|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Tue 28 Apr 00:53
Keep a close eye on what’s going on in Argentina at the moment. There is every indication that their quite insane leader is planning an invasion of the Falklands. Apparently, Trump has given the move his approval. He wants to see Starmer squirm after his refusal to support the US in the Gulf. And why not? The Argentinians believe Britain is in no position to mount any sort of defence, and Starmer is certainly no Thatcher.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 28 Apr 08:19
Quote:
OzPar, Tue 28 Apr 00:53
Keep a close eye on what’s going on in Argentina at the moment. There is every indication that their quite insane leader is planning an invasion of the Falklands. Apparently, Trump has given the move his approval. He wants to see Starmer squirm after his refusal to support the US in the Gulf. And why not? The Argentinians believe Britain is in no position to mount any sort of defence, and Starmer is certainly no Thatcher.
And why not? Maybe because the people who actually live there don`t want to be ruled by Argentina? This isn`t a game of Risk FFS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: auldpar
Date: Tue 28 Apr 08:38
Maybe Argentina will be supplied with weapons and ammunition by Israel like they did last time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BouncyPar
Date: Tue 28 Apr 09:03
What benefit does Britain get from ruling the Falklands? What reasons could the government have for sending our troops to defend it, and possibly to their death?
I understand how it was an important position historically, but why should we need it in 2026?
Genuine question for anyone more knowledgeable than me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Tue 28 Apr 09:17
And why not? Jake, can you not recognise when someone is tongue in cheek?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 28 Apr 10:47
Quote:
BouncyPar, Tue 28 Apr 09:03
What benefit does Britain get from ruling the Falklands? What reasons could the government have for sending our troops to defend it, and possibly to their death?
I understand how it was an important position historically, but why should we need it in 2026?
Genuine question for anyone more knowledgeable than me.
If nothing else, the residents might be a bit annoyed if UK forces let Argentina take the island.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 28 Apr 10:48
Quote:
OzPar, Tue 28 Apr 09:17
And why not? Jake, can you not recognise when someone is tongue in cheek?
The classic "I was joking" defence, Oz? Tut tut.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dave_1885
Date: Tue 28 Apr 14:49
Quote:
BouncyPar, Tue 28 Apr 09:03
What benefit does Britain get from ruling the Falklands? What reasons could the government have for sending our troops to defend it, and possibly to their death?
I understand how it was an important position historically, but why should we need it in 2026?
Genuine question for anyone more knowledgeable than me.
I think the people of the Falklands would have an issue with that, given that they see themselves at British……would you allow the US the freely invade Greenland and take it? Or France to invade the channel islands?
Trump doesn’t get that if it was invaded, British forces in the Middle East would instantly be diverted to the South Atlantic, meaning he would have zero support in Iran from us. But I guess that shows the mans IQ.
My dad was sent there in ‘82 and told me stories of the war that still haunted him 20 years later, let alone now. Lets hope it doesn’t happen again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parsfan
Date: Tue 28 Apr 23:40
I don`t think there`s the slightest chance of anything happening, not unless the Americans do it for them and I think there`s even less chance of that.
Anyway, I mainly came here to recommend a doc I watched a couple of years ago about the war from the Argentinian side. It`s called "1533 km To Home", I think I saw it on Amazon and it`s not much over an hour.
Another heartbreaking portrayal of the futility of war, but with some comic amateur hour stuff - specifically about the troop transports. They didn`t stand much of a chance, just young laddies, conscripts mostly. Sent to fight by distant leaders trying to distract their public but completely underestimating the opposition and not really having much of a plan beyond the winning in the first couple of days.
Sound familiar?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The universe is ruled by chance and indifference
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Wed 29 Apr 11:12
Apart from the geographical area, I don’t see the benefit of Argentina needing the Falklands.
In the modern world Britain shouldn’t really need it either but there are British people and descendants living there.
I suppose one non violent method is to give it back but set a date of say 20 years to allow the peaceful transition and relocate the islanders back to the UK.
Can’t see any political party doing that mind you.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Wed 29 Apr 11:27
Give it back to who aaps? It never belonged to Argentina. Your suggestion also isn`t very non violent if the actual people who live there don`t want to be relocated.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Thu 30 Apr 00:00
Britain`s former habit of chucking colonists at rocks has created more than a few problems.
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Thu 30 Apr 21:24
It is surely no coincidence that oil has been discovered in the territorial waters of the Falkland Islands...
https://www.offshore-energy.biz/navitas-signs-off-on-falkland-islands-oil-gas-portfolio-expansion/
And, dare I say it, an Israeli company has bought the oil exploration rights... and the Looney Tunes president of Argentina, Javier Milei, is an ardent supporter of Israel... and in recent months Israeli citizens have been buying up huge swathes of land in Patagonia (southern Argentina).
If you join the dots, it all looks like we`ve got a recipe for mischief.
Of course, I may be wrong... but, then again, usually I am not.
:)
Post Edited (Thu 30 Apr 21:49)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: shellypar
Date: Fri 1 May 15:00
Oz i`d rather u dont put links as quite frankly i wouldnt want anyone to click them as who knows what u may actually have linked
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Fri 1 May 20:43
What an ignorant comment!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dandy Warhol
Date: Sat 2 May 07:14
Quote:
shellypar, Fri 1 May 15:00
Oz i`d rather u dont put links as quite frankly i wouldnt want anyone to click them as who knows what u may actually have linked
But then you`d be all "links or it never happened".
I don`t wanna go down like disco.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: shellypar
Date: Sat 2 May 11:02
Quote:
Dandy Warhol, Sat 2 May 07:14
Quote:
shellypar, Fri 1 May 15:00
Oz i`d rather u dont put links as quite frankly i wouldnt want anyone to click them as who knows what u may actually have linked
But then you`d be all "links or it never happened".
Nah not really
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: shellypar
Date: Sat 2 May 11:03
Quote:
OzPar, Fri 1 May 20:43
What an ignorant comment!
Not really given ur history
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Sat 2 May 13:34
My history is 30 years on dotnet, during which I have tried to be open and honest in all my dealings on here. Some people here don`t appreciate that I question the narrative of the mainstream media. But I do so with good reason.
You argue that you wouldn`t want to open the links I supplied. But, a simple reading of the links would tell you that one was from a respected offshore energy market intelligence source, and the other from the Buenos Aires Times, Argentina`s primary English-language newspaper.
You are just being daft.
My point stands: keep an eye out for further developments in the Falkland Islands in the coming weeks and months. Join the dots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Sat 29 Aug 05:28
The United States has threatened to oppose Britain’s sovereignty over the Falkland Islands if Andy Burnham does not increase defence spending, The Daily Telegraph has reported.
The Telegraph is behind a paywall, but LBC has a report on the story. Here`s the link:-
https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/us-britain-falklands-5Hjdgdk_2/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sat 29 Aug 08:36
Yeah I wonder what Farage, who took 5 million quid from a foreign based crypto billionaire for reasons, will have to say about his chum Trump?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dave_1885
Date: Sat 29 Aug 09:05
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Sat 29 Aug 08:36
Yeah I wonder what Farage, who took 5 million quid from a foreign based crypto billionaire for reasons, will have to say about his chum Trump?
He’s got bigger fish to fry when you look at what Jenrick and Anderson are posting a out elections and who gets a vote…….based on their own rules, Nige cant vote because of the £5m “donation” 😂
Post Edited (Sat 29 Aug 09:05)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Sat 29 Aug 17:06
What I don’t understand is if they and it is British, and they can come here to lived and work, why can’t I go there?
Post Edited (Sat 29 Aug 17:07)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sat 29 Aug 18:12
You can visit the Falklands for tourism purposes no problem. If you wanted to live there permanently you`d need a secure job position. When you think about it that makes sense as it is a remote location with limited public services and infrastructure. The same issues wouldn`t apply the other way around.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Sat 29 Aug 20:35
Not quite as simple as that. As someone who is British, I’d need paid employment and the employer then applied for your work permit (so not sure what happens if you want another job). You also need to have secured a place to stay and have 3 years continuous residency plus another 4 continuous on top for Falkland island status
So IMO, it’s not Britain, they’re not British and we should adopt the same residency requirements on them - they can’t have it both ways
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sat 29 Aug 21:51
That`s not unique to the Falklands though. There are restrictions and requirements with all British Overseas Territories such as Bermuda or Gibraltar.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Sun 30 Aug 13:24
So we should be sending nobody to any of these places to fight and potentially die to let them keep their ‘British’ status, when they wouldn’t allow that same person to freely relocate there, even though they both have the same passport
Cake and eat it spring to mind
Post Edited (Sun 30 Aug 13:26)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 30 Aug 15:17
That`s one point of view but not one I agree with. They are British citizens and I don`t like the idea that because of the local laws of the devolved area they live in that they are then denied military protection that any other British citizen should expect to receive if threatened with a foreign invasion.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Sun 30 Aug 16:16
The brits should hand it over Las Malvinas to Argentina as soon as possible. The people that live there can either come here, or see if they can become Argentinian citizens. With the growing Israeli influence on Argentine politics and Israel in control of the UK Government through Labour Friends of Israel, I can see Burnham being told to just hand it over
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Indiapar1
Date: Fri 4 Sep 14:43
I believe that the chronology of the Falklamd Islands isn`t disputed by the UK or Argentine Governments nor tge UN.
Basically from the Falkland Island Governments "Our History"
The Falkland Islands have never had any native inhabitants and no indigenous people have ever been displaced, instead the Islands were entirely unoccupied until 1765, when they were first claimed by the British who established a garrison at Port Egmont. Over the years, the British, French and Spanish periodically had garrisons within the Islands until 1811 when all were withdrawn.
On 6 October 1832, an Argentine military garrison arrived in an attempt to establish sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, disregarding the British claim of 67 years prior. Less than three months later, on 2 January 1833, the Royal Navy evicted the military base with no loss of life. The civilian population, who had sought permission from Britain to live there, were invited to stay. A year later, a small, permanent British administration was established and in 1845 Stanley become the capital.
Whilst pretty much agreeing the chronology, they interpret the legal position very differently. The UN recognises an unresolved dispute. The islanders have voted several times on soverignty to remain with the UK. Couple that with the state of the Argentine economy and raging inflation it doesn`t represent an attractive proposition for the people who were born there to be ruled over by Argentina. Argentina would have to win the confidence of the islanders as a first step I would have thought personally. The British government stated in June that there can be no sovereignty negotiation without Falkland Islanders` agreement.
Argentina for example has subsantial oil, gas and mineral wealth. Vaca Muerta shale oil resource has an estimated 30 billion barrels of oil alone. This is substantially larger than any oil recoverable in the Falkland Island basin. I would doubt that oil is the primary driver for Argentona, it is perhaps mpre about national identity, geostrategic (possession may reinforce any future claim on Antartica),
G Wardrope
Post Edited (Fri 04 Sep 15:07)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bletchley_Par
Date: Fri 4 Sep 18:05
We are about to go to war with Russia, Argentina should just wait till then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Sat 5 Sep 10:13
We can’t afford war and we don’t have the resources to defend our own territory as it is. Apparently we’ve had to pause live firing exercises so we can store ammunition. I don’t think that’s a good sign for 2 reasons. Firstly, it means we are keeping the ammunition in case we really need it. Secondly, we are having to be careful with resources before a war begins to the point up to date live firing training isn’t being performed by professional soldiers. It makes me wonder how low our resources are.
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Sat 5 Sep 10:46
I`m sure they can enlist some of the balaclava clad gangs that are always looking for a fight!
Whilst singing "Rule Britannia" 🤔🎶🎶🎶
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sat 5 Sep 15:24
Russia can`t afford to extend their war. They`re broke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Sat 5 Sep 18:08
Certainly feels like we`re approaching a point in time when the chickens are going to come home to roost as a result of egotistical actions being taken over recent years on many fronts.
I suspect another significant financial correction is just around the corner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bletchley_Par
Date: Sat 5 Sep 18:32
Quote:
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sat 5 Sep 15:24
Russia can`t afford to extend their war. They`re broke.
Yeah, that`s why we are going to war with them.
Post Edited (Sat 05 Sep 18:35)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sat 5 Sep 21:22
Quote:
Bletchley_Par, Sat 5 Sept 18:32
Quote:
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sat 5 Sep 15:24
Russia can`t afford to extend their war. They`re broke.
Yeah, that`s why we are going to war with them.
The bankrupt them? They`ll do that themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: widtink
Date: Sat 5 Sep 23:38
If Argentina do invade the Falklands again I`m pretty sure the final result would be the same as the last time even without the help of the united States of trump.(If he decides the US don`t want to get involved)
The two countries (UK Vs Argentina) respective military budgets tell a tale.
Fact is that Argentina have never really got over their defeat the first time.
Doesn`t mean they won`t try again though.... Or it could just be sabre rattling to deflect from their economic problems.
It`s not the first time they`ve threatened to retake the islands and it`s always been when things aren`t going well for them.
Time will tell .
It`s certainly interesting to say the least.
Admin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bletchley_Par
Date: Sat 5 Sep 23:42
Have you prepped for El Niño Jake?
Post Edited (Sat 05 Sep 23:42)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Sun 6 Sep 00:04
Quote:
widtink, Sat 5 Sep 23:38
If Argentina do invade the Falklands again I`m pretty sure the final result would be the same as the last time even without the help of the united States of trump.(If he decides the US don`t want to get involved)
The two countries (UK Vs Argentina) respective military budgets tell a tale.
Fact is that Argentina have never really got over their defeat the first time.
Doesn`t mean they won`t try again though.... Or it could just be sabre rattling to deflect from their economic problems.
It`s not the first time they`ve threatened to retake the islands and it`s always been when things aren`t going well for them.
Time will tell .
It`s certainly interesting to say the least.
There was 127 ships involved in the 80’s operation.
We now have 63 total.
Thankfully Argentina has basically zero navy these days
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sun 6 Sep 00:15
Quote:
Bletchley_Par, Sat 5 Sept 23:42
Have you prepped for El Niño Jake?
What`s that got to do with the Falklands?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bletchley_Par
Date: Sun 6 Sep 14:27
Nothing to do with Falklands, that`s to do with Russia.
This is probably a bit if both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dave_1885
Date: Wed 9 Sep 08:41
Israeli politicians saying that Britains has stolen the Falklands from Argentina……despite setting up settlements on the island BEFORE Argentina existed as a country 😂🤦🏻♂️
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Wed 9 Sep 17:19
Think your playing in a current political set up is different to what it was in Argentina technicality…
Britain took control of the Falkland Islands in January 1833. As part of that we chased away Argentina’s military that were based there before establishing our administration
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Hoolie
Date: Wed 9 Sep 22:22
Just sack the Falklands off…who cares now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Thu 10 Sep 07:19
Quote:
Hoolie, Wed 9 Sept 22:22
Just sack the Falklands off…who cares now.
Probably the people who live there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Thu 10 Sep 07:54
Yep, the 99.5% of people who voted in their most recent referendum to stay within the UK.
The 3 people who voted to leave (perhaps just one household) will be happy though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Indiapar1
Date: Thu 10 Sep 15:08
The Argentine Government now suggesting that any company involved in oil extraction from the Falklands Basin, will be barred from investing in the Vaca Muerta fields with substantial deposits of on land shale oil and gas in Argentina. This is significantly lower risk project than the Falklands.
The problem for Argentina is it does not have the technical and financial expertise to exploit this field.
G Wardrope
|
|
|
|
|
|
