BS: Falklands 'militarisation'

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...

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: Bonzo3legs
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 05:48 AM

Anoraks, anoraks - all sizes!!!

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: gnu
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 06:09 PM

Scows got bilges?

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: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Feb 12 - 12:14 PM

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

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

HMS Sheffield.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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.