Phoenix Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 The invasion was avoidable. The government were given repeat warnings of the Military Juntas intentions.But that government stood aside and done nothing until they had invaded. The Callaghan administartion had dealt with similar sabre rattling by sending a couple of nuclear subs and warning the Argentinians what would happen, Even Thatchers great pal Ronald Reagan tried to dissuade her from military action and imploring negotiations.Hence she leant on a Despot from Chile to help her. As for invadinga dependency, what did the Thatcher administartion do when USA invaded the British dependancy of Grenada??, As for the electorate backing the invasion, Yes thats true, but shows how shallow the English are when a bit of Jingoism is shoved in their face. Imperialist to the death!! I fully agree things could have been sorted out earlier but in my opinion the military junta in Argentina was under so much pressure at home that they had to try an invasion to save their own necks back home. And although The USA tried to dissuade military action they actually blocked sales of arms to Argentina and provided military support to the UK during the conflict (as did the French) As for Grenada, it actually gained independance in 1974 so wasn't a British dependency when invaded by America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamiltonjag Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 I pointed out why the Falkland Islands were known(prior to 1982) If you choose to ignore this then this again proves your lack of debating skills. I can give reasons why the Islands were known before 1982, your figures were simply picked out of thin air (unless you can provide the info?) . I'm not choosing to ignore it, but I fail to see the relevance. I maintain that the vast majority of people had no (or at a real push "little") idea of the existence of these rocks prior to 1982. Despite the way you talk-up their relevance in terms of history. Are you not willing to accept that only a handful of people knew or even cared about this prior to 82? If not, are you willing to accept that your insistence that they did and your further comments along the lines of people who didn't know this (the majority) are uneducated, can seem arrogant? I contend that if the Falklands were known, it was by a minority. As far as cherry-picking is concerned: thank you for going to all the trouble to Google for a definition for me. I'm deeply touched. It reinforces my point about you cherry-picking perfectly. As for the claim that my views on the Falklands are bigoted, moronic and narrow minded I can only assume that you believe that the United Nations holds those same bigoted, moronic and narrow minded views as they have the Islands on a list of Non-Self Governing Territories which under General Assembly Resolution 1514 states that " All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development." Your views are those of the current government. In my opinion Argentina has more legitimate claim to the rocks. Britain's claim is based on the traditions of the now defunct British Empire. If you want to use your impressive Googling skills, why not look at your apparent Mastermind-esque subject of history. You'll find that the Falklands (Las Malvinas) were originally inhabited by Argentinians (until the mid 19th Century IIRC from my poor education). Britain invaded and took them over, forcing the inhabitants out and replacing them with British colonists. Do you accept Argentina's claims to sovereignty now? Or do you also cherry-pick historical fact? You see, Argentina can also quote Resolution 1514 - an inconvenient fact you also managed to forget to mention. The Argentinians who were ousted back then to make way for Britain's Empire building were probably more than a wee bit miffed, but tough titty eh? So, what claim does Britain have really? The wishes of the colonists and descendants of those colonists who, if it was to happen today, would be seen by many (including the UN) as invaders with illegitimate claim. Time to take a leaf out of your book and do some Googling and copy/pasting of my own:"An item in the Public Record Office refers to a Foreign Office document of 1940 entitled "Offer made by His Majesty's government to reunify the Falkland Islands with Argentina and to agree to a lease-back. The record suggests that successive UK governments have considered the British claim to the islands to be weak, and some have favoured negotiations. Recently released documents recall that James Callaghan, when foreign secretary in the 1970s, noted that "we must yield some ground and ... be prepared to discuss a lease-back arrangement". The secretary of the cabinet pointed out that "there are many ways in which Argentina could act against us, including invasion of the islands ... and we are not in a position to reinforce and defend the islands as a long-term commitment. The alternative of standing firm and taking the consequences is accordingly not practicable." Still moronic and bigoted thinking on my part? Or is it more moronic and bigoted to continue as you do: defending the rights of colonists who were put on the islands by an aggressor at the expense of those who lived there and had a natural geo-political link to the nearest country, Argentina. At the end of the day the number of British people living there is still only around 900 with a proportion of the remaining 2000-odd being made up of descendants of invading colonists and other nationalities. Please tell me how being invaded by a forgein (sic) country allows the self determination of a country/ territory? Go on then.I'm really sorry but I still cant see any explanation why you favour self determination for one set of people but not for others? Perhaps I've just missed it, any chance of highlighting it or explaining it? All I've seen is that Scotland has 5.5M people and the Falkland Islands only have 3000 therefore there is some reason that they don't deserve the right of self determination (as set out by the UN). At what level of population do you think that a country/territory deserves the right to decide its own fate? Maybe because the Scots aren't colonists sitting on a rock in the southern hemisphere right next to Argentina? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) Once again you show a real lack of knowledge on this subject and prefer to pick and chose quotes from dubious sources. Britain claim on the Islands dates back to 1690. Argentina didn't exist as a country until 1816. Both France and Spain had claims on the island but both relinquised their claims (The Spanish claim is the basis of the Argentine claim but as you have already derided the opinion that " Britain's claim is based on the traditions of the now defunct British Empire" I assume you would also dismiss the Agentinian claim which is based on the traditions of the now defunct Spanish Empire) Far from being thrown off the Islands when Britain regained the Islands after invasion from the newly formed Argentina (for which the commander of the invasion was executed by the Argentinians) they were , according to a number of sources (but not being there myself I cant say for sure) encouraged to stay (person involved was called Matthew Brisbane if you actually want to learn some facts). If the only objection that you could find was the Foreign office documents which states "suggests that successive UK governments have considered the British claim to the islands to be weak, and some have favoured negotiations" then I think the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands is quite safe. Your whole argument seems to revolve around this myth that the British invaded a set of Islands that were owned by Argentina. Unless the Argentinians had a DeLorian and went back in time then this seems to be impossible. Your only other argument seems to be location. I'm sure you would have the same principles if America invaded Cuba. As for the Scottish debate your viewpoint seems to have switched from population to location as a principle of self determination. What will it be tomorrow? Lets be honest here, you couldn't care less about the Falkland Islands. The real reason for your defence of the Argentinian point of view is based on your hatred of Margaret Thatcher. As such this is my last post on the subject so as not to bore the rest of the forum. No point arguing with someone who has such as closed mind. Edited February 4, 2012 by Phoenix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamiltonjag Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Even by your low standards that was a pathetically weak post Phoenix . Such a shame. Your debating skills were almost reaching those of an adolescent. Never mind. Carry on in your own bigoted fantasy land of De Loreans and time travel. You seem to now wish to go back in history until the Big Bang to try to justify your narrow-minded tory mindset. Shame you have chickened-out now, but not unexpected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Even by your low standards that was a pathetically weak post Phoenix . Such a shame. Your debating skills were almost reaching those of an adolescent. Never mind. Carry on in your own bigoted fantasy land of De Loreans and time travel. You seem to now wish to go back in history until the Big Bang to try to justify your narrow-minded tory mindset. Shame you have chickened-out now, but not unexpected. its ok Phoenix, he always does this when he hasnt anything of substance to say, thats why he comes out with the stuff he does Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy davie Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Why can't we all just get along ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamiltonjag Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 its ok Phoenix, he always does this when he hasnt anything of substance to say, thats why he comes out with the stuff he does What? Use the idiot's own ridiculous words back at him? Oh....wait.... I did that with you too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 What? Use the idiot's own ridiculous words back at him? Oh....wait.... I did that with you too like i said nothing of substance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamiltonjag Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) i said nothing of substance Fixed that for you A note from admin: Please refrain from any personal abuse. This thread has provided some good debate (and some not so good debate) on an important topic that many have strong feelings about. Can we please keep the discussion about the topic at hand and respect the views of others by avoiding calling everyone who disagrees with you an idiot, or other more sinister insults that I think have already been removed. I'd also like to remind you that the report function can be used to alert admin to any objectionable posts. Cheers. Edited February 5, 2012 by twinny Adding note to most recent post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 (edited) Fixed that for you A note from admin: Please refrain from any personal abuse. This thread has provided some good debate (and some not so good debate) on an important topic that many have strong feelings about. Can we please keep the discussion about the topic at hand and respect the views of others by avoiding calling everyone who disagrees with you an idiot, or other more sinister insults that I think have already been removed. I'd also like to remind you that the report function can be used to alert admin to any objectionable posts. Cheers. thanks for proving my point hamiltonjag Edited February 5, 2012 by jaggybunnet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamiltonjag Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 (edited) I presume you are not talking about me? Nah. You and I can debate and remain civil. Yer t*ry chum with the rather dubious Username however clearly cannot. Edited February 5, 2012 by hamiltonjag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 Nah. You and I can debate and remain civil. Yer t*ry chum with the rather dubious Username however clearly cannot. your still wrong though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamiltonjag Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 your still wrong though Thank God I'm wrong in your eyes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 Thank God I'm wrong in your eyes no just wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joejag Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 no just wrong Oh Dear JB. Clueless as usual!! Keep it up its entertaining!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 Oh Dear JB. Clueless as usual!! Keep it up its entertaining!! No Joejag a bit of banter between me a HJ if that ok with you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joejag Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 No Joejag a bit of banter between me a HJ if that ok with you Absolutely mate! Even I can have banter with a Tory!! I have Tory friends, although they know they are WRONG!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamiltonjag Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 Absolutely mate! Even I can have banter with a Tory!! I have Tory friends, although they know they are WRONG!! You have tory friends? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpool Jags Posted February 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 Where does the second 'r' come from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joejag Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 You have tory friends? Cheeky beggar!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Devil's Point Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 Why can't we all just get along ? We are all in this together after all......... A good forum rammy usually makes for good reading. I'd tend to agree more with Pheonix's take on the Falklands stuff though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrantB Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Malvinas Argentinas!!!! I suggest a quick listen to 'Sheep Farming in the Falklands' by Crass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meister Jag Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) Very true to say that full British citizenship was not granted until 1983, before that they were British Dependent territory citizens which although they had some rights they were not allowed the automatic right to live within the mainland UK. After the war the Islanders requested full British Citizenship which was granted bringing it in line with Gibralta. The basic facts of the war were that an outside nation invaded the dependency of another nation and as such went against the wishes of the population of the Islands. As for the statement that the "unneccessary waste of life was avoidable" should we have allowed Argentina to take the Islands by force and not attempt to regain them? Where does that thinking stop? If the Americans invade Cuba should the Cubans just accept it in order to save the unneccessary waste of life? As for Thatcher yes she did make the most of the invasion and used it to gain a landslide in the General Election but she could only have did that if the British Public were behind it and on this occasion they were. I haven't had a wee rant on this forum in ages and actually thought I'd been banned; or maybe that was just wishful thinking on the part of the lone Tory wolf (Comrade JB) who stalks or should that be patrols all things red, white and spew... But to get stuck in: The real reason why Britain decided to go to war over the Falklands was not defence of the rights of a handful of Islanders. Nor was it, as many have supposed, the oil and fishing riches of that area. Indeed, twenty years later the British have done nothing to develop the economic potential of the Islands. This fact proves beyond the shadow of a doubt what many socialists said at the time. which was that the real reason for the war was that British imperialism could not accept the seizure of the Islands by Argentina because it would have undermined its prestige on a world scale. In other words, team GB hated the idea of an inferior army giving it a good old fashioned kick in the chuckies. JB will be by now fixing his bayonet and sending forth curses... but read on my cuddly Bolshevik friend because you know this all makes sense... When the Argentine army captured the Islands, British imperialism was humiliated before the entire world. The photographs of British soldiers lying on the ground - having been taken prisoner by the Argentineans - placed a question mark over every treaty signed by Britain with countries in the Middle East and elsewhere. It could never be accepted. Thereafter and as if by magic, the attitude ofWestminster to the junta changed. I say changed as we all know that Thatcher and her cronies had no problem with the military rulers who'd blotted out communism for the Free World. Suddenly HMG "discovered" that the regime in Buenos Aires was in fact "fascist". This was the same Tory government that had traded with the junta, welcomed its leaders and sold arms to them but now realised that it was a filthy dictatorship after all. The image of gaucho nazis was swallowed without a burp. Although the junta did not intend to enter into a serious struggle with GB, its actions did cause problems for the imperialists and initially provoked frictions between them; after all team GB is really just the USA's lap dog these days. Where there's conflict, we are her attack dog; albeit of the terrier size and getting smaller and yappier. The invasion of the Islands was as unwelcome in Washington as in London, but not because it was a threat to imperialism. The Americans did not want a war between two allies, and tried to avoid it. US imperialism found itself in a quandary, Galtieri, in common with many other dictators, was a good friend of theirs - as he had been of Britain before the invasion of the Falklands. So when faced with such a dilema, what did our special friend do? Well, America thought long and hard before siding with GB. The fate of the Islanders (pop. 1800 or thereabouts) was no more a consideration for US imperialism than it was for the ruling classes of Britain and Argentina. The outcome of course was that many on both sides lost their lives and Maggie got to carry on with her unique experiment in social engineering. Britain won the war and the rest as they say is history. But was it all worth it? Well given the recent oil finds off the FI coast, maybes yes, maybes no. Just as well that we're getting to hell out of all of the other conflicts that we've not ended... Timing just couldn't be better IMO. Edited February 9, 2012 by Meister Jag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 no , yes and yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.