The Falkland War - Avoidable?

Blimey kruska wanting to stay on topic thats refreshing and novel

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

I particuarly like kruskas statement no civilian was threatened or feared for their life.. I suggest you again contact some of them via the islands site.. They do respond.. Alternatively admire the view from your ivory tower.

 

Well said urqh. Self defence is a little old fashioned in some quarters but not with the Brits, who for some reason ,have recently become the whipping boy for the worlds ills on this forum. The Falklands War was one of the few clear cut engagements in recent history. The Argies crossed the line and got their come uppance. Yes the war was avoidable but the non democratic Junta in power in Argentina at that time should be answering the questions as to why they invaded someones private property.

What s next....Was the Alamo avoidable ?.

 

It was very avoidable.
All that was needed was for Britain to explain clearly and loudly to Argentina in the months before their invasion that any attempt by force to take the Falklands would be considered an act of war, and that Britain would take any and all measures required to either hold or retake them.
The problem was that the British government had shown no interest whatever in the Falklands and had reduced the military garrison to a few dozen Royal Marines, and had announced that the only Royal Navy vessel in the area (the patrol vessel HMS Endeavour) would soon be withdrawn.
This gave Argentinian Junta the idea that the British government wouldn't react military to any Argentinian invasion, but just make protests to the UN instead.

 

If exactly the same situation happened today, I will bet that the Parliamentary Debate will go on for at least 6 months, and the result will be a stern note to the Argentinian Government.

If Argentina happened to be a Muslim nation, then the note would contain an apology.

Come back Maggie, ALL is forgiven.


John.

 

The garrisson was hardly reduced.. Naval parties as marines were known were consistant in numbers. Endurance announcement though certainly sent wrong message. I would have more time for kruska if he were to demonstrate an understanding of the ridley affair.

 

No it isn't.
The war was on her watch, it was her government which failed to notice what was happening until it was too late.
Maggie saved her political neck with others peoples lives.

In that case why has Britain has been involved in two conflicts in Muslim countries recently ???

 

Yes slip... And one claim is based on the continental shelf under the sea... In which case the canaries belong to morroco

 

Ridley was drunk when he met with islanders, he was also sacrificed by thatcher in commons when she saw the anger of the house..try http//:Falkland Islands Information Web - Falklands History - The Build up to War

 

Wish they were my words: since the end of ww2 the un has given precedance to the desires and needs of people over the territorial aspirations of nation states. Argentina in this case being very old fashioned. Pursuing a purely territorial claim that is so clearly against the wishes and interests of the indigmeous inhabitants. However many can argue that for britain to have ignored both its own responsibilities and the argentine desire for the islands to the extent of permitting their invasion in 1982 through incompetence of the foreign office, and negligence of ministers is rather worse than old fashioned.

 

The quote was from hugh mcmanners..falklands vetran and one i agree with completely. However, when a state reverts to armed aggression and invasion when neither attacked or threatened as did argentina.. Then the gloves are off.

 

And kruska i can quote you many islanders stories of threats and fears lncluding children ordered against house walls at gun point.. General menendez having to remove some islanders from the reaches of his own political police who he later insisted be removed.

 

Sorry redcoat i have to correct you..endurance not endevour..barker in command and another voice in the willderness., i only do so as my school mate was one of the radio ops aboard as she played cat and mouse in ice fields with argies, her name is important to many.

 

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 act
Kruska ...you cannot demand that kruska., by choosing to ignore the people and have them dissapear may be central to your argument but your simple world is not the real world some of us live in... The people may be inconviniant to you but to most of us at time they were all that mattered...even if not to our own govt.. Thatcher only acted because as usual brit public war slow to anger as is the norm.. The islanders matter i thought it was argentina that danced for the missing..

 

Hello urqh,

sorry not really,

It is you and your British countryman who make this a central argument - which I can follow but I do not see it so onesided.
As some already pointed out very correctly, the British gov. couldn't be bothered much about these British on the Les Malvinas. Military agression or let's prefer to say reason for hostility was provided by the British who stationed troops on disputed soil in the first place.
That the Argentines were not willing to look on this without hard feelings is at least to me understood.

That continued settlement led to the factual situation of the population on the Les Malvinas being 90%+ British is therfore also acknowleded but doesn't make the Les Malvinas the Falklands and as such automatically British territory.

You might be correct as to say, that Argentine troops landed on disputed soil - combat took place with the British troops stationed on disputed soil.
About 2000 British civilians on disputed soil risked to be chased of the Island or being forced to live under Argentine rule.

Britain and Argentina were both not willing to await a settlement off this dispute via the UN - both sides choose the military option.

Off course this ridiculous war could have been avoidable by either the British pressing for a final settlement via the UN in accordance with the Argentine government way before 1982, or the British reallocating their nationals onto whatever non disputed British territory until an agreement is reached.

As for the actuall situation in 1982 - a non military approach by the British government would actually have given them a very clear lead and sincerity in comparence to the Argentine military option - and the result obtained by the UN would certainly have been in favour for the British.

Due to Britains decision in 1982, the Falkland dispute isn't settled until today (27 years after this war) and cost therefore unnecessarily the lives of hundereds of soldiers. - reallocation of the British settlers would have avoided the war = is that so hard to understand and accept??

Since the central argument seems to be the only justification for the war, it is even more hard to follow on the fact, that the British government was actually willing to risk the lives of its citizens on disputed soil in the case of a military dispute. - and therefore making a war unavoidable between two nuckleheads.

Regards
Kruska

 

70% of the islanders are British, you can't seriously be suggesting that the British government forcibly evacuate that many people because there was a thread of invasion by a hostile country!

I doubt it, there wasn't that much debate on Iraq or Afghanistan and neither of those were quite as urgent.

What utter twaddle! In the last decade we have fought wars against 2 Islamic states, we are still fighting islamic militants, what on earth are you on about?

No it isn't, except apparently by people who post this kind of tosh!