"The Malvinas are Argentine, they always were, they always will be."

[SeanMockery]

...or so says the current Argentine VP.
http://img.timeinc.net/time/qotd/images/bg_openquote.gifThe Malvinas are Argentine, they always were, they always will be.http://img.timeinc.net/time/qotd/images/bg_closequote.gif— Argentina's Vice President DANIEL SCIOLI marking the 25th anniversary of the country's disastrous war with Britain over the Falkland Islands (known as Las Malvinas in Spanish)

http://www.time.com/time/quotes/0,26174,1606207,00.html?xid=feed-quoteswidget


And these short articles....


Argentina reasserts Falklands claim

BUENOS AIRES, Jan. 24 (UPI) -- On the eve of the 25th anniversary of the Falklands War, Argentina is once again asserting its claim to the Falkland Islands.
Argentina last week claimed the British stole the islands in 1833, the Washington Post reported.
Argentine President Nestor Kirchner -- who grew up on the Falklands -- has taken pains every so often to draw the world's attention to Argentina's claim, and has asked the United Nations to intervene in the claim for the islands that Argentines call the Malvinas.
"The recuperation of the Malvinas must be a national objective, and through peaceful dialogue, we must recover them," said Kirchner at a rally last year.
Argentina's former dictatorship launched an unsuccessful attack on the islands in 1982, a 73-day war that left 650 Argentines and 250 British dead.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20070125-01325500-bc-argentina-falklands.xml

Argentina reasserts claim to Falklands

BUENOS AIRES, April 2 (UPI) -- Argentine leaders have reaffirmed their longstanding claim to the nearby Falkland islands, La Nacion newspaper reported Monday.
Vice President Daniel Scioli said the islands "always were and always will be" rightfully an Argentine territory, referring to them as the Malvinas, as they are known in the South American country.
April marks the 25th anniversary of the short-lived war between Argentina and Britain over the islands.
The 74-day war between the nations over the islands off the coast of Argentina left more than 900 people dead, 655 of them Argentine soldiers.
Argentina has repeatedly called on Britain to hand the islands over.

[Drew]

Let the people of the Falklands determine the future of las Falklands, not 2 bickering governments...

[Mark]

Britains position for a long time on all of it's overseas territories, and home territories such as Northern Ireland and Scotland, is that should the population wish to break away from British control, they may do so.

However as far as I know the Falkland Island inhabitants do not wish to be ruled by Argentina, and that's that IMO.

[BDunnell]

The Argentinians have stated that they do not intend to use force to recapture them. Personally, I think it's rather sad that this has to be used by successive Argentine leaders in order to try and impress their public. Would Britain ever want, or feel the need, to reclaim Calais, for example? I think not.

[imull]

Sure I read somewhere that almsot every single Falklander wants to remain British...

[BrentJackson]

The majority of the 8000 Falkland Islanders are British, so they want to stay that way. Perfectly acceptable. Argentina in 2007 is a MUCH different country than the one British beat up in 1982. You will hear this one every year for a long time to go I'd bet. This is the same nation that wants independence for Puerto Rico and has said so quite a number of times.

[jso1985]

I think only Hugo Chavez have spoken about Puerto Rico's independence, I don't remember Kirchner or other Argentine president talking about it.

The Falkands want to stay British so let them be

[janneppi]

Sure I read somewhere that almsot every single Falklander wants to remain British...
Isn't that just like Northern Ireland thing, you imported few Scotts there and then say NI belongs to you because they want to remain in UK? ;)

[BrentJackson]

I think only Hugo Chavez have spoken about Puerto Rico's independence, I don't remember Kirchner or other Argentine president talking about it.

From Wikipedia:

"Argentina was the first independent nation state in the Southern Hemisphere and its Legislature and ruling political party have passed resolutions calling for the national independence of Puerto Rico, which would make it the last independent nation state in Latin America."

[jarrambide]

Isn't that just like Northern Ireland thing, you imported few Scotts there and then say NI belongs to you because they want to remain in UK? ;)
Have you ever been in the Falklands?, I have, VERY different story, the Falklands is a piece of rock, nothing else. Why anyone would want to spend their whole life there is beyond me, but the inhabitants love their piece of rock.

Now, everyone in that rock is British, just ask them (it will not take you long, you can actually ask every single citizen in less than a week), they are the original inhabitants of the rock (why?, because no ene else wanted to live in that rock), every one of them speaks english with a British accent, every one of their ancestors was British, like them.

Visiting the place is nice, living there?, I would not go there to be a shepherd, but they like it, they are happy and they are British.

See the diference?, a piece of rock that had no inhabitants, no one from Argentina went to that piece of rock, British men and women for some strange reason went to live there.

[jarrambide]

The majority of the 8000 Falkland Islanders are British, so they want to stay that way. Perfectly acceptable. Argentina in 2007 is a MUCH different country than the one British beat up in 1982. You will hear this one every year for a long time to go I'd bet. This is the same nation that wants independence for Puerto Rico and has said so quite a number of times.
Problem is the Puertoricans don´t want to be an independent nation, referendum, after referendum they keep voting to remain the same, an associate state, and they have been given the chance to vote to: a)Stay the same, b) Become an independent country and c) Become a state of the US.

I just don´t get Puerto Rico, voting to stay in limbo, either decide you are a different country, or a state of the US, but for some strange reason they don´t want to be a state or a country.

But the fact that I don´t get it is irrelevant, that´s the way they have chosen every time, it´s their decision.

[Eki]

See the diference?, a piece of rock that had no inhabitants, no one from Argentina went to that piece of rock, British men and women for some strange reason went to live there.
Yep, my sentiments exactly. If some oddballs want to live on that piece of rock as they wish, it shouldn't interest either Argentina or Britain. It's not worth fighting for.

[jso1985]

From Wikipedia:

"Argentina was the first independent nation state in the Southern Hemisphere and its Legislature and ruling political party have passed resolutions calling for the national independence of Puerto Rico, which would make it the last independent nation state in Latin America."


well Wikipedia is wrong!!!!

Paraguay was the first independent nation in the Southern Hemisphere.

But just asked my dad and told me that Alfonsin used to talk about it quite often, so you're right on that.

all South American presidents are/were a bunch of nutters that's the main problem

[SOD]

Wasn't Argentina in a military dicatorship in 1982 when they invaded?

[janneppi]

Have you ever been in the Falklands?, I have, VERY different story, the Falklands is a piece of rock, nothing else. Why anyone would want to spend their whole life there is beyond me, but the inhabitants love their piece of rock.

Now, everyone in that rock is British, just ask them (it will not take you long, you can actually ask every single citizen in less than a week), they are the original inhabitants of the rock (why?, because no ene else wanted to live in that rock), every one of them speaks english with a British accent, every one of their ancestors was British, like them.

Visiting the place is nice, living there?, I would not go there to be a shepherd, but they like it, they are happy and they are British.

See the diference?, a piece of rock that had no inhabitants, no one from Argentina went to that piece of rock, British men and women for some strange reason went to live there.
So it's ok to invade rocks from someone elses coast if no one lives there? ;)
But still, wasn't there a Argentinian settlement(former Spanish and French) called Port Louis from 1764 to 1832 until Americans destroyed it?

[Drew]

Wasn't Argentina in a military dicatorship in 1982 when they invaded?

Yup, the invasion was a last ditch attempt to win back Argentine public support.

[jarrambide]

So it's ok to invade rocks from someone elses coast if no one lives there? ;)
But still, wasn't there a Argentinian settlement(former Spanish and French) called Port Louis from 1764 to 1832 until Americans destroyed it?
My point is that it is a piece of rock only crazy people would want to live in (that is why it makes sense it is populated by British families), it has nothing in it, no oil, no minerals, the soil is not suitable for farming, you can´t even arrive by sea 6 out of 12 months of the year. It is a rock of shepherds.
My point is that everytime the Argentinian government talks about the rock is when they have popularity problems with their citizens.

It´s just a rock, and is populated, and the people in that rock are british and want to stay beeing British. Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California used to be part of Mexico, I don´t see the citizens of those states or the Mexican government asking for the land to be returned to Mexico.

That is my point, the people living in there should decide what they want.

[donKey jote]

Last I heard was the Falklands do have oil prospects and certainly have loads of fish in their ( British) waters (which the Spanish pay to plunder ;) :p :

Unlike that other rock of course... Gibraltar :D

[jarrambide]

Last I heard was the Falklands do have oil prospects and certainly have loads of fish in their ( British) waters (which the Spanish pay to plunder ;) :p :

Unlike that other rock of course... Gibraltar :D
Don´t even start with Gibraltar DJ, or I will have to start shouting, "Euzkadi no es España" ;) :D

[jarrambide]

Don´t even start with Gibraltar DJ, or I will have to start shouting, "Euzkadi no es España" ;) :D

Many of my friends find Gibraltar a nice place to visit, I just don´t seem to grasp all the beauty of the place, yes Gibraltar Rock is nice, but I have seen more impressive things in my life, a placeto see the sea from high ground?, been there done that, to mee the only different thing about the place is beeing technically in Spain and hearing everyone speaking in English.

[Roamy]

well Wikipedia is wrong!!!!

Paraguay was the first independent nation in the Southern Hemisphere.

But just asked my dad and told me that Alfonsin used to talk about it quite often, so you're right on that.

all South American presidents are/were a bunch of nutters that's the main problem

Hey JSO just a quick question. How is life in Bolivia after the election?
better worse the same. Do all the people really support Hugo to the east?

[tinchote]

See the diference?, a piece of rock that had no inhabitants, no one from Argentina went to that piece of rock, British men and women for some strange reason went to live there.

That's simply not true. When the British arrived in 1833, they displaced the Argentinean governor and people that had been there for years. And since then, Argentina never stopped saying that the islands were stolen, and never will.

As for the Puerto Rico thing, I lived in Argentina for 35 years and I still read its newspapers every day, and I don't recall having ever heard anyone talk about Puerto Rico's situation. Maybe some government did, but to accuse the country as a whole is ridiculous, particulary when in Argentina every government thinks that everything the previous government did was wrong.

[jarrambide]

That's simply not true. When the British arrived in 1833, they displaced the Argentinean governor and people that had been there for years. And since then, Argentina never stopped saying that the islands were stolen, and never will.

As for the Puerto Rico thing, I lived in Argentina for 35 years and I still read its newspapers every day, and I don't recall having ever heard anyone talk about Puerto Rico's situation. Maybe some government did, but to accuse the country as a whole is ridiculous, particulary when in Argentina every government thinks that everything the previous government did was wrong.
The part about Argentinian government saying that, not me, true or false I just don´t know.

The part about displacing the Argentinian governor, I didn´t know that, my bad.

But still, come on, it was the 19th century, with that same logic Mexico should ask for all the south part of the US, England should ask for the north part of the US and France for a big chunk of Canada.

As I see it you have a piece of rock that has been inhabited for the last 174 years by British families, they want to stay British, the US states in the south want to be part of the US and the original 13 colonies prefer to be the US than beeing part of GB (which makes sense qith the independence war and all that), just as Puerto Rico wants to be just an associate state, and French Canada wants to stay as Canada (at least thats what the last referendum showed). Power to the people.

[Gannex]

That's simply not true. When the British arrived in 1833, they displaced the Argentinean governor and people that had been there for years. And since then, Argentina never stopped saying that the islands were stolen, and never will.
They were stolen, tinchote. But every bit of land on this planet was, at some time or another, stolen from the people who lived there previously. We can't undo all that history. All we can do is say that from now on land should change hands peacefully, which, in the Falkland Islands, it generally does. If the Argentinians so desperately want it, they should buy it. I'm sure that, at the right price, any Falkland Islander would sell -- even to an Argentinian.

[tinchote]

The part about Argentinian government saying that, not me, true or false I just don´t know.

The part about displacing the Argentinian governor, I didn´t know that, my bad.

But still, come on, it was the 19th century, with that same logic Mexico should ask for all the south part of the US, England should ask for the north part of the US and France for a big chunk of Canada.

As I see it you have a piece of rock that has been inhabited for the last 174 years by British families, they want to stay British, the US states in the south want to be part of the US and the original 13 colonies prefer to be the US than beeing part of GB (which makes sense qith the independence war and all that), just as Puerto Rico wants to be just an associate state, and French Canada wants to stay as Canada (at least thats what the last referendum showed). Power to the people.

I agree. And I don't completely agree with the mainstream Argentinean view on the matter, but I understand it. I was answering to what you said, not contradicting the whole point of view.


They were stolen, tinchote. But every bit of land on this planet was, at some time or another, stolen from the people who lived there previously. We can't undo all that history. All we can do is say that from now on land should change hands peacefully, which, in the Falkland Islands, it generally does. If the Argentinians so desperately want it, they should buy it. I'm sure that, at the right price, any Falkland Islander would sell -- even to an Argentinian.

I also agree.

By the way, the invasion of the Malvinas by UK in 1833 was not an isolated incident between UK and Argentina. Dïd you know that Buenos Aires was twice invaded by British troops?

[Rollo]

Let the people of the Falklands determine the future of las Falklands, not 2 bickering governments...

Hear hear :up:
Solution: Compulsory voting and hold a referendum.

Let the people themselves decide. It's happened elsewhere within the realms of the British Empire.

[gadjo_dilo]

Have you ever been in the Falklands?, I have, VERY different story, the Falklands is a piece of rock, nothing else. Why anyone would want to spend their whole life there is beyond me, but the inhabitants love their piece of rock.

Now, everyone in that rock is British, just ask them (it will not take you long, you can actually ask every single citizen in less than a week), they are the original inhabitants of the rock (why?, because no ene else wanted to live in that rock), every one of them speaks english with a British accent, every one of their ancestors was British, like them.

Visiting the place is nice, living there?, I would not go there to be a shepherd, but they like it, they are happy and they are British.

See the diference?, a piece of rock that had no inhabitants, no one from Argentina went to that piece of rock, British men and women for some strange reason went to live there.

I admit I know nothing about Falkland ( or shall I call them Malvinas? :laugh: ) Islands history but I'm sure all this thing is not about a piece of rock where a few foolhardy inhabitants enjoy an idyllic life . Because from my poor world history knowledge I noticed that sadly, the " inhabitants element " is the last that counts. Probably the colonial empires weren't built just for the sake of bringing some colonists and assuring them a nice quiet life there. Most of the time there are economic, military, geopolitical, strategic reasons. Theoretically, neither Britain or Argentina need that land, then there must be another reason. I guess for Britain it's the strategic position of the islands.

To underline what I mean I'll take another example. The Snake's island in the Black Sea has only 0,17 square km. and is not inhabited. However it's a matter of dispute between Romania and Ukraine because of its importance from a strategic-military point of view and of fuel reserve in the Black Sea continental plateau through the island.


However as far as I know the Falkland Island inhabitants do not wish to be ruled by Argentina, and that's that IMO..
I understand this because of the different economic levels of the states involved. :laugh: But it doesn't necessarily mean that the phrase "The Malvinas are Argentine, they always were, they always will be" can't be true.
The citizens of Moldova also don't want a reunion with Romania although all who know history would admit that Moldova always was , it still is and deinitely will be in the near future a romanian land. :laugh:

[Mark]

I stand to be corrected but I believe that the Falkland Islands do have strategic value in terms of their proximity to Antartica, and especially if it's found to have oil reserves there. Just going off what my Dad said when I was a wee lad :p

[BDunnell]

I stand to be corrected but I believe that the Falkland Islands do have strategic value in terms of their proximity to Antartica, and especially if it's found to have oil reserves there. Just going off what my Dad said when I was a wee lad :p

There are mineral resources around, and the Falklands (and Ascension Island, which is under US control and has no indigenous inhabitants) are used as staging bases for US Antarctic operations.

But the fact remains that the Argentine claim on the Falklands is as tenuous as Germany wanting Namibia back. It's rather sad, I think, that the Argentine people (or at least its leading politicians) seem to feel so strongly about a territorial claim dating back well over 100 years. Can they think of no other means of getting some national pride?

[Mark]

Indeed, there has to come a point where you put the past behind you and deal with what you have here and now. I don't see Norway asking for the Shetland Islands to be returned to them...

[gadjo_dilo]

I stand to be corrected but I believe that the Falkland Islands do have strategic value in terms of their proximity to Antartica, and especially if it's found to have oil reserves there. Just going off what my Dad said when I was a wee lad :p

Nice guy, your dad. Maybe he also explained you the necessity of spending 150 million dollars/year for the maintanance of 1500 military planes and 1200 soldiers on the islands. Probably just for the sake of about 3000 inhabitants. :laugh:


Indeed, there has to come a point where you put the past behind you and deal with what you have here and now.
Nice thought but I'm afraid you're a dreamer. The world history is but a long chain of battles for land. Even if these days we enjoy a period with not so many major international conflicts it doesn't mean that everybody is happy with what they've got.

[BDunnell]

Nice guy, your dad. Maybe he also explained you the necessity of spending 150 million dollars/year for the maintanance of 1500 military planes and 1200 soldiers on the islands. Probably just for the sake of about 3000 inhabitants. :laugh:

There are not 1,500 military aircraft on the islands. There are, on a regular basis, about eight.

And those inhabitants, it has often been stated, want to remain under British rule, hence the ongoing commitment.


Nice thought but I'm afraid you're a dreamer. The world history is but a long chain of battles for land. Even if these days we enjoy a period with not so many major international conflicts it doesn't mean that everybody is happy with what they've got.

So, do you think that Britain should invade Calais to get it back? We have as much of a claim on it as Argentina does on the Falklands.

Surely you must realise that attempting to regain bits of land that you lost in the dim and distant past is utter folly? It is also highly destabilising.

[gadjo_dilo]

So, do you think that Britain should invade Calais to get it back? We have as much of a claim on it as Argentina does on the Falklands.

Surely you must realise that attempting to regain bits of land that you lost in the dim and distant past is utter folly? It is also highly destabilising.

If you have the patience to read again my posts you'll see I've never said that X should invade Y. I'm just sceptical that we can ever live in a total harmony because the history of the world was and is the history of fighting for power. And I think that even if at this point most of the states respect international treaties it doesn't mean that all of them are happy with them. I know it's sad but unfortunately it's real.

[janneppi]

I'm just sceptical that we can ever live in a total harmony because the history of the world was and is the history of fighting for power. And I think that even if at this point most of the states respect international treaties it doesn't mean that all of them are happy with them. I know it's sad but unfortunately it's real.
Exactly, international treaties are only valid until one side decides it's strong enough to get away with breaking them, make no mistake, if some loony British PM got his folks rallied to get Calais back without everyone and their pets getting pissed at UK, they would. Political ruthlesness is just isn't popular with the current western "fluffy kittens and strawberries for all" way of life. :)

[Zeus]

Nice guy, your dad. Maybe he also explained you the necessity of spending 150 million dollars/year for the maintanance of 1500 military planes and 1200 soldiers on the islands. Probably just for the sake of about 3000 inhabitants. :laugh:


There is currently a population of about 8000, with more and more people moving there. People like the quiet and quaint atmosphere of the place. There are none of the pressures of life in modern day Britain, no crime and a fully funded health service and hospital.

It has a thriving economy with several millionares from the fishing rights. Stanley is expanding with several hotels and pubs to accomodate the expanding tourist industry. It is a destination for cruise ships on their way to Antarctica.

The RAF maintain 8 Tornado aircraft as protection and for training purposes as they can practice low flying at much lower altitudes than the UK. Any other aircraft on the island will almost certainly be transports or tankers.

There is also a small but discrete Army presence, enough to defend the islands, unlike 25 years ago when 80 Marines and local volunteers fought 3000 Argentinian conscripts and Special Forces.

[BDunnell]

Exactly, international treaties are only valid until one side decides it's strong enough to get away with breaking them, make no mistake, if some loony British PM got his folks rallied to get Calais back without everyone and their pets getting pissed at UK, they would. Political ruthlesness is just isn't popular with the current western "fluffy kittens and strawberries for all" way of life. :)

I don't think this has anything to do with it. Most Western countries are satisfied enough with what they have to not feel the need to undertake little land-grabs for perceived historical reasons, or threaten to do so because it's popular with the electorate. Those days are now in the past. In spite of its recent activities, I would even include the USA in this list. I find Argentina's obsession with the Falklands rather sad, because it indicates to me that they are lacking in more recent achievements from which national pride can be derived.

[BDunnell]

The RAF maintain 8 Tornado aircraft as protection and for training purposes as they can practice low flying at much lower altitudes than the UK. Any other aircraft on the island will almost certainly be transports or tankers.

There are actually four Tornados there, together with two Sea King helicopters for search and rescue duties and transport tasks, a VC10 tanker and a C-130 Hercules transport that also supports maritime activities.

I notice that the person who stated earlier that there are '1,500 military planes' on the islands has not backed the remark up...

[Drew]

Does the RAF even have 1,500 military planes?!

[BDunnell]

Does the RAF even have 1,500 military planes?!

No. Not even including its museum.

[janneppi]

I don't think this has anything to do with it. Most Western countries are satisfied enough with what they have to not feel the need to undertake little land-grabs for perceived historical reasons, or threaten to do so because it's popular with the electorate. Those days are now in the past. In spite of its recent activities, I would even include the USA in this list.
I don't think they are in the past, it really doesn't take that much for us to end up having a different map let's say 30 years from now.
Borders in Westerlandia aren't really that old, and there still is pressure areas where minor corrections are asked, you have your Basques, Norther Ireland, Karelia. I doubt you could find many over hundred years old borders in Europe.

I find Argentina's obsession with the Falklands rather sad, because it indicates to me that they are lacking in more recent achievements from which national pride can be derived.
I can see where they come from, it's not really that long ago that we lost land to Soviet Union and while official Finland isn't going to push(until something weird happens), it's still a sore point. Argentia does have the right to want it back, it would be silly to try though.

[BDunnell]

I don't think they are in the past, it really doesn't take that much for us to end up having a different map let's say 30 years from now.
Borders in Westerlandia aren't really that old, and there still is pressure areas where minor corrections are asked, you have your Basques, Norther Ireland, Karelia. I doubt you could find many over hundred years old borders in Europe.

I can see where they come from, it's not really that long ago that we lost land to Soviet Union and while official Finland isn't going to push(until something weird happens), it's still a sore point. Argentia does have the right to want it back, it would be silly to try though.

But most western governments don't rattle their sabres over these matters, and express a desire to get the territory back. I also categorise the likes of the Basque separatists, terrorists in Northern Ireland and so on rather differently.

[janneppi]

But most western governments don't rattle their sabres over these matters, and express a desire to get the territory back. I also categorise the likes of the Basque separatists, terrorists in Northern Ireland and so on rather differently.
As i said:

Political ruthlesness is just isn't popular with the current western "fluffy kittens and strawberries for all" way of life. :)
Don't be fooled into thinking it will last for ever, it's lastedd only for few decades now, i would be amazed if it lasts another 50 years.

[BDunnell]

As i said:

Don't be fooled into thinking it will last for ever, it's lastedd only for few decades now, i would be amazed if it lasts another 50 years.

I disagree. As far as the UK is concerned, the end of Empire surely means that while we will defend what we have, we aren't out to get anything else.

[tinchote]

There is currently a population of about 8000, with more and more people moving there. People like the quiet and quaint atmosphere of the place. There are none of the pressures of life in modern day Britain, no crime and a fully funded health service and hospital.


I'm interested to see where your figures come from. According to the 2001 census, the civilian population was 2379, and the military population 534. Are you claiming that the population more than doubled in the last 6 years?

[tinchote]

But the fact remains that the Argentine claim on the Falklands is as tenuous as Germany wanting Namibia back. It's rather sad, I think, that the Argentine people (or at least its leading politicians) seem to feel so strongly about a territorial claim dating back well over 100 years. Can they think of no other means of getting some national pride?

It has nothing to do with national pride. If anything, it has to do with national pain. Fact is that they were stolen. If other countries want to give up on their claims, it's their problem. Argentina never stopped claiming the islands back, and there is no reason to stop doing it.

And regarding the "no more land grab" situation as stabilized "for ever", I can't believe you are that naive.

[Daniel]

Nice guy, your dad. Maybe he also explained you the necessity of spending 150 million dollars/year for the maintanance of 1500 military planes and 1200 soldiers on the islands. Probably just for the sake of about 3000 inhabitants. :laugh:


Nice thought but I'm afraid you're a dreamer. The world history is but a long chain of battles for land. Even if these days we enjoy a period with not so many major international conflicts it doesn't mean that everybody is happy with what they've got.
I love the fact that the island has 1500 planes and only 1200 military personel. Take into consideration the fact that you need support personel and people to guard the bases and such and your statement looks even more silly.

[Daniel]

There are mineral resources around, and the Falklands (and Ascension Island, which is under US control and has no indigenous inhabitants) are used as staging bases for US Antarctic operations.

But the fact remains that the Argentine claim on the Falklands is as tenuous as Germany wanting Namibia back. It's rather sad, I think, that the Argentine people (or at least its leading politicians) seem to feel so strongly about a territorial claim dating back well over 100 years. Can they think of no other means of getting some national pride?
Consider it this way. If you stole my car 50 years ago you still stole my car and I still want it back.......

Simplistic but if it was Argentina's and it was taken then it should be given back.

Who cares if these people are British and want to remain British? If Argentina invaded the UK and turfed everyone else out and put Argentinians here I don't think Tinchote would claim that it's OK just because the people want to stay part of Argentina.

You could extend this to include places like Australia and the USA but at the end of the day there aren't that many people there and it wasn't British land in the first place.

[BDunnell]

Consider it this way. If you stole my car 50 years ago you still stole my car and I still want it back.......

Simplistic but if it was Argentina's and it was taken then it should be given back.

Who cares if these people are British and want to remain British? If Argentina invaded the UK and turfed everyone else out and put Argentinians here I don't think Tinchote would claim that it's OK just because the people want to stay part of Argentina.

You could extend this to include places like Australia and the USA but at the end of the day there aren't that many people there and it wasn't British land in the first place.

If we started going back over all the bits of land that have been nicked by one country from another and start saying that they should be given back, we would end up opening such a can of worms that it would be highly inflammatory.

And we're not talking about 50 years ago in the case of the Falklands, but a period three times as long.

[donKey jote]

But most western governments don't rattle their sabres over these matters, and express a desire to get the territory back. I also categorise the likes of the Basque separatists, terrorists in Northern Ireland and so on rather differently.
Off topic I know, but I wouldn't categorise all Basque separatists in the same group as terrorists in Northern Irland and so on... jarrambide may be a separatist, but I doubt he's much of a terrorist :)


Don´t even start with Gibraltar DJ, or I will have to start shouting, "Euzkadi no es España" ;)
For all I care, Gibraltar can be returned to Spain whenever Ceuta and Melilla are given back to Morrocco, together with Leila (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/2141640.stm) :p :
I know Euzkadi is not España, the other half of it is France :D

Sorry for the hijacking blip... I'll retire back to my stables now
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

[jarrambide]

Actually I´m not a separartist, to tell you the truth, I don´t see the point in getting independence when at the same time you want to join the European Community(how does that work, I don´t want to be your brother but I want to be your cousin?), some Basques want the territory to becom eindependent (the majority of them via a referendum, just a few with shameful terrorist acts), some Basques want their territory to stay as part of Spain, every opinion deserves respect. As I see it, the nationality of your passport does not define you, if you feel Basque, then you are Basque, if you feel Spaniard then you are Spaniard, if you feel Basque and Spaniard then you are both, regarless of what your passport says, but then again, if they do a referendum and the majority decides for independence, the rest should shutup, if the majority decides to stay in Spain, the rest should shutup, this applies to the Falklands, they feel British, they are the ones living there, everyone else should shutup, I don´t care about what countries or territories existed 200, or 400, or 1,000 years ago, what matters is today and the population, let the Falklanders (is this a real word?) decide, no one else.
The part about France, brilliant, brilliant.

[jarrambide]

Actually I´m not a separartist, to tell you the truth, I don´t see the point in getting independence when at the same time you want to join the European Community(how does that work, I don´t want to be your brother but I want to be your cousin?), some Basques want the territory to becom eindependent (the majority of them via a referendum, just a few with shameful terrorist acts), some Basques want their territory to stay as part of Spain, every opinion deserves respect. As I see it, the nationality of your passport does not define you, if you feel Basque, then you are Basque, if you feel Spaniard then you are Spaniard, if you feel Basque and Spaniard then you are both, regarless of what your passport says, but then again, if they do a referendum and the majority decides for independence, the rest should shutup, if the majority decides to stay in Spain, the rest should shutup, this applies to the Falklands, they feel British, they are the one living there, everyone else should shutup, I don´t care about what countries or territories existed 200, or 400, or 1,000 years ago, what matters is today and the population, let the Falklanders (is this a real word?) decide, no one else.
The part about France, brilliant, brilliant.

[Drew]

Sod it, give me the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Ceuta, Melilla, Greenland and Western Sahara I'll rule them and they'll just be happy living there, coated in alcohol and chocolate.

Seriously, I read a little of the history of the Falkland Islands here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty_of_the_Falkland_Islands

Interesting stuff. The French were there and then just later the British and just later than that the Spanish.

[BDunnell]

It has nothing to do with national pride. If anything, it has to do with national pain. Fact is that they were stolen. If other countries want to give up on their claims, it's their problem. Argentina never stopped claiming the islands back, and there is no reason to stop doing it.

And regarding the "no more land grab" situation as stabilized "for ever", I can't believe you are that naive.

Tell me seriously — do you seriously believe that most western European nations will embark on attempts at territorial gain in the near future? I very much doubt it.

The Argentine claim on the Falklands belongs as far in the past as the various other historical examples cited in this thread.

[jarrambide]

Tell me seriously — do you seriously believe that most western European nations will embark on attempts at territorial gain in the near future? I very much doubt it.

The Argentine claim on the Falklands belongs as far in the past as the various other historical examples cited in this thread.
That and the fact Tinchote is conveniently forgetting that Argentina was populated well before the europeans conquered the land.
Here, here, Tinchote, it is not about pride it is about pain, Argentina should go back to what is left of the Guaranis, and the Mapuches, and some other tribes that used to be the owners of the land.
Argentina can keep the falklands and any other portions they can prove were not inhabited by anyone before them.

[donKey jote]

@jarrambide #50

agree 100% in principle (España: "muchas, grandes, libres" :p : )

The only problem with referendums is the small issue of who gets to vote on the big issue: all parties involved or only the people within set boundaries?
Who sets the boundaries, all parties involved or only those with a vested interest ?
Who sets the parties who set the boundaries... ad absurdum.

Time for bed :p :

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

[jarrambide]

@jarrambide #50

agree 100% in principle (España: "muchas, grandes, libres" :p : )

The only problem with referendums is the small issue of who gets to vote on the big issue: all parties involved or only the people within set boundaries?
Who sets the boundaries, all parties involved or only those with a vested interest ?
Who sets the parties who set the boundaries... ad absurdum.

Time for bed :p :

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif
A referendum is easier than you think, Canada had a referendum, people in Quebec voted to remain a part of canada, Puerto Rico had 2 or 3, can´t remember the exact number, every time they have chosen to stay as an associate state.
If you hold a refrendum in the Falklands and give them the chance to choose to stay as part of GB, to join Argentina or become a different country you would get a majority of votes to stay as part of GB, that is the way it works, any contested piece of land, you let everyone living in that piece of land the right to vote.

[donKey jote]

Sure it's easy in those cases.
Now enter Nafarroa :p :

[jarrambide]

Sure it's easy in those cases.
Now enter Nafarroa :p :
Navarra?, what about Nafarroa?, different legal territories should have different referendums (if they ask for one), in my point of View, Navarra is not part of the basque region just because some Basques say so, ask them and lets see what they think, but only they. Yes, I know some parts of Navarra have a long Basque tradition, other parts of Navarra don´t, but the majority should rule.

And to tell you the truth, I don´t think a referendum would even win in Euzkadi, at least not a referendum of total independence, economically, culturally and socially is a bad idea, (not to talk about football, are we going to have a league of 6 very lousy teams?), maybe a referendum asking for an associate state status, but not one for complete independence, you will see my friend that economical reasons in the end are more important than nationalistic and pride reasons, we all want our heritage, we want to celebrate what we are, but:
1) No one is stopping us now, we are free to speak what we want, celebrate and act as we like.
2) We want to celebrate as long as we don´t have to sacrifice our well being.

[BrentJackson]

Argentina says they want the islands back, but its like Iraq and Kuwait - one is separate from the other because they want to be. There are only a small handful of Argentines living on the Falklands, and the Brits don't give 'em any crap about doing so. The majority of Argentines are people who came from Europe to begin with, and the government just wants to say something tough.

They won't invade them military - because the country buried 655 Argentines the last time they tried. Blast the RN or SAS all you like, the Argentines have much more respect for the Brits now, and their losing the Falklands War resulted in the rapid end of military rule there, and it has been a democracy ever since - and its likely to be for good now, because even in the 2001 economic hell they went through there was no coup. Like its been said, if the Argentines want the islands back just have a few thousand move over there, and then vote to become part of Argentina. They do that democratically, and Britain won't complain about it. Nowadays, taking land by force is something we generally look down upon.

[BDunnell]

Argentina says they want the islands back, but its like Iraq and Kuwait - one is separate from the other because they want to be. There are only a small handful of Argentines living on the Falklands, and the Brits don't give 'em any crap about doing so. The majority of Argentines are people who came from Europe to begin with, and the government just wants to say something tough.

They won't invade them military - because the country buried 655 Argentines the last time they tried. Blast the RN or SAS all you like, the Argentines have much more respect for the Brits now, and their losing the Falklands War resulted in the rapid end of military rule there, and it has been a democracy ever since - and its likely to be for good now, because even in the 2001 economic hell they went through there was no coup. Like its been said, if the Argentines want the islands back just have a few thousand move over there, and then vote to become part of Argentina. They do that democratically, and Britain won't complain about it. Nowadays, taking land by force is something we generally look down upon.

I agree. :up:

It is worth pointing out, however, that Argentina's military performance in the 1982 conflict was remarkable. Yes, the British were hamstrung by not being able to deploy large numbers of front-line aircraft and having to rely on the Harriers, but even so Argentina's forces were inferior in almost all respects yet managed to inflict some serious damage. I can see why this is still a source of pride to them.

[tinchote]

In general, the responses I read here sound a little oversimplifying. I agree with the argument that the people should decide. But then, not so long ago the UK decided over Hong Kong, and as far as I know there was no referendum. So it's hard to argue that the UK has a very coherent policy on the matter.

[Eki]

In general, the responses I read here sound a little oversimplifying. I agree with the argument that the people should decide. But then, not so long ago the UK decided over Hong Kong, and as far as I know there was no referendum. So it's hard to argue that the UK has a very coherent policy on the matter.
Wasn't the UK just leasing Hong Kong from China and the contract expired? It's a bit different than the Falkland Islands/Malvinas.

[BDunnell]

Wasn't the UK just leasing Hong Kong from China and the contract expired? It's a bit different than the Falkland Islands/Malvinas.

Exactly. There was no choice in the matter.

[tinchote]

Wasn't the UK just leasing Hong Kong from China and the contract expired? It's a bit different than the Falkland Islands/Malvinas.

My bad, then.

[Easy Drifter]

Just about every piece of land was taken from somebody, even England. The Celts, the Saxons, the Normans all were invaders. Canada and the US were taken from the Indians. Argentina was taken from the SA Indians by the Spanish, Brazil by the Portugese and so on. The strong tribes (nations later) always took.
The Apache and Navahoe drove out (and destroyed) a farming tribe. The Sioux were driven from the forests of Wisc. and Min. and drove other tribes from a good part of the prairies. We are supposed to be past that but the various messes in Africa prove we are not.
By the way Canada and Greenland are squabbling over a chuck of uninhabited rock in the Artic!
Bring back the Argentine GP!

[jso1985]

Bring back the Argentine GP!

that's something we can all agree :D


I I find Argentina's obsession with the Falklands rather sad, because it indicates to me that they are lacking in more recent achievements from which national pride can be derived.

Surely has lots to do with their national pride but keeping a rock in the middle of nowhere could be Britain's obsession with keeping at least pieces of their old empire?


Hey JSO just a quick question. How is life in Bolivia after the election?
better worse the same. Do all the people really support Hugo to the east?

life is worse, was bad before and now is sadly worse, the only few things the previous goverments did is now being destroyed by "Chavez puppet" Morales just because they were "imperialists"...
sadly there's lots of people here who think Chavez is the best thing that happened to SouthAmerica

[BDunnell]

Surely has lots to do with their national pride but keeping a rock in the middle of nowhere could be Britain's obsession with keeping at least pieces of their old empire?

Possibly, but I think it's also an indication that we're not out to get any more — we're past that now. Instead, it's a matter of keeping what we have, with which there is nothing wrong. I don't have a problem with us having a few overseas territories, now that we don't lord it over them in the same way as we used to.

[janvanvurpa]

Wasn't the UK just leasing Hong Kong from China and the contract expired? It's a bit different than the Falkland Islands/Malvinas.
Eki, for a real insight in what came to be called "Gunboat Diplomacy" go read up about the British shenanigans leading up to the signing of the 150 year lease for Hong Kong.
The Opium Wars, and the concept of "extraterritoriality" of any Westerner person de facto exempt them from any legal repercussions done while in China, these are some of the things done which burned the Chinese hearts for the same 150 years.
It's appaling.

(PS My wife's Auntie 4 is visiting us now from Hong Kong as well as her sister and niece from about 1 mile across the still in exsistance border--they're here cause in about 2 weeks another little Agitator will be born.)

[Eki]

Eki, for a real insight in what came to be called "Gunboat Diplomacy" go read up about the British shenanigans leading up to the signing of the 150 year lease for Hong Kong.
The Opium Wars, and the concept of "extraterritoriality" of any Westerner person de facto exempt them from any legal repercussions done while in China, these are some of the things done which burned the Chinese hearts for the same 150 years.
It's appaling.

(PS My wife's Auntie 4 is visiting us now from Hong Kong as well as her sister and niece from about 1 mile across the still in exsistance border--they're here cause in about 2 weeks another little Agitator will be born.)
Good luck to the little Agitator!

[donKey jote]

congrats juanvan :D
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

[SOD]

Eki, for a real insight in what came to be called "Gunboat Diplomacy" go read up about the British shenanigans leading up to the signing of the 150 year lease for Hong Kong.
The Opium Wars, and the concept of "extraterritoriality" of any Westerner person de facto exempt them from any legal repercussions done while in China, these are some of the things done which burned the Chinese hearts for the same 150 years.
It's appaling.

(PS My wife's Auntie 4 is visiting us now from Hong Kong as well as her sister and niece from about 1 mile across the still in exsistance border--they're here cause in about 2 weeks another little Agitator will be born.)

maggie held discussions with Deng Xiaoping over extending that deal . LMAO.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I agree. :up:

It is worth pointing out, however, that Argentina's military performance in the 1982 conflict was remarkable. Yes, the British were hamstrung by not being able to deploy large numbers of front-line aircraft and having to rely on the Harriers, but even so Argentina's forces were inferior in almost all respects yet managed to inflict some serious damage. I can see why this is still a source of pride to them.

I don't know why they had pride. While their airforce performed well, their troops had the Brits outnumbered 2 to 1 and they had all the advantages and still the British Army, Marines and SAS took them out in short order. The Brits walked the length of the Islands to do it too.

Ok, only idiots would rationally sit there and try to say that land "stolen" 2 centuries ago should be returned, for if the Argentinians are honest, their Spanish ancestors stole the majority of the continent and its riches from the Indians living in South America. The Indian tribes and peoples of the America's would win that court case wouldn't they? Lets drop this nonsense right here and now and just say Argentina wants to hold onto the fiction they have lost something. Believe me, unless someone gets oil out of the area, there is no real economic value to having those islands.

To think, many people in the UK were looking at hanging onto the Falklands as too expensive in the 70's and thought was given to negotiating handing the islands over to Argentina. The UK gave up Hong Kong, so you have to know they would have given up the Falklands if the Argentinians were reasonable, but alas, they were not. You cant get something by stealing it and expect respect, and for that Argentina will be living down the spanking they took in 1982.

Also, Puerto Rico is happy to be a US protectorate because it makes them have all the benefits of being American without half the headaches. They can say they are NOT American ( and they are not ) and yet they have help on protection, foreign affairs, investment, trade and a stable currency. Yet they keep their culture, their way of life and live better than most islands in the area. I guess the benefits of being in limbo beat the drawbacks for them.

Being a US state would mean the pressure to have the Island speak more English would be overwhelming, and a lot of American's would buy up half the island driving up the cost of property out of reach for the locals. Puerto Rico for some reason has found a way to get the benefits of American protection and their economy without any of the drawbacks.

Now, would anyone in the Falklands want such a deal with Argentina? Fat chance.....

[BDunnell]

I don't know why they had pride. While their airforce performed well, their troops had the Brits outnumbered 2 to 1 and they had all the advantages and still the British Army, Marines and SAS took them out in short order. The Brits walked the length of the Islands to do it too.

I should have explained that I was referring to their air arms (not just the Argentine Air Force). Apologies for not making that clear.


Ok, only idiots would rationally sit there and try to say that land "stolen" 2 centuries ago should be returned, for if the Argentinians are honest, their Spanish ancestors stole the majority of the continent and its riches from the Indians living in South America. The Indian tribes and peoples of the America's would win that court case wouldn't they? Lets drop this nonsense right here and now and just say Argentina wants to hold onto the fiction they have lost something. Believe me, unless someone gets oil out of the area, there is no real economic value to having those islands.

Absolutely.


To think, many people in the UK were looking at hanging onto the Falklands as too expensive in the 70's and thought was given to negotiating handing the islands over to Argentina. The UK gave up Hong Kong, so you have to know they would have given up the Falklands if the Argentinians were reasonable, but alas, they were not. You cant get something by stealing it and expect respect, and for that Argentina will be living down the spanking they took in 1982.

I doubt whether 'many people in the UK' were thinking that at the time. A few politicians, maybe (and understandably so, it could be said), but not 'many people' — hence the surprise when the islands were invaded, and the lack of knowledge as to where they were. Many people didn't have any idea until the Falklands appeared on the news after the invasion!

The analogy you make with Hong Kong is very true. I never used to feel very strongly about this, but I have come to realise over recent years (largely from speaking to people who have visited the islands) that giving up the Falklands would be akin to giving up the Shetlands, no matter how far the Falklands happen to be from the UK.

[Eki]

The UK gave up Hong Kong, so you have to know they would have given up the Falklands if the Argentinians were reasonable, but alas, they were not. You cant get something by stealing it and expect respect, and for that Argentina will be living down the spanking they took in 1982.
Oh, you do understand the concept of national pride. Now, maybe you also understand why the US is having so much trouble in Iraq? And why many Iranians now probably want nuclear weapons only because the US said they can't have them.

[BrentJackson]

Eki, in the Falklands it was Great Britain versus Argentina, and Great Britain won, but the Argentines left scars - namely, the 255 Brits who went home in caskets. Iraq is a totally different scenario. The USA removed Saddam Hussein who without any debate was a sick despot, and the country promptly disintegrated because the various factions in it wouldn't get along post-invasion. If the USA walks out, massacres ensue. Hence, they haven't left yet.

[Eki]

The USA removed Saddam Hussein who without any debate was a sick despot,
But still a great deal of Iraqis, especially the Sunnis, supported him. And by the looks of it, many of the Shiias who are glad that Saddam is gone don't like the way it happened either.

[Mihai]

There is currently a population of about 8000, with more and more people moving there. People like the quiet and quaint atmosphere of the place. There are none of the pressures of life in modern day Britain, no crime and a fully funded health service and hospital.

It has a thriving economy with several millionares from the fishing rights. Stanley is expanding with several hotels and pubs to accomodate the expanding tourist industry. It is a destination for cruise ships on their way to Antarctica.

If so, I'd like to live there too! :D I speak English, Spanish, Portuguese, French, some German and some Italian. It wouldn't make any difference for me what government will rule the islands. :cool:

[Mark in Oshawa]

A great many Sunnis supported him Eki because if they didn't, they would end up dead, or working as virtual slaves. You keep attributing the citizens of Iraq as having free will and choice when Saddam is there. You have to quit using moral equalivence of nations run by despots with the reality of living in a western democracy. People there don't want the Americans there I don't doubt, but until there is some sort of structure in Iraq to keep the peace, run the nation and defend the nation, the US and UK soldiers will have to stay. To leave now would create a bigger travesty than what you think has already taken place.

Lets face it, Iraq's issues are partially America's fault now, but there is WAY too many people involved screwing around in that nation that have made things FAR worse.

The Falklands are inhabitanted by British citizens, so they will be protected by the mother country. Period.

[BDunnell]

A great many Sunnis supported him Eki because if they didn't, they would end up dead, or working as virtual slaves. You keep attributing the citizens of Iraq as having free will and choice when Saddam is there. You have to quit using moral equalivence of nations run by despots with the reality of living in a western democracy.

There are certainly plenty of examples which suggest that the transition is harder than the US, in particular, would like to appreciate.

People do end up, it seems to me, being genuinely supportive of a totalitarian regime if they have known nothing else for a long time. One only has to look at East Germany for a good example. Of course a lot of people there only supported Communism because they knew nothing else, but the West in general was wrong to believe that it would be possible to over-ride this support in a quick and easy manner, or just dismiss it as having been wrong or stupid. On a more serious scale, the same is true of Iraq. Those who believe that people who experience regime change on any level ought to be automatically grateful for the intervention of Western democracies and the chance to live in a society built along those lines are misguided.

I'm not saying that East Germany and Iraq are directly comparable, but hopefully you can see where I'm coming from.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I see where you are from for sure, and I agree, a few of these Sunnis did well with Saddam because of where they were from or the fact they were Sunni's and willing to look the other way when Saddam did some of the things he did. Lets face it, a bit of the "Stockholm Syndrome" theory kicks in when a dictator is in power for over 20 years. Heck, the Russians have a great number of their popularity that like that Putin is taking away a lot of the democratic reforms that Yeltsin and Gorbachev brought in. Some people hate uncertainty, and living in a democracy means nothing really is handed to you, you have to go out and EARN it.

[BitterBeer]

There is currently a population of about 8000, with more and more people moving there. People like the quiet and quaint atmosphere of the place. There are none of the pressures of life in modern day Britain, no crime and a fully funded health service and hospital.

It has a thriving economy with several millionares from the fishing rights. Stanley is expanding with several hotels and pubs to accomodate the expanding tourist industry. It is a destination for cruise ships on their way to Antarctica.

The RAF maintain 8 Tornado aircraft as protection and for training purposes as they can practice low flying at much lower altitudes than the UK. Any other aircraft on the island will almost certainly be transports or tankers.

There is also a small but discrete Army presence, enough to defend the islands, unlike 25 years ago when 80 Marines and local volunteers fought 3000 Argentinian conscripts and Special Forces.

Without logistical support from Argentina ..even today, it would cost the UK millions more per year to send supplies and maintain the colony..it is NOT self sufficient. The place is simply a dependency of the South American continent. Flights come in weekly from Argentina.
Make no mistake, it`s about the possible oil in the area...and other resources.
Or does anyone believe that any government would support a society..even if it`s just 8,000 people....for free?

[BrentJackson]

I read somewhere that the Falklands may have substantial oil reserves. We're talking North Sea-size deposits. That's lots of reason for the Brits to keep the place.

I read up on the war, and apparently it was a good thing The Brits stuck fast. The Argentines had lots of French-built Super Etendard jets and Exocet missiles, like those which wiped out the HMS Sheffield. Argentina needed more missiles and parts for the jets, and they were en route at the time of the conflict. Had they gotten there and the Argentines had any balls, there woulda been a bunch more RN ships blown to pieces by them. The fact that the Conqueror dropped the Belgrano probably helped too, because the Belgrano had been retrofitted with improvised Exocet missiles, and one truck-mounted launcher did a lot of damage to HMS Glamorgan.

[Roamy]

that looks like a **** island anyway - if I were argentina I wouldn't even take time to piss on the falklands. Let the Brits support it.

[BDunnell]

I read somewhere that the Falklands may have substantial oil reserves. We're talking North Sea-size deposits. That's lots of reason for the Brits to keep the place.

I read up on the war, and apparently it was a good thing The Brits stuck fast. The Argentines had lots of French-built Super Etendard jets and Exocet missiles, like those which wiped out the HMS Sheffield. Argentina needed more missiles and parts for the jets, and they were en route at the time of the conflict. Had they gotten there and the Argentines had any balls, there woulda been a bunch more RN ships blown to pieces by them. The fact that the Conqueror dropped the Belgrano probably helped too, because the Belgrano had been retrofitted with improvised Exocet missiles, and one truck-mounted launcher did a lot of damage to HMS Glamorgan.

The Argentinian pilots certainly had balls. Their combat record proves that. Unfortunately, they were not well trained and had little idea of tactics. Plus, as you say, they had to arm and service the Super Etendards themselves without manufacturer support.

[BitterBeer]

The Argentinian pilots certainly had balls. Their combat record proves that. Unfortunately, they were not well trained and had little idea of tactics. Plus, as you say, they had to arm and service the Super Etendards themselves without manufacturer support.

Balls did not win, it takes support and equipment....and trained Ghurkas. Many missiles hit the mark and did not explode. If they did, it might have been either a different outcome, or a prolonged affair.

[BDunnell]

Balls did not win, it takes support and equipment....and trained Ghurkas. Many missiles hit the mark and did not explode. If they did, it might have been either a different outcome, or a prolonged affair.

Indeed.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I just remember that era as the incident that proved once and for all that you didn't cross Maggie Thatcher. The oratory and effort she put out to sell this war and then win it was Churchillian.

As for the Argentians, if they had put more effort at that time on getting along with the UK, they likely could have gotten control of them in time. Now that their may be oil reserves there, well good luck.

As for Hugo Chavez going down there and bringing all of this BACK up again, well, that is what Hugo does. Goes to foreign countries and ticks off people who he doesn't like (just about anyone who speaks with reason or from the right side of the spectrum or BOTH) and kisses up to such great dictators as the Assads, Castro's, and that idiot running Iran. Hugo, you may call em the Malvinas, but unless Venezuela wants to have a go at the UK to take them back, shut your mouth....At least the Argentinians have shed blood to try to back up their claim (no matter how silly it may seem, I can respect and honour their war dead, the soldiers didn't ask for their fate). To have Chavez go down there and bring up all this bile about the "Malvinas" is just another example why those who don't like him are given little reason to think he may have a point worth considering.