[Colonol Dekker]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8523894.stm
 
What can I say except it's ours. I though we made it clear in 82.
 

[karajorma]

What's really funny is that if you read the history of the islands pretty much everyone involved has a pretty tenuous claim to ownership of the islands so the only sensible course is to say it belongs to whoever is there now.

[Colonol Dekker]

I just cite my original post.

[Darius]

Here's hoping the possibility of another Falklands War will be the kick in the balls the government needs to bring the Royal Navy back up to scratch.

[Colonol Dekker]

It is in the works. The admiralty are recieving new d-type destroyers intermittently and a new carrier type is under construction too. Not to mention F35 compliments for 2015. We've sent the York, it's there already keeping overwatch.
 
I'm confident that and the thousand strong infantry force already stationed will be deterrent enough. But. . . .some grudges are more stubborn than gravy stains.
 
 
Nice to see ya in GD Darius.

[karajorma]

I just cite my original post.

I'm not a particular fan of might makes right.

A much better point is that the British settled the island long before Argentina, never relinquished their claim to it, and that there hasn't been an Argentine presence on the island (except by invasion) since 1831 when the islands were left completely unpopulated until the British resettled them. Furthermore AFAIK the Argentinians have never had any permanent presence on South Georgia at all.

Pretty hard to make the claim that they own any of the islands.

Add to that the fact that the entire population seem to consider themselves British and reject Argentinian nationality (even though they have it by default due to Argentina's claim that they own the islands) and I really can't see how Argentinian sovereignty would be in the interest of the islanders.

To be honest the whole thing (like the original war) smacks of politicians talking crap in order to distract attention away from problems at home.

[Colonol Dekker]

Oh  I agree on that last point completely. When referring to my original post I hoped it implied the fact that we still populate it, therefore it's ours still. 
 
 
Still, politics aside, if it comes down to the wire. . . I'm hoping it is resolved quickly and decisively.

[MP-Ryan]

Things have changed since '82;  Argentina will get a rather big surprise if they try military stupidity and discover the military strength of Britain and the economic strength of virtually the entire G20 come crashing down on them.

Trying armed conflict over territory with an important NATO country would be a really stupid move on their part.

[Davros]

Q: How do you get 50 Argentinians into a phone box ?

A: Tell them they own it

[Dilmah G]

Things have changed since '82;  Argentina will get a rather big surprise if they try military stupidity and discover the military strength of Britain

Yes, they're in for a rather large shock these days. An RAF so hacked to the bone with budget cuts, the seams in its pants come apart when it tries to tie its shoes, a Navy which is heading in the same direction, with the Army being the only service that seems capable of doing anything. Brown seems to be as informed as this wanker. I wouldn't be surprised if Brown decided to 'Do a Canada', and try combining all three forces.

[karajorma]

That's possibly one of the dumbest things I've seen in a long while.

"leave the big stuff to America" Americans aren't going to die for our wars while we sit comfortably to one side. Hell, it took the US ****ing ages to decide that they were on our side in the Falklands despite the supposed "special relationship" between the UK and US (and Thatcher/Reagan) and that was just in terms of diplomacy. Ask them to send their planes in and we'd probably have been told to **** off.

While at the moment it is quite clear that we don't face any major state sized political threats it's hugely naive to assume we won't ever again or that we can build the armed forces back up to the level where they could face such a threat in any sensible period of time. You cut out aircraft carriers you don't just lose the carrier, you quickly lose people who know how to fight on an aircraft carrier.

[Thaeris]

Furthermore, with the loss of strategic bombing assets in comparison to the first conflict in the Falklands (the Vulcan), a complete lack of a carrier group would render overseas engagements in hostile territory... mostly suicidal. Argentina may not have the most advanced air force/navy in the world, but if you have no air arm to counter that at all, you're in for a world of hurt...

[NGTM-1R]

Furthermore, with the loss of strategic bombing assets in comparison to the first conflict in the Falklands (the Vulcan), a complete lack of a carrier group would render overseas engagements in hostile territory... mostly suicidal. Argentina may not have the most advanced air force/navy in the world, but if you have no air arm to counter that at all, you're in for a world of hurt...

The latest class of destroyers you all have put in the water are quite likely all the air-defense you'd actually need to fight Argentina.

[el_magnifico]

What can I say except it's ours. I though we made it clear in 82.

What can I say except I disagree.

I'm not a particular fan of might makes right.

Exactly. We can sort this out diplomatically. And if that fails, I guess we can take this dispute to the corresponding international body.

-----

You know, so far we only took legal measures to protest what we consider a violation of sovereignty. Let me stress this: There is not going to be a war unless you fire first. We are no longer governed by an inept, warmonger military junta. No one here in Argentina is talking about a war. You are the ones preparing for a war. In fact, the Kirchners (the presidential couple) disdain the military as much as the military disdains the Kirchners. And both lack support from the population. Moreover, the military has been practically disarmed, reducing it to a R&D organization and humanitarian aid agency. Currently, real technology and (relative) firepower is held by the naval prefecture and the gendarmerie, which are legally NOT authorised to do anything but patrol duties and policing actions.
C'mon, ten minutes browsing the wikipedia will tell you this if you care to investigate before jumping to conclusions about those violent, impulsive argentineans.

Sorry to disappoint you Colonel Dekker, Darius.

[MP-Ryan]

You are the ones preparing for a war.

Can you really blame the UK government and the islanders?  Inept military junta or no, the last time Argentina started making serious waves about the Falklands it erupted into a shooting war.  You can hardly blame them for taking defensive measures and preparing for the worst-case scenario.

And let's face it - if this goes to international adjudication, Argentina really doesn't have a leg to stand on based on historical precedent.

[karajorma]

Exactly. Argentina are making a big noise about owning the Falklands AND South Georgia.

@el_magnifico : When it comes to the Falklands at least you can claim to have had a colony there once (The British colony pre-dates it but at least you can make the claim). I'd like you to give me ONE good reason why you think you own South Georgia. Seriously, just one.

[el_magnifico]

You are the ones preparing for a war.

Can you really blame the UK government and the islanders?  Inept military junta or no, the last time Argentina started making serious waves about the Falklands it erupted into a shooting war.  You can hardly blame them for taking defensive measures and preparing for the worst-case scenario.

I'm not blaming anyone. I just wanted to make it clear we are not trying to begin another war. You can obviously take all the defensive measures you want. They will just be pointless, but if you want to, go ahead.

And let's face it - if this goes to international adjudication, Argentina really doesn't have a leg to stand on based on historical precedent.

We happen to believe we do. And that's something neither you nor me are going to decide.

[Darius]

I found this to be a good read regarding the Argentinian point of view, and confirms what el_magnifico was talking about. Of course a war is the single worst outcome (my comment was mostly in jest) and probably the last thing the Argentinians want at the moment.

[el_magnifico]

@el_magnifico : When it comes to the Falklands at least you can claim to have had a colony there once (The British colony pre-dates it but at least you can make the claim). I'd like you to give me ONE good reason why you think you own South Georgia. Seriously, just one.

I can't tell you one right now, out of the top of my head. And I don't need to. I studied a lot of reasons in the past, all of them seemed reasonable to me, but it's been years since I last worried about it. Now it's all in proper documentation we presented in the international bodies.

But, do you want an honest answer? I don't care about the Malvinas. I care even less about the South Georgias and all those other small islands. I sincerely believe they are rightfully ours. Hundreds of brave Argentinean soldiers and pilots died for them. But we already got something from it. We obtained our democracy. And if you (and the inhabitants) want those islands so badly, as far as I am concerned, you can have them. Hell, I could go as far as giving you those maritime zones you currently claim. Then, we could cooperate. You will need help from the continent to develop that zone. We could really use your technology. And really, we have so many resources already it would take centuries to exhaust them.

What I'm worried about is giving you a precedent to exercise further claims into other territories. We already repelled two attempts to invade us while we were a Spanish colony, and a blockade at the Buenos Aires port. And you are always making further claims to expand your territory (like a claim over Antarctica that overlaps with our own). That's the only reason why I support claims over the Malvinas. It's necessary to keep you on check.

[karajorma]

I can't tell you one right now, out of the top of my head. And I don't need to. I studied a lot of reasons in the past, all of them seemed reasonable to me, but it's been years since I last worried about it. Now it's all in proper documentation we presented in the international bodies.

Feel free to do some research and present your reasons then. Cause your argument at the moment is pretty threadbare.

I on the other hand have looked into it and Argentina seems to want South Georgia because they want South Georgia. There isn't a single legal justification for it that I've ever heard. The argument seems to be "it's ours cause the UK is far away."

Even if you have a point about the Antarctic claim (and I've not checked if you do) trying your own land grab is not an effective defence. If anything it weakens your case for the Antarctic because you've already proved that your country is trying to gain sovereignty over an island like South Georgia you have no claim to whatsoever. Which makes it hard to claim that your argument over the Antarctic isn't simply more of the same.

Even the link Darius posted doesn't go into why the Argentinians consider the land to be theirs. And quite frankly it is ****ing worrying that so many people in Argentina can say that South Georgia is definitely theirs but can't even raise a token defence as to why.