redcoat,

Quote:
Redcoat: There is no contract or document which proves it to belongs to Argentina either. UN resolution Nr 2065, merely states that boths sides should come to a peaceful agreement to this dispute. It also states that the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands should be taken into consideration ( the last thing the Argentinians wanted to do)


Redcoat: We did follow the UN resolutions, we did engage in peaceful talks with Argentina on the issue, however agreement wasn't possible, because Britain took due regard of the people of the Falklands view (as per UN resolution)
Also UN resolution 502 stated (after the Argentian invasion) that all military forces which were in the area should be withdrawn, which Argentina refused to do,
So the battles which followed were due to Argentina refusing to accept UN resolutions, not Britain. Today 09:38 PM

__________________
Imagine there is a WAR!!! - and your TV doesn't work

Hello redcoat,

Correct if we asume that Argentina having been a former Spanish colony would not automatically asume it's rights over the former territories. Such as for example India did in regards to later Pakistan and Bangladesh. Or Indonesia in regards to it's former colonial master Holland.

You are correct in the historical rundown of the occurences, however this is what I question in regards to the necessity to develop the Argentine agression into a war - which in the end cost Britain hundreds of lives and billions of pounds.

Since the territory of the Falklands is disputed, Britain could not forward of it's country being attacked - as such Argentina declaring war on Britain - which Argentina never did.

British dependants or citizens? were confronted with Argentine soldiers taking up positions amongst their houses - No civilian was threatened or had to fear for his live.

Argentine soldiers hat combat with British soldiers on an Island which the Argentines regard as being their territory.

What would have been the price for Britain to pay if they had retreated from the Falklands? or invested month and years to resolve this dispute via the UN?

Regards
Kruska

__________________
Imagine there is a WAR!!! - and your TV doesn't work

Of course it was avoidable... Just needed argentina to not land a major amphibious force of troops...not to destroy the british barracs hoping to catch marines in their beds..land armoured vehicles..storm gvt house and follow up with thousands of troops and major equipment stocks. How many argentines did they relieve from british oppression.. Reap what you sow. Its a luxurious world some live in on here. Bullier should prosper and armed aggression is ok in the land of pc.

__________________
Prepare to repel borders...William Mcgonagle US Liberty.

But the Argentine rulers needed something to distract the populace from their devastating inflation and unemployment problems. The military junta used "patriotism" as the magic trick of; "don't pay attention to the gorilla in our living room, watch my hand as I raise and wave the flag!"

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

Hello birndirt,

absolutly correct, but this doesn,t answer why Britain got itself into a war, and the price they had to pay was in no relation to what this was about - British pride being hurt or challenged.

Please keep in mind that I only brought up the Falkland issue, due to somone having insinuated that post war Germany had gotten money for free whilst Britain had to invest into keeping their colonies.

I am meerly questioning the necessity of keeping colonies whereas Falklans wasn't a British colony besides Britain claiming it to be one.

Regards
Kruska

__________________
Imagine there is a WAR!!! - and your TV doesn't work

Who here believes that GB has more of a claim on islands than Argentina and why?

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

Ahhh i see., the people living there dont have the right to self determination..freedoms for some but not for all eh.. Lofty morals applied by some on here... And uk doesnt have the rights of others when attacked... Cloud and cookoo come to mind

__________________
Prepare to repel borders...William Mcgonagle US Liberty.

I do.
One of the guiding principles of the UN is the importance of the self determination of the population of a territory in deciding ownership, an overwelming majority of the population of the Falklands want to remain British.
Argentina may be the nearest country to the Islands, but they are still nearly 700 miles away, and while both may have been Spanish colonies, the islands were never part of Argentina after she declared her independence.

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

These islands were uninhabited until they were colonized by European powers, first by France in 1764, then ceded to Spain in 1766 however in the interim the first British base was established in 1765, and Spain could do nothing about it, the British base was abandoned eleven years later in 1776 (due to a little problem erupting in North America), but the Spanish didn’t move back in except to use them briefly as a penal colony after the British left the first time. That penal colony was also abandoned well before Argentina gained its independence.

The Islands have been under British control since the Argentine administration was expelled in 1833 for a number of international embarrassments, including arresting Americans and taking them to trial in Argentina. The Argentines had originally gone to the British Consulate for permission to establish a fishing and sealing base there (Argentine administration), so they must have at least sort of recognized British sovereignty over the islands.

Even the Spanish name for the islands (Islas Malvinas) is derived from the name of the Frenchman who first established a colony before their own taking control and eventually, shortly using the place as a penal colony. The Spanish abandoned the area before the Argentines gained independence and the British came back to reestablish control of the islands in 1833.

Kripes, nobody lived there until they were colonized permanently by the Brits, and they are well out of Argentine territorial waters, they are what 300 miles off their east coast?

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

You've sold me, Clint.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

I think it is correct to forward that the only country that would have a so called claim from fromer colonial point of view on the Falklands would be Spain.

As for: Absolutly correct, so after this desicion in favour for Britain and therefore acknowledgement by the UN (which is still not decided - don't ask me why), and not before, it would become a British territory issue.

Argentine version:
Now these inhabitants of Falkland under the threatening gun sights of British Royal Marines, illegaly stationed on Argentine soil - who else could they vote for? Only a liberation by Argentine Military forces would secure these people in being free to vote.

Additional sending of Argentines to this beautiful island would make sure that the vast majority will now be free to make the right decission.

Only the British military intervention made the Argentine plan go kaputt.

So the attitude of Britain and Argentina towards securing self determination of the population is the same - only difference being that, British military was already stationed there, making sure to apprehend any Argentine settlement plans right??

So it isn't or wasn't about self determination of the population but pure territorial posession. And for this Britain was willing to pay the price.

And how far would that be from Britain???

Regards
Kruska

__________________
Imagine there is a WAR!!! - and your TV doesn't work

Kruska what a load of old crock..here have this spade and keep digging

__________________
Prepare to repel borders...William Mcgonagle US Liberty.

Once an island or territory is outside of the territorial waters of the nearest nation, it is open for colonization and claim (by the old standards of the Imperial era). Argentina didn't colonize the empty islands, the Spanish didn't colonize them either (a penal colony isn't a real colony). The Brits have as much a right to claim them as anyone, and more than the Argentines, since no Argentines have ever lived there in any numbers. War or not, they don't like the joint.

The hardy Scots who are there raising sheep like it fine, reminds them of home I suppose. It should be the people who have lived there the longest who make the choice as to which nation they wish to be part of. The people in Gibaltar continue to vote for Great Britain, in spite of being a little jutting piece of land off of Spain. Guam and American Samoa continue to vote to remain American protectorates rather than full independence. The same should be allowed the people who populate the Falklands today, not who used to almost populate it, not who moved out and abandoned it, but those who have made it their home.

I quit.

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

I suggest you contact the falkland island civil baillif office via email on web site...a nice lady who answers allmailp personally and ask her of the islanders views at the time..failing that most of islanders of time will still talk to you...run your point of gun theory by them.

__________________
Prepare to repel borders...William Mcgonagle US Liberty.

Why did we do the berlin airlift again? Small city in east germany..remind us to but out next time...surely the inhabitants should have been left to their fate..we only controlled them at point of a gun eh?

__________________
Prepare to repel borders...William Mcgonagle US Liberty.

They invaded, we won. Simple.

__________________

Hello birndirt,

sorry but the Falklands were a Spanish colony this can be read up anywere, 1493 ("Inter Caetera") and the treaty of Tordesilla.

In 1774 the British left the Falklands for good, however placing a claim on it.
In 1810 Argentina becomes independent and claims the Les Malvinas.
In 1820 Argentina is sending an American to the Les Malvinas to claim the island.
In 1826 the French obtain the permission from Argentina to open up a settlement.
In 1831 the US sends warships to the Les Malvinas due to the French souvereign having dispersed US ships. According to the Monroe-Doktrin the US then declare the Les Malvinas as no mans land.

However the British couldn't be bothered about this and in 1833 claim the Les Malvinas and Port Stanley is named to be the capital.

Since this time the Argentine government has protested against the illegal British settlers and the British claim of the Les Malvinas.

Human common logic and politics are two esentially different things.

urqh,
It is the Argentine position I forwarded not mine.
And the whole thing has nothing at all to do with the Berlin airlift - or some other desperate comparrison.

Anyway I would like my thread to be about the war having been avoidable and not who won or who wanted to protect his interests or people or whatever seems to be an appropriate reason for everyones action.

Regards
Kruska

__________________
Imagine there is a WAR!!! - and your TV doesn't work

So, the closer an island is to a big country, the greater the likelihood that it should be governed by that country? We're getting shortchained down in the Caribbean.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

Pretty much

__________________
"Logos, Philos, Arete"

WHAT IF!!!!

The Falklands had been owned/governed/claimed or whatever by the USA, and Argentina had invaded, would the USA have sat by and accepted it.

Then again, maybe they would have, especially if Argentina was muslim, or black, or......

John.

__________________
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". - Voltaire.

Blimey kruska wanting to stay on topic thats refreshing and novel

__________________
Prepare to repel borders...William Mcgonagle US Liberty.

Right, I think we can accept that Britain didn't go to war in the name of 'national self-determination' but is far more likely to have been motivated by the risk of loss of face and the significance of the location of the Falklands in a Cold War world. Whatever the motivation for the war, it seems clear that the people of the Falklands Island wanted to be British rather than Argentinian and this is sufficient justification (the two are very different things, it may not have been why we went to war but it did make it worth it).

As for the UN, it has already been made clear that a policy of negotiation was followed up until the Argentinians attacked, they invaded attacking British troops in the process, this seems to me like more than enough reason to stop negotiating and engage the attacking troops.

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

As for speaking on the argentine perspective...you twist it so well kruska.. Desperate is true i think...falkland islands..i think someones on fantasy island..the plane the plane..great fiction sorry i didnt know you were being funny, forget the spade you need a jcb

__________________
Prepare to repel borders...William Mcgonagle US Liberty.

Thats gilligans island to you slip..in fact i recognise some of the characters.

__________________
Prepare to repel borders...William Mcgonagle US Liberty.

You need to get over it..armed aggresion was met and defeated sorry..will sorry do... Be aware though.. Shoot at british and expect them to enact the right of self defence.. As should anyone.

__________________
Prepare to repel borders...William Mcgonagle US Liberty.