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.

Shutuplaura

No violence is alway wrong

Manic Moran wrote: »

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

NTM

Why should they!? Because the inhabitants affected were absolutely tiny and the number of people killed in taking it sum it to a considerable fraction of their population. You compared a small barren rock with less than 4 thousand inhabitants to an island far larger than Ireland which is sovereign, independent and home to almost 4 million. Do you contiunue to stand over that or will you admit the comparison is not valid? Do you want to comment of the assertation mae by many here that the war wasn't fought for shale oil or 4 thousand kelpies but to give maggie a boost in a forthcoming election.

Manic Moran wrote: »

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


NTM

I'd sooner be known as a pragmatist than as a principled idiot lashing out with the big stick at the slightest provocation. But I do have morals. I happen to beileve that waging a war instead of letting peaceful diplomacy take its course is immoral. I also believe waging war to boost election results is not just immoral, its obscene.

Shutuplaura

No violence is alway wrong

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

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

The subsequant sanctions or diplomatic moves were hardly given the time to take effect that these slow, non-sexy of necessity require to be effective.

Belfast

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:

The 99 year agreement only applied to the New Territories.

ejmaztec

I can think of over a billion reasons for the UK not declaring war on China over HK.

Manic Moran

No. They should have let Argentine keep them

Shutuplaura wrote: »

The subsequant sanctions or diplomatic moves were hardly given the time to take effect that these slow, non-sexy of necessity require to be effective.

Right, and I'm sure that the islanders would have been perfectly happy to live under the occupation of the Junta for a year or two while people tried to figure out whether or not the diplomatic methods were working. And by the way, those methods would be affecting the islanders as well.

The military option was only viable for a few months. The Argentine admirals knew it as much as the British ones did.

Because the inhabitants affected were absolutely tiny and the number of people killed in taking it sum it to a considerable fraction of their population

Which is not the problem of the islanders or caused by the islanders. I would submit that their desires for life, liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (or whatever the British equivalent is) should not be devalued simply because they have chosen to live in a less densely populated area. It is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government to treat -all- Her subjects equally, no? Now, are you saying that you do think that sending a Task Force would be justified in the case of a 4-million-inhabitant island?

I'd sooner be known as a pragmatist than as a principled idiot lashing out with the big stick at the slightest provocation

I can see it later... "Hey, the British did feck-all when that island of a few thousand was involved. I think we can get away with capturing this island of a few tens of thousands..." Then.. "Well, how about this island of a few hundred thousand, then? Surely the British wouldn't go to war over those either." If the principle of "we're not going to meet force with force" is not kept, eventually you're going to have one of two situations: Either you will never use force, or the point at which you do decide to use it will result in even greater casualties than would have occured had you simply stomped on the first incident.

NTM

Shutuplaura

No violence is alway wrong

Manic Moran wrote: »

I can see it later... "Hey, the British did feck-all when that island of a few thousand was involved. I think we can get away with capturing this island of a few tens of thousands..." Then.. "Well, how about this island of a few hundred thousand, then? Surely the British wouldn't go to war over those either." If the principle of "we're not going to meet force with force" is not kept, eventually you're going to have one of two situations: Either you will never use force, or the point at which you do decide to use it will result in even greater casualties than would have occured had you simply stomped on the first incident.

NTM

You are making the assumption that going to the UN would be seen as a sign of weakness. Who exactly would have thought that? The Argentines may have but big deal, they are hardly going to invade the UK. The USSR didn't consider the UK anyway as the US was her only rival. You are also forgetting that Britain has and still has a nuclear deterrant. Finally, its also slipped your mind that the Falklands were based on exceptional circumstances - The reaction of the junta to the actions of scrap merchants, the fact that the UK was and is in possession of very few disputed territories etc.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Right, and I'm sure that the islanders would have been perfectly happy to live under the occupation of the Junta for a year or two while people tried to figure out whether or not the diplomatic methods were working. And by the way, those methods would be affecting the islanders as well.


Which is not the problem of the islanders or caused by the islanders. I would submit that their desires for life, liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (or whatever the British equivalent is) should not be devalued simply because they have chosen to live in a less densely populated area. It is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government to treat -all- Her subjects equally, no? Now, are you saying that you do think that sending a Task Force would be justified in the case of a 4-million-inhabitant island?

NTM

This is actually a good point. The only answer I can give is that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The human cost of retaking the islands outweighs the cost of resettling the islanders or leaving them under Argentine control pending peaceful resolution. In absolute terms about a thousand people were killed in the war. How many people did each death touch, how many impermanently disabled people did the war create, how many suicides resulted? Forced resettlement of what would have been in effect refugees would have been terrible and I wouldn't wish that on anyone but Its preferable to death or the loss of a father, son or brother. And the refugees could have been comfortably accomodated by the British at a fraction of the cost of sending the task force. As someone also added, the British government in 1971 resettled a similar number of inhabitants from the island of Diego Garcia. Why should it try to claim the high moral ground in the fight for a few more islanders in another island in the middle of nowhere?

You are ignoring and have failed to address a hugely important point though. The war was fought for the political benefit of the Conservative party, not the islanders or not for south Atlantic oil deposits.

McArmalite

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?

Agreed.

dresden8 wrote: »

Ireland is less than 100 miles from the UK.

Does that mean we should own the UK

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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

Can you stop beleiving in imperial fairy tales, a second rate power in Europe and a third rate power in the world wouldn't even think of threatening a super power like China with nukes, never mind use them.

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.

Complete bollox, nothing to do with agreements or leases, the massive Chinese army could have easily strolled into Hong Kong at a moment's notice and britan could do zero about it. Less hassle in the long term for the Chinese to take it when the agreement ran out. Neither did they rush to war against America for invading Grenada in 1983 either, no Royal Marines v US Marines - that's for sure. Oh how the mighty have fallen

Fratton Fred

No. They should have let Argentine keep them

McArmalite wrote: »

Agreed.



Does that mean we should own the UK

how was it to support Chile? the only reason Thatcher had anything to do with Galtieri was because he offered assistance during the Falklands.

Fratton Fred

No. They should have let Argentine keep them

McArmalite wrote: »

Can you stop beleiving in imperial fairy tales, a second rate power in Europe and a third rate power in the world wouldn't even think of threatening a super power like China with nukes, never mind use them.



Complete bollox, nothing to do with agreements or leases, the massive Chinese army could have easily strolled into Hong Kong at a moment's notice and britan could do zero about it. Less hassle in the long term for the Chinese to take it when the agreement ran out. Neither did they rush to war against America for invading Grenada in 1983 either, no Royal Marines v US Marines - that's for sure. Oh how the mighty have fallen

err, the second quote was not me, so you may want to either quote me correctly, or change the name.

What exactly is a fairy tale? do you not believe Britain has a nuclear arsenal? it's all hypothetical because it was never going to happen, which was my point in the first place.

dresden8

No. They should have let Argentine keep them

McArmalite wrote: »

Agreed.



Does that mean we should own the UK

With the amount of the new rich buying property in the UK, we own a significant portion of it. But the point was facetious.

Manic Moran

No. They should have let Argentine keep them

Shutuplaura wrote: »

You are making the assumption that going to the UN would be seen as a sign of weakness. Who exactly would have thought that?

There's an issue of posession being nine tenths of the solution. I am at a loss offhand to find any examples of any UN sanctions which have had the desired effects in a reasonable period of time and without affecting those they were emplaced to try to serve in the first place.

Finally, its also slipped your mind that the Falklands were based on exceptional circumstances - The reaction of the junta to the actions of scrap merchants, the fact that the UK was and is in possession of very few disputed territories etc.

It hasn't slipped my mind, I simply don't think it matters. From my point of view, the issue is one of simple principle and is extremely black and white. Unusual or not, those are the circumstances which existed.

The only answer I can give is that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Most Western societies pride themselves on the fact that the rights of the minorities are protected despite the majority. And as it happened, it seems the majority of the Falklanders and the majority of the Brits seemed to rather agree on the course of action to be followed, so there was no conflict between the two anyway.

In absolute terms about a thousand people were killed in the war. How many people did each death touch, how many impermanently disabled people did the war create, how many suicides resulted? Forced resettlement of what would have been in effect refugees would have been terrible and I wouldn't wish that on anyone but Its preferable to death or the loss of a father, son or brother.

If I were to be killed in action, I would certainly hope it was in the effort to help people who were not in a position to help themselves. For the sake of the point of view of the British serviceman, the islanders were in that position, and they were subjects of the same Queen to whom the servicemen swore allegiance. Dying is what soldiers do. It sucks, but the code is that if ten servicemen are killed to help one civilian, then that's the price it costs.

And the refugees could have been comfortably accomodated by the British at a fraction of the cost of sending the task force. As someone also added, the British government in 1971 resettled a similar number of inhabitants from the island of Diego Garcia. Why should it try to claim the high moral ground in the fight for a few more islanders in another island in the middle of nowhere?

So they should compound an earlier error by repeating it in an effort to at least be consistent? In any case, a major difference here, however, is that the British re-settled D.G., the Argentinians attempted to force the issue upon the British in the case of the Falklands. The British had been in some negotiations with the Argentinians on the status of the islands for some time. The UK government wasn't particularly interested in keeping the islands on their own merit, but reasonably enough, they refused to have the change dictated to them at the point of a gun.

You are ignoring and have failed to address a hugely important point though. The war was fought for the political benefit of the Conservative party, not the islanders or not for south Atlantic oil deposits.

With respect, that's a supposition on your part. There is no doubt that the war raised Conservative opinion in the polls, but that does not mean that the war was not fought primarily on the basis of principle.

NTM

Shutuplaura

No violence is alway wrong

That the war was fought for political gain is not just the theory of a lone history nerd on boards.ie. Its a fairly accepted theory. Of course unless someone involved in the decision making process comes out and says so it will always remain such. But still, to believe that the war was fought over such appealingly attractive idealogical reasons that you painted is questionable. That isn't black and white by any means.

"Most Western societies pride themselves on the fact that the rights of the minorities are protected despite the majority. And as it happened, it seems the majority of the Falklanders and the majority of the Brits seemed to rather agree on the course of action to be followed, so there was no conflict between the two anyway."

To take concerted diplomatic action against the Argentines would also have been to protect the islanders. To shelter the islanders while sanctions etc did their stuff would also have been to protect them. It was eminently possible to protect the islanders without going to war.

Also, there was no consensus in Britain about whether the war should have been fought. It was popular because the British ultimately won. Remember Maggie telling the reporters in Downing St that they should rejoice that South Georgia was after being retaken? Enthusiasm wouldn't have required such a stren order to manifest itself surely.

"If I were to be killed in action, I would certainly hope it was in the effort to help people who were not in a position to help themselves. For the sake of the point of view of the British serviceman, the islanders were in that position, and they were subjects of the same Queen to whom the servicemen swore allegiance. Dying is what soldiers do. It sucks, but the code is that if ten servicemen are killed to help one civilian, then that's the price it costs."

Dying may be what solders do and I'm not a military man and you are I believe so I'm mostly going to defer to you on this point. It is a very noble sentiment. I believe though that the British solders who were clearly highly motivated and eager to do their job were put in a dangerous position unnecessarily. There has to be a point where you say that lives are not worth the effort, even motivated, trained, willing soldier's lives. I believe that in this case the solders lives could have been spared to the same effect, this being so, they should have been.
One the other side, the Argentines were undermotivated conscripts who often didn't even want to be in the army let alone fighting for some rock in the south atlantic. Perhaps there lives should also be considered?

"There's an issue of posession being nine tenths of the solution. I am at a loss offhand to find any examples of any UN sanctions which have had the desired effects in a reasonable period of time and without affecting those they were emplaced to try to serve in the first place."

Hmm. They are a blunt tool its true. Their effectiveness can be very subjective. That being said though, an unpopular Junta being hit with a round of sanctions in response to an ill judged aggression - who's to say what would have happened? It should have been given a chance though. The 1970's saw a series of quasi-fascist dictatorships coming to an end, in Portugal, Greece, Spain and I'm sure elsewhere. There was a definite precedent for the people of Argentina to take their cue from.

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

err, the second quote was not me, so you may want to either quote me correctly, or change the name.

What exactly is a fairy tale? do you not believe Britain has a nuclear arsenal? it's all hypothetical because it was never going to happen, which was my point in the first place.

Never implied britain hadn't a nuclear arsenal, just stated it was a fairy tale in proposing that britian would throw one at a superpower like China.

Fratton Fred

No. They should have let Argentine keep them

McArmalite wrote: »

Never implied britain hadn't a nuclear arsenal, just stated it was a fairy tale in proposing that britian would throw one at a superpower like China.

It's a fairy tale (hopefully) tht Britain is going to throw nuclear missile at anyone, which is why it is not a relative comparison between the Falklands and Hong Kong.

Manic Moran

No. They should have let Argentine keep them

Shutuplaura wrote: »

That the war was fought for political gain is not just the theory of a lone history nerd on boards.ie. Its a fairly accepted theory. Of course unless someone involved in the decision making process comes out and says so it will always remain such. But still, to believe that the war was fought over such appealingly attractive idealogical reasons that you painted is questionable. That isn't black and white by any means.

I'm wondering if you're not attributing 'effect' towards 'cause'. Certainly there was a direct correlation between the Falklands War and Thatcher's re-election, I'm just not convinced that it wasn't simply a beneficial side-effect to what they (as Conservatives particularly) considered to be the morally correct thing to do. There were other side-effects as well, for example the USSR undertook a serious upwards re-evaluation of UK military capability, which I'm sure was another factor being considered in terms of how seriously other countries took the UK's military. In any case, it seems that we are not going to come to an agreement on this one.

To take concerted diplomatic action against the Argentines would also have been to protect the islanders. To shelter the islanders while sanctions etc did their stuff would also have been to protect them. It was eminently possible to protect the islanders without going to war.

How could they have sheltered the islanders from the sanctions, when the islanders were under Argentinian occupation?

Also, there was no consensus in Britain about whether the war should have been fought. It was popular because the British ultimately won. Remember Maggie telling the reporters in Downing St that they should rejoice that South Georgia was after being retaken? Enthusiasm wouldn't have required such a stren order to manifest itself surely.

It wasn't unanimous, but the voices against were in a decided minority. After WWII, I cannot think of any 'send-offs' such as the Task Force had. And a large majority of those were not so much because they thought the war should not be fought as much as they thought it could not be fought. As Admiral Woodward puts it, "Several entirely competent organisations were of the opinion that an operation to recapture the Falklands was a military impossibility" (to include the RAF and the US Navy... and, of course, Admiral Anaya), and that they'd simply be sending ships and troops to fight, get sunk/killed and lose.

There are other possible reasons for the emphasis in Downing St over Operation Paraquet. Over three weeks had passed since the Argentine invasion, and there was quite a clamour over "What the hell do we have a Navy for, what are they doing, just bobbing about in the mid-Atlantic, sunbathing on the decks?" It was also important to send a pointed message to Argentina. Note that Haig's diplomatic actions were still ongoing, but until South Georgia, the Argentinians flat believed that the UK was not going to make a fight of it, and they told point blank told Haig as much. By making such a big public deal of retaking S. Georgia, a message is sent to Buenos Aires which cannot be ignored. There was still time to resolve the issue before the British launched an attack on the Falklands proper, which Argentina did not take advantage of.

There has to be a point where you say that lives are not worth the effort, even motivated, trained, willing soldier's lives. I believe that in this case the solders lives could have been spared to the same effect, this being so, they should have been.

What is that point? Where is your line in the sand? Are you arguing that the 1991 War over Kuwait should not have taken place? How about the actions against Serbia in 1999? Sanctions had been in place against Serbia for seven years at that point, and were still not bringing the country to obedience.

One the other side, the Argentines were undermotivated conscripts who often didn't even want to be in the army let alone fighting for some rock in the south atlantic. Perhaps there lives should also be considered?

Think about that for a second. You've just put across the most novel argument in favour of international bullying I've ever heard of. "We'll go and use military force to invade this really weak group of people, but don't attack us in return because all you'll be doing is killing people who had no choice about it! The inhumanity and brutality of it all!" Most Iraqi soldiers were conscripts, who, given their surrender rates, certainly didn't seem to have much of an interest in the Kuwait jaunt; should this have provided immunity to Iraq's military from attack?

Absolutely, their lives should be considered. By their chain of command who sent them there in the first place. The lives of Argentinian servicemen, conscript or otherwise, are not, and should not be the concern of the British until they have surrendered and are in their care.

That being said though, an unpopular Junta being hit with a round of sanctions in response to an ill judged aggression - who's to say what would have happened? It should have been given a chance though. The 1970's saw a series of quasi-fascist dictatorships coming to an end, in Portugal, Greece, Spain and I'm sure elsewhere. There was a definite precedent for the people of Argentina to take their cue from.

On the other hand, most Argentinians believe that the Falklands are rightfully theirs. If the nation is being punished for something which they think is their right in the first place, they're more likely to rally in support of the Junta than go against it. I don't hear much about the protests in B.A. saying "it's not worth fighting over, let the British have the islands back before someone else gets killed"

NTM

wasper

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

Belfast wrote: »

I say Yes the British were right to defend the islands

By comparison. The natives of Diego Garcia were forced from their island & moved to different country to make a USA air force base. This happened 1965. The British rulers of the island did that. But the sent 97 ships to fight the Argentinians in 1982. One wonders if the poor of Diego were not of black skin they would have fared better.

dresden8

No. They should have let Argentine keep them

wasper wrote: »

By comparison. The natives of Diego Garcia were forced from their island & moved to different country to make a USA air force base. This happened 1965. The British rulers of the island did that. But the sent 97 ships to fight the Argentinians in 1982. One wonders if the poor of Diego were not of black skin they would have fared better.

The Americans wanted Diego Garcia. The Brits do what they're told when it comes to the US.

ejmaztec

dresden8 wrote: »

The Americans wanted Diego Garcia. The Brits do what they're told when it comes to the US.

"The Special Relationship" (you scratch my back and I'll steal your wallet):pac:

meathstevie

No. They should have let Argentine keep them

Without a shadow of a doubt was it just for the British to defend the Falklands/Malvinas, for the following reasons :

- Under international law a country has the right to defend it's territory
against invasion and aggression. Last time I checked the islands in
question were British territory in 1982 and Brittain has the right to uphold
territorial integrity against foreign aggression. This rule applies to every
country in the world.

- The population of the islands by far preferred to be ruled by London rather
than by a bunch of wannabe Nazi's in Buenos Aires.