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

[Sternjaeger II]

wow, 19 posts and we have another keyboard hero

Anyway, in answer to your points...

Originally Posted by trashcanman

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?

here's a read for you
http://www.cancilleria.gov.ar/portal...s/homeing.html

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

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.

Originally Posted by trashcanman

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

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

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

wow, 19 posts and we have another keyboard hero

'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.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

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

Stern, you are choice.

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

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

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

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.

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..

Britain colonised the place then, and the populace ever since then have been happy to accept British Administration.

no, read here http://www.cancilleria.gov.ar/portal...s/homeing.html

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

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.

[ATAG_Dutch]

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.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

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.

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.

[ATAG_Dutch]

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.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

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

yeah whatever...

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!

so far pretty much everybody in this thread seemed to agree with me actually..

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.

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?

[PeterPanPan]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

... you can refer to a country with its geographical name: Great Britain, United Kingdom, same difference ...

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.

[klem]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

................
here's a read for you
http://www.cancilleria.gov.ar/portal...s/homeing.html
.......................

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.

[Kupsised]

Originally Posted by klem

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.

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