Falkland islands - British or Argentine?

LondonIrish90 · 30-09-2011 07:22PM

cml387 wrote: »

No.

But Chile did supply Britain with any intelligence it had on Argentine military
forces.

Were special forces not allowed to operate from Chile? I'm not sure but it rings a bell from the (few) documentaries I have seen on the Falklands war.

mikemac · 30-09-2011 07:24PM

The British Navy has retired their Harrier planes

And they are so short of aircraft carriers they use the French Charles de Gaulle for NATO exercises. It'll be another decade before they have new resources

They've never been so weak, could be a good time for another invasion

LondonIrish90 wrote: »

Were special forces not allowed to operate from Chile? I'm not sure but it rings a bell from the (few) documentaries I have seen on the Falklands war.

Yes, just as observers.

Hazys · 30-09-2011 07:24PM

LondonIrish90 wrote: »

It is not a matter of opinion, they are a British Overseas Territory.

If the question had been "Should the Falklands be British or Argentine" then the answer would remain as British for me. They had been British for centuries before the state of Argentina was even established!

Why should Argentina have them? Because they are close? Maybe OP you would be of a different opinion if I suggested that the Island of Ireland should be British simply due to it being within close proximity to the larger island with a bigger population?

No to Argentine Imperialism!!! :pac:

No quiet. It was only after the war that people of the Island were allowed to claim British Citizenship.

Balmed Out · 30-09-2011 07:25PM

how anyone could consider that the Argentinians have a claim on the Falklands is beyond me.

k.p.h · 30-09-2011 07:38PM

A mate of mine lived their for 7 years. From the stories he told the place is full of lunatics and squadies(army) and lots of sheep/penguin ****.Also he explained that the people that live their are happy the way things are as wages etc reflect those in the UK but costs are a lot lower so the people their are relatively well off. They would need to be I suppose since the place is effectively a **** hole.

I also heard many a rant about the penguins they are meant to be smelly noisy bastards. Not the big fellas ya see in Happy Feet, more like little smelly ones that were compared to rats on more than one occasion.

Also a session in the Falklands is meant to be a proper session and no tax on the beer so wont cast ya an arm and a leg either.

All in all sounds like a great holiday location if ya like a charming **** heap the size of wales.:p

Mike 1972 · 30-09-2011 07:38PM

RobitTV wrote: »

The Falkland Islands (pronounced Spanish: Islas Malvinas)

The naming thing is not just lingustic They can be referred to in English as the Falklands or the Malvinas Islands in the same way as Londonderry can be referred to as Derry.

As for the question of juristiction over the islands its entirely a matter for the inhabitants although there really should be seat(s) in the Westminster parliament representing the overseas territories like I believe the French do.

Balmed Out wrote: »

how anyone could consider that the Argentinians have a claim on the Falklands is beyond me.

I believe it generally the type of people who would support a territorial claim by the South Ossetians to the Far side of the moon if it conflicted with one by the UK.

k.p.h wrote: »

A mate of mine lived their for 7 years. From the stories he told the place is full of lunatics and squadies(army) and lots of sheep/penguin

Which was he :pac:

KeithAFC · 30-09-2011 07:41PM

British.

Witcher · 30-09-2011 07:43PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

British.

Well there it is..Keith's given his verdict..case closed:pac:

slapbangwallop · 30-09-2011 07:43PM

Whats with all this "Falklands" BS.

Las Malvinas!!!!

stovelid · 30-09-2011 07:43PM

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Firstly, the majority of the population on the islands has some sort of ancestral connection to Britain and are predominantly English speakinI

The sheep?

mikemac · 30-09-2011 07:44PM

On another note, it's about time Ireland enforced and pressed their claim on Rockall.
It's been with UN committees for years and years, get it done

Could be valuable one day, it's ours

I'm sure KeithAFC will object though

mike65 · 30-09-2011 07:44PM

mikemac wrote: »

The British Navy has retired their Harrier planes

And they are so short of aircraft carriers they use the French Charles de Gaulle for NATO exercises. It'll be another decade before they have new resources

They've never been so weak, could be a good time for another invasion

The Argies could hardly afford the cost of an invasion, they are still in the financial soup themselves - borrowing to meet public expenditure and er debt repayments.

Mike 1972 · 30-09-2011 07:50PM

mikemac wrote: »

On another note, it's about time Ireland enforced and pressed their claim on Rockall.

Whats the point. If there turns out to be any oil/gas there the Irish government would give all the rights away for two shillings and sixpence.

Let the Danes and Icelanders go halves on it. At least they might find some good use for it.

mike65 wrote: »

The Argies could hardly afford the cost of an invasion, they are still in the financial soup themselves - borrowing to meet public expenditure and er debt repayments.

Err pretty much the same position they were in 1982 ???

The main motivation behind the Argentinians landing there in the first place as to stir up nationalist fervour in the population distracting them from the fact that the Government had reduced their country to a shyteheap.

The main motivation behind Thatcher recapturing the place were pretty similar come to think of it.

I am pie · 30-09-2011 07:51PM

mike65 wrote: »

The Argies could hardly afford the cost of an invasion, they are still in the financial soup themselves - borrowing to meet public expenditure and er debt repayments.

They probably couldn't afford an invasion but they are far from in the soup economically. They have a trade surplus and are not borrowing at all to meet public expenditure, as effectively no will lend them any money !

KeithAFC · 30-09-2011 07:55PM

Blay wrote: »

Well there it is..Keith's given his verdict..case closed:pac:

Rightly so. The British volunteers died to save it.

Nforce · 30-09-2011 07:59PM

cml387 wrote: »

No.

But Chile did supply Britain with any intelligence it had on Argentine military
forces.

And the then Soviet Union reportedly provided the Argentine government with intel on the British Task Force ,through overt overflights and covert submarine operations.

UK special forces were also based in Argentina...mainly observing and reporting from the airfield perimeters where Argentine military aircraft were taking off from in order to carry out missions against the Task Force.

Mike 1972 · 30-09-2011 08:01PM

Nforce wrote: »

And the then Soviet Union reportedly provided the Argentine government with intel on the British Task Force ,through overt overflights and covert submarine operations.

Have my doubts on that one. The USSR and the regieme in Argentina at the time wouldnt have been natural idealogical bedfellows.

charlemont · 30-09-2011 08:05PM

mikemac wrote: »

On another note, it's about time Ireland enforced and pressed their claim on Rockall.

True indeed.

HavingCrack · 30-09-2011 08:09PM

I am pie wrote: »

They probably couldn't afford an invasion but they are far from in the soup economically. They have a trade surplus and are not borrowing at all to meet public expenditure, as effectively no will lend them any money !

While they may have a trade surplus the standard of living in Argentina has plummeted dramatically. Something close to 40% are living below the poverty line. It's a hard one to call. Widespread poverty versus IMF domination...

KeithAFC wrote: »

Rightly so. The British volunteers died to save it.

They were professional soldiers Keith, not volunteers, it was their job. I doubt many people, Argentine or British, would willingly die for the Falklands

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Have my doubts on that one. The USSR and the regieme in Argentina at the time wouldnt have been natural idealogical bedfellows.

Cold War politics made for extremely creepy bedfellows so you never know, the enemy of my enemy is my friend etc. However the Argentinian junta was far closer to the US than the Soviet Union from what I remember.

I am pie · 30-09-2011 08:16PM

HavingCrack wrote: »

While they may have a trade surplus the standard of living in Argentina has plummeted dramatically. Something close to 40% are living below the poverty line. It's a hard one to call. Widespread poverty versus IMF domination...

I was there this year, that's not my experience at least in Buenos Aires. Not at all. New car sales are experiencing incredible growth, unemployment is 7% (not too bad for such a large country in an emerging market) and has experienced dynamic growth over the last 2 years (8 %). Inflation is very high, but wages also are increasing. If they can cool inflation they are reasonably well placed given their status as an emerging market country. I have a lot of friends there and i can tell for certain that the standard of living his increased dramatically since the default in 2001.

Anyway...not AH material !!

bamboozling · 30-09-2011 08:27PM

I remember living in Argentina and this often came up. As far as I'm concerned the population of British so it is best to leave it in British hands other wise a whole box of shít get's opened up.

I can understand Argentina's claim but it was something that the government in the 20th century tried to encourage to drum up nationalism.

The funny thing is that Ireland and Peru were the only two countries to recognise Argentina's rights during the War. The Argentines always liked that, got me out of a corner or two.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 30-09-2011 08:30PM

I voted British.

ejmaztec · 30-09-2011 08:31PM

HavingCrack wrote: »

They were professional soldiers Keith, not volunteers, it was their job. I doubt many people, Argentine or British, would willingly die for the Falklands

... and Irish. A kerryman who was there was telling me that running across a Falklands bog reminded him of home. Needless to say, he didn't die.

mattjack · 30-09-2011 08:41PM

Penguins,the Islands belong to them.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 30-09-2011 08:43PM

HavingCrack wrote: »

They were professional soldiers Keith, not volunteers, it was their job. I doubt many people, Argentine or British, would willingly die for the Falklands

They were both volunteers and professional soldiers, just as we are.

ie They (the British squadie) aren't concripts, so they're volunteers.

MungBean · 30-09-2011 08:50PM

Johanna Delicious Faun wrote: »

They were both volunteers and professional soldiers, just as we are.

ie They (the British squadie) aren't concripts, so they're volunteers.

According to wiki there is a part time volunteer force out there but they were under house arrest during the conflict and played no active part.

Just because your not a conscript doesnt make you a volunteer.

ejmaztec · 30-09-2011 08:53PM

I bet the members of the Argentine government are biting their nails wondering which way this poll's going to go.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 30-09-2011 08:56PM

MungBean wrote: »

According to wiki there is a part time volunteer force out there but they were under house arrest during the conflict and played no active part.

Just because your not a conscript doesnt make you a volunteer.

Just like the Irish soldier, the British soldier is a volunteer pure and simple.

super_furry · 30-09-2011 08:56PM

Self determination. As long as the majority of people living there wish to remain British, they should do so.

Sand · 30-09-2011 09:36PM

Does it make much difference? The Argentines didnt arrive in South America because they were invited. When Argentina gives Argentina back to the Indians they can moan about imperialism.

Falkland islands - British or Argentine?

Comments