Imperialistic Argentina once more extends its soiled talons

[barackattack]

David Cameron has accused Argentina of "colonialism" for continuing to claim sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.

President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has demanded renewed talks about the future of the islands - which Argentina calls Las Malvinas.

But Mr Cameron told MPs they would stay British for as long as the islanders wanted, and Argentina's demands for that to change were "like colonialism".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16617666

[Ray Rider]

It's not too surprising Argentina would try to assert its claim now that Obama is backing them.

[GreecePwns]

inb4 "LOLWUT Britain complaining about colonialism?"

[pimpdave]

Will the UN step up and stop this international menace before it's too late?

[barackattack]

Buy your fireworks and party hats early, as Argentina looks set to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Falklands War with another astonishing military defeat.

[pimpdave]

I always envisioned Argentina more as a hooved animal rather than on with talons.

[barackattack]

The Argentinian pig? Might be fun to see whose side Iran took in that scenario.

[saxitoxin]

Argentina looks set to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Falklands War with another astonishing military defeat.

By whom? The Royal Navy of today is basically a coast guard / harbour police force.

• RN Light Aircraft Carriers - 3 (1980) ... 1* (2012)
  RN Attack Submarines - 32 (1980) ... 7 (2012)
  RN Cruisers - 2 (1980) ... 0 (2012)
  RN Frigates & Destroyers - 70 (1980) ... 19 (2012)

• * currently can only operate in the summer due to preparations for scrapping / all fixed-wing aircraft have been removed due to skyjump being in disrepair - now only operating helicopters

- Raj

[barackattack]

As much as it pleases me to see just how devoted you are to following UK affairs, saxi, I'm not entirely sure that your four hand-picked figures are of much relevance.

Particularly as we are talking about a potential conflict with Argentina.

http://www.globalasia.org/V5N4_Winter_2 ... ihara.html

[saxitoxin]

Based on public statements and the new OAS pledge for Pan-American cooperation it's also unclear Obama would grant resupply rights at Ascension Island like Reagan did. Unless the Royal Navy plans on getting out the oars and paddling the second leg of the trip to South America, it seems like the plan to have Detective Cadbury and Officer Basil issue citations for illegal parking to Argentina's mechanized battalions is the best plan.

The NSC agreed that the Falklands police – rather than the Armed Forces – would be used to combat a flag-planting by the Argentines.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1k7Un1AYX

- Raj

[barackattack]

But Mr Cameron went public with details of the meeting yesterday to deliver a ‘strong message’ to Buenos Aires that the UK will respond militarily if Argentina tries to reclaim the islands.

Do learn to read more than one sentence at a time.

[saxitoxin]

But Mr Cameron went public with details of the meeting yesterday to deliver a ‘strong message’ to Buenos Aires that the UK will respond militarily if Argentina tries to reclaim the islands.

Again ... with what?

With due deference to the strategic acumen and brilliant military insight of Dave Cameron, this is just sabre-rattling - but without an actual sabre - by a Prime Minister trying to save face.

• In 1982 the RN sent 42 combat vessels to the Falklands. The entire UK Navy barely has half that number today. The RN could pull back from every mission in the world - including the defence of Britain itself - and only be able to muster 50% of what it did in 1982.

The UK deployed 3 aircraft carriers to fight out a hard-fought victory during the last engagement. There are no more aircraft carriers left (at least any with aircraft aboard). Who's providing air cover? Or is that not needed for the first time in the history of modern combat?

• Critical thinking is an important ability when reading press releases issued by politicians. Until you acquire that specific skill-set, I think you'll find this is Britain's best hope for a defence against Argentina.

[barackattack]

I'm not sure what makes you think unrelenting cynicism equates to critical thinking, but okay.

Has your obsession with the UK led you to a chance encounter with some statistics on the Argentine navy?

[barackattack]

Actual, forget that. It's not like your record on factual accuracy is particularly white and snowy.

Finland has twice as many police, per capita, as the U.S. but three times the crime.

[saxitoxin]

I'm not sure what makes you think unrelenting cynicism equates to critical thinking, but okay.

Has your obsession with the UK led you to a chance encounter with some statistics on the Argentine navy?

Addressing posited questions (who is providing air cover? where will the RN refuel?) rather than screaming that you're being persecuted will likely be more convincing to the unengaged readers of this thread.

Actual, forget that. It's not like your record on factual accuracy is particularly white and snowy.

How about Admiral Woodward speaking 2 years ago? Is he in on the grand conspiracy with me to persecute you and slight Britain?

[barackattack]

Other fun questions are: how much military strength does Argentina have? Who would take their side in the event of an illegal invasion of the Falklands, and who would take the UK's?

[saxitoxin]

Who would take their side in the event of an illegal invasion of the Falklands,

The bulk of the rest of the Organization of American States, most likely.

So far, at least in public statements on the crisis, that's Brazil, Venezuela, Chile, Uruguay and Cuba.

and who would take the UK's?

Luxembourg. Belgium maybe, but definitely Luxembourg.

Now my turn: who will provide air cover? Where will the RN refuel? How is it Admiral Woodward was wrong in 2010 when he said the UK could do "precisely nothing" to arrest an Argentine attack?

[barackattack]

In the event of an illegal invasion the UK could use whatever island it is the America has nearby, just like they did last time. You're forgetting/omitting that the US were also unwilling to get involved last time as well... until the Argentines refused to engage in talks.

If the Argentines stick with diplomacy, the Falklands will say they wish to stay British and they will.

If the Argentines declare war this will be illegal and immoral, and the only countries that will stick with them (same as last time) are the other tin-pot jungle republics in S. America.

And anyway:

http://www.globalfirepower.com/

[saxitoxin]

You're forgetting/omitting that the US were also unwilling to get involved last time as well... until the Argentines refused to engage in talks.

Argentina was under a military junta in 1982, it's a democracy now. The U.S. has, since, also pledged to the Santiago protocol on the Principles of Pan-Americanism. There's no political capital to assist a European power attack another American nation.

Argentine navy

This isn't a naval fight for Argentina. Once the Falklands are captured it becomes the job of the UK to dislodge an entrenched ground force. That can only be accomplished through projection capabilities the UK had in 1982 but doesn't in 2012. It's an all-arms fight for the UK and a relatively simple holding action for Argentina. It's not a question of how brave or proud or well-trained UK soldiers are --- they just don't have a way to get to the Falkland Islands short of buying an EasyJet ticket to Buenos Aires.

• This is a political, not military question. No one will blame the GHQ for the fact the military is now nothing more than a territorial defence force and police auxiliary. No sitting Prime Minister is going to publicly state what Admiral Woodward said: "Britain can do precisely nothing." The fact you think a politician would be that frank is amusing, at least.

In the event of an illegal invasion the UK could use whatever island it is the America has nearby,

LOL, okay, it sounds like you have it all figured out then!

• (I want to think he's been joking around in his posts in this thread to-date but I'm beginning to believe BA really is a time traveler from the year 1925 and thinks the Argentine capture of the Falklands can be thwarted by an enterprising viscount from Chessington galloping into battle at the head of a detachment of the Natal Mounted Rifles after taking afternoon tea on the veranda of his hunting lodge.)

[barackattack]

Argentina was under a military junta in 1982, it's a democracy now. The U.S. has, since, also pledged to the Santiago protocol on the Principles of Pan-Americanism. There's no political capital to assist a European power attack another American nation.

Democracy? Oh that's okay, then. That makes a really big difference. If Hitler had been Prime Minister, and not Fuhrer, there probably would have been no WW2.

It wouldn't exactly be an attack, now, would it? If would be self-defence.

And all things taken into account: Argentina is total shit and in no way has the capability to do anything serious. And either way is unlikely to anyway, as yet another invasion of a set of islands that have no wish to fall under Argentine rule would be, like, a total PR nightmare.

[saxitoxin]

Argentina is total shit

You have me bested with your superior argumentation and command of facts; the thread is yours, sir.

[saxitoxin]

The U.S. CATO Institute has proposed a libertarian solution to resolution of the Malvinas Islands (AKA "Falklands") dispute.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=14035

• Argentina will deposit $1.6 billion in an escrow account with a Swiss bank. A binding plebiscite will be held in the Malvinas Islands with two options: (1) remain under British occupation, (2) integrate with Argentina. If option 1 is selected, Argentina will forfeit all claims. If option 2 is selected, the escrow account will be paid directly to all residents (approximately $500,000 to every man, woman and child) and the Malvinas will be ceded to Argentina.

With up-to $6 trillion worth of oil estimated to be under the Malvinas, $1.6 billion would be nothing for the Argentine government. $2 million for every Malvinas family of four would be far in excess of anything they would realize in a lifetime of working for some future oil concession or drilling operation. And, Britain would realize their "only" goal in the conflict ( ): the self-determination of the people of Malvinas. It's a win-win-win for everyone.

[barackattack]

They wouldn't do it. Any sensible human being would rather be a British citizen than have half a million dollars (which is, what, £200?) and be a foreign national.

[BigBallinStalin]

If each islander received $500,000, couldn't they just leave the Falklands if things went worse than expected?

[saxitoxin]

If each islander received $500,000, couldn't they just leave the Falklands if things went worse than expected?

That would seem to be so; $2 million for every family of four goes a long way. Plus, on the eve of a referendum, B.A. would probably be polling the islanders. Should voting be at a crossroads one would imagine Argentina could just double the amount on deposit in escrow. It seems hard to suggest someone would choose to be a deckhand on an ocean fishing trawler in the Malvinas for the rest of their life rather than take a million dollar cheque to move to England.