BS: Falklands 'militarisation'

Subject: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 01:45 PM

Is Argentina barking mad? It invaded the Falkands (unsuccessfully) before. It has been winding up the rhetoric for several years now. It has been trying to increase its military capacity generally - looking for all the world like planning another invasion. It has been trying to advance a blockade of the Falklands.

And when the UK replaces one ship out there with a more modern one it accuses us of militarisation?

Does it imagine that the UK plans to invade Argentina? Is that why it pretends that there is a British nuclear submarine there? What does it think one would be useful for? Yomping across swamps to displace invading land forces from Argentina, or reducing Argentina to a sheet of glowing glass that would be ever so useful to us (not) if we invaded Argentina which we don't want to do? The only possible advantage might be to shut Bozo up about the local meat, but I can't see even Argentinians gong that far for that purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: pdq
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 01:55 PM

I heard last week that Argentina was upset that most of their fish moved into the territorial waters of the Falklands part of the year and that their fishermen had little to catch until the schools returned. If true, that is an odd reason to start a war.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: SINSULL
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 02:04 PM

The last Falklands invasion led to bored troops offering to help dig out the Snow Squall - the last clipper ship built in Maine. It now rests in various museums around the state.
Hardly seems worth the price of a man's life though.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: gnu
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 02:07 PM

The first war was just a training exercise set up by Betty and Sofie as something for the sillybuggers to play at. Practice makes perfect, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,Bluesman
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 03:14 PM

Ah yes, one of Margaret Thatchers greatest moments. Had the Falklands war not happened, it is quite possible that Shirley Williams could have become prime minister of the United Kingdom, Christ that thought is enough to keep anyone up all night.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 03:25 PM

Long past time that the Brits gave up the Malvinas, as they were forced to do with most of their "Empire."
Take those English sheepherders home!

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: gnu
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 03:44 PM

The people there want to be part of the commonwealth and it's Beth's duty to accomodate them, innit?

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,Bluesman
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 04:01 PM

It should be returned to Argentina, like most of the Empire, we stole it.

This just about says it all.

http://100777.com/node/161

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 04:08 PM

Are you aware that the Argentine "rent a mob" that is seen on news broadcasts is mostly Indians from the north of Argentina who are paid by Kirshner's government, as they were to vote for Kirshner in the last election. They are out there every day in one of the daily demos you can see around the centre of BA.

The normal people of Argentina care nothing for Las Malvinas.

Had a wonderful Bife Chorizo in our local Argentine restaurant this evening!

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 04:26 PM

It's about all about pride-history, oil and mineral potential, or about sheep and a handfull of subsidized isolated people in a barren land, who strayed there and stayed there. Take your pick.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,Peter
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 04:30 PM

Long past time that the Brits gave up the Malvinas, as they were forced to do with most of their "Empire."
We should give it back on the same day that the USA returns Texas and California to Mexico.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: gnu
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 04:59 PM

Mexico??? What about all of NA and SA to the native Peoples? Far more legit claim. What about Britain before Big Willy?

Silly shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: meself
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 06:06 PM

Canada should invade St. Pierre & Miquelon to "take back" what France "stole" from us .... !

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: gnu
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 06:11 PM

meself... hahahahahaa... good one.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 06:12 PM

The Falklands were empty and barren before England went there. Emphasis on "empty".

Argentina's only claim to them is to expand its colonies. A bad claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,Bluesman
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 06:46 PM

Oh, maybe it has something to do with the three British firms there to drill for oil north of the Falkland Islands. There is fuck all empty and barren about that. Maybe you meant to say "empty barrels" Richard.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: gnu
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 06:50 PM

Oil? Well, there ya go eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 06:50 PM

So? If the Argentinians threaten to invade to seize oil (oh, hang on, have I not heard this before?)

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: ollaimh
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 11:16 PM

as usual tricky dicky has an ethnocentric view of anything inperial. if you actually read the history of the region there was an argintine colony on the island that was militarily removed by a french expidition. the argintines were the first long term colony. the french gave their rights to britain by treaty. so the inperial powers are claiming right of conquest. not acceptable in any civilized form of international law.

however the islanders have rights. they are so few they could be easily compensated.

the french did attempt a colony, from st malo. they gave the name of that town to the argintines. prior to that there was another name.the french colony was a failure.

thatcher surviving on a wave of militatistic jingoism was the greater tragedy. she started the massive debt problems(only paid for by scottish oil revenues--trading britians future for a foolish neo con dream that went bankrupt), and of course she introduced torture and the end of the right to the presumprion of innocence.i would have taken anyone over mad maggie.

in canada we traded any claim to st pierre and miquelon in return for the french surrendering their already established treaty rights to the use of the south and west coast of new foundland for fishing bases, and other resource exploitation--without limit. we got much the better of the deal. without that treaty the french would have a cliam on almost all the grand banks oil. as it is they have a right to less than twenty percent. we got such a good deal because in the mid twentieth century france was disinterested in new foundland. if we had to negotiate that now it would be quite different. as it is it's a lovely day trip over to pierre.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 11:45 PM

1690 & Captain John Strong named Falkland Strait and the Islands

1764 & Louis Antoine de Bougainville named the Islands Iles Malouines

"as usual tricky dicky has an ethnocentric view of anything inperial. if you actually read the history of the region there was an argintine colony on the island that was militarily removed by a french expidition. the argintines were the first long term colony. the french gave their rights to britain by treaty. so the inperial powers are claiming right of conquest. not acceptable in any civilized form of international law."

As usual olliamh you are totally wrong.

First to settle the French on East Falkland in 1764
Next the British on West Falkland in 1765
Oh and by the way it was the Americans (USA) that kicked the Argentines off the islands in 1831 and declared the islands to be uninhabited and free of all governance
1832 Argentine founded a penal colony that lasted from November 1832 until January 1833 when the British requested that the Argentines military garrison leave, they complied with this request
From 1833 Britain established a firm and fixed colony on the Falklands

You should read the history of one Luis Vernet.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: meself
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 11:51 PM

Okay, let's put the world back to its pre-1833 borders - that should make everyone happy ....

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Dead Horse
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 05:15 AM

The Argie govt is making as much out of this as it can, to avoid their voters (snigger) thinking about stuff closer to home.
Thats pretty much what Thatcher did too, come to think of it.
So long as the Septics keep their 'holier than thou' noses out of it I dont think the Argie military will be so foolish to ask for a re-match.
If, on the other hand, stupid comments from uninformed idiots like Sean Penn make the Hunta think they might just get away with it, then its 'game on'.
Result - more dead peasants and more medals all round for the Brits.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 05:21 AM

History is an interesting study, but no reason to impose an unwanted regime on people.
The people there now are as entitled to self determination as anyone else.
Like the people of Scotland, Ulster, Gibralter, etc., they are welcome to leave whenever they wish, but not against their will.
The same for Texas, California, etc.?

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 07:16 AM

Had a wonderful Argentine steak last night, served by an Argentine who not surprisingly hates Kirshner!!

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 09:17 AM

ollaimh -

While your comments on St. Pierre and Miquelon are partially true, it is more complex, as France and Canada marine claims did go to an international court in 1992. (See below and attachment)

I believe Canada (via England-UK), could have made a claim for these Islands after the close of WW2, since I recall France's goverment sided with Germany in the war effort. But, Canada, being nice folks (I also suspect it may have been internally more complex that this, as Canada has a significant French-speaking population), did not do that :).

""The quarter-century dispute was resolved in 1992 by an international court of arbitration. According to the board's decision, France received an economic zone within a 24-mile limit off St. Pierre and Miquelon, as well as a 10-.5 mile-wide corridor running south 200 miles towards international waters. The resulting economic zone, measuring only 3,607 square nautical miles, was much smaller than France had claimed, and providing accordingly access to much less fish. According to the arbitration decision, France would have to negotiate with Canada for access to fish outside its zone.""
International court

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Brian May
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 09:42 AM

I think the Argentine claim is pretty groundless. Saying they're on the same Continental Shelf that Argentina is on is pretty dumb too - so is Peru, but they don't want that.

All that said, I said to my wife in 1982, if 'we' had offered every Falkland Islander £1,000,000 and a Spanish dictionary then listened for complaints, we would have been deafened by silence.

Lets be honest, we're there to keep our hat in the ring for oil and mineral wealth locally and Antarctica.

And Yes, I've been there - several times. I didn't find the Bennies particularly friendly towards the people who were ensuring their freedom to have English as their first language.

I'm so glad I'm not a politician because I CAN say 'I really don't give a shit'.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 10:06 AM

Chile to the rescue

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 11:02 AM

When your country is in the economic shit and the crimes of past governments cloud your political issues, it is always nice to distract your people with jingoistic blame game at another country.

If the Falklanders were to have a referendum and want to become The Malvinas, then fine but I have yet to see the day.

If we are being colonialist, then surely Argentina are being wannabe colonialist? The last time I looked, The Falklands were surrounded by sea. It is as much Argentina as half of Scotland is geology wise America.

Reagan sat on the fence the last time Argentina played silly buggers. Wonder what the present (just about British) President will do?

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: pdq
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 12:40 PM

"We should give it back on the same day that the USA returns Texas and California to Mexico."

"The people there now are as entitled to self determination as anyone else....(t)he same for Texas, California, etc.?

People should read a lot more about the aquisition of California, New Mexico Territory and Texas by the United States. Once Spain went home in 1821, several areas that Spain forced to become part of Mexico revolted against the tyranical government centered in Mexico City. Many people know that Texas was an independent country from 1835-1846 and that its people voted to join the US (twice, actually), but how many people know that Yucatan was an independent country for a while or that and area the size of Texas, just to the south, also demanded independence?

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,999
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 02:00 PM

"To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace."

In this case, I think the quotation from Tacitus applies to Argentina.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,999
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 02:05 PM

Course, ya have to wonder why Argentina would want to have what I think is the UK's single carrier in the south Atlantic way far from home.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 02:40 PM

"If we are being colonialist, then surely Argentina are being wannabe colonialist?" More than wannabe I should think. The Falklands are islands colonised by English speakers whilst Argentina is an area of South America colonised by Spanish speakers. Surely after such a long period of being there the Falklanders have as much right to self determination as any other people? As much right as the Argentinians themselves!

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 04:34 PM

The Mercosur group of nations; Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay and Argentina have agreed to close its ports to ships flying the flag of the Falkland/Malvinas Islands.
Peru seems likely to join them shortly. Chile supports the Argentina claim to the Malvinas ("state policy," but special relationship to UK noted).
Hugo Chavez of Venezuela says "his country would fight alongside Argentina in face of any conflict with the UK."

South American solidarity on the matter soon may be expected.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: gnu
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 04:44 PM

Hmmm... maybe a cash deal? Similar to as proposed above but with cempensation for the British fish and minerals? Or some sharing of the fish and minerals? Then again, we are talking Brits here... the deal would have to be sweet. Not likely???

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 04:56 PM

£176billion in oil revenues to the Government and that is just what is round the Falklands. But the Argentines do not just claim the Falkland Islands some 400 kilometres from their shore they also claim South Georgia at 1350 kilometres and the South Sandwich and South Chatham Islands some 2650 kilometres from their shores. As far as the Argentines are concerned it is all about oil.

The importance of the Falklands is that it provides a good base to support operations from, politically stable and well outside the corruption of Argentina and the grasping hands of the Kirchner Family, worth $2.3 million dollars when they went into politics they are now billionaires. Since the mid 1990's the oil & gas industry has specialised in extracting oil and gas from harsh and remote locations.

Britain should back the islanders to the hilt - the Argentines did all the negotiating they wanted to in 1982 and it did not pan out too well for them.

Mind you anything that twat Sean Penn supports has got to be suspect.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: gnu
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 04:59 PM

Surely meant "twit" as a twat is useful.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 05:06 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFSsJE2UhIU

Let's have a laugh at the cow!!

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 06:58 PM

When your country is in the economic shit and the crimes of past governments cloud your political issues, it is always nice to distract your people with jingoistic blame game at another country.

Was Ian thinking of Argentina or Britain therre? Or both.

One thing that gets ignored is that there are far more people of British origin in Argentina than there are in these islands, and from all I've heard there was no question of them being harassed by other Argentine people even during the war. For that matter there are far more people of Argentine origin in Britain than there are islanders.

It's pretty ridiculous that there can't be a deal,under which the islanders can't have dual citizenship, or a right to whichever nationality they wish, as in Northern Ireland over the years. And full freedom of travel between the islands and the mainland. Historically there used to be very good relations between Britain and Argentina on most things - it was thought at one time Argentina might even apply to join the British Empire (as it then was) as an independent dominion.

The war was a desperate effort by the generals and Margaret Thatcher to hold on to power. It only worked for the latter. Without it she'd pretty surely have been chucked out at the next election - replaced by Michael Foot, maybe with Shirley Williams as his coalition partner...

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 07:02 PM

Chile does not in fact support an Argentinian claim to the Falklands, but an Argentinian claim to "negotiations" - or is it "discussions".

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 02:41 AM

Argentine

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 02:45 AM

Argentinian. "Argentine" is a nasty neologism. And if you look back to that Argentinian newspaper article, even it says "Argentinian".

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 02:49 AM

"For that matter there are far more people of Argentine origin in Britain than there are islanders"

So are you kind of saying that the right to self determination does not count if your territory's community happens to be small in number? Seemingly very few people on the Falklands want to be Argentinian and in fact most will be bitterly opposed to it. Why should they, many of whom have been there for generations, be forced to be something they don't want to be? I know that it is an overseas territory so Britain takes care of defence and foreign affairs for them but does that mean we'd have the moral right to ride roughshod over their democratic wishes? Surely if it came to it there may be some way for the UK to give up some of its rights to the resources in the seas there in favour of Argentina without affecting the islanders current status and their rights to self determination which should always be sacrosanct. At least in my opinion!

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Musket
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 03:40 AM

McGrath of Harlow makes a good point and it wasn't wasted on me when I wrote my comment about invoking jingoism. Th*tcher rode an election on the conflict.

That said, the people of The Falklands are a UK protectorate, wish to be so and had no wish to be part of the junta running Argentina at the time. Hence, we were obliged to protect them, and in that sense, I hope our army protect North Lincolnshire if the Vikings start landing again.

Difficult for me, because although Th*tcher saw it as a political gift, although the sinking of The Belgrano and her explicit instructions make her a valid war criminal, although war is stupid if it can be avoided... I still agree with our protecting our people and their wishes.

So we have a Crown Prince spending part of his military career there. Search and rescue is a vital civil as well as a military role, and it's nice to see it given a high public profile, such as the celebrity fascination with royalty is.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 04:37 AM

Argentine is the correct word - ask any Anglo Argentine.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 04:40 AM

And as my wife went to Northlands School in BA, I am inclined to believe her!

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 04:41 AM

Bonzo, this is the link you required regarding the vicar.


http://uk.news.yahoo.com/police-probe-suspicious-vicarage-death-013519420.html

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 05:49 AM

What????????????

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 06:25 AM

ya have to wonder why Argentina would want to have what I think is the UK's single carrier in the south Atlantic way far from home.
Britain has not got a single carrier now.
It is just a destroyer on station there now.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 07:00 AM

I think 999 was referring to the Falklands as 'The UK's single carrier', no?

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 09:16 AM

Britain's claim on the Falklands is the same as Argentina's claim to the territory it occupies.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,999
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 09:50 AM

Geeze. Sorry 'bout that. I'd thought there was one left. I appreciate the info.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 09:56 AM

And it's not a carrier they've sent anyway, it's a new destroyer on its first deployment.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,999
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 11:44 AM

Well, there's about a mile of landing strip at Mount Pleasant. Hope that's sufficient, but it would be good if the RAF had an alternate when things go in the sh#tter.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 01:30 PM

Bonzo, I don't much care what Argentinians call things. Like the Malvinas, innit. The only OED meanings for the word "Argentine" are the subsets meaning, broadly, "silvery" (from the Latin "argentum")

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 01:41 PM

Well of course you are excused as you don't mix in Anglo-Argentine circles.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 02:01 PM

Time to remove remnants of British colonialism from the Americas.

Send the sheepherders to the Orkneys or the kidneys or whatever those islands are called.

Canada can take over the British Virgins and other Caribbean holdings that are still colonies. I will volunteer as governor.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: meself
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 02:27 PM

I suppose all of us Canadians of British ancestry should be sent back across the sea, too ....

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 02:42 PM

...""all of us Canadians of British ancestry should be sent back across the sea, too"" ....

No, the Britist already tried that with (early) Canadians of French ancentry (Acadians) and it did't work.

;)

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 02:46 PM

You think so, meself? Of course Canada should keep the Scots and the Irish and the Germans and the French and the Chinese and the Ukrainians and the Icelanders and the Sikhs and the Welsh and the ......

I will still volunteer as governor of the Caribbean remnants (nice and warm there).

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 02:48 PM

Chile and Argentina solved their border dispute (Beagle Conflict) through papal mediation.

So, I suggest it be submitted to mediation between the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury for a binding resolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: gnu
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 02:59 PM

Q... ya need a Lieutenant Governor fer one a them there Virgins?

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 03:29 PM

Not a bad site with some useful information on the place. There are even a few web cams


Falklands

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,999
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 04:48 PM

"Canada can take over the British Virgins and other Caribbean holdings that are still colonies. I will volunteer as governor."

I have it on good authority that the Virgin Islands is a misnomer.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: bobad
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 04:54 PM

"I have it on good authority that the Virgin Islands is a misnomer."

Yeah, it should be the Virgin Archipelago.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 06:23 PM

"He once traveled to and explored the Virgin Islands, when he left they were just "The Islands." Most interesting man quote

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 07:49 PM

My point about the numbers of people of British origin (many of whom are British citizens) in the Argentine and people from Argentina in Britain was that there have been strong links between the two countries for generations, and disputes about those islands shouldn't be allowed to outweigh them.

Arrangements which would preserve all the rights of the islanders and make it possible for them to have access to mainland resources (think hospitals, for example) could certainly be worked out. There are plenty of examples of bi-national territories around the world.

It is not implausible to suspect that the Thatcher government may have intentionally given the generals the impression that a de facto occupation would be accepted as a way of getting rid of an unwanted colony. Thus providing a war that proved electorally advantageous.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 12:36 AM

"It is not implausible to suspect that the Thatcher government may have intentionally given the generals the impression that a de facto occupation would be accepted as a way of getting rid of an unwanted colony. Thus providing a war that proved electorally advantageous."

The tail end of that is as hilarious as it is absolutely bloody ridiculous. Obviously not read Nott's view of it or Admiral Sir Henry Leach's obituary

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 11:08 AM

I don't think there is much doubt that the war gave Thatcher a huge electoral advantage, is there?

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 12:17 PM

20 x 20 hindsight Richard.

The contention that Margaret Thatcher deliberately started a war in April 1982 to win an election in June 1983 is downright lunacy.

On the June 1983 Election:

"The campaign displayed the huge divisions between the two major parties. Thatcher had been extremely unpopular during her first two years in office until the swift and decisive victory in the Falklands War, coupled with an improving economy, considerably raised her standings in the polls.

The Conservatives' key issues included employment, economic growth, and defence.

Labour's campaign manifesto involved leaving the European Economic Community, abolishing the House of Lords, abandoning the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent by cancelling Trident and removing cruise missiles — a policy programme dubbed by Labour MP Gerald Kaufman as "the longest suicide note in history". "Although, at barely 37 pages, it only seemed interminable", noted Roy Hattersley."

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 01:57 PM

I wonder what France would do if Canada invaded St. Pierre & Miquelon ?

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 02:06 PM

"Britain was initially taken by surprise by the Argentine attack on the South Atlantic islands, despite repeated warnings by Royal Navy captain Nicholas Barker and others. Barker believed that the intention expressed in Defence Secretary John Nott's 1981 review to withdraw the Royal Navy ship HMS Endurance, Britain's only naval presence in the South Atlantic, sent a signal to the Argentines that Britain was unwilling, and would soon be unable, to defend its territories and subjects in the Falklands." (from here.)

It's possible that this was just stupidity on the part of the Thatcher government, and that there was no intention to send the generals such a message. But the alternative possibility cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 02:28 PM

The last post by Terribus, although not intended, seems to give some weight to the suggestion by McGrath.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 03:37 PM

I'd doubt if French Canadians would be too enthusiastic about an invasion of St Pierre et Miquelon, the only bit of French Canada that escaped conquest by the British back in the 18th century.

Incidentally the population contrast is a bit extreme. St Pierre et Miquelon has over 6,000 people in a territory of about 200 square kiloetres - the Falk;ands has half that number in a territory of over 12,000 sq

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 03:40 PM

I'd doubt if French Canadians would be too enthusiastic about an invasion of St Pierre et Miquelon, the only bit of French Canada that escaped conquest by the British back in the 18th century.

Incidentally the population contrast is a bit extreme. St Pierre et Miquelon has over 6,000 people in a territory of about 200 square kilometres - the Falklands has half that number in a territory of over 12,000 sq kilometres, almost the size of Northern Ireland. Not exactly crowded.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,999
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 03:52 PM

"After the approval of the 1958 French constitutional referendum, the islands [St P and M] were given the options of becoming fully integrated with France, becoming self-governing states within the French Community or preserving the status of overseas territory; they decided to remain a territory."

from Wikipedia

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: meself
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 04:15 PM

"I'd doubt if French Canadians would be too enthusiastic about an invasion of St Pierre et Miquelon"

Not sure what your point is - is this supposed to be a contrast with how British-Argentinians feel about an invasion of the Falklands?

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 04:48 PM

Canada may be concerned if St. Pierre & Miquelon were trying to get nukes?

But, they are not, But thay are trying to grow cukes. (Which is not an easy feat, with all the rocks).
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 05:30 PM

Q past experience with regard to your comprehension as to who did what onboard the Transocean Drilling Rig Deepwater Horizon indicates that given a choice you automatically grab the wrong end of the stick. How long did it take to convince you of what was blatantly obvious?

So, surprise, surprise, Thatcher's popularity improved because she showed resolve and provided leadership when it was required - that gets translated with 20 x 20 hindsight into "She gave the Argentines not just the nod but also the wink because she knew that she would provoke a war and risking losing it to win an election that had not even been considered? As I said absolutely ridiculous.

Nothing to do with HMS Endurance, and I knew Nick Barker, her Captain, personally. The architect behind the 1982 invasion of the Falklands started to lay his plans years before when he served as Naval Attache in 1975, his name was Jorge Anaya

""A basic assunmption underlying the conflict was that the British were, in the opinion of the war's main architect, Admiral Jorge Anaya, unworthy heirs to a glorious heritage, the men mainly maricones...to call a man a maricón does not question his heterosexuality; but it definitely impugns his physical and moral courage. Anaya was Naval Attaché in London from January 1975 to January 1976...He returned to Argentina, making no attempt to conceal his contempt for all things British.")"

(Source: Bicheno, Hugh (2006). Razor's Edge. London: Phoenix. p. 25. ISBN 9780753821862.)

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 06:46 PM

"to win an election that had not even been considered?"

Politicians start "considering" the next election the day after the last one.
................................
As I said, it is indeed possible that when they acted in such as to send a message to the generals that they could take over the islands without any serious opposition, it was just stupidity. Stranger things have happened.

But the question as to whether in this particular case this strange thing happened is not one that can be settled by cries of "absolutely ridiculous".

The irony is that if the generals had held off, it is very likely that the Argentine flag would currently be flying in Port Stanley. Probably alongside the Union Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 11:56 PM

" if the generals had held off, it is very likely that the Argentine flag would currently be flying in Port Stanley. Probably alongside the Union Jack."

An if my Aunt had balls she'd be my Uncle.

The Argentines have no claim whatsoever to the Falkland Isles, and as to who decides the issue according to right and by the Charter of the United Nations? The answer is simple - The Falkland Islanders

It most certainly not for the Government of Argentina or for the Government of the United Kingdom to negotiate away the islanders right of self determination.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Dead Horse
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 06:15 AM

So - if Britain doesnt send any more warships to the Falklands it is a clear sign that we are not interested in defending those islands and the Argies can therefore take them?
If on the other hand, Britain does send a warship to visit, it is obviously war mongering and a direct threat to world peace?
Is that what the Argies are saying, or is it just some crap politicians stirring the pot for their own benefit?
And by the way - Falkland Islanders are NOT to be called 'Bennies'.
They are known as 'Stills' And that is official, see :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 07:44 AM

" if the generals had held off, it is very likely that the Argentine flag would currently be flying in Port Stanley. Probably alongside the Union Jack."

Had the generals waited for all the exorcet missiles contracted by the french, the outcome may have been very different.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 07:50 AM

"Had the generals waited for all the exorcet missiles contracted by the french, the outcome may have been very different."

Nope it wouldn't

Oh by the bye Bonzo give me the name of one ship sunk by an "Exocet" missile during the Falklands War.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 07:54 AM

HMS Sheffield.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 08:00 AM

Oh, I get it, Teribus. You were taking the piss out of bonzo's spelling. Only works if you repeat the error though. Back to comedian school with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Brian May
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 12:13 PM

Quote: Well, there's about a mile of landing strip at Mount Pleasant. Hope that's sufficient, but it would be good if the RAF had an alternate when things go in the sh#tter. Unquote

Err . . . no, I used to fly Tristars into and out of Mount Pleasant, it's a damn sight longer than that.

'Bennies'? Did I say 'Bennies'? Well yes, they're 'Stills' only because they're 'still' 'Bennies' - after that famous character in Crossroads, the dimshit inbred (character) with the woolly hat, who used to moon over 'Miss Diane'.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 02:43 PM

Best wishes to your aunt, Teribus. I can't disagree about that point.

Speculating about how history might have worked out differently,while fascinating is ultimately futile. So is speculating about the future, I suppose, but at least in time the speculation will turn out right or wrong. I'd bet that in time there'll be a dual-nationality settlement. And probably a lot more people living in the islands than there are now, most of them with Argentine connections.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,999
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 04:42 AM

"Err . . . no, I used to fly Tristars into and out of Mount Pleasant, it's a damn sight longer than that."

I was estimating using Google maps. I accept that I'm wrong, but besides telling me that would you please give a correction? Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,999
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 04:57 AM

A few sites give the runway length as 8497 feet.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 05:43 AM

"Outcome may have been", Wrong again. "Outcome might have been". The conditional takes a subjunctive, see?

Don't I remember that before the Bennies (later the Stills) became Bennies they were Mongs - to the less educated and tolerant squaddie?

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 05:45 AM

Other than that I agree with Dead Horse. You coming out to sing (or heckle) at Lower Coke on Sunday 4th March, old chap?

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Brian May
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 05:50 AM

Believe it or not, we used to prefer runways TWO miles long! (10,000 feet for cash)

At MPA, you could operate 'other' types off the taxiways too (if needs be).

The odd thing about THAT runway is that it was never built into the prevailing wind as the ground beneath the runway couldn't bear the weight, so it's a compromise. It means that you're usually operating into (quite severe sometimes) crosswinds on take off or landing.

Oh my head is SO full of trivia . . .

Guest,999 - I wasn't being nasty, but a mile long runway was great for WWII aircraft but rarely enough for modern aircraft. You probably did good to get even that close!

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 05:58 AM

You will have liked the one at Ascension then.
I wonder if it was you who flew me there in '99.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,999
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 07:03 AM

Brian, I should know by now not to post before I have a cup of coffee. My apologies and my thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 10:57 AM

Would it annoy anyone if I resist the temptation to take sides in this one? ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 11:50 AM

"Would it annoy anyone if I resist the temptation to take sides in this one?"

Jabing the bull again? You weinie-bellied Picador.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 12:14 PM

LOL! Oh, yeah??? You flat-bottomed bilge scow!

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Brian May
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 06:03 PM

Fortunately I had left the RAF by 2003 and that was the year I joyously set off northbound from MPA for the last time.

I always likened the FI to Wales without both trees and the M4.

Besides, all the good-looking sheep are already in long-term relationships . . .

Guest,999 - you should know me well enough by now, I couldn't take offence with you, didn't we agree we were related ?   ;o)

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: gnu
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 06:09 PM

Scows got bilges?

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Brian May
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 06:46 PM

Keith A

ASI was a great length . . . lots of runway. However there was a huge colony of Wideawake Terns down the far end (potential for multiple birdstrikes) and the runway was fairly cracked up. Apart from that it had no Precision Approach aids (Instrument Landing System and the like) which MPA did - you just can't have everything I guess.

As for the terms of endearment being bandied about, most ladies would love to be called anything containg 'flat bottomed' methinks ;o)

I'm off to bed - too much excitement messes with my medication . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 08:05 PM

Well, the scow I was picturing wouldn't have bilges. It would be used to haul away the noisome contents of other ships' bilges.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 03:32 AM

But Wideawakes gave it its name.
I was told that the runway was lengthened to allow a shuttle to land.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 01:26 PM

May you soak in your own foul, "que causa flatos", bilge water.
You rudderless and bunkum schlockmeister.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Brian May
Date: 19 Feb 12 - 03:00 PM

Yes Keith,
I too was told that, although Dakar in Senegal was also an emergency landing ground for the Shuttle. Which is (metaphorically) up the road.

I miss ASI, but I don't miss MPA. The finest thing to do in ASI (after a couple of drinks of course) was to lie on one of the cinder paths in the dark and just look at the Milky Way, absolutely stunning - shooting stars, satellites et al. Brian Cox . . . eat your heart out!

Ah well, nostalgia is not what it used to be. We must stop communicating and re-commence slagging ourselves off like those around us ;o)

Take care

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 12:37 AM

" GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 17 Feb 12 - 07:54 AM

HMS Sheffield."

Sorry Chris B - No cigar - HMS Sheffield was under tow and still afloat six days after the missiles struck.

It was a deliberate decision taken on assessment that led to the Royal Navy sinking the ship.

Much vaunted and over-hyped, no Exocet has never actually sunk a ship.

The ONLY surface to surface missile ever to have done that (and it took three of them) were SS-N-2 "Styx" missiles fired from two Russian Komar Class Missile Patrol Boats that sank the Israeli Destroyer EIlat on 21st October 1967.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 05:48 AM

Anoraks, anoraks - all sizes!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 10:43 AM

Anoraks???

As far as the Falklands go, Bonzo things tend to stick in your mind when people you have served with have been killed and others actually have had ships quite literally blown out from under them - But none of them by any "Exorcet" missile.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 03:05 AM

My flight to Ascension from Brize refueled at Dakar.
Memories of Ascension Island.
Bright stars and a warm trade wind.
Landscape like the surface of the moon.
A golf course without a blade of grass.
Vast antenna farms.
The little graveyard at Comfortless Cove. Their ship quarantined there with boats delivering bodies and collecting supplies. No burials. Just piled up stones.
Banknotes that I could not change when I got home.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,Bluesman
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 05:14 AM

British embassy attacked this morning in Argentinia.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rioters-attack-british-embassy-buenos-aires-005419993.html

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 07:56 AM

Rent a mob - an embarrasment to decent folks out there, and probably paid by the Argentine government!

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 10:19 AM

There was what looked like a very learned letter in the Grauniad the other day about legal dominion over the Falklands - something about 1740 - nearly convinced me that Argentina might have a point - but their threats to potential oil platforms and the funders of them seem well out of order to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: meself
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 11:45 AM

From what I've read, there is an argument - albeit an extremely weak one - to be made in favour of the Argentinian claim. However, that argument only makes sense if we are prepared to set all the world's national boundaries back to where they were in 1822 or so.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 11:50 AM

Just so.
The islanders' right to self determination should take precedence over righting ancient wrongs by the long dead against the long dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 11:54 AM

There are demos every day in BA, but very few are violent.

I suspect that puta Kirshner wants to build a couple of houses on Las Malvinas to add to the 8 she aleady has!!

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: GUEST,999
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 01:26 PM

This is the second time in years I have agreed with Bonzo, although as to her being a whore I don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 05:34 PM

Some interesting information here: http://www.lonelyplanet.com/shop_pickandmix/previews/falklands-south-georgia-island-background-information-preview.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 06:52 PM

Is there a Ministry of Silly Wars in Westminster? And another in Buenos Aires?

I suppose if you're a Falklands resident and you have the kind of medical emergency that needs a hospital with a first-class Intensive Care Unit in a hurry, it must be reassuring to think that is available nearly eight thousand miles away in England, instead of having to go all the way to Buenos Aires 950 miles away...

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: ollaimh
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 11:00 PM

well teribus as usual is ignoring real history from "shudder" other languages. the french removed the first argintine colony, the americans gthe second. the second was hardly viable, the first was doing ok--and the first was the important one from a legal perspective). the british claims remains by right of conquest.

but english historians generally ignor anything that raises questions about their militarist vision of history.

as far as the canadian situation(sending back the british might not be practical--trying to eliminate the french and of course the nagives didn't work as well as planned) . in 1912(or thereabouts--i don't have the books in front of me) we in fact negotiated the end of the french rights on the mainland of new foundland. we did not then agree on offshore rights as no one was thinking about that ten. that did happen post 1992. however the french had treay rights to the use of the coasts of nfld and the use of natural resources there untill the 1912 treaty. these rights were agreed by the treaty ending the seven years war when the british empire comquered what is now canada.

as to the emotional attachment to land you;ve shed blood over then we are all in trouble. the british have made war in almost every corner of the globe. a record as one of the most bloodthirsty and war like state in history. what cann you say. they forgive themselves. the sad thing is americans(and the harper government now)are on the same path. rejecting the noble american civil rights and social justice traditions.

i oppose militarism--but some times people are forced to fight the militarists. they don't go away because most people think they are evil.

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 01:36 AM

I don't think you can have read the extract to which I linked, Olly, did you?

Subject: RE: BS: Falklands 'militarisation'
From: Musket
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 04:54 AM

If you ask the residents, most of whom were born on the islands, which country they wish to be associated with, they say The UK. The penguins have indicated that too.

This is jingoism to deflect from domestic issues, so once it blows over, all shall be well again.

In the meantime, let's give where I live back to the Vikings, or find some druids and hand them the keys to Wales. Tell you what, let's have Calais back. The Spanish occasionally get excited about masturbating monkeys on a rock too for that matter.

If we turn the clock back, will we reserve the right to still it New York or will the Dutch insist on New Amsterdam? Which of us shall have a governor in The White House and tax tea? Can't wait to see the resurgence of The Austro Hungarian Empire, they were responsible for some great cuisine...