The Falklands War plus 30

How can the Falklands be British when the British Isles are 8,000 miles away? How can these people be British when they weren't born in the British Isles and none of there parents were? Its pure nationalism that makes people put this losing argument across. If you want to argue the Falklanders have self-determination then ok, but if they are British then the whole of the UK can decide there future for them. This then means the Falklanders have no say and its a simple negotiation between the UK and Argentina as Argentina says it is and the UN supports. I count the Falklanders as a independent people under British projection from Argentina, so Argentina needs to talk with the Falklands government, not the UK over things like oil right and fishing, with the UK always in the back ground making sure the Falklanders are bullied or invaded by Argentina.

 

Well the point is Argentina couldn't defeat the defenders the UK and Falklands have, they would sustain far to heavy loses for it to be worth them doing it. That is the UK's hope atleast, but the force down there doesn't have anywhere near enough jets to defeat a allout Argentine invasion. Soon enough the Typhoons will run out of missiles and fuel, so then Argentine aircraft can just about do what they like. They don't need more than 15 ships to take the Falklands, Argentina is just 300 miles away the nearest UK base is 3,500-4,000 miles away.

All those battles were small. After the British destroyed the German Pacific fleet at the Battle of the Falklands we could put most of our ships into the home fleet. So at the battle of Jutland we should have overrun the German fleet and destroyed it. Instead it ment the Germans main battle fleet saying in port, but still being able to attack British ships. I was talking about the German fleet, not the British Grand fleet.

 

As I've said before, they were claimed by Britain in 1765 and they've been British for most of the time since then. What does it matter how far away they are? They're over 300 miles from Argentina, but it still doesn't stop the Argentineans thinking the islands are Argentinean.

My mum was born in West Germany, but she's still British. You don't have to be born in Britain to be British.

The reason why the Falkland Islanders are British is because it says so on their British passports.

How is it a "losing argument"? The Falkand Islanders are British citizens. There's nothing to argue. It's a fact.

I don't buy that argument. That's like saying that the Scots, who are British citizens, shouldn't be given a referendum next year to decide whether they want to remain British or become an independent state and instead the British government should make the decision. Why let some British citizens (the Scots) decide whether or not to be British but deny that right to other British citizens (the Falkland Islanders?)

Why should the Falkland Islanders allow a foreign nation to drill for oil in their waters? Would we allow the French to take oil from British waters?

 

Here are some things which that article mentions:

The first recorded landing was made by an Englishman, Captain John Strong, in 1690, just ahead of the French (1701).

So the English were the first humans to set foot on the Falklands.

In January 1765 a British expedition took possession of West Falkland and established a base at the new Port Egmont (still there), unaware for two years that the French were settled in East Falkland. When Madrid heard about it, the two Bourbon states nearly went to war, before France accepted Spanish rights (entrenched in the Treaty of Utrecht, the one that also ceded Gibraltar to Britain) in a formal handover ceremony.

In 1770 Spain tried to enforce its claims by sending a fleet from Buenos Aires – five ships and more than 1,000 men – to which the outnumbered British surrendered.

So the Spanish tried to kick the British off the islands so they could have them even though the British set foot on the islands and settled them before the Spanish did. Very naughty....

Britain's early claim is strong and, if Britain abandoned the islands in 1774, so did the future Argentine republic in 1811. London has provided settlement and support without a break since 1834, including long periods in both 19th and 20th centuries when Buenos Aires' claims went quiet.

I think Britain's claim to the islands are much stronger than Argentina's.

 

With Falkland Islands, main reason Argentina is interested is because of oil, natural reserves & fish which Falkland Islands have. Venezuela’s late Pres. Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias, along with Bolivia’s Evo Morales & Ecuador’s Rafael Correa side with Argentina because they’re all Socialists as Argentina’s President Cristina Fernandez Kirchner is & it would benefit Venezuela’s Citgo as they can profit from the natural gas & oil.

Argentina is interested in Falkland Islands because they want the oil, natural gas & fish which the F.I. or las islas Malvinas have. Argentina’s allies Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador & Cuba side with Argentina because they can also profit from the oil, fish & natural gas . If Falkland Islands were to become useless in that if oil & natural gas runs out, Argentina would lose interest. If Falkland Islanders voted for independence, Argentine military would enter Falkland Islands without a fight & claim the F.I. Big reason why Falkland Islanders voted to stay British-for British military protection.

 

As a reader on the Guardian website says:

When the British left in 1774 it did not give up its soveregnty of the islands. Argentina has no claim to sovereignty - the only people besides the British who could, based on history, make a claim are the French - Argentina has never owned so much as an inch of the islands. When the Spanish signed the rights to the islands over to Argentina, they had no right to do so - they might as well have signed over Germany! Signing over land you don't own is meaningless, and has no weight in international law. The Argentinians didn't even assert their claim until 1945, a claim based on made-up, re-written history.

Also, if the right of self determination doesn't apply to the Falkland Islanders, because they are not the original inhabitants, then it also doesn't apply to the 90% of Argentinian people who are also not the original inhabitants (the native Americans are). You can't have it both ways! Either you accept the rights of the Islanders, or you disenfranchise most of the Argentine population.

Britain has twice offered to go through the International Courts of Justice to resolve the issue of sovereignty, and both times Argentina has declined. Indeed, Argentina announced it would not respect any findings of the court. A clear indication that they know their claim is based on little more than myth.

 

16 String Jack, even the part of whether the Native Americans are the original inhabitants is more complicated because there are so many Amerindian groups. Saying that an American Indian ethnic group owns all of America is like saying China owns all of Asia because they're Asian. & many of the Native Americans or Amerindians got their land waging wars against other Native Americans or Amerindians before the Amerindians lost the lands in wars. This also includes Argentina, so how much of Argentina belonged to an American Indian tribe originally & how much of their land was taken from another tribe in a war complicates the topic because again, saying that an American Indian tribe owned all of Americas is like saying China owns all of Asia because Chinese are Asians. Okay, most of the Europeans living in Americas other than Solutreans (if any survived) are not descendants of original or first inhabitants, which includes Argentina (Spaniards, Italiants & other Europeans), but many of the Amerindians or Native Americans who lived in Argentina were also not the original inhabitants in that these Native Americans or American Indians got their land by taking it from other Amerindians or Native Americans by wars before the Amerindians or American Indians lost the lands in wars.

With Falkland Islands or las Islas Malvinas, again, the main reason Argentina wants them is because of oil, fish & natural gas. If Falkland Islands were to become useless in that if oil & natural gas runs out, Argentina would lose interest. If Falkland Islanders voted for independence, Argentine military would enter Falkland Islands without a fight & claim the F.I. British have been willing to give up Falkland Islands if the Falkland Islanders agree to be independent, the British would respect that. But it's the oil, natural gas & fish which Falkland Islands have that interest Argentina.Finally while Falkland Islanders ancestors wouldn't be the original inhabitants, the Falkland Islanders however would be the original inhabitants as they were the 1s who were born on the Falkland Islands so by birthright, it is their land & many possibly most Falkland Islanders have never visited the U.K.

 

And once again, this completely ignores the invasion in 1981, which long predates the discovery of oil. The main reasons they want control is both because it was originally part of their country (dating back to when they were a Spanish colony), as well as to deny it's use again in the future for the British to launch an invasion against them again.

You have to realize that the British do not have a really good reputation in that area of the world.

As for fish, they can already get any fish they want in the region with or without the islands in their control. And what "natural reserves"? These are largely barren rocks in the Southern ocean. No forests, no coal, no metals of note. Largely good only for grazing. And once again, Argentina has no need for grazing, they have what is undoubtedly the best farmland in South America already (the Pampas).

 

The early history of the Falklands is pretty insane. At one time or another the British, Portugese, French, Spanish, Argentinians, Americans, and some now non-existent South American states laid claim to some or all of the islands. In 1775 Britain withdrew from the islands entirely (though without revoking their claim) and didn't return until the 1830s. The point is, historically speaking, it's not cut and dry that the Islands began as British possessions.

Either way, the Falkland Islands issue is very much one of nationalism for Britain. I'd even argue that it's a hangover from their imperial past. The Brits clung to the Falklands as symbolic of their history and tradition...which is obviously rooted in Empire. That said, it's also clear that the Faklanders overwhelmingly support remaining part of Britain. The Argentinians have lost any chance at getting the islands. Most of the U.N. issues go back to the 40s, 50s, and 60s when Britain at one time was prepared to negotiate with Argentina. This quickly backfired on British politicians when they found Parliment and the British people rallying in support of retaining the islands....mostly due to the Falkland islanders themselves finding out about secret neogitations between Argentinia and Britain and establishing a powerful lobby group.

 

The Falklands were never part of Argentina, even during its time as a Spanish colony. There were so many conflicting claims as I highlighted above.

There are pretty ample fisheries in the area surronding the islands. Just take one look at the Islands history as a significant whaling and fishing point during the latter half of the 19th century for proof. The British government also managed to make some tidy profits from issuing fishing licenses. Finally, the Islands are strategically important to Britain's claims in Antarctica, which could be of tremendous economic value. That said, the islands are definitely not an economic gold mine.

The Argentinians invaded because it provided a distraction. There was an economic crisis at home in Argentina, which combined with the Junta's "disappearing" of thousands of Argentinian opposition members was causing a lot of tension in the country. The Argentinian people/media had been caught up on the idea of reclaiming the islands as a symbol of nationalism since the 1930s when a two historians brought the "injustice" of the British occupation to the mainstream. Both of these historians left out some key points in history and have been largely discredited.

- - - Updated - - -

Also Mushroom, why on earth would the Argentinians have any reason to believe the British would launch an invasion from the islands? Are you talking about invading actual mainland Argentina or some of their island possessions?

 

Yes, there are lots of fisheries around the islands, and they have been ports for fishing and whaling boats. But today we have motorized boats, which have no problem sailing hundreds of miles away and fishing off of the shores of other continents. And a fleet of fishing boats could be right outside the "12 mile limit" and there is not a thing Brittan or anybody else could do about it.

And yea, I am well aware that the 1982 war was about a failing junta trying to gain popular support. But that support would not have existed in the first place if there was not a common belief that the islands were rightfully theirs, and had been stolen in the past. They could also have faked a war with Chile over some border dispute if all they wanted was a simple war (and that would have likely dragged on longer and actually gotten something they could have held onto). However, such a conflict would not have fueled the populace as much as what they saw as regaining their lost territory.

And trust me, you do not have to tell me about "disappearing Argentinians". My wife is a survivor of the Dirty War, and her brother was killed by the government. If you notice, I am actually pretty neutral about this entire affair, I am only presenting "the other side" in a neutral manner, so people will underside there are two sides to this dispute. Personally, I am against any attempt to regain the islands by any means other then the will of the people.

And this is not as much about reason and common sense, as it is about emotion and nationalism. The same kind of Nationalism that has the UK keeping the islands, is why Argentina wants them back. Much like China still wants to regain control of the "Bandit Nation" of Taiwan or the Senkaku Islands, or Japan wanted Okinawa back after WWII. This is not about the land itself, or what may be around or under or on them. It is about what each nation feels to be it's "traditional land".

Myself, I really do not care one way or another. Much like my opinion of Puerto Rico, I personally do not care which way they go. Just so long as it is the people of the islands that decide their final destiny, without outside influence.

 

Oil, natural gas & fish are a main reason Argentina is interested in Falkland Islands & saying that has nothing to do with it is dishonest, delusional or both. If Falkland Islands or las islas Malvinas were to become useless in that if oil & natural gas runs out, Argentina would lose interest. If Falkland Islanders voted for independence, Argentine military would enter Falkland Islands without a fight & claim the F.I. British have been willing to give up Falkland Islands if the Falkland Islanders agree to be independent, the British would respect that. But it's the oil, natural gas & fish which Falkland Islands have that interest Argentina.

My view is let the Falkland Islanders decide & that it's best the Falkland Islands be a nation independent. But Argentina doesn't want the Falkland Islands or las Islas Malvinas to be independent because the F.I. have something which Argentina wants. Also, stop discussing war because seriously, the British aren't going to attack Argentina & I don't think Argentina will try to invade the Falkland Islands because war would be bad policy for both sides. Dialogue will be there on the Falkland Islands or las Islas Malvinas, but honestly, Argentina's main interest in the Falkland Islands is because the Falkland Islands has oil, natural gas & fish which would benefit Argentina & their Communist Allies Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador & Cuba, though they say otherwise. Falkland Islands is for most part an inhospitable place (close to 3,000 people) to live but interests Argentina because of what the Islands have something they want. Anyhow, my view is let the Falkland Islanders decide & if they decided in the future to become an independent nation, then Argentina must respect that. Because it's Falkland Islanders who were born there & while again, Falkland Island ancestors wouldn't be the original inhabitants, the Falkland Islanders are the 1s who were born on the Falkland Islands so by birthright, it is their homeland & many possibly most Falkland Islanders have never visited the U.K. Let the Falkland Islanders decide without any interference from either Argentina or the U.K. what their sovereignty should be. If Falkland Islanders vote for independence then both the U.K. & Argentina must respect that.

 

Then what was the reason that they have been fighting to get the islands back for the last 60+ years? Did they all have magical psychic powers, and could predict the possible discovery of oil?

You keep saying the same thing over and over again, and you fail to provide any reasoning for your belief.

 

Yes, it is. The British and French claimed and settled the islands before anyone else.

The first human being to step foot on the islands was an Englishman, and that was long before Argentina even existed.

The British cling on to the Falklands because that is what the Falkland Islanders want. Are you aware of the recent referendum in which 99.8% of the islanders voted to be British? If the Falkland Islanders ever decide they no longer want to be British then Britain will respect their wishes. But, at the moment and probably for a long time to come, the Falklanders want to be British and that is how they will remain.

What do you want the British to do? Just ignore the democratic wishes of thousands of British citizens and just hand their country over to a second-rate foreign power against their will?

 

Do you not read what I write?

The Falklands are NOT originally part of Argentina dating back to when it was a Spanish colony (when it wasn't even Argentina anyway). Why do you keep attempting to rewrite history?

The British founded a settlement on the islands in 1765. The Spanish didn't arrive there until 1767 when the French gave them their part of the islands. So how could the islands have originally been "Argentinian" or Spanish? The British were there BEFORE the Spanish. That is a simple historical fact. Unless you get in a time machine and change history.

In 1765, British captain John Byron explored and claimed Saunders Island on West Falkland, where he named the harbour Port Egmont and a settlement was constructed in 1766.[19] Unaware of the French presence, Byron claimed the island group for King George III. Spain acquired the French colony in 1767, and placed it under a governor subordinate to the Buenos Aires colonial administration.

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

The British were on the islands before the Spanish, and the first person to step foot on the islands was an Englishman.

So how, in your words, were the islands originally part of a country which didn't even exist when the British arrived on the Falklands?

What a load of complete and utter tripe.

Have you got any evidence that the Argies want the islands to prevent the British using them to invade Argentina?

And have you got any evidence that Britain is planning on invading Argentina?

And have you got any evidence that Britain invaded Argentina in the past? No, you haven't, because what really occurred was that the British invaded Río de la Plata, which was a Spanish colony, during the Napoleonic Wars. So the British were only doing to the Spanish what the Spanish did to the native people of that area. Why is it okay for the Spanish to invade that area but not the British?

What a load of rubbish you write.

And rememebr this: Argentina itself wouldn't have existed had the Spanish not invaded that land and brutalised the natives people there.

That's not our problem. The South Americans can hate us all they like. The fact is we were on the Falklands before any of them were and, as such, have more of a right to the islands then any of them do.

 

As I've mentioned, the reason why the Argies invaded the Falklands in 1982 was because Argentina was ruled by a brutal, murderous dictator named General Galtieri whose junta was so unpopular that he thought acquiring the Falklands would suddenly make him loved by the Argentinean people.

Instead, when Argentine lost the war, it spelt the end of dictatorship in Argentina and heralded in democracy.

Of course, it was lucky that Thatcher ordered the Royal Navy to retake the islands. Who knows what that dictator would have done to the Falkland Islanders otherwise.

 

The Argentineans can believe all they like. It doesn't mean their belief is right.

I've proved that the western part of the islands were claimed for King George III in 1765, before the Spanish acquired the eastern part from France, two years LATER, in 1767.

As for "stealing", it was the Spanish who tried to steal the islands from Britain in 1770 when they attacked the British colony on the islands to claim it for themselves, even though the British colony was there before the Spanish arrived.

So who are the thieves? It's certainly not the British.
As for Argentina, it didn't even exist at this point.

 

No they voted to remain a British Overseas territory, which means the UK control the military and foreign policy, but the Falklanders control domestic policy.

I very much doubt that the UK governments cares about the Falklanders and wants the best future for them, the UK wants to keep the Falklands as a training bases and refueling station in the South Atlantic. The Falklands a vital to the British South Atlantic command and have been for a while. With the Battle of the Falklands and Battle of River Plate. The leftwinger in the UK, RT and PressTV always go on and on about how much it costs to have a military base to defend the Falklands, but we have had one there for over 100 years.

 

If I remember correctly, Argentina was about a dozen Exocet Missiles short of victory.
If they had had those additional missiles and had set another couple of British ships on fire, the UK would have withdrawn, public opinion being fickle, and the whole thing being aimed at the domestic political situation of both countries involved. The Junta trying to shore up support, and Thatcher, trying to boost her sagging poll numbers.
If the Argentines hadn't run out of Exocets, the UK would have had to withdraw the Royal Navy.
The public opinion would have soured quickly with heavy losses.

 

The destroyers and frigates were a problem we had enough ships to replace them, but if one of the carriers had been hit and put out of action we would have been defeated. Thatchers polls and the economy was starting to turn by 1982, so I really find the idea that she wanted war or that she went to war for polls ridiculous. She went to war because British sovereign territory had been invaded. We should have send a task group when Argentina put there flag on South Georgia, but we only sent a icebreaker and reinforce the Falklands with more troops.

 

With Native American deaths including Argentina, it was mostly diseases so it wasn't a genocide. & again, while most Europeans except for Solutreans aren't original inhabitants of the Americas, many of the American Indians aren't the original inhabitants either-if you want to be consistent, American Indians belong to the Orient such as Mongolia, China,Phillipines, etc. as that's where their ancestry's from. Again, the American Indians got their lands in Americas by killing other American Indians either by wars or using war threats & this happened in Argentina. So by the time the Spaniards arrived conquering Iberoamerica including Argentina, many of the American Indians incl. Argentina were not the original inhabitants as the American Indians got their lands by killing or driving out other American Indian tribes who were there before them. The Spaniards just did a better job than the American Indians in getting land including Argentina as the Spaniards had horses, ships, guns & so on + many American Indian soldiers fought on the side of Spanish in Iberamerican nations as happened in Mexico. American Indians were proud winners when they got their lands by wars but became sore losers complaining about 'stolen land' after they lost the wars.

Again, if the Falkland Islands or las Islas Malvinas were to become useless such as if oil, natural gas & fish run out such as if there's are natural disasters, Argentina would lose interest. Yes, Argentina has claimed interest for many years. Yes, in Argentina
they use themes of patriotism & many believe this. But a land is wanted because it has something which the Falkland Islands have. But anyhow, it's my view that the Falkland Islanders should decide for themselves what their sovereingty shoud be as they were the 1s
who were born there. My guess is that many Falkland Islanders have never been outside the Falkland Islands & spend their entire life living there, raising their family & so on. It would be fair to say that if the Falkland Islands could be an independent nation, many to most
Falkland Islanders would rather have this-be an independent nation but they remain British because they want British military protection. If they vote for independence, again, the Argentine military would enter & take Falkland Islands without much of a fight if any. After this, what likely would happen
is that the Falkland Islanders would be evicted from their birthplace. Then Argentina with it's allies would get the oil, natural gas & fish. Falkland Islanders don't want this. So to repeat, Falkland Islanders should decide their sovereignty & if they decide to be independent, then both Argentina & the U.K.
must respect this, but Argentina has not respected this.

 

Fighting Chile would have been very risky. Taking over a small island allowed them to fight a sort of quasi-war. They didn't think Britain had the desire or means (based on the British response to some earlier blatant hostile acts by Argentina) and knew that Britain had neither the means or desire to invade mainland Argentina. Fighting their neighbor, Chile, would have been a potentially much more costly proposition. Britain had also been pretty wishy washy about the issue making Argentina think they weren't that dedicated to the Falklands.

 

You're wrong. The economic value of the Falklands has always been a secondary consideration for both sides (except perhaps by Britain in the mid-19th century),

 

Argentina says that it's about patriotism, homeland & that ecomonic value is 2ndary or not relevant, but honestly, the economic value of oil, natural gas, fishing & tourism is what the main interests are for Argentina though they say otherwise. If Falkland Islands or las islas Malvinas were to become useless in that if oil & natural gas runs out, Argentina would lose interest. People want a land because it has something to offer-nation wants land because the land has to have something they need or benefits them such as place to live, natural resources, etc. & Falkland Islands has alot to benefit Argentina economically if they had them. Japan & China have conflict over Senkaku Islands. Japan & Korea have dispute over Dokdo (Korean) or Takeshima (Japanese) Islans. Japan & Russia have dispute over Kurile Islands. In all these cases as with Argentina, they say it's about patriotism & sovereignty, but honestly, natural resources be it oil, gas, fish that these places have is what mainly interests them. You want a place if it has something benefits you. With Falkland Islands as said, Let the Falkland Islanders decide without any interference from either Argentina or the U.K. what their sovereignty should be. If Falkland Islanders vote for independence then both the U.K. & Argentina must respect that.