Increasing Tension Between the UK and Argentina over the Falkland Islands

Argentina does not control the seas around the Falklands. Suggesting such is a myth.

My point, and the point made in the article, is that, by controlling the seas around the Falklands, the Argentinians have the potential to surprise the British and disable their force projection which is, effectively, limited to the 4 fighters.

Furthermore, if this happens, Britain will have a very difficult time taking the islands back due to the lack of an aircraft carrier.

Britain can and should do something about the blockade, it is an affront.

"Proportionality" means nothing. British and American casualties in Afghanistan are not proportional to Afghan casualties. If they were - we would be up in arms. Why? We expect to dominate our opponents.

The same concept should apply here. The Argentinians need to know what happens if they **** with Britain.

Also, monetarily, at least, the Argentinians, then, are at an advantage.

Britain is without an aircraft carrier for the first time, and is downsizing significantly its armed forces.

The message Britain sends to the rest of the world when it responds with diplomatic "complaints" to blockades and embassy sackings is one of weakness.

The British, if they are as capable as you say they are, should send ships to end the blockade.



You didn't choose to, your parents, grandparents, on ancestors did when they helped to found/moved to this country.

Since you cannot consent until the age of 18, your parents, being your guardians, are the ones who decided for you to have British citizenship by having a child here.

If you wish to renounce your parents decision, and hence your citizenship, you are free to do so.

I get the sense you won't, though, because even though you claim this country owes you nothing, we both know that isn't true.

You were raised in a safe, prosperous, liberal environment that most of the world would be lucky to call home. For you to pretend that such a privilege is worthless is an insult to the majority of humanity who cannot call a place like Britain home.

Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree on the ability of the Argies to ambush the falkands.

I don't know why you keep obsessing over the 4 fighters figure, we can fly more planes in. They do fly very fast and with such a large presence on the islands, even a sneak attack couldn't win before we could land reinforcements.

A brigade is the old division. You can't just ambush and kill one in a few hours.

The blockade is an affront, but just as we don't drop nukes on spain over the rock, we shouldn't battle the Argies unless it's necessary.

What's at stake? American support.

It's worth enough to not blow it by over-reacting prematurely.

Proportionality means a great deal in diplomatic discourse. It matters a huge amount when we wish to get support from the international community and we can appear as the reasonable, measured party and not the aggressor.
That you lack the understanding of this shows how little you know of the subject.


The Argentinians know what happens. It's called 1982.

And no, they really aren't. For all we're in debt and they're on the rise, we're in decline from the Premiership while they're propping up the Johnstone's Paint Trophy.

This is why the Argentinian blockade is serious - it allows Argentina to get around the main hump, being these 4 fighters.

No, I said I owe the country nothing. The country owes me, yes. You know why that is? Because all of us - assuming we're not born into wealth - are brainwashed and exploited from birth. The country owes me true freedom. It owes me a hell of a lot. And I'll take it.

They shouldn't belong to us anyhow. It's like Argentina owning the Isle of Wight. Ridiculous.

It isn't a proper blockade. Argie ships aren't preventing anyone entering/exiting the Falklands. They don't havr the political or military capability.

All they are doing is banning supplies coming from Argentina, and other South American countries occasionally deny British ships permission to land as a gesture of 'solidarity'. It means nothing.

There's only so much you can say to a brick wall before you get bored.

OP's a dullard who can't face simple facts. I'm out.

They shouldn't belong to us anyhow. It's like Argentina owning the Isle of Wight. Ridiculous.

Yet again, a resort to insults.

Really speaks volumes regarding your ability to rationally debate this subject.

You're kidding, right? Where did I insult you? And you think I "signed an implicit contract" what the hell are you smoking? So, whilst swimming in the womb, some god of Britain floated down to join me, handed me a pen and paper and said "you can be born here, but only if you agree to our rules"? I did not CHOOSE to be born in this country. I owe this country NOTHING. Frankly, I find your attitude sickening.

Pride, patriotism and nationalism are holding the species back. Only when they are defeated (and they will be) can we truly fulfil our potential.

I see, and do the wishes of the islanders mean anything to you?

Well when I tried the facts you were too thick to understand them or what I was saying. Either that or you were deliberately being exceptionally obtuse.

I have presented you with facts in every post I've written, saying why you've got the wrong end of the stick and how incredibly unrealistic the scenario you talk about is. I do this with a working background of the field -having been in the RAF and working in military intelligence- and with 2 very good friends and former colleagues currently stationed on the islands.

I know what I'm talking about. You're ignoring every single word. So yeah, I might throw out an insult, because you've more than earnt them.

My point, and the point made in the article, is that, by controlling the seas around the Falklands, the Argentinians have the potential to surprise the British and disable their force projection which is, effectively, limited to the 4 fighters.

Furthermore, if this happens, Britain will have a very difficult time taking the islands back due to the lack of an aircraft carrier.

Britain can and should do something about the blockade, it is an affront.

The point is that we wouldn't have air support because we don't have an aircraft carrier. A couple blasts in the airfield and British fighters can't take off, and then what?

I do not deny the military facts presented in regards to British technological superiority, I am merely noting the deteriorating ability of the British armed forces to prevent and respond to military threats in the South Pacific.

This is exemplified, for example, by the ability of Argentina to do as in pleases in British sovereign territory.

People are kicked out of their homes all the time in the UK, for example when a supermarket chain wants to build another branch on their front lawn. I don't see you rallying to each and every one of their causes too.

Besides, the French were there before the British, and then Britain invaded and slaughtered them all. Oh, but what about "the wishes" of the original settlers? Do they mean nothing to you.