On 3/3/2023 at 1:55 PM, simon43 said:

I'm sure the Argies know this and realise that they can take the Falklands by force and Britain will be unable to do anything about it.

Where are the submarines? Does anyone know????

12 hours ago, Denim said:

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.

Americans and Australians  who keep shouting at other people to give the land back get furious when you mention American Indians and Aborigines 

On 3/3/2023 at 4:29 PM, Jingthing said:

Las Malvinas Son Argentinas

Heyyyyyyyyy Macarena. 

11 hours ago, Jingthing said:

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

Would you stay in your USA without the stars & stripes to make another country happy....?

13 hours 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.

 

Gawd 'elp us, I really don't understand what's going on in your ant-British head.....

12 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

The islands were a British possession

Colonialism = Stealing.

Just now, The Fugitive said:

Colonialism = Stealing.

Stole from whom.....?

26 minutes ago, transam said:

Gawd 'elp us, I really don't understand what's going on in your ant-British head.....

Ad hominem.

England has a brand-new shiny aircraft carrier.  Let's trot her on out and she what she can do!

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Ad hominem.

Yes, in your case the UK.....

43 minutes ago, transam said:

Would you stay in your USA without the stars & stripes to make another country happy....?

I would prefer if Canada took over.

11 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

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.

To colonise and build you first have to steal. The circumstances of the British 'seizure' in 1833 are disputed. Antonio "El Gaucho" Rivero remains a hero in Argentina for rebelling against British authority.

On 3/3/2023 at 3:31 PM, norfolkandchance said:

Why should the UK hand over the Islands with all its natural and mineral resources ?

Because the empire-building era is well and past and hanging on to the remnants of far-flung colonial possessions for profit now seems slimy and robs indigenous and local residents of a means of wealth creation. 

28 minutes ago, transam said:

Stole from whom.....?

Can't be theft if the territory you steal has no inhabitants? Brings something else to mind about 'a land without people for a people without a land'. That's not gone too well either. 

On 3/3/2023 at 2:31 PM, The Fugitive said:

Population of The Falkland Islands voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. Anyway, it doesn't matter even if UK had no Navy. NATO has to back-up any member nation if invaded.

That is not so because:

 

'The Falklands War between the United Kingdom and Argentina did not result in NATO involvement because Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty specifies that collective self-defense is applicable only to attacks on member state territories north of the Tropic of Cancer'.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_NATO refers.

3 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

That is not so because:

 

'The Falklands War between the United Kingdom and Argentina did not result in NATO involvement because Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty specifies that collective self-defense is applicable only to attacks on member state territories north of the Tropic of Cancer'.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_NATO refers.

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

 

Officially NATO does not have to help UK in the Falklands. However, I have reposted the above link kindly already posted.

29 minutes ago, mikebike said:

indigenous and local residents

Who are not Argentine????

8 minutes ago, The Fugitive said:

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

 

Officially NATO does not have to help UK in the Falklands. However, I have reposted the above link kindly already posted.

Oh for sure it was well known that we had a lot of help from the US during the Falklands campaign, indeed it's doubtful whether we would have succeeded without their help. But that was nothing to do with NATO and it did put a lot of strain on our so called 'Special Relationship'.

45 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Because the empire-building era is well and past and hanging on to the remnants of far-flung colonial possessions for profit now seems slimy and robs indigenous and local residents of a means of wealth creation. 

Belt and roads, Mikey, Belt and Roads.

Does UK still have that thing with Nepal about Gurkha soldiers fighting for the Crown?  Stories were that when the Argie troops spotted them during the war in the 1980s they sh_t their pants and ran away, such is their reputation.

I lived in Arg a bit in the '00 decade.  At least once a week there was something in the newspapers regarding the war (20 years past at the time):  a monument, a speech assuring mothers their sons did not die in vain, a movie, even a new holiday.  So yeah, it's 40 years now and still festering.

The conventional wisdom at the time was Arg started the war to distract the citizens from the economic problems.  Now, it looks like they see weakness within UK, and are acting on it.  Kind of ironic that this time it could be the Brits getting the distraction advantage from the confrontation. 

 

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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.

Show us then. 

2 hours ago, VocalNeal said:

Where are the submarines? Does anyone know????

One of the most up-to-date carriers in the world, and another on the way.

 

HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales

 

The key numbers:

The project to build HMS Queen Elizabeth and sister ship HMS Prince of Wales cost more than £6bn.

The aircraft carrier weighs 65,000 tonnes and has a top speed of 25 knots.

She can carry up to 72 aircraft, with a maximum capacity of 36 F-35B fighter jets. It is more likely the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers will have up to 24 Lightning jets on board for operations, however.

Her flight deck is 280m long and 70m wide – enough space for three football pitches.

The ship is the second in the Royal Navy to be named Queen Elizabeth.

The ship has a crew of about 700, increasing to 1,600 when a full complement of F-35B jets and Crowsnest helicopters are embarked.

There are 364,000m of pipes inside the ship.

Both HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales will keep 45 days' worth of food in their stores.

The entire ship's company of 700 can be served a meal within 90 minutes – 45 minutes when at action stations.

 

https://www.forces.net/news/hms-queen-elizabeth-all-you-need-know-about-britains-aircraft-carrier

 

1 hour ago, The Fugitive said:

To colonise and build you first have to steal. The circumstances of the British 'seizure' in 1833 are disputed. Antonio "El Gaucho" Rivero remains a hero in Argentina for rebelling against British authority.

The British have been on Falklands since 18th century.

17 minutes ago, bendejo said:

Does UK still have that thing with Nepal about Gurkha soldiers fighting for the Crown?  Stories were that when the Argie troops spotted them during the war in the 1980s they sh_t their pants and ran away, such is their reputation.

I lived in Arg a bit in the '00 decade.  At least once a week there was something in the newspapers regarding the war (20 years past at the time):  a monument, a speech assuring mothers their sons did not die in vain, a movie, even a new holiday.  So yeah, it's 40 years now and still festering.

The conventional wisdom at the time was Arg started the war to distract the citizens from the economic problems.  Now, it looks like they see weakness within UK, and are acting on it.  Kind of ironic that this time it could be the Brits getting the distraction advantage from the confrontation. 

Argentinians tell you that they WILL be making another attempt to sieze the Falklands. What their armed forces think of that idea is almost certainly another matter.  

5 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

The British have been on Falklands since 18th century.

France already had a colony on the Falklands when the British 'claimed' them. 

45 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

Oh for sure it was well known that we had a lot of help from the US during the Falklands campaign, indeed it's doubtful whether we would have succeeded without their help. But that was nothing to do with NATO and it did put a lot of strain on our so called 'Special Relationship'.

Special relationships exist both within NATO and outside. Official involvement is disguised by other Countries providing 'observers' and 'advisors'. Covert specialist operations by such as SAS and SBS don't happen of course.

13 minutes ago, The Fugitive said:

France already had a colony on the Falklands when the British 'claimed' them. 

If you wish to continue pre dating, the first recorded British landings at Falklands were actually in 1690. At that time they were uninhibited.

1 hour ago, The Fugitive said:

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

 

Officially NATO does not have to help UK in the Falklands. However, I have reposted the above link kindly already posted.

The USA, not NATO..................

1 hour ago, mikebike said:

Because the empire-building era is well and past and hanging on to the remnants of far-flung colonial possessions for profit now seems slimy and robs indigenous and local residents of a means of wealth creation. 

And you are from, just so I can see what your lot were up too.................? ????

19 minutes ago, The Fugitive said:

Special relationships exist both within NATO and outside. Official involvement is disguised by other Countries providing 'observers' and 'advisors'. Covert specialist operations by such as SAS and SBS don't happen of course.

Tell me the "Special relationships" Argentina had, as you seem to know all about it.......