[Old-old-Ivy]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/ma...=FBCNETTXT9038

Here we go again

[BoBoMasterDesign]

I wish Argentina would just shut up about the Falklands. The islanders wish to remain British and that should be end of it.

Why are they so desperate to get their dirty little mitts on them anyway? It's not the oil because that's only just recently been discovered, and they've been carping on about them for years.

[illignocearia]

Maybe the Argies buried tonnes of gold on an island that noone would want to live on before Spain took all of it? I have no idea.

[somamasoso]

The original falklands war, IIRC, was a move by the fascist government to take the people's minds of their dictatorship, with them thinking, for some reason, that they'd have the support of, I think, America.
Disn't work out then and I don't expect anything to change now - the island people want to remain British, Britain will continue to defend them as long as they wish to remain so (just like N Ireland) and with the reported fossile fuel reserves, I expect it to remain that way.
I think with Argentina there're two reasons, the oil and a stirring up of national pride.
As is, the main result of this is pissing of the islanders and britain and putting their international relations back a few years.

Perhaps, with the massive cutback in the British miliary since that war, they fancy their chances?

[addyta.org]

The original falklands war, IIRC, was a move by the fascist government to take the people's minds of their dictatorship, with them thinking, for some reason, that they'd have the support of, I think, America.

One could say almost the same in reverse. The Falklands war was intended to take feeble-minded British subjects' minds off an unpopular semi-fascist government at the nadir of British history by beating up on a weaker opponent.

[strmini]

It would be a lot more accurate, though, to say you've no idea what you're talking about - certainly in this thread

Try doing some research and get back to us.

[Cengaeas]

One could say almost the same in reverse. The Falklands war was intended to take feeble-minded British subjects' minds off an unpopular semi-fascist government at the nadir of British history by beating up on a weaker opponent.

Was it us who started it? No. It was Argentina who who took it upon themselves to invade another country's territory. I guess if Russia invaded Alaska you'd just let it happen and do nothing, huh?

[quack!]

One could say almost the same in reverse. The Falklands war was intended to take feeble-minded British subjects' minds off an unpopular semi-fascist government at the nadir of British history by beating up on a weaker opponent.

Argentina invaded the Falklands.

[mtvlover571]

Let them do what they want, they're still going to do complete toss in the Olympics like they did in 2008.

[elapicearpisp]

There isn't really anything Argentina can do to take the Islands back. They don't have the military might and they don't have political backing. Many of the S American countries are starting to distance themselves from Argentina on this issue. They are even trying to get help from Spain by backing them on the Gibraltar issue, but Spain have their own problems and I can't see them wanting to do too much to piss off the UK at the moment in case they need a bailout.

The UK is in a unique position compared to a lot of the other old colonial powers in that they still own a lot of places like this around the world. But I think we have got to the point in history where you can't fight wars over land anymore.

[Pipindula]

There isn't really anything Argentina can do to take the Islands back. They don't have the military might and they don't have political backing. Many of the S American countries are starting to distance themselves from Argentina on this issue. They are even trying to get help from Spain by backing them on the Gibraltar issue, but Spain have their own problems and I can't see them wanting to do too much to piss off the UK at the moment in case they need a bailout.

The UK is in a unique position compared to a lot of the other old colonial powers in that they still own a lot of places like this around the world. But I think we have got to the point in history where you can't fight wars over land anymore.

Actually there is a lot they can do, especially now that we have no aircraft carrier. The islands are prime for invasion, it is impossible to defend them without a carrier.

[wentscat]

Argentina invaded the Falklands.

And Britain invaded the Falklands in 1833.

Britain was one of history's most violent colonizing empires. After the lingering humiliation of the Suez crisis and Thatcher's 20 percent approval ratings, the British government needed a propaganda victory as badly as the Argentinian junta.

The war could have been resolved through diplomacy and decolonization, but Thatcher chose to save her skin by launching a poorly managed and unnecessary war over a tiny island 8000 miles away and of no economic importance. After Britain torpedoed the Belgrano (40 miles outside the British exclusion zone), the meager Argentinian navy managed to sink two British frigates, two destroyers and a container ship containing six out of ten Wessex and three out of the four Chinook helicopters needed to break British forces out of the beachhead. The British government was desperate for a morale-boasting victory and, over the objections of military commanders, chose a ground attack against Goose Green that served no strategic purpose. It was a blunder fought for political reasons that cost the lives of 15 2nd battalion soldiers, including its adjunct and commanding officer. Goose Green, like the Falklands War, was a pointless exercise in political propaganda.

The British have a habit for portraying near-defeats as if they were heroic victories. For a more objective account of the war, I highly recommend Max Hasting's The Battle of the Falklands.

Argentina is no longer under the rule of a junta and their economy is booming. Their sovereignty claims on the Falklands are legitimate. There will come a day when Argentina may decide to retake the island, only this time, there will be nothing Britain can do about it.

It would be a lot more accurate, though, to say you've no idea what you're talking about - certainly in this thread

Try doing some research and get back to us.

I doubt sincerely there is any subject in British or European history that you have studied with as much depth as I have.

[Yinekol]

Actually there is a lot they can do, especially now that we have no aircraft carrier. The islands are prime for invasion, it is impossible to defend them without a carrier.

But their aircraft are pretty much at the same level as the 1980s, at least we have more modern stuff and anti-air on the Island. Plus if the worse happened, I guess we would have to run missions from a French carrier (like we did in Libya).

[Annewsded]

And Britain invaded the Falklands in 1833.

Britain was one of history's most violent colonizing empires. After the lingering humiliation of the Suez crisis and Thatcher's 20 percent approval ratings, the British government needed a propaganda victory as badly as the Argentinian junta.

The war could have been resolved through diplomacy and decolonization, but Thatcher chose to save her skin by launching a poorly managed and unnecessary war over a tiny island 8000 miles away and of no economic importance. After Britain torpedoed the Belgrano (40 miles outside the British exclusion zone), the meager Argentinian navy managed to sink two British frigates, two destroyers and a container ship containing six out of ten Wessex and three out of the four Chinook helicopters needed to break British forces out of the beachhead. The British government was desperate for a morale-boasting victory and, over the objections of military commanders, chose a ground attack against Goose Green that served no strategic purpose. It was a blunder fought for political reasons that cost the lives of 15 2nd battalion soldiers, including its adjunct and commanding officer. Goose Green, like the Falklands War, was a pointless exercise in political propaganda.

The British have a habit for portraying near-defeats as if they were heroic victories. For a more objective account of the war, I highly recommend Max Hasting's The Battle of the Falklands.

Argentina is no longer under the rule of a junta and their economy is booming. Their sovereignty claims on the Falklands are legitimate. There will come a day when Argentina may decide to retake the island, only this time, there will be nothing Britain can do about it.



I doubt sincerely there is any subject in British or European history that you have studied with as much depth as I have.

You don't know what you're talking about. I say again WE did not star the war, Argentina did.

How are their claims "legitimate"? When the UK gained possession of the Falklands Argentina didn't even exist as a country.

The General Belgrano was an enemy vessel and so was a legitimate target. Even the Argentinians have accepted this. The exclusion zone was for neutral vessels.

I ask again, if a foreign power invaded Alaska would you expect your government to stand by and do nothing?

[Meerenuch]

You don't know what you're talking about. I say again WE did not star the war, Argentina did.

Actually, Britain chose to respond in a fight it could have easily ignored. Britain had already decolonized many of its former possessions preceding the war, and several Tory ministers had been open to ceding the island to Argentina anyway. It would have been less costly to repatriate any Islanders who wanted to remain British subjects. The decision to retaliate was Thatcher's, and 255 British servicemen died so that she could get a 10 percent poll boost. Both sides handled the situation poorly.

How are their claims "legitimate"? When the UK gained possession of the Falklands Argentina didn't even exist as a country. Argentina was independent before 1833.

The General Belgrano was an enemy vessel and so was a legitimate target. Even the Argentinians have accepted this. The exclusion zone was for neutral vessels. You miss the point. Given its location, the Belgrano did not pose a military threat to the British fleet yet Thatcher claimed it posed an immediate threat and its sinking was hailed as a heroic victory in the press. Rather than concentrate British naval forces on targets of tactical value, critical time was wasted on political theater. This underscores the tendency for British politicians to distort actual fact in war for political ends.

I ask again, if a foreign power invaded Alaska would you expect your government to stand by and do nothing? I'm not aware of any foreign power that claims territorial sovereignty over Alaska. Furthermore, Alaska is a US state, not a colonial possession gained through violence.

[grofvuri]

You don't know what you're talking about. I say again WE did not star the war, Argentina did.

How are their claims "legitimate"? When the UK gained possession of the Falklands Argentina didn't even exist as a country.

The General Belgrano was an enemy vessel and so was a legitimate target. Even the Argentinians have accepted this. The exclusion zone was for neutral vessels.

I ask again, if a foreign power invaded Alaska would you expect your government to stand by and do nothing?

I doubt he'll ever admit to any contrary viewpoints, Bungle, especially when he's wrong.
Alaska isn't that good an example, as it was bought, not won by 'conquest'.
A better example would be Spain* sending a military force to puerto Rico and claiming it as a Spanish colony.

According to Wiki', Argentina was 'founded' in 1412. That's when Christopher Colombus arrived to America and "found" it. "Argentina" declared the independence from Spain in 1816, and the first constitution was established in 1853.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Argentina

Seems, if anything, the Dutch may have the best claim -
"Controversy exists as to who first discovered the Falkland Islands, with competing Portuguese, Spanish, and British claims in the 16th century.[13][14] While Amerindians from Patagonia could have visited the Falklands,[15] the islands were uninhabited when discovered by Europeans.[16] The first reliable sighting is usually attributed to the Dutch explorer Sebald de Weert in 1600, who named the archipelago the Sebald Islands, a name they bore on Dutch maps into the 19th century.[17]"
Regardless, it would certainly seem the discovery of the islands pre-dated the existence of Argentina as a country and was around the time when the mainland was still a Spanish colony.

[source] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands


Spara', how are you on the Highland clearances? With your alleged French background, I'm not surprised you see surrender of a country's legal territories and abandoning it's citizens as the preferred option.

[edit] Spara', the difference is that the colonies had the chance to vote for their own independence, the Falkland Islanders DID NOT wish to be anything other than a British territory and certainly did NOT wish it to be allied by a foreign country on them - that you cannot grasp this basic difference says a lot about you!

[IoninnyHaro]

The Falklands are not like some African Colony where the native people no longer want to be ruled by a European power. It is a group of Islands where the majority want to be a part of the UK. Now if this wasn't true, I would agree that the UK should give them over to Argentina.

But the fact of the matter is, land has changed hands so much over the last few thousand years, there has to be a point where we stop going over old victories and losses. Otherwise we will forever be handing land back to each other (the US would look very different for one thing) As far as I am concerned, we would have no more right to asking for the Isle of White if it was still part of France and the majority living there were French, than Argentina thinking they have a right to the Falklands.

[JeffStewart]

Actually, Britain chose to respond in a fight it could have easily ignored.

Um, why should we have ignored it? A foreign power invaded our territory. They needed to be kicked out, which is what we did. Britain had already decolonized many of its former possessions preceding the war, and several Tory ministers had been open to ceding the island to Argentina anyway. It would have been less costly to repatriate any Islanders who wanted to remain British subjects. You don't get it do you. ALL the islander wish to remain British. You're talking about forcibly removing the entire population of the Falklands. I thought the people of your country were supposed to be all for self-determination and people's rights. It seems the only rights you're interested in are your own. The decision to retaliate was Thatcher's, and 255 British servicemen died so that she could get a 10 percent poll boost. Both sides handled the situation poorly. Argentina handled it badly by mounting in invasion of UK territory. You miss the point. Given its location, the Belgrano did not pose a military threat to the British fleet yet Thatcher claimed it posed an immediate threat and its sinking was hailed as a heroic victory in the press. Rather than concentrate British naval forces on targets of tactical value, critical time was wasted on political theater. This underscores the tendency for British politicians to distort actual fact in war for political ends. It was an enemy military vessel in a time of war, that made it a threat. The captain of the Belgrano has stated the attack was legitimate, as did the Argentine government in 1994.

You're talking about the "Gotcha" headline? No one here though that was good idea....no one with any intelligence that is.

I'm not aware of any foreign power that claims territorial sovereignty over Alaska. You miss the point. Say Russia decided it wanted Alaska back, and then mounted an invasion. Would you, or would you not, expect the US government to do something about it? Furthermore, Alaska is a US state, So? It's still nowhere near the rest of the US, nor a physical part its parent country, which seems to be the sole things you base your opinion of the Falklands on. not a colonial possession gained through violence. The whole of the United States was gained through violence. Why don't you ask the native Americans about that...or at least what's left of them.

[betraaaus]

You don't get it do you. ALL the islander wish to remain British.

All of the ethnically British, English speaking Islanders want to remain British subjects? Shocking.

You're talking about forcibly removing the entire population of the Falklands. I never said a word about forcibly removing anyone. Those who wish to retain British citizenship can apply for relocation to the UK at your government's expense, or apply for residency status with Argentina.

Argentina handled it badly by mounting in invasion of UK territory. The British first gained the Falkland Islands through forced naval coercion. What goes around, comes around.

I suggest you do some reading. Regardless of what you think about Argentina's territorial claims, the Falkland war was a political farce and ineptly planned.

You miss the point. Say Russia decided it wanted Alaska back, and then mounted an invasion. Would you, or would you not, expect the US government to do something about it? So? It's still nowhere near the rest of the US, nor a physical part its parent country, which seems to be the sole things you base your opinion of the Falklands on. The whole of the United States was gained through violence. Why don't you ask the native Americans about that...or at least what's left of them. It's bad enough you're mangling British history, don't do it to American history. The US legally purchased Alaska from Russia. Had we invaded Russia and taken it by force and left it sparsely populated and underdeveloped with just a few colonists, Russia might have a case for reclaiming it. Also, the treatment of Native Americans is regarded as a disgrace by every American. They have autonomous reservations, and I wouldn't necessarily oppose granting independent statehood to native american territories if the remaining tribes so desired.

[paratayoma]

All of the ethnically British, English speaking Islanders want to remain British subjects? Shocking.

There isn't anyone else there.

I never said a word about forcibly removing anyone. Those who wish to retain British citizenship can apply for relocation to the UK at your government's expense, or apply for residency status with Argentina. Um yes you did. You said we should "repatriate" everyone who wishes to remain British. Since that's everyone on the islands, and that they don't want to leave, nor do they wish to be ruled by Argentina, how else would you do it but forcibly?

And why should we pay for it? It's Argentina that wants them gone.

The British first gained the Falkland Islands through forced naval coercion. What goes around, comes around. And how was every single country in North and South America formed? That's right, outsiders came in, took over, and obliterated the indigenous population. Can you say "hypocrites".

It's bad enough you're mangling British history, don't do it to American history. The US legally purchased Alaska from Russia. Had we invaded Russia and taken it by force and left it sparsely populated and underdeveloped with just a few colonists, Russia might have a case for reclaiming it. I think you know exactly the point I'm trying to make. If US territory was invaded by a foreign power, regardless of how it was come by originally, would you expect the US government to tale action? Yes or no?

Also, the treatment of Native Americans is regarded as a disgrace by every American. They have autonomous reservations, and I wouldn't necessarily oppose granting independent statehood to native american territories if the remaining tribes so desired. And yet you (people of European origin) are still there and running things. Why don't we "repatriate" all the people of European origin in the United States and give it back to its rightful owners, namely the native Americans?