1982 Falklands (Malvinas) War: a view from across the pond

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

I think the Argentinians should give back Argentina to the native Indians, and return to Spain.

so should Americans give back the US to natives and come back where they came from?

let's try and keep this conversation to a sensible level please..

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Jaws2002

...That for about a year, until Argentina gets their invasion force ready. Argentina is a huge country and wants Falkland for themselves. Is little the small island, without Britain's help, can do to protect itself fron an Argentinian invasion. There's no more than a thousand people on the island.
It took the whole strenght of Britain to get the island back. Sure, the Argentinian military is not what it was back then, but still, a little island is no match and it would be ocupied sooner or later.

Geographically and historically speaking, the islands were part of Argentina. The Argentinians made a big mistake invading. UK was almost ready to just give the islands to them. The Brits lost men on that windy rock. It is a lot harder to give it away now.

Yeah they really screwed up big time.

It still remains that releasing the tension about the Falklands and claim them as independent (with the status accepted on both sides) would serve as an example for the rest of the world in terms of relaxing things a bit, there's far too much tension over territoriality.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

I think the Argentinians should give back Argentina to the native Indians, and return to Spain.

Hmm, I am not sure if we still have some place here when you give back the British Isles to their original celtic people and return home. Maybe in Pommeria, it's pretty empty.

[Volksieg]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

..erm, not really: the territory of Palestine and Israel has been under the control of the Brits up until post WW2, and it's the British Protectorate who helped Jews to go back there, but when they realised there was no way to control it because of the tensions with Palestinians they buggered off, telling everybody to behave.. So whose sovereignty is valid there? ....

....This doesn't mean that the British presence is more legitimate than the Argentinian one though. Again, independence from both would be the ideal solution.

....With all the technology going on today you don't really need listening posts, and surely not one that far anyway. It was a good strategic presence during the 60s and 70s, but now it's just economic interests.

I would say that the Israeli-Palestinian troubles are similar inasmuch as it is a territorial dispute in which the claims for ownership are muddied at best. The example you give, for instance, is merely one interpretation of events amongst many (The first casualty of war is truth, afterall) and it could also be suggested that the British backed out of Palestine and recognized Israeli sovereignty as a result of well documented terrorist attacks against British interests and troops implemented by Zionist groups.

Ultimately, as with all territorial squabbles, the truth of the matter is hard to grasp for either side or even the neutral observer. The Falklands is the same inasmuch as there is Spanish (And, therefore, Argentinian) claim and British claim and both have interesting arguments.... but, ultimately, it is down to the Falklanders how they wish to be perceived and they wish to be perceived as British.

I am certain, from many people I have spoken to from both sides of the fence, that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians just want to get on with their lives in peace but, sadly, life doesn't tend to work like that. (Call be a cynic) An Argentinian friend of mine has also stated that the majority of Argentina really don't give a monkeys...... but that won't stop escalation, sadly. I hope that clears up my comparison.

Whose Sovereignty is valid with regards to Palestine/Israel? I ain't touching that one with a ten foot barge-pole. lol I have my views on the matter but I'd rather keep this discussion on the level of "Metapolitics" than risk breaking the well established "No politics" rule on this forum.

As far as a war based on resources such as oil.... I can't think of a single war that hasn't, ultimately, been about resources. Many people blame religion and say similar about that but I prefer to view religion and/or Ideologies (Such as Communism, Fascism, National Socialism etc...) as simply spurs to action and a means of getting one's population "on side"... Essentially the "Ideology" is a useful tool for enabling the pursuit of goals of any given Nation. WW2, for instance.... it is indisputable that Germany had a serious lack of resources, both natural and imported, which justified, in their minds at least, the Imperialist policies which led to their drive East.... of course, by the same token, the Soviet forces had no choice but to defend their own territory and resources also.

Call me a terrible cynic but I think war, as a phenomenon, is eternal and with us till the last human being croaks it. I would love to "Give peace a chance" (Who wouldn't?) but, ultimately, there will always be someone "out there" who does not share that view..... and their reasons will always be "justifiable" if only to them.

Simply put: You are totally correct, Sternjaeger II... independence from both would be ideal and end all dispute (Again, same with Israel/Palestine recognising each other as independent and clearly defined states.)...... now try implementing that! That is, essentially, my ultimate comparison between the two. The world is filled with armchair generals with great plans on how peace can be achieved (No insult! We all do it. lol) but the reality is not necessarily as easy to achieve as we think it is from the safety of our armchairs and computer desks.

[Volksieg]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Hmm, I am not sure if we still have some place here when you give back the British Isles to their original celtic people and return home. Maybe in Pommeria, it's pretty empty.

Totally true. The only reason there is an England is because Vortigern hired Saxons, Jutes etc as mercenaries to fight the Picts and we simply refused to "go home" when the job was done. The rest, as they say, is history.......

[Sternjaeger II]

well there are countless examples of wars not related to economic interests, and what's common to all of them is that they NEVER involve capitalistic countries

[Volksieg]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

well there are countless examples of wars not related to economic interests, and what's common to all of them is that they NEVER involve capitalistic countries

heh heh . Of course Capitalism is just another "Ideology" to add to the list. Sometimes the "Resources" don't even need to have any basis in hard reality.... an "economy of ideas"....

I'm getting rather misanthropic in my old age, I think. I have often wondered if we, as a species, just like bashing each other's heads in and the excuses..*cough*..I mean Justifications come later.

[Gribbers]

As mentioned in previous posts. The islanders want to remain British, and if they decide to change their minds then the British government will consider the options. Besides [may be wrong here] I remember that the islanders were treated pretty appallingly by the invading force.

As for the oil, don't the two countries have a joint commercial venture in place for both to drill in certain areas???

Besides, who needs another war over the same peice of rock...

I too followed the the conflict in the 80s very closely. As a Brit, it was an interesting conflict for us, unused to fighting without dominant air superiority.

Loving the new series on Channel 4...not sure if they're all based on the same conflict but the last two have been.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Gribbers

As mentioned in previous posts. The islanders want to remain British, and if they decide to change their minds then the British government will consider the options. Besides [may be wrong here] I remember that the islanders were treated pretty appallingly by the invading force.

that's the whole point of the debate, if you're of British descent it's obvious that you'll lean towards being dependent from Britain. The whole point is that there's a need to re-establish some balance, regardless of what people say (after all, do our Governments normally listen to us?!).

As for the oil, don't the two countries have a joint commercial venture in place for both to drill in certain areas???

Besides, who needs another war over the same peice of rock...

well, some areas are deliberately left off-limits because of the lack of an agreement, and frankly if you could choose between a share or the whole thing, what would you choose? Another war would be probably made acceptable, and it's only our energetic needs that we have to thank for that.

I too followed the the conflict in the 80s very closely. As a Brit, it was an interesting conflict for us, unused to fighting without dominant air superiority.

Loving the new series on Channel 4...not sure if they're all based on the same conflict but the last two have been.

well I'm sure it was an interesting test for the Royal Navy Harriers, and frankly I would have expected the Skyhawks and Mirage III to be more of a threat, but then again operational limits played an important role in the whole conflict.

Another interesting thing is that the Argentinian Air Force doesn't seem to have changed much since '82!

[ATAG_Dutch]

If anyone missed this on Sunday night here's the link;

There are three adverts before the prog starts.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/f...id/4od#3304762