Part 1 got a little long, so here is part 2.

Link to part 1 again:

Falkland Islands Sovereignty Referendum (by moo Mar 7 2013 in Non Aviation)

Ok so from part 1...

Quoting Derico (Reply 232): You would think Argentina had caused a World War or something, or had once a far-fledged, anti-democratic, anti self-determination, culturally supremacist empire in the past 400 years, to get so trashed and unfairly painted.

That's the way I feel too.

Quoting aloges (Reply 234): Some Argentinians are far too easily offended.

I'm not Argentinian, I'm half Swedish half Uruguayan. 
And no, I'm not offended at all and never will be offended, I don't take things I read on the Internet so serious.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 237): So to summarise your post: you really haven't understood, or chosen to understand, anything. And there have been some very detailed and informative posts in this thread.

Wrong, I've actually read every single reply. There have been detailed and informative posts yes, but just as much as what I would take it as hateful comments against Argentinians.

Quoting aloges (Reply 263): Due to current events, I believe that Argentina isn't quite as defamed, shunned, bullied and abused by everyone as some would have us believe...

Which is why I said "Only in A.net do you read this kind of stuff." 
I have discussed the matter about the Falklands with some British friends here, and never have they expressed anything hateful against Argentina, we totally disagreed when it came to opinions, then we were into our daily doose of joking and partying like any other close friend.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 280): Well, Maradona's cheating I also disagree with, because it was wrong,

:D Give the guy a break he has had a rough life.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 311): 1. The attitude of some in this discussion, does point out to this belief. Specially Dano1977 who has actually called them "dumb" 2. See above. 3. See above 4. OA260 and RomeoBravo have referred to them as such. 5. See GDB, OA260 and a few others 6. That one, as such, I have not heard. 7, 8 and 9 Not really. Although it may be perceived as such, I choose the benefit of the doubt.

Pretty much, 6: It would be the least some could say. 7, 8, 9: Yup, I have perceived it as such.

I'm the one with the opinion that the Falklands should belong to Argentina, and I've heard many arguments and different point of views....read a lot to inform myself, but I still stick to my opinion.

Does that mean I want war? Hell no, war is extremely dirty. And it really is the last thing we need in this world.

Does that mean I support CFK? Not at all, because I want something else for South America/Argentina than what she wants. I want people investing in our countries, I want to see more private South American companies. I want the middle class to be a majority and not a minority. No one should be in hunger, and without food or anywhere to sleep, poverty is something South America has to tackle big time. I want people to stop thinking back to the conflicts we have had between us, and behave like neighbours.
No more and no less than how we currently live here in Scandinavia.

Do I think CFK is making a big fuss about the Falklands? Yes, for reasons that have been mentioned before: Distract people from local problems.

Does it mean I have some sort of dislike for the UK? Not at all, having been to the UK, there are just so many things that are example, and that people should regard to when solving problems such as security...education...etc. Heck I admire how close the people sit to the pitch in football matches, without them doing anything harsh to the players. Kudos for that!

So in summing up .

1: The people of the Falkland Islands have the right to self determination.

2: This status will not change until such time the Islanders wish it to.

3: Argentina can wish to have the Falkland Islands in their portfolio but in reality it will not happen without the will of the Islanders.

4: For eveyones sake it is better for Argentina to be less agressive in its claims and stop imposing sanctions on the people of the Falklands as this will only make the Falkland Islanders more determined.

5: Argentina needs to recognise the right of the Islanders rather than ignoring them and pretending that they dont exist.

Trust the British press to find a weakness and exploit it. Apparently the new Pope scored a pretty spectacular 'own goal' last year, with regard to the Falklands:-

"As Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Pope Francis once told a congregation of Argentinean veterans that those who died in the Falklands War were "reclaiming what is theirs" during the conflict.

"During a Mass on April 2 last year to mark the 30th anniversary of the start of the war, Bergoglio called for the vindication of "all" of those who fought against the British over the Falklands Islands.

"We come to pray for those who have fallen, sons of the homeland who set out to defend his mother, the homeland, to claim the country that is theirs and they were usurped," he said.

"Many young people were there and could not return. Others returned but none could forget.

"Many scars, many families destroyed by permanent absence or a return cut short. The country needs to remember them all."

"His comments in front of former conscripts and families of the 649 who died were recorded by Buenos Aires news agency Diarias y Noticias and widely reported in Argentina at the time."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...rpers-over-Falklands-conflict.html

Quoting OA260 (Reply 2): So in summing up .

You summed it up well. CFK is just trying to take the focus off the problem's within Argentina.

Quoting CamiloA380 (Reply 1): Wrong, I've actually read every single reply. There have been detailed and informative posts yes, but just as much as what I would take it as hateful comments against Argentinians.

Sorry but there really haven't been the barrage of hateful comments you are suggesting. There have been numerous critical comments aimed at the Argentine government, but that is another thing entirely.


Dan  

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 3): Trust the British press to find a weakness and exploit it

He was announced Pope at 6.08pm GMT and it took the Telegraph until 4.00am to break the story. They must be slipping.  

Quoting offloaded (Reply 6): He was announced Pope at 6.08pm GMT and it took the Telegraph until 4.00am to break the story. They must be slipping.

Must be the cut backs LOL....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/gree.../telegraphmediagroup-digital-media

Just to further clarify for AR385, since I mentioned retaliatory action against Argentine flagged vessels, I meant to mirror (less the mobs making a noise), Argentine actions against Falkland flagged ships exactly. Nothing on the high seas, which AFASK the Argentines are not doing?
Just restrictions on Argentine ships using UK ports.
Only after requests to end their action are answered, you'd like to think it would be, however with the current Argentine governments record they probably won't.

But I'm no maritime lawyer, it might be better to take it to whatever body regulates this sort of thing, which I believe I mentioned before.
If that fails to move Argentina, then retaliate in kind.

Always ironic that Argentina and their supporters always imply, always assume the UK to be an aggressor, not just military either.
Considering who began the armed conflict in 1982.
Considering who ripped up agreements on oil exploitation.
Considering who took illegitimate action against merchant vessels.
Considering who is constantly engaging in aggressive statements as their idea of 'diplomacy'.

So far, the one response from the UK is to re-affirm the wishes of the only community who has ever settled on the islands, which just happens to be the arbitrating factor in these sorts of disputes at the UN.
So at least the UK might save CFK some planes fares to the UN, with her loudly announced trips there to press her 'case'. (With a rather quieter return each time).

Given that Argentina has at times had territorial disputes with her Latin American neighbours, including nearly going to war with Chile more than once, you have to wonder when diplomacy instead prevailed, whether the Argentine government cited this UN emphasis about the wished of those living in these places, when their own people might have been in these disputed areas.

Quoting GDB (Reply 8): So far, the one response from the UK is to re-affirm the wishes of the only community who has ever settled on the islands, which just happens to be the arbitrating factor in these sorts of disputes at the UN.

Agree, GDP - I think myself that's the 'controlling point.'

Furthermore, there is no evidence of anyone but the British, way back in the 1840s, having even dreamt of setting up any permanent 'presence' on the islands - which, at the relevant time, were unpopulated, barren, and treeless. The reason being that no-one else had any reason to land on them for any purpose, other than brief visits to shelter from storms, or to stock up on fresh water.

As it happens, Britain had special reasons for setting up a permanent settlement at what became Port Stanley; and those reasons were based on the existence of the 'British Empire', and also the 'Royal Navy' that protected it and its (literally worldwide) trade-routes. The British also set up a colony and a naval base at Ascension Island, and similar bases in the far Pacific, for the same reason. Argentina scarcely existed as a nation at the time (the 1840s); and certainly had no navy of any kind. So I'm sure that, at the relevant time, the Falklands were of no interest at all to them.

That notion rather 'leads me on' to suggest an angle that, to the best of my knowledge, has not been mentioned on the thread up to now. That the (arguably less than respectable  ) Argentinian government's main motivation in this continuing dispute is nothing to do with 'cultural ties' or anything else of the sort. But that, instead, the Argentinians are dreaming of controlling the Falklands (including the naval base there) because that would afford them the chance of a substantial amount of naval control of passage in both directions round Cape Horn.

Which might well, over time, transform them from just being a fairly prosperous ex-colony into a quite significant 'world power'?

Doesn't matter much really, of course - because they haven't got the proverbial cat in hell's chance of succeeding. But I'm as sure as I can be that that's a big part of their current, and continuing, motivation?

[Edited 2013-03-15 06:11:08]

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 9): Argentinian government's main motivation in this continuing dispute is nothing to do with 'cultural ties' or anything else of the sort. But that, instead, the Argentinians are dreaming of controlling the Falklands (including the naval base there) because that would afford them the chance of a substantial amount of naval control of passage in both directions round Cape Horn.

I believe it is less sinister, just the age old trick of diverting attention from pressing domestic issues.

Not entirely disimilar going on with Spain re Gibraltar: back to long lines at the border, searching every other car, Gib police boats chasing the Armada out of Gib territorial waters every other week.... real shame as under the PSOE govt, the level of cooperation was higher than it ever had been.

Quoting offloaded (Reply 10): back to long lines at the border, searching every other car, Gib police boats chasing the Armada out of Gib territorial waters every other week.... real shame as under the PSOE govt, the level of cooperation was higher than it ever had been.

   Real shame. Thoroughly disgraceful harassment of our territory by a fellow EU country.

Patriotic feelings aside, surely it makes sense for the Falklands to stay British, purely for the farming subsidies that their sheep and cattle are no-doubt eligible for? Some quick googling tells me that there are fishery subsidies aswell. Their relationship with the Chancellor of Exchequer must be rather convenient (financially).

Quoting zkojq (Reply 12): Their relationship with the Chancellor of Exchequer must be rather convenient (financially).

Absolutely. Unfortunately those sorts of issues have no bearing on the Argentine position though, and what makes sense for the Islanders is of supreme indifference when it is Argentina's position that they simply shouldn't be there anyway.

Hello everyone! I have been reading all the replies and I'll explain myself as clear as my english let me.

Malvina's Island or Falkland Islands (whatever) were part of the Spanish Colony till 1833 when British took them illegally.- Someone said that Argentina didn't have any intentions of setting over the islands, but that's wrong. When HSM Clio arrived to the islands there was people living there under Argentinian jurisdiction.-

WHY ARGENTINA DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT KELPERS SAY?

Because THEY ARE NOT NATIVES, they are british ! And of course they wanna be british.

ARGENTINA DID NOT STARTED A WAR

It was a military gov that was going crazy with USA's help.

Also, Argentina wants Falkland Islands because they are economically good for us and because inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego province (Indigenous) have been to the island even before Colombus got to America.

Cheers, Joaquin

Quoting joacocifuentes (Reply 14): Malvina's Island or Falkland Islands (whatever) were part of the Spanish Colony till 1833 when British took them illegally

The British claim pre-dates the Spanish claim, both of which are pre-dated by the French claim. The Spanish acquired the French settlement and fought the British, both ultimately ended up leaving and both left assertions of their sovereignty when they did so. Neither rescinded these claims therefore it is impossible for them to have been taken illegally.

Quoting joacocifuentes (Reply 14): ARGENTINA DID NOT STARTED A WAR

   Oh jeez...

Quoting joacocifuentes (Reply 14): Also, Argentina wants Falkland Islands because they are economically good for us and because inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego province (Indigenous) have been to the island even before Colombus got to America.

You cannot be classed as an indigenous population of a specific location unless you live there - there is no proof whatsoever that the Falklands had any inhabitants before the Europeans arrived - the islands were completely unoccupied. In fact even the fleeting presence of Patagonian natives is uncertain and disputed by archaeologists.


Dan  

Quoting joacocifuentes (Reply 14):

The colony that existed in 1833 was governed by a spaniard who had requested and gained permission from both Argentina and Britain to found an colony independent from both countries, but supported by both. I have no idea why Argentina agreed to such a situation, but the British agreed because the Falklands were an important stop over point for traversing the southern point of the Americas, so a functioning port of call would make things easier.

When the Argentinian government tried to take over the colony militarily, the governer requested that Britain prevent such a thing happening, which they did - shortly after, the governor was murdered by Argentinians, and the British took permanent governess of the islands on board, resulting in the current situation.

You really need to look at a history book that strays further than just the Argentinian viewpoint, because the view you have put over is dramatically polarised.

Quoting joacocifuentes (Reply 14): ARGENTINA DID NOT STARTED A WAR

Oh yes I forgot they were on a peace mission      

Military of otherwise it was still ARGENTINA !

Seems like Argentina is trying just what I was expecting. Asking help from the Pope.

Before anybody starts flaming Joacocifuentes with the usual force reserved for any Argentine in these forums who makes such comments, please take into consideration his age profile. Just saying...

Quoting joacocifuentes (Reply 14): Malvina's Island or Falkland Islands (whatever) were part of the Spanish Colony till 1833 when British took them illegally.

That was nearly 200 years ago so it doesn't count as a valid reason. I would understand this whole thing if UK had taken the islands from Argentina let's say 50 or 80 years ago, however after 200 years of British rule there should be no doubt who Falklands belong to now, especially as the very people who and whose ancestors have lived there for nearly 200 years want to stay under British rule.

If even half of the people wanted to go under rule of Argentina I would sure gladly support that, however as they clearly wish to be under rule of the UK there's no doubt who these islands belong to.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 19): Before anybody starts flaming Joacocifuentes with the usual force reserved for any Argentine in these forums who makes such comments, please take into consideration his age profile. Just saying...

Indeed your right thats why we went easy on him   And added some humor. Still on a more serious note and as I very much pointed out in the other thread. If the youth of today are saying things like that then they are Argentina's future leaders and power holders. Kind of proves my point.   

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 15): You cannot be classed as an indigenous population of a specific location unless you live there - there is no proof whatsoever that the Falklands had any inhabitants before the Europeans arrived - the islands were completely unoccupied. In fact even the fleeting presence of Patagonian natives is uncertain and disputed by archaeologists.

Actually, it's been proved because they found spears, leather...

Quoting OA260 (Reply 17): Oh yes I forgot they were on a peace mission       Military of otherwise it was still ARGENTINA !

Jajaja what I wanted to say is that, please, don't blame us, argentinians, for starting a war when it was just a military gov... WE didn't want that, neither the soldiers that were sent to the island, they were 18, 19 and they didn't know how to shoot a gun. My father was 18 when he was called -he didn't go, if you ask- And also, remember, that the war was already won when it was started...

Quoting pvjin (Reply 20): That was nearly 200 years ago so it doesn't count as a valid reason. I would understand this whole thing if UK had taken the islands from Argentina let's say 50 or 80 years ago, however after 200 years of British rule there should be no doubt who Falklands belong to now, especially as the very people who and whose ancestors have lived there for nearly 200 years want to stay under British rule.

Argentina has asked England to give back the Islands since 1833, the same year they took it...

Cheers!

This is going round in circles.


If Argentina, want's the Falkland Islands back, then negotiate with the Falkland Islands Government. It's not up to London to decide if we hand them back.

But after the 1982 conflict, I think the response from the the Falkland Islanders would be "NUTS"*


* General MacAuliffe when asked to surrender during the Battle of the Bulge, 1944 reply to the German Commander*

Quoting joacocifuentes (Reply 22): Actually, it's been proved because they found spears, leather...

That doesn't prove what you are saying, though. For a start the age of items which have been found is inconclusive, it's more likely that they were deposited after the first European settlers arrived on The Falklands, especially as the leather artifacts I am aware of, which you mention, come from the hide of livestock not indigenous to South America. Then there is the complete lack of any settlements, burials, or even semi-permanent habitation having been found, despite extensive surveys and exploration. So no, there is no evidence of any permanent habitation prior to the British arriving and inconclusive evidence of migratory habitation before then. Whatever else may be written in your history books is a blatant lie.

Quoting joacocifuentes (Reply 22): Argentina has asked England to give back the Islands since 1833, the same year they took it...

Give you back? Britain claimed the Islands in 1765, Argentina became a country in 1810. So who exactly do you want the British to give them back to - perhaps France, who established a settlement there in 1764? After all, the Argentine claim is so ridiculous that France have more of a claim...


Dan  

Quoting joacocifuentes (Reply 22): Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 15): You cannot be classed as an indigenous population of a specific location unless you live there - there is no proof whatsoever that the Falklands had any inhabitants before the Europeans arrived - the islands were completely unoccupied. In fact even the fleeting presence of Patagonian natives is uncertain and disputed by archaeologists. Actually, it's been proved because they found spears, leather...

I suspect he was meaning existing at-the-time civilian habitation and not the trading of forts and outposts that went on everywhere around the world during that time. The Caribbean and South Pacific (and Europe, Africa Asia, the America's throughout history) were flipped back and forth as one nation defeated another's outpost and took over territories.

Quoting joacocifuentes (Reply 22): Argentina has asked England to give back the Islands since 1833, the same year they took it...

But that was not how things were accomplished back in that time. There are lots of people that "ask" and continually ask to have back what was taken from them at an earlier time. But do we do as they ask? No, we don't. Nowadays there are lines that are on maps and that have been recognized by the current existing world nations and authorities and it is much harder, nigh impossible, to just take land (as Argentina knows all to well). Otherwise why not redraw all boundaries within Africa to their former precolonial, or China to their pre-revolution borders? The Soviet states have had some success and also a lot of strife resetting themselves and they were just under Soviet rule for a few decades.

Tugg

Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 23): This is going round in circles.

Indeed, in fact it's actually doing a pretty good imitation of the real life debate.

Perhaps it's time to lock the thread.

Anyway the next threat to the unity of the UK is the Scottish referendum, powered by the almost equally unbearable Alex Salmond.

And whilst i didn't really care what the Falklands decided i do actually have a dog in this fight.

Interesting when people use the word 'usurped'. I am sure many people of the Falkland Islands can reasarch back their heiritage in the Islands longer than Kirchner and Pope Francis can do in the country their familys usurped.

All the best,

Overlander

[Edited 2013-03-18 17:50:43]

Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 23): If Argentina, want's the Falkland Islands back, then negotiate with the Falkland Islands Government. It's not up to London to decide if we hand them back.

No, Falkland's people said by last referendum that they wanted to be british... Ok, so, If you are british we have to negotiate with your president or prime minister. Imagine any country claims for Oxford, we gotta go and negotiate with Oxford?

I see the ghastly woman has gone crawling to the new Pope, someone she has previously been in dispute with (he's one of many then), to bend the man's ear about the islands.
(Given up on the UN then? Funny that, being as she's droned on so much about how that organisation would support her).

If this joke of a President knew anything beyond her blind hatred of the UK. it's that the British stopped listening and taking orders from the Vatican hundreds of years ago. Way before what is now Argentina existed, before even the United Kingdom was created.
In fact, not doing so anymore was perhaps the most pivotal moment in our history.

Quoting joacocifuentes (Reply 29): No, Falkland's people said by last referendum that they wanted to be british... Ok, so, If you are british we have to negotiate with your president or prime minister. Imagine any country claims for Oxford, we gotta go and negotiate with Oxford?

I'm afraid you've rather missed the point. As has already been mentioned in this discussion, yes, if Oxford was (hypothetically) a British Overseas Territory (like Gibraltar or the Virgin Islands, for a valid comparison) then you would have to include them in the negotiations.

Because of this nothing can or will go anywhere in terms of negotiations until the Argentine Government recognises that Falkland Islanders would have to be part of any debate. Instead they refuse and then complain about it. Ultimately the ball is in their court and the rules of the game are clear, so they either need to stop complaining or retire from the sport.


Dan  

Quoting joacocifuentes (Reply 22): neither the soldiers that were sent to the island, they were 18, 19 and they didn't know how to shoot a gun. My father was 18 when he was called -he didn't go, if you ask- And also, remember, that the war was already won when it was started...

People should watch the movie "Blessed By The Fire" before claiming the soldiers that were sent to the Falklands are terrorists. Poor young guys at my age (18-20) who were forced to go to the war. Young guys that have probably never seen a gun before. Young guys that were against the government back then, so of course the government used them.
Until I saw that movie (which made me research more about the matter), I thought the war was all about professionals vs professionals. Heh, not really.

So yes it's true that the war was already won from the beginning by Britain.

Quoting CamiloA380 (Reply 32): So yes it's true that the war was already won from the beginning by Britain.

From the beginning of the British forces arriving on land, perhaps, but it's not as clear cut as being won from the outset of the war. For a start, bombing the Argentine occupied runway/base at Stanley required one of the most ambitious pieces of Air Force ingenuity ever conceived, and aptly demonstrated just how stretched the UK resources were at the time - for relatively little effectiveness on the ground. Engaging Argentina in the conflict was not thought possible by many commanding the British forces at the time, it came close to the decision being made not to liberate the Falklands.

Quoting CamiloA380 (Reply 32): the soldiers that were sent to the Falklands are terrorists. Poor young guys at my age (18-20) who were forced to go to the war. Young guys that have probably never seen a gun before. Young guys that were against the government back then, so of course the government used them.

It was a war crime against their own forces.


Dan  

Quoting joacocifuentes (Reply 22): Jajaja what I wanted to say is that, please, don't blame us, argentinians, for starting a war when it was just a military gov...

I'm sorry, since when can a country bear no liability for the actions of one of its former governments?

I have a feeling that you're repeating what you're taught in school. Since I have not been to any Argentine schools, this is an assumption, but supported by what I have recently seen in Buenos Aires: pure indoctrination. Please allow yourself the liberty of considering a different view on the history of your own country; denial is only going to make things worse.

Quoting joacocifuentes (Reply 29):

As it's been said before, The Falkland Islands is a British Overseas Territory.

All the UK Government does is take responsibility for defence and some foreign affairs.


To quote an old saying "Why talk to the monkey, when the organ grinder is in the room"

In this case, David Cameron is the Monkey, the Falkland Islands Govt is the Organ Grinder.

Quoting CamiloA380 (Reply 32): People should watch the movie "Blessed By The Fire" before claiming the soldiers that were sent to the Falklands are terrorists. Poor young guys at my age (18-20) who were forced to go to the war. Young guys that have probably never seen a gun before. Young guys that were against the government back then, so of course the government used them. Until I saw that movie (which made me research more about the matter), I thought the war was all about professionals vs professionals. Heh, not really. So yes it's true that the war was already won from the beginning by Britain.

Well I'm sure they'd want to gloss over one of the most inept military adventures of modern times.
Fact is the Argentines had the numbers, the firepower, bases a few hundred rather than a few thousand miles away and weeks to dig in and prepare.
The conscripts sent were from those inducted into the army who had been born in 1961-63, so their average age was about that of most British Army and Marine lower ranking soldiers.

Several very hard battles were fought, Goose Green. Mount Longdon to name two notorious ones, British ground forces suffered significant casualties in these. (At Goose Green the British Paratroopers were, as it turned out, outnumbered 3 to 1 and the enemy had more and larger caliber artillery).
On Mt Longdon the Scots Guards (who had come straight from public duties in london - yes, the bearskins hats, red uniforms and attention from tourists outside of famous London landmarks), had to fight uphill, against well prepared defences, at night, when the Argentines had more and better night-sights and had built an array of sangars from rocks.

There were a large number of professional Argentine troops there as part of the occupation, including special forces.
The Argentine troops got frightened when it was clear that they had been lied to about the British not fighting, about the islands being more like Hawaii and that the residents would welcome them.
(Then, as now, the Argentine government seem incapable of telling even basic truths about these islands).

The conscripts were not provided with proper winter clothing it's true, but then neither were most of the British either.
The Argentines, given the weeks of preparation before any UK forces arrived in the area, had significantly larger stocks of ammunition.
(In fact, the British were starting to run out when the Argentines surrender).

The one really at times effective part of the Argentine forces, the air arms, by sinking the Atlantic Conveyor thus deprived the British of additional and much needed helicopters, did cause the British troops to march, some 50 miles, across boggy ground, in often nasty weather, each man carrying up to 120 pounds of kit and then fight a battle.

But there is aspect to the suffering of the Argentine conscripts that perhaps we can agree on, some of them seem to have been badly treated by their own officers, especially when things got rough.
Some officers lived very well with warmth, food, wine etc, while some conscripts had to scavenge.
But these were largely in the more remote areas.

When the UK forces entered Port Stanley, it was an open sewer. Many buildings had been cleared of islanders and used as latrines.
During the occupation the Argentines had been bullying and threatening to the islanders, not like they were to their people in the 'Dirty War' back home, but rather petty, stealing kids bikes, trying to get them to learn Spanish (the language of course of the colonial power that Argentina emerged from), bursting into homes and holding families at gun point while screaming at them in Spanish, stealing their food, not bothering to dig latrines just crapping in the homes and gardens of Islanders - basically how to won friends and influence people - the Argentine way.

Argentina during the conflict was also rather loose with the Geneva Convention, on at least one occasion an Argentine Hospital Ship, marked as such with red crosses, opened fire on British forces who had not been threatening the ship in any way.
The incidents were Argentine troops waved white flags, when British Officers, in the manner laid down by the Geneva Convention, came forward to accept the surrender, they were fired upon and some were killed.
(You can imagine what happened to the Argentine troops who pulled that stunt when the British attacked again).

But I should mention that General Menendez, the commander of the Argentines on the islands, did the right thing by surrendering on 14th June, doing that saved civilian lives and he was astute enough perhaps to also know his leaders in the Junta had let him down and were inept.

Quoting CamiloA380 (Reply 32): So yes it's true that the war was already won from the beginning by Britain.

Quoting GDB (Reply 36): Well I'm sure they'd want to gloss over one of the most inept military adventures of modern times. Fact is the Argentines had the numbers, the firepower, bases a few hundred rather than a few thousand miles away and weeks to dig in and prepare.

Absolutely so, GDB. The British had to 'start from scratch,' organise a task force, get there, and do the job. I'm morally certain that the 'not very bright' Argentinian pollies had been advised by their military chiefs that such an operation was 'impossible' in April (the start of the Southern Hemisphere winter).

Have to 'mention' - can't be bothered to look up the precise figures - that the British casualties were about 250 killed, the Argentinian ones about 750. That suggests more than 2,000 British/Argentinians wounded. Having ('for my sins') seen some of the results of wounds from high-velocity modern ammunition, I have to conclude that a lot of the wounded on both sides finished up at least partially disabled.

So I'm afraid that I'm still not ready to 'forgive' the Argentinian pollies for starting the war. Their generals weren't fools, it's certain that they'll have advised the government that if the British 'mounted an action,' they would probably win.

So, around 3,000 people either killed or gravely injured, to no purpose whatever. WHAT a stupid venture on Argentina's part........

Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 35):

Have you ever been to Diego Garcia Dano or is the flag there because it's pretty?

Just curious.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 37):

Just having read about the Argentine invasion forces surrender in 1982. The Argentines were certainly well dug in and looked to have some decent kit. During the surrender, these items were handed over to the British forces.

100 Mercedes-Benz MB 1112/13/14 trucks
20 Unimogs
20 Mercedes-Benz G-Class jeeps
12 Panhard 90mm vehicles
1 SAM Roland launcher
3 SAM Tigercats launchers
1 Improvised Exocet launcher
3 CITER 155mm L33 Guns
>10 Oto Melara 105mm cannons
>15 Oerlikon twins 35 mm and Rheinmetall twin 20 mm air defence cannons
1 AN/TPS-43 3D mobile air search radar
>10 Skyguard, Super Fledermaus and RASIT fire control radars
Blowpipes Manpads
SAM-7 Manpads (bought in late May from Gaddafi's Libya)
14 flyable helicopters (2 Agusta A109, 2 Bell 212, 8 UH-1H, 1 Chinook and 1 Puma)
>10 FMA IA 58 Pucará
1 Aermacchi MB-339
Patrol boat Argentine Coast Guard GC82 Islas Malvinas
>11,000 personal weapons
>4 million 7.62 munition rounds (10,500 from Goose Green)
>11,000 105mm ammunitions

Considering that the British Task force needed to take everything with them, on one mighty logistical nightmare route. Then forming a beach head and holding it to get men and supplies ashore, i'm suprised the whole thing didn't last longer than 74 days. And there weren't more casulties than the 255 British, 649 Argentinians and 3 Falkland Civillians killed.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 38):

I would love to visit, but I due to what is based there, I don't think civillians are allowed.

Quoting GDB (Reply 36): The Argentines, given the weeks of preparation before any UK forces arrived in the area, had significantly larger stocks of ammunition. (In fact, the British were starting to run out when the Argentines surrender).

Interesting point about the ammo. Apparently after the surrender we actually took Argentine ammo and used it on our ships.

We were talking about oil in the Falklands in the first part of this topic.

I just read news about this same topic from a Finnish economy newspaper.

Somebody said in the first part that nobody is going to drill oil near Falklands. Well, this recent news says that a British company called "Premier Oil" will actually start drilling in the Falklands. Falklands will get over 8 billion euros in 25 years from this oil drilling.

It is also mentioned that some of this money is going to be used for defence and infrastructure.

Source (in Finnish)

http://www.taloussanomat.fi/energia/...a-vuodessa-per-henkilo/20134620/12

It's also worth noting that Pyongyang has condemned the 'British Imperialism' regarding The Falklands.

You know you're on the wrong side of the argument when North Korea backs you up   


Dan  

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 42): You know you're on the wrong side of the argument when North Korea backs you up

Maybe they are still pissed off at the stand of he 'Glorious Glosters'!
Presumably, as a combatant in the Korean War, they are, in their mind, still formally at war with the UK as well as the US and South Korea!

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 40): Interesting point about the ammo. Apparently after the surrender we actually took Argentine ammo and used it on our ships.

That applied to the infantry weapons too. The infantry on both sides used the (Belgian-designed) FN self-loading rifle, and the (British-supplied) Sterling sub-machinegun. I read at the time that, given the long supply-lines, the British were at first worried that they might run out of ammunition - but, of course, given that they were winning, they were able to get by by capturing enough of it from Argentinian prisoners ......  

The Falklands belong to Britain by the fact that they have had them for a couple of centuries, have spilt blood for them on several occasions, and the most important one - the people there want to remain British.

The idea that a country can claim land back that it lost generations ago in a war is ludicrous. Should Germany get back a huge chunk of Poland it lost in 1945? Should Alsace be French or German - it's changed hands so many times. Should Turkey get Bulgaria back? How bout Taiwan reclaiming mainland China? Almost every border in the world would have to be shifted around if that becomes a legitimate rational. After a generation or two, that's it - it should be considered a fait-accompli.

Argentina, forget it. The Falklands are not yours, unless one day (very far in the future most likely), the islanders decide they want to be Argentinian. Until then mind your own business.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 44): That applied to the infantry weapons too. The infantry on both sides used the (Belgian-designed) FN self-loading rifle,

When the British troops began to capture Argentine FAL's, it was thought that the magazines could be used in their SLR's.
Alas, this British/Commonwealth version of the FAL was made to imperial measures, unlike the Belgium original, the mags just did not quite fit.
(Although some might have favoured the full auto feature on the FAL, useful for close in, like 'clearing' an enemy trench, the reality was the 7.62mm round was far too powerful for fall auto. Which is why the SLR had deleted it.
It's been 27 years since I last fired a SLR but the thought of going full auto on it and expecting to hit anything unless it was very close, makes me shudder).

It seems the Argentine Special Forces used some silenced Sterling SMG's, also used by the SBS but perhaps not in their service by 1982.
They also had the Belgium MAG machine gun, the British version being known as the GPMG.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 45): Until then mind your own business.

I think Argentina has an alternative - which is, over time, to re-establish more friendly relations. If they restored some simple things - like travel and education facilities - that would go a long way towards calming things down. And the bonus might be that they could play a full part in the oil exploration. To succeed, that will require very sizeable port facilities; and Argentina is much better placed to provide those than Chile is.

But I just can't see that de Kirchner woman doing anything that sensible........

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 42): You know you're on the wrong side of the argument when North Korea backs you up

Probably so. But let's just say that being opposite to the side of North Korea, e.g. USA or UK, is usually not the right side of history either. The fact the USA and UK insist to this day that they are on the right side of history in regards to Iraq is all the proof one needs.

Quoting Derico (Reply 48): Probably so. But let's just say that being opposite to the side of North Korea, e.g. USA or UK, is usually not the right side of history either. The fact the USA and UK insist to this day that they are on the right side of history in regards to Iraq is all the proof one needs.

Saddam did do a lot of things like this though (WARNING- not for the faint hearted):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:شهیدان_حلبچه.jpg

Call me an imperialist if you like but I'm not going to mourn Saddam's demise as you seem to do.