Falklands

Remove all ads!

I see pretty much everybody jumping on my side. What are you reading?

Argentina didn't exist as a nation when we took the islands, they belonged to the Spanish. And the islands were uninhabited when Europeans first settled there. Argentina claim the islands by ASSOCIATION with the Spanish, and proximity alone. Read up, it's all available on the internet. I'll even provide a link to help you if you like - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17045169

But then you're another who doesn't seem to like to become informed about something before jumping in, so I'll provide the important but in quote...

Argentina have no legitimate claim to the islands. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
However, I think ALL of that is a moot point. See all the posts in the thread about self-determination. Argentina don't have a single leg to stand on as the islanders themselves want to remain British, that alone means this should all end.

I know my posting style in this thread might be getting your back up, but that doesn't change the fact I'm right. The only reason I'm being so unyielding is because I know I'm right.

 

Is (or was) there a native population on the Falklands - Argentinian or otherwise? I was under the impression that it was uninhabited at the time of its discovery. That alone would not be sufficient proof for an ownership claim - we aren't about to give native American lands back to their original owners - but at least I could then see why they would attempt to lay claim to them.

It is true that the British are typically not credited with the discovery of the islands. I thought it was discovered by a Dutch ship, but hell if I can remember they guy's name, or if he was even Dutch for that matter. That said, these colonial islands exchanged hands countless times over the years, and while the Caribbean is probably the best example of this, I'm sure the same holds true in the Falklands.

As the saying goes, ownership is 90% of the law. If it were the Brits who colonized it, the Brits that govern and protect it, and the people living themselves considered themselves and wish to remain British, I can't see the sense in the debate. It's not like the Falklands are this resource-rich piece of land that would represent an economic boon for Argentina. It really does seem to me that a large part of the claim the Argentinians have is based on their proximity. It's like if Cuba claimed Puerto Rico on the basis of them being closer. We'd tell them to piss off, and I don't see why this should be any different.

 

The islands were uninhabited at the time when they were first found.

Loads of undersea oil reserves have been found near the islands, and Britain are mining it. Apparently the company doing the mining are predicting 120,000 barrels of oil per day from it by 2018. The Argies are whining louder now because they think they'll lose 'their share'.

+ the first known landing on the Falklands was a British guy called John Strong, who named them after the Viscount Falkland, hence the name.

 

I know they weren't a nation when Britian "claimed" the islands. But what right did they have to claim it back after they deserted it for years and the Argentines moved in during the 1800s. Or what right would the Spanish have for that matter. Here's the answer. A bigger army in those days is what backed the right to the Brit claim. In a today's world, Argentina is hoping that type claim won't hold. I think they will get nowhere with that line of thinking, but I understand their point of view and hopes. You can post quotes all you want, but think outside the box and from their point of view. Some of us are willing to, even if we don't agree with them.

That I don't understand the need for... being informed and still coming to a different conclussion than your opinion should be totally acceptable in this type of forum, no need for the harsh words.

That I do understand my friend....

---------- Added 0 hours, 3 minutes and 40 seconds later... ----------

On point, the Dutch claim to have discovered it 90 yrs prior....

"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.[16]

 

I think it's the distinction between sighting and landing which is the important point. It all gets a bit petty when you start looking at angles like that. I mean, using that logic everyone in the USA should apologise to the native American's and move out. Then we'd have to do the same with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa...

The Falklands were empty when Europeans discovered them, they didn't oust any indigenous population (even if there was one, it wasn't "Argentine" as the country is descended from Iberians AND locals, the power base was not with the tribal relatives mind) and the Argentines have never succeeded in establishing a long term occupation of the islands themselves, in fact they've remained unoccupied post-European colonialism longer than they ever have been part of Argentina, who baring in mind are just laying claim to Spain's claims who they declared independence from in the first place.

Whether we put the current inhabitants there or not, they have been there for centuries and their wishes outweigh "proximity". If the Falklands didn't have such wonderful resources around them, the Argentine's wouldn't be scouring for any claim they can find to own them, it may have started back in the 19th century about Spanish claims etc, but it continues because of the mine able resources and that is it.

Those that live there don't want anything to do with Argentina, despite being much closer to them. Until that changes, it shouldn't even be up for debate. There isn't a diplomatic compromise to be made, Argentina want the islands, those that live there do not wish to leave the control of the UK. What compromise could be made? That we give them the oil and we keep the islands? Would Argentina ever agree to that as it would not exactly help them keep face after so much whining over the islands themselves.

As for the other South American nations supporting it, why is it surprising that a) The former Spanish colonies back a countries claims to FORMER Spanish claims, which they rely on for their own boundries and b) the countries nearest one another, who require relations to remain cordial, do not insult anybody. They have little to gain for backing the UK, but plenty to lose for stabbing their neighbours in the back politically

 

IMHO, screw diplomacy. I don't understand why people expect the UK to just sit around and do nothing when the Argentinians are dabre rattling. The Argentinians proved a few decades ago that they were willing to invade -- are the British supposed to just ignore history? If the Argentinians do invade the Falklands again, the UK has EVERY right to mount a defense. Screw "keeping good relations with Argentina" -- those relations would be just fine if the Argentinians would just STFU about the islands.

It's not undue provocation to remind them that they got their posteriors served to them the last time they started this crap, and that they will likely face the same fate if they continue to behave like imbeciles.

I don't understand why people advocate letting someone walk all over you, and then say "oh, don't YOU break the peace, oh, no, go through diplomatic channels!" It's the same thing with the Occupy pieces of crap. They should have been allowed to make their point for about a week, and after that, they should have all been arrested and sent to the work farms, or just imprisoned. Toleration of stupidity merely encourages more of it. The Argentinian stupidity demonstrated here needs to be dealt with swiftly and decisively, as they have little to no claim on the islands, and certainly not anything approaching the claim the UK holds. The population has made its feelings clear, and therefore Sean Penn and his ilk should just go <insert incredibly nasty sodomitic physiological impossibility here>.

 

No ... he's Sean f*cking Penn, LKD ... he was in Dead Man Walking. He knows the score. It's like Tom Cruise and anti-depression meds: he studied that sh*t, and he was in Minority Report, War of the Worlds, and MI3. He knows what the hell he's talking about.

 

Was it Argentina who started sabre rattling first or was it Britain who announced placement of the most sophisticated weapon system in the world and subsequent deployment of a major leader figure to the region? I really don't know. I wouldn't put it past either side to have been the instigator in this.

IMO Argentina has no right to invade (nor did they in 1982) but they do have a right to be concerned about a military build up so close to their borders and they have a right to be concerned about the drilling in the oceans off their coast. Their complaint to the UN is certainly justified in wanting a reduction in the militarization of the region (but I would hope the UN will ignore the complaint -- except perhaps to remind the British about the nuclear weapon exclusion around South America).

Thanks for the message Barmy -- my return swipe in my last post was uncalled for and I apologize.

 

This is bringing scenes from Team America: World Police to mind.

 

They're more patriotic about Britain that we are!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102552/Pride-Britain-Falkland-Islanders-stage-4x4-convoy-tell-Sean-Penn-stick-views.html




The map without Argentina on is hilarious.

 

Those cars -look- British.

 

But Sean Penn knows better than the islanders. He also knows better than the international lawyers who have determined that the Falklands are FAR outside Argentina's territorial waters. What a tool. He clearly doesn't have the decency to admit when he's wrong.

 

We disagree often because you're wrong more often than not.

You make it sound as if the "Argies" inflicted those 258 killed and 775 wounded on Britain by sheer accident. Just like they must have sunk Sheffield, Coventry, Ardent, Antelope and Atlantic Conveyor by sheer luck. Probably they mistook them for fishing boats.

Not the case. They fought bravely in the air, at a technological disadvantage (i.e. they didn't have those US supplied sidewinder missiles). They were ill led. That was so especially at land. Circumstances favoured Britain. Britain was also lucky.

Don't swagger like a jingoist. Give enemies their due.

 

I'm not sure how luck comes into it? Our army and technology was just better, that's not luck.

These are the figures from the last war...

649 killed 258 killed
1,068 wounded 775 wounded
11,313 taken prisoner 115 taken prisoner
---------
1 cruiser 2 destroyers
1 submarine 2 frigates
4 cargo vessels 1 LSL landing ship
2 patrol boats 1 LCU amphibious craft
1 spy trawler 1 container ship
---------
25 helicopters 24 helicopters
35 fighters 10 fighters
2 bombers
4 transports
25 COIN aircraft
9 armed trainers

That's a tonking in anyones book. The figures would have been even more one-sided had Argentina not caught us by surprise with the junta invasion (a mistake we're not about to let happen again). The gap in military has only widended since 1982 despite the cut-backs we've made on our armed forces, which is why I'm 99.99% sure all this noise is not going to come to war.

 

Geography had a lot to do with it. By the time the Argentinian fighters got on station they had ~3 minutes of fuel before needing to turn around -- more importantly they could not use afterburners at all during their flight or they would not make it back. The inability to refuel in-flight was a serious weakness of the Argentine force. Once you really examine those two factors I guess you would have to have to vote for arrogance and stupidity over luck.

I'm not sure who the last four of your list belonged to, but I assume Argentina. But even with those that's not a "tonking" -- if you want to see a "tonking" look at the differences in casualties in the Soviet-Afganistan war. The British didn't even 'rout' Argentina, they just barely won (which is enough in any book). In fact, the world was surprised at the beating the British took (everyone expected them to totally dominate every engagement and it simply didn't happen).

Unfortunately, the British Navy really took a black eye in the Falklands. It took their reputation years to recover.

 

LOL, those very words show a level of arrogance lacking any intelligent argument.

Im not talking about the last conflict, Britain wasn't prepared for the last invasion - infact, contrary to belief the UK wasn't much more advanced then the Argentinians weapons at the time of the conflict, Their anti ship weapons were very effective and Britian was still deploying outdated radar infact the British ships coult not detect Exocet missiles until they were only seconds from impact and the planes were only very rarely detected, Britain was notorious for not upgrading its ships. Likewise our aircraft only had 1 advantage during the conflict, VTOL, in actual fact Harriers are no match for the much faster and more maneuverable franch planes which the Argentinians used in the conflict, the only downside for the Argentinians was that they needed long runways to take off and land, so they couldn't be deployed from the Islands themselves as Port Stanley had short runways T2 is completly right, the Argentinians suffered because of poor preperation from that regard and the Royal navy was only able to turn the conflict when our ships finally arrived as the confict was actually a suprise to Britiain, who didnt even know about the argentinian attack until after the islands had been taken.

Today however, The RAF has a flight group of Typhoons stationed on the island along with a tanker to refuel in the air, 2 Sea King helecopters with airbourne early warning systems (Airborne Surveillance and Control Mk.7) (the lack of any such system cost the British in the first war (as I mentioned above)). The ground is defended by the Rapier anti air missile system along with 2000 millitary personel. The navy has just deployed one of the most advanced ships on the planet in the area and that is supported from the island by a joint communications unit specialising in electronic warfare and a submarine has been spotted in the area late last year.

That is an impressive defence attachment, if I were a Falkland islander I would sleep well at night.

 

We killed nearly 3 Argentines for every dead British soldier... ? If I got in a fight and took down 3 guys before I went down, I'd consider I'd done pretty well!

 

Body count isn't always everything, man .

 

Spoken like a true Slavic

 

The numbers are so small they're basically meaningless (except to the families). The sinking of the General Belgrano accounted for half the body count. The Argentine ground forces basically inflicted one-to-one losses against the Royal Marines and British Army.

Granted, that the British did one-to-one against a semi-entrenched opponent is impressive. Although compare that to the soviet-afghan war -- soviets had 14,500 casualties compared to an estimated 2,000,000 afghan casualties. That's nearly 140 to one loss ratio ... that's a 'tonking.'