Was it just to defend the Falklands went argentine attacked

Belfast

I say Yes the British were right to defend the islands

Pride Fighter

No. It should have gone to the UN to decide the matter

Dont you mean Las Malvinas:).

Fratton Fred

No. They should have let Argentine keep them

This will no doubt open the debate about imperialism, why Britain sank the Belgrano and why Britain didn't go to war over Hong Kong, but here goes.

I'm not sure why, on an Irish board people would refer to the Falklands as the Malvinas, unless Spanish is now the offical language here.;)

Shutuplaura

No violence is alway wrong

No, it was a complete waste of life and money. Britain could have given the few hundred islanders affected a large cash sum and left them make new lives in the UK and still saved lives, money and effort. Of course the only think more stupid than Britain fighting for them is Argentina fighting for them...

Fratton Fred

No. They should have let Argentine keep them

Shutuplaura wrote: »

No, it was a complete waste of life and money. Britain could have given the few hundred islanders affected a large cash sum and left them make new lives in the UK and still saved lives, money and effort. Of course the only think more stupid than Britain fighting for them is Argentina fighting for them...

so if Ireland gives a "Few" thousand republicans in NI a few quid and a pad in Tallaght, Britain can keep hold of NI?:D

Shutuplaura

No violence is alway wrong

If Northern Ireland was a small island inhabited mainly by sheep in the middle of the south atlantic then yes, that would be completely acceptable.

ejmaztec

I think that if the Americans were interested in a South Atlantic base, the inhabitants would have been booted off (or re-housed?) by the British in the same way that two fingers were waved at the residents of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

On the other hand, it probably was a good idea to protect the islanders from the whims of a fascist junta. The junta's failure led to it's early demise, which was probably a good thing.

However, I don't think ideals had anything to do with the skirmish. Maggie wanted to show how macho she was, so told the armed forces to jump.

Manic Moran

No. They should have let Argentine keep them

If Northern Ireland was a small island inhabited mainly by sheep in the middle of the south atlantic then yes, that would be completely acceptable.

So where's your dividing line? New Zealand is a slightly larger island also inhabited mainly by sheep, in the South Pacific. Is that not worth the principle of self determination? Perhaps closer to the equator?

It's true that historically speaking Argentina rather got the shaft. They had a better historical claim to the islands, but the fact remained that the islands were home to a bunch of people who wanted to remain British, and were not home to a bunch of people who wanted to become Argentinian. I can't see how sending the Task Force was wrong.

NTM

Pride Fighter

No. It should have gone to the UN to decide the matter

ejmaztec wrote: »

On the other hand, it probably was a good idea to protect the islanders from the whims of a fascist junta. The junta's failure led to it's early demise, which was probably a good thing.

However, I don't think ideals had anything to do with the skirmish. Maggie wanted to show how macho she was, so told the armed forces to jump.

It may have been a facist junta but one of the many reasons the Brits wanted the islands was to support an even worse facist junta in Chile. Just look at the islands on a map. They are 10,000 miles from Britain and about 100 miles of Argentina, who should own them?

dresden8

No. They should have let Argentine keep them

Pride Fighter wrote: »

It may have been a facist junta but one of the many reasons the Brits wanted the islands was to support an even worse facist junta in Chile. Just look at the islands on a map. They are 10,000 miles from Britain and about 100 miles of Argentina, who should own them?

Ireland is less than 100 miles from the UK.

ejmaztec

It was one less Fascist dictatorship to deal with. I don't think that support for Chile was anything to do with it. The only connection the event had with Chile was that they used the Chilian military airfields when the need arose.

If the population of a particular island wish to remain British, that's entirely up to them. As far as I'm aware there were no people living there who had any connection with Argentina. I seem to remember that the Argentinians were going to ship a load of civilians in before holding an election to decide the Island's future. The total of the new arrivals being more than the number of pro-British already there, of course.

mike65

Ireland should be owned by the British we all know that! Unless they decide otherwise.

A question worth posing would be Why did the Argentine Junta choose that moment to invade?

Mike.

ejmaztec

mike65 wrote: »

Ireland should be owned by the British we all know that! Unless they decide otherwise.

A question worth posing would be Why did the Argentine Junta choose that moment to invade?

Mike.

Wasn't it egged on by one of their endless economic crises and the fact that people were getting more and more pis5ed of with the Junta. They thought that a patriotic war would throw 'em off the scent.

mike65

Quite so. Nothing like an outburst of patriotic fervour when the pressure is building from your own people - unwrap the flag and everyone salute (which cunningly enough was perfect for Mrs T as well)!

Mike.

ejmaztec

She was more dangerous than any Junta, that's for sure:eek:

mike65

Now thats BS - Videla Junta 30,000 dead, dogs used to rape female prisoners etc.

Mike.

Manic Moran

No. They should have let Argentine keep them

How did they train the dog to do that?

NTM

Belfast

No. They should have let Argentine keep them

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This will no doubt open the debate about imperialism, why Britain sank the Belgrano and why Britain didn't go to war over Hong Kong, but here goes.

I'm not sure why, on an Irish board people would refer to the Falklands as the Malvinas, unless Spanish is now the offical language here.;)

Britain sank the Belgrano because they were at war. It put a stop to any further threat form the Argentine navy.

Belfast

No. They should have let Argentine keep them

Pride Fighter wrote: »

It may have been a facist junta but one of the many reasons the Brits wanted the islands was to support an even worse facist junta in Chile. Just look at the islands on a map. They are 10,000 miles from Britain and about 100 miles of Argentina, who should own them?

Brits settled the Falklands before Argentine was founded.
the land was uninhabited.
Argentines claim is biased on a Spanish Empire planting a flag and leaving no settlers on the islands.
The france also claimed them and had a settlemnt at the same time as the brits for a while.

There was no Indian population when the Brits got there unlike other parts of the British empire that had people living there.

Belfast

No. They should have let Argentine keep them

Shutuplaura wrote: »

No, it was a complete waste of life and money. Britain could have given the few hundred islanders affected a large cash sum and left them make new lives in the UK and still saved lives, money and effort. Of course the only think more stupid than Britain fighting for them is Argentina fighting for them...

There is lots of off shore oil deposits in the area around the island. Not sure giving that up would be a good idea in the long term.

mike65

Manic Moran wrote: »

How did they train the dog to do that?

NTM

Good question but both Argentina and Chiles military governments used them.

I imagine it was pretty crude case of tieing down the poor victim in hoizontal fashion and taking it from there.

Mike.

ejmaztec

mike65 wrote: »

Now thats BS - Videla Junta 30,000 dead, dogs used to rape female prisoners etc.

Mike.

Sorry, sometimes lose control of my totally warped sense of humour.:(

Shutuplaura

No violence is alway wrong

Manic Moran wrote: »

So where's your dividing line? New Zealand is a slightly larger island also inhabited mainly by sheep, in the South Pacific. Is that not worth the principle of self determination? Perhaps closer to the equator?

It's true that historically speaking Argentina rather got the shaft. They had a better historical claim to the islands, but the fact remained that the islands were home to a bunch of people who wanted to remain British, and were not home to a bunch of people who wanted to become Argentinian. I can't see how sending the Task Force was wrong.

NTM

You are completely nuts if you are comparing New Zealand with the Falklands.

Pop of Falklands - 3,060. Land Area 4,700 Sq Miles. Pop Density - .65/Sq Mile.

Pop Of New Zealand - 4,252,000. Land Area 103,738 miles. Pop density - 39/Sq Mile.

Its so crazy it makes no sense. The population of the Falklands is declining. New Zealand is also an independant country, the few thousand souls in the Falklands are an overseas dependancy of the UK.

It may have shorted the life of a viscious junta but as someone mentioned, Britain supported other juntas so any claim on that front is nonesense. There seems to be a fair chance that there is shale oil in the Falklands, that wasn't seen as being in any way commercially viable until recent oil price hikes.

All of this amounts to a thing of nothing. Thatcher clearly went to war to try improve her popularity - a ploy that clearly worked. You are a soldier. Would you feel comfortable going to war over something like that? If so I suggest you put too little value on your own life.

Personally I think that Britain has more of a right to Falklands that Argentina and should have taken her legitimate grivences before the UN. Sanctions should have been applied and given time to work, and the unstable junta should have been let fall. A newly democratic Argentina would have been extremely easy to do business with. Of course that strategy wouldn't win an election, it might have saved a couple of hundred lives and saved the British tax payer the cost of the most pointless war I can think of off the top of my head.

Shutuplaura

No violence is alway wrong

ejmaztec wrote: »

Wasn't it egged on by one of their endless economic crises and the fact that people were getting more and more pis5ed of with the Junta. They thought that a patriotic war would throw 'em off the scent.

One of Boris Yeltsin's aides said in relation to a different war with a less successful outcome - a short, victorious war.

I read recently that the Junta planned to turn the falklands into a penal colony. Can't remember where I read it now so it may be B.S.

Snickers Man

mike65 wrote: »

A question worth posing would be Why did the Argentine Junta choose that moment to invade?

Mike.

Good question indeed.

Was it anything to do with their being told by diplomatic hints and nods and winks that the British wanted shot of the islands and if the Argies just marched in and took them, preferably without killing anybody (which they did--actually I think a few of their own men were killed by accident) then the British would just huff and puff and do nothing until the fuss died down.

After all the Falklands were a long way away, most people had never heard of them (apart from the Tottenham Hotspur supporters who flew a banner at the 1981 Charity Shield match saying "Let them have the Falklands, We'll keep Ricky")* and what country in its right mind is going to send an army to the other end of the world just to rescue a few shepherds?

Then, just as soon as they had taken them over, Thatcher said "Gotcha" and sent down her task force to give them a good kicking. What a double cross!!

It's what made her reputation.


* For the younger readers on the forum, the "Ricky" beloved of Spurs fans was Ricardo Villa, the Argentinian footballer who scored a classic winning goal in the FA Cup final replay in 1981. When the Argentinians invaded the Falklands the following year, that banner probably got well buried and hasn't been seen since. But it would be a great clip to put up on Youtube, if anybody has a tape of the 1981 Cup Final replay.

Capt'n Midnight

No violence is alway wrong

mike65 wrote: »

Ireland should be owned by the British we all know that! Unless they decide otherwise.

A question worth posing would be Why did the Argentine Junta choose that moment to invade?

Mike.

That's a very big question. Had they waited a few months longer then the Royal Navy would have been down two aircraft carriers Hermes decomissioned and one of the others sold to Oz. At that stage it would have been well nigh impossible to retake the islands. Indeed without the full support of the USA the invasion could have failed.

Don't forget there was an election due soon in the UK and a lot of jingoism too, so perhaps enough time wasn't given for a peaceful solution.

An awful lot of lives lost over a few islanders, add in the suicides on both sides of the service men and its something like one soilder killed per 3 islanders !
and 1/3 of the population are servicemen

Lots of fishing and possible sea floor minerals / oil there too.

Falklands as a penal colony ?
They already have a few islands off the south coast.

Capt'n Midnight

No violence is alway wrong

BTW:
US security resolution 502 http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1982/scres82.htm
Demands an imediate witthdrawl of all Argintinan forces from the Falklands.

Off topic
Note also the number of resolutions against Israel, compare this to the number against Iraq used as a basis for the US invasion.

Manic Moran

No. They should have let Argentine keep them

For the younger readers on the forum, the "Ricky" beloved of Spurs fans was Ricardo Villa, the Argentinian footballer who scored a classic winning goal in the FA Cup final replay in 1981

Of note, Ozzie Ardiles' cousin was an FAA Dagger pilot, killed in the Falklands.

Its so crazy it makes no sense. The population of the Falklands is declining. New Zealand is also an independant country, the few thousand souls in the Falklands are an overseas dependancy of the UK.

OK, so we've concluded then that your principles are sufficiently malleable that we're not entirely sure where you make your stands.

The population either wished to be Her Britannic Majesty's subjects, or they did not. Why should the absolute numbers enter into it?

NTM

Fratton Fred

No. They should have let Argentine keep them

Snickers Man wrote: »

Good question indeed.

Was it anything to do with their being told by diplomatic hints and nods and winks that the British wanted shot of the islands and if the Argies just marched in and took them, preferably without killing anybody (which they did--actually I think a few of their own men were killed by accident) then the British would just huff and puff and do nothing until the fuss died down.

After all the Falklands were a long way away, most people had never heard of them (apart from the Tottenham Hotspur supporters who flew a banner at the 1981 Charity Shield match saying "Let them have the Falklands, We'll keep Ricky")* and what country in its right mind is going to send an army to the other end of the world just to rescue a few shepherds?

Then, just as soon as they had taken them over, Thatcher said "Gotcha" and sent down her task force to give them a good kicking. What a double cross!!

It's what made her reputation.


* For the younger readers on the forum, the "Ricky" beloved of Spurs fans was Ricardo Villa, the Argentinian footballer who scored a classic winning goal in the FA Cup final replay in 1981. When the Argentinians invaded the Falklands the following year, that banner probably got well buried and hasn't been seen since. But it would be a great clip to put up on Youtube, if anybody has a tape of the 1981 Cup Final replay.

that would imply that there was some planning involved, which there was not.

The Junta was planning an attempt, but not for some time, they simply took advantage of the scrap merchants landing on South Georgia and used it to try and improve their popularity.

The whole war was so badly thought out that it was obvious it was a spur of the moment thing.

Black Swan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

and why Britain didn't go to war over Hong Kong,

Huh? There was no cause for war. The 99 year agreement ran out.:rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

No. They should have let Argentine keep them

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Huh? There was no cause for war. The 99 year agreement ran out.:rolleyes:

I know, but it is accusation made against Britain that the people of Hong Kong wanted to remain British, so why didn't Britain go to war with China over it but were happy to save the Falklands.

Probably just as well they didn't, it would have the first direct conflict between two nuclear powers.