1 hour ago, JackGats said:

If I'm not mistaken

You are 

2 hours ago, Salerno said:

You are 

Your the one who is mistaken..

3 minutes ago, norfolkandchance said:

Your the one who is mistaken..

Please do explain.

 

 

On 3/3/2023 at 2:44 PM, The Fugitive said:

We didn't need any assistance.

Well apart from:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/03/07/us-aid-to-britain-in-falklands-war-is-detailed/6e50e92e-3f4b-4768-97fb-57b5593994e6/

3 hours ago, JackGats said:

If I'm not mistaken the reason the UK wanted to hang on to those islands was because oil reserves were suspected nearby. Now those islands are only a dead loss. If I were the Argentines I'd let the UK pay until the cows come home to maintain the life-line.

The reason the UK fought the Falklands war was the then Thatcher Government was in its knees, tge Argentinian invasion played directly into Thatcher’s need for a distraction.

 

She, for the first time in British military history, took the victory parade, normally presented to the Monarch and went to the polls on the post Falklands war polling boost.

 

The ‘natural resources’ argument came after the war.

 

If history is going to be dragged into it then we should return the UK ( up to Hadrians Wall ) to Rome who it belonged to for about 400 years.

 

USA should be handed back to indigenous Indians and New Zealand to the Maoris.

 

Argentinians of European descent should repatriate themselves to Spain etc etc.

 

History is exactly that ...........  history.

14 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Please do explain.

 

 

The fleet in Taranto in the WW2 comes to mind.

28 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well apart from:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/03/07/us-aid-to-britain-in-falklands-war-is-detailed/6e50e92e-3f4b-4768-97fb-57b5593994e6/

As per a previous post though, this contravenes Article 6 (Geographical Limits) of the NATO treaty. Also, no mention of the most valuable assistance provided by our very good friends in South America.   

26 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The reason the UK fought the Falklands war was the then Thatcher Government was in its knees, tge Argentinian invasion played directly into Thatcher’s need for a distraction.

 

She, for the first time in British military history, took the victory parade, normally presented to the Monarch and went to the polls on the post Falklands war polling boost.

 

The ‘natural resources’ argument came after the war.

To be fair, the IRA were doing terrible things at home as at that time.  

27 minutes ago, norfolkandchance said:

The fleet in Taranto in the WW2 comes to mind.

WW2 and Falklands?

 

I repeat. Please explain.

8 minutes ago, The Fugitive said:

As per a previous post though, this contravenes Article 6 (Geographical Limits) of the NATO treaty. Also, no mention of the most valuable assistance provided by our very good friends in South America.   

Nevertheless, the UK relied on significant military assistance from the U.S. 

 

 

32 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The reason the UK fought the Falklands war was the then Thatcher Government was in its knees, tge Argentinian invasion played directly into Thatcher’s need for a distraction.

 

She, for the first time in British military history, took the victory parade, normally presented to the Monarch and went to the polls on the post Falklands war polling boost.

 

The ‘natural resources’ argument came after the war.

 

Actually, no. You are incorrect.

 

The reason was an invasion by Argentina on to British sovereign soil. That invasion had to be repelled. 

4 minutes ago, The Fugitive said:

To be fair, the IRA were doing terrible things at home as at that time.  

Irrelevant to the thread.

Just now, youreavinalaff said:

Actually, no. You are incorrect.

 

The reason was an invasion by Argentina on to British sovereign soil. That invasion had to be repelled. 

It didn’t ’have to be repelled’.

 

It was repelled, but there are plenty of historical examples of invasions not being repelled and or dealt with by other means.

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Nevertheless, the UK relied on significant military assistance from the U.S. 

 

 

Some intelligence sharing, a few million gallons of aviation fuel and an unspecified amount of mortar shells.

 

Hardly "significant military assistance".

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It didn’t ’have to be repelled’.

 

It was repelled, but there are plenty of historical examples of invasions not being repelled and or dealt with by other means.

 

 

 

Historical examples being irrelevant to this thread.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Irrelevant to the thread.

You said the Thatcher Government was on it's knees at that time. The IRA was more than a nuisance then.

On 3/3/2023 at 5:08 PM, transam said:

Similar could be said about the USA, Australia, New Zealand etc.....????

Don't tell that an Aboriginal 

The tragedy is the Argentinian invasion wasn’t at all necessary, successive British Governments had been negotiating for the transfer of the Islands to Argentina.

 

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The tragedy is the Argentinian invasion wasn’t at all necessary, successive British Governments had been negotiating for the transfer of the Islands to Argentina.

 

Not quite.

 

Why not tell the whole story?

On 3/3/2023 at 4:03 PM, The Fugitive said:

It is complicated, to say the least. Stolen by colonials (Spanish), not part of Argentina when became independent, then stolen by Britain and a number of Argentinian inhabitants expelled. Vast majority of present inhabitants wish to remain Brits. Who are the actual original owners? 

It is not complicated at all.

The islands were a British possession before Argentina existed.

 

The population, who have been settled on the islands for many generations, are virtually unanimous in wishing to remain British.

 

Argentina will not take their claim to any international arbitration because they know it contradicts the populations right to self determination.

 

In 1982 they invaded and occupied the islands, and were roundly defeated and expelled. The islands are securely garrisoned, and the Argentine military is pathetically ineffective. Argentina is an economic basket case - I read somewhere that they are facing their ninth international debt default?

 

The Port Stanley Girl Guides air rifle team continue to train weekly!

 

You know they could stay and continue to behave all Britishy under the Argentinian flag. You know like the Germans.

On 3/3/2023 at 9:03 AM, The Fugitive said:

It is complicated, to say the least. Stolen by colonials (Spanish), not part of Argentina when became independent, then stolen by Britain and a number of Argentinian inhabitants expelled. Vast majority of present inhabitants wish to remain Brits. Who are the actual original owners? 

Stolen? From whom?

 

There are not and never have been indigenous Falkland Islanders. They were uninhabited when the Brits first landed in the 18th century.

 

The only time Argentinians were expelled was in 1982.

The Falklands belong to neither UK nor Argentina. They belong to the Falkland Islanders.

 

Any future regarding sovereignty is their decision. No one else's.

On 3/3/2023 at 1:58 PM, RickG16 said:

Really? You honestly think the military resources Argentina has comes close to the UK?

Nope, but the Falklands are thousands of miles from the UK and I suspect that the British government doesn't have the 'bottle' or even brain cells to do what Maggie managed to do.

11 minutes ago, simon43 said:

Nope, but the Falklands are thousands of miles from the UK and I suspect that the British government doesn't have the 'bottle' or even brain cells to do what Maggie managed to do.

How far away from Argentina are they ?

7 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

How far away from Argentina are they ?

12921 km

On 3/3/2023 at 12:13 AM, richard_smith237 said:

Well... to be fair, If Argentina owned the Shetland Islands, many would see a very fair claim from Scotland, particularly if Scotland has always historically laid claim. 

 

To the independent observer it would only seem fair that the Islands are returned to Argentina. 

Obviously there is a ‘human’ side to this thus a prolonged handover would seem reasonable.

 

OR... We just go to war again over a ‘fishing island’ with no other resources, half the size of wales with the population of a village some 13,000 km away...  27x further than the Patagonian mainland. 

 

 

 

 

"Maintaining credibility". Putin's neoUSSR/China and the USA  will probably burn up the whole world in full scale nuclear exchanges within the next few years in pursuit of this lauded national prestige.

10 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

Not quite.

 

Why not tell the whole story?

The fact that prior to the Falklands war successive British Governments were negotiating with Argentina for the transfer of sovereignty over the Islands to Argentina is a matter of historical record.

14 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

I think you'll find it's  because the Falkland Islanders are British citizens. They voted to remain as such by way of self determination

 

 

So did the people of Hong Kong, alas.

 

But if the Falklanders had to pay for their keep, cut off from the South American mainland, would they remain there? From what I've read they are the most expensive citizens for the UK treasury, second only to the royals.

 

Note that becoming citizens of undemocratic Argentina (while possibly keeping their UK citizenship) wouldn't have been so bad. The men there could then even entertain a chica from time to time and not get prosecuted for it like in the UK where being said to have fondled the breasts of a 17-year old "child" 20 years ago is enough to get you a life sentence.