SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Not sure why Snowden & friends are releasing this, as it is the traditional purpose of spying [and the one that virtually everybody but the people who actually do the spying think of].
"According to reports in the Argentine media, Britain was concerned that Argentina could launch another attempt to reclaim the Falkland Islands"
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-32172669
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
UK Spied on Argentina About Falkland Islands
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 23 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
If the thunder don't get you, then the lightning will.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Monday April 06 2015, @02:01PM
Argentina uses the Falklands issue as a distraction from problems at home.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by janrinok on Monday April 06 2015, @02:27PM
Are you suggesting that in 1982 the UK invited the Argentine forces to invade the Falkland Islands (FI) in order to mask some bad news back in the UK?
At the time of the invasion the 'defence force [wikipedia.org]' was less than 100 Royal Marines and sailors, and a local force made up of a maximum of 40 locals. The cost in lives (of both sides) during the battle to repel the Argentine forces was many times that figure. As someone who was serving during that war, and who has served in the FI since, I can assure you that no amount of 'bad news' in the UK would cost as much as maintaining the forces has cost in the 30 plus years since that war.
The reason for the change and enhancement to the current defence posture is that, at the time of the first war we had a much larger navy and several aircraft carriers. Currently we have a smaller navy and no operational aircraft carriers. If Argentina were to be allowed to gain a foothold today, it would be a much more difficult proposition to remove them again. Increasing defences now makes the likely losses to an attacker potentially much higher and therefore it reduces the chance that an attack will be mounted.
Nevertheless, I'm rather hoping that diplomatic efforts - and the signal that a change of defence posture sends to a potential adversary - will result in all disagreements being kept verbal rather than a more violent process.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Monday April 06 2015, @02:53PM
His reply:
Your reply:
He specifically said Argentina used the islands as a distraction, not the UK. You need to re-read the post.
And back on topic:
What is the value in the Falkland Islands? From reading up on them, there was no native population when settled, no oil and nothing of any real value. It mainly seems to be old beef between two powers over who should have possession of largely worthless pieces of land (No disrespect to those who live there or served in the war). Besides old beef, what does Argentina have to gain by taking the islands?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by janrinok on Monday April 06 2015, @03:29PM
Apologies to yourself and, of course, Gungnir Sniper - I misread that comment.
As to the value of the Falkland Islands - and as GS has already rightly pointed out - Argentina is looking closely at the Falkland Islands. Oil has been discovered in the waters around FI, although the full potential of the field is not yet confirmed. Argentina has, like many countries, financial woes and if it could get its hands on the oil it would go a long way to replenishing their coffers. To make the oil less profitable to ourselves, it has threatened any companies based in Argentina with severe sanctions if they support the exploitation of oil in any way, shape or form. Support vessels, supply ships, air movements are all faced with penalties if they are seen to provide support. Of course, that means that the oil is considerably more expensive for the UK to exploit and perhaps Argentina is hoping that it will cease to be economically viable for UK companies.
It does look a bit like a big dick fight - Argentinians feel that they are each personally and individually slighted by the loss of sovereignty, and the UK position is that the locals have stated their desire to remain 'British' and there is therefore a democratic principle at stake. The FI [wikipedia.org] are part of the overseas countries and territories of the European Union. The locals are predominantly originally of Welsh extraction, although there is a relatively small number of others also. Supplies of many things to support the local population are delivered by ship from the UK and elsewhere about every 6 months. Locals wishing to leave on holiday can take advantage of any spare military capacity that is involved with supporting the FI garrison which was, during my time there, several thousand strong, or could fly to Chile - again this might now have changed..
The UK government is not giving details of the change in defence posture that it intends to adopt (or may have already adopted) for perfectly understandable reasons. The possible deployment of more air defence assets, perhaps more frequent patrols by nuclear submarines, or an increase in force size are all possible and could be supported until the aircraft carriers come on line with aircraft (early 2020s?).
Apologies once again for misreading the earlier post.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday April 06 2015, @03:52PM
Thank you for the insight.
When reading the Wikipedia article the economics section mentions that oil exploration has so far turned up nothing. So this looks more like a gamble. That or they are still certain that there is oil but they haven't narrowed down where to drill yet.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday April 06 2015, @05:58PM
I find it kind of odd, that on this website, on which we are daily harangued about the evils of corporations and capitalism and the pursuit of profit, that the resource value of the Islands is the only thing with which you concern yourself when casting judgement on defending the Islands.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday April 06 2015, @06:58PM
You misinterpreted my intent. I was purposely being blunt by calling the land worthless. The reason I used resource value was to further illustrate how petty the war really was (the 1982 invasion).
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Monday April 06 2015, @07:29PM
There was no known oil in 1982. The invasion was entirely orchestrated by Galtieri as a way of diverting attention from domestic problems - as pointed out by Gungnir Sniper. Prime Minister Thatcher elected to re-capture the islands to uphold the democratic principle (I'm not arguing whether that was justified or not - so I'm not looking for a political debate). If you had asked most Britons where the Falkland Islands were, they wouldn't have had a clue. In fact, there was a media report of someone (can't remember who) asking how the Argentinians had managed to reach Scotland undetected?
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday April 06 2015, @08:22PM
I dont think my point came across properly. I knew of the Falklands and the 1982 war. But I was ignorant as to why Argentina wanted to capture it. I suppose after witnessing two pointless "wars" one which involves the USA military running around the middle east and the other involves Russia. Both had one thing in common: oil which is just another word for money. I think I just couldn't see why anyone was so willing to throw away human life for land that had no economic value. So I did my homework and I now know the reasons.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday April 06 2015, @09:13PM
See your wrong there as well. The left is fond of saying the wars in the middle east are about oil.
But they never were. Afghanistan and Iraq were never significant historical sources of Oil for the US, and that hasn't changed. There were principals involved in both wars, and you have to admit that there are principals involved in Russian moves in Ukraine as well. Oil isn't one of them.
Oil is just a convenient excuse to denigrate any historical event with which the left disagrees.
Living peacefully on farms they built, upon land that had never actually been inhabited by Argentina, the farmers and shop keepers managed to change the only available resource (grass) into a living.
Your mentioning of resources suggested to me, that Argentina's taking of the land, or England's retaking of the land, would have been OK (in your view) if there were valuable minerals or oil there. But the conflict was devoid of any possible justification on either side given that there was nothing there but grass.
It suggested to me that the rights of the only historical long term residents meant nothing to you.
That may not have been your intent, but that is how it came across.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday April 07 2015, @02:36PM
I was in a rush typing those replies while at work. I was a bit rude and blunt when I said worthless, that I apologize for.
Why are you talking about the middle east and left/right politics?
You really misread my words. And part of that is my fault. Every fight, no matter how big or small has a reason. They are for power, control, money; basically anything which benefits the aggressor. And to better understand you sometimes have to put the shoe on the other foot. And from Argentinas shoes, there was nothing to gain from going to war with a country who historically was known for kicking ass and taking names. What did they have to gain from the war? In the end it was just a distraction. And that is what is sort of mind boggling to me. I sort of get it, they were desperate. But seriously, wtf. Its like shooting a man dead because he stepped on your new shoes.
Yup. Exactly. Shoes on the other foot and I see nothing worth throwing away peoples lives for. Then again I am not a megalomaniac so perhaps I am not seeing things from a crazy dictators view. In the end I just can't comprehaned why people makes such choices. I can understand motives. e.g A man shoots his wife dead when he catches her in bed with another man. I get why he did it. I don't agree with it, It is wrong. But I get it. Another example is I get why people break into houses: they need money, usually for drugs. Motive. I just can't see motive for invading small farming islands and wasting life.
Oh, and of course Britian had every right to defend its borders. I am not arguing against their decision. It unfortunately had to be done.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday April 07 2015, @06:41AM
Prime Minister Thatcher elected to re-capture the islands to uphold the democratic principle (I'm not arguing whether that was justified or not - so I'm not looking for a political debate). If you had asked most Britons where the Falkland Islands were, they wouldn't have had a clue,
So, it was just like Iraq only with Tony Blair not in drag this time? I am so confused.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @03:08PM
Make no mistake, it wasn't to uphold any democratic principle, it was just to show that those who have the big guns make the law and you don't fool around the big boys and leave unscathed.
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Monday April 06 2015, @06:52PM
There are indications of oil, but whether there is sufficient to make the extraction worthwhile is to be decided.
Four sedimentary basins that could potentially contain hydrocarbons have been identified in the Falkland Island waters. They are:
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday April 06 2015, @04:09PM
I disagree; if they went back to an older method of war-fighting, it'd be easy to remove the Argentinians from the Falklands. The UK has comparatively huge military assets. Isolate the islands, and then attack mainland Argentina directly. Keep it up until the surrender unconditionally. Bomb their cities, destroy their government buildings, destroy their military bases, don't let up until they surrender and leave the islands. That's how you win a war.
Personally, I think the UK went way too easy on Argentina in the 1982 war. They should have attacked Argentina's military bases and other assets as much as possible, not just the ones being used for the Falklands.
And why has the UK scaled its Navy back so much anyway? That's some stupid military strategy right there. Take a lesson from us Americans: the Navy is the one branch you really should invest a lot in, because a blue-water Navy is how you project force. Without it, you're confined to defending your immediate territory only. Maybe the UK should dump its nukes and scale back its ground forces, and invest that savings instead in buying more ships and aircraft carriers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Monday April 06 2015, @06:40PM
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @08:12PM
This tactic is used by others as well. Pakistan has been using this tactic against India for the past 20 years.