Fake news. It was 3 votes (out of 1500), not 3%!
There was always something suspicious about Jose, Manuel and Jorge....
Now our SSNs come with cruise missiles, which greatly changes the risk to Argentina itself, should it ever come to another shooting war.
Apologies!
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/09/britain-prepares-war-north-korea-new-carrier-could-rushed-service/ ]telegraph[/url]
It's ok if the Queen Liz could be pushed into service to deal with Lil' Kim early there would be no problems sending her south...
I read that story and cringed...
Well don’t forget Hong Kong.
No one voted to stay, no one had a vote in fact. The UK Govt decided to hand over to the Chinese and that was that. Plenty of UK citizens repatriated to the UK, two of my mates lived and loved it there but Ccame back because the regime would change. Plenty of folks couldn’t understand the UK Govts decision then, nor now and it was strategic important to.
And back to the Falks, who organised a vote to stay in the UK? Surely the referendum last year was a different question.
bikebouy - Member
Well don’t forget Hong Kong.
But wasn't that because of a time limited treaty, and time was up?
Yup, we had Hong Kong on a PCP and didn’t want the balloon payment
If the attack hadn't happened, Britain may well have handed over the Falklands to Argentina a long time ago, despite what the islanders wanted.
There wasn't much appetite for retaining expensive but apparently useless colonial possessions in the early eighties.
Was it? I can’t remember.
Anyway I posted that as an example because some posters argued about Gib ..
The UK Govt decided to hand over to the Chinese
The lease was up.
Surely the referendum last year was a different question.
It was but the Falklanders didn't get to vote. Similar reason as why Scots people living in out of Scotland didn't get to vote in their referendum.
The Falklanders [i]didnt[/i] get to vote.. how interesting.
We still have a military presence on there though, and Ascension Islands don't we?
I like the PCP analogy, that my small brain can deal with.
I guess for the foreseeable the Islanders get to "remain" here's to that ..
3 very similar circumstances. HOng Kong - simply handed it back 'co s the chinese have stuff we want, Falklands go to war because of oil, Chagos islanders - continually illegally refused access to their land despite multiple court victories
If the attack hadn't happened, Britain may well have handed over the Falklands to Argentina a long time ago, despite what the islanders wanted.There wasn't much appetite for retaining expensive but apparently useless colonial possessions in the early eighties.
This.
The UK regarded the islands as a liability, not an asset. The Argentines and the British Government were engaged together in a serious hearts and minds campaign to win the Islanders over to the idea of becoming Argentinian. The Uk government wanted rid of the Islands.
That's why the Argentinians thought they could safely invade and made it a fait-accomplis without the UK re-taking the Islands. Hence Lord Carrington, the British Foreign Secretary had to resign because Foreign Office policy was directly responsible for the invasion.
Unfortunately for all concerned, whilst the Argentinians were right to think that no sane country would want to fight for territory they were trying to give away, it's also true that no sane country can allow a foreign power to help themselves to territory by force. Hence there was a war.
3 very similar circumstances. HOng Kong - simply handed it back 'co s the chinese have stuff we want, Falklands go to war because of oil, Chagos islanders - continually illegally refused access to their land despite multiple court victories
Well, not all that similar really. A big chunk of HK was only leased from China for 99 years and had to be returned anyway, whilst the Falklands were never Argentinian. As you well know, the Chagos Islands are different again.
[i]we still have one of the largest military in the world.. although you have to ask what they do....[/i]They post some good result at northern road and CX races.
Hmm, they got disqualified from the Gorrick 12:12 so maybe those 'good' results aren't what they seem.... 😯
Zokes - HOng kong - not all of it was leased and anyway we could have refused to hand over. Falklands have had numerous owners including the argentinians. Chagos islanders - very similar to the flaklands - apart from we acted differently. a small Island group under our control and ownership. We kicked the natives off under a series of lies so the US could have it as a base. Now we refuse to let them come home again. Where is the differnce with the falkloands - yes they are brown people and there is no oilo there. But if we can shaft and entire nation then whats wrong with shafting a few sheep farmers?
[quote=tjagain ]Falklands have had numerous owners including the argentinians.
For a couple of months in 1982 you mean?
and prior to that ( before independence from spain?). Not that the british claim is great either.
FWIW i just finished reading VULCAN 607, a retelling of operation BLACK BUCK 35 years ago. It's by Rowland White and was published in 2002 iirc. Well worth a read for anyone interested in the period and/or aviation.
That the Vulcan bomber raid? A real boys own / british phlegm type story
That the Vulcan bomber raid? A real boys own / british phlegm type story
yes. I'd seen documentaries on it but was loaned the book. Gripping stuff.
The Uk government wanted rid of the Islands.
Its similar to Gibraltar. In todays military world neither have much purpose as compared to the past (unlike the Diego Garcia). Both are a diplomatic headache but the problem is Spain and Argentina are utter morons and fail to try and charm the relevant populations (okay its now going to be tricky for the Falklands but in theory doable) and instead wind them up with pointless harassment.
For the Falklands it was sheer ineptitude from Thatchers government which put them at risk and if the Argentinians had waited a year Thatcher would have sold off vital elements of the task force.
That combined with Thatcher had nothing to lose resulted in the force being sent and her ending up a hero.
As opposed to the previous government who, according to some, dealt with Argentinian posturing by simply mentioning a hunter killer sub (like the conqueror) was in the area and would be happy to uphold UK sovereignty.
aracer - Member
tjagain » Falklands have had numerous owners including the argentinians.
For a couple of months in 1982 you mean?
France claimed it in 1764.
Britain claimed on it in 1766 even though it's relatively small - it's not even known if the French camp and the British camp knew each other existed.
France abandoned it in 1766 and gave it to Spain - so in 1766 both Spain and Britain laid claim to it.
in 1770 the Spanish Camp and British camp discovered each other and we almost went to War with Spain over it, they gave the British camp back.
Until 1774 we lived in happy co-existence on the island, but then we left - but we left a Plaque on a a wall somewhere saying it belonged to King George the 3rd.
Then in 1806 we invaded Argentina and Uruguay, although they weren't called that then and because of that the Spanish Government on the Islands fled, their military left in 1811, but some farm hands and fishermen stayed because they liked it I guess - they would have been Spanish subjects, but could have come from anywhere.
So 1811 to 1816 it's sort of part of Spain, but they've abandoned it, in 1816 though Argentina is born declaring independence from Spain and claims all of Spain's territories in the South Pacific which included the Falklands - they think so highly of it that they pretty much give it to a German Fisherman to fish from, he got into an argument with some whalers and somehow this lead to the Americans invading the place with a warship and dissolving the government.
In 1832 Argentina set up a Garrison on the Island, but they mustn't have paid them enough as they mutinied and went independent, the following year we retook the island, wasn't hard and have had it ever since - Argentina have been protesting to varying levels ever since.
So it's got a long history of nothing much happening until it does, there's no such thing as a 'native' Falklander, it was uninhabited until Europeans settled there, 99% of it's history it's been of little or no use to anyone, so it was abandoned by every nation that claimed it at one time or other, it's only when it's needed for something anyone cares.
It's been of little use to us for most of the time we've had it - it's of use now, it wasn't really in the 80's and it's been of use for specific periods since the 1700s.
It must cost a fortune to defend it, but international relations says you can't have sand kicked in your face by a country the size of Argentina if you're the UK.
As others have said, if they hadn't been so stupid about it, they could have had it - I think they sent a non-military force first and no one really complained, but their government needed a war and sadly for them and all the people who died we had our first female leader who have to prove she was as hard as the lads, this was the 80s after all.
Somebody , I can't remember who , summed it up nicely at the time regarding the Argentinians wanting the islands " Seduction was to be encouraged , rape was unacceptable "
I think the Falklands has one of the most sophisticated air defence systems in the world now. I doubt much could get through to be honest. I think Argentina has enough on its plate at the minute without worrying to much about the Falklands.
ta PJ
England landed on it in 1690
[quote=P-Jay ]France [s]claimed[/s] established a settlement on it in 1764.
...
if we're basing ownership on who was there first, then Britain appears to have at least as good a claim as anybody else. Apart from geographical proximity it also has at least as good a claim on any other basis - but the Falklands are over 300 miles offshore from Argentina, so their claim is also fairly tenuous on that basis.
Zokes - HOng kong - not all of it was leased and anyway we could have refused to hand over.
This is just ****ing daft, fighting the PLA even in the 90's, would have been a whole lot different to fighting a 3rd world corrupt South American government and their inept military.
Destroyers carry SAMs mainly. And the new ones don't really work
well they have issues moving but their Aster 15, Aster 30 and harpoon weapons all work and the sea viper ADS is more advanced than the US Aegis system.
England landed on it in 1690
Well if we’re going to unleash the pendantry 😉 technically an English Salior landed on it, noted its location and left, he was a trader and didn’t claim it.
Personally I think British have the strongest claim to the islands, especially of the two counties who give a shit we’ve held them the longest and never gave up sovereignty over them, even when we left.
But if we can shaft and entire nation then whats wrong with shafting a few sheep farmers?
So you accept that if we were to hand over the Falklands against their residents' will to a foreign power we'd
be shafting them? We're getting somewhere now...
Just because we have in one case doesn't mean that we should in another.
No - I am asking what the moral difference is - why we had to kill 1000 people to get the Falklands back, but we gave hong kong away and we illegally removed an entire population from chagos to give it to our friends and now won't give the people their island back despite multiple court rulings
No - I am asking what the moral difference is
Well, I've already explained the difference between HK and FI. You can read it again if you want: http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/ok-so-the-falklands-was-invaded-by-argentina-today/page/2#post-8766596
I'm not condoning what was done on the Chagos Islands, I'm simply saying that it shouldn't happen in FI.
As others have said, perhaps if the Argentinians had asked nicely, rather than invading, the outcome would have been different. Anyway, [i]we[/i] didn't kill 1000 people. If you're going for such hyperbole (as sadly is usual when you discuss an issue that you're emotionally attached to), then this really isn't a useful debate.
Zokes - HOng kong - not all of it was leased and anyway we could have refused to hand over
The New Territories was the leased part that was due to be handed back to China (Kowloon, Lantau etc), however without the New Territories Hong Kong would be a little stuck for electricity and water (let alone an airport as that at the time was on the Kowloon side).
Once we had finagled a made up passport for the locals to kind of make them feel safe after the handover, the BNO, to keep HK made no sense.....and Zhao Ziyang did say he could easily just march his army over any way and take it.
What happen to the Chagos Islanders is of a different sort of immorality.
As for the question on the Falklands, all its takes is another defense cut and all bets are off again.
Yup things can change quickly, we're in a position of strength now, so seems a good time to sell them.
I can't see Argentina ever calming down about them, so would be better to sort it out now and get a ton of cash for them.
As for the question on the Falklands, all its takes is another defense cut and all bets are off again.
Well, it would also require some impressive increases in spending on the Argentinian side.
Yup things can change quickly, we're in a position of strength now, so seems a good time to sell them.
I can't see Argentina ever calming down about them, so would be better to sort it out now and get a ton of cash for them.
Given that our coffers don't exactly seem to be brimming with the well invested rewards of the sale of many public assets, i'm not sure selling them would really be beneficial either. As has been said above, they're pretty important from the perspective of our continued involvement in Antarctica.
.
