What's new

Britain would fight another war with Argentina to keep the Falkland Islands

So what? that gives you the right to do so? the claim comes from long ago, it did not started on 1982, it did not started because of the... "oil" either.

Bah, what else should i expect from these "people".

They nearly owned the world, now they own a pair of islands and a parking lot, its just excuses.
 
.
Yeah the problem is that when they take the islands in 1833, they expelled the population from the islands and bring in their own people thats why the population on there should have no right to self determine, its a transplanted population.

If someone whants to ask anything go back to 1833 and ask them...

then first the british should suffer as expelling residents is a crime....
it's a great crime indeed.....
 
.
So what? that gives you the right to do so? the claim comes from long ago, it did not started on 1982, it did not started because of the... "oil" either.

Bah, what else should i expect from these "people".

They nearly owned the world, now they own a pair of islands and a parking lot, its just excuses.
Hypocrite. Why are you entitled to Argentina? stop ignoring my question.
 
.
I was wondering what will NATO do in case of war between them? Will it be seen as aggression against part of UK territory, and will they come to aid to the UK, or not.

That is a valid question. Article 5 of the NATO treaty specifically mentions only territories in Europe and the US and not some overseas former colonies.

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.....

NATO Topics - NATO and the Scourge of Terrorism

dobrodosao na forumu Cedo! :wave:
 
.
David Cameron has warned that he is ready to fight another war with Argentina to prevent that country seizing the Falkland Islands.

He told BBC 1's Andrew Marr Show: "I get regular reports on this entire issue because I want to know that our defences are strong, our resolve is extremely strong."

Asked if Britain would fight to keep the islands, he replied: "Of course we would and we have strong defences in place on the Falkland islands, that is absolutely key, that we have fast jets stationed there, we have troops stationed on the Falklands."

He added that the UK’s defence budget is still one of the five largest in the world, despite recent cuts.

The war of words over the islands known to the Argentines as Los Malvinas has heated up since the re-election of the combative Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner as Argentina’s President.

Last week, she published an open letter to David Cameron alleging that Argentine was “forcibly stripped” of the islands by the Royal Navy. The letter was timed to coincide with the 180th anniversary of what Argentina sees as the British occupation. An Argentinian attempt to take the islands in by force in 1982 was repelled by British forces at a cost of over 900 lives.

The islanders plan to hold a referendum in March, which is expected to produce an overwhelming vote in favour of retaining the present status as a British overseas territory.

independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-britain-would-fight-another-war-with-argentina-to-keep-the-falkland-islands-8439971.html]Cameron: Britain would fight another war with Argentina to keep the Falkland Islands - UK Politics - UK - The Independent

Cameron crazy. Argentina is disarmed
 
.
For a think thank you are more like a think thonk. There was no India 150 years ago. Your MP's demand the Kohinoor? Would be better if they demand that the 50 MP's who sit in you highest parliament be debarred for rape?

India is here since a long long time,we have a history that will put you looters to shame.
Don't go by the word,go by the land.Which has a history that goes back to when England was not even known.
Don't be a fool talking about justice katju,rape and what not,just makes you look like another high on weed Brit who lost his job to an Indian :partay:
 
.
Not capable enough, obviously.

militarily impossible to recover. In 1982 we lost because the United States was behind UK, and against United States and all Latin America can militarily.

The point is, back then we did not know their was oil there. Now we know there is potential, surely our will to defend the islands will be even greater?

No oil in the Malvinas. Most of the wells are dry, and the cost of extraction without the help of Argentina is extremely expensive.
 
.
I dont think argies will try again to take the island militarily, but might be happy with sharing some oil there. What will happen if scotland goes separate way, will be part of England then?

Argentina is not interested in sharing with UK Malvinas oil. We found a giant oil yasimiento in Patagonia. And in Malvinas oil is very little and expensive to extract.
 
.
militarily impossible to recover. In 1982 we lost because the United States was behind UK, and against United States and all Latin America can militarily.

You are clueless. US did not get much involved because it was on it's own engaged in improving relations in latin America at that time. they helped with satellite imagery and that is it. But please, continue, i'd like to hear more revisionism.
 
.
We lost because we did everything we could to lost, it is hard to image how someone could launch an attack whiout be prepared, even after started we did lot of bad decicions and there was 0 tactic in ground combat, using untrained and unequiped soldiers?... static defenses? planing a seas war whiout waiting to recicibe full supply of the newerest anti-ship system? wth.

Not even the moment was right as we where in risk of war with Chile.

US did provide support to UK, but is was logistical (AIM-9L), satelite images and in the newerest unclasified messages US offered a carrier to operate Corsairs from it, but it never happen.

Argentina never planned to go on war over the islands(actually Argentina and UK where nearly allies until that point), it was just something that happened, it was a attempt of the military junta to hold control of the population, it was either the islands or Chile, they picked the islands, also remember there was a reason for the first Argentina soldiers that landed there to take control over the islands to beign under strict orders to not open fire, it was an invasion in with the soldiers where under orders to not shoot anyone, i not sure on how where their thinking ro resolve the issue, maybe take over the islands and them go on diplomatic talks? it seems foolish.

Thatcher responded to the attack in an attemtp to gain more political power, UK never care over their own people living there, they are just pawns for them. And at least Argentina is not going to come to the islands and kick everyone out of their homes as UK did once.
 
.
You are clueless. US did not get much involved because it was on it's own engaged in improving relations in latin America at that time. they helped with satellite imagery and that is it. But please, continue, i'd like to hear more revisionism.

You lie, United States participated actively in the war. From the outset delivered 200 missiles AIM-9L to England would go to war along with millions of liters of fuel, and thousands of tons of arnas and ammunition.
Without the United States, UK could not have gone to war in just 48 hours.
 
.
We lost because we did everything we could to lost, it is hard to image how someone could launch an attack whiout be prepared, even after started we did lot of bad decicions and there was 0 tactic in ground combat, using untrained and unequiped soldiers?... static defenses? planing a seas war whiout waiting to recicibe full supply of the newerest anti-ship system? wth.

Not even the moment was right as we where in risk of war with Chile.

US did provide support to UK, but is was logistical (AIM-9L), satelite images and in the newerest unclasified messages US offered a carrier to operate Corsairs from it, but it never happen.

Argentina never planned to go on war over the islands(actually Argentina and UK where nearly allies until that point), it was just something that happened, it was a attempt of the military junta to hold control of the population, it was either the islands or Chile, they picked the islands, also remember there was a reason for the first Argentina soldiers that landed there to take control over the islands to beign under strict orders to not open fire, it was an invasion in with the soldiers where under orders to not shoot anyone, i not sure on how where their thinking ro resolve the issue, maybe take over the islands and them go on diplomatic talks? it seems foolish.

Thatcher responded to the attack in an attemtp to gain more political power, UK never care over their own people living there, they are just pawns for them. And at least Argentina is not going to come to the islands and kick everyone out of their homes as UK did once.

Argentina performed, the operation rosario, with the consent of the United States, who requested that the operation rosaryio had nu British dead.
At the time that effect the operation rosario, USA showed their true intention, and pressured members of the Security Council, to vote the resolution 502. To which Panama refused, and vote against.
But from the outset, the intention of the United States, was that Britain and Argentina went to war.
 
.
.
Very funny article. From the beginning, the United States sided with England, and Armos so you can go to war.
Anyway not bad. If the military junta had won the war, or if it never happened, and everything had settled peacefully. Today all of Latin America, ruled by bloody dictatorships would follow, and would not have Chinese companies investing in Latin America.
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom