This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Royal Navy are pirates, says Argentina's president

Tut.exe

she just wants votes thats all

The 1982 invasion was at a time when the then Argentine government was unpopular. Hating another country is an old tactic to divert attention from problems at home.

Reply 41

Azog 150

Persephone.

Out of sheer curiosity, why is an island closer to Argentina seen as British territory? Can't say I care much for the dispute but this was always a niggling thought.

Before we came along the islands were completely uninhabited except a by a few French whalers. In other words there is absolutely no historical precedent for the islands belonging to anyone else.

The islands were ours before Argentina even existed, and Argentina's claims are simply an extension of Spain's imperialistic claims (Despite Spain never having owned or even settled on the islands)

The people living on these islands have been British for hundreds of years, and have overwhelmingly voted to remain so in recent decades.

Now finally, to top it off, we have even won the islands by right of military victory thanks to Argentina's botched attempts to forcefully annex the islands.

Basically, the only reasonable claim that Argentina has is that the islands are closer to them then us. Even then, the islands are over 400 miles off Argentina's shore. The people who live there don't want to be Argentinian, the islands have never been owned by Argentina and Argentina's claim are ironically just a continuation of Spain's imperial claims, and that most Argentinians themselves are not descended from South American natives but from Spanish colonists.

If geographical proximity was how all disputes were settled then the world would look very different and the right to self-determination would be completely ignored. Not to mention geographical proximity is becoming increasingly irrelevant in an ever-more globalised world

To sum up, there have been very few conflicts in which Britain has been as much in the right as this.

Reply 42

Azog 150

hello dave

tbh, (and i know all you imperialist 'Britain should rule the world, were awesome' people will jump down my throat) protecting the Falklands is a joke. It's part of the UK that pays no taxes, your not allowed to move to, is in the middle of no where, and expects to be defended by taxpayers in mainland UK.

Also, were not really in a position for another war, we already unnecessary killed enough people (in what I would call war crimes) in the last war, most noticeably the sinking of Belgrano.

We should give it away, its an inhospitable wasteland, and the UK is deluded, thinking its an even remotely significant country any more. That is all.

I am no British imperialist- far from it.

Personally, I have reletives livng on the islands (Dads cousin and her two little boys). just because they are thousands of miles away it doesn't mean they don't deserve the same protection that me and you enjoy. How would you like it if a brutal military junta that killed tens of thousands of its own citizens invaded your town/city/county and the British public just turned their back on you and the Armed Forces refused to help? Its exactly the same principle

Not to mention that with the recently discovered oil the Falklanders could well pay back the money we have spent defending them and then some. If profits are big enough they have even offered to pay theexpense of defending the islands. Defence aside, the Falklands are largely self-sufficient.

Not only this, the Falklands give us a EEZ right around them and the islands continental shelf in which we gets dibs on any lucrative finds and things like fishing rights.

Even then, in 1997 we offered a deal to the Argentinians in which we would split any potentual oil profits. However, they stupidly declined and consequently won't be getting a single penny.

As for migrating there- it is thought only a 1/3 of Falklanders were born there so that blows that theory out of the water.

As for war crimes, prove it. Destroying hostile enemy military targets is not in any way, shape or form a war crime. What the **** do you expect to happen to an enemy battle ship? Should we have sent it flowers and chocolates instead? Maybe we shouldn't have targetted the German military in World War 2 either?

The only thing that might be considered a war crime from the war is the 20,000 mines which the Argentines planted which are still around today. Under the Geneva Convention, planting mines without mapping them out for future removal can be considered a war crime (I am not sure if the Argentine's mapped out these mine-fields or not). Under the 1997 Ottawa treaty a lot of nations agreed not to employ mines as well (although obviously that was 15 years too late)

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 43

Student2806

17

hello dave

Also, were not really in a position for another war, we already unnecessary killed enough people (in what I would call war crimes) in the last war, most noticeably the sinking of Belgrano.

Care to elaborate?

Reply 44

kilowattjester

13

Does this country have good relations with Argentina?

Reply 45

RamocitoMorales

21

This is no laughing matter.

Reply 46

Azog 150

kilowattjester

Does this country have good relations with Argentina?

Well we are trading partners and we aren't enemies. We aren't exactly close but we aren't really allies. Acquaintance's might be the right word :p:

Reply 47

shadow99

14

It's our island and these Argies aren't ever going to get their hands on it.

Reply 48

Drewski

19

RamocitoMorales

This is no laughing matter.

Well it is a bit (in that, militarily, it's a laughable proposition).

Our Forces down there are more than a match for most of what could be thrown at us by any S.American country. Argentina hasn't upgraded it's armed forces, and still uses largely the same equipment it did in '82, while we have the most advanced aircraft in the hemisphere ready and waiting.

Sure, if they sent up their most recnt 36 Skyhawks [if indeed they still have 36] then weight of numbers could cause problems to the Typhoons who operate on a [rough] 9:1 kill ratio. But we proved we could send Typhoons down there in one hop if required.

An invasion by Argentine forces would be suicide. Simple as that.

Reply 49

HanZz

Lets go take em down mandems

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 50

TomInce6666

10

Idiot-Finder

When did we get destroyers carrying nukes?

i dont know

but i want one

Reply 51

Relik93D

Under British sovereignty I'm afraid...
Sorry Argentina.

Reply 52

hello dave

150 Azog

just because they are thousands of miles away it doesn't mean they don't deserve the same protection that me and you enjoy. How would you like it if a brutal military junta that killed tens of thousands of its own citizens invaded your town/city/county and the British public just turned their back on you and the Armed Forces refused to help? Its exactly the same principle

They pay no taxes to our government whatsoever, why should we protect them. Argentina never killed the residents so that's a ridiculous comparison. It's like 300 people, more people died in the war than live there. If they want to be protected, they can come and live on the mainland and pay taxes like the rest of us.

Not to mention that with the recently discovered oil the Falklanders could well pay back the money we have spent defending them and then some. If profits are big enough they have even offered to pay theexpense of defending the islands. Defence aside, the Falklands are largely self-sufficient.

The amount of oil was massively overestimated and hyped up. They still havent found anything serious. On top of this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/aug/19/rockhopper-fails-find-oil-falklands
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/explorers-fail-to-strike-oil-in-test-sites-off-falklands-1930807.html

And of course, even if they do strike oil, only the oil companies benefit. The Falklands will get the majority of tax income and the benefit to the UK economy will be insignificant.

Not only this, the Falklands give us a EEZ right around them and the islands continental shelf in which we gets dibs on any lucrative finds and things like fishing rights.

As for migrating there- it is thought only a 1/3 of Falklanders were born there so that blows that theory out of the water.

There are some pretty tough rules on who can migrate there, its not like anywhere else in this country... I wouldn't need special reasons to go and live in London.

As for war crimes, prove it. Destroying hostile enemy military targets is not in any way, shape or form a war crime. What the **** do you expect to happen to an enemy battle ship? Should we have sent it flowers and chocolates instead? Maybe we shouldn't have targetted the German military in World War 2 either?

There are many reports of war crimes by our troops just as there have been in Iraq:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/falklands-war-crimes-claim-mod-investigates-allegations-that-paras-shot-argentine-prisoners-1540755.html

Sinking an outclassed battleship sailing away from the islands with a nuclear submarine, and then destroying light unarmed craft that attempted to pick up survivors with Lynx helicopters is undoubtedly a war crime.

There's no need to be a little prick about it. I'm saying it was completely unnecessary aggressive action that killed hundreds of people not that we should have 'sent them flowers'.

The only thing that might be considered a war crime from the war is the 20,000 mines which the Argentines planted which are still around today. Under the Geneva Convention, planting mines without mapping them out for future removal can be considered a war crime (I am not sure if the Argentine's mapped out these mine-fields or not). Under the 1997 Ottawa treaty a lot of nations agreed not to employ mines as well (although obviously that was 15 years too late)

I don't even

Reply 53

FyreFight

14

hello dave

Sinking an outclassed battleship sailing away from the islands with a nuclear submarine, and then destroying light unarmed craft that attempted to pick up survivors with Lynx helicopters is undoubtedly a war crime.

There's no need to be a little prick about it. I'm saying it was completely unnecessary aggressive action that killed hundreds of people not that we should have 'sent them flowers'.

Even the Argentinian government agree that the sinking of the Belgrano was a legitimate act of war.

Furthermore, it was done by a purely defending force protecting its citizens from aggressors.

It's cute that you feel sorry for the helpless little invading cruiser though.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 54

Teaddict

OP

17

Idiot-Finder

When did we get destroyers carrying nukes?

Two comments

1/ When did I say destroyer?
2/ I think we should get some :biggrin:

Reply 55

M1F2R3

14

Falklands are ours, if they want a war then we will just repeat what happened last time.

Reply 56

L i b

19

Addzter

Why do they drag this issue up every now and then? They ought to get it into their heads that they'll never have the Falkland Islands. :facepalm2:

I suspect most British people underestimate the cultural significance of the Falklands to modern Argentinian identity.

Reply 57

Azog 150

hello dave

They pay no taxes to our government whatsoever, why should we protect them. Argentina never killed the residents so that's a ridiculous comparison. It's like 300 people, more people died in the war than live there. If they want to be protected, they can come and live on the mainland and pay taxes like the rest of us.

Thats because, as I said, apart from defence they are economically self sufficient.

They don't pay taxes for UK services because they don't use them.

The amount of oil was massively overestimated and hyped up. They still havent found anything serious. On top of this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/aug/19/rockhopper-fails-find-oil-falklands
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/explorers-fail-to-strike-oil-in-test-sites-off-falklands-1930807.html

And of course, even if they do strike oil, only the oil companies benefit. The Falklands will get the majority of tax income and the benefit to the UK economy will be insignificant.

True, we don't know know much oil there is. But you said the islands are not economically viable. As for the companies, the Falklanders benefit because of the jobs created and the money put into the local economy. Not to mention the oil companies would need to pay for extraction rights.

There are some pretty tough rules on who can migrate there, its not like anywhere else in this country... I wouldn't need special reasons to go and live in London.

Its like all of Britain other overseas territories. Anyway, like I said, the rules can't be that tough if 2/3rds of the islanders weren't born there

There are many reports of war crimes by our troops just as there have been in Iraq:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/falklands-war-crimes-claim-mod-investigates-allegations-that-paras-shot-argentine-prisoners-1540755.html

So you have posted an article making vague and unproven accusations of war crimes based on the testimony of a single soldiers out of the ten thousand or so who fought there? Do you have any solid proof of war crimes?

Sinking an outclassed battleship sailing away from the islands with a nuclear submarine, and then destroying light unarmed craft that attempted to pick up survivors with Lynx helicopters is undoubtedly a war crime.

Sinking a battleship isn't a war crime. There isn't anything else to it.

Do you have sources for these alleged incidents of unarmed planes being shot by Lynxs and the circumstances under which they happened?

There's no need to be a little prick about it. I'm saying it was completely unnecessary aggressive action that killed hundreds of people not that we should have 'sent them flowers'.

It was a potentually valuable Argentine military asset that could have been used against us. It wasn't only a guarentee that there biggest most effective ship wouldn't be used in the 1982 war, but any future attempts the Argies might make on the islands (Seeing as we weren't aware the war would lead to the downfall of the military junta in charge of Argetina). If you join a military you accept that you might be killed in times of war. Absolutly nothing wrong about the sinking of the Belgrano whatsoever- even the Argies say so. War isn't pretty- but that doesn't mean the deaths of two hundred sailors aren't justified and it certainly isn't a war crime. Tell me, what Geneva Convention or UN protocol did this break?

War Crime is a word that is thrown around well too often these days, and usually without much to back it up.

And you call Britain's action aggressive. Aren't you forgetting that the Argentines forcefully tried to annex the islands against the populations wishes and that we were waging a war of defence?

I don't even

What?

Besides, all of these arguments are completely irrelevant. What is relevant is the Falklanders wish to remain British and its the governments job to respect its peoples democratic wishes. Nothing more needs to be said ad everything else is second in importance.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 58

L i b

19

hello dave

tbh, (and i know all you imperialist 'Britain should rule the world, were awesome' people will jump down my throat) protecting the Falklands is a joke. It's part of the UK that pays no taxes, your not allowed to move to, is in the middle of no where, and expects to be defended by taxpayers in mainland UK.

It's not part of the UK. We defend it because it's British, not out of some hope of personal gain.

Also, were not really in a position for another war, we already unnecessary killed enough people (in what I would call war crimes) in the last war, most noticeably the sinking of Belgrano.

They invaded our territory. I'd have happily destroyed the whole Argentinian navy. As for what you call 'war crimes' - I'm afraid your grasp of the law is rubbish.

I have some sympathy with the dead - victims of conscription by a dictatorial regime, but none whatsoever with any military or political position relating to Argentina.

We should give it away, its an inhospitable wasteland, and the UK is deluded, thinking its an even remotely significant country any more. That is all.

Even ignoring the substance of the issue: to suggest your country isn't 'remotely significant' is to condemn it to insignificance. Self-fulfilling.

Reply 59

Arekkusu

16

Why do they even want the Falkland Islands? They do realise it's just like a smaller, colder, more inbred Wales with a similar amount of sheep?

Royal Navy are pirates, says Argentina's president

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you