Anglo-Argentine relations futher deteriorate

[-:Undertaker:-]

I find it quite funny that you despise any soldiers being in place in Iraq/Afghanistan yet you feel its necessary to instigate a war with another country over a much smaller problem.

Seems rather pointless, when if people actually communicated with each other instead of bigging themselves up.

Do you, well I never said we should start a war with Argentina and we should only be on the defensive at all times and attack only when we have to come to the defence of the islands - but let me put the difference between these three situations clearly to you because as i'll show; they are very differing from eachother by a mile;

Iraq - had no WMD, did not pose a threat and did not occupy British territory.
Afghanistan - history shows unwinnable war, and the enemy are within and in Pakistan.
Falklands - our territory with our people on it, not to mention the vast oil reserves that lay there.

So theres really (as I pointed out) quite a big difference between them. As for talking, its all very well talking and chatting but when they are actively making claims and bids to take control over our territory then theres no other option but to diplomatically defend the islands. If military action is ever taken again by the Argentina government we should make it clear within a small deadline that if they do not withdraw from the islands then they will face military action. If they want to war-monger then let them, but I don't see why our people and our resources should be put through another occupation by a country which uses the Falklands issue to save its unpopular and failing regime/government.

If Yorkshire and Humber (in which your home city of Leeds is located) was occupied would you be calling for discussion or swift military action in the event of a French occupation? - I think I am pretty sure what the answer would be, and just because the Falklands are down in the South Atlantic doesnt make the people on them any less important than the people living in Liverpool, London, Edinburgh or anywhere else located in the United Kingdom or its oversea colonies.

[Jordy]

The Argentine government are once again out of line. They also need to realise that if there is vast amounts of oil around the falklands, when it comes to pumping it out, it will have to go through the Argentine mainland most likely so chances are they'll end up getting about 50% of the oil anyway, they're just being greedy if anything.

While I would encourage more discussions, I think sending a task force to the Falklands would do no harm. And if it did ever escalate to war, it would work as a good argument for increased military spending on the armed forces.

[Yoshimitsui]

Do you, well I never said we should start a war with Argentina and we should only be on the defensive at all times and attack only when we have to come to the defence of the islands - but let me put the difference between these three situations clearly to you because as i'll show; they are very differing from eachother by a mile;

Iraq - had no WMD, did not pose a threat and did not occupy British territory.
Afghanistan - history shows unwinnable war, and the enemy are within and in Pakistan.
Falklands - our territory with our people on it, not to mention the vast oil reserves that lay there.

So theres really (as I pointed out) quite a big difference between them. As for talking, its all very well talking and chatting but when they are actively making claims and bids to take control over our territory then theres no other option but to diplomatically defend the islands. If military action is ever taken again by the Argentina government we should make it clear within a small deadline that if they do not withdraw from the islands then they will face military action. If they want to war-monger then let them, but I don't see why our people and our resources should be put through another occupation by a country which uses the Falklands issue to save its unpopular and failing regime/government.

If Yorkshire and Humber (in which your home city of Leeds is located) was occupied would you be calling for discussion or swift military action in the event of a French occupation? - I think I am pretty sure what the answer would be, and just because the Falklands are down in the South Atlantic doesnt make the people on them any less important than the people living in Liverpool, London, Edinburgh or anywhere else located in the United Kingdom or its oversea colonies.

As i will always point out the circumstances are different and when you look at the bigger picture and lives at risk and those who have died the middle east is a much greater problem and despite your references to what some man/woman with fancy title has said it all has a connection, we didn't go there for nothing they didn't instigate in the past, even instigate being an understatement.

You said in your post that an offensive measure should be taken if they make any move by attacking their ports, that's instigating a war regardless of whatever threat they have made.

I don't condone leaving our people/land be left to any form of harm from those who intend it but there is a line before you start going and taking action having just listened to a few words.

I also don't see how you are trying to compare Yorkshire and Humber into a realistic comparison, i would have the same view for anywhere in the United Kingdom or it's lands. It's what is said/done not the location.

[-:Undertaker:-]

As i will always point out the circumstances are different and when you look at the bigger picture and lives at risk and those who have died the middle east is a much greater problem and despite your references to what some man/woman with fancy title has said it all has a connection, we didn't go there for nothing they didn't instigate in the past, even instigate being an understatement.

How are the circumstances different and what exactly is this 'bigger picture' you refer to so vaguely? - please do point them out. You keep bringing up the fact people have died in the Middle East - and? - so does that mean I should automatically support the war/s in the Middle East because soliders have died even if they are totally unwinnable and morally wrong?. If anything it turns me against it even more, this war in Afghanistan is totally unwinnable and what on earth did we go to Iraq for?

I have pointed out how the issue of the potential invasion of the Falklands is a totally differing game from those in Iraq and Afghanistan because the truth is exactly what I said in them short lines. The Falklands are sovereign territory of the United Kingdom of which if Argentina did invade would be trampling on that sovereignty along with our people and our resources. Iraq meanwhile did not threaten the sovereignty of the United Kingdom or any of its oversea colonies and the same goes for Afghanistan.

You said in your post that an offensive measure should be taken if they make any move by attacking their ports, that's instigating a war regardless of whatever threat they have made.

I did not say that, I said very clearly; "I think if they dare attack again we should immediately fire back and maybe even use air power to damage Argentine ports." - that is not me saying we should make the first move, I am saying very clearly that if Argentina were to dare attack the Falklands again then swift military action should be swiftly taken by the RAF on Argentine ports.

I don't condone leaving our people/land be left to any form of harm from those who intend it but there is a line before you start going and taking action having just listened to a few words.

Again, I have not once said we should make the first move and theres no scenario I can think of in which I would support making the first move against Argentina.

I also don't see how you are trying to compare Yorkshire and Humber into a realistic comparison, i would have the same view for anywhere in the United Kingdom or it's lands. It's what is said/done not the location.

So if the Falkands were attacked and occupied by Argentinian forces then you would support military action? - if yes then good, because we agree.

[Jordy]

Myself and Mattgarner have investigated the Argentinian's Navy and Air Force, and it's pathetic to say the least. Their Air Force has not changed since the Falklands war, they haven't added anything to it, just removed stuff, they still have planes from the 50s in it. The quantity of the planes is also very small. To summarise it's an incredibly weak air force and could be taken down by just a few of the RAFs state of the art Eurofighter Typhoons easily.

Their navy is slightly better, pretty much all of it is from the 70s-early 80s era so it's in better shape than it was in the Falklands war. The Royal Navy however is mostly late-80s and 90s atm and has the likes of a new State of the art Type 45 destroyer.

To conclude, a task force sent from Britain could quite easily wipe out whatever Argentina throws at it, it would almost be a suicide mission for the Argentinians.

I would increase the Eurofighter presence on the Falklands from like four to ten and if it continues like this, use cold war deterrents such as flying at Buernos Airs with fleets of Harriers/Tornados and then turning back before they reach their airspace.

[Titch]

Myself and Mattgarner have investigated the Argentinian's Navy and Air Force, and it's pathetic to say the least. Their Air Force has not changed since the Falklands war, they haven't added anything to it, just removed stuff, they still have planes from the 50s in it. The quantity of the planes is also very small. To summarise it's an incredibly weak air force and could be taken down by just a few of the RAFs state of the art Eurofighter Typhoons easily.

Their navy is slightly better, pretty much all of it is from the 70s-early 80s era so it's in better shape than it was in the Falklands war. The Royal Navy however is mostly late-80s and 90s atm and has the likes of a new State of the art Type 45 destroyer.

To conclude, a task force sent from Britain could quite easily wipe out whatever Argentina throws at it, it would almost be a suicide mission for the Argentinians.

I would increase the Eurofighter presence on the Falklands from like four to ten and if it continues like this, use cold war deterrents such as flying at Buernos Airs with fleets of Harriers/Tornados and then turning back before they reach their airspace.

From what i was told today they recon they will only ever need 1 battleship protecting the area and dont see this a threat at all At the moment lol

EDIT:

Also to add, England has 6 new battleships coming in next 8 months which will be the most state of art ones in the world

[GommeInc]

I remember reading this sometime this afternoon, was very interesting. It is a bit stupid putting the Argentine waters surrounding the Falklands, so technically they can take out ships heading to Falklands because they're entering their waters so they can do what they want, we would do the same if an Argentine ship was heading into North Sea waters heading to Holland, or sailing near Gibraltar (we sort of do that at the moment with the Spainish, though we're lenient and use common sense).

The Argentines have nothing to do with the Falklands, like Undertaker said, it's probably to divert attention :/

[Yoshimitsui]

How are the circumstances different and what exactly is this 'bigger picture' you refer to so vaguely? - please do point them out. You keep bringing up the fact people have died in the Middle East - and? - so does that mean I should automatically support the war/s in the Middle East because soliders have died even if they are totally unwinnable and morally wrong?. If anything it turns me against it even more, this war in Afghanistan is totally unwinnable and what on earth did we go to Iraq for?

I have pointed out how the issue of the potential invasion of the Falklands is a totally differing game from those in Iraq and Afghanistan because the truth is exactly what I said in them short lines. The Falklands are sovereign territory of the United Kingdom of which if Argentina did invade would be trampling on that sovereignty along with our people and our resources. Iraq meanwhile did not threaten the sovereignty of the United Kingdom or any of its oversea colonies and the same goes for Afghanistan.

I did not say that, I said very clearly; "I think if they dare attack again we should immediately fire back and maybe even use air power to damage Argentine ports." - that is not me saying we should make the first move, I am saying very clearly that if Argentina were to dare attack the Falklands again then swift military action should be swiftly taken by the RAF on Argentine ports.

Again, I have not once said we should make the first move and theres no scenario I can think of in which I would support making the first move against Argentina.

So if the Falkands were attacked and occupied by Argentinian forces then you would support military action? - if yes then good, because we agree.

Correct, if they attacked i would happily say fight back. I just don't think any form of offensive initially from us would solve anything.

It's just my reasons in regards to the happenings in the middle east are different considering we invaded, i think it was necessary after so long.

[Technologic]

Beat them once, beat them again. Plus i think the argentines are forgetting about the permanent taskforce the MoD keeps there now

[Titch]

Beat them once, beat them again. Plus i think the argentines are forgetting about the permanent taskforce the MoD keeps there now

we have a permanent nuclear war ship based there with over 1,000 men on it