Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Barack Obama – Thanks From Your Pals In Britain!

I dunno about you lot but with the Royal Navy fuckulated by Messrs Brown and Blair, the RAF reduced to winding elastic bands and the Army chasing rag-heads in the ‘stan and a community organiser in The White House this was bound to happen.

The Falklands are British. The international legal position here is very clear. This need not go to the UN. This is no business of Ban Ki Moon or Hugo-bastarding-Charvez.

We don’t have the Norwegians trying to lay claim to the Shetlands or the French making a play for Jersey do we? Our case is pure titanium here.

So The Argentinians want to cut-up rough by imposing an Imperial rule over our stuff. And yes, folks this is about imperialism and it’s coming from Latin America and not these shores. We didn’t grab those islands from the Argentinians – the only bipedal thing there when we pitched-up were penguins: the population speak English and think of themselves as British and any oil-drilling within our territorial waters is a matter for the Falkland Island’s government and the companies involved.

And that has fuck all to do with Argentina, Latin America, Ban Ki Moon, the UN or Hugo-fucking-Chavez.

So Barackkk won’t back-us up? Hardly surprising seeing as he clearly despises even his own country let alone ours. And we’ll get fuck-all help from our current official “best-pals” of the EU will we? So why are we palling-up with them then? A new strategic alliance with the French has recently been mooted. Oh, behave! Because otherwise I shall have to visit the patent office with my idea for a chocolate teapot.

If I am not very much mistaken we are gonna see a national embarrassment on the scale of Suez. Is Gordoom loving it I wonder? Well if the actual humiliation happened under the early days of the rule of iDave with a small majority…

Think of it as the inverse of the “Falklands Factor” that aided Maggie in ’83.

And if you think I’m being unduly cynical then consider this. It is probably too late this year for Argentina to launch a military operation so we are looking at 2011 with a Tory government and would you put it past Mandelson to have not considered the utility of this possibility in propelling Labour back to power in short order?

We lost the Falklands under the Tories, vote Labour.

24 Comments

  1. Ed P says:

    In 1983 the conflict was about sovereignty, but this time it’s about mineral riches (like Iraq).
    Last time we had some military capacity, but now we are severely overstretched already.
    If Argentina mount a politically-expedient invasion, Britain alone could not defend the Falklands with conventional weapons.

  2. Ed P says:

    In 1983 the conflict was about sovereignty, but this time it’s about mineral riches (like Iraq).
    Last time we had some military capacity, but now we are severely overstretched already.
    If Argentina do mount a politically-expedient invasion, Britain alone could not defend the Falklands with conventional weapons.

  3. permanentexpat says:

    Despite the usual mendacious assurances to the contrary, I doubt the The Falklands is ‘adequately’ defended…and the Argies will have learned from their last attempted invasion, since when our own armed forces have been criminally neglected & reduced …and were humiliated by a bunch of ragheads in the illegal Iraq war…and are now engaged in a conflict that no incursor into Afghanistan has ever won…but nobody reads HISTORY.
    Be sure the Argies are taking notes.
    American goodwill? They have none…the Gipper is long gone.

  4. NickM says:

    Ed,
    The war was ’82 not ’83. The election was in ’83. Also then as now the issue of potential oil is a key player.

  5. Amphibious ops (especially at extended ranges) are notoriously dangerous both tactically and strategically. Air and naval supremacy are utterly essential.

    The Falklands don’t need to be heavily defended, there only needs to be a credible threat, and thus far that seems to be in position.

    I incline to the view that this sabre-rattling toss is for domestic consumption in Argentina, as the incumbent government isn’t very popular.

    All that’s needed is the nerve to tell all other parties to fuck off. Bearing in mind the costs of ’82 it would a positively suicidal government in Westminster which compromised in any degree.

  6. RAB says:

    We should have got the Argie Commander to sign a paper giving up for all time any claim Argentina has on the Falklands when he surrendered at Port Stanley. It might not be legally binding, but it would sure have put the cat amongst the pigeons.

    Another quick anecdote.
    One of our neighbours in Cardiff was a retired Grandee of what was once called the Colonial Office. He was a pompous and self opinionated prat, and nobody liked him much.
    He kept saying that he had retired as Director of Education for the Falkland Islands.
    Well nobody had a clue where that was then, but when the Argies invaded it quickly became clear that he was in fact in charge of what amounted to a small Junior school.
    He never mentioned the Falklands again!

    Good to see you out and about Pexpat. Yes you are right, nobody learns from history. Even Alexander the Great couldn’t crack it, and the only Rules of Engagement he was operating under was kill anything that moves.

  7. permanentexpat says:

    Hi RAB
    Oh yes, I’m still out & about a bit and, when I have a useless 2c to say, I sometimes say it. You too are a man of few words these days and it’s always good to see your presence when I’m trawling.
    I am spending some time at Richard North’s EURefendum where he’s one of the prime movers in taking the AGWarmistas apart…I am overwhelmed at the enormity of the scam & how entrenched in politics it is…But now even the miserable MSM has been forced, belatedly, to pay attention and, across the pond, Inhofe is, I think, the first to speak of prosecuting the buggers for fraud & deception on a grand scale.
    Sorry, Nick, a bit OT…but it’s good to talk with friends ;-))

  8. Bod says:

    @Ed P

    To a degree, it’s always been an issue of mineral resources rather than sovereignty. As subsequently noted, Los Malvinas get pulled into the Argentinian national news whenever some tinpot wannabe-dictator needs to spout some populist, jingoesque verbiage, but the real deal is Antarctica.

    Many moons ago, I did some extensive reading on international agreements concerning Argentina. Mineral exploitation rights (at the time) were to be granted based in part on the proximity and angular ‘span’ of adjacent territories. Without Los Malvinas, they get a few hundred miles of the circumference (maybe a few degrees of the arc) If they hold Los Malvinas, they will quadruple their angular ‘claim’). So there are (or at least were) some significant benefits to holding that cluster of godforsaken rocks.

    The whole issue of who-gets-to-exploit-what seems to generate some interesting side effects – for a while, Chile was reportedly exporting expectant mothers to their tiny wedge of Antarctica, so they could give birth there and thereby lay a greater claim to territory by having native-born Antarcticans.

  9. Ed P says:

    OK, yeah, 82!

    From studying the geology/tectonics, it’s fairly obvious the potential for oil extraction extends from Tierra del Fuego all the way to Antarctica, following the jolly handsome crenellations of folded crust. Whilst the Falklands represent a significant potential reserve, there’s much more south west.
    And Argentina’s reasons for the escalation was more political than because of oil in 82 – the surveys were generalised and the potential reserves were unknown. Now it’s the Iraq scenario and we should expect their claim to be pressed very determinedly indeed.

  10. Bod says:

    It’s more than just oil politics though.

    The Antarctic continent is largely unsurveyed for any kind of primary metal exploitation, and while the discovery of vast oil reserves would be greatly appreciated, copper, nickel and rare-earth finds wouldn’t disappoint either. No indiginous peoples to buy off, and remote enough to be able to thumb their noses at the watermelony-types.

    A really huge precious metals find at the moment might even lead to calls for the re-establishment of something like the gold standard, although I wouldn’t bet on the demise of fractional-reserve banking. :)

  11. Gray says:

    Every time I think Obama, and this entire US administration, has plumbed the depths of fecklessness and feculence, I’m mistaken. I didn’t vote for the bastard. I voted for the angry old guy. I studied “The Battle of Goose Green” as a young US Army Officer and I have a deep and abiding respect for the British Soldier.

    Well done putting a good face on our pathetic and intransigent response. In my odd vocation of bagpiping (I know, I know….). I’ve met more than a few British veterans of the Argy-Bargy and they don’t deserve this. After what the British have done for us in Basra, in Afghanistan….. This sickens me.

    Well, as Churchill said:
    “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.”

  12. Jackart says:

    This time the Islands are adequately defended. The Argentines have no landing craft, and we have 4 world-class air superiority fighters, a Bn- of Infantry, a frigate or destroyer and a nuclear hunter killer submarine. Against an unarmed survey vessel and 80 boot-necks in ’82 vs their military dictatorship.

    The Argentines could conceivably mount a successful invasion, but at exorbitant cost in blood and treasure, and they’re now a democracy.

    So let’s have less of the conspiracy theory eh?

  13. JohnSF says:

    Wellll…

    This looks to me more like a bit of grandstanding by Pres. Kirchner due to her domestic woes: real inflation currently 20% and rising, GDP down about 7.5% over the past two years, and considerable discontent over the self enrichment of the ruling party elite.
    Argentine domestic energy production is declining largely because of hostility by the Kirchners to foreign investment, and use of economic controls to reward cronies (known in Argentina as “the penguins”, funnily enough).

    You might think that would encourage a diversionary adventure. Maybe. And if the Argentine army could be established ashore, the UK might have problems retaking the islands.
    But…
    The Argentine armed forces have been starved of money since the end of military rule.
    The navy is reduced to 4 or 5 destroyers, about a dozen frigates, corvettes and patrol ships, arguably technically obsolescent.
    The air force fast jet complement is down to three squadrons of Mirage 5′s and III’s and two squadrons of reconditioned A-4 Skyhawks.

    Given that the RAF maintains a flight of Tornado F3′s with much more advanced AAM’s and avionics, an aerial tanker, Rapier SAMs, air defence radar systems, and capacity for additional deployment; and the RN has at least one Type 42 on station, and almost certainly an SSN lurking about, any attempted Argentine invasion is likely to see the bulk of it’s navy and air force in a new role as artificial reefs in the South Atlantic.

    And that prospect is likely to make the most agitated Argentine at senior levels think twice. Esp. as Pres. Kirchner’s hubbie is reported as fancying another run at the presidency himself. And the military have little taste for rescuing the Kirchner’s chestnuts.

    What the Argentine govt. wants is to wave the flag about, and hopefully get the UN involved. As an ongoing issue in the UN it keeps the issue live for the domestic audience, and gets the other Latin Americans in on their side diplomatically.
    See Hugo-bastarding-Chavez.
    Also see Brazil’s comments, even though there’s little love lost between the Brasilian govt. and Chavez or the Kirchner’s.

    Arguably the best US response from the UK POV is a diplomatic dead bat. Ignore it, play it down, and if gets to the UN park in some sub-subcommittee and talk it to death.

  14. NickM says:

    John,

    “You might think that would encourage a diversionary adventure.”

    It did in ’82.

    Note: The F-3s have zilch air to surface capability and there is only four of these notorious hangar queens down there. The Rapier is short-range, ancienct, We would need several Type 42s down there because conditions are so harsh and even then they’re not an enormously credible threat. If anything puts the Argies off it’ll be the subs. That’s our only ace in the hole though to be fair it’s damn nice card to have.

    But then there is another factor. What if Mandelson wants the Falklands to be taken?

  15. JohnSF says:

    permanentexpat: “no incursor into Afghanistan has ever won”

    Apart from:
    Persians
    Seleucids
    Mauryans
    Bactrian Greeks
    Sakas
    Parthians
    Kushanxs
    Sassanids
    Ummayad Arab Caliphate
    Mongols/Timurids/Mughals

  16. JohnSF says:

    Nick, sure, the F-3′s are not anti-surface oriented (though I wouldn’t think it impossible to hang some Harpoons on the wings and use them to launch stand-off anti ship strikes, but it needs someone better up on avionics than me to know if that’s doable.

    And Rapier is old and short range, but as long as it’s good enough to cover the airbase and radar installations?

    If Mandelson wanted the Falklands taken in 2011 with a Conservative govt. in office he’d have to be able to prevent a Tory govt. from, say basing a some Tornado FGR4′s down there, putting a couple more destroyers and frigates on patrol etc.

    There’s no way even the Prince of Darkness could prevent that.

    IMHO with anything short of an engraved invitation the Argentine military would tell Kirchner to get stuffed .

  17. JohnSF says:

    Oops.

    For Tornado FGR4 read Typhoon FGR4.

  18. NickM says:

    Typhoon FGA4 actually. How many of those do we have anyway?

    Giving the F3s an anti-shipping role is not an over-nighter though the F-3 was modified to carry Alarm Missiles in short order for Gulf II. But the Alarm is essentially a sel-contained unit. The Harpoon only has terminal homing on it’s own. It needs an initial lock from the firing aircraft and preferably mid-course updates. Serious amount of work for a radar designed solely for A2A.

    I suspect that one of the epic short-comings in UK military capacity is air-launched anti-ship missiles. For years the Bucc had that duty then the (now retired) Tornado GR1B and it would appear to have devolved to the the single squadron of Nimrod MRA4s which last I heard were in pieces in Wharton. I’m not sure we even have anything but RN Lynxs with Sea-Skua and I think that missile might have been withdrawn.

  19. JohnSF says:

    Might be wrong but I thought the new all-singing all-dancing Typhoon was FGR for Fighter/Ground attack/Reconnaissance; operational numbers I’m not certain but IIRC its a dozen operated by 11 Squadron.

    On anti-ship missiles: eek! If we’re relying on Nimrods for the anti-ship role Belgium could invade tomorrow. Seriously, if you’re charged with the defence of the United Kingdom, one of the first thing I’d think would go on the “to do” list would be: have aircraft capable of putting large numbers of hostile ships on the bottom.

  20. NickM says:

    Yes, John.

    Someone kind of ought to tell the MoD that we are not land-locked.

    And for some reason – I’m sure I’m right – they changed “G” to GA” about the same time they dropped “S” from the designations. This was to do with us retiring free-fall nukes because apparently according to NATO it’s only a strike if it’s uranious, otherwise it’s an a attack. Although it’s a right mess because for some obscure reason the Mark 2 Sea Harrier was the FA2 and not FGA2.

    God knows what recon capability the Tiffy has or indeed the RAF since the Canberra PR-9s got the chop. Bloody hell mind they were from the dark ages! They seem to use the Nimrods for overland recon. Hence one blowing up over the ‘stan. I suspect primary tactical recon is via Reaper drones.

  21. CountingCats says:

    Whether the Falklands are well defended or not is less important than the reality that they are defended at all.

    Last time the Argentines were able to park on the beach and stroll into Port Stanley with little opposition. This time any invasion would cost them dearly in both blood and treasure, neither of which they could expend without repercussions at home.

  22. Bod says:

    The more peverse part of me wonders, what level of inflation and reduction in GDP it takes to justify a diversionary invasion of a historic enemy?

    The way things are going, Calais had better watch out.

  23. Barack Obama is the best democrat president in my opinion. he makes the best judgment and foreign policies.. ~

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: