Falklands

[KarmaPolice]

Ah, the Falklands

A cold small piece of rock more wanted for reasons of nationalism than actual worth...

but wasn't a load of oil discovered in the vinicity?

Oh dear. Hopefully the stuff won't be able to get extracted due to being too far down.

Yes, I'm a Brit - but I frankly don't care for a small relic of a imperial leftover. If the Argies would simply offer a deal - say, 99 year leaseback, another 50 years after that 'garantee of customs' (like, say Hong Kong), I think London would accept that. We budge on the whole ownership thing and they budge on the fact the locals feel 100% British.

Yes, the island's economy is similar to some old colonies - it's under a stronghold of a small cabal of businessmen from London. Yes, the island's population are settlers - but the islands had no indigenous population.

Yes, Spain first settled them. Yes, Argentina claimed them as a successor to the Spanish Empire in the 1800's. Then that American naval captain sailed in and kinda destroyed everything. It was this act of American piracy that allowed the Brits to slink back in 1833.
But almost the whole population now is decended from Brits - not from the mainland or Spain.

But remember - the whole world would be even more bloody than it is today if 200-year old land scraps were all re-opened.

 

[Gonzalez]

jup and thats what usually leads to useless wars and conflicts where people hate each other. I find it ridiculous. Just as how I did it back then in the Yugoslavian war. This silly thing called nationality. neighbors killing each other. But oh well. If people feel proud AND right. There is nothing you can do.

Still if you think argentina has any chance against Britain then you are living in a dream world. I am just being realistic here.

I've already said that it is more than just "pride", they have two military bases on our backyard and ambitions of expanding. They are a threat to the region's stability and independence from foreign influence.

Also, I disagree with your "realistic" view of the matter. Plus, it's not only a matter of regaining the islands, if we allow them to do as they please then they'll figure they can keep taking more. And you may see me as "idealistic" or "fanatic" for saying this , but if you let others push you around they'll keep doing it and won't stop. The line must be drawn here.

EDIT:

If the Argies would simply offer a deal - say, 99 year leaseback, another 50 years after that 'garantee of customs' (like, say Hong Kong), I think London would accept that. We budge on the whole ownership thing and they budge on the fact the locals feel 100% British.

This is exactly what was being negotiated just until before the war, but when rumors were herd that there was oil there, the UK basically left the table of negotiations making clear they were not going to discuss the matter anymore and started sending military vessels to the area. The argentine government at the moment tied those two facts together and decided to try to retake the islands before the UK made a fortress out of them.

That fortress exists today, it has two military bases, and a military population nearly as big as the local civilian one.

So no, the UK has made it clear they don't want to lease us the islands like Hong Kong (where the locals were never asked what they wanted to do by the way), the UK govt does not want to discuss anything. "Full stop", remember?

I don't know, maybe in the future they'll finally discover there's no oil there or that they can't retrieve it and decide on the leaseback again. The only oil found so far was too little and of bad quality. And there are also the antartic ambitions too.

But remember - the whole world would be even more bloody than it is today if 200-year old land scraps were all re-opened.

Not re-opened. Never ended.

 

[Jebus]

There is no justification for two british military bases in South America just to defend the wishes of 2000 islanders who weren't even british citizens before 1983 and for wich they have not done nothing for before the war. [...]

So I have nothing against the islanders or british citizens, what I don't want is the british government and their armed forces 400km off my coast, here in South America, where they have no business being in the first place. I want the british government away from my country because frankly I feel threatened by them. They want to keep their presence there to control a strategic foothold on the continent, they want our resources, they want antartida, they want their claws on whatever they can get a hold of and that's why they won't leave.

I don't want a foreign government and their military who will only act in their own interests acting against the interests of the whole region right on my backyard.

The UK is a powerful nation willing to go to war if it's remotely profitable for them, they have been like that trough their entire history and they are no different today. Their military ships manoeuver constantly 200 miles from our coast, conducting drills, constantly reminding us of their presence.

So how do you want me to feel about that? Well I certainly don't appreciate it.

This is just silly. They have no justification for being there? How about the fact that the Argentinians invaded the Falklands only 30 years ago, and they'd probably do so again the moment they feel able to?
And "they want your resources"? Don't you realise how idiotic you're sounding? You really think the British are ever going to invade Argentina? You think they want that? You think they'd gain anything by that? AFAIK, the only reason any European country (France & Britain) ever intervened in Argentina was by blockading Rio de La Plata. Shows how much Europe cares about your country.

The reason those military bases exist, and they do those manoevres in plain sight of Argentinia, is because Argentina is still threatening British territory and the freedom and right of self-determination of the people living on that territory. Don't let your indoctrination hang out like that, it's embarassing.

Also, since the first people to inhabit the island were French, they're probably the only other country that has a decent counter-claim on the island. Just FYI.

 

[Gonzalez]

This is just silly. They have no justification for being there? How about the fact that the Argentinians invaded the Falklands only 30 years ago, and they'd probably do so again the moment they feel able to?

And "they want your resources"? Don't you realise how idiotic you're sounding? You really think the British are ever going to invade Argentina? You think they want that? You think they'd gain anything by that? AFAIK, the only reason any European country (France & Britain) ever intervened in Argentina was by blockading Rio de La Plata. Shows how much Europe cares about your country.

The reason those military bases exist, and they do those manoevres in plain sight of Argentinia, is because Argentina is still threatening British territory and the freedom and right of self-determination of the people living on that territory. Don't let your indoctrination hang out like that, it's embarassing.

Also, since the first people to inhabit the island were French, they're probably the only other country that has a decent counter-claim on the island. Just FYI.

Really? They have two military bases there only to protect the self determination of the local population? Tell me, exactly how naive are you?

In the 1960's (not 200 years ago, this was in the 60's) they expelled the population of island Diego Garcia, some 2.000 loyal subjects of the queen, to rent the island to the US as a military base. They had a wonderful self sufficient life there, they were a native population. The UK government carried out this in secrecy and illegally. In 2004 the exiled native population won the trial on the UK supreme court that said that what the government should return the population to the island. The UK refuses to return the population to the island to this day and has plans to extend the contract with the US government.

So the way I see it, refusing to return the islands to Argentina, or having troops there, shielding themselves behind safeguarding the falklander's freedom to choose who they want to be governed by, when to this day they refuse, not only not to respect the wishes of a population of similar size, but also to let them return to the land they have taken from them while going against every human right on the book, is nothing but hypocrisy.

The resources they are taking away from us are the ones they are predating this very day, unilaterally, disobeying UN rulings that specifically said that no exploitation nor exploration of natural resources on the area should take place until the claim is settled and an agreement between Argentina and the UK has been reached. They also have expressed their ambitions over Antartida and intend to use the islands proximity to it to seize a big chunk of it for themselves.

They divided the archipielago in two jurisdictions, one of them is completely uninhabited, yet they refuse to return them even if the wishes of no local population whatsoever are a stake.

The islanders weren't even british citizens before the war in 1982, they were only given british citizenship after the war, a war provoked by the withdrawal of the UK government from negotiations after they herd there was oil down there. Every bit of infrastructure they had before the war, including their only airport, was built by Argentina. Today most of their population has no unemployment, but that's because most of the population work providing services to the troops. Their fishing rights income they make so much money from charging foreign ships from fishing there are granted to them by the UK, and just as they gave to them they can take away. They are totally dependant on UK support for everything and are not self sufficient.

So don't come and tell me the UK wants to defend the self determination of the islanders, they're using them to protect their own interests because it's convenient for them today. Tomorrow, who knows, for all I know they might kick them out just like they did with the inhabitants of Diego Garcia.

In the meantime they keep getting our resources and planning expansion into antartida. And having a fortress there controlling the whole area has always been of extreme strategic geopolitical importance, it not only gives them a solid foothold in a remote area it would be otherwise impossible to control, but it's also the only passageway for ships going from the Atlantic to the Pacific and vice versa that are not small enough to go trough the Panama Canal (like say, aircraft carriers). So don't be so naive, or at least don't expect me to be stupid enough to belive they have nothing but good intentions.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I've already said that it is more than just "pride", they have two military bases on our backyard and ambitions of expanding. They are a threat to the region's stability and independence from foreign influence.

Those evil evil Brits! Always looking for invading south america to claim them as colonies! Watch out argentina! You're next in the line.

Thats what I mean when I say "unrealistic". Hands down. I am neither pro-brit nor anti-argentina.

But if tomorrow another war between those two states would happen I know where I would place my bets.

Really? They have two military bases there only to protect the self determination of the local population? Tell me, exactly how naive are you?

well after a War I would do exactly the same. Increasing the military presence in the area. Particularly if I would know that the case is not completely solved yet. - and considering the things you mention here I guess doing so is not even that unwise.

 

[Gonzalez]

Two things.

First, from what you are saying, you seem to think the only way that the islands would be returned to Argentina is by military means, meaning you have no hope for peaceful resolutions and probably don't even believe in it.

I don't blame you, with countries like the UK completely disregarding international right and UN rulings, resting all of their right to rule in military force, and thinking the UN was only crated as a way to pressure smaller countries with legal rights and international consensus while these don't apply to them, I would loose hope in peaceful a resolution too.

Secondly, I don't say it was unwise of them to fortify their position there. On the contrary, it was very smart of them, if you want to asses control over the resources, project your ambitions into Antartida, and flex your military muscle to coerce smaller nations in the area with shows of force if they happen not to agree with you on whatever you are up to. But to protect the "self determination" of 2.000 villagers? I think I just proven they might as well remove them from the islands altogether if they were in their way, as they have done with others in the past not too long ago.

All that being said, I'm not saying Argentina should retake the islands by military means (the only langauge UK govt seems to understand), but at least I'm not going to let them get comfortable and even help them remain by legitimizing them being there. You want to stay? Ok, but you are completely on your own, no help from us nor anyone on the continent, bad political relations with Argentina and the rest of the region, and further military expenditure keeping a military force there "just in case" because they don't agree with you being there.

 

[El Pagano Loco]

I love the "self determination" card that the Brits pull out. Yes, they give a fuck about 2000 peons jackin' it in their huts below the military bases.

 

[.Pixote.]

In the meantime they keep getting our resources and planning expansion into antartida.

You might have to go to war with Chile as well, they also claim certain areas in Antarctica that Argentina consider their own. Considering the British visited Antarctica there before the Argentineans, they'll probably win that one as well.

Mean while I want the unclaimed section for myself.

 

[zegh8578]

^
we have a cool wavy border surrounding our claim.
always standing out, we are : )

 

[Gonzalez]

The claims for the overlapping between Chile and Argentina can be resolved on the go. There have been several disputes with Chile over our borders but as it stands today we haven't go to war and we have peacefully agreed to convenient arrangements for both parts. Unlike the UK, Chile and Argentina like to negotiate diplomatically. Also, Argentina was the first country to have a permanent base there in Orcada as well as the country that has the most bases followed by Chile and the US. And while Argentina and Chile have yet to define the exact borders both countries agree on one thing: the UK has no business being there.

You will notice most claims are from countries near Antartida (Argentina, Chile, Australia, New Zealand) Argentina and Chile being the ones most close to it by far. The UK, a country from the northern hemisphere, nowhere even near Antartida, wants to claim most if not all (they left a little tiny chilean par out) of the South American claim for themselves, and of course, they use land they occupy by military force and does not belong to them as an excuse to do so.

So a country from the north of Europe wants to take all the land claims from the two countries nearer to the area (by far to any other country) for themselves using lands disputed with one of those countries and taken by force from them to legitimize their claim. Have I proven my point yet?

 

[.Pixote.]

So a country from the north of Europe wants to take all the land claims from the two countries nearer to the area (by far to any other country) for themselves using lands disputed with one of those countries and taken by force from them to legitimize their claim.

I think Norway, Britain and Australia were the first countries to visit Antarctica. Yes history sucks.

 

[Mikey]

Unlike the UK, Chile and Argentina like to negotiate diplomatically.

The British repelling an Argentinian invasion of the Falklands is just so damn aggressive, isn't it?

 

[Gonzalez]

I think Norway, Britain and Australia were the first countries to visit Antarctica. Yes history sucks.

You thought wrong.

From wikipedia:

The rounding of the Cape of Good Hope and Cape Horn in the 15th and 16th centuries proved that Terra Australis Incognita ("Unknown Southern Land"), if it existed, was a continent in its own right. In 1773 James Cook crossed the Antarctic Circle for the first time but although he discovered nearby islands, he did not catch sight of Antarctica itself. It is believed he was as close as 150 miles from the mainland.
In 1820, several expeditions claimed to have been the first to have sighted Antarctica, with the very first being the Russian expedition led by Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen and Mikhail Lazarev. The first landing was probably just over a year later when American Captain John Davis, a sealer, set foot on the ice.

Also, you are mixing things again, we are going back to first sightings and such arguments that have no weight. It's like in the Malvina's history, first someone says a british sighted them first, when I present facts that dispute that argument and present members of the crew of Magellan then the same person that argued the british did it first argues that sighting does not equal claiming. So let's just not go back there and save the trouble.

The British repelling an Argentinian invasion of the Falklands is just so damn aggressive, isn't it?

I have already talked about that. As always I keep repeating myself endlessly with everyone who drops in to leave a random comment without reading previous posts.

By the way, Argentine "aggression" was a commando operation that resulted in the surrender of the small british garrison without any of the british marines getting as much as a twisted ankle. Aimed at forcing a negotiation that the british were refusing.

It was Tatcher who sent 100 ships to the South Atlantic, and during negotiations sunk an argentine ship outside of the exclusion zone killing 300 people and forcing a war that ended up with at least 255 of their own people killed. So who is more aggressive?

Yes, the idiots who planned the recovery of the islands were indeed too naive as to think the UK would have wanted to seek a peaceful resolution, even when no british troops or civilians were harmed.

They should have known that the british would respond by killing 300 argentines in a heartbeat without hesitating.

This is exactly what was being negotiated just until before the war [lease-back], but when rumors were herd that there was oil there, the UK basically left the table of negotiations making clear they were not going to discuss the matter anymore and started sending military vessels to the area. The argentine government at the moment tied those two facts together and decided to try to retake the islands before the UK made a fortress out of them.

 

[Mikey]

Like you said, everything's been gone over several times so I don't want to jump into a huge discussion (and have no intention of doing so), but really? Sending over an armed force to forcibly take over a territory, regardless of the lack of casualties, is not aggressive? Britain started the Falklands War? With that kind of interpretation of events on the table there's not even any point having a discussion.

 

[Gonzalez]

Sorry I don't agree with your interpretation of these savage argentines that one day just went crazy and without provocation attacked sovereign british territory for no reason at all. But things are a bit more complex. The british stopped negotiations all of a sudden and started sending military exploration vessels. And they knew what they were provoking, in 1976 there were incidents with argentine and british warships in the area.

You really think Argentina wanted an actual war with one of the world powers just for the sake of it? Things escalated. I'm not saying the argentine military government had no responsibility at all, but the UK government sure did not do anything to keep things from escalating either, on the contrary, it appears they did everything possible to start a war, you know, like giving the order to sink an argentine ship with over 1000 people on board while it was sailing away from the islands and well within argentine territorial waters and outside the exclusion zone.

So no, I don't buy into the story of the peaceful british people being attacked without provocation by the evil argentine. That might have been what they told you, but is not what really happened.

And yeah, I agree, I don't think there can be a discussion, especially when someone refuses any sort of interpretations that contradict their own.

 

[TheGM]

And yeah, I agree, I don't think there can be a discussion, especially when someone refuses any sort of interpretations that contradict their own.

This is greatest quote of all times!

 

[.Pixote.]

The Argentine Navy (ARA), particularly its commander-in-chief and Junta member, Admiral Jorge Anaya, was the main architect and supporter of a military solution to resolve the long-standing claim of sovereignty over the islands. His first attempt came in 1976 when he was the Navy Chief's Operations of the recently established Military dictatorship but General Videla and Admiral Massera were more busy disappearing people at that time.[1] By 1982 the country was already in the midst of a devastating economic crisis and large-scale civil unrest against the repressive government and Anaya, now a member of the ruling Junta, ordered Operation Rosario to be brought forward to 2 April, after a group of Argentina military infiltrated a group of Argentine scrap metal merchants and raised the Argentine flag at South Georgia 19 March.

General Galtieri, acting president, agreed in his intention to mount a quick, symbolic occupation, followed rapidly by a withdrawal, leaving only a small garrison to support the new military governor and force the UK to begin talks on the long-delayed sovereignty claim. On 2 April an amphibious landing was made at Stanley and on 3 April Argentine marines used helicopters to take over the Georgias. Whilst the military junta was redeploying the assault units back to their home bases they found the British responded with a large-scale mobilisation to organise a naval task force and ground forces to retake the islands by force.

The war could not have happened at a worse time for the Argentines. They were expecting new destroyers, frigates and submarines being built in West Germany and their shipment of French Super Etendards and Exocets were not yet complete. On the other hand, the Royal Navy was in middle of great cutbacks that would have eliminated its force of aircraft carriers and amphibious forces in the coming months.

After the 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands, the Argentine military junta began to reinforce the islands in late April when it was realised that the British Task Force was heading south. As part of these movements, the Argentine Navy fleet was ordered to take positions around the islands. The General Belgrano had left Ushuaia in Tierra del Fuego on 26 April 1982, with two destroyers, the ARA Piedra Buena (D-29) and the Bouchard (D-26) (both also ex-USN vessels), as Task Group 79.3.

By 29 April the ships were patrolling the Burdwood Bank, south of the islands. On 30 April the Belgrano was detected by the British nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarine HMS Conqueror. The submarine approached over the following day. Although the group was outside the British-declared Total Exclusion Zone of 370 km (200 nautical miles) radius from the islands, the British decided that it was a threat. After consultation at Cabinet level, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher agreed that Commander Chris Wreford-Brown should attack the Belgrano.[4]

According to the Argentine government, Belgrano's position was 55°24′S 61°32′WCoordinates: 55°24′S 61°32′W.[5]

At 15:57 on 2 May, Conqueror fired three 21 inch Mk 8 mod 4 torpedoes[6] (conventional, non-guided, torpedoes), each with an 805-pound (363 kg) Torpex warhead. While the Conqueror was also equipped with the newer Mark 24 Tigerfish homing torpedo, there were doubts about its reliability.[7] Two of the three torpedoes hit the General Belgrano.

One of the torpedoes struck 10 to 15 metres (33 to 49 ft) aft of the bow, outside the area protected by either the ship's side armour or the internal anti-torpedo bulge. This blew off the ship's bow, but the internal bulkheads held and the forward powder magazine for the 40 mm gun did not detonate. None of the ship's company were in that part of the ship at the time of the explosion.

The second torpedo struck about three-quarters of the way along the ship, just outside the rear limit of the side armour plating. The torpedo punched through the side of the ship before exploding in the aft machine room. The explosion tore upward through two messes and a relaxation area called "the Soda Fountain" before finally ripping a 20-metre-long hole in the main deck. Later reports put the number of deaths in the area around the explosion at 275 men. After the explosion, the ship rapidly filled with smoke. The explosion also damaged the Belgrano's electrical power system, preventing her from putting out a radio distress call. Though the forward bulkheads held, water was rushing in through the hole created by the second torpedo and could not be pumped out because of the electrical power failure.
 
 The Belgrano sinking after being struck by two torpedoes fired by HMS Conqueror

The ship began to list to port and to sink towards the bow. Twenty minutes after the attack, at 16:24, Captain Bonzo ordered the crew to abandon ship. Inflatable life rafts were deployed, and the evacuation began without panic.

The two escort ships were unaware of what was happening to the Belgrano, as they were out of touch with her in the gloom and had not seen the distress rockets or lamp signals. Adding to the confusion, the crew of the ARA Bouchard felt an impact that was possibly the third torpedo striking at the end of its run (an examination of the ship later showed an impact mark consistent with a torpedo). The two ships continued on their course westward and began dropping depth charges. By the time the ships realized that something had happened to the Belgrano, it was already dark and the weather had worsened, scattering the life rafts.

Argentine and Chilean ships rescued 770 men in all from 3 to 5 May. In total, 323 were killed in the attack:[8] 321 members of the crew and 2 civilians who were on board at the time.[9]
[edit]


[b]Controversy over the sinking[/b]

There was some controversy surrounding the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano. The sinking also became a cause célèbre for anti-war campaigners (such as Labour MP Tam Dalyell). Part of the reason for the controversy was that early reports claimed or suggested that approximately 1,000 Argentine sailors had been killed in the sinking.

In later years, some sources asserted that the information on the position of the ARA General Belgrano came from a Soviet spy satellite that had been tapped by the Norwegian intelligence service station at Fauske, Norway and then handed over to the British; Conqueror had been shadowing the Belgrano for some days, so this extra information would have been unnecessary.[10]

The sinking occurred 14 hours after President of Peru Fernando Belaúnde proposed a comprehensive peace plan and called for regional unity, although Thatcher and diplomats in London did not see this document until after the sinking of the Belgrano.[11] Diplomatic efforts to that point had failed completely. After the sinking, Argentina rejected the plan but the UK indicated its acceptance on 5 May. The news was subsequently dominated by military action and it is not well known that the British continued to offer ceasefire terms until 1 June.[12]

[b]Legal situation[/b]

The Belgrano was sunk outside the 200-nautical-mile (370 km) total exclusion zone around the Falklands. Exclusion zones are historically declared for the benefit of neutral vessels; during war, under international law, the heading and location of a belligerent naval vessel has no bearing on its status. In addition, the captain of the Belgrano, Héctor Bonzo, has testified that the attack was legitimate (as did the Argentine government in 1994).[13][14][15][16][17]

Though the ship was outside the 200-mile (370 km) exclusion zone, both sides understood that this was no longer the limit of British action—on 23 April a message was passed via the Swiss Embassy in Buenos Aires to the Argentine government, it read:
In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly.[18]

Interviews conducted by Martin Middlebrook for his book, The Fight For The Malvinas, indicated that Argentine Naval officers understood the intent of the message was to indicate that any ships operating near the exclusion zone could be attacked. Argentine Rear Admiral Allara, who was in charge of the task force that the Belgrano was part of, said "After that message of 23 April, the entire South Atlantic was an operational theatre for both sides. We, as professionals, said it was just too bad that we lost the Belgrano".[18]

The modified rules of engagement permitted the engagement of Belgrano outside the exclusion zone before the sinking.[19]

 

[Gonzalez]

The attack was done legally withing the rules of war, that's true, no one questions that, otherwise Tatcher and/or other politicians would be facing accusations for war crimes.

But the political desicion of giving the order to sink a ship while the issue was being mediated, knowing that it would negate any peaceful resolution to the conflict is clear to be seen.

The excuse that it was a threat is questionable at best. The Belgrano was an old US warship from before WWII, if with adequate protection from other ships (wich it didn't had, such a ship wouldn't stand a chance alone against any modern warship armed with long range anti-ship missiles) it could may be a threat to gound troops with his artillery bombardments, but so did any other argentine ship, soldier or plane. Was it really such a threat that it was worth negating any peaceful resolution to the conflict and provoke a war that would lead to the death of at least 250 of your own troops along with almost 800 wounded and the loss of 6 of your ships?

 

[Jebus]

Man, this kinda shit almost makes me wish the Argentines would try and invade the Falklands again. Shit would be so cash.

 

[El Pagano Loco]

They righfully should.