SS4
Established Member
If anything it's a depressing account of the awe in which we hold these 'celebrities' that they are given such prominence outside their field of 'expertise'
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The Falklands
- Thread starter WestCoast
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I believe that the General Cambronne had a fairly good answer for that sort of thing.
Aictos
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 10,403
Seeing as the majority of the islanders have expressed their wishes to remain British then any transfer of sovereignty to Argentina would be counter to their right to self-determine as protected by Chapter 1, Article 1, part 2 which clearly states that purpose of the UN Charter is: "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."
This position is referred to in the Falkland Islands Constitution and is a powerful factor in the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute.
Also the European Union Treaty of Lisbon ratifies that the Falkland Islands belong to Britain.
In short, Argentina is simply acting in a aggressive manner as it has done for decades towards the UK government and ignoring the wishes of the islanders to remain British by stating the islanders have no right, this is despite what the above UN charter states.
Therefore, the UK should ignore Argentina by telling them to get off their high horse and push off!
This position is referred to in the Falkland Islands Constitution and is a powerful factor in the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute.
Also the European Union Treaty of Lisbon ratifies that the Falkland Islands belong to Britain.
In short, Argentina is simply acting in a aggressive manner as it has done for decades towards the UK government and ignoring the wishes of the islanders to remain British by stating the islanders have no right, this is despite what the above UN charter states.
Therefore, the UK should ignore Argentina by telling them to get off their high horse and push off!
Butts
Veteran Member
I had the privilege to visit The Falkland Islands in 2009 as part of a cruise on Holland America which was centred around South America.
There were very few British people on the cruise - mainly yanks with a few Aussies thrown in.
The place reminded me of The Hebrides or Isle of Man - it was great to see a British/Falklands Flag flying as we approached in the tender boats.
Sorry can't resist smoking was still permitted in the Pubs (not sure if it is now)the yanks nearly had a coronary - I and my Aussie associate were in nirvana.
On a talk about the islands prior to arrival the yank cruise consultant called it The Malvinas which nearly provoked a riot from the Brits in attendance.
The people were very friendly and appreciative of the UK commitment to defend them. No one I spoke to had any desire to become Argentinian.
Ironically the cruise also visited Argentina and I had a great time in Buenos Aries (Great Steaks)
From a rail perspective the British built the Argentinian Railways and there is a big monument to commemorate this in what used to be called "place ingleses" or some such name which is now been renamed.
There are also Red British Phone Boxes in the park near Eva Perons burial cemetery and Post Boxes in the same style.
In the Capital there was no sign of "Malvinas" propaganda however in The South of the Country there were posters and banners to that effect.
As a final footnote all the Penguins I met on The Falklands were pro-British with little Union Jacks on their chests and Argentinian Flags in the most appropriate place (their backsides
)
There were very few British people on the cruise - mainly yanks with a few Aussies thrown in.
The place reminded me of The Hebrides or Isle of Man - it was great to see a British/Falklands Flag flying as we approached in the tender boats.
Sorry can't resist smoking was still permitted in the Pubs (not sure if it is now)the yanks nearly had a coronary - I and my Aussie associate were in nirvana.
On a talk about the islands prior to arrival the yank cruise consultant called it The Malvinas which nearly provoked a riot from the Brits in attendance.
The people were very friendly and appreciative of the UK commitment to defend them. No one I spoke to had any desire to become Argentinian.
Ironically the cruise also visited Argentina and I had a great time in Buenos Aries (Great Steaks)
From a rail perspective the British built the Argentinian Railways and there is a big monument to commemorate this in what used to be called "place ingleses" or some such name which is now been renamed.
There are also Red British Phone Boxes in the park near Eva Perons burial cemetery and Post Boxes in the same style.
In the Capital there was no sign of "Malvinas" propaganda however in The South of the Country there were posters and banners to that effect.
As a final footnote all the Penguins I met on The Falklands were pro-British with little Union Jacks on their chests and Argentinian Flags in the most appropriate place (their backsides
)
I've heard about this in a radio programme. I wonder what they think about all the sabre rattling.
Butts
Veteran Member
They are probably assimilated into the general population by now - a bit like the English in Pembrokeshire or Scousers in Rhyl and Wrexham.
Chances are they have "gone native" after hundreds of years.
Maybe not. There is a German colony somewhere in south America that still speaks german and behaves Germanish (invading Poland and all that
)
Old Timer
Established Member
Why apologise for posting a correct and accurate link ? :roll:
Its only the Lefties who have a problem with the Daily Mail.
Had you linked to the Guardian (a newspaper more and more openly seen for what it truly is and what it stands for) then an apology would have been in order.
Schnellzug
Established Member
is it compulsory to get a political dig in at every opportunity?
Tringonometry
Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2011
- Messages
- 157
Don't be so silly. The Daily Mail is a crap newspaper, whatever its politics. :roll:
Not even worth stealing, as it lacks a decent crossword.
WestCoast
Established Member
Not true at all, I am sure we've covered this before. I didn't realise this was a right wing only forum anyway?
SS4
Established Member
Four legs good, two legs bad.
If you weren't so blinkered you'd see the Daily Mail for what it is - here is some racism of which the daily mail is infamous for.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
For my personal lulz what do you [OT] consider fair and unbiased (or the fairest and least unbiased)? Additionally what sources do you consider to be
Last edited:
Lampshade
Established Member
Hardly racism is it? It's just reporting the facts, backed up by Met Police statistics. If they'd blindly made up an article (as The Sun is notorious for) without any sort of sources then I'd be inclined to agree.
I must admit the Daily Mail is a good laugh sometimes, especially when you look at the bigotry of some of the comments.
I'll stick to The Independent
MidnightFlyer
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 16 May 2010
- Messages
- 12,856
kylemore
Member
- Joined
- 28 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 1,047
I'm afraid the ex Royal Navy wallah on the radio today summed it up - we no longer are able to operate fixed wing fighter aircraft in the area due to the decision to do away with the Aircraft Carriers and their Harriers therefore the Argies can invade the place at their leisure at any time over the next few years until the new Carriers are available (at the earliest 2026 and even thats debatable).
Nuclear hunter killer subs are great but cannot be everywhere at once and are irrelevent if the invasion and re-supply is carried out mostly by air anyway.
Yes we can start a nuclear war but I think that is unlikely (even if our masters across the pond allowed us!).
So I'm afraid its Spanish lessons for the sheep farmers or ticket home!
Nuclear hunter killer subs are great but cannot be everywhere at once and are irrelevent if the invasion and re-supply is carried out mostly by air anyway.
Yes we can start a nuclear war but I think that is unlikely (even if our masters across the pond allowed us!).
So I'm afraid its Spanish lessons for the sheep farmers or ticket home!
SS4
Established Member
Hardly racism is it? It's just reporting the facts, backed up by Met Police statistics. If they'd blindly made up an article (as The Sun is notorious for) without any sort of sources then I'd be inclined to agree.
I must admit the Daily Mail is a good laugh sometimes, especially when you look at the bigotry of some of the comments.
I'll stick to The Independent
Conveniently uncited statistics so nobody can check for themselves
Old Timer
Established Member
Your response probably encapsulates most of the attitudes to be seen on here, which say far more about those with the views than me.
To regard the Daily Mail as right wing is a complete joke and shows a lack of perception and awareness. Had you and the rest bothered to look at things without the rose coloured spectacles you all wear, you would have known that for many years now the Daily Mail under Dacre has supported Labour, and especially Brown when he was PM.
The Daily Mail has never fought shy of attacking both sides of the Political divide something that cannot be said of those papers on the left of centre such as the Independent (which has given up any pretence of being independent these days) make ajudgement for yourself on its employment of a plagiarist "reporter" who was the darling of the Left because so much of what he wrote suited their beliefs. The facts when ultimately established were somewhat different. The Guardian has descended into the use of disingenuous statement and comment, whilst knowingly publishing information which it knows to be wrong simply for Political purposes. It is also people by columnists who oppose private wealth and education whilst at the same time as sending their own children to private schools and owning town and country houses, hypocricy at its very best. The Mirror has a long history of disingenuous statement but never opposes anything that Labour says or does.
Papers are there to sell and will post dramatic headlines and stories, something the Daily Mail is very good at.
I never cease to be amused by the paranoia that it brings out in people who apparantly never read it but seem to know it intimately and can post links instantly to suit any argument. To quote Hamlet "Methinks the lady doth protest too much".
For the umpteenth time I again poinmt out that I do not read the Daily Mail and have not done so since Dacre took over. It was a far different paper then but I doubt many would know that as most of the protagonists on here were not even able to read then, indeed some may not even have been born.
If I want facts the last place I look to is a UK newspaper, although probably the only trustworthy UK paper would be the Telegraph.
One final point as I remember is that several Labour cabinet Ministers have praised the quality of the Daily Mail's reporting over the years, something no doubt that causes much angst amongst the rose tinted specatacle brigade no doubt.
Lampshade
Established Member
Nice left wing publication you have there
I do alternate with the Telegraph depending on what they're reporting on, it's just too much of a pain trying to read a broadsheet
I wouldn't be so sure about fixed wing being a disadvantage, you must remember that our poin defence systems are much improved, and te new Type 45 destroyers are the most capable air defence ships in the world. And then for ground support, we have apaches, that could actually prove more useful than a harrier.
They have to take the islands first and seeing as the plan isn't to allow that to happen I'm not too worried just yet. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread the islands are far better protected than they were in 1982 (4 Typhoons and 500 odd troops compared with no jets and about 50 royal marines last time) and there are plenty of plans to reinforce the islands rapidly (as in less than perhaps 36 hours) should it look like Argentina is going to try and invade again.
Also I wouldn't be so dismissive over the impact of the SSNs. Right now I would be very surprised if there wasn't one steaming nearby to the islands so any invasion force is going to have to be very careful or risk losing it's transports to torpedoes/harpoons.
I respect (but disagree with) the the Royal Navy's officers view point, however it's always worth rememberer that we suffer from bitter bitter inter-service rivalry and that all three branches will say whatever they think will give them an advantage over the other branches and get them the equipment they want. For the RN they will say anything that they think makes getting the carriers (both of them with and with decent air wings) more likely.
Lampshade
Established Member
It doesn't matter about the lack of aircraft carriers; Typhoons can do Ascension Island - RAF Mount Pleasant without refuelling, plus they can make it there in 15 hours, not 3 weeks.
Maybe in the open ocean but over land those T45s defences are going to be much weaker as their radar is going to suffer from being blinded by hill/mountains and the ships themselves are going to have to get closer to land as well again leaving them more vulnerable to air attack. The only thing that might help would be deploying the AEW version of the Sea King but I'm not sure if they can operate from a platform like HMS Ocean or not and even with those you're still left with T45s needing to get very close to land to provide air cover for ground troops (and of course splitting your very limited AAW assets between covering the task force at sea and the ground troops ashore). I still maintain that without fixed wig aviation retaking the islands would be hard verging on the impossible.
Erm no they can't. There air to air combat radius (from wiki) with 3 hours of loiter time is 100mi whilst with 10min of loiter they can get 750mi and their ferry range (no weapons at all) is only 1800mi. Ascension to Mount Pleasant is closer to 4000mi. Now you could send them down their quickly to reinforce the garrison but you're going to need tankers and extra men and equipment to support them once they're down there which takes a bit of time to put together (hence my figure of 36 hours or less). But providing CAP from Ascension would be impossible.
Last edited:
kylemore
Member
- Joined
- 28 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 1,047
Well I'm sure the Argentinians have laid there plans carefully too. They've had 30 years to study their mistakes.
Remember a few more exocet hits in 1982 and the British operation would have been in serious trouble. If they'd sunk the Canberra and one of the Carriers for instance and maybe another 4/5 escorts? What would have happened then? A jumpy Thatcher seeing her re-election gambit in tatters going nuclear?
The "Argies" are unlikely to parade about in large ex WW2 scrapheaps this time just to give us the satisfaction of easy kills!
Remember a few more exocet hits in 1982 and the British operation would have been in serious trouble. If they'd sunk the Canberra and one of the Carriers for instance and maybe another 4/5 escorts? What would have happened then? A jumpy Thatcher seeing her re-election gambit in tatters going nuclear?
The "Argies" are unlikely to parade about in large ex WW2 scrapheaps this time just to give us the satisfaction of easy kills!
Schnellzug
Established Member
They haven't modernised their air force or navy significantly.
Considering, though, that it took Galtieri's intervention to persuade the good lady Thatch of the error of her ways, in some ways i wonder what it might take to persuade Mr. C of the stupidity of his blind fixation with "The Deficit" to the cost of everything else.
SS4
Established Member
Hope not. Galtieri's intervention boosted Thatcher essentially winning her another term. This country can't cope with even more slash n burn and blaming the previous government.
Just today it was announced Pickles wants to legalise religious discrimination
There has also been an arms embargo for much of that time, in recognition of human rights abuses (anyone want to guess why the islanders want not to be Argentine?)Their air force, which is critical, is still based around the A4, which was obsolescent in the earlier war, with updated avionics, and a couple of variants of the Mirage, another hangover from the 60s. Both still good planes for their time, and capable of random success, but overall not up to modern combat
Re-writing history is fun, isn't it! The increase in electoral support was as a result of the war, and was not a meaningful factor in the events leading up to the war. It is a moot point whether the Conservatives would have lost anyway, given the feeble opposition. It became fashionable to ignore this in the years up to 1997, and "the war was the only reason Thatcher won" became accepted mythology during the New Labour years.
kylemore
Member
- Joined
- 28 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 1,047
It certainly is.
I'm with Henry Ford on this one "History is Bunk!"
Its taken me many years to realise I've been fed shedloads of "Bunk" over the years, forget the stuff you get at school and even at university and certainly what the WW2 obsessed BBC attempts to stuff down your throat all the time!
The real stuff takes a bit of winkling out.
And perrrrlease if you're going to come up with conspiracy theory jokes come up with something original, tinfoil hats are soooo yesterday!
P.S. I hope you realise this is friendly banter - no offense intended!
Perhaps but most of the equipment that's going to do the heavy lifting (ships and aircraft) for them is about 30 years old itself or very few in number. Their navy for example only has two amphibious transports (of which one is a converted Type 42 Destroyer) so any sea-lift is going to have to come from their Merchant Navy and I think we might notice if they start loading up troops into cargo ships. The rest of the navy is both small and made of ships and submarines from the 70s/80s it also has nothing that could reliably counter a modern SSN. Meanwhile the RN has cutting edge AAW destroyers backed up with much more modern Type 23 frigates and a very potent amphibious assault capability.
Their airforce has a very similar inventory to that of 1982 with A4s and Mirage IIIs as well as slightly more modern Mirage V and Daggers. Their Naval Avaition still uses A4s and Super Étendards again dating from 1982 or before. Whilst most of the above has been modernised it doesn't change the fact that a Typhoon would cut planes from this era to pieces quite happily (and a Sea Harrier FA2 would do the same but our government felt they were surplus to requirements it seems).
For all this sabre rattling the truth of the matter is that Argentina is not that well placed to launch a second invasion themselves and I doubt that they could manage it without tipping us off before hand meaning that our contingency plans for reinforcing the islands would swing into effect. Remember the plan is to not lose the islands in the first place therefore not needing to retake them at all.
- Status