Posted on 01/19/2010 1:21:35 AM PST by Berlin_Freeper
The Government has firmly rejected Argentina's recent claims to the Falkland Islands, MPs were told today.
In a written statement, Junior Foreign Office Minister Chris Bryant said the UK had "no doubt" about its sovereignty over the Falklands, South Georgia, South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding seas, as well as the British Antarctic Territory.
The Foreign Office delivered a "note verbale" to the Argentine charge d'affaires in London outlining the UK's rejection.
Mr Bryant said: "The UK firmly rejects the enactment and promulgation, on December 9 2009, of Argentine Law 26.552 and thus the additional paragraph in Article 1 of Argentine Law 23.775 insofar as it purports to include within a province of Argentina areas which comprise the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and the British Antarctic Territory."
Shadow Foreign Minister David Lidington said: "We fully support the Government in rejecting any Argentinean law that purports to include the Falkland Islands and other British overseas territories.
"They are sovereign to the United Kingdom and we condemn attempts by any foreign governments to assert otherwise."
(Excerpt) Read more at chronicle.gi ...
I hope the Argentines don’t rehash that mess all over again.
Round 2....DING!!!
I love this diplomatic crap...
>The Foreign Office delivered a “note verbale”
A “note verbale” Oou Oou Oou!
Looks like they are bound and determined to get their nose bloodied a second time. Maybe they are hoping Bummer will lean on the UK.
Oh, yeah, Zero will be a big help. That jug-eared moron can’t even land the Olympics or keep Ted Kennedy’s seat in the Democrat column.
bump
There won’t be no round two because:
1) Margaret Thatcher is not Prime Minister and 2) the Royal Navy is only a weak shadow of its former self.
The Argentinians sense the Brit weakness and will win.
In the early 80’s the Argentine military was highly politicized. Promotion was based on family connections and proven ideological committement to the current regime.
The Argentine military of today is much more professional.
Not to Western standards but enough to win a war off its shore against a country fighting half way around it.
Would the British public be willing to pour blood and treasure there ?
I doubt it. Argentines are quite manic about a few rocks in the South Atantic.
There's lots of treasure there.
http://www.le.ac.uk/geology/art/gl209/lecture4/lecture4.html
REUNITE GONDWANALAND
Sadly this would be the best time for the Argentinians to muck about. For one, I think that the leadership today is nowhere as strong as that under the Iron Lady. Secondly, while the weapons may be more lethal pound for pound (and obviously more technologically evolved), they simply do not have the logistics, the numbers or the efficacy of going halfway around the world as they once did. The UK has seriously cannibalized their military, and all the Argentines need to ensure is that the mistakes they made last time (some logistical errors, as well as some weapons being duds ...e.g. all those weapons that hit but failed to explode) are not present this time round.
The UK would not be able to do what they did then. For comparison purposes, France still could (both in terms of ability, and more importantly will). Great ....I mean Gelded Britain ...has truly lost its cajones!
Nonsense.
The Falklands garrison is armed up to the eyeballs, and numbers a much larger number than 1982.
The Argies would never get on the beach, let alone win. They’d be slaughtered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_Falkland_Islands
Given similar situations in the Arctic and the South China Sea, the US will be in there trying to limit the claims made by all three nations, preferring these areas be international waters under control of the UN.
The Argies are not going to do anything. After the little war, the Brits beefed up the Falkland island defenses.
http://wapedia.mobi/en/RAF_Mount_Pleasant
The UK is an awfully patriotic country, I can’t see them just allowing them to give this away without a fight if this were to be invaded again.
The UK would have been wise to negotiate a settlement with Argentina and sell it to them. Over the long term the UK won’t prevail there. Perhaps they already tried that and Argentina wouldn’t deal
Hopefully it does not become like that sad case reported last week where a family found squatters in their home and couldn't get them out ...the thread was on FR.
Seriously though, I hope you are correct. However, I do wonder where that patriotism was when the navy sailors got 'napped by the Iranians.
OK, Minister, but what about England?
I heard the most painful news story ever about this when the Argys took the Falklands. The reported that “to support the war, many Argentinians had to sell their family jewels.” Ouch!
The Falkland defenses are 50 times stronger than they were. Moreover: we now have ultra-quiets (the Astute class) to nullify their surface navy. No-one in Argentina is going to want another ‘Belgrano’.
Plus everyone on the island is British - there’s zero demographic pressure.
The Argies will never get it back.
The low altitude drops were forced errors caused by the extraordinary (for the day) power of Seawolf missiles.
Plus all those bomb UXBs were on destroyers - unsurprisingly, as those were the perimeter ships. Britain could have lost many more DDs than it did, and still have won - the Carriers (and harriers) were the only critical assets, and they were never in serious danger.
In a repeat, Britain could still rely on the help of Chilean radar. It would also have the unsinkable aircraft carrier known as “The Falklands”.
No, they won’t.
The RN would struggle to muster the force to recapture the islands again, but they wouldnt have to.
This time we got a substantial force on the Islands - thousands of military personnel and fixed wing jet fighters on 24/7, as opposed to 1982 when the garrison was 81 men and a 3” mortar with a cracked tube.
After untold millions spent, four fine warships sunk, and several hundred deaths, so are we.
The vaunted US military hasn’t managed to win a war in Afghanistan (which is half way round the world) either.
If If If If.
Lost wars are always down to “bad luck”. OK modern warfare is an occasion where there are fewer, more powerful weapons so the vagaries of fortune are more acute, but in the end it all evens out. The Brits were unlucky too - for example losing most of their helicopters by one unlucky hit on a transport. That meant they had to walk all the way - the argentines wouldnt be able to “count” on that again.
No bombs landed on British carriers. As for the bombs not going off because of low altitude drops, why do you think the Argentines were at such low altitudes anyway? Because they had been forced down by British air defences, is why. So how much of that is down to luck?
Tragically, Astute is not in service yet.
I’m not so sure we could count on Chile. Relations between them and Argentina are much cosier these days.
“
UK REJECTS ARGENTINA’S FALKLANDS CLAIM
“
I think the venacular term is
“P-SS OFF, You Buggers!!!”
Half of Royal Navy’s ships in mothballs as defence cuts bite
Deja vu all over again!
“Looks like they are bound and determined to get their nose bloodied a second time”
The existing forces and rapidly deployed forces could take care of it. Technology is much different than in the early 80’s.
I don’t think Britain has the political stones to mount an invasion fleet like then did 30 years ago.
BULL!!! :D
Gwondanaland is a dumb myth. There is no WAY it was like that.
Half of the navy’s ships are always in mothballs. In an emergency they could be reactivated. Half of the fleet in 1982 was reactivated! Anyway, the Argentine navy has also receded. They have no carriers now. They have no cruisers. They have no long range anti-aircraft defence system of any kind. So what are they supposed to blockade us with? Submarines? Low endurance Diesel electric submarines at that?
I disagree.
Any British government that lost the Falklands would be out of office and the politicos are well aware of the fact.
I’ve always thought it a very nice myth. I’ve fought many hypothetical wars between Gondwanaland and Pangea :)
Are you disputing the theory of continental drift?
This is pretty much settled science.
Heh. They can’t even tell us why there are 15th century maps of the Antarctica land mass which we didn’t know until satellite mapping in the 60s. Many of these theories are out on a limb out on another limb.
(a) that’s not what I said,
(b) see my post after yours,
(c) nothing’s settled unless it’s empirical. Show me any scientific, empirical results and I will believe them. Show me theories on top of hypotheses on top of speculation & I will laugh at it.
“Knowing what you’re talking about is not a prerequisite for most Freepers on these military threads.”
Maybe not, but a good enough proportion DO know what they’re talking about that the facts come thick & fast. I like it.
Looks like the Argentine leaders need another war to distract the citizens from the coming economic distress.
¡Ay Chihuahua! Señor, I advise you to never get the Chili in your navel again.
Britain to the Argies, “Don’t make us kick your ass again.”
The Brits have more than enough naval assets to isolate any Argentine expedition. The Argentine Air Force simply cannot operate effectively that far from the mainland, it's a 1,000 mile round trip.
On the ground, the Argentine Army was somewhat effective in static defensive positions, but was unable to act offensively or even maneuver, and had absolutely no logistics capability. They were handily outmaneuvered and essentially ran out of supplies.
Now, with a beefed up garrison and helicopter gun ships facing them, they wouldn't stand a chance. It wouldn't be a surprise attack this time, either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.