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

Coming up on the 30th anniversary a lot of great articles popping up on the news sites. This article describes how cooperation between USA and UK enabled the campaign to be completed successfully without excessive British losses:

Reagan, Thatcher, and the ‘Tilt’
---snip----
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...es%29_1982.jpg

[W]hen the military government of Argentina dared to invade in April of 1982, the successful British retaking of the Falklands entered into the realm of legend and revitalized both Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Government and Great Britain as a whole.

The extent to which American assistance was a crucial part of the British war effort is still debated. Paul Sharp claims that “Britain’s success in the Falklands War…would not have been possible without US support.”[1]Then-Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger downplayed the role of American aid, characterizing himself as a mere “assistant supply sergeant, or an assistant quartermaster.” He placed the glory of victory solely with the British:

"Some said later that the British could not have succeeded if we had not helped. This is not so – I think the decisive factor was Mrs. Thatcher’s firm and immediate decision to retake the Islands, despite the impressive military and other advice to the effect that such an action could not succeed.[2]"

While the revival of the wartime Anglo-American ‘special relationship’ did not necessarily ensure a British victory, the effects that American support had on British and Argentinian morale and indeed, world opinion, were significant. As Sharp explains, “had the Americans decided to oppose Britain’s recovery of the Islands, then the war would have been impossible and Thatcher’s political demise all but assured.”[3]

The sophisticated weaponry supplied by the Pentagon, such as the Sidewinder air-to-air missile and the Stinger man-portable surface-to-air missile, helped to minimize British casualties. Especially crucial was US intelligence. That support was all the more surprising as it constituted a near-complete reversal of the centuries-old Monroe Doctrine demarcating the western hemisphere as an entirely American preserve.

Declared at the height of Bolivarian revolutions sweeping Latin America and portending a sundering of ties with Spain, the Monroe Doctrine was pronounced at President James Monroe’s seventh State of the Union Address in 1823. The time having “been judged proper,” Monroe asserted that:

"As a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers … We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those [European] powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety."

The independence movements seemed likely to draw the ire and full military might of Spain (or other predatory European colonizers seeking to capitalize on Spanish misfortune) upon the Americas. While the United States was incapable of backing up the doctrine with force, the very declaration served Europe notice that the United States considered the entirety of the hemisphere its exclusive domain.

For almost a century, it remained that way. There were instances of European Great Power meddling during the Civil War, but they were limited at best. Until the Spanish-American War, the United States was left to its own devices in the hemisphere, despite the lack of any military force to back up the Monroe Doctrine for the better part of the nineteenth century. Instead, America dealt mostly with the native political movements in Latin America, attempting to secure at least anti-Communist, if not pro-Washington governments. The Cuban Revolution was the clearest indication that American strategies might not be working, but fortunately Fidel Castro’s rise to power did not presage a ‘domino effect’ in Central and South America.

By the early 1980s, American anti-communist efforts in Latin America appeared to be faltering. The Vietnam War had ended in undignified withdrawal less than a decade before, and communism appeared to be on the move in Iran, Angola, Afghanistan, Grenada, and a host of other places around the world. Particularly troubling were the Sandinista movement in Nicaragua and ironically, the various Bolivarian movements throughout South America. Thus the Falklands crisis arose at a time when the United States was attempting to strike a precarious balance between its dedication to the west and its fear of a creeping communism.

David Dimbleby and David Reynolds call it “an impossible situation,” with President Ronald Reagan forced to choose between America’s closest ally and its best friend in South America.[4] While perceived by the British public as a general reluctance to back the United Kingdom, the hesitation on Washington’s part was warranted. Even attempts at mediation were discouraging to Whitehall, with Secretary of State Alexander Haig’s 33,000-mile ‘shuttle diplomacy’ seen as a disinclination to aid Britain at all.

Argentina had been a relatively reliable anti-communist partner, despite the distasteful ruling military junta led by General Leopoldo Galtieri. But continued intransigence from Buenos Aires eventually made up Washington’s mind for it. UN Security Council Resolution 502 was ignored, and despite several offers of mediation from both the US and Peru – the latter’s was even accepted by the British – Argentina pushed ahead with their invasion.

A potential complication for US support was the position of the Organization of American States (OAS), the regional framework for North and South America conflict resolution, which condemned the “the unjustified and disproportionate armed attack perpetrated by the United Kingdom” and called upon all member-states to aid Argentina. John Norton Moore condemns the OAS behavior before and after the war, accusing the organization of having “lost its principles.”[5]

Rather than a breaking of fellowship with the other nations of the Americas, the United States’ eventual support for Britain was all the more surprising because it was backing an external power in its own backyard. The U.S. was all too willing on numerous occasions to override prevailing OAS sentiment in pursuit of its own interests; that was to be expected. It was merely a continuation of the Monroe Doctrine. But by aligning with a foreign power, specifically Britain – largely the original target of the doctrine – America was overriding centuries of precedent and repudiating one of the foundations of its foreign policy.

Despite the existence of the ‘special relationship’ and the close ties between the British and American intelligence and defense establishments, popular sentiment towards the relationship had been on the wane in Britain since the 1960s. British popular opinion trended towards the two countries growing farther from each other. Even the eventual American support in the Falklands provided a temporary boost, with the sense of the two countries growing returning to its prewar level by late 1982. [6] The common refrain that Reagan’s United States was the greatest threat to world peace – as well as his bellicose posturing regarding nuclear weapons – had served to alienate many Britons. That in and of itself does not make the eventual Anglo-American wartime partnership surprising, but it does point to the increasing possibility of a special relationship sundered. Even after the relationship hit lows at the end of 1982 and ’83, British esteem for America only increased throughout the later 1980s.

Between the initial Argentine invasion on 2 April and the eventual American ‘tilt’ towards the British, 28 days elapsed. Much of that time was spent engaged in diplomatic negotiations with the OAS. Reagan’s cabinet was deeply split over the issue. Weinberger and his deputy, Lawrence Eagleburger, were devoted Anglophiles and all for an immediate commitment to support Britain. Jeanne Kirkpatrick, US Ambassador to the UN, was vehemently opposed. She referred to the Weinberger faction as “Brits in American clothes” and asked “Why not disband the State Department and have the British Foreign Office make our policy?”[7] Weinberger and Haig, maneuvering behind the scenes, convinced Reagan that if mediation should fail the United States would immediately and entirely throw its weight behind the United Kingdom.[8]

Despite the public show of neutrality and indecision though, the traditional intelligence and defense links between Britain and America had not been severed. The standard American posture towards Britain was not altered; continuity meant the same thing as neutrality. Said John Lehman, then-Secretary of the Navy, “there was no need to establish a new relationship … It was really just turning up the volume…almost a case of being told not to stop rather than crossing a threshold to start.”[9] From 5 April, shipments to Britain had in fact been increased under the watch of Dov Zakheim, one of Weinberger’s appointees, and military aid to Argentina had already been mostly suspended, owing to the military junta’s abysmal human rights record.[10] All that remained was for existing arrangements to be made official.

Only a day after the invasion, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 502, demanding an immediate ceasefire and Argentine withdrawal.[11] Again, the Argentinians held their ground and continued to forge ahead with the invasion. Further American and Peruvian efforts to mediate a settlement were again ignored. Reagan had little choice but to follow Haig and Weinberger’s advice and side with the British in the face of such dedicated Argentine intransigence. It was not a foregone conclusion, as Duncan Anderson calls it: “there was not the slightest prospect of the United States supporting Argentina against Great Britain.”[12] While absolutely true, neutrality was a viable alternative for a time. Washington finally leapt in when there was no other alternative.

The OAS was quick to denounce the United States’ support for Britain. A spokesman for the Venezuelan embassy accused the U.S. of “siding not with its little brother but with its stepmother.” One Brazilian commenter claimed that it was now clear America had first- and second-class allies. Only the former British colonies in the Caribbean took Washington’s side.[13] But the die was cast, and the United States moved quickly to make good on its promises.

After a month of American indecision, the suddenness and decisiveness with which American aid was thrust upon the British was close to miraculous. The United States provided everything except for manpower. The American base at Ascension Island (ironically, leased from the British) was now the closest one to the combat zone, albeit still 3,800 miles away. Weinberger took steps to cut through the “infamous” Pentagon bureaucracy and deliver materiel to the British as quickly as possible, reducing the usual procurement time of six weeks to about twenty-four hours, with some even arriving within six hours of the initial request. He gives an account of the weapons and equipment being delivered:

The first requests were for missiles, particularly our Sidewinders, the AIM 9-L air-to-air missiles, with which the British wreaked such havoc on the Argentines, and aircraft fuel. But initially we had to, and did, add enormously to the facilities at Ascension to receive and deliver the fuel and other supplies to the British task forces’ ships and planes (we also sold them twelve of our F-4 fighter planes at a “bargain basement” price after the war, in order to allow the British to keep a Phantom squadron on the Falklands).[14]

By 1982, the F-4 was hardly a frontline, state-of-the-art fighter, but it was still a valuable piece of technology that the United States was ready and willing to share with Britain. The Sidewinders certainly were state-of-the-art; as one of the first all-aspect air-to-air missiles in the world, it allowed RAF pilots to shoot down Argentine planes from any angle in the sky. Between 1 May and 23 June, 27 Sidewinders were launched. 24 hit their targets.[15] No longer were the British confined to trailing behind enemy fighters.

As for the overall strategic picture, Anderson invokes the grim specter of a South Atlantic winter. “Without American logistic support, most of which was channeled through Ascension Island, the operation would have taken much longer, and would undoubtedly have been compromised by the onset of the southern winter.” Getting to Ascension in the first place would have been impossible without the 12.5 million gallons of aviation fuel provided by the Pentagon.[16] Between the logistic, aviation, and intelligence requirements of British forces, the case is clearly weighted towards a decisive American contribution. It was significant in the sense that without the support, the British effort would have taken far longer, suffered many more casualties, and possibly affected Prime Minister Thatcher’s government in the UK general election.

Towards the end of the war, by the 21 May landings, it was increasingly clear that the British had the upper hand and were going to emerge victorious. The primary concern in Washington became setting the proper tone for the postbellum situation. In the words of Dumbrell, Haig shifted his emphasis to “avoiding an Argentinian humiliation and towards pressing on London the virtues of magnanimity.”[17] At stake was the very legitimacy of the Galtieri regime and the Argentinian state. However, for Thatcher, negotiation over the Islands was a nonstarter. As Americans cheered in the White House Situation Room when the end to hostilities was announced, London embarked on an expensive garrisoning of the Falklands, and refused any initiatives to discuss their status. Meanwhile, Britain’s sense of national pride and confidence had been restored over the course of several months.[18]

Almost immediately the carefully cultivated special relationship returned to its pre-Falklands bickering. The standing of Margaret Thatcher was affirmed in American popular opinion: the ‘Iron Lady’ was now a fixture on the world stage and a major player in the coalition of the west. Her reelection in 1983 came easily, the war having solidified the Tories’ position. British opinion of America did get a boost from the latter’s support, but it was short-lived, shrinking back to prewar levels by winter 1982 and evaporating after the 1983 American invasion of Grenada.[19] American support for Britain somewhat soured in return after Thatcher refused to back the Grenada expedition, seen as avoiding the responsibility of ‘paying back Washington’ for its support in the Falklands.

Perhaps that reluctance – or even denial of the need – to ‘repay’ America for siding with Britain came from the official London downplaying of the American role. John Nott, the British Defence Secretary, thought that America was “almost indecently keen to save Galtieri’s face, with only France giving unqualified assistance.”[20] American officials like Weinberger were equally likely to diminish their own part in the war.

While Margaret Thatcher continued to insist on Britain’s devotion to the United States, rifts in her own cabinet and in the lower echelons of both Washington and Whitehall seemed to drive the two countries apart. When she stood with America, she often alienated herself from the rest of her government, and vice versa. In that sense Thatcher herself was one of the defining characteristics of the special relationship in the 1980s.

But regardless of the consequences – or rather, because of them – the American tilt towards supporting Great Britain in the Falklands War came as a shock to Britain, the OAS, and indeed most of the world. The materiel, bases, and intelligence provided were invaluable in bringing the war to a swift end without an excess of casualties. The American position in the Falklands was most certainly significant, and to a large extent surprising. But perhaps the most startling aspect of this is that the support should have come as a surprise to anyone. It was just the newest incarnation of the 200 year-old special relationship.

[1] Paul Sharp, Thatcher’s Diplomacy: The Revival of British Foreign Policy (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998), 101.
[2] Caspar W. Weinberger, Fighting for Peace: 7 Critical Years in the Pentagon (New York: Grand Central Publishing, 1991), 215.
[3] Sharp, Thatcher’s Diplomacy, 101.
[4] David Dimbleby and David Reynolds, An Ocean Apart: The Relationship between Britain and America in the Twentieth Century (London: BBC Books, 1988), 313-314.
[5] John Norton Moore, “The Inter-American System Snarls in the Falklands War,” The American Journal of International Law 76.4 (October 1982), 830-31.
[6] Jorgen Rasmussen and James M. McCormick, “British Mass Perceptions of the Anglo-American Special Relationship,” Political Science Quarterly 108.3 (Autumn 1993), 525-26.
[7] Dimbleby and Reynolds, An Ocean Apart, 314.
[8] John Dumbrell, A Special Relationship: Anglo-American Relations from the Cold War to Iraq (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), 197-98.
[9] Quoted in Dimbleby and Reynolds, An Ocean Apart, 314-15.
[10] Dumbrell, A Special Relationship, 198.
[11] Domingo E. Acevedo, “The U.S. Measures against Argentina Resulting from the Malvinas Conflict,” The American Journal of International Law 78.2 (April 1984), 323-24.
[12] Duncan Anderson, The Falklands War 1982 (Oxford: Osprey, 2002), 24.
[13] Dumbrell, A Special Relationship, 202.
[14] Weinberger, Fighting for Peace, 213-14.
[15] Christopher Chant, Air War in the Falklands, 1982 (Oxford: Osprey, 2001), 79.
[16] Anderson, The Falklands War, 24, 26.
[17] Dumbrell, A Special Relationship, 199.
[18] Dimbleby and Reynolds, An Ocean Apart, 315-16.
[19] Rasmussen and McCormick, “British Mass Perceptions of the Anglo-American Special Relationship,” 525.
[20] Dumbrell, A Special Relationship, 200.

Thanks for this! I'm just about to start writing a short paper on the Falklands (comparing the situation now to then and the difference in how it was and is being handled, public opinion etc.) so this will really come in handy for that as well, but either way it was interesting.

mmmmh I am not impressed with the whole Malvinas/Falklands issue, the truth is that we have two countries fighting over it for phoney reasons, when the only mutual interest is to put their hands on the oil rich seas around the islands.. the truth is that from an external point of view the UK claims seems to be a bit ridiculous and far-fetched, if anything for geographical reasons.. the best solution would be to turn it into an independent island, regardless of what everybody say.

You're absolutely right on two points. Oil and an Independent Island.

The first will always be a silent 'reason'. It has no moral value.

The second is what really matters. Ask the Islanders what they want for their island. That is what is important.

As far as I can tell, both from memory of 1982 and current island opinion, they prefer to stay 'British' but they can change their minds at any time of course. What they actually are is 'Falklanders' or whatever other name they choose for themselves. I think Margaret Thatcher never said the Falklands are British, I think I remember her saying the Islanders wanted to be British and that they had been invaded by what to them was a foreign power.

Agreed

well yeah, I suppose that if I had to choose between being under the UK or Argentina I would go under the former within a blink of an eye, and the demographics of the islands (heavily shaped by the British occupation) talk for themselves. I would still frankly advocate my own independence, given the choice, and become one of the richest countries on the planet.

Totally true. In some ways it is similar to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict inasmuch as it is all too easy to throw up an, otherwise logical and sensible, suggestion but it ultimately comes down to what the population want. The Falkland Islanders want to be British and, therefore, are.

Something I find interesting are the accusations of "Colonialism" and "Imperialism" coming from across the water.... Britain colonised the Falklands before there even was an Argentina and, if one wishes to split hairs, Argentina itself is a Colony, as is the United States.... Go far back enough and England is also. :D It seems to be colonies all the way back ad infinitum, ad nauseum and probably a few other "Ad"s that make me sound a hell of a lot smarter than I am. :D

Oil is certainly playing a major part in the decision making process, of course, but such is the nature of politics anyway...... if there are no resources or identifiable use for a territory, the claims to said territory will, naturally, tend to thin out somewhat. During the last Falklands conflict, the islands were a useful listening post into Cuba (Probably still are.... a few signed pieces of paper do not end a cold war, regardless of what our news networks and politicians may suggest.... heck! We all spy on each other anyway.... allies, enemies, neutrals....). This time the issue is much needed fuel. The fact the Islanders wish to be considered British is a strategic bonus if nothing else.

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

...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 from 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.

..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? :confused:

That is not correct. Nobody cared much about the Malvinas up until they were under Spanish control: it's Spain who officially gave the Malvinas to Argentina when they recognised their independence, but in the meantime British colonies had settled in and slowly but systematically kicked out all of the Argentinian settlements. It was an occupation, and as such it was left until someone said "hey guys, there's some oil drilling opportunities 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.

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

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

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.

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.

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. :D

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! :D 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.

:D 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.......

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 :D. 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. :D 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.

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.

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?!).

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.
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! :shock:

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

Goods points...

I personally have no issue with them being completely independant from Britain, and in all honesty, still admire and respect the Argentinians, both from the 1980's and today ;)

The episode that interested me the most in the entire conflict was the potential SAS operation on Argentine soil...almost certainly suicidal...called off due to bad weather.

Please tell why?

From a realistic perspective the argument over who should have control over the Falkland Islands is pretty simply solved by international law. Under the UN Charter all peoples have a right to self determination, whatever that may be (meaning it doesn't matter if it's independence, assimilation or anything in between). The people on the Falkland Islands have selfly determined that they wish to remain a protectorate of the United Kingdom and, thus, legally that's what they are, end of.

The Argentinian argument against this is based around territorial integrity, but this doesn't really stand as it's debatable whether the islands were ever part of Argentina in the first place, whether it was in Spains powers to give the islands to the Argentinians or whether the British stole the islands or merely took what was not being used. Since this isn't clear and it's not like we can call witnesses from the time in order to testify, logically the only legal basis to consider is that of self determination. The argument that the Falkland Islands are closer to Argentina is just rubbish because 'it's closer to us than them' doesn't stand up against codified international law. That's like taking your neighbours car because he parked it closer to your house than his, it just wouldn't stand up in a court of law.

Of course there is a whole argument that the British placed what are now the Falklanders there, but that doesn't matter. They are not only the dominant party on the island, they are more or less the only party on the island. That is maybe a matter of ethical behaviour, but it is not a matter of law.

I'm seriously surprised I don't see the UN Charter cited in the news more often, or even from anyone arguing the British point of view. It is essetially the most important form of international law and it comes down pretty heavily in the favour of the Falklands remaining British as long as they want to.

EDIT: It's worth pointing out that I don't support either the British or the Argentine side in the argument, that's just as far as the problem goes in a purely legal context. Of course, we all know international law isn't always followed...

Hello BaronW,

Just a remark abt the analysis you hve posted.

In the arly 80's, the US with the Reagan's administration where pressing the cold war equilibrum just like a limon to let the last drop out of it. The idea was to force the USSR toward unsustainable military expenses. Things you all know abt.

What import here is that Germany and UK where the very play ground of that new policy mostly illustrated in the early 80's by the Pershing's SSBM installations and the vast deployement of tactical nuclear assets based away from the VVS in UK (there was no Flankers at that time).

When came the Falkan's crisis the UK gov whre forced to give away their advantageous position in this NATO new US led policy for some tactical benits (reco assets, military equipmnets delivered immediatly, sat intels etc...).

To says things shortly : it was a good bargain for the US.

But don't take me wrong. I am not singing the old "US are evil"complaint. I simply think that they took a given opportunity.

However, to say that UK absolutely needed that help wld be a wrong assumption. As you said it only spare lives (on both sides).

Oh .. and don't forget the Chilian help to the UK regarding intelligence, radar and communications.

Both sides fought bravely. If you hve ever been down that part of the world, I am sure you'll understand the terrific nature of air combat above deserted vast land area, cold sea and the challenging weather of the sth seas during the season.

yeah, the SAS involvement was interesting indeed, they still managed to make a great deal of sabotaging though, didn't they?

well one would expect the Mirage to be and Scooter to be at least on par with the Harrier, and whilst the Argentinians had limited range, the Royal Navy had to operate from aircraft carriers, with all the logistic constrains it carries. I dunno, many think that the Argentinians only had Pucaras, but there was more to it me thinks.

..I'm afraid you're missing the point here, nobody is arguing about the right of self-determination, it's about how did the Brits end up on such small islands on the other side of the world..

Again, there isn't much of a "blurred story", it was a case of British settlers taking territory and kicking out Argentinian communities, so one could also argue that the British sovereignty is based on an illegal occupation.
I wouldn't concentrate on what people there want, as much as understanding whether they actually have any rights to decide for the island's territoriality or whether they've been squatting there for generations.

To use an example similar to yours: imagine your neighbour has a bungalow adjacent to your property, he decides he doesn't need it and gives it to you. You put some tools in there, but don't really use it that much. Some people from another state come around and see the bungalow, they squat in it, you don't make much of it for years (maybe cos you don't care, maybe cos you want to be nice to the foreigners or simply don't have the means to evict them) and they gradually kick all your stuff out and claim it as theirs, so that when you have enough of it and decide to claim it back, you can't, cos the squatters say it's theirs.

Or in a nutshell, think of what happened in Dale Farm...

Yet you say its silly to look at what happened 500 years ago, but 200 is important.

What's your cut off point and rational for this? I'm curious as to where you draw the line, 300 years Ok, but 299 not?

As I said, legally, it doesn't matter how they got there, they have been there for long enough now for the self determination principle to apply. 200 years in a long time, for example there are many countries in Europe are only just over half that age, but no one would consider giving them back to former occupiers because it simply doesn't work that way. In the same way, the Falkland Islands are, legally, an established entity, but not a state, simply because they have chosen to remain the protectorate which is their right under self determination of peoples. The case for the Falklands remaining British has international law on its side and there is no higher law than that. My post was simply pointing out the legal argument, and that's all that is.

As for the issue not being blurred, check the wikipedia article for the 'Timeline of the history of the Falkland Islands' (for your convenience: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...lkland_Islands) and note the amount of times the word 'dispute(d)' and variations there of are used prior to 1833. The pre-British 'ownership' of the islands is not clear as Spain, Britain, Argentina and to some extent France could in theory claim a stake in the islands. Actually, if you read that link, it also points out that Great Britain has repeatedly tried to refer the case to the ICJ and Argentina kept refusing.

Makes you wonder why they might not want to go to court, doesn't it.

Britain was very fortunate to win it in 82. Many things happened in the conflict itself which went against the Argies, and frankly I'm glad because they were only there as a PR exercise for the Junta and the Falklanders didn't want them.

As for now? Well, we have a Typhoon squadron stationed there permanently along with 1000 or so professional soldiers, a few ships and tomahawk equipped subs pottering about and the island is bristling with Rapier missiles so I'm not expecting an invasion. If it comes then a lot of Argies will end up dead to take it. Furthermore the intel is way higher than in 1982 - word of buildup and attack would be spotted well in advance.

Well if really tht's what they wanted they wld hve only to wait the day Thyphies are grded. Tht won't be too long for sure... Why do you think the island is still "blistering" with expensive to maintain Rapier missiles;)

More over Britain's leaders shld be aware tht if 30 years ago the Argentinian leaders did not really hve their people behind them and only a few allies, nowaday, it wld be quite different.

Analysing the spirit across the Sth Am peninsula, I am on the verge of thinking tht some countries like Br or even Cl wld now join the Argentinian ranks if the storyboard is to be replayed.

I don't think they'd join in in open conflict, but they wouldnät need to. Argentina certainly have the support of Brazil at least on this issue, and they are the biggest power in South America. If it came to conflict the damage being sanctioned by Brazil could do to Britain's economy and presence is South America is enough reason alone not to let it get that far in my opinion, but of course there are many other reasons too.

....give me break for Jesus' sake.

:confused:

:confused:

I...Truth...Best. See a pattern here yet?

Look up megalomania in the dictionary. Preferably a reputable one.



:-|

Seems you are overlooking the key weapon system that gave the British the 'unfair advantage'. Hint: it's mentioned in the article in the 1st post. Or maybe you know of some abilities the Mirage has that the Argentinian pilots weren't aware of?

how comes we managed to have a civilised conversation on such a delicate topic so far until you show up and start with your personal attacks? Other people here take on my opinion and share theirs in a civilised manner, you instead start bullying me and others with your self-righteous and bullying manners.. What is your problem exactly? Don't you really have anything better to do? :confused:

well I'm not a jet expert, you're telling me that the key advantage was the use of Sidewinders? The Argentinians had no missile systems whatsoever on their jets? :shock:

Sternjaeger II, please could you explain exactly what Argentinian communities were kicked out of the Falklands by British settlers? Or maybe actually read some historical facts on the subject before making such comments?

As for USA help during the 1982 conflict, it was minimal. AIM-9Ls offered all aspect capability however all the SHAR sidewinder air-to-air kills were rear aspect.
The Argentinian airforce was beaten by the FAA in air-to-air due to better tactics and training. I will resist the cheap shot about who trained the Argentine airforce ;)

No you are not!!! ... the Argentinians had plenty of air to air missiles!!

Yes. That's why I'm keeping the length of these posts to a minimum.

And you?

wow, 19 posts and we have another keyboard hero :rolleyes:

Anyway, in answer to your points...

here's a read for you
http://www.cancilleria.gov.ar/portal...s/homeing.html
I wouldn't call that an accurate depicting of the scenario: Argentinian jet had to fly all the way to the mainland, which meant they operated at the limits of their range, that in itself is enough of a big disadvantage me thinks.. and even if you have better tactics and training (which in this specific instance could be questionable anyway) you still need something to shoot your opponents down other than cannons.

my observation was sarcastic, but fortunately we have you now who can enlighten us on the wonders of modern jet warfare..

I was having a civilised conversation with other adults until you crashed the party.. why don't you put me in your ignore list if you can't stand anything I say and find any excuse to make personal attacks?

:lol:

'Hello pot!' said the kettle, 'How are you me ole mucker?'

Stern, you are choice.

Now let me guess, erm... your stance on this issue wouldn't be Anti-British at all. would it?

No no no, of course not. I mean, the Pope gave the Falklands to Spain, Spain gave them to Argentina, and the Pope must be right mustn't he? He is catholic after all.

Trouble is, England shrugged off that yoke of oppression fairly early on and so didn't see that it was an issue. Britain colonised the place then, and the populace ever since then have been happy to accept British Administration.

Until the populace say that they want Argentinian administration, that's the way it should stay.

..to which I could answer: Chip? Shoulder? :rolleyes:

why does my stance have to be Anti-British?! It's not all about Britain in this issue, you know?! :confused:

http://stusshed.files.wordpress.com/...pg?w=176&h=251
first of all it isn't "England", but "Great Britain".. and oppression on what, goats? Malvinas were deserted before Spanish and Argentinians settled in.
Besides yeah, Great Britain's heritage on colonisations is all about freedom from oppression.. :rolleyes:
no, read here http://www.cancilleria.gov.ar/portal...s/homeing.html
no, it should be independent for the sake of correctness and if you really care about the sake of the island more than personal economic interests, as many of us here agree.

Good grief, it took you a bloody long time to assemble that post mate! Keyboard hero? Ha! you really do just pull everyone's proverbial.

Same old, same old.

And it's the United Kingdom, not Great Britain. Great Britain is an Island.

P.S. the yoke of oppression was catholicism as you well know, not goats, so don't chop my posts up, unless you're as good at it as I am.

As usual you showed the rest of us what bullying, superficial, racist and ignorant person you are.

Can I invite you to stay on topic and produce evidence on your theories instead of reducing your contributions to personal attacks on me?

Uh and for the record, you can refer to a country with its geographical name: Great Britain, United Kingdom, same difference... England on the other hand is just a country that is part of Great Britain.

Oh Ho!! Reduced to personal insults! The mark of a man running scared!

I don't have to explain anything to you mate. You quite evidently know everything there is to know already.

Isn't it such a shame that the rest of the world doesn't agree with your 'unbiased' opinions though? If only they'd just listen!

Maybe you should walk around the streets with a placard around your neck shouting 'Anything British is Very Bad!', at least you can rest assured that where you live you'd be allowed to do so.

But don't expect everyone in this 'Wonderful Country' to agree with you, that's all.

yeah whatever...
so far pretty much everybody in this thread seemed to agree with me actually..
or maybe you should stop harassing people with your bullish attitude, stomping into a perfectly civilised thread with your self-righteous attitude, deliberately derailing the conversation to turn it into a personal attack on me, how about that?

Ermm...Naaaaah.

Nice, concise forum-friendly analysis, with jingoism imperceptible to the unaided eye! Golly, that "FAA" is a force to be reckoned with! :)

Here is a version that gives actual detailed information about the events:

http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchr...l02/corum.html

War is stupid. People are stupid...

Bad Argentinian tactics made the Skyhawks and Daggers easy prey for the Harriers, if this pilot is to be believed (skip to 3:30 for the pertinent info):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONu_FneIWYA&t=2m58s

Wether the AIM9L shots were predominately rear aspect is neither here nor there what the AIM9L brought to the fight was a previously unknown reliability and Probability of kill if launched in the envelope.... with a true front sector capability if required. All previous generation AIM9's had very average reliability and low PK. The AIM9L brought a quantum leap in reliability and PK to the IR missile world. If the RN had gone in to battle with its AIM9G's (with which they actually sailed from the UK with, the Kill statistics would I suggest have been very different.) Unfortunately for the Argentinians they brought the early generation Shaffir to the fight on their Daggers a missile in the same league as perhaps AIM9D .... but with an even worse Pk. Not all Dagger sorties carried the Shaffir either as the drag penalty ate into an already precarious range problem. In the case of the Mirage they brought the R530 a missile which at the time was more dangerous to the shooter than its intended victim, due to premature detonation at 2.5secs into the flight phase as the influence fuse armed ! Though the various reports indicated that only a few sorties were undertaken with R530 equipped Mirages. Some first generation R550's were also available to the Mirage force. How many R550 equipped Mirage sorties actually took place I have no idea.

An interesting read which IMHO seems determined to ignore the UN resolution on de-colonisation or bend it to its own ends. That's not meant to be inflamatory, its just my take on that I read on that website.

The entire question of Argentinian ownership of the Falklands is based on the initial Spanish siezure of the Islands during their colonisation of that part of the world and Argentina's succession of Spanish rights. The 1960 UN Resolution 1514 (XV) “Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples” was intended to remove such colonisation in favour of the interests and wishes of the peoples living in those colonies. Britain has (had already) followed that principle in the de-colonisation of its 'Empire'.

Argentina, still claiming 'ownership' as Spain's successor, does not seem inclined to follow that principle arguing that it contravenes the protections of the UN resolution which states “any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations”.

However it is hard to argue that the Islands form part of " the territorial integrity " of Argentina when they are beyond the territorial waters of the Argentinian coast, i.e. they are not a contiguous part of the Argentinian mainland. (Territorial Water is a belt of coastal waters extending at most 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) from the baseline, usually the mean low-water mark, of a coastal state.) The Islands therefore always formed, at best, a colony of Argentina or Britain. Also, with virtually no Argentinian presence on the island and an overwhelming presence of people preferring to be regarded as 'British' or at least linked to Britain rather than Argentina, it can't be argued that "national unity" with or of Argentina is disrupted.

It still comes down to the choice of the people living there.

Small point of order, but GB and UK are not the same. Let me explain:

Great Britain is EITHER a geographical description of an island OR a political description of the combination of territories known as England, Scotland and Wales.

United Kingdom is actually short for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and is a political description of a whole nation.

Sternjaeger, you refer to the Falklands/Malvinas as Malvinas, link to decidedly biased websites and clearly have an agenda. Why not cut the brown stuff and admit what you'd really like? ;-)

I love how left wing celebrities and this desperate Argentinian government think that the UK just wants to turn the globe red again and it's 'all about the oil'! Well it wasn't about the oil in 1982 and it wouldn't be about the oil if it came again. It is about the rights of those people, pure and simple.

I agree with one point though-independence would perhaps solve things, but that is a matter for the Islanders themselves....

@ Klem: yeah, well I posted that just for the sake of information, because some people here seem to have a pretty much one sided view of things. I also think it omits some important aspects. It still remains that self determination shouldn't apply unless the people who live on the islands are indigenous, and yes, after 200 years one should consider himself indigenous, but it still remains that the settlers were chiefly British. It's a helluva pickle.

@PeterPanPan: I appreciate the difference, but in history books Great Britain and UK are normally used as synonyms, hence my statement.

@ Siko: I'm sorry but I don't think I referred to them exclusively as Malvinas, and the link was given to provide a different take (read "the other side") on the subject, which is the least you can do in trying to give a fair assessment of the situation. As for cutting "the brown stuff" I am frankly surprised on how for some of you questioning the sovereignty of the UK on the Falklands means that you're automatically an Argentinian or a left wing celebrity. It's like you stuck your head underground in the 80s and that's where you kept it so far. Get over it, the Cold War is over, the Government didn't move a finger in favour of the travellers in Dale Park, but feels that the rights of a few thousand people are worth another war? Mmmmh...

Anyway, for the sake of international relations and to conclude an ever-going tension over this topic, both Governments should agree to accept the Falklands/Malvinas as an independent country, and both should give support (on the basis of the claims they made about sovereignty) to the islanders, simples.

..but then again, if you don't see that the real interest for both countries is to claim the place for its oil reserves I'm afraid this conversation isn't going anywhere.

Just to give you an idea: do you know how much it costs to "protect" those 2000 British islanders?

"McSmith reports that the military in the area will cost the UK £61 million ($96 million) in 2012-13, which is expected to increase by £2 million ($3.14 million) each year."
(http://articles.businessinsider.com/...t-uk-falklands)

but no, it's not about the oil at all :rolleyes:

Sternjaeger....oil was first discovered by Royal Dutch Shell in 1998.

I am fairly sure that was after 1982 wasn't it?! The British line has been exactly the same since 1982 - it is the Islanders right to self determination. Maybe I will concede one point to you, it is not about the Oil for the British government, but almost certainly is for the Argentinean.

Interested to hear where you're from and why the anti-UK stance...I'm British but of European extraction, what about you?

PS I fail to see the relevance of your comment about the cost of defending the Falklands/Malvinas. £61m pa seems a very reasonable price to pay to defend the Isles against a hostile and aggressive neighbour with a history of armed aggresion against them :-)

That actually seems pretty cheap to me. The total UK defence budget for 2012 is £47 billion*, that's £47,000,000,000 to avoid any confusion. £63,000,000 is just over 1/10th of 1% of the UK's total defence budget. Doesn't seem like bad value to me and does rather suggest it is not exclusively about the oil.

* http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/br...012UKbt_11bc5n

In the 80s it was about having a strategic position (like Gibraltar), nowadays the interests are mutating into economics one, especially after they found out more oil than what they found in the North Sea, and probably even more..

I'm an European living and working in the UK, and frankly I don't get why it's perceived as an anti-UK stance only. I'm against both of the parties claiming their sovereignty.
you obviously have a weird concept of "a very reasonably price to pay" to defend 2000 people..

are you even serious?! :shock:

let's do some rough maths: 47bln for 62mln inhabitants means that yearly Defence cost per citizen in the United Kingdom is some £750.

61mln for 3000 people is a staggering £20,000 per head! :shock:

Tomcat, do you seriously believe that the islands are more vulnerable than they were 30 years ago? When the now relatively free Argentine media start broadcasting the bodies coming home they would fold like any other modern country.

I don't think much of your common sense if I'm honest, first the whole 100 octane mumbo jumbo, and now you think that a bit of Argentine rhetoric is enough to make us go wobbly at the knees. We aren't French you know....

The Brits were thinking ahead to the days of no aircraft carriers. :)

I'm pretty sure that it was known that there was a very high chance of finding oil in the region even in 1982. It just wasn't worth extracting it, until now.

And Stern, according to your logic the Canadians should get Alaska, or should they? I wonder if your stance would've been different if the Russians hadn't sold it off to the USA - I don't hear you pleading for sovereignty there, and it was handed over much later than the UK had people living in the Falklands.

Stern that page you linked was from an Argentine Government webpage.

No doubt that there's no slant on that lol.

Still waiting for an answer to my question.

Well said. That's basically the same thing I was saying earlier in this thread, except I think you worded it much better :P

There's a snowball chance in hell for another atempt to take the islands by force.
Argentina was in it's best military shape when they tried last time and the island had almost zero defences.
Now things are a lot different. Trying to invade now would create a lot of casualties and the defenses on the island would most likely be able to hold the invasion, until help arives.

Very different picture. I doubt the Argentinians are willing to take the kind of losses they would suffer.

This is all very interesting, but what about what the Islanders say?

http://www.falklands.gov.fk/

What a lovely website.

Hood

To my point of view, the Malvinas are Argentine territory, you cant go to someones backyard and claim it to yourself because theres no one living there.

And the argentinian soldiers who died and survived the conflic, has the balls of the size of the moon, they were young kids with no combat training, scared and suffering from hypothermia, they fought like hell, they had F.A.L that didnt work, bad munition, no food (the high ranks were stealing all the food, money and items that the soldiers families were sending to them)...poor kids, when they saw the British suited with thermal, night vision, and all that technology..it was a big shock, but they still fought as heroes.

Same as the FAA, to me, the best pilots in the world (argentina STILL has the same jets, A4E Skyhawks, Mirage III, Super Etendart, Pucarás and Pampa)..

They used the jets as attack boats, fliying right above the sea crests..they had to wipe the cabin because of the water..

Big Respect for the Argentinians who fought with honor, they are the real heroes of that horrible and mistaken war.

You are thinking in term of win and loss forgetting that in a modern war, all side hve alrdy lost !

I don't think that this thread was about that kind of rhetoric Osprey. I don't think either the one you mentioned deserve such also.

There might be a time when you'll understand.

Regarding what the Ilanders want. The British did not stop one secod to ponder on what the people allready living there wnated whnen they kicked them out...

The principle of self determination is exclusive for indigenous population, NOT, tranplanted colonial population. No Islander grategrandfather was born on the islands, period. Every one of them comes from a british subjec familly. So the principle of self determination of the people does not aplly to them. It was Argentinian territory with a flag and a governor.. we do not claim to inherit it from spain, we claim it was populated and ruled by Argentina when the british took it by force. Putting it plainlly: If I steal yopur car, does it make it mine if my kid rides on it for long enough time? Or is it still your car?

Same thing here. The onlly reason the islands still are a British ocupied territory is illigal use of force. The whole world sees that, hell even the US abstained, instead of voting aggainst the UN resolutions..... Even the british people say it (acording to the latest polls)....

The war was a desperate atempt used by a drunk to remian in power... and gave the perfect opportunituy to a power drunk lady to stay in power, and oh yes the good ole British Navy a chance to get a little more budget... Still it was our right to claim what is rightfully ours. This is the same case of the owner of a house being sued by the burgler for getting hit in the head with a bat, INISDE the house, of course and with the families DVD in his hands.......

Regarding the combatants, Well both sides displayed honnor and courage and served their countries like true heroes... allways the military pays for the incompetence of their governments... Both sides fighting for what they belive in. My respect for them. British and Argentinians.

No regarthing teh air war... No side WON. Teh British never ever detented Air Superiority. Target were being hit hard from the air till teh last day.. now in any military book that can not be considered Air superiority. If the enemy attacks with impunity, well, it is a problem, right?
So I belive the Air war is more inclined to the argentinians, becouse of the amount of damage they inflcited on the task force.
Dammage unprecedented in a modern war, and not surpased till our days.

NATO ship defense policy changed, the phalanx system was developed by studiying the vulnerabilities of the "state of the art" Anti Air frigates of 1982. suposedlly inespugnable in 1982... Well that sounds like a victory to me...at least a mopral one ;)

Argentinian fighters did not have the range and endurance to fight the Harriers. Besides the Mirages are High Altitude interceptors, and the harriers are low level multipurpose aircrafts... of course the Harriers never climbed to meet the Mirages.. and the few times the Mirages tried to tangle at lo altitude ir order to atract the CAPs to them to aloud the bombers to reach their targets, they payed the price. But it was a calculated risk, to atrack, the CAPs... Later the British did not engage the Mirages and decoy tactics didn´t work any more.

The other piont was that the Magic 1 missiles we had were crap. They would not track and engage over 70% of the time (the Shrafir was onlly marginally better), so it was determined that it was pointless to try to engage the enemy. Our best tactic was to drop bombs and get out...

In actual fact Mount Tumbledown, overlooking Stanley, was a fortress packed with several hundred Marines, some of Argentina's best troops, who were dug in.

They were attacked by 300 Scotsmen, so it's no surprise that they eventually ran for their lives. When the jocks got the upper hand the Argies ordered their own Arty to fire on their position.

I don't think you've done one iota of research about the islands mate, there are so many mistakes in this it's hard to know where to begin.

For the record, and I can't stand Thatcher so I'm no biased, it was her husband who was a drunk - she was always sober even if there was a big party in town. I know this for a fact through a relative who was high up in the Police force when she was in power.

So you are saying that you were xxxx but this never happened

http://en.mercopress.com/data/cache/...s-war-1982.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_f_TiAqdkqU...+Surrender.jpg

I suppose this wasn't hand ball either

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...5_1017085c.jpg

If you have a spare 2 hours

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NtDG0_PgCU

Whatever the background there is no doubt that the UK have had control for approching 180 years. In fact its been under UK control longer than Argentina has existed in its current form.
However its time to look forward, not backward. The UK have a principle that its down to the people who live on the island that have the say over who they exist under. Its exactly the same princple that Scotland are operating under. They have the power to become a seperate country, hard to believe but true and a vote is likely in the next 2-3 years.

Totally agree, raw recruits didn't stand a chance against the best the UK had, but even then they came close to winning the battle.
There was little difference in the technology but the Argentine Leadership were pitifull and that was probably the biggest single difference. Its always the PBI that pay the price

Few in the UK would disagree with this, the pilots were really top draw. I always remember a quote from a Para who had seen some of the attacks. Remembering that they had been told that the Argentine Pilots were not that good he commented.
What F----er said they were no good, bit like Fangio, give them something fast and flashy and they look pretty bloody impressive to me.

From a Para that is very high praise

I dunno about Alaska, and again I'm not saying that Falklands should be given to Argentina.. can you guys actually read? :confused:

..well what's wrong with that? Or is it only the British take a valid one? :confused:

uh and Osprey, you're doing the much dreaded parallel football-history which I believe is one of the telltales of out of place banter.. does it really have to go down to that now? Can the conversation be civilised?

If you look at the changes the global map had in the last 200 years, I kind of have a hard time understanding Argentinian demands.
Things change. countries and empires come and go. Borders are constantly changing.
The place I grew up in, back in Romania, belonged to Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Austro-Hungarian empire, and now is part of Romania. The map of the world changed hundreds of times in this 200 years.

200 years is a long time. There are generations of Brits that lives all their lives on that island. It's their land now. Better get used to it.

This is were things become complicated. A home is not a car. It is one thing to steal a tool and then let the children use it, it is another one to be born and having lived a whole life in one place and then being denied that being their home.
Despite some, admittingly, very strong argumentation towards giving back the Falkslands to Argentina, robbing people of their identity and land is a matter that should not be taken lightly. Former injustice in this regard, and sorry UK, that it was, still can't be made good with more injustice. Gibraltar, btw, is a very similiar case.

However, I think the concept of the Falklands becoming their own entity makes most sense, but this would require such a much more mature Argentina so that these islands could feel safe from occupation.

Agreed. I am British (not of Celtic origin), I'm pretty sure I/we don't claim ownership of everything the Roman's conquered hundreds of years ago.

Hmmmmm, our ancestors hail from Spain, we're Argentinian, therefore the Falklands are ours, despite the fact we all took turns to ravage the the poor 'rocks' with plague, run away for a while and come back (applies to Brits and Argies here)

there are some interesting double standards going on here: a few months ago there was a huge sensation here in the UK because of the eviction of quite a number of "Irish travellers" (something similar to the Gypsies in the continental Europe) who after 10+ years of squatting in an area called Dale Farm were kicked out by the authorities, regardless of the fact that many settled (and were born) there, in a show of force that was quite surprising, and in the meantime you'll have people defending the forced occupation of an island thousands of miles away.. and yes, Gibraltar is probably even more of a peculiar case.
I agree, but as you know there is too much interest in their resources now for it to actually happen.

The problem with that, again, though is that they don't want to become their own entity. If they did, I wouldn't be in the slightest bit surprised if the first thing their newly independent government did was to hold a vote on whether they should become a protectorate of the UK again, which would without a doubt pass, and then we're back to square one.

Depends on the reasons why they do not want to become independent. If it is because of fear of argentinan invasion and the percieved need for protection, then we have a classic circle. Some concessions have to be made, eventually. Giving them self determination by actually forcing them to take self determination may be the lesser of evils here.

Yeah, that case was in the news here. I agree to those double standarts. However, as I said before, you can't justify injustice with injustice.

Possible

Whoa, I normally try to stay neutral on all posts, but I seriously have no idea where to start in picking your post to pieces...and thankfully for most/all post readers I have no idea how to multi quote. :grin: ...

So I'll do it manually :-|

[Irrelevance on] In my second post I mentioned my respect for the Argentinians, and also love the county having been there more than once (twice ;)), and looking forward to going back there again. Food, landscape and people are amazing! And yes, I am British, United Kingdom'ish, English. So praying the politicians will deal with this in an appropriate, cost efficient and peaceful manner...like they're bl00dy paid to do by all of us tax paying servants of both nations! [Irrelevance off]

- "Brits didn't ponder the people before the invasion"...
from what I understand the Brits considered it British territory...hmmmm, any self respecting country would fight for territory it considered it's own, which is why the Argentinians 'invaded' in the first place. So the Argentinians are right to occupy with force and the British we 'illegal'.

- "No Islander grategrandfather was born on the islands, period"...
apart from an increase in your country's carbon footprint just typing and posting that ridiculous sentence...what was the point..."my great grandfather was there first", "No! mine was there first". The islanders, hailing from British territories, amongst many many others, also had great grandfathers and family there. Who cares?

- "Even the british people say it (acording to the latest polls)"...
sources please...maybe more recent conflicts have resulted in similar polls...in 1982, the entire country was behind the exploratory British force...illegal invasion...please, the Argentinians weren't exactly friendly with the locals, taking away basic human rights...Obviously the rest of the world was behind Argentina weren't they...all Argentina's neighbors really did a good job standing up for them and offering help...(throw away comment I know...obviously not many nations weren't behind the Brits on this one either).

- "The war was a desperate atempt used by a drunk to remian in power"...obviously you're referring to Admiral Jorge Anaya...and not Thatcher, and I give you credit for that one. ;) The man needed a diversion and took dramatic and desperate measures and cost his country almost 1000 young lives for nothing. Thatcher on the other hand was a strong female lead of the time (being politically unbiased here - I'm not a Conservative), on a global scale with more important politics to deal with during the 1980's than Argentina's first female premier now. Thatcher was 30 years ago and was dealing with the brink of global nuclear war and being leading a country that could be the staging grounds for world war 3 between the US and the USSR...somewhat more important than the irrelevant argument over oil and a few extra votes on today's political stage.

- "Regarding the combatants, Well both sides displayed honnor and courage and served their countries like true heroes"...we agree on something. :grin: The Argentinian forces consisted of elite forces and marines as did ours. British forces forces considered them worthy in battle...and vice versa.

I don't like reading about the politics/background, I enjoy reading the stories of individuals from both sides, from the British trooper holding a dodgy SLR to the Argentinian Mirage pilot dropping dodgy bombs. I'm sure the veterans of that conflict would rather the stories were remembered rather than forum members have a fight about politics from the 80's...none of us were there or fighting on those rocks, and should respect those that took part, and more the point, stick to the original posters update :o

Firstly, the Falklands weren't populated. There was a Spanish outpost there for 2 years before the island changed hands.

Secondly, Gibraltar was given to the UK hundreds of years ago.

Thirdly, since you bring up 'the Rock' and how it is Spanish then why haven't you also mentioned Ceuta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta) and Melilla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melilla) ?

Where do you stand on the Basques and Catalans then? France and Spain had better hand them over fast.

The point is, it's not all black and white.

Interesting, never heared of those cases. I guess I am sticking to the point that people living there should decide where and how to live, but I am not a friend of "no compromise, to the last bullet!" attitudes when it is about finding solutions, even if this means compromise. You can't live peaceful for any given time with a "I want 100%" attitude.

But in regards to the rest of your questions, I am not a fan of the national state to begin with, I personally would prefer a federation of regions small enough that they could actually take care of their subjects and local traditions and a governing body setting the framework within to interact with each other. Kinda like the EU without nation states but self governing cities and principalities. Today already towns and people on the german french border have more in common with people on the german polish border, just to give an example for the true reailities of how people interact with each other if you give them the freedom to do so.
In this such questions as yours would not play a role anymore anyways.

Baco are you confusing the R530 with the R550 MAGIC I ?

The R550 MAGIC I was in fact a very good missile that actually had better "inside" the turn performance than the AIM9L. Its Auto search and lock capabilities were also pretty impressive. The seeker head was cooled and was from a detection and lock on point of view as good as the AIM9L. In the case of the FAA Mirages only the last seven IIIEA's delivered in 1980 were R550 capable.

The other Matra missile carried by the all Mirages was the R530 carried on the centreline was a real crapola missile. As I said earlier this missile had no end of fusing issues and employment was quite complex requiring a lot of radar work. Even after lock on there was up to 7 second delay (Harmonisation of the radar PRF to the missile) before it could be launched. The R530 was never designed for AA combat ok against High level bombers or non manoeuvring targets. In addition the radar version was pretty much unusable if the missile had to be fired through "the ground line" .... i.e.shoot down shot where the Firers Altitude was less than the range to target.

The Shaffir was only carried by the Daggers and was considered "useless" by the Dagger pilots in post conflict interviews. In short the Shaffir was about on par with early generation Sidewinders and absolutely no match for the AIM9L.

I followed this conflict with great professional interest as at the time I was flying Mirage III's in the RAAF. We operated with both the R550 and R530K. Later on the AIM9L on another type.

A year after the conflict Sea Harriers and Mirages met in exercises off the Australian coast. These were dedicated Air to Air engagements, both sides with GCI and similar in terms of range fuel issues. The Mirage in this environment acquitted itself exceptionally well with better than even outcome.... though notional kills of course :)

Given the conditions and range issues and lack of navigational capability the FAA had to work with I have nothing but admiration for the FAA pilots effort. Similarly from the RN side the tactics they applied to the task in hand were brilliant. They were fortunate to have the worlds best all round AA missile at the time in the AIM9L. The Sea Harrier and the GR3 were the only aeroplanes that could be used. In a WOT IF situation one could only wonder how dramatically worse things would have been for the FAA if the RN could have deployed F4K's an aeroplane infinitely superior to the Sea Harrier in just about every respect.

Dale farm occupants caused havoc, behaved like children to the media and defied the authorities, not being ignorant but they were treated in the UK as they would be in many countries all over the world...we only have to thank human progression that they weren't treated the same way they would have been in 1930/1940's Europe.

Many of them weren't paying council taxes, when the villagers and townies in surrounding areas were. There is an injustice that works both ways: I pay tax, and I've never had the misfortune to call the police, fire brigade or ambulance, or use they're services, and I live in what's considered to be a violent/dodgy part of London, I don't complain, like death, council taxes are inevitable, if you think you are exempt because you keep moving on, then keep moving on...these people were using all services and causing all three to be called out to their site before the disputes, and giving minimal amounts back (some of the occupants were blatantly contributing to society).

Completely off topic I know :grin: but not happy about linking this to the 1980's conflict. Irrelevant.

The fact is, the land didn't belong to them and they weren't paying tribute to the land...that's a global and historical principle.

That rant reminds me a lot of the gypsie talk in this country a couple decades ago. "Parasiten am Volkskörper" I think it was.

u r missing the point. Nobody is questioning the fact that they were illegally squatting on a piece of land, the point is that it's kinda weird to go there after 10+ years and tell them to vacate the site, and in the meantime defending British settlers who illegitimately occupied the Falklands despite the Argentinian presence and declared sovereignty.

I can't probably explain this concept properly, maybe Bewolf can be of help?

Ha, it was a rant ;) and very unlike me...and there are two sides to every story.

Not missing the point at all...the point is, the land wasn't theirs to begin with (by way of legal and recognised land register)...but as you say, don't know how to explain the concept either...or more to the point, know how to link it to baronWastelan's original post :grin:

The Spaniards occupied Falklands/Malvinas, as did the French (for some years), as did the Brits, as did the Argentinians...we all fought, we all fought some more, we all ran away and came back, we fought even more and we are where we are today...back to square one. As is the case with most modern disputes, all started centuries ago.

The sooner we break geographical boundaries, we forget our differences, we all make love (big melting pot style), and create a completely unified human race without religion [ducks and covers], racism and xenophobia we might be able to get to wherever we're supposed to be heading...maybe...

yeah, unfortunately it's still kind of a long way to go, but couldn't agree more!

There is a very simple rule I live by (despite how it may look when people discuss interntional politics).

There are only two kind of people, really. Cool people and a**holes (sorry mods, have to bring a point across). Maybe a third when it is about people you simply do not care about.
Anyways, you find those everywhere, in every religion, in every political spectrum, in every nation or any other kind of community but the most extreme ones. And I will always prefer the cool person over the other, no matter what other labels are stuck to him.

Please stop all this nonsense talk of Argentinian indigenous, peace loving people being forced out of the Falklands by British colonists at gun point.

Maybe we can discuss the way that the indigenous people of what is now Argentina were brutally robbed of their country?

The subject of Gibraltar was also raised.
I find it amusing that Ceuta and Melilla are never mentioned when discussing foreign enclaves in that part of the world :)

Some of my family were born and bred on the Falklands and one of my cousins flew helicopters during the 1982 conflict.
Their general view is that prior to the invasion by Argentina in 1982 the Falkland Islanders had good relations with Argentina and the best way of persuading them to give up their British status was to build bridges and persuade them that their future would be better.

As we all know, in 1982 the Argentinian government was more likely to torture and murder people that disagreed with them.

Having enjoyed freedom for so many hundreds of years, it is easy for Britons to forget that many countries have only recently arrived at that place, often paid for in British blood.

Yesterday I stood and watched the coffins of 6 young men who died trying to bring freedom to Afghanistan as they were driven to their final resting place.

Due to our history, we are an easy nation to throw insults at, especially by “internet heroes” to coin a phrase. Call me jingoistic if you wish. I am proud of most of what my country has done.

Again Stern, I ask the question for the third time. how many years is OK.

200 years in your book isn't OK, but 500 hundred is OK.

Where the line, 201, 301, 401, i'm curious of your rational.

Of course i expect you to duck for a third time.

Can't answer, I'm not surprised.:rolleyes:

Oh, and there's nothing wrong with posting what you did, but if you expect all and sundry to believe intrinsically what you posted without examination then you are a fool, Just as if I'd of posted a doctored 'British' history, then i would be a fool.

As to the question in hand, its nothing to do with me or any of you unless you live there. Only the people who live there, opinions count. I couldn't give a rats ass if they wanted to go solo, but that's my opinion.

Of course if its not up to them, as a few in this thread have delightfully had a bash, i ask them,

Do we advocate ethnic cleansing these days.......



and to add,

I have friends from the first time around, i don't want anymore to have to go through that.

Would be interesting to know what trashcanman's participation in the Armed Forces of the UK is/was. Just curiosity on my part, having had personal experience of turning pride in one's country into action (which I've been told is the highest calling, but I have my own doubts).

well it's no nonsense, but as you said they were a bunch of saints either.

I understand why you feel so strongly about this topic now. I don't think many of us here believe that Argentina would have been better than the UK, it's a matter of making history here, and being under the control of a questionable regime is as bad as squatting into an archipelago and then claim it as yours because British live there. Self determination can't be applied because the settlers weren't natives. Imagine if the scenario was opposite: if there was more of an Argentinian presence on the islands, who do you reckon they would want to belong to? The population of the Falkland is the result of the occupation, so they bear a bit of a biased point of view, don't you think? And to be honest I don't blame them, but I'd be smarter and declare my independence altogether, and make the best of the "newly" found natural resources.
well this is another topic altogether, but as much as I am sorry for all those poor brave guys who fight in Afghanistan, it still remains that we're allowing our Governments to send young guys to die for no reason at all. This distorted idea of exporting democracy to certain foreign countries is terribly arrogant and doesn't even take into account history: if 10 years of Russian invasion didn't change Afghanistan one bit, we really expect to make much of a difference? In 5 years time we'll all be out of there and they'll be back to square one, you can't change thousands-year traditions and heritage with western democracy, it doesn't compute.