Was this a silly colonial conflict more befitting the 19th Century, or was it in fact a stand against aggression, a message to predator nations around the world that people will in fact stand and fight back?.

The Falklands has always been a sore point btwn the Brits and the Argentines. Can you really blame Argentina for being mad? A imperialist power came along and stole their land back in the 1800's. Now that oil has been found in the region the tensions are going to increase. Now the reason why the 1982 war even happened was more because of the general maliase in the Argetine economy at the time, the dictators last stand. So really the war wasn't a decision made by the public it was a pusch for final glory. Argentina is not to be confused with a third rate country, it has a formidable military. Oddly enough the Argentines were going to buy the Harrier for her carrier just before the war started.

are you refering to the argentinians or the british? this could be said for both!

I knew you would reply Nico, good man, ( I assume I have guessed your gender correctly). this business of taking other people's land though, the Argentina of today declared independence from the Spanish Empire and then decided to 'claim' as it's own other area's claimed by Spain. The bottom line is that it dosn't matter if the Falkland Islands are 300 or 3000 miles from Argentina their claim on the Islands is no stronger than Great Britains, indeed many would argue that it is weaker.

The Channel islands are closer to France than England, yet France does not lay claim to them.

The gulf btwn the UK and the Falklands is so great that it's further away than India was. What economic value really is there for the UK anyways? What is the purpose of keeping the Falklands. The war in 1982 was a turning point in Latin American history it proved that a imperialist power could be defeated. The UK won but a cost, if the UK didn't have the harrier then the islands would have been Argentine. The UK was darn lucky that she had introduced the new carrier fleet, and she is even more lucky that Argentina kept back her carrier forces. And yes I am a man.

Ownership of the islands has long been disputed. In the 16th Century, the French were first to establish a claim by right of occupation, only to be expelled by Spain, which then ceded the Falklands to England. The islands remained unoccupied, however, and the English claim lapsed. Argentina gained independence from Spain in 1816 and moved to occupy the Falklands in 1820, but that settlement did not endure and the Argentinian claim similarly fell into abeyance. Finally, in 1833 the islands were settled by the British. Argentina nevertheless continued to argue that the Malvinas were Argentinian territory.

Argentinian dictatorship was collapsing and maliase saw the islands as an oppertunity to increase popularity, the irony is that in turn so did Magerate thatcher, since the conservative party was also losing popularity at the time. If britain hadn't defended the islands, peices of what remains as the empire would be being chipped off all over the place in this it provides a strong symbolic bearing. They knew there was strong posibilities for oil in the surrounding waters even then, it is also a strategic position for scientific research especially. Finally and most importantly the population of the islands did vote to remain under the UK through the UN principle of self-determination.

Originally posted by nico
What economic value really is there for the UK anyways? What is the purpose of keeping the Falklands.

there was no economic value to the UK ( then anyway ). There was no purpose in keeping the Falklands, EXCEPT, that 1,800 people who lived on the Islands, had been born on the islands, did not want to be become a province of Argentina. (Just how many people 'vanished' under the military junta?.) they were British, and were entitled to British protection if attacked.

They were attacked, they were invaded, they were violated, and in an action that in my opinion ranks alongside the 'Battle of Britain in 1940' Great Britain went to their defence and at the same time sent a message to all predator nations that aggession will be resisted.

As for the oil? Argentina is now a democracy so I think you will see a gentleman's agreement to share the assett's on a 50/50 basis. another conflict I think is not likely.

There was no purpose in keeping the Falklands, EXCEPT, that 1,800 people who lived on the Islands, had been born on the islands, did not want to be become a province of Argentina

I don't blame them, but geo-politics are against them. They are like Israeli settlers. They claim but in reality there is no real claim. Where I am from in Uruguay we have always had to deal with Argentine arrogance. But we scoff it off and laugh at them. We in Uruguay owe our existance to a large extent to the UK, and we thank you.

(Just how many people 'vanished' under the military junta?.)

Watch your tongue on this one, who supported those dictators? The US, France, and the UK. I have some choice words for that woman known as Thacther

They were attacked, they were invaded, they were violated, and in an action that in my opinion ranks alongside the 'Battle of Britain in 1940' Great Britain went to their defence and at the same time sent a message to all predator nations that aggession will be resisted.

You can't really compare because the UK was never in dispute, unlike the Falklands. The UK was defending her rather sad empire, the economic maliase in the UK was pretty bad if I am not correct during the time (I always watch Are you being served? HEHE).

As for the oil? Argentina is now a democracy so I think you will see a gentleman's agreement to share the assett's on a 50/50 basis. another conflict I think is not likely.

Argentina is coming back from a finicial meltdown, so we won't see another Falklands war, no. But this issue has to be resolved.


God-of

Finally and most importantly the population of the islands did vote to remain under the UK through the UN principle of self-determination.

I am pretty sure that the Scot's and Welsh would opt for that as well.
:)

Many may wonder why the Argentinians did not make a stronger attempt to sink the British fleet, after all, they could have easily sent numerous aircraft into the area, bombed the approaching fleet, and returned to refuel and reattack hours later whereas the Brits were half a world away.

I read in a book by Yergin that the reason was because the British, towards the end after having lost several aircraft and being increasing threatened, sent an ICBM nuclear submarine into the area and made clear their resolve to the Argentinians.

==

http://www.australiancurrentaffairs.net/

Even after all that's been said, I think it was rather stupid of the Argentines to even consider that they could succesfully invade the Falklands and defend against a superior British attack.

Originally posted by SLWK
Many may wonder why the Argentinians did not make a stronger attempt to sink the British fleet, after all, they could have easily sent numerous aircraft into the area, bombed the approaching fleet, and returned to refuel and reattack hours later whereas the Brits were half a world away.

I read in a book by Yergin that the reason was because the British, towards the end after having lost several aircraft and being increasing threatened, sent an ICBM nuclear submarine into the area and made clear their resolve to the Argentinians.

==

http://www.australiancurrentaffairs.net/


utter rubbish, the Argentine navy was kept in port because of the British Nuclear powered attack sumarines known to be in the Falkland waters ( Cruiser Belgrano 'sunk'). The British task force sensibly kept well away from the Argentine mainland, thus the argentine aircraft were always operating at extreme range,and they DID send numerous aircraft into the area, and numerous aircraft were shot down. San carlos water was known as 'Bomb alley' to the British and Death alley to the Argentine's.

The Argentine airforce was magnificent but they made an unbelievable basic error, they attacked the warships instead of the transport's.

the 'ICBM ' business is total poppycock

The British also needed to keep the Falklands because it was the nearest port of call for the UK bases in the Antarctic.

Originally posted by stu43t
The British also needed to keep the Falklands because it was the nearest port of call for the UK bases in the Antarctic.

Convenient for the Antartic but not vital, remember in 1982 the Falklands was made up of a number of sheep farms and nothing much more than that. no real facilities at all. Today of course it is another story, the Mount Pleasant air base with it's full facilities ( including a squadron of Tornado air defence fighters, Argentina take note.) makes the Falkland somewhat more than convienient for looking after British interests in the Antartic.

I read in a book by Yergin that the reason was because the British, towards the end after having lost several aircraft and being increasing threatened, sent an ICBM nuclear submarine into the area and made clear their resolve to the Argentinians.

I have also heard that said before as well. Don't forget that the Brits successfully attacked the Falklands with the Vulcan bombers and Buenos Aires was not safe from such a raid. The nuclear threat I have heard of.

Even after all that's been said, I think it was rather stupid of the Argentines to even consider that they could succesfully invade the Falklands and defend against a superior British attack.

Rambo, Argentina could have won the war. The Argentines are no second rate military here. They had the 25 de Mayo carrier that could have changed the balance of the war. If the Argentines destroyed the Fearless, and those other transports the war would have been won. The Argentines also had subs in the region as well, but they didn't fare well at all. I believe Type 209's.

aghart,
You know, in georgia you could now be legally assaulted by an argentinian in a bar :)

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
aghart,
You know, in georgia you could now be legally assaulted by an argentinian in a bar :)
South georgia?. explain please.

Perhaps I'm confusing Georgia (the US state, not the country) and Alabama here - but your last post would qualify as "fighting words" which are a legal defence against an assault charge in one of those two states. (And "fighting words" is the actual legal phrase too...)

Rambo, Argentina could have won the war. The Argentines are no second rate military here. They had the 25 de Mayo carrier that could have changed the balance of the war. If the Argentines destroyed the Fearless, and those other transports the war would have been won. The Argentines also had subs in the region as well, but they didn't fare well at all. I believe Type 209's.

That aircraft carrier like the rest of the Argentine fleet retreated to port after the Belgrano was sunk and never ventured out again. The British nuclear powered fleet submarines DID change the balance of the war. The Argentines DID NOT sink the Fearless.

Nico we have the IF's on the British side too. If the nearest 'seawolf' equipped ship had been 2 miles closer to the 'Atlantic Conveyor' the Exocet missile that sank her and her vital cargo of helicopters would have been shot down and the war would have ended at least 10 days earlier than it did. If the Rapier air defence missile batteries had been able to get rid of the 'gremlins' a little sooner argentine aircraft losses would have been much higher than they were.

Best to deal with facts rather than if's.

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
Perhaps I'm confusing Georgia (the US state, not the country) and Alabama here - but your last post would qualify as "fighting words" which are a legal defence against an assault charge in one of those two states. (And "fighting words" is the actual legal phrase too...)

Best not go there then. Thanks for the warning.

Best to deal with facts rather than if's.

MEOW! sorry Aghart, :eek: Just find it boring sometimes just reapeating history over and over again. Just to add some spice. Why don't we discuss Falklands 2002? Or 2012?

MEOW! sorry Aghart, :eek: Just find it boring sometimes just reapeating history over and over again. Just to add some spice. Why don't we discuss Falklands 2002? Or 2012? [/B][/QUOTE]

But the thread was originally was basically asking, was the UK right to react as she did.?.

Hello amigos:First of all LAS MALVINAS SON ARGENTINAS...

Segundo i want to tell how i arrive here to this forums,was by accident!!! i

was looking on the web about something else and then...

Tercero I really surprise that people are still interested to know about that war in

the ´82 because that thing touched to me very close , I´m from the north

of Argentina where most of the soldiers who went to the islands are from

there.Thing that we ever ask why the army of Galtieri (who was the president

in that time)recrutate the armies from the interior states for the front line

but the army from Buenos Aires (who most of the soldiers were sons of

people with economic power)stay in the continent.So this after a time we

realice a kind of discrimination,that means if you don´t have any kind of power

you must disappear.We the people from there we understand that the

countries of the first world make the same that the argentinian army made with

our friends,that colonizadores made to aborigenes all arround the world. In that time we already lived ten years of strong military repression, we were living in war,the war of the silence.It means if you express yourself against the government you had one bullet with your name.After twenty years in democracy Argentina has still been third world country in the psychoeconomic dimension(but the land is a paradise).When we started in democracy we believe we can be first world,but we didn´t know what it means first world...So when i meet with people of the first world i see that they need a lot of (material,thinkings,posession)things for survive,and in the same time a lot of people are dying in África,Sudamérica and also in the first world countries because economic systems are worst than other systems (MONEY PARALISES ALL SENSES)The way how democracy works is in the language of the money,so money is more important than you.
This twenty years ago we didn´t know but now the people of the third world is suffering how to get money,the people is learning wrong.And here a short comment why:The countries of the first world (especially U.S.)who are strong in the economy they offer lend money to small countries,money that they know the small countries will never can give back because they contrl the markets.So taxes always will blow the duty.
The war of Malvinas was a estrategic implantation of democracy,iniciated by Great Bretain,powered (in silence) by U.S.
The petrol also for them.

Interesting how this is brought up just now. I need some advice concerning the falkland islands. I am considering buying some real-estate thier and I want to know if it is secure. What i mean is, if the territory one day leaves british control, would my property be "reclaimed" or anything? btw, I am neither British nor Argentine. Also if anyone has some good info or websites on the current state of the islands I would appreciate it.

Hola blankc:From my side i cannot help you because i don´t understand about sale and buy.The only thing i can tell you that is a very beatifull land,and i don´t mean about you but a lot of people in Argentina they bought land there for make U.S.-business, the argent. goverment was seduced with dirty deals in the ´80,´90.They got places where indigenas live since long time,and you know what?this U.S. liers with the excuse of share "information"they use these lands for U.S.military operations.

Originally posted by blankc
Interesting how this is brought up just now. I need some advice concerning the falkland islands. I am considering buying some real-estate thier and I want to know if it is secure. What i mean is, if the territory one day leaves british control, would my property be "reclaimed" or anything? btw, I am neither British nor Argentine. Also if anyone has some good info or websites on the current state of the islands I would appreciate it.


Try this
www.falklandislands.com