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

[Sternjaeger II]

@ 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

[Siko]

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

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Siko

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.

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..

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

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.

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

you obviously have a weird concept of "a very reasonably price to pay" to defend 2000 people..

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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 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.

[fruitbat]

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.

[Jaws2002]

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.

[Hood]

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

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

What a lovely website.

Hood

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

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

[Sternjaeger II]

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?

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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

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.

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.