Sean Penn is a crock [Falklands Debate]

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 02-28-2012, 15:17

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I'm personally up for hardening the island with decent batteries of ground to air and ground to ship missiles which are effective, have relatively low running costs and are purely a defensive weapon. If one can decimate their aircraft and slaughter amphibious landing craft / warships it will make the odds of an attack much lower. Static gun emplacements and mine fields would be OTT, and increasing the size of the garrison would be extremely expensive as well as increase the logistical difficulty of resupply.

Holding a referendum to see whether the Islanders would like to be made effectively a county of Blighty also seems sensible as then there is an increased chance that NATO would have to do something other than pursue "active defence" in Afghanistan in the event of an attack. France has at least decided to have both carriers as well as planes at the same time.

We already have all those, rapier missiles and a submarine in the area provide the anti-air and anti-ship capability, as well as the Typhoons. A Daring-Class Destroyer provides additional AA capability. Fixed defences have two problems, they can be easily destroyed by, for example, commandos or heavy guns (the sort old-fashioned Argentine ships have and modern British ones dont) and they can't be repositioned.

As to anti-ship missiles, they'reeasily shot down by AA batteries these days, where planes are not.

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

The problem as the British see it is that this question is settled, the island is in there eyes British.

Talks would mean some kind of compromise would have to at least be available, unfortunately how can you compromise to Argentinas favour without giving them the island.

This is why the debate quickly enters the who has bigger guns phase quickly into the discussion.

As long as Argentina does not invade then Britain is stuck with a very annoying diplomatic problem.

Here is the equation

Argentina wants the island but Britain does not need to accept this request as the islanders want to stay where they are.

Invasion favours Britain as long as Argentina is alone in the enterprise, if South American powers join or give aid to Argentina then Britains job is much much harder.

Britain needs the USA to back it, but the USA is weary and wary of being dragged into what they would view a colonial conflict.
The USA also needs South America for it's future plans, politcally therefore overt support of Britain is out of the question.(some covert help is ok though)

Solution prevent the problem escalating to actual conflict, let Argentina shout and roar all they want (buy them off with money later)

All true, but I would add that every time negotiation has backfired for Britain, the first time it led to war and more recently concessions on mineral rights were first accepted, and then repudiated, and now we have the current situation.

Basically, the Argentinians will only accept British surrender and Britain won't surrender. Added to this, the population want to be British - so there really is nothing to talk about.

Just to make it even more futile, the more the Argentinians abuse the Falklanders, be it minefields on the island or sanctions and blockades, the more they are hated. If they did get control of the Falklands it would either be ungovernable of the British government would be blamed for a second "Diago Garcia" and the stink from the first one hasn't subsided yet.

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

I watched that press conference where Argentina showed all the ships, planes and communications systems available to the various naval and air bases Britain has in the South Atlantic I half expected him to shout "Dont wait for the translation"

Regardless of the reality it showed Britain as an aggressive power in the South Atlantic, there point that it is the only ocean Britain can claim to influence was well made. (leading to questions of why naturally)

Well, we have a lot of territory in the South Atlantic

**gaelic cowboy** · 02-28-2012, 15:53

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Well, we have a lot of territory in the South Atlantic

Indeed

I am sure the South Americans are thinking that one day they may need resources from Africa if not already, Britains South Atlantic position threatens that trade.

Regardless of the fact that there is no REAL threat from Britain they probably would prefer control the South Atlantic themselves.

**rory_20_uk** · 02-28-2012, 16:00

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

We already have all those, rapier missiles and a submarine in the area provide the anti-air and anti-ship capability, as well as the Typhoons. A Daring-Class Destroyer provides additional AA capability. Fixed defences have two problems, they can be easily destroyed by, for example, commandos or heavy guns (the sort old-fashioned Argentine ships have and modern British ones dont) and they can't be repositioned.

As to anti-ship missiles, they'reeasily shot down by AA batteries these days, where planes are not.

I agree Rapiers will provide good AA, I was merely saying for some more.
A Sub would provide good anti ship, but is too risky an asset for the UK to risk.
Typhoons require a functioning runway, and seeing as there is just the one it'd not be intact for long.

I would say that tactical ballistic missiles are a good mix of range, damage potential and maneouverability.

No AA system is 100% effective, and missiles are a lot harder to hit than planes which are slower, have larger radar signatures (stealth fighters possibly excepted) and make slower turns. Planes also have to either fire missiles or torpedoes which are large enough to cause serious damage. If the ships have missile AA, planes will still have to launch from miles away, and if the ships merely have miniguns they'll have a hard time hitting objects travelling at extremely fast velocities. And it as always boils down to numbers: fire 1 and the ship may well survive. Fire 100, and it won't. I imagine that a ship costs more than 100 missiles. Argentinian ships and planes are not state of the art either, and may be up to 30 years behind the curve. Much easier to purchase a launcher and missiles than to retrofit one's entire fleet to negate the threat.

Planes are also much more easily intercepted by other planes. Considering the UK only has 4 (albeit really good ones) there is only so much they can do. Their durability will fail them even if they win every engagement in the air.

Would it not be more odd if the UK could project force in the Pacific?

**rory_20_uk** · 02-28-2012, 16:01

Double post - damn you Chrome!

**gaelic cowboy** · 02-28-2012, 16:22

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Would it not be more odd if the UK could project force in the Pacific?

It doesnt matter what the reality actually is it only matters what THEY think.

Britain has bases in the South Atlantic normally no one would pass a bit of heed, but strategically the South Americans must think beyond the now and try to understand what there for.

They are concluding that these facilities are designed to keep them down, afterall they have no real economic value to Britain so they must be part of a wider plan.

Of course the reality is that there is no plan at least not the one in there heads but Allowing Argentina to sound off is good cover for Brazil and lets not forget South Africa and Nigeria either.

I dont see this going away really in fact I see it getting worse, Brazil is the key get them on your side and Argentina will conclude the row is too much effort.

Unfortunately getting Brazil onside might require a strategic price Britain is not willing or even capable of paying.

**classical_hero** · 02-28-2012, 17:57

Originally Posted by Lemur

Why are you being mean about the original James Bond? I loved him in Dragonheart. And just the way he says "Pussy Galore" in Goldfinger makes me laugh every time.

That is Sean Connery.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 02-28-2012, 22:13

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I agree Rapiers will provide good AA, I was merely saying for some more.
A Sub would provide good anti ship, but is too risky an asset for the UK to risk.
Typhoons require a functioning runway, and seeing as there is just the one it'd not be intact for long.

I would say that tactical ballistic missiles are a good mix of range, damage potential and maneouverability.

No AA system is 100% effective, and missiles are a lot harder to hit than planes which are slower, have larger radar signatures (stealth fighters possibly excepted) and make slower turns. Planes also have to either fire missiles or torpedoes which are large enough to cause serious damage.

I think you'll find that statistically planes are less often shot down than missiles, planes have countermeasures and, more importantly, pilots - they also have greater flexability and damage potential than missiles. A cruise missile is a one shot weapon, guidence, roctet motor, etc, all these have to be duplicated each time, and they require specialised lauchers to fire them. Mount Pleasent is a modern Air Base, the Argentinians would have to hit it with heavy bombs to knock out the airstrip and those bombers would have to get through the CAP and missiles. Anyway, there are Royal Engineers on East Falkland, and they could extend the Stanley Airstrip if necessary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Stanley_Airport

You'll also note the difficultly the RAF had in knocking out Stanley, there's no reason to believe the Agentinian Air Force would do even that well at Mount Pleasent. Added to which, about the time the Duke of Cambridge leaves Dauntless will arrive, greatly increasing AA capability. She will need an Astute Class Submarine to protect her, however.

In any case, Mount Pleasent is a full Air Base, details are necessarily sketchy, but it is known the base can support 2,000 personel and that implies it can support more fighters - you just have to send them there.

**InsaneApache** · 02-29-2012, 12:26

There's nowt like chucking petrol on a fire. Pillocks.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ish-goods.html

Although it's comforting to note that politicos everywhere are wassocks.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 02-29-2012, 13:12

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

There's nowt like chucking petrol on a fire. Pillocks.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ish-goods.html

Although it's comforting to note that politicos everywhere are wassocks.

Meanwhile: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...he-wallet.html

We give aid to Argentina because it is shut out of the loan markets and we don't want the people to starve.

I feel like the good guy here, not the "Colonialist".

**InsaneApache** · 02-29-2012, 15:42

US CONGRESSMAN IN FALKLANDS FACT-FINDING VISIT

By J. Brock (FINN)

US Representative Frank James Sensenbrenner Jr., R - Wisconsin and his aide Mr Todd Washam are visiting the Falkland Islands this week to find out for themselves how the place operates and what the people think about their right to self-determination as enshrined in the UN Charter.

On Thursday Congressman Sensenbrenner addressed Legislative Assembly saying it was an honour but due to House Rules it unfortunately could not be reciprocal. He is the first member of the House of Representatives to visit the Falkland Islands officially, though a member of the Senate visited in 1987 on an unofficial basis. Mr Sensenbrenner hopes it will not be the last visit and admitted the Islands did not fit the stereotype he had prior to his arrival of a remote back-water. What he found was a vibrant, economically self-sufficient community with a democratic government having the remit in all areas except foreign affairs and defence.

Mentioning that the Falklands seemed to have escaped the recession he assured all listening that then United States has always supported the principle of self-determination. We let the British Crown know that about 230 years ago, he quipped. We havent changed our viewpoint that the people should be allowed to direct their own government, choose the system of government and make whatever alliances and determinations that are necessary.

I have talked with a lot of people in the Falkland Islands and not one of them would like to change their status and become a colony of Argentina, he said. He went on to say that if the United Nations means what it says then they would have to back up the decisions the Falkland Islanders have made themselves rather than getting involved in a geo-political game benefitting nobody. Argentina had invaded the Falklands 30 years ago and he hopes the tragedy will not be repeated.

Mr Sensenbrenner had the opportunity to meet the Falkland Islands Press at noon in the conference room at the Malvina House Hotel.

Not a fan of things US President Obama has done both domestically and in foreign policy, Congressman Sensenbrenner said he was concerned that Obamas recent statement about the Falklands was counter-productive in cooling the rhetoric coming from Argentina. If Argentina lives up to the spirit of the UN Charter that country would recognise the Falkland Islands spirit of self-determination. Their inconsistency would be of greater import in the United States and elsewhere. He hopes that the recent embarrassing assertions made by the Argentines have toned down and the rhetoric has cooled.

When asked by Mark Spruce of FITV whether trade between Argentina and the US would be affected if the US would side with Britain on the Falklands issue Congressman James Sensenbrenner, (R 5th Congressional District of Wisconsin) said that it would be up to the Argentines and that the US would trade with anybody. He went on to say that economic embargoes usually do not work, with the exception of the one against the apartheid government in South Africa which ended up by having a peaceful transition to a democratic government with majority rule. The Congressman does not envisage the United States doing anything unilaterally as a result of the issue of the Falklands.

Penguin News asked whether or not we have good governance the Congressman said that it was something for the Islanders to decide, rather than a foreigner claiming to be an expert having been here only two or three days. Having said that, he expressed the opinion that the Legislative Assembly was a combination of what a local Council would do and what a National Parliament would do. Usually matters relating to the quality of roads were dealt with by State governments but he feels the combination in the Falklands is very interesting.

Speeches on the motion to adjourn were not debatable in the House of Representatives, he said. It was instructive to him to hear the closing remarks and to hear a broader view of the complaints they were getting.

When you are in elected position you become an attraction for people who want to complain and not to give one a pat on the back and say, good job. He continued. He was amused by what the Hon Mr Gavin Short said about when you see the law being broken you should call the police and not a Member of Legislative Assembly.

Though he likes Sean Penn as an actor, Congressman Sensenbrenner feels that the man should keep out of focus his efforts on acting and not being an expert on foreign policy. Sean Penn decided which side he would be on without the benefit of hearing arguments on both sides. Congressman Sensenbrenner hopes that we would invite the actor to the Falklands and get an apology from him after having spent time here and understanding what the people think.

Its an efficient government, he said, but it has to be put in the context that after the war ended in 1982 there was nothing here in terms of governmental infrastructure or services to the public. That certainly has changed in the last 30 years as the Falkland Islanders themselves have built up their infrastructure, their democratic institutions because they had the freedom to do this.

Congressman Sensenbrenner feels that if the Governor comes to the United States that he has to make the point that he is NOT a colonial Governor but a Governor of a British Overseas Territory. There is a big difference between the two, he said. He went on to say that the general public in the US and the UK may not know the difference between the role of a pre-1982 Governor and a present day Governor.

Penguin News asked if the Image of the Falkland Islands would be clearer if we didnt have a Governor but just a diplomat?

Well, he is a diplomat, was the reply. I hope he would be judged outside the Falklands not on his title but on what he does, said the Congressman.

PN: it might be different if that were changed

FS: I think that should be decided in Whitehall and not in Washington.

Thus far Congressman Sensenbrenner has enjoyed his time in the Falklands. Half-way through his visit Mr Sensenbrenner has been to see several government departments as well as to Sea Lion Island where he saw Falklands wildlife up close and enjoyed the hospitality provided him by the Lodge and its Manager Ms Jenny Luxton. This afternoon he will be visiting the Education Department and the schools and he will visit the Falkland Islands Chamber of Commerce. On Friday a visit to Mount Pleasant Complex is planned.

http://www.falklandnews.com/public/s...=6185&source=3

Another guy who thinks that Sean Penn is a crock.

**Husar** · 02-29-2012, 17:03

Lol, congressman Sensenbrenner, or scytheburner, he's right though, and doesn't express himself like a crock either.

And thanks for the explanations, sounds more and more like it's Argentina that just keeps demanding the island and being aggressive, at first it sounded to me like both sides were being aggressive. Some of the aggressive comments here didn't help.

Sean Penn is entitled to his opinion though, as long as he doesn't blow anyone up over it.