Falklands War 2: The reboot

[Embattle]

Oh noes the little dictator Hugo Chavez is telling us to give it back.

 

[Mabs]

im all in favour of it actually
we should give the argies back the land that was once theirs, i think its a good and fair move
right after the americans give the amerindians back their whole continent...

as to the bit of paper.. sign this or no more corned beef for you , its hardly a problem

 

[Sparx]

Funny thing though it was never the Argies land to begin with

It was a dispute between UK and Spain

 

[rynnor]

Funny thing though it was never the Argies land to begin with

It was a dispute between UK and Spain

Yes - I noticed that - does seem a bit odd - hey give us back that thing we never owned

In normal life thats called theft.

 

[Sparx]

It all reeks of nursery school bullying. When you see your child play with a toy and some other kid comes up and tries to take it.

Why is it in that situation you always go why dont you share, but in real life you say go do one get your own you norbert

 

[Hawkwind]

It was defended because of sovreignty last time. This time it's about oil as well.

It was about oil last time as well. Britain was not about to loose an island with massive oil reserves. The first oil surveys were done back in the 70's. Problem was that it is deep sea wells and expensive to get up. Now with the price of oil as it is these deposits become quite viable.

Argies should have taken the deal they were offered before the original war. Pipeline to Argentina and a share of the profits. Instead they went for all or nothing!

The fact the politicians are shouting about it in Argentina kinda shows they have no intention of committing to a war. No point in forewarning the opposition. Any troop ships leaving their shores would be fodder for the subs. If what I've heard from a couple of ex RAF'ers is true, the Island is very well protected from airborne attacks. Their losses would be extremely high going in.

 

[00dave]

They've had the whole fishing thing going on for years too, Argentina wanted ships to request a fishing permit from buenos aires before they could fish in falkland waters. I remember being on a hercules when it was retasked to investigate an unknown vessel that had crossed a fishing border or something, effectively we had to chase it off. It turned a 3 hour jolly into something like an 8 hour task.

I'm still hoping something kicks off and I get called up for reserves.

 

[rynnor]

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Argentina ends Falklands oil deal

Argentina are just being greedy and nationalistic over the whole thing - they could have co-operated and shared it as we offered.

Considering the Islands are inhabited by British citizens the chances of them ever being given to Argentina is pretty much nil.

 

[ECA]

The main reason this crap is kicking off is as usual, a weak domestic leader looking to improve her standing ahead of an election this year.


( Just to clarify, that's the Argentinian one not Gordon Brown - it amused me a lot that I had to make this edit ).

 

[Sparx]

Isnt that pretty much what Maggie and Co done too? use the fight over the falklands to boost local standing?

 

[ECA]

Isnt that pretty much what Maggie and Co done too? use the fight over the falklands to boost local standing?

That might be accurate if we'd been the ones attacking the falklands....

:lol:

 

[mr.Blacky]

I am always wondering what the following really means:

Argentina's President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner told the summit that Britain was carrying out a systematic violation of international law.

Okay so which laws?
Why is it that when ever a nation or a group of people are not happy with a situation or action they always start to say "it's a violation of international law" .. Which law, yes I know international agreements are higher in the hierarchy then national ones but I just dont understand it in this situation.

 

[Mabs]

1- go to summit
2- make sweeping generalisations about international law
3- ??
4- profit

 

[pez]

I am always wondering what the following really means:



Okay so which laws?
Why is it that when ever a nation or a group of people are not happy with a situation or action they always start to say "it's a violation of international law" .. Which law, yes I know international agreements are higher in the hierarchy then national ones but I just dont understand it in this situation.

thats not actually true of course. international law is meaningless. look at nukes in israel or the american boycott of cuba. Both are internationally illegal.

 

[mr.Blacky]

thats not actually true of course. international law is meaningless. look at nukes in israel or the american boycott of cuba. Both are internationally illegal.

okay I agree that international law is meaningless but where does the whole meaning come from? Who makes them?
As you stated nukes in Israel or the American boycott of Cuba are internationally illegal. But as far as I know Israel never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so they are not bound by it, so why is it illegal?

Sorry I really just dont get where that term comes from.

 

[Furr]

Falklands are well protected to be honest and our troops well dug in, plus to be honest even though the Navy has been raped by Labour and the military as a whole shrunk we still have some of the best kit there is, anyone who tried to invade would suffer some pretty horrendous loses plus even though we only have 4x Eurofighters down there they are the most advanced fighter planes in the southern hemisphere and would take out pretty much every enemy plane they could before they ran out of ammo to shoot with, most enemy planes would get shot down without ever having detected the typhoon.

 

[Sparx]

That might be accurate if we'd been the ones attacking the falklands....

:lol:

Yeah but she used the war in a PR way to boost public feelings

I feel rather strongly about The Falklands because of the battle of mount tumbledown, which not only me regiment but my battalion was involved in

Battle of Mount Tumbledown - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.naval-history.net/F58tumbledown.htm


"British troops swarmed the mountaintop and drove the Argentinians out, at times fighting with fixed bayonets"

Was done by the Jocks, fought up hill for 3 miles with only bayonets due to no ammo. Heavy gunners kept the enemies heads down

Its one of our Regiments recent respected battle honours.

In my company we had a guardsman who was there, he was 17 at the time and the youngest person, he never spoke about it unless he was drunk. Some of the stories he told actually upset alot of boys even the hard ones. Its one thing to hear it on the news, or from a historian. Its another to hear it from someone who is reliving it in their heads talking to you

 

[cHodAX]

Do you think our forces were in worse condition now or then? I know we have good planes but I really worry about other equipment shortages like those we suffered in Iraq. It feels like we are running the army on a shoestring at times.

 

[Embattle]

It was much worse then.

 

[DaGaffer]

It was much worse then.

Different, not necessarily worse. The kit wasn't as sophisticated, but UK forces were more balanced then; if the Falklands had happened 10 years later we probably wouldn't have been able to put together a task force at all, and we certainly couldn't now; all our thinking (except maybe Special Forces) is around combined ops with the US/NATO. Unilateral warmaking is actually pretty difficult for the UK to do these days.

The big difference this time around would simply be that the islands are much better defended in the first place, which (unless Argentina is secretly being supplied by aliens) means we wouldn't have to put together a task force because we'll be able to reinforce by air.

Oh, and as others have said; Argentinean conscripts suffered at the hands of British troops who's only real combat experience at the time was in Northern Ireland; imagine how they'd fare against the kind of soliders we have now?

 

[Ch3tan]

I personally think it's stupid that people sue the government when soldiers die. You sign up to fight. You need to accept the consequences. How does taking more money from the public purse help anyone?

 

[Sparx]

The British Army are trained on tactics and more basics rather than tech.

I remember training with yanks and they all brought their little gas stoves out and we have hexi blocks and a little metal tray. I tel l you something though i'd rather do it with blocks than rely on a tank of gas which takes up more room etc

Sometimes more tech is a bad thing

 

[cHodAX]

The British Army are trained on tactics and more basics rather than tech.

I remember training with yanks and they all brought their little gas stoves out and we have hexi blocks and a little metal tray. I tel l you something though i'd rather do it with blocks than rely on a tank of gas which takes up more room etc

Sometimes more tech is a bad thing

Tank of gas in a battlezone? Lol, fucking yanks go b00m if shrapnel or fire hits it. That is one of the most hairbrained ideas ever.

 

[Sparx]

yeah these

also take up alot more room than this

 

[taB]

Had a power cut recently and these worked a fucking treat after 10 years of being in my cupboard

Only downside was I nearly melted my plastic window frames boiling some water to make tea for the whole flat block.

P.S. I still have 3 wax sealed packs of these fuel blocks Awesome.

 

[rynnor]

It was much worse then.

I thought the biggest problem last time was all the extra supplies were on the Atlantic Conveyor which got sunk en-route and seriously handicapped the rest of the operation?

 

[Dukat]

Postings coming up soon, worth putting the Falklands down on the off chance they try something? Place ya bets ladies & gents!

 

[cHodAX]

Postings coming up soon, worth putting the Falklands down on the off chance they try something? Place ya bets ladies & gents!

I would honestly love to go anyway, some might say it is boring but to me it looks peaceful and tranquil. Cold at times? Yes but a place can be cold and still beautiful.

 

[Ctuchik]

my thoughts exactly

they go for us, we withdraw troops from afghan/iraq, usa has kittens

USA might get pissed but can they actually do something about it?

they might bark a whole lot but i'm not entirely conviced how hard they can bite at the moment.

they have how many wars going on right now?

can they really get away with another one, both politically and financially, even it its for helping an ally?

that would mean that THEY had to pull troops from afganistan and iraq aswell, and i'm pretty sure hell freezes over before THAT happen

 

[Raven]

You can keep your bells and whistles, I am planning a Hobo Stove similar to this for wild camping. Much better, and cheap

Hobo stove - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia