Falklands again?

Military News and current conflicts. Middle East, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Falklands again?

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:05 am

Being looking at the news today. It seems that Argentina is claiming the control of the approaches of the Falkslands. And the Britons are now refuting the claim with severity and using hard expressions.

Could that degenerate in a war? I think that, even Britain with a much smaller RN than 1982, had a still more powerful resources than what Argentina has by now, which military has been the target of constant budget cuts. Of course we have Venezuela that can feed some money and heat to an anti-imperialistic crusade.

It´s interesting but I do hope that things remain peacefull. I`m too close to South America now.

Best regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Falklands again?

Postby Bgile » Thu Feb 18, 2010 1:40 am

Impossible! RF says they were decisively defeated. Their military was crushed and no longer exists.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Falklands again?

Postby RF » Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:02 pm

In 1982 Bgile. Not for perpetuity. And you may recall Britain did not invade the Argentine mainland and seize the presidential palace in Buenos Aires, because it was not necessary. The objective was to retake the Falklands and South Georgia, and in that context the 1982 campaign ended in total victory.

I think it does help to look at things in perspective and not take situations in purely black and white terms with nothing inbetween.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Falklands again?

Postby RF » Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:07 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:
It´s interesting but I do hope that things remain peacefull. I`m too close to South America now.

Best regards,


Britain holds the Mount Pleasant air base in East Falkland, which is now the means of reinforcement for the Falklands garrison.

I think things will remain peaceful. What will happen is political posturing by the Argentine government and politicians, they (I hope) will know better than to go over the brink.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Falklands again?

Postby Bgile » Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:44 pm

RF wrote:In 1982 Bgile. Not for perpetuity. And you may recall Britain did not invade the Argentine mainland and seize the presidential palace in Buenos Aires, because it was not necessary. The objective was to retake the Falklands and South Georgia, and in that context the 1982 campaign ended in total victory.

I think it does help to look at things in perspective and not take situations in purely black and white terms with nothing inbetween.


Exactly. My problem is people like Karl who has defined "Total Victory" in another way. Which is why I have a big problem understanding why Karl thinks that the Falklands war was decisive when the retaking of Kuwait, involving huge tank battles with one sided results was NOT decisive. Argentina still claims the Malvinas. Now tell me why one was decisive and the other wasn't. I don't see the difference. In both cases the winning side chose not to invade the loser's country.

Of course the British won the Falklands war. Of course the Coalition won the Iraq war. One doesn't have to kill everyone to win a war.

User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: Falklands again?

Postby marcelo_malara » Thu Feb 18, 2010 4:24 pm

Hi guys. There is not even the remotest possibility of a new war. Various reasons:

-the above mentioned cuts in the armed forces, which had bring the army and the air force to a state worst that than in 1982. The navy is the exception, in paper the MEKO warships are more advanced than the WWII vintage ships of 1982, but not all are entirely operational.

-there is a sense born in 1982 that the islands aren´t worth a war.

-on reason of the 1982 war was to gain people support for the military dictatorship. There is no such need today.

So, don´t worry, nothing would happen.

Regards to all

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Falklands again?

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:49 pm

Steve:

Exactly. My problem is people like Karl who has defined "Total Victory" in another way. Which is why I have a big problem understanding why Karl thinks that the Falklands war was decisive when the retaking of Kuwait, involving huge tank battles with one sided results was NOT decisive.


Hold it! Hold it! Hold it! Please show us where do I wrote that I have some specific idea of the kind of fight or victory that was achieved in the Falklands/Malvinas war! I have not said anything on that particular, very particular case! When refering to total victory my examples were the Romans with Carthage or WWII, not Falklands. I did comment that non total victory outcome of the Gulf War in 1991, but with no relation to this. If I did, I ask you to quote me as I asked mkenny to quote me in the "fight to their deaths" comment that I supposely did on the "Ambrosian Sindrome" thread.

Lately people think they have read things other don`t even posted.

Warmest regards,

Karl
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

dougieo
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:36 am
Location: Scotland

Re: Falklands again?

Postby dougieo » Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:01 am

Would all this have something to do with the fact that there may be oodles of oil in the sea around the Islands?

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Falklands again?

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:06 am

I think that is not a cloaked issue but talked about in public: it´s oil and mineral resources.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

dougieo
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:36 am
Location: Scotland

Re: Falklands again?

Postby dougieo » Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:09 am

maybe Argentina feel that the UK is overstretched at the moment, Iraq/Afghanistan and its a toe in the water moment to see how hot the water is

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Falklands again?

Postby RF » Fri Feb 19, 2010 2:57 pm

marcelo_malara wrote:
So, don´t worry, nothing would happen.

Regards to all


I hope that you are right Marcelo.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Falklands again?

Postby RF » Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:00 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:Steve:

Exactly. My problem is people like Karl who has defined "Total Victory" in another way. Which is why I have a big problem understanding why Karl thinks that the Falklands war was decisive when the retaking of Kuwait, involving huge tank battles with one sided results was NOT decisive.


Hold it! Hold it! Hold it! Please show us where do I wrote that I have some specific idea of the kind of fight or victory that was achieved in the Falklands/Malvinas war! I have not said anything on that particular, very particular case!

Lately people think they have read things other don`t even posted.

Warmest regards,

Karl


The suggestion was raised by me and not Karl. Yet again Bgile has got the wrong end of the stick.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Falklands again?

Postby RF » Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:05 pm

dougieo wrote:Would all this have something to do with the fact that there may be oodles of oil in the sea around the Islands?


This question of supposed huge oil reserves in the Falklands Basin has been raised with me numerous times as an accountant, by people asking ''should I invest in those British oil companies prospecting in the Falklands.''

My advice to them and anybody else is no, as not a drop of oil has been found, they would be wasting their money. Rather like the Chaco in Paraguay, people can talk a good oil prospect, but the wells are exactly gushing are they?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Falklands again?

Postby RF » Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:16 pm

Bgile wrote:[]

Exactly. My problem is people like Karl who has defined "Total Victory" in another way. Which is why I have a big problem understanding why Karl thinks that the Falklands war was decisive when the retaking of Kuwait, involving huge tank battles with one sided results was NOT decisive. Argentina still claims the Malvinas. Now tell me why one was decisive and the other wasn't. I don't see the difference. In both cases the winning side chose not to invade the loser's country.

Of course the British won the Falklands war. Of course the Coalition won the Iraq war. One doesn't have to kill everyone to win a war.


Two different wars, two different objectives and therefore two different perspectives.

Iraq invaded an entire country and annexed it, posing a threat to other countries such as Saudi Arabia, and as such threatening world oil supplies.

Argentina invaded a British colony but posed no threat eleswhere.

The gredation of aggression was different. So a different response was needed.

The end result was that in 1982 the aggressor government was toppled - by its own citizens. That couldn't happen in Iraq; the Allies failed to back the people who rose up. The aggressor government survived to continue posing threats.

I hope Bgile that that makes my position clear to you, if you would please take the trouble to carefully read the whole of my posts and digesting their meaning before shooting from the hip.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Falklands again?

Postby Bgile » Fri Feb 19, 2010 4:27 pm

RF,

There are never going to be two identical wars. In both cases the aggressor was thrown out of the place they invaded. You consider one place a better victory than the other. That's fine, your country did it with little outside assistance; you are entitled to your opinion and it's largely semantics.


Return to “Military Conflicts Today”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest