope to God, I'm deployed to that one!


 

Maybe he thinks getting rid of the Chinese and securing Libyan oil is enough of a payback?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/30/libya-oil-shell-megrahi
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eef58d52-3fe2-11e0-811f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1PYJXSEul


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 17, 2011)

yorkshirelad said:


> Wasn't it 29 years ago that the US told Britain that they couldn't win the war over the Falklands and they did anyway.
> I can't believe Argentina have the brass balls to demand talks over souverignty. They should've thought more about 'talks' before their soldiers took photos of themselves smiling while standing on the heads of Royal Marines they had lying on the ground.
> When it comes to US intervention from Argentina trying the same trick again, the President should remember that the US owes Britain for Iraq and Afghanistan, (Including Desert Storm) and even if Obama doesn't want to play ball, the Argies should realize that the new conservative leadership in 2012 will.
> Oh, and the bastard who took that Argie citizenship should be kicked off the island.
> I hope to God, I'm deployed to that one!


There isn't going to be a new conservative administration in 2012. 
Sean


----------



## elder999 (Jun 17, 2011)

touch of death said:


> there isn't going to be a new conservative administration in 2012.
> sean


 
*qft*


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 17, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> There isn't going to be a new conservative administration in 2012.
> Sean


I can still hope can't I?


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 17, 2011)

crushing said:


> Maybe he thinks getting rid of the Chinese and securing Libyan oil is enough of a payback?
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/30/libya-oil-shell-megrahi
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eef58d52-3fe2-11e0-811f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1PYJXSEul


 
Maybe, but he's wrong!!


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 17, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Marc, you do realize that Obama is vehemently anti-colonialism? In his mind, the Falkland Islands are only 250 miles from Argentina, and over 7000 miles from England, so they *must* be Argentinian: _Islas Malvinas,_ no matter what the people who live there want.....:lol:


 
So are we going to go after the Danish so we can give Greenland back? 

Can all non Native American Heritage person's also leave North America if people are against colonialism? 

So why does the President also ask the question to have a committee established to have a 51st sate made of Puerto Rico. Should not they be independant or go back to the Spanish or something?


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 17, 2011)

yorkshirelad said:


> I can still hope can't I?



Even if one of the current Republican candidates won in 2012, we still wouldn't have an actual conservative administration.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 17, 2011)

Xue, I think you misunderstand the diplomatic significance of the President and his foreign policy people calling the Falkland's the Malvinas.  It's not just a case of "What's in a name".  

That useage of title has been the point-of-the-sword in this tussle for a very long time.  They *are* the Falkland Isles, not the Malvinas and for the American President to use the latter term gives incentive for the Argentinians to have another go at taking them by force.

Of course, the present US administration has been very weak in such matters of protocol and meaning ever since it came in so maybe I'm reading too much into it.  But if I am you can bet that the politico's in Argentina are.

Last time they had a need for a 'miltary victory' to boost their standings, this happened:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6499565.stm

It's probably best if that didn't happen again, so a stronger message from our 'Ally' for the Argentine's to look elsewhere for their PR would be a good move.


----------



## granfire (Jun 17, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Xue, I think you misunderstand the diplomatic significance of the President and his foreign policy people calling the Falkland's the Malvinas.  It's not just a case of "What's in a name".
> 
> That useage of title has been the point-of-the-sword in this tussle for a very long time.  They *are* the Falkland Isles, not the Malvinas and for the American President to use the latter term gives incentive for the Argentinians to have another go at taking them by force.
> 
> ...




Maybe this day and age they just look for a willing intern to divert national interest....no, wait, that only works here....

(I remember the conflict but I think even back then at the tender age of 14 it didn't make much sense - in either direction I might add: A stinking rock in the middle of the ocean with more sheep than people....but traditions go a long way, and who am I to say they can't feel British....(heck, I hear some folks still feel closer to Germany than anything else, even though their ties had been cut in 1918...))


----------



## Big Don (Jun 17, 2011)

granfire said:


> A stinking rock in the middle of the ocean with more sheep than people...


New Zealand?


----------



## granfire (Jun 17, 2011)

Big Don said:


> New Zealand?



but more pocket size and worse weather (as I recall)


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 17, 2011)

But more Pengies!  Which are very cute:

*http://www.falklandislands.com/*


----------



## billc (Jun 17, 2011)

Just wait till he gives the speach where he tells the British that they just have to give the Falklands back.  I don't think Obama's contempt for the British can be emphasized enough.  He really thinks that it is time for the third world countries to get what is owed to them.  To do this he is willing to let the United States go into a steep decline, and he is willing to withdraw support from our allies.  I can't wait to vote to get this guy out of office.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 17, 2011)

Obama likes the Brits the way I like Lincoln.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 17, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Xue, I think you misunderstand the diplomatic significance of the President and his foreign policy people calling the Falkland's the Malvinas. It's not just a case of "What's in a name". But then the Patagonian Indians may have actually been there first so...
> 
> That useage of title has been the point-of-the-sword in this tussle for a very long time. They are the Falkland Isles, not the Malvinas and for the American President to use the latter term gives incentive for the Argentinians to have another go at taking them by force.
> 
> ...


 
Nope did not misunderstand a thing...I simply do not care... Would you feel better if he called it the Sebald Islands since it is likely the Dutch were the first Europeans to see it... and name it.. and lets not forget the Patagonian Indians who were likely the first to find it...

Too many real big issues going on around the world and about the world for me to care much at all&#8230; Countries at war, melting ice caps, 3rd world diseases popping up in first world nations. Economic collapse possible the possible collapse of the euro looming &#8230;sorry but if Obama called them Hawaii I may think he was a bit ridiculous doing it but I would not care&#8230;. Now if it makes you feel better I once again take full responsibility for any bad thing, indiscretion or act of idiocy that our president has made and offer you a full and rather seriously sounding apology&#8230;.. Sorry about that&#8230;.yup it is the Falkland&#8230;. However the indigenous people that it was likely first taken from may disagree but that is a historical debate that is not really necessary to get into right now and I doubt that the some of the inhabitants (Penguins and sheep who I believe out number the people) know what it is called by any human but then that too is stuff of another post&#8230;.so again terribly sorry Obama used the wrong name for the islands I will call him immediately and chastise him severely for doing so&#8230;. now back to those people of Britain who still refer to the USA as the Colonies.... can you fix that for us because it is really annoying and to some of the USA rather insulting. 


EDIT

One more thing...why didn't you post a similar thread when Hilary Clinton made a stupid remark about the Spratlys and ticked of China as well as a few other East Asian countries. Now that was a bit of a major Diplomatic debacle but I saw no post then complaining about US idiocy&#8230;which frankly it was much the same as this incident is and there is not thing one anyone that reads MT, who lives in the USA, can do about it because we don't matter to those in power beyond out vote which the all lie to us to get.


----------



## billc (Jun 17, 2011)

Wow, Sukerkin. Welcome to my world. I imagine Israel and britain could share stories about how badly they have been treated by Obama. I mean, you guys are two of our strongest allies, Britain in particular was with us in a couple of little wars called world war one and two, and have been slogging it out with us in the sands of Iraq and Afghanistan. A little courtesy and respect would be appreciated dont' you think. The misnaming of the Falklands was intentional, it was not a miscommunication and it was meant to send another anti-british message to Britain.

................................

I may be mistaken but Sukerkin probably did not comment on Hillary's remark because he is not Chinese.  And in Hillary's case it probably was a mistake.  She and her husband are probably still on the Chinese payroll even after all this time.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 17, 2011)

Not your normal reasonable self today, Xue.  I am sorry to be a source of annoyance.

As far as I am concerned you are well off-beam with your thoughts but I shall not try to argue with you about them.

All I would gently suggest is that you read a bit about the history of the islands and then form your views.


----------



## granfire (Jun 17, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> But more Pengies!  Which are very cute:
> 
> *http://www.falklandislands.com/*



AWEEEEEEE!!!!


(but still, as much as I do want one, not moving to the Semalvikland isles...)


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 17, 2011)

By calling them anything but the Falklands Islands, Obama gave validity to the Argentine claim to the Islands. The only reason there has been relative peace in the area is because Argentine finally found democracy a couple of decades back, and has tried to clean up its act. 
There were no naïve inhabitants of the Islands, the only reason they have a population at all is because of settlers from the UK. In some ways much better then how North America, South America, Australia and NZ were settled, they never murdered, contaminated or displaced the native population. 
Dont worry Suk, not all your allies have forsaken you.


----------



## granfire (Jun 17, 2011)

but all kidding aside....what map was he (or his staffy) looking at to come up with 'that other' name?!! 

Somebody showing ff his 'knowledge'?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 17, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> There were no naïve inhabitants of the Islands, the only reason they have a population at all is because of settlers from the UK. In some ways much better then how North America, South America, Australia and NZ were settled, they never murdered, contaminated or displaced the native population.




Let's not forget the wholesale slaughter and extinction of the Falkland Islands Wolf.


----------



## granfire (Jun 17, 2011)

elder999 said:


> [/font][/size]
> 
> Let's not forget the wholesale slaughter and extinction of the Falkland Islands Wolf.


:vu::vu:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 17, 2011)

I'd never heard of the other name before. Always been Falklands to me.

and to Robin Williams who used to joke about sheep being war brides..... (don't hit me Suk, I'm on your side...least until the jelly babies run out. )


----------



## Carol (Jun 17, 2011)

granfire said:


> but all kidding aside....what map was he (or his staffy) looking at to come up with 'that other' name?!!
> 
> Somebody showing ff his 'knowledge'?



No, someone (or more likely a team of someones) trying deliberately to make a political point.  I don't think wiki is off the mark with this:



> The Falkland Islands took their English name from "Falkland Sound",  the channel between the two main islands, which was in turn named after Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland by Captain John Strong, who landed on the islands in 1690.[5] The Spanish name, _Islas Malvinas_,[6] is derived from the French name,[7] _Îles Malouines_, named by Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764 after the first known settlers, mariners and fishermen from the Breton port of Saint-Malo in France.[7] The ISO designation is _Falkland Islands (Malvinas)_ and its ISO country code is _FK_.[8]
> As a result of the continuing sovereignty dispute, t*he use of many Spanish names is considered offensive in the Falkland Islands*, particularly those associated with the 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands.[9] General Sir Jeremy Moore would not allow the use of _Islas Malvinas_ in the surrender document, dismissing it as a propaganda term.[10]



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


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 18, 2011)

I can guarantee some monkey intern in the government said that Malvinas is a Spanish name/translation for the islands and no one checked their work.
In international politics, everything you say is watched, and matters, regardless of how simple it all may seem for those of us on the fringes.


----------



## granfire (Jun 18, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> I can guarantee some monkey intern in the government said that Malvinas is a Spanish name/translation for the islands and no one checked their work.
> In international politics, everything you say is watched, and matters, regardless of how simple it all may seem for those of us on the fringes.




Considering that probably a lot of them kids think Alaska is right next to Hawaii....it surprises me that they even found an alternative name for the islands...


----------



## billc (Jun 18, 2011)

Hopefully in 2012 the united states will pass the kidney stone that is known as Barak Obama and we will return to respecting our long standing friends.   The world he sees is not the world that actually exists.  The Iranians, Russians and venezuelan governments are not the good guys and Britain, Israel and the united states are not the bad guys.  I hope we vote him out in 2012 and can then try to repair the damage to our international relationships.


----------



## Scott T (Jun 18, 2011)

Between Bush last time and Bammers now. You folks are really fracked when it comes to choosing Presidents.

OTOH, as much of a douche as I now believe Bammers to be, I still think he was the best choice out of the candidates in that particular election.


----------



## billc (Jun 18, 2011)

As much as I disliked McCain, he would not have been the problem that Obama is.  he would have been bad, but just not as bad as "The One."  And there was always the chance that Palin would have run after mccains four years were up.


----------



## billc (Jun 18, 2011)

I've been saving this Bill Whittle video for a good thread, and thinking about it, this thread seems appropriate...


http://www.declarationentertainment.com/firewall-turncoat-nation

the video starts with the Obama call on the 67 border but then moves on to the overall messed up foreign policy of the administration.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 18, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Not your normal reasonable self today, Xue. I am sorry to be a source of annoyance.
> 
> As far as I am concerned you are well off-beam with your thoughts but I shall not try to argue with you about them.
> 
> All I would gently suggest is that you read a bit about the history of the islands and then form your views.


 
(post deleted) 

You know, on second thought, never mind&#8230;not worth the time... and one of us, or both of us, is missing the point


----------



## billc (Jul 5, 2011)

Here is an article that discusses the Falkland Islands and the relationship, militarily, between the old Britain and modern Britain.

http://bigpeace.com/phair/2011/07/05/why-doesnt-the-united-kingdom-own-argentina/

From the article:

Argentina continues giving the United Kingdom trouble over the Falkland Islands. This is troubling but I understand why Argentina does it: the U.K. seems militarily weak as demonstrated by its performance in Libya and by other reports of its deterioration. And when a state that is unencumbered by political correctness and principles, such as Argentina, sees an opportunity to take advantage of another nation, it is going to do so. Furthermore, even if the U.K. has the capabilities to fight back, history tells us that it will only minimally do so. In fact, the only reason Argentina exists today is that the U.K. didn&#8217;t do what it should have done in 1982 when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands. Thomas Sowell hinted at this when he wrote, &#8220;Another war created by pacifism&#8221;:
Back in the 19th century, invading a British possession would bring certain retaliation, not just a military recapture of the islands by the British. In 1882, such an attack could mean British troops landing in Argentina itself, perhaps demolishing Buenos Aires and hanging those who had launched the aggression.

​


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 6, 2011)

I do concur that wars are as often caused by perceived weakness as they are by unbridled aggression or fear.  However, I do not think that otherwise what the author of the linked article had to say was really directed at the problem of potential Argentinian miltary overtures.

In the present international climate, wars of 'Empire' are not really the way the game is played anymore.  That's something that I think is a good thing.  After all, the British Empire shaped the modern world and look at the state things are in because of it.  I happen to think that 'we' forged the Empire with the best of intentions and did a lot of good along the way {/whispers whilst nicking a lot of natural resources that the natives didn't know the worth of} but the consequences of our involvement are still felt in Africa and the Middle East down to this day.

As to the Falkland Islands tho', they're British soil.  The fact that they are in Argentina's backyard is neither here nor there.  

A domestic analogy is the fact that, at my old house, someone else owned the land behind it.  That was intensely aggrivating to me but I didn't have a legal case to take possession of it.  Despite the fact that for all the other houses in the row the land behind belonged to the house it was adjacent to, this was not the historical circumstance with regard to my house.   

If the Falkland Islanders want to become part of Argentina then I'm sure accomodations will be made but until then ...


----------



## Carol (Jul 6, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> I do concur that wars are as often caused by perceived weakness as they are by unbridled aggression or fear.  However, I do not think that otherwise what the author of the linked article had to say was really directed at the problem of potential Argentinian miltary overtures.
> 
> In the present international climate, wars of 'Empire' are not really the way the game is played anymore.  That's something that I think is a good thing.  After all, the British Empire shaped the modern world and look at the state things are in because of it.  I happen to think that 'we' forged the Empire with the best of intentions and did a lot of good along the way {/whispers whilst nicking a lot of natural resources that the natives didn't know the worth of} but the consequences of our involvement are still felt in Africa and the Middle East down to this day.
> 
> ...



Sure.  The Falkland Islanders are very British.  They speak English and have British culture...you know, the culture of our strongest allies, the ones that have been willing to fight alongside us and die alongside us.  That is hardly a trivial notion.

Referring to the Falklans as las Islas Malvinas not only snubs our allies but IMO its also a silly gesture to Argentina.  It may appeal to the nationalist-minded folk who see the Falklands War as their country proudly taking a stand against an international behemoth.  Why is such a matter not part of President Obama's talks?  Because it is trivial matter to the rank and file Argentine people.  The businesspeople down there would be more likely to say they would like affordable American cars, and precision machinery to keep their industrial base growing.  Argentina may not enjoy the same standard of living that we have in the US/UK, but it is hardly a backwards nation.  They are developing a strong economy in their own right and would like to progress further.   They aren't going to realize those goals by annexing an archipelago of British folks who largely raise sheep...or even appealing to such a notion.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 7, 2011)

Argentina giving us trouble over The Falklands has nothing to do with appearing weak, it's all to do with oil and minerals, quelle surprise eh? 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8527307.stm


----------



## granfire (Jul 7, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Argentina giving us trouble over The Falklands has nothing to do with appearing weak, it's all to do with oil and minerals, quelle surprise eh?
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8527307.stm



Phew (or should I say EEK?)
At least THAT makes sense!
(and yes, it IS a surprise)


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 7, 2011)

The potential wealth of the Falklands was the reason for the invasion in the first place, it was nothing to do with the islands supposedly belonging to Argentina first.
My other half fought down there as did his brother who went down on the QE2. The Scots Guards recently were remembering the battle for Tumbledown..
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/Tumbledown.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeOjERmbWyE&sns=fb


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 7, 2011)

Problem for the Brits is a simple one. The risk of an inability to field a force to negate possible Argentinian aggression.
Lets look at this logically for a moment.


224,500 regulars187,130 regular reserves

The British Army has had much of it's manpower tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan the past 10 years. The result is much of the regulars are unavailable due to current missions, or are recovering from years in theater. Assembling, arming and transporting an effective ground force ready for major combat could be a challenge, especially given the current economic state. Also a factor is a public tired of years of war.  In their favor is a large number of combat experienced troops armed with the latest weapons, body armor and tactics.

The British navy is still formidable, but lacks the ability to bring air support, a vital ingredient in modern warfare.  HMS Illustrious was reportedly converted to helicopter carrier. The other 2 carriers in the fleet, HMS Invincible & HMS Ark Royal, both have been decommissioned after almost 3 decades of distinguished service.  If the Brits wish to field an airforce in theater, they will have to reach out to their allies, which includes an America with a Brit-phobic president prone to political gaffes.  

The Royal Airforce has a history of bravery, and no one can honestly say their pilots lack ability. What they lack however is planes. Current estimates put about  200 combat fighters in the force, 136 Panavia Tornado's and 71 Eurofighter Typhoon's. The Tornado's are being phased out for the Typhoons, which are notable for 2 things. They cost a crap load of cash and require an ace to fly. 2 things the Brits currently lack I'm afraid if reports of budget cuts and a lack of trainers and training time are true.

By comparison, the Argentine navy has no carrier class ships, however the location of theater would allow for land based air operations.  Sea combat would see them at a disadvantage due to a lack of capital class ships, and a relatively small navy (40 or so destroyer class or smaller).  Air conflict also sees them disadvantaged in 1 on 1 conflicts due to fielding an outdated air fleet.

In a conflict, IF the Brits can bring their superior air craft to theater, and field enough capital ships with support, air and sea supremacy would most likely favor them.  That would leave a land confrontation as a deciding factor. If the Brits can land enough of a fighting force, their superior arms and more recent combat experience would most likely inflict heavy losses on any Argentinian forces that made land, however they would be a long way from home and at risk of supply line disruptions should chance favor Argentina.


Suk, Tez, your thoughts on this analysis?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 7, 2011)

I hadn't realised that it wasn't common knowledge about the potential wealth available around the Falkland Isles - my apologies for not making that explicit.  I do believe that, as well as the need for political advantage brought on by sabre rattling by the Argentine government, the revelation that there is money to be made is part of the reason for the recent agressive statements (tho' it is an almost annual event for the Argentines to threaten to take the Falklands back it has to be said (not that the islands were ever theirs in the first place)).

As to the potential for hostilities, they 'fooled' us once, which is shame on them (and a sound beating to drive the message home). If they fool us again then that is shame on us.  We have the means to build up forces on the islands by air now, which is something we lacked last time.  Put a deterrent force in place and this should die down once more.  The problem is that we have deprived ourselves of carrier capability, something that makes me grind my teeth at the imbecility of such an action.

Tez is much better placed than me to give an informed response on the RAF perspective - I'm just a Royal Navy wannabe {a "should've been" in my book but that's a different tale}.


----------



## granfire (Jul 7, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Problem for the Brits is a simple one. The risk of an inability to field a force to negate possible Argentinian aggression.
> Lets look at this logically for a moment.
> 
> 
> ...



The Solution


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 7, 2011)

There is a Garrison now on the Falklands so it won't be a case of having to send troops down, there are currently enough troops and aircraft on the islands to fend off attacks. There are 1500 troops in the islands about the same number deployed to Afghan, the tours between there and the Falklands are rotated. there are 'early warning' aircraft, search and rescue as well as fighters down there too. There is radar as well as navy warships on base off the coast, it's far from undefended. The RAF has 650 combat planes and helcopters out of 1002 overall aircraft. We have three Typhoon squadrons. The Army Air Corps has six squadrons of Apache attack helicopters. At the moment things aren't in such a state with the forces as some would have you believe, the money is there to support operations one of which is still defending the Falklands Islands.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 7, 2011)

Thanks Tez - I hadn't realised that our readiness state down there was so good.  It is reassuring to hear it.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 7, 2011)

Defending the Falklands is a big part of the UK's defence budget, I'm not sure if you want to know how much it costs lol!
Some more about the Falklands.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...AI/BritishForcesSouthAtlanticIslandsbfsai.htm


----------

