Originally Posted by shagnasty

Just one point to argue amongst the rest of this sabre rattling rant above......no one was refering to a "tactical" ability to defend. The comment refered to the indefensible idea that this little colony still exists today and that lunatic war mongers such as Andy would contemplate another Falklands fiasco, just to justify some outmoded concept..

Outside of a few whining Dagos and the people who live there, I doubt there's many other people in the world gives a crap who nominally 'owns' the Falklands.

As the people who live there wish to remain as they are why would we discuss handing them over to a country which has, well within living memory, invaded and occupied them, committed war crimes on their land, threatened kids with guns and attempted to entirely change the way of life of the people on the Islands?

Originally Posted by jimmys_best_mate

Outside of a few whining Dagos and the people who live there, I doubt there's many other people in the world gives a crap who nominally 'owns' the Falklands.

As the people who live there wish to remain as they are why would we discuss handing them over to a country which has, well within living memory, invaded and occupied them, committed war crimes on their land, threatened kids with guns and attempted to entirely change the way of life of the people on the Islands?

No-one with an opinion that matters is discussing handing the Islands over at all mate.

The fact that some self-appointed internet legends / armchair Admirals see fit to energise the discussion in order to spout the same tired old drivel ("SF raid crippling MPA, Crabs unable to fly, garrison overrun, UK humiliated on the world stage, woe-is-us") I find laughable.

The Falklands are, square-mile-for-square-mile, better defended than the homeland UK. Furthermore, the Argentinian military couldn't mount the op required to re-take the Islands in a month of Sundays. Not an opinion that sits well with the blue-suit RN, I know, but I they have to "sex something up" in order to remain relevant. (That isn't a pop at the contribution made day-to-day in Afg by the medics / aviators / booties etc of the RN & RM, but core Naval business it ain't)

Standing by for the usual plethora of "Well, if it did happen we'd be scuppered because we've got no carriers" tripe........

Generals and Admirals, especially the "ex" variety - they give whores and politicians a run for their money.

Originally Posted by chasndave

No-one with an opinion that matters is discussing handing the Islands over at all mate.

The fact that some self-appointed internet legends / armchair Admirals see fit to energise the discussion in order to spout the same tired old drivel ("SF raid crippling MPA, Crabs unable to fly, garrison overrun, UK humiliated on the world stage, woe-is-us") I find laughable.

The Falklands are, square-mile-for-square-mile, better defended than the homeland UK. Furthermore, the Argentinian military couldn't mount the op required to re-take the Islands in a month of Sundays. Not an opinion that sits well with the blue-suit RN, I know, but I they have to "sex something up" in order to remain relevant. (That isn't a pop at the contribution made day-to-day in Afg by the medics / aviators / booties etc of the RN & RM, but core Naval business it ain't)

Standing by for the usual plethora of "Well, if it did happen we'd be scuppered because we've got no carriers" tripe........

Ahhhh, the old Singapore Defence principle

SNIP
that lunatic war mongers such as Andy would contemplate another Falklands fiasco,
SNIP

May I respectfully ask which fiasco ye are referring to?

The loss of the islands was a fiasco, the recapture of them was arguably the finest British military operation since 1945.

If refusing to give the islands (note: I am not saying "Give them back") to Buenos Aires makes me a "lunatic war monger" then so be it. Personally, I think it is an entirely reasonable contention, given recent history. I grant you, the current Argie leader is a distracting eyeful, but her arguments emotive, nationalistic ranting.

My father was on Corporate and while he (happily) came back in one piece, he knew the risks, as did we. He went with the support of his family and his community.

Originally Posted by shagnasty

We handed over Hong Kong with a lot less fuss, why can't we do the same with The Falklands? I realise Oil is now in the equation so what is so very wrong about a 50 year plan similar to the HK fit-up? TALK to the Argies and agree on a "shared rule". After 50 years the Islanders will either have gone, (with their petro dollars?) or been assimilated...no more Falklands. Is it worth: (a) the embarrassment of NOT being able to re-take or defend the Islands or (b) worth any more British Army lives used up in defence of the indefensible? ( Same as Afghanistan really.)

Where does oil come into the equation ? The oil belongs to the Falkland Islanders under UN Resolution 1514. What right does the UK have to negotiate on it? Where will the Falkland Islanders go ? Some of them have been there for 5/6 generations. Assimilated where ? Under Article 1 of the UN Charter they have the right of self determination.

Originally Posted by AIR FILTER

"Britain couldn't retake the Falklands" Jackson.

Music to the ears of Argentina and even a green light to invade, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner must be having multiple orgasms after having that news confirmed by our very own ex chief of staff.

Personally i reckon the yanks would jump on our side if it ever did happen to pay back the debt of us fighting along side them in all the recent sand box battles.

Jackson knows this but very conveniently "forgot" to mention this important fact ........ In other words he is praying that Argentina will invade so they can be obliterated once and for all, thus putting this Argentine problem firmly to bed.

Clever or what?

I hope you're being sarcarstic... failing that what did you put on your cornflakes this morning? Crack?

As for 'giving the Argies the Falklands', I've got a much better idea... we do what the Islanders want. They may not want to be 'given' to the Argies, nor 'half owned' or the rest of that b0llocks.

They run pretty much on their own, with ur defence... until they want to change let it be.

Originally Posted by shagnasty

We handed over Hong Kong with a lot less fuss, why can't we do the same with The Falklands? I realise Oil is now in the equation so what is so very wrong about a 50 year plan similar to the HK fit-up? TALK to the Argies and agree on a "shared rule". After 50 years the Islanders will either have gone, (with their petro dollars?) or been assimilated...no more Falklands. Is it worth: (a) the embarrassment of NOT being able to re-take or defend the Islands or (b) worth any more British Army lives used up in defence of the indefensible? ( Same as Afghanistan really.)

Because the UK never owned Hong Kong, the lease expired and it was returned to China as orginally agreed.

Why should the Falklands be "shared" with Argentina? The islanders don't want to be shared with Argentina, the great British public don't want to share the Falklands with Argentina......

Bollocks........in Spanish

Originally Posted by jagman

Why should the Falklands be "shared" with Argentina? The islanders don't want to be shared with Argentina, the great British public don't want to share the Falklands with Argentina......

We certainly don't want to share the potential oil reserves with anyone! "Britain couldn't retake the Falklands" = if it meant having our own source of oil and being (slightly) less reliant on the unstable Middle East, I think we'd give it a go.