what nonsense, UK will get f-35b
down the track will get f-35a as well, the typhoon becomes a day 2 striker i predict

No mate. I think the RAF will be using a single type by 2015, they may get a UCAV for first strike ops later on, the Navy will operate another carrier capable type. A Rhino buy wouldn’t suprise me at all. 90 aircraft or less at, what? Half the unit cost of an F35B? It will make perfect sense to the bean couinters and in case you hadn’t noticed, they are in charge at the moment.

It’s not a bad type though, very capable indeed methinks.

So there seems to be a consensus on the side of the Falklanders that Argentina in 1982, soiled their nest.

Are you saying that Vernet did not recognise the authority of the Argentinean government and had no intention of becoming govenor? If he had and he had been honest and up front about it with the British then the British would have said not a chance.

On December 20, 1981, an Argentine scrap merchant named Constantino Davidoff landed on the British-controlled island of South Georgia, 1,200 miles east of the Falklands.

His arrival, and the graffiti he left behind claiming South Georgia for Argentina, began a series of events which led to war.

Would you agree that Vernet is a precedent? A possible ulterior motive that the Argentinean government drew inspiration from? Is it possible he WAS working on behalf of his government but only posed as a private citzen? And why, if he repudiated his claim to govenorship did he feel obliged to seize American shipping? If you take the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article at face value, officially, he was doing on behalf of the British, not the Argentinean government.

We have a perfectly solid claim, based on 176 years of control, 169 years of settlement, & the wishes of the long-established inhabitants. There’s no need to embellish it with spurious claims about ungoverned (ungoverned because you threw out the government doesn’t count) territories, etc. We acted badly back then: IMO we were in the wrong. But that’s over: it’s long enough ago that it’s been overridden by the subsequent 176 years of imposing order & peace, & making the islands safe for a permanent population.

This is all very well and good but these embellishments are the arguments we face from the Argentinean side in the UN. Surely they have to be discussed and, indeed, straightened out.

First of all, the islands were not under British rule since before Argentina existed. They were occupied by the British in the 18th century but then the Spanish occupy the British garrison. As the Spanish accounts by then, the Spanish sovereignty over the islands was recognized then by England. When Argentina become independent, on 15 December 1823 England recognized the Argentine independence over all the territory Argentina claimed by then, including the islands, which were occupied by Argentina since 1822. On 2 January 1825 both countries signed a frienship and commerce treaty, where, again, England recognized the Argentine independence and they never claimed sovereignty over the islands, despite they were occupied by Argentina. Later, in 1833 the British invaded the islands.

I shamelesly quote now from that veritable tome Wikipedia:

In 1826 and 1828, Luis Vernet approached the British Consulate in Buenos Aires seeking permission to form a settlement on the Falkland Islands; Vernet had also been tasked by the Government of the United Provinces with the same task. After receiving consent, Vernet agreed to provide regular reports to the British and expressed the desire for British protection for his settlement should they decide to re-establish their presence in the islands.[1]

In 1829, the United Provinces proclaimed Luis Vernet as Governor of the islands. British diplomatic protests at the appointment and declarations of sovereignty were ignored. The United Provinces also granted Vernet exclusive rights to seal hunting in the islands. This too was disputed by the British and American consulates but once again the diplomatic protests were ignored.

In 1831, Luis Vernet began to seize American fishing vessels hunting seals in Falklands waters, confiscating their catch and arresting their crews. Vernet returned to the mainland, bringing senior officers of the American vessels to stand trial for violating restrictions on seal hunting. On 28 December 1831, the American corvette USS Lexington destroyed the Puerto Luis settlement in response. The captain declared the islands to be free of government.[2][3]

This latter incident finally convinced the Foreign Office to reassert its sovereignty claim over the islands. Throughout much of 1832, the United Provinces did not have a Government representative in the islands. The Buenos Aires government commissioned Major Esteban Mestivier as the new Governor of the Islands, to set up a penal colony, but when he arrived at the settlement on 15 November 1832 his soldiers mutinied and killed him. The mutiny was put down by Lt. Col. José María Pinedo, commander of the United Provinces schooner Sarandí, with aid from a French ship in Puerto Luis. Order was restored just before the British arrived.[1]

Why seek permission from the British if they did not recognise British authority over the islands? And why did he then overstep the boundaries of the permit he was given by the British?

Of course we have what appears to be an informal history of the Falklands by the Falklanders themselves:

http://www.falklands.info/history/history2.html

So why are we not in dispute with the French or the Spanish? It seems to me that the United Provinces of the River Plate, which later became Argentina were claiming authority over an awful lot of territory including the entire River Plate region and the countries therein, plus large tracts of southern Brazil and pretty much the whole of Chile. They did not get and they (much) later rescinded claims on those other territories, why should the Falkland Islands be any different?

It’s a shame that both governments (UK and Arg) didn’t use this as an opportunity to strengthen their relationship instead of getting to this point. Both countries could have cooperated and shared the expenses of developing the oil fields as well as reaping any profits. That way both sides win without getting into this political battle. If that initial cooperation worked, who knows what other positive measures would come in the future.

—–JT—–

Nice idea but Argentina will accept nothing less than a complete UK climb-down and handover of the islands to become entirely under Argentine rule.

The UK case is: 1) The self determination of the islanders which Argentina is studiously ignoring, 2) Long term ownership/rule/occupation call it what you want to, the islands have been under British rule since before Argentina even existed as an independant country.

The Argentinean claim is one of the islands proximity to Argentina or at least that is what all the words and bluster boil down to. They are closer to Argentine ergo they are a part of Argentina and I have already expressed my opinion that a territorial claim cannot be made in the context of territorial proximity.

No matter. Argentina think they have a handle on it this time and they might well have if the UN can be persuaded. Although the UN mandate is based on the point of self determination so Argentina and her allies need to turn that one over.

If they cannot then their only option will be blockade and harassment; to do either in international waters is piracy, to do so in UN recognised British controlled waters would be an act of war. It won’t be nice trying to fight a new Battle of the Atlantic with every South American country having a pop at you all the way down South but where there is a will there is a way. The question is one that I think Argentina is rolling the dice on. Is Gordon Brown, or any potential British leader, nails enough to do it? Is there the will?

You’ve been reading Red Storm Rising again haven’t you :diablo:

:D:D:D