Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35378065)

It's rather irritating me to see her demand peace and accuse us of militarization.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Argentina was supported by Israeli IAI advisors, who were already in the country and continued their work during the conflict. Israel also sold weapons and crucial drop tanks that extended the combat radius of Argentine fighter-bombers, in a secret operation triangulated over Peru. Peru also openly sent "Mirages, pilots and missiles" to Argentina during the war. Through Libya, under Muammar Gaddafi, Argentina received 20 launchers and 60 missiles SA-7, as well as machine guns, mortars and mines, all in all, the load of four trips of two Boeing 707 of the AAF, refuelled in Recife with the knowledge and consent of the Brazilian government.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35378254)

I've always been aware of the Falklands War - but never really read up on it's History in great detail in terms of how once Argentina Invaded the Islands back on April 2nd 1982, we had a cat in hell's chance of getting them back.

Also interesting to note how 3rd party nations reacted. Like how the then Libya Dictator, Gaddafi supplied Argentina with Arms. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35378490)

And don't forget that the British government had to buy up all the stocks of exorcet missiles from around the world, to try and prevent them being sold to Argentina.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35377785)

In today's Guardian - link

And here is, imho, an empty gesture reported in yesterday's Telegraph I wonder if any actually exist?

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35378017)

Exactly. If the Argentinians hadn't started the sabre rattling in the first place then we wouldn't have needed to beef up the military presence there.

It's probably got more to do with trying to deflect attention from domestic issues:

The Argentine economy is “a time-bomb ticking� warns economist

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35378016)

I almost feel sorry for Kirchner as well. She has made this her key foreign policy objective, which displays either shocking ignorance or hopeless naivety .... having set herself an aim that anyone outside of Argentina can see is unattainable, all she has actually achieved is to lay the foundations for her downfall. When the voters start to realise she can't deliver, they will simply judge her weak and ineffective.

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35378502)

When that happens, Argentina would launch an invasion to boost her poll ratings!

Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 35378494)

Really?

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35378518)

Apparently yes!

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35378511)

How many times does it have to be repeated that Argentina do not have the money or the resources at this time to mount an invasion of the Falklands.They only managed it the last time because there were no British forces of any kind on the island and no naval or air presence either so they could just stroll in.

Now we have forces and an air force present as well as a naval presence..much harder for the Argentine forces to just land and walk onto the island.

So it's not going to happen.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 35378494)

Really?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35378061)

As of right now she's riding a wave of public patriotism. Apparently there were crowds outside El Presidente's palace last night after her speech to veterans about how they're going to get the Falklands back. Mind you, General Galtieri enjoyed similar support for as long as the population thought his 'policy' on the Falklands was a winner. It turned sour for him pretty quickly after HM Armed Forces brought the policy to a rapid halt.

The key thing to remember, however, is that there are no negotiations, and nor will there be any. The British Government has made clear that as far as it is concerned, there is nothing to negotiate. The Falklands are legally held British territory inhabited by British citizens whose occupation and government is every bit as legitimate as the overwhelmingly ethnic European occupation and government of South America (which Kirchner herself describes as Latin America, a term I think I'd be slightly peeved at if I were an Amerindian native of that continent).

Argentina's territorial claim over the Falklands is at odds with its disinterest in pursuing claims on the mainland over territory that was at one time or other governed by the Spanish Crown's Viceroy based in Buenos Aires - such as, for example, most if not all of modern-day Uruguay.

Kirchner's gambit can continue for only as long as she can convince her people she is making progress. As they are not going to get what they actually want - negotiations, leading to control of the Falklands - all she can do by way of a convincer is to continually ratchet up the rhetoric and pull stunts like grassing the UK up to the United Nations for having the temerity to send the Queen's grandson on a mission to rescue drowning fishermen, or for sending a shiny new naval vessel to replace the venerable but slightly creaky old frigate that's currently in the South Atlantic.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35378510)

No, they would not. Please stop taking the discussion round in circles. Go back and read all the previous posts about the likelihood of military action by Argentina.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35378511)

How many times does it have to be repeated that Argentina do not have the money or the resources at this time to mount an invasion of the Falklands.They only managed it the last time because there were no British forces of any kind on the island and no naval or air presence either so they could just stroll in.

Now we have forces and an air force present as well as a naval presence..much harder for the Argentine forces to just land and walk onto the island.

So it's not going to happen.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 35378525)

Any links or further info on that?