Falklands - is it going to kick off again?

[Gatecrasher]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/17/argentina-steps-up-falkands-oil-row

[steakbake]

Basically, no.

Britain is already well overstretched in Afghanistan and Argentina no longer has an expansionist dictator at the helm.

[Gatecrasher]

Basically, no.

Britain is already well overstretched in Afghanistan and Argentina no longer has an expansionist dictator at the helm.



i hope not, but this has been building up for a while now.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Would winning a war over there win Brown the election?

[Beefster]

Would winning a war over there win Brown the election?

Yup probably.

If Brown, Campbell, Mandy Mandelson and co are as cynical as they're made out to be, they should be milking this for all it's worth to make Brown look tough and statesmanlike.

A quick slap down to Argentina in the next month or two would do wonders for his image in middle England.

[number 27]

Would winning a war over there win Brown the election?


I think they would be far more likely to make a complete :asshole:of it, and hand Cameron the election on a plate in the most humiliating way.

[Tinyclothes]

We should send Simon Weston out there by himself, kind of like Rambo, to sort out the Argies if they're getting a bit noisy.

[steakbake]

Maybe it's my complete lack of understanding of international politics or lack of patriotism or whatever, but lets say for example the Argentinians owned Benbecula and they found huge mineral wealth underneath it, how do you think our newspapers, populist media and politicians might handle it?

[Tinyclothes]

Maybe it's my complete lack of understanding of international politics or lack of patriotism or whatever, but lets say for example the Argentinians owned Benbecula and they found huge mineral wealth underneath it, how do you think our newspapers, populist media and politicians might handle it?

Fair question mate. do you think the Argies should have ownership of the Falklands due to the proximity (300 miles) to South America? Or should we keep rule as that's what the Islanders want?

I'm not so sure where I stand on this but I don't I know I don't want lives to be lost over it.

[steakbake]

Well thats the point. Its up to the islanders who they want to be in this day and age. It could very well be that upon exploration of their mineral wealth, they don't fancy being either Argentinian or British! (Though I suspect they will prefer being defended by the UK and therefore part of it).

The point I was maybe getting at is how it would be treated as an issue in public debate by the nearest country. I would imagine if the Argentinians owned Benbecula, we'd be kicking up a right fuss about it, regardless of what the Benbeculans wanted. The Daily Mail would have a field day.

[CropleyWasGod]

Fair question mate. do you think the Argies should have ownership of the Falklands due to the proximity (300 miles) to South America? Or should we keep rule as that's what the Islanders want?

I'm not so sure where I stand on this but I don't I know I don't want lives to be lost over it.

Call me a reactionary old cynic, but would it really matter to the Government (of any colour) what the residents wanted if there was no oil or gas?

Independence for the sheep, I say.

[marinello59]

Argentina aren't looking to re-take the Falklands here. They will push hard for a decent cut of potential oil revenue and one way or another, deals will be done.

[CropleyWasGod]

Argentina aren't looking to re-take the Falklands here. They will push hard for a decent cut of potential oil revenue and one way or another, deals will be done.

... which, of course, should have been the way it was back in 1982.

But, then you had on one side, a reactionary right-wing dictatorship eager to give its people some sort of nationalist pride back.....

... and, on the other, you had General Galtieri. :greengrin

[Tinyclothes]

... which, of course, should have been the way it was back in 1982.

But, then you had on one side, a reactionary right-wing dictatorship eager to give its people some sort of nationalist pride back.....

... and, on the other, you had General Galtieri. :greengrin

I don't think the dispute was over oil back in 82, I think the Argies actually moved in to take over the land. I think the discovery of oil is relectively new. I could be wrong though.

[Betty Boop]

... which, of course, should have been the way it was back in 1982.

But, then you had on one side, a reactionary right-wing dictatorship eager to give its people some sort of nationalist pride back.....

... and, on the other, you had General Galtieri. :greengrin

:agree: :greengrin

[IndieHibby]

So some of you think that Maggie should have left the Falklanders to their fate with Argentina, eh?

Remind me, which planet are you from?

[CropleyWasGod]

I don't think the dispute was over oil back in 82, I think the Argies actually moved in to take over the land. I think the discovery of oil is relectively new. I could be wrong though.

That is what it was dressed up as, sure. But it wasn't long afterwards that the whole mineral thing became apparent. I have long been convinced that that was the underlying reason for the war.

The only reason it wasn't made more of, IMO, is that the geographical isolation of the Falklands made it less attractive to potential developers.

---------- Post added at 12:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 PM ----------


So some of you think that Maggie should have left the Falklanders to their fate with Argentina, eh?

Remind me, which planet are you from?

Nobody has said that:confused:

[tony higgins]

So some of you think that Maggie should have left the Falklanders to their fate with Argentina, eh?

Remind me, which planet are you from?

Lets be honest, we all know if the locals had been a different race it would have been, Adios Amigo.

[IndieHibby]

Forgive me, I have mis-interpreted the criticism of the government at the time as doubt in the validity of the conflict.

How should the government have dealt with the invading forces?

[IndieHibby]

Lets be honest, we all know if the locals had been a different race it would have been, Adios Amigo.

So the Falklands war happened because Falklanders were white British?

Surely it was because they are just British? (given that Brits are white, black, asian etc.)

[IndieHibby]

The only reason it wasn't made more of, IMO, is that the geographical isolation of the Falklands made it less attractive to potential developers.


It is oil we are talking about here, right? Or have I got it wrong? (nothing unusual there :wink:)

[khib70]

Lets be honest, we all know if the locals had been a different race it would have been, Adios Amigo.
Oh, we all know that, do we? Er....no we don't because it's meaningless, hypothetical, paranoid garbage. Friends of mine died in that conflict, so I don't have any kind of rose-tinted view of it. However, that kind of statement is just ignorant garbage.

[Tinyclothes]

Oh, we all know that, do we? Er....no we don't because it's meaningless, hypothetical, paranoid garbage. Friends of mine died in that conflict, so I don't have any kind of rose-tinted view of it. However, that kind of statement is just ignorant garbage.

I think tonyhiggins meant, or at least the way I understood it, was that if they hadn't been Brits we wouldn't have intervened. Not if they hadn't been white we wouldn't have intervened. Am I right Tonyhiggins?

Either way it doesn't really have any relevance to what was said before it.

[steakbake]

... which, of course, should have been the way it was back in 1982.

But, then you had on one side, a reactionary right-wing dictatorship eager to give its people some sort of nationalist pride back.....

... and, on the other, you had General Galtieri. :greengrin

:thumbsup: very good.

[CropleyWasGod]

It is oil we are talking about here, right? Or have I got it wrong? (nothing unusual there :wink:)

Oil and gas, I believe.

And, as for how it should have been dealt with? Ok, remembering that hindsight is a wonderful thing....

IMO more heed should have been taken of Al Haig, the US ?Secretary of State? who was flying about like a maddo trying to prevent war and come to a diplomatic solution.

However, the Tory Government was not very popular at the time, and this war fell right into their lap. The chance to whip up some nationalistic fervour (and, IMO, to safeguard the minerals) was just too good to be true. .

[RyeSloan]

Oil and gas, I believe.

And, as for how it should have been dealt with? Ok, remembering that hindsight is a wonderful thing....

IMO more heed should have been taken of Al Haig, the US ?Secretary of State? who was flying about like a maddo trying to prevent war and come to a diplomatic solution.

However, the Tory Government was not very popular at the time, and this war fell right into their lap. The chance to whip up some nationalistic fervour (and, IMO, to safeguard the minerals) was just too good to be true. .


Wrong, it was the Argentinians that were determined to take the Island to whip up their nationalistic fervour. Britain's response prior to that had been very low key with the belief that military action was not probable, grand total of one artic survey ship I think...once the Argentinians had invaded in the way they did there was absolutely zero chance of a negotiated settlement despite the USA's efforts.

There is also plenty of evidence that the Argentinians had actually planned a 'soft' takeover where they would gain a foothold on the islands (through small industry etc) and grow their influence over the islands and go from there but Galtieri and his cronies ignored what would probably have been a succesful plan to go for the gung ho approach....

The book that recalls the raid by the Vulcan on the airstrip covers this in excellent detail and should be read by anyone with an interest in the Falklands war, Britiains military reaction and the reasons behind it.

[IndieHibby]

So defending British people, who wished (and wish) to remain British and not become 2nd class citizens under the Argentinian military dictatorship, was just a secondary by-product?

By such logic, it would follow that, should there have been no mineral wealth and/or the government was riding the crest of a wave of public approval, there would have been no conflict and the Falklanders would have been left to rot?

I don't buy it. Plenty British people would have demanded that they be defended.

[p.s. - didn't the Americans have their own agenda?]

[CropleyWasGod]

Wrong, it was the Argentinians that were determined to take the Island to whip up their nationalistic fervour. Britain's response prior to that had been very low key with the belief that military action was not probable, grand total of one artic survey ship I think...once the Argentinians had invaded in the way they did there was absolutely zero chance of a negotiated settlement despite the USA's efforts.

There is also plenty of evidence that the Argentinians had actually planned a 'soft' takeover where they would gain a foothold on the islands (through small industry etc) and grow their influence over the islands and go from there but Galtieri and his cronies ignored what would probably have been a succesful plan to go for the gung ho approach....

The book that recalls the raid by the Vulcan on the airstrip covers this in excellent detail and should be read by anyone with an interest in the Falklands war, Britiains military reaction and the reasons behind it.

Not doubting at all your knowledge of the history of what happened beforehand. What i am saying is that the Tories jumped at the chance of what they saw as a chance to get the British peoiple back on their side.

I agree that, in those cirumstances, there was little chance of a negotiated settlement, but the question was what "should" have happened.

[CropleyWasGod]

So defending British people, who wished (and wish) to remain British and not become 2nd class citizens under the Argentinian military dictatorship, was just a secondary by-product?

By such logic, it would follow that, should there have been no mineral wealth and/or the government was riding the crest of a wave of public approval, there would have been no conflict and the Falklanders would have been left to rot?

I don't buy it. Plenty British people would have demanded that they be defended.

[p.s. - didn't the Americans have their own agenda?]

Not quite what I am saying. In other circumstances, I think there would have been more chance of a negotiated settlement. Not saying that it wouldn't have come to military action eventually, but there might have been more talking first.

Americans? Agenda? Whatever do you mean? :rolleyes:

[Jack]

The History


Although first sighted by an English navigator in 1592, the first landing (English) did not occur until almost a century later in 1690, and the first settlement (French) was not established until 1764. The colony was turned over to Spain two years later and the islands have since been the subject of a territorial dispute, first between Britain and Spain, then between Britain and Argentina. The UK asserted its claim to the islands by establishing a naval garrison there in 1833. Argentina invaded the islands on 2 April 1982. The British responded with an expeditionary force that landed seven weeks later and after fierce fighting forced an Argentine surrender on 14 June 1982.

The dispute.


Argentina, which claims the islands in its constitution and briefly occupied them by force in 1982, agreed in 1995 to no longer seek settlement by force; UK continues to reject Argentine requests for sovereignty talks.

Should be OK then! :greengrin

[tony higgins]

So the Falklands war happened because Falklanders were white British?

Surely it was because they are just British? (given that Brits are white, black, asian etc.)

Eh nope, bit like Hong Kong Chinese, they were rapped in a red and blue flag until it came to shove and throwing a few million passports their way.

Eh well, best if you stay here, look watch the fireworks, as the last gunboat slips away.

Would that have happened to OZ, NZ citizens etc.

Nope.

Falklander,s were white anglo saxon, simply as.

[hibsbollah]

Eh nope, bit like Hong Kong Chinese, they were rapped in a red and blue flag until it came to shove and throwing a few million passports their way.

Eh well, best if you stay here, look watch the fireworks, as the last gunboat slips away.

Would that have happened to OZ, NZ citizens etc.

Nope.

Falklander,s were white anglo saxon, simply as.

Bit of a different story really. We were obliged to give Hong Kong back by treaty so we had no option. We stole it from the Chinese in the first place.

As the years have gone by I feel the Falklands War was justifiable, and was a response to fascist aggression. The fact Maggie benefitted from it electorally sticks in the throat a bit, but that doesnt in itself make it wrong.

[steakbake]

Eh nope, bit like Hong Kong Chinese, they were rapped in a red and blue flag until it came to shove and throwing a few million passports their way.

Eh well, best if you stay here, look watch the fireworks, as the last gunboat slips away.

Would that have happened to OZ, NZ citizens etc.

Nope.

Falklander,s were white anglo saxon, simply as.

They got the British National's Overseas passport, which to be honest, confers less rights than we give to EU nationals.

Falklanders are full British nationals.

[tony higgins]

Bit of a different story really. We were obliged to give Hong Kong back by treaty so we had no option. We stole it from the Chinese in the first place.

As the years have gone by I feel the Falklands War was justifiable, and was a response to fascist aggression. The fact Maggie benefitted from it electorally sticks in the throat a bit, but that doesnt in itself make it wrong.

Doubt anybody would have gave a toss if the sheep farmers had been of African origin.

[hibsbollah]

Doubt anybody would have gave a toss if the sheep farmers had been of African origin.

We're all of African origin:greengrin

[tony higgins]

We're all of African origin:greengrin

Out of Africa.

[Leicester Fan]

Doubt anybody would have gave a toss if the sheep farmers had been of African origin.
Don't you talk some ****?

[Phil D. Rolls]

We've been playing this game with Argentina for decades. In the 70s they used to send missions to test if we were looking, a sub would be dispatched and they would turn round.

Thatcher took her eye off the ball, and the Argentinians found themselves in a Hitleresque "what now" situation. Result, they had to land on South Georgia, and Thatcher played it up to her advantage.

(I'd hate to think she actually knew all along, and wanted a war. That would never do.)

[tony higgins]

Don't you talk some ****?

You what ?

[Beefster]

Not doubting at all your knowledge of the history of what happened beforehand. What i am saying is that the Tories jumped at the chance of what they saw as a chance to get the British peoiple back on their side.

I agree that, in those cirumstances, there was little chance of a negotiated settlement, but the question was what "should" have happened.

I may be wrong but I'm fairly sure that Labour voted for the war. I also remember reading that Britain offered a compromise deal that was turned down by Argentina.


Doubt anybody would have gave a toss if the sheep farmers had been of African origin.

They would have if it was a British territory. Unless you can provide any comparable examples where Britain tolerated the invasion of territory because of race?

[Phil D. Rolls]

I may be wrong but I'm fairly sure that Labour voted for the war. I also remember reading that Britain offered a compromise deal that was turned down by Argentina.



They would have if it was a British territory. Unless you can provide any comparable examples where Britain tolerated the invasion of territory because of race?

I could be wrong but. When the Americans invaded Grenada, was it not a British protectorate. Then there's the small matter of the Yanks wandering into Pakistan, which (I think) is still a Commonwealth country.

[marinello59]

We've been playing this game with Argentina for decades. In the 70s they used to send missions to test if we were looking, a sub would be dispatched and they would turn round.

Thatcher took her eye off the ball, and the Argentinians found themselves in a Hitleresque "what now" situation. Result, they had to land on South Georgia, and Thatcher played it up to her advantage.

I'd hate to think she actually knew all along, and wanted a war. That would never do.)

Thatcher thought that the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands was going to lead to her defeat in the next election. Her Government had screwed up big time as you allude to and she knew it so nope, she didn't want a war.

[Leicester Fan]

I could be wrong but. When the Americans invaded Grenada, was it not a British protectorate. Then there's the small matter of the Yanks wandering into Pakistan, which (I think) is still a Commonwealth country.

America invaded Grenada after a coup overthrew and murdered the country's president. America didn't annex Grenada and it is an independent country again.

America didn't invade Pakistan it is fighting alongside the Pakistani govt (admittedly with a bit of arm twisting).

Finally fighting a winnable war against Argentina is different to to taking on the USA.

[hibsbollah]

Out of Africa.

Meryl Streep:agree:

[hibsbollah]

America invaded Grenada after a coup overthrew and murdered the country's president.


Thats irrelevant to FRs point. It was a Commonwealth country and even the Thatcher Govt protested the invasion, which was also condemned by the UN (although surprisingly, anti-US sanctions were vetoed by the US:greengrin)

[Leicester Fan]

Thats irrelevant to FRs point. It was a Commonwealth country and even the Thatcher Govt protested the invasion, which was also condemned by the UN (although surprisingly, anti-US sanctions were vetoed by the US:greengrin)
True. But it's hardly a fair comparison, this wasn't an American land grab, unlike Argentina's. Whether you agree with the invasion or not there were entirely different motivations.

[khib70]

Bit of a different story really. We were obliged to give Hong Kong back by treaty so we had no option. We stole it from the Chinese in the first place.

As the years have gone by I feel the Falklands War was justifiable, and was a response to fascist aggression. The fact Maggie benefitted from it electorally sticks in the throat a bit, but that doesnt in itself make it wrong.
You're absolutely right on all counts here. If the armed forces have any reason for existing, it's to protect British people from foreign aggression.

Undoubtedly mistakes were made, and unjustifiable things done. The exposure of underprotected warships at San Carlos, the Sir Galahad disaster, were errors of judgement. The sinking of the Belgrano was in my view as an ex Royal Navy person just plain wrong.

Overall, the war was as justified as they get these days. The loss of life, especially of young Argentinian conscripts was tragic, but the fascist junta then ruling Argentina must bear the primary responsibility. Anyone doubting how bad they were should read up on their domestic activities at the time.

[Phil D. Rolls]

You're absolutely right on all counts here. If the armed forces have any reason for existing, it's to protect British people from foreign aggression.

Undoubtedly mistakes were made, and unjustifiable things done. The exposure of underprotected warships at San Carlos, the Sir Galahad disaster, were errors of judgement. The sinking of the Belgrano was in my view as an ex Royal Navy person just plain wrong.

Overall, the war was as justified as they get these days. The loss of life, especially of young Argentinian conscripts was tragic, but the fascist junta then ruling Argentina must bear the primary responsibility. Anyone doubting how bad they were should read up on their domestic activities at the time.

I think you're right it was a justifiable war, although I think it could have been avoided if Britain had acted earlier, as previous Labour governments had. I also question whether we would have been quite as concerned if there wasn't oil in our territorial waters.

I agree that the blame has to lie primarily with the aggressor, and that was the Junta.

[ginger_rice]

Undoubtedly mistakes were made, and unjustifiable things done. The exposure of underprotected warships at San Carlos, the Sir Galahad disaster, were errors of judgement. The sinking of the Belgrano was in my view as an ex Royal Navy person just plain wrong.
.

Sorry mate can't agree with you there, Belgrano was more than capable of turning around at any time, she was a very real threat to the fleet.

I heard later that my ship amongst others was to be tasked to take her on in a surface action if the submarine attack failed.

Errors of judgement with the ships in Bomb Alley, no not really, how many troops lost their lives during the landing, none, which means that that part of the operation was a success.

The real error of judgement was getting rid of the real carriers like the Ark and Eagle, we wouldn't have lost any ships had one of them been there, decent anti aircraft missiles would have helped too...the first time we really needed Sea Cat to perform it misfired :grr:

I'll give you Galahad though that was IIRC pig headedness on the behalf of the Welsh Guards officers

[BroxburnHibee]

Basically, no.

Britain is already well overstretched in Afghanistan and Argentina no longer has an expansionist dictator at the helm.

Exactly why they are chancing their arm.


Would winning a war over there win Brown the election?

Worked for Thatcher


We've been playing this game with Argentina for decades. In the 70s they used to send missions to test if we were looking, a sub would be dispatched and they would turn round.

Thatcher took her eye off the ball, and the Argentinians found themselves in a Hitleresque "what now" situation. Result, they had to land on South Georgia, and Thatcher played it up to her advantage.

(I'd hate to think she actually knew all along, and wanted a war. That would never do.)

Did she really though?

[heretoday]

I don't go with the "Thatcher started the war because of the upcoming election" argument.

Obviously it didn't do her any harm, unlike Churchill who lost the 1945 election despite a notable victory in that WW2 thing.

The Falklands were British so........what do you do?

Maybe the Falklands War was the best thing she did.

[ancient hibee]

Maggie always said that her biggest battle at the time of the Falklands was with the Foreign Office.

[Leicester Fan]

I don't go with the "Thatcher started the war because of the upcoming election" argument.


It also assumes that Maggie knew that we'd win that war. As I remember at the time it was far from certain.

[ginger_rice]

It also assumes that Maggie knew that we'd win that war. As I remember at the time it was far from certain.

It certainly was from where I was sitting!

A crazy thing to do take a fleet of ships 8000 miles with little or no air cover to attempt an opposed landing.

[AndyP]

The real error of judgement was getting rid of the real carriers like the Ark and Eagle, we wouldn't have lost any ships had one of them been there, decent anti aircraft missiles would have helped too...the first time we really needed Sea Cat to perform it misfired :grr:

I'll give you Galahad though that was IIRC pig headedness on the behalf of the Welsh Guards officers

I would also argue that there was a massive foul up in the supply chain, all the eggs went in one basket ie Atlantic Conveyor when the equipment should have been split over at least 3 ships.

I served under the CO of the WG after he was fast tracked to Brigadier, I had a fairly low opinion of the man (mainly due to his actions before an office call by the Prince of Wales), however when he did talk about the Galahad he pointed out that it was safer having his guys on board than having them on the beach. This point was disputed hotly by the OC of 90 Ord Coy who had set up the Brigade Supply Area (ammo, fuel and rations) with his guys on the beach head from D+ hours. Let's just say that was a fun study day to be eavesdropping on :devil:

[ginger_rice]

I would also argue that there was a massive foul up in the supply chain, all the eggs went in one basket ie Atlantic Conveyor when the equipment should have been split over at least 3 ships.

I served under the CO of the WG after he was fast tracked to Brigadier, I had a fairly low opinion of the man (mainly due to his actions before an office call by the Prince of Wales), however when he did talk about the Galahad he pointed out that it was safer having his guys on board than having them on the beach. This point was disputed hotly by the OC of 90 Ord Coy who had set up the Brigade Supply Area (ammo, fuel and rations) with his guys on the beach head from D+ hours. Let's just say that was a fun study day to be eavesdropping on :devil:

Problem was that he was told by the RN that they couldn't spare ships to protect the achorage, (we'd lost 3 by that point), I heard that the CO WG countermanded the order to disembark given by the beachmaster as a lowly Lt Commander how dare he order troops about, I have to admit that have only heard this 3rd hand and at that in the mess in Devonport after a few beers.


I've also been told that instaed of yomping with the rest of the ground forces the WG officers stated that their men were not fit enough to walk the distance, to be fair to the Taffs I've never heard one of their OR's say that!

[Jack]

I think our biggest asset first time round was having well trained forces against conscripts.

I think our biggest stroke of luck first time round was so many of the well placed Argentinean bombs they dropped didn’t go off!

[ginger_rice]

I think our biggest asset first time round was having well trained forces against conscripts.

I think our biggest stroke of luck first time round was so many of the well placed Argentinean bombs they dropped didn’t go off!

That was only because their pilots had a lot more bottle than they were given credit for and dropped their bombs lower and nearer to the target than their armourers thought they would, the fuses often didn't get long enough in flight to arm.

TBH though there were a lot more that went bang than didn't

[Lucius Apuleius]

That was only because their pilots had a lot more bottle than they were given credit for and dropped their bombs lower and nearer to the target than their armourers thought they would, the fuses often didn't get long enough in flight to arm.

TBH though there were a lot more that went bang than didn't

Thank Christ the one that bounced off the poop deck on the British Wye had a long fuse :greengrin

[HibsMax]

Rightful ownership is difficult to figure out. Some say, "let the Falklands belong to whichever country they want" but do the islanders really have a say? That's a genuine question.

Consider this, ask most Americans if they think that the land belongs to them or the Native Americans and I doubt you will get many people voting for their own extradition.

So what historical event led to the Falklands being British? Did we have to conquer anyone? Again, a genuine question because I don't know. If Britain arrived there and it was a barren island then I say fair play, we got there first. But if they took the land by force then I say the original residents have a valid case...I just don't know if they were Argentinian.

EDIT : Post #30 answers some of the historical questions but it doesn't mention if the first landing was Englsh or otherwise. The first settlement was French? So why don't they own the islands? Rhetorical question.

[Jack]

Rightful ownership is difficult to figure out. Some say, "let the Falklands belong to whichever country they want" but do the islanders really have a say? That's a genuine question.

Consider this, ask most Americans if they think that the land belongs to them or the Native Americans and I doubt you will get many people voting for their own extradition.

So what historical event led to the Falklands being British? Did we have to conquer anyone? Again, a genuine question because I don't know. If Britain arrived there and it was a barren island then I say fair play, we got there first. But if they took the land by force then I say the original residents have a valid case...I just don't know if they were Argentinian.

EDIT : Post #30 answers some of the historical questions but it doesn't mention if the first landing was Englsh or otherwise. The first settlement was French? So why don't they own the islands? Rhetorical question.

All you want to read is here, I think.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands)

[RyeSloan]

Rightful ownership is difficult to figure out. Some say, "let the Falklands belong to whichever country they want" but do the islanders really have a say? That's a genuine question.

Consider this, ask most Americans if they think that the land belongs to them or the Native Americans and I doubt you will get many people voting for their own extradition.

So what historical event led to the Falklands being British? Did we have to conquer anyone? Again, a genuine question because I don't know. If Britain arrived there and it was a barren island then I say fair play, we got there first. But if they took the land by force then I say the original residents have a valid case...I just don't know if they were Argentinian.

EDIT : Post #30 answers some of the historical questions but it doesn't mention if the first landing was Englsh or otherwise. The first settlement was French? So why don't they own the islands? Rhetorical question.

Looking at the history of these islands I think the clear path should be one of self determination.

This will probalby be much more important AFTER the find a shed load of oil because then an independent Falklands would probably be one of the richest 'nations' on earth per head of population!!

[steakbake]

Looking at the history of these islands I think the clear path should be one of self determination.

This will probalby be much more important AFTER the find a shed load of oil because then an independent Falklands would probably be one of the richest 'nations' on earth per head of population!!

Sounds familiar.

[khib70]

Sorry mate can't agree with you there, Belgrano was more than capable of turning around at any time, she was a very real threat to the fleet.

I heard later that my ship amongst others was to be tasked to take her on in a surface action if the submarine attack failed.

Errors of judgement with the ships in Bomb Alley, no not really, how many troops lost their lives during the landing, none, which means that that part of the operation was a success.

The real error of judgement was getting rid of the real carriers like the Ark and Eagle, we wouldn't have lost any ships had one of them been there, decent anti aircraft missiles would have helped too...the first time we really needed Sea Cat to perform it misfired :grr:

I'll give you Galahad though that was IIRC pig headedness on the behalf of the Welsh Guards officers
Opinions mate, eh? I would dispute that a ship crewed by conscripts and trainees would be able to take on modern warships even though she theoretically outgunned them. The Belgrano was a survivor of Pearl Harbour, and there was some doubt as to how operational her gun direction system was at the time.

You're bang on about Bomb Alley. Anyone who ever witnessed a Seacat firing exercise prior to the war wouldn't feel happy about their being the major AA defence in an open anchorage. And you're also right about the carriers. Losing them was a massive false economy. Their ability to provide 24 hour fighter cover would have denied the Argentinians any access to the anchored warships.

I wasn't there, as you obviously were, so I respect your opinions. Nobody in the forces went there and fought, and died, to get Mrs Thatcher re-elected. You and your comrades went there to protect British citizens from foreign invasion and occupation - the reason we have forces in the first place

[ginger_rice]

Opinions mate, eh? I would dispute that a ship crewed by conscripts and trainees would be able to take on modern warships even though she theoretically outgunned them. The Belgrano was a survivor of Pearl Harbour, and there was some doubt as to how operational her gun direction system was at the time.



From what I recall Belgrano was one half of a pincer movement the other half consisting of 25 De Mayo and a few Argie 42s, after Belgrano was sunk the carrier group high tailed it back home, that made life in a type 21 a tad more comfortable for a day or so.

TBH I think that in a war sometimes some very unpalatable things and decisions have to be taken, true Belgrano was an old bird, her gunnery may have been a bit obsolecent, but her Exocets weren't.

Mind you some of the type 12s we had down there weren't that much better in age or material state either.

I'm not a great admirer of empires or of imperialism, certainly no fan of Thatcher, I do believe though that the inhabitants of those islands have the right to self determinism.

[AndyP]

Eh nope, bit like Hong Kong Chinese, they were rapped in a red and blue flag until it came to shove and throwing a few million passports their way.

Eh well, best if you stay here, look watch the fireworks, as the last gunboat slips away.

Would that have happened to OZ, NZ citizens etc.

Nope.

Falklander,s were white anglo saxon, simply as.


Honkers was never British it has been Chinese territory since about 300 BC , it was however leased from China after the Opium Wars, mainly to protect British trade routes. At the end of the agreed lease it was handed back and was never going to be possible that Britain would be able to renegotiate a new land lease.

The Falklands was/is a totally different situation.