Gordon Brown may hand back Falkland Islands to Argentina

[Oscar Namechange]

Daily Express | UK News :: Betrayal fear as PM holds secret Falklands talks

Why is this betrayal on Gordon Brown's part? It's not..... It's a Prime Minister recognising that the days of British Tyrany are over. We should never have invaded in the First Place under the Thatcher regime.



GORDON Brown will this week spark fears that the Falkland Islands could be handed back to Argentina by holding secret discussions about the future of the territory.



The Prime Minister is to have private one-to-one talks with Argentine president Cristina Kirchner – an implacable opponent of British rule over the South Atlantic archipelago – during a tour of South America.



Diplomatic sources say sovereignty is on their agenda.



Last night, veterans warned that any move to surrender the islands to Argentina would be an insult to the memory of the 255 British service personnel who died in the 1982 Falklands War after Argentina invaded.



David Lidington, Shadow Foreign Office Minister, said: “We want good relations with Argentina, but the Prime Minister must make it very clear that the democratic rights of the Falkland Islanders must come first.

Gordon Brown should be urging Argentina to accept the reality of the Falkland Islands’ wishes and to normalise their relations with the people there

David Lidington, Shadow Foreign Office Minister





“Gordon Brown should be urging Argentina to accept the reality of the Falkland Islands’ wishes and to normalise their relations with the people there.



Mr Brown will meet Mrs Kirchner during a conference of Left-of-centre politicians in Chile towards the end of this week.



The meeting is understood to have been arranged by diplomats in an attempt to prevent a row over the Falklands flaring at the G20 Summit in London next month. She had planned to raise the subject then.



In a chilling coincidence, her visit, on April 2, falls on the 27th anniversary of the day when Argentina seized the Falklands.



Foreign Office insiders insist the Prime Minister will not enter into any negotiations on the future of the Falklands, although they will reluctantly allow the president to raise the issue.



But any discussion of the island’s future will cause deep misgivings among both veterans and islanders.



Retired Royal Navy petty officer Derek “Smokey Cole, chief executive of the Falklands Veterans Foundation, said: “There should not be any discussion of the sovereignty. The Falklands should stay British, that’s what the veterans want and that’s what the

islanders want.



Mr Cole, who served aboard HMS Intrepid during the 1982 conflict and took part in the troop landings, was visiting the Falklands yesterday to pay respects to Britain’s fallen heroes.



“We lost 255 of our comrades to keep the Falklands British, and that’s how they should stay, he said. Any negotiations to hand the islands to Argen-tina would be an “insult to their memory, he added.



Downing Street refused to confirm or deny that Mr Brown will hold formal bilateral talks with Mrs Kirchner who insists Argentina’s rights are “inalienable.



“We will say more about his agenda later this week, said a Number 10 spokesman. But sources at Argentina’s foreign affairs ministry confirmed to the respected Buenos Aires newspaper La Nacion that the meeting was taking place.



Sukey Cameron, the Falkland Island government’s representative in London, was relaxed about the meeting. She said: “The British Government’s line is firm and we have no reason to suspect the Prime Minister will differ from that line. She will raise it for her own domestic consumption."

[Imladris]

Bloody disgrace if he does. What was the point of coming to the Islanders aid, respecting their wishes to remain British Sovereign Territory if he just hands it over on a plate.



This Government is a shambles.

[el guapo]

a insult to the troop who died

[Oscar Namechange]

el guapo;1162058 wrote: a insult to the troop who died It's only the troops that are complaining by the look of it. Most people accept that The Falkland islands (Malvenus) belong to Argentina. The troops have to justify why they went there and slaughtered young Argentian kids who were conscripted.

The islands are administered as a British crown colony with the capital at Stanley. The British have long claimed the islands, based on probable discovery by the navigator John Davis in 1592, but they were first settled in 1764 by France. Spain, Britain, and Argentina subsequently had colonies on the islands. When the seizure of an American sealing vessel in 1832 led to a U.S. punitive expedition, the British, claiming sovereignty, occupied the islands in 1832-33 and expelled the Argentinian colonists. Argentina invaded the islands in 1982 over a sovereignty dispute with Great Britain, but British forces responded quickly, forcing a surrender by the Argentines within six weeks. Since the invasion Falkland Islanders have opposed negotiations with Argentina concerning the islands' sovereignty.

[el guapo]

oscar;1162062 wrote: It's only the troops that are complaining by the look of it. Most people accept that The Falkland islands (Malvenus) belong to Argentina. The troops have to justify why they went there and slaughtered young Argentian kids who were conscripted.

The islands are administered as a British crown colony with the capital at Stanley. The British have long claimed the islands, based on probable discovery by the navigator John Davis in 1592, but they were first settled in 1764 by France. Spain, Britain, and Argentina subsequently had colonies on the islands. When the seizure of an American sealing vessel in 1832 led to a U.S. punitive expedition, the British, claiming sovereignty, occupied the islands in 1832-33 and expelled the Argentinian colonists. Argentina invaded the islands in 1982 over a sovereignty dispute with Great Britain, but British forces responded quickly, forcing a surrender by the Argentines within six weeks. Since the invasion Falkland Islanders have opposed negotiations with Argentina concerning the islands' sovereignty.


im not a troop

[Oscar Namechange]

el guapo;1162070 wrote: im not a troop True..... but the whole issue of who owns the Falklands is down to who saw it first. What if Argentina decide they want to take over again? Are we going to waste more millions of £'s and troops live's? because 'we saw it first'?

Is this not how the British Empire was created? With the cunning use of flags. 'We saw it first, so it's ours and i'm putting a British flag on it and that's that'?

YouTube - Cunning use of Flags

Brilliant :yh_rotfl

[Bryn Mawr]

There are two statements here that I object to :-



oscar;1162017 wrote:

Why is this betrayal on Gordon Brown's part? It's not..... It's a Prime Minister recognising that the days of British Tyrany are over. We should never have invaded in the First Place under the Thatcher regime.




oscar;1162062 wrote: It's only the troops that are complaining by the look of it. Most people accept that The Falkland islands (Malvenus) belong to Argentina. The troops have to justify why they went there and slaughtered young Argentian kids who were conscripted.




We did not invade in the first place - Argentina did and, barring the possible exception of the General Belgrano, we did not slaughter young Argentinian kids any more than the Argentinians slaughtered our kids - it is for the politicians on both sides to justify why they went there.

War is wrong and to be avoided but this sort of gross misrepresentation helps nobody.

At this point, after 170 years, possession must be considered to be nine tenths of the law and the wishes of those who have been living there for the past seven generations should dictate sovereignty.

[Oscar Namechange]

Bryn Mawr;1162179 wrote: There are two statements here that I object to :-







We did not invade in the first place - Argentina did and, barring the possible exception of the General Belgrano, we did not slaughter young Argentinian kids any more than the Argentinians slaughtered our kids - it is for the politicians on both sides to justify why they went there.

War is wrong and to be avoided but this sort of gross misrepresentation helps nobody.

At this point, after 170 years, possession must be considered to be nine tenths of the law and the wishes of those who have been living there for the past seven generations should dictate sovereignty.


Sorry Bryn but i can't get my head round it. If i decide i want to live in an island some-where in the South China seas, but say that i want to be ruled by Britain, I have that option do I?

[Bryn Mawr]

oscar;1162186 wrote: Sorry Bryn but i can't get my head round it. If i decide i want to live in an island some-where in the South China seas, but say that i want to be ruled by Britain, I have that option do I?


The original settlers did not choose to go - they were put there by the British.

The current inhabitants didn't decide that they want to live there - they're seventh generation Falkland Islanders who've known no other.

That they are governed by the British is a historical anomaly but one of sufficiently long standing that the wishes of the people involved is important - why should they be ruled by a foreign power just because it is the closest country to their home?

[Oscar Namechange]

Bryn Mawr;1162191 wrote: The original settlers did not choose to go - they were put there by the British.

The current inhabitants didn't decide that they want to live there - they're seventh generation Falkland Islanders who've known no other.

That they are governed by the British is a historical anomaly but one of sufficiently long standing that the wishes of the people involved is important - why should they be ruled by a foreign power just because it is the closest country to their home?


'The contemporary Falkland Islanders consider themselves to be British and have had full British citizenship since an act passed in 1983. Argentina does not recognise the right to self-determination of the inhabitants, citing that they are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population that Argentina claims was expelled after the re-establishment of British rule in 1833 The United Nations have called on both countries to begin dialogue over the sovereignty claim.'

Why did the citizens only have full British citizenship since 1983 if it was their choice to live under British rule and it was governed by the British?

[Bryn Mawr]

oscar;1162220 wrote: 'The contemporary Falkland Islanders consider themselves to be British and have had full British citizenship since an act passed in 1983. Argentina does not recognise the right to self-determination of the inhabitants, citing that they are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population that Argentina claims was expelled after the re-establishment of British rule in 1833 The United Nations have called on both countries to begin dialogue over the sovereignty claim.'

Why did the citizens only have full British citizenship since 1983 if it was their choice to live under British rule and it was governed by the British?


If you can delineate all of the varieties of protectorate, dominion, crown colony, etc and the citizenship of each then I'll tell you why they have only had "full citizenship" since 1983.

It's immaterial - the islands have not had any Argentinian involvement for seven generations, what claim do they have now?

The British are not "aboriginal" in this country - it is a stupid argument given that the only aboriginal populations are those in Australia, Papua New Guinea and Terra Del Fuego (if you ignore the Welsh contingent in the latter). Argentina invaded the Falklands 170 years after Britain "re-established" British rule there - by what right given that they were not the original occupants and have not been the current occupants for so long.

In order to start a war you must have a cast iron and totally exceptional claim - can you outline Argentina's justification for invading the Falklands?

[Oscar Namechange]

Bryn Mawr;1162236 wrote: If you can delineate all of the varieties of protectorate, dominion, crown colony, etc and the citizenship of each then I'll tell you why they have only had "full citizenship" since 1983.

It's immaterial - the islands have not had any Argentinian involvement for seven generations, what claim do they have now?

The British are not "aboriginal" in this country - it is a stupid argument given that the only aboriginal populations are those in Australia, Papua New Guinea and Terra Del Fuego (if you ignore the Welsh contingent in the latter). Argentina invaded the Falklands 170 years after Britain "re-established" British rule there - by what right given that they were not the original occupants and have not been the current occupants for so long.

In order to start a war you must have a cast iron and totally exceptional claim - can you outline Argentina's justification for invading the Falklands? I can only go by what i read and i found this link quite imformative.

Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I must confess that my history is not as it should be on this topic so i do have some reading to do.

[Bryn Mawr]

oscar;1162241 wrote: I can only go by what i read and i found this link quite imformative.

Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I must confess that my history is not as it should be on this topic so i do have some reading to do.


Let me see if I can get the claim straight - Argentina declare themselves independent of Spain, one of their ships (under the command of an American) lands on the Falklands suffering storm damage with its crew incapacitated by disease and find the British in occupation. After the crew recover sufficiently they claimed possession for Argentina on the grounds that there were more of them than there were the British and make it sufficiently unpleasant that the British leave?

It's all totally immaterial given that it's so long ago and that the people who have lived there for seven generations claim to be British.

The Spanish claim Gibraltar but ask them about Ceuta and they're also adamant that it's as Spanish as Madrid.

As I said in my last post, who do you kick out of Great Britain? The Normans? The Saxons? The Celts? All interlopers of one form or another.

[Oscar Namechange]

Bryn Mawr;1162272 wrote: Let me see if I can get the claim straight - Argentina declare themselves independent of Spain, one of their ships (under the command of an American) lands on the Falklands suffering storm damage with its crew incapacitated by disease and find the British in occupation. After the crew recover sufficiently they claimed possession for Argentina on the grounds that there were more of them than there were the British and make it sufficiently unpleasant that the British leave?

It's all totally immaterial given that it's so long ago and that the people who have lived there for seven generations claim to be British.

The Spanish claim Gibraltar but ask them about Ceuta and they're also adamant that it's as Spanish as Madrid.

As I said in my last post, who do you kick out of Great Britain? The Normans? The Saxons? The Celts? All interlopers of one form or another. To be honest bryn, i find it all baffling. I have more reading to do. How would we stand if Spain had laid claim to the Isle of Wight years ago?

[Bryn Mawr]

oscar;1162320 wrote: To be honest bryn, i find it all baffling. I have more reading to do. How would we stand if Spain had laid claim to the Isle of Wight years ago?


If, during the Armada, they had occupied the IoW and had continuously inhabited and governed it since in peaceful coexistence then we would have no more right to invade it than we would have to invade Spain itself.

[spot]

oscar;1162320 wrote: To be honest bryn, i find it all baffling. I have more reading to do. How would we stand if Spain had laid claim to the Isle of Wight years ago?


Why do you insist on being so extreme? The Isle of Wight is in UK territorial waters. It's three miles from the mainland, even I could swim from one side to the other. The Falklands are well over 200 miles from South America, they're not on the contental shelf much less Argentine territorial waters and South Georgia is another four hundred miles beyond that. There's absolutely no logical or historical connection between either island group and Argentina at all. The connection with the UK, on the other hand, is considerable and has existed for hundreds of years. Everyone living there is British, claims to be British, is recognized as British and would even pass paternity tests. The idea of wrecking their way of live by putting them under Argentine governors and open to exploitative Argentine immigration is appalling.

[Galbally]

Interesting interesting.

Well, we'll be wanting the Isle of Mann of course, and also Rockall, and maybe at a stretch we might be cheeky and demand Anglesea. :wah:

[spot]

Galbally;1162427 wrote: Interesting interesting.

Well, we'll be wanting the Isle of Mann of course, and also Rockall, and maybe at a stretch we might be cheeky and demand Anglesea. :wah:


Anglesey's the living heart of Wales, you vile foreign Johnnie. You stay over there where you belong!

[Nomad]

spot;1162416 wrote: Why do you insist on being so extreme? The Isle of Wight is in UK territorial waters. It's three miles from the mainland, even I could swim from one side to the other. The Falklands are well over 200 miles from South America, they're not on the contental shelf much less Argentine territorial waters and South Georgia is another four hundred miles beyond that. There's absolutely no logical or historical connection between either island group and Argentina at all. The connection with the UK, on the other hand, is considerable and has existed for hundreds of years. Everyone living there is British, claims to be British, is recognized as British and would even pass paternity tests. The idea of wrecking their way of live by putting them under Argentine governors and open to exploitative Argentine immigration is appalling.


Appalling...

Huge gaps in your claims.



Although first sighted by an English navigator in 1592, the first landing (English) did not occur until almost a century later in 1690, and the first settlement (French) was not established until 1764. The colony was turned over to Spain two years later and the islands have since been the subject of a territorial dispute, first between Britain and Spain, then between Britain and Argentina. The UK asserted its claim to the islands by establishing a naval garrison there in 1833. Argentina invaded the islands on 2 April 1982. The British responded with an expeditionary force that landed seven weeks later and after fierce fighting forced an Argentine surrender on 14 June 1982.

The first settlement on the Falkland Islands, called Port St Louise, was founded by the French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764 on Berkeley Sound, in present-day Port Louis Est Falkland. Unaware of the French presence, in January 1765 British captain Byron explored and claimed Saunders Island at the western end of the group, where he named the harbour of Port Egmont He sailed near other islands, which he also claimed for King George III A British settlement was built at Port Egmont in 1766. Also in 1766, Spain acquired the French colony, and after assuming effective control in 1767, placed the islands under a governor subordinate to the Buenos Aires colonial administration. Spain attacked Port Egmont, ending the British presence there in 1770. The expulsion of the British settlement brought the two countries to the brink of war, but a peace treaty allowed the British to return to Port Egmont in 1771 with neither side relinquishing sovereignty.

As a result of economic pressures resulting from the forthcoming American War of Independence, the United Kingdom unilaterally chose to withdraw from many of her overseas settlements in 1774. Upon her withdrawal in 1776 the UK left behind a plaque asserting her claims. From then on, Spain alone maintained a settlement ruled from Buenos Aires under the control of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata until 1811. On leaving in 1811, Spain, too, left behind a plaque asserting her claims.

[spot]

You'd get further in discussing these things with me if you weren't so blatantly arguing with me solely to make a fight. Just look at that post. The content has nothing at all to do with "Appalling... Huge gaps in your claims". It's totally unrelated to anything I wrote. If you want to actually address my points then by all means address them but fighting just to be seen to be fighting is beneath you. You're scarcely going to show me up by behaving like a fool in a tantrum.

[Nomad]

spot;1162459 wrote: You'd get further in discussing these things with me if you weren't so blatantly arguing with me solely to make a fight. Just look at that post. The content has nothing at all to do with "Appalling... Huge gaps in your claims". It's totally unrelated to anything I wrote. If you want to actually address my points then by all means address them but fighting just to be seen to be fighting is beneath you. You're scarcely going to show me up by behaving like a fool in a tantrum.


History paints a different picture than the islands are Btitish end of story.

This isnt a fight. Not for me. I cant concern myself with your perceptions but you have continually avoided questions concerning Britains own history of invading territories all the while claiming the US to be the source of evil in the world.

Did you not claim the islands as British ?

Historical documents suggest otherwise.

Your problem is you just dont want to hear it or discuss it so in your shrill manner you disregard me with a slap on the wrist as irrelevant.

Stating facts is merely stating facts.

People that reject your thoughts as less than true or dont take your word for it annoy you. You seem to need to have the last word in every conversation you indulge in. Judgements can be made about personality deficiencies for people that must have control over others. Are you a control freak ?

You have a long history of beating members down into submission or simply leaving them with little choice but to vacate FG as a result of your methods.

Dont talk down to me. I may not be able to match your copy and paste talents but dont disrespect me. Im not a quitter.

[spot]

Delving into history for justification seems to be selective.

You criticize Islamic societies for a lack of gender equality, for example. Gender equality - to the restricted extent that it exists in the West at all - is a product of the 1970s and since. Do you pay attention to arguments that "you used to do it so you can't criticize us because we do" from Islamic apologists? The West used to eviscerate condemned criminals before death as punishment so stop complaining about the odd judicial stoning? You don't go for that, you insist on comparing now with now.

I've said on FG in the past, though you seem to want me to reiterate it. I detest the British Empire, I'm delighted that the old fogey Colonels and their prissy womenfolk went to the grave aghast at how it died. I hope their last minutes were all the more painful for knowing they'd lost the battles and let down their generations of ancestors. I loathe both the Conservative Party and New Labour, neither reflects any of my aspirations for this country and I'll fight them as long as I'm drawing breath. If Tony Blair ends up defending his actions before an international tribunal for waging aggressive war I'll think it's justice.

What matters with the Falklands are the people who live there. They were born there, they'd lose their entire way of life under any other Constitution just as much as they would if they moved to Britain. They'd be like native Americans faced with guns and technology a hundred and fifty years ago, they'd take to drink and die. The matter of economic advantage between Britain and Argentina is secondary.

The same goes for Afghans and Iraqis. What matters is the people. If you remove their ability to determine their own fate you might as well have killed them. It's the same problem and it has the same solution - self-determination. If you ever find the Falkland Islanders wanting Argentine governance then I'll be entirely in favour of Britain relinquishing sovereignty of the islands. If you ever find that the Iraqis or Afghans want to be occupied by Western armed forces I'll be entirely in favour of occupation. Meanwhile, go home and use your armed forces to defend your own borders. Eventually you might decide they cost too much, you might scale them down to more reasonable numbers and costs. You might even find you can deal with illegal immigration instead of just whining about it.

[Oscar Namechange]

spot;1162416 wrote: Why do you insist on being so extreme? The Isle of Wight is in UK territorial waters. It's three miles from the mainland, even I could swim from one side to the other. The Falklands are well over 200 miles from South America, they're not on the contental shelf much less Argentine territorial waters and South Georgia is another four hundred miles beyond that. There's absolutely no logical or historical connection between either island group and Argentina at all. The connection with the UK, on the other hand, is considerable and has existed for hundreds of years. Everyone living there is British, claims to be British, is recognized as British and would even pass paternity tests. The idea of wrecking their way of live by putting them under Argentine governors and open to exploitative Argentine immigration is appalling. I merely used the Isle of Wight as an example and Bryn answered my question for me

[Oscar Namechange]

Galbally;1162427 wrote: Interesting interesting.

Well, we'll be wanting the Isle of Mann of course, and also Rockall, and maybe at a stretch we might be cheeky and demand Anglesea. :wah: Your not getting anything Johnny Boy :wah:

[Chezzie]

Galbally;1162427 wrote: Interesting interesting.

Well, we'll be wanting the Isle of Mann of course, and also Rockall, and maybe at a stretch we might be cheeky and demand Anglesea. :wah:


Pffft you cant even spell it, never mind demand it back:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

(Anglesey):sneaky:

Cheeky Irish boy!

Unless of course you meant the Anglesea in Torquay??

[spot]

oscar;1162658 wrote: I merely used the Isle of Wight as an example and Bryn answered my question for me


But there IS no Falklands equivalent off the coast of the UK. It can't be an example because a) it would be an inaccurate one and b) there are no cases at all.

[Oscar Namechange]

spot;1162675 wrote: But there IS no Falklands equivalent off the coast of the UK. It can't be an example because a) it would be an inaccurate one and b) there are no cases at all. Then please excuse my moment of extreme numptiness.

[spot]

oscar;1162697 wrote: Then please excuse my moment of extreme numptiness.


That's the fourth this Lent, woman. Four and and we still haven't crucified Jesus yet, Lord knows what you'll be like once Easter week starts.

Ten Hail Marys.

[Oscar Namechange]

spot;1162702 wrote: That's the fourth this Lent, woman. Four and and we still haven't crucified Jesus yet, Lord knows what you'll be like once Easter week starts.

Ten Hail Marys. Can't i have six Bloody Mary's instead? :sneaky:

[Galbally]

The fact that I haven't yet demanded the 6 counties back (if there is a fire sale of the British Empire going on), demonstrates that we Irish are a classy bunch.









Brits. :rolleyes:

[gmc]

Galbally;1163039 wrote: The fact that I haven't yet demanded the 6 counties back (if there is a fire sale of the British Empire going on), demonstrates that we Irish are a classy bunch.

Brits. :rolleyes:


Make an offer you never know. Would we allow the Belfast Scots to move back here though? that could start a good argument.

[Oscar Namechange]

Galbally;1163039 wrote: The fact that I haven't yet demanded the 6 counties back (if there is a fire sale of the British Empire going on), demonstrates that we Irish are a classy bunch.









Brits. :rolleyes:


WELL I'VE TOLD YOU ONCE AND I'VE TOLD YOU TWICE.

BUT YOU NEVER LISTEN TO MY ADVICE

WELL THIS COULD BE THE LAST TIME

MAYBE THE LAST TIME, I DON'T KNOW



Look I've told you before 'Johnny Boy'..... your getting nothing and you can keep the Isle of Man as well. No, Scotland is what we want..... they've got the oil. Mind you, that could be cause to invade Scotland by the US. :sneaky::sneaky::sneaky:

[Oscar Namechange]

gmc;1163109 wrote: Make an offer you never know. Would we allow the Belfast Scots to move back here though? that could start a good argument.
Don't you dare go making deals with the Irish. You remember Sporran that your attached to England.



:p:p:p

[G#Gill]

The Falkland Islands are British. The inhabitants are British and want to stay British. They speak English. They are very patriotic to the UK. None of them have the slightest desire to be governed by Argentina. Argentina is only after the mineral wealth of the area. End of.

[Oscar Namechange]

G#Gill;1163245 wrote: The Falkland Islands are British. The inhabitants are British and want to stay British. They speak English. They are very patriotic to the UK. None of them have the slightest desire to be governed by Argentina. Argentina is only after the mineral wealth of the area. End of. Far comment Gill but i believe it was only recently that Argentina lais a new claim to the Islands? What do we want them for? Strategic sheep purposes?

[Bill Sikes]

G#Gill;1163245 wrote: The Falkland Islands are British.


AFAIR they were British before "Argentina" existed.

[Oscar Namechange]

Bill Sikes;1163279 wrote: AFAIR they were British before "Argentina" existed. Correct me if I'm wrong but history shows the Spanish and French had more claim to them before Britain did.

[Bill Sikes]

oscar;1163281 wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but history shows the Spanish and French had more claim to them before Britain did.


Perhaps - at the time - but that time is long gone.

[Oscar Namechange]

Bill Sikes;1163284 wrote: Perhaps - at the time - but that time is long gone. So you agreeing that Spain and France had more claim 'at the time' than we did? Why do the Islanders insist on British citizenship when they only achieved this legally in the 90's?

[Bill Sikes]

oscar;1163289 wrote: So you agreeing that Spain and France had more claim 'at the time' than we did?


No, I said "perhaps". The times were different. What happened that long ago forms the basis for most of what is now, not just that the Falklands are British.

[Bill Sikes]

oscar;1163289 wrote: Why do the Islanders insist on British citizenship when they only achieved this legally in the 90's?


Because they have historically thought themselves so - the "legality" was a formalisation this.

[Oscar Namechange]

Bill Sikes;1163299 wrote: Because they have historically thought themselves so - the "legality" was a formalisation this. One of my arguments in this and I'm willing to accept that 'historically' the Islanders consider themselves British, is that if Argentina were to attempt to take them again, we could waste more millions of £'s and lives over a useless lump of rock. I am not too educated on Argentinian formalities i confess, but were not talking about a civilisation living in the dark ages. Would Argentinian rule be so bad?

[Bill Sikes]

oscar;1163310 wrote: if Argentina were to attempt to take them again, we could waste more millions of £'s and lives over a useless lump of rock.


Not a "useless lump of rock" - a firm principle, as well as a large territory that does not belong to anyone else.



oscar;1163310 wrote: I am not too educated on Argentinian formalities i confess, but were not talking about a civilisation living in the dark ages.


I'm told they don't drop so many people out of aeroplanes nowadays.



oscar;1163310 wrote: Would Argentinian rule be so bad?


That is entirely beside the point. Consider parallels to see why.

[Bryn Mawr]

oscar;1163281 wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but history shows the Spanish and French had more claim to them before Britain did.


A quarter of a millennium ago - and it's not the Spanish or the French who are laying claim to them now.

[Bryn Mawr]

oscar;1163310 wrote: One of my arguments in this and I'm willing to accept that 'historically' the Islanders consider themselves British, is that if Argentina were to attempt to take them again, we could waste more millions of £'s and lives over a useless lump of rock. I am not too educated on Argentinian formalities i confess, but were not talking about a civilisation living in the dark ages. Would Argentinian rule be so bad?


Yes - and their attempt to take sovereignty over the islands was a political ploy to shore up their government of the time. Those conditions no longer exist and would not be repeated.

[gmc]

oscar;1163258 wrote: Far comment Gill but i believe it was only recently that Argentina lais a new claim to the Islands? What do we want them for? Strategic sheep purposes?


Oil and trade. They used to be very important during the days when whaling was a major industry, didn't actualy end until the 1960's. Now there is oil under the sea and as Antarctic oil starts to feature they will b strategically important again.

Whaling in the Falkland Islands and South Georgia

20th Century History of South Georgia, South Atlantic Ocean

It's also of strategic importance controlling trade round the south atlantic

Battle of the Falkland Islands

The argentine invasion was a classic right wing govt tactic to distract attention from unrest at home by outside military adventures. You will note the militiary junta was ousted shortly after the end of the war. If it was of no economic value no one would care who had them. If they had waited another year as thatcher was about to sell our carriers. It was quite simply an unprovoked attack on another nation by the Argentinians.

[Oscar Namechange]

gmc;1163660 wrote: Oil and trade. They used to be very important during the days when whaling was a major industry, didn't actualy end until the 1960's. Now there is oil under the sea and as Antarctic oil starts to feature they will b strategically important again.

Whaling in the Falkland Islands and South Georgia

20th Century History of South Georgia, South Atlantic Ocean

It's also of strategic importance controlling trade round the south atlantic

Battle of the Falkland Islands

The argentine invasion was a classic right wing govt tactic to distract attention from unrest at home by outside military adventures. You will note the militiary junta was ousted shortly after the end of the war. If it was of no economic value no one would care who had them. If they had waited another year as thatcher was about to sell our carriers. It was quite simply an unprovoked attack on another nation by the Argentinians.


You said it.....whaling ended in the 60's. What a surprise..... it comes back to the oil. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I am aware of Galtieri's rise and demise. If i remember correctly, he was out only weeks after we took Port Stanley.

Thatcher's willingness to sacrifice the lives of others.Whilst the Argentineans, under the leadership of Dictator General Galtieri were being whipped up into a patriotic fervor, the UK Government under the leadership of Maggie Thatcher seized at the chance to whip up the same patriotic fervor here. It wasn't going to be easy, as the average Brit thought the Falklands were maybe close to Scotland or just off the Isle of Man. The media helped by reminding us the Islands were indeed 'British' and the people who lived there, the Falkland Islanders, were British too. The media took up the cause, and the Argentineans were portrayed as blood thirsty opportunists who would destroy the British way of life on the Islands. Despite the Islanders having to rely on Argentina for post, education, supplies, medical treatment and almost everything else, we were fooled by some old Empire myth into accepting that we could actually lay claim to Islands 8000 miles away. Thatcher, like Galtieri was going through a massive loss of domestic support and elections were looming. Thatcher knew the patriotic cheer leading would lead to death , but politicians are more than willing to sacrifice others so that they can hold onto power.



Killing Argentine Conscripts=Good for the nations self confidenceIn Thatcher's autobiography you can clearly see her arrogance on the matter when she states the following "The significance of the Falklands war was enormous, both for Britain's self confidence, and for our standing in the World". How sick can Maggie get? Do we really think that slaughtering young conscripts is good for the Countries 'self confidence.' Thatcher was nicknamed the 'Iron Lady'; she was a cold blooded opportunist who saw her political survival being given a massive boost once she played along to Galtieri's game-plan.



Late March and early April 1982, thousands of Argentine conscripts lacking basic training were drafted and sent to the islands. Argentina sent more than 10,000 troops to the Falklands. The majority of the conscripts were simply cannon fodder who had no idea that the British Soldiers, highly trained professionals, were going to try to kill them. For the British Soldier killing was part of the deal made when signing up. British troops are generally battle hardened as we always have Ireland to train them. One of the standing orders to Argentine* [corrected, previously stated British] Troops back then was as follows¦.

"A soldier will be condemned to prison for three to five years if, in combat with a foreign enemy, he surrenders without having exhausted his supply of ammunition or without having lost two thirds of the men under his command."





On April 2nd 1982, the Argentineans hopped over the 300 mile stretch of water and a small detachment of Royal Marines were told to lay down arms by the resident Falklands UK appointed governor, Rex Hunt, after a futile initial attempt to engage the Argentines and resist the invasion. These British troops were flown out, along with the governor.



Fooling the Argentine People

On April the 3rd, Argentine troops seize the associated islands of South Georgia and the South Sandwich group (1,000 miles east of the Falklands) following a short battle in which an Argentine helicopter is forced down and 4 Argentine troops are killed. General Mario Menendez is proclaimed military governor of the islands. As Galtieri has predicted, the move proves to be extremely popular: In Buenos Aires, where the unions had a week earlier demonstrated in vast numbers against the government, there were massive outbursts of solidarity in the streets. The people of Argentina were fooled by the oldest trick in the political book. The invasion was a blatant attempt to use the flag waving patriotism of war to quell unrest in the working classes. Blinded by this patriotism, they would make matters worse.

The Politicians went through the motions of diplomacy, but everyone knew Thatcher was determined to have her war. She immediately ordered a task force to prepare and to sail to the Falklands. She launched bombing raids from the Ascension Islands. But the key moment in the war was the sinking of the Argentine Cruiser The Belgrano.

[Bill Sikes]

oscar;1163837 wrote: (*huge* snip)


What, in a nutshell, is the point you're trying to make by quoting all that from wherever it came from?

[Oscar Namechange]

Bill Sikes;1163844 wrote: What, in a nutshell, is the point you're trying to make by quoting all that from wherever it came from?
The point is Bill.....Thatcher did not go to war with 100% ideal of protecting the Islanders. There were political hidden agenda's.

It also shows as i have said on other threads, that many argentinians were conscripts who would have fallen victem to the Death Squads if they refused to fight. For those lads.....they had no choice at all.

[Bill Sikes]

oscar;1163852 wrote: There were political hidden agenda's.


I do not believe that that, or any, PM would not have "gone to war" - given the principle at stake.

Was it the PM's personal remit to commence this action?



oscar;1163852 wrote:

It also shows as i have said on other threads, that many argentinians were conscripts who would have fallen victem to the Death Squads if they refused to fight. For those lads.....they had no choice at all.


That is scarcely our fault.