Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Another one O/T - The Falklands 30 years on - genuine views please
- Thread starter Trufflehound
- Start date
Firstly the Falklands is British in the same way Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc etc. It like all former colonies is free to be independent or remain connected to the mother country. They do not wish to leave so just because there's a bully next door does not mean we surrender to them. Some people have forgotten who we are as history barely features in our classrooms any more. Why have Argentina decided to push for these Islands again? Oil ,and unlike some on here who don't think there is any, it has been found by Rockhopper and Desire. Falkland Oil and Gas will be drilling soon. It is estimated the revenue will be in the order of £115 Bn . Could this be the reason to want in on the action. They care little for the people there so lets not be daft and give what is now valuable British territory away. Yet another thought why not copy Argentina fill the country with migrants after all England is running out of space and the Falklands is the land of opportunity! Or take it further lets claim Patagonia after all there are 50,000 of British (Ok welsh) origin.
seagullsovergrimsby
#cpfctinpotclub
HMS Dauntless is on her maiden 6 months deployment to the South Atlantic , she is taking over from HMS Montrose as part of the rotation.
daveinprague
New member
We have ships to defend the Falklands, but during the Libyan business there were no British warships defending British waters, which was pretty amazing news from the Admiralty.
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 72,366
Emily's Mum
New member
And afterall, she needed to go somewhere on her deployment. We don't spend billions on these things and then let them sail around home waters, they need to do what they are supposed to so. This deployment will have been planned years ago, and it's not that we've got many other ships left!
We handed it over to the Germans, so why not?
Not sure what the Jersey defence budget is, but personally, I think over 60 million a year just to defend 3000 people in the Falklands into perpetuity is a bit steep.
Before the war with Argentina...did the Falkland islanders enjoy full British status? I seem to remember a change in their status after the war.
When exactly did we 'hand' Jersey to the Germans then?
Lord Bracknell
On fire
June 1940.
The British Government demilitarised the Channel Islands in June 1940. The Lieutenant-Governors were withdrawn on 21 June. This was hardly announcing an intention to resist invasion. The German invasion happened between 30 June and 4 July.
A 'hand over'? I think so.
Talk about rewriting history. 26th May to the 3rd June 1940 we had just evacutated the BEF from Dunkirk. Exactly how much effort would you have spent defending the Channel Islands? Hardly a 'hand over' as you put it, more a tactical withdrawal.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
Hand over? Tactical withdrawal? I'm struggling to tell the difference.
With the wisdom of hindsight, Dunkirk has become "one of our finest hours". At the time, though, I think most people saw it differently. And I speak as someone whose dad was decorated for his small contribution to the evacuation.
Dunkirk was the culmination of a major defeat for us and it was only the result of what some would say (and I probably agree) excellent leadership, that saw it used to motivate the nation rather than result in us capitulating to the Germans.
As for not being able to tell the difference under those circumstances of a tactical withdrawal or hand over then I pity you.
Why, are you pissed? Being unable to defend somewhere is not handing it over.
daveinprague
New member
I said it with a smilie...
But, we couldnt defend Jersey militarily in 1940...... we cant really afford to defend the Falklands in financial reality in 2012.
Would you really piss 60 million up the wall every year forever to defend it? 3000 people? Most of whom dont come from the Falklands?
But, we couldnt defend Jersey militarily in 1940...... we cant really afford to defend the Falklands in financial reality in 2012.
Would you really piss 60 million up the wall every year forever to defend it? 3000 people? Most of whom dont come from the Falklands?
withdeanwombat
Well-known member
Our lease on Hong Kong ran out.End of THAT comparison.
Our race to retake the Falklands was a hurried attempt to rectify dire mistakes in OUR foreign policy,dictated by government cutbacks which led the Argentinians to believe we were no longer interested there.
The Argentinian "invasion" followed an incursion on abandoned British "territory" by some opportunist scrap merchants hoping for easy pesos.
When you are in government and failing at home,look for an opportunity to gain support through jingoism abroad.
As is usual,and we as a nation are lucky to expect this,our armed services did the job given to them extremely well and pulled the government's potatoes out of the fire.The heroic rescuing the truly woeful,and at great personal cost in too many cases.
As for the Argentinians,the Malvinas remain Argentinian,as the long game will prove.
Our race to retake the Falklands was a hurried attempt to rectify dire mistakes in OUR foreign policy,dictated by government cutbacks which led the Argentinians to believe we were no longer interested there.
The Argentinian "invasion" followed an incursion on abandoned British "territory" by some opportunist scrap merchants hoping for easy pesos.
When you are in government and failing at home,look for an opportunity to gain support through jingoism abroad.
As is usual,and we as a nation are lucky to expect this,our armed services did the job given to them extremely well and pulled the government's potatoes out of the fire.The heroic rescuing the truly woeful,and at great personal cost in too many cases.
As for the Argentinians,the Malvinas remain Argentinian,as the long game will prove.
Last edited:
Does it really cost £60m, or would most of that be spent anyway, with the Typhoons and staff stationed elsewhere?
Anyway, if it was costing too much I'd defend it differently. I'd simply let other countries know that if they invade our land, we'll attack their land. So, if Argentina want to invade the Falklands, we'll bomb Argentina. Simple. That's what other countries do. You think you could invade Hawaii or Israel and not pay for it 10 fold?
daveinprague
New member
Yes, of course it would be spent anyway, but British fighter squadrons and ships, should be defending home waters rather than some rocks in the South Atlantic, with a tiny population that has mostly moved there since the Argentinian invasion and war. The people have moved there away from Britain as they dont like life in Britain... and now, British tax payers have to pay for that?... ..
Its a lot of nonsense really....as for any oil exploration...the Argentinians dont have the capability, and it will fall into American/British hands anyway. I certainly dont think its worth sending soldiers etc to go and die for the place... but hey, everybody has an opinion.
Its a lot of nonsense really....as for any oil exploration...the Argentinians dont have the capability, and it will fall into American/British hands anyway. I certainly dont think its worth sending soldiers etc to go and die for the place... but hey, everybody has an opinion.
Are we under attack then?
daveinprague
New member
no, is the Falklands?
So we already have troops, naval and air forces here in the uk anyway so why not in the Falklands which is probably at a greater threat than mainland uk.
daveinprague
New member
There is no threat. At all really... apart from Falkland Island flag carrying ships being denied access to Argentine ports, they can use Brazilian ports with no problems, with air access via Chile and Uruguay. I see no threat at all. The papers made a big deal about it.. but people i speak to daily in Buenos Aries havnt even mentioned it... so if its not even a point that would be worth discussing between English and Argentinian colleagues, then I believe its a lot of fuss about nothing.. Argentina has no plans for war against Britain over it for sure.
If they threaten to invade, just send a nuclear submarine to the area..in fact, you wouldnt even need to actually send one, just imply it, and they wont invade if they believe theres submarines lurking, but as they are not threatening, I dont see the point.
If they threaten to invade, just send a nuclear submarine to the area..in fact, you wouldnt even need to actually send one, just imply it, and they wont invade if they believe theres submarines lurking, but as they are not threatening, I dont see the point.
Last edited: