Argentina vows to defend her interests after oil discovery
08 May 2010, 10:00 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08 May 2010, 10:31 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think they know political pressure is the only way for them to get a result. United with every other country in South America they would have a fair amount of political weight to throw, we would then have to hope USA and the EU throws their weight behind the UK.
I still think it would be worth Dave Cameron reminding the Argies which of us has nukes.
I still think it would be worth Dave Cameron reminding the Argies which of us has nukes.
09 May 2010, 09:13 AM
#34
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Muppetising life
Posts: 15,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Honestly, I think it is just political posturing. If it really came to a military conflict, its not one that the Arges would do well in. We may not be able to stop them landing on the islands, but out non-nuclear reponse from the navy could be devastating for mainland Argentina.
09 May 2010, 12:42 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think people believe we still have a navy!
we have the odd ship a couple of subs with Trident on the rest is rusting in ship yards months away from being fighting fit if ever. We have no sea Harriers any more as they were scrapped as a cost cutting idea and the remaining harriers are designed for ground attack role and have no suitable avoinics system to provide effective CAP role over a fleet.
With the cuts being talked about with in 5 years we will have no ships capable of basing enough harriers to actually offer any form of sea based aviation assets
the army is getting all the money left in the slashed defence budget. the whole defence spend is based on the theory that America will provide key assets and with out her active role in any future conflict we could even defend our borders from europe let alone mount a defence of islands 10,000 miles away.
Basicly Labour have spent the defence budget on the NHS and Education departments in the last 10 years what was left has funded the army in Iraq.
If i was the Argies i would put a small group of special forces in buy night from a fishing boat or diesel sub blow up the 4 eurofighters and away you go get the air force to drop a couple of bombs into the run way the next day and its all over, 1 set of islands with no air cover.
Still probably find UK government will want to do a profit share so wont come to that they normally sell UK Plc down the river
we have the odd ship a couple of subs with Trident on the rest is rusting in ship yards months away from being fighting fit if ever. We have no sea Harriers any more as they were scrapped as a cost cutting idea and the remaining harriers are designed for ground attack role and have no suitable avoinics system to provide effective CAP role over a fleet.
With the cuts being talked about with in 5 years we will have no ships capable of basing enough harriers to actually offer any form of sea based aviation assets
the army is getting all the money left in the slashed defence budget. the whole defence spend is based on the theory that America will provide key assets and with out her active role in any future conflict we could even defend our borders from europe let alone mount a defence of islands 10,000 miles away.Basicly Labour have spent the defence budget on the NHS and Education departments in the last 10 years what was left has funded the army in Iraq.
If i was the Argies i would put a small group of special forces in buy night from a fishing boat or diesel sub blow up the 4 eurofighters and away you go get the air force to drop a couple of bombs into the run way the next day and its all over, 1 set of islands with no air cover.
Still probably find UK government will want to do a profit share so wont come to that they normally sell UK Plc down the river
09 May 2010, 01:34 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I can tell you back in 1994 I was in HM Forces, in the uk, Tory government, and I couldnt even exchange a pair of lightweight trousers because we couldnt get hold of any
and we were the spearhead unit for the British Army 
In 1982 we didnt have a fleet, just a load of old ships from either Fleet Auxillary or constripted in as troop carriers and transports for military equipments
Tony
09 May 2010, 07:31 PM
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
09 May 2010, 08:01 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
So another blame labour situation?
I can tell you back in 1994 I was in HM Forces, in the uk, Tory government, and I couldnt even exchange a pair of lightweight trousers because we couldnt get hold of any and we were the spearhead unit for the British Army
In 1982 we didnt have a fleet, just a load of old ships from either Fleet Auxillary or constripted in as troop carriers and transports for military equipments
Tony
I can tell you back in 1994 I was in HM Forces, in the uk, Tory government, and I couldnt even exchange a pair of lightweight trousers because we couldnt get hold of any
and we were the spearhead unit for the British Army In 1982 we didnt have a fleet, just a load of old ships from either Fleet Auxillary or constripted in as troop carriers and transports for military equipments
Tony
I suppose it is these comforting thoughts, that for the intellectual zombies, help them make sense of the world around them
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 09 May 2010 at 08:04 PM.
09 May 2010, 09:57 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09 May 2010, 10:50 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah fancy blaming the Government who make the decision to reduce funding so we cant afford any planes to put on the remaining aircraft carrier! Typical Labour supporter dont take responsibility for what they have done in the last 13 years!
And dont forget Labour in the 70's got rid of the last proper Aircraft Carrier in the Navy.
As to what we had in the 82 conflict it was a lot more than we have now for a start we scrapped together 2 ships for Sea Harriers to fly from and yes we used RORO ferries to move materials to the Falklands but we have called up Merchant ships in virtually all conflicts in the last 100 years. still i am all for more money on defence obviously the other critics support that.
And dont forget Labour in the 70's got rid of the last proper Aircraft Carrier in the Navy.
As to what we had in the 82 conflict it was a lot more than we have now for a start we scrapped together 2 ships for Sea Harriers to fly from and yes we used RORO ferries to move materials to the Falklands but we have called up Merchant ships in virtually all conflicts in the last 100 years. still i am all for more money on defence obviously the other critics support that.
Last edited by Adrian F; 09 May 2010 at 10:52 PM.
09 May 2010, 11:04 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I contributed to the 'strap a surfboard' charity campaign. They glue old surfboards to the undersides of Land Rovers in Afghanistan - saved a few brave boots and averted far more expensive 'lifestyle denial' claims... Still, I predictably blame the >management< for NOT doing this first. D
10 May 2010, 08:16 AM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A good compromise would be to look to pipe some if not all of the oil ashore to Argentina. This may well be geographically as well as politically advantageous, would give the Argies some revenue but the bulk of the income could still go to pay off our debt. When you extract oil, you need to process it before just tankering it off to the refinery - that can be done offshore but is easier to do on dry land.
I bet not many people here know that a lot of Norwegian oil is brought ashore in the UK, stabilised and then shipped off.
Steve
I bet not many people here know that a lot of Norwegian oil is brought ashore in the UK, stabilised and then shipped off.
Steve
Les
10 May 2010, 09:05 AM
#44
I move to Argentina at the end of July to be with my wife and daughter. I have already been told to keep my mouth shut about the Falklands belonging to the UK.
When you talk to a lot of Argentineans, it is not the islands that gets them most riled, it is the loss of life that happened with the sinking of the Belgrano.
When you talk to a lot of Argentineans, it is not the islands that gets them most riled, it is the loss of life that happened with the sinking of the Belgrano.
10 May 2010, 09:35 AM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes thats quite understandable, but we lost a lot of people too. The injuries of some of those blokes that the VC10's were bringing back were quite horrifying.
As I always say-War is obscene!
Les
As I always say-War is obscene!
Les
10 May 2010, 11:40 AM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10 May 2010, 11:51 AM
#50
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
HMS Albion, Decommissioned 1973, Tory government
HMS Eagle, Decommissioned 1972, Tory government
HMS Hermes, sold to India, 1984, Tory government.
So where does labour come into it?
Labour government in the 70's was from 1974-1977 which was the result of a hung parliment as the tories couldnt form one.
Carry on, all the above are aircraft carriers, during this time of selling off/decommissioning, they replaced the above 4 with 1.
Labour did what?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers
Tony
10 May 2010, 11:59 AM
#52
It was a war crime that the Belgrano was allowed to set sail. A year or so earlier it had been sent home to port for being unseaworthy during war games (ref. One Hundred Days) plus (as clearly shown) it carried insuffiencent life rafts for the crew.
Secondly, it was a warship belonging to one of the nations at war close to a warzone. Fair game.
Finally, if you doubt the intent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...ls-577867.html
You can't blame Thatcher for the sinking. Sandy Woodward ordered HMS Conquerer to engage and then sent the message to Downing Street knowing full well the vessels would have engaged by the time anyone read the message.
Secondly, it was a warship belonging to one of the nations at war close to a warzone. Fair game.
Finally, if you doubt the intent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...ls-577867.html
You can't blame Thatcher for the sinking. Sandy Woodward ordered HMS Conquerer to engage and then sent the message to Downing Street knowing full well the vessels would have engaged by the time anyone read the message.
10 May 2010, 12:04 PM
#53
Scooby Regular
10 May 2010, 12:29 PM
#54
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So then in that case can you all stop nagging on about Blair being guilty of war crimes. i.e. produce the proof and the subsequent trials of Blair for war crimes or STFU
10 May 2010, 12:37 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in her own words:
Originally Posted by Thatcher
We therefore decided that British forces should be able to attack any Argentine naval vessel on the same basis as agreed previously for the carrier.
......
The necessary order conveying the change of rules of engagement was sent from Northwood to HMS Conqueror at 1.30 pm. In fact, it was not until after 5pm that Conqueror reported that she had received the order. The Belgrano was torpedoed and sunk just before 8 o'clock that evening.
......
The necessary order conveying the change of rules of engagement was sent from Northwood to HMS Conqueror at 1.30 pm. In fact, it was not until after 5pm that Conqueror reported that she had received the order. The Belgrano was torpedoed and sunk just before 8 o'clock that evening.
10 May 2010, 12:46 PM
#57
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The defence of the Falklands was completely legal.
Les
10 May 2010, 12:56 PM
#58
I would advocate us not p1ssing off another nation, we already have half the Islamic world wanting to come over here and blow stuff up, we could do without Argentinean bombers as well.
I can sort of see their point, imagine if oil was found somewhere off our coast near an island that was under disputed Argentine rule we would want a piece of the action, that said they bailed out of an agreement a few years back so kind of relinquished any claim, that and getting a thorough twatting thirty years ago, they are still rattling on about sovreignty and are bleating about it to the UN.
I still think they should get some consideration, as there is an environmental risk and also if things hot up, assuming the field is viable of course the oil companies could end up with nothing and the government a diplomatic crisis and possibly another conflict.
I can sort of see their point, imagine if oil was found somewhere off our coast near an island that was under disputed Argentine rule we would want a piece of the action, that said they bailed out of an agreement a few years back so kind of relinquished any claim, that and getting a thorough twatting thirty years ago, they are still rattling on about sovreignty and are bleating about it to the UN.
I still think they should get some consideration, as there is an environmental risk and also if things hot up, assuming the field is viable of course the oil companies could end up with nothing and the government a diplomatic crisis and possibly another conflict.
10 May 2010, 01:00 PM
#59
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: essex, then chongqing, china and now essex again
Posts: 2,568
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my colleague has been in the argentina for the last 2 weeks, shooting...
He's due back in the office tomorrow (unless stranded by the volcanic ash cloud...)
He's due back in the office tomorrow (unless stranded by the volcanic ash cloud...)
10 May 2010, 01:00 PM
#60
Scooby Regular
ws gonna say there's more than 1 carrier in service, there's two, 1 in reserve (which i'm told means 18 month run up period for comissioning) also two in production. 6 new type 45 destroyers are being comissioned, 2 of which are already in service. approx 20 frigates, some refitted in past 5 years etc etc
in fact heres a list on wiki (not sure how accurate thought)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...yal_Navy_ships
theres plenty of ships out there if needed.
Havn't argentina already said they wont go to war with uk over the island?
in fact heres a list on wiki (not sure how accurate thought)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...yal_Navy_ships
theres plenty of ships out there if needed.
Havn't argentina already said they wont go to war with uk over the island?