Forum menu
There are several reports, notably from Max Hastings IIRC, that the Argentinians held off a few movements because they had heard a sub in the area.
We had no subs anywhere near.
Then, over the Ferrero Rocher at an ambassador's reception in the US, a senior Russian naval officer tipped the nod to the UK ambassador that it had been theirs.
On phone now, so can't track down the source written for that.
We were on a primary seven school trip in North Wales when the HMS Coventry was sunk and all the boys seemed to understand the magnitude of what it meant.
I was at my GF's at the time and had an even clearer understanding of what it meant; my step-brother was on board at the time.
AIM-9L Sidewinder missiles,
Most of which didn't turn up until it was too late
when the good old US of A give up Hawaii, Texas etc then he might have a case...
I remember hearing that Ronnie Reagan was quite keen to supply forces to assist the UK in getting the Falklands back too, but Margaret Thatcher wanted to demonstrate that the UK could fight its own wars. I don't know how true that is, though.
everything I've read is that getting US assistance was like pulling teeth
for example: the US forces guy who gave our special forces the Stingers was heavily punished IIRC
French helped out quite a bit as it happens. I'm trying to find a source for all of the skullduggery which went one around the fringes of the war. No luck so far but MI6 led the argies a merry dance over the procurement of exocets.
Hopefully the Argentinians have secured another battleship by now or the lads in the RN will be very disappointed...
An article I saw recently gave the impression that the Argentine navy fleet is mostly rusty cast offs from other nations and that the naval forces of their neighbouring countries don't have much better to work with either. I suspect the greatest danger is that the RN would be disappointed by how one sided a battle would be if things got serious.
sobriety - MemberIs HK really a parallel though? We leased that from China as a settlement for an opium war, and returned it when we were supposed to, as far as I can tell there was no such lease for the Falklands.
Hong Kong was never leased from China. The claim that it was is a myth created by the right-wing press to justify Thatcher handing over Kowloon and Hong Kong over to China when the 99 year lease on the New Territories expired.
Britain had as much legal right to Honk Kong as it has to Gibraltar - both territories were ceded in perpetuity to Britain.
The real reason Hong Kong was given to China is that on the other side of the border there was a Chinese army over 2 million strong. The residents of Hong Kong were denied self determination and even full British nationality. They were also denied democracy, until just before Hong Kong was due to be handed over to China, when the British government suddenly decided that after 150 years of no democracy that perhaps democracy in Hong Kong was a good idea after all.
And of course Britain had an obligation under the UN charter to decolonise its remaining colonies. Although because of the size of its population I suspect the UN would possibly have accepted HK as a self-governing independent state.
The wishes of over 6 million British Subjects in HK were brushed under the carpet, whilst the wishes of less than 3000 British Subjects in the FI became paramount. So no, no parallel between HK and the FI.
law of the jungle then. Not exactly a surprise and I'm quite comfortable with that.
Fortunately, the Argentinians don't have an army of 2 million so it's tough tits for them.
There is also LOADS of evidence of HK being Chinese as early as 214BC. Again, Argentina falls woefully short here too.
So, where china had a legitimate claim to ownership and the means to take it at will, Argentina have neither.
He should stick to snorting coke, wife beating, acting (badly) and being a fully paid up member of F.A.G
law of the jungle then.
That's what I like to hear.
None of this "legitimate right" bollox.
Fact of life Ernie 😀
Besides, Argentina have no legitimate right.
Diego Garcia residents don't seem to get their wishes respected even with the UK courts telling the government to do so.
everything I've read is that getting US assistance was like pulling teethfor example: the US forces guy who gave our special forces the Stingers was heavily punished IIRC
They did top up the NATO arsenal - which we were [of course] entitled to dip into for toys 😀
Hong Kong was never leased from China.
You appear to have missed out the word "Island" in that sentence, ernie. It would certainly have been an interesting administrative exercise to split Kowloon into the bit owned by the UK and the bit owned by China but leased, leaving HK Island and Kowloon peninsula without an airport in their territory. Oh, and about 4 million of those 6 million British citizens you refer to lived in the leased bit.
Though I appreciate how that such facts spoil your argument.
Of course, the Treaty of Nanjing (1842) and the Treaty of Beijing (1860) were all due to the right wing press protecting Thatcher....
FFS.
aracer - MemberHong Kong was never leased from China.
You appear to have missed out the word "Island" in that sentence, ernie. It would certainly have been an interesting administrative exercise to split Kowloon into the bit owned by the UK and the bit owned by China but leased, leaving HK Island and Kowloon peninsula without an airport in their territory. Oh, and about 4 million of those 6 million British citizens you refer to lived in the leased bit.
Though I appreciate how that such facts spoil your argument.
Posted 6 minutes ago # Report-PostCaptainFlashheart - Member
Of course, the Treaty of Nanjing (1842) and the Treaty of Beijing (1860) were all due to the right wing press protecting Thatcher....
FFS.
Here we go, the Tory voters who can't handle it one of their cherished myths is exposed for what it is - a myth. Hong Kong was never leased from China.
You appear to have missed out the word "Island" in that sentence, ernie.
No, I meant Hong Kong. I leave it to you to get all anal concerning the precise boundaries of the territory.
To OP,
Naahhh ... whatever you give to the South Americans they will simply squander them as they are very corrupted ... hmmm ...
Just stand the ground with nuclear armed submarine will do.
Nuke them if possible to help them reduce their population so they can feed themselves more effectively instead of trying to claim as bully victim.
🙄
Thought this was about the Falkland islands?
Believe the yanks lent us some jet fuel as well. Not really a big deal until you find out hiw much and the fact it allowed us to put the runway out of action in the islands as well as prove we had the ability to hit Argentina with a variety of conventional or nuclear weapons. Focuses the mind that does.
No, I meant Hong Kong. I leave it to you to get all anal concerning the precise boundaries of the territory.
Apologies for getting all pedantic on you again when you distort the facts, ernie. I appreciate how difficult it is for you distinguishing between [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong ]Hong Kong[/url] (area 1,104 km2, population 7.03 million, the majority of which was leased from China) and [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Island ]Hong Kong Island[/url] (area 80.5 km2, population 1,289,500). Clearly such distinctions are unimportant to you - I mean it's not like there's much difference between the two is there?
Apologies for getting all pedantic on you again when you distort the facts, ernie.
Says the man who comes out with this : [i]"and about 4 million of those 6 million British citizens you refer to lived in the leased bit"[/i]
Whether they lived in the leased New Territories or in Honk Kong ceded in perpetuity to Britain makes no difference at all, they were still, as I said, 6 million British citizens who denied full British nationality, in complete contrast to the 3000 Falkland Islanders.
Don't matter if it was leased or not - the agreement was not with the current government of china - the rump Chinese government that we had made the agreement with is Taiwan is it not?
Even then no obligation to give it back or no more so that other places
The contrasting ways we dealt with Diego Garcia, Honk Kong and the Falklands shows the massive hypocrisy at the heart of this
I disagree. They are all very different propositions and bear little relevance on each other. Their details are unique so there's no point comparing except to try and desperately justify an agenda on the FI where there is no justification.
the agreement was not with the current government of china - the rump Chinese government that we had made the agreement with is Taiwan is it not?
That would be in the same way that any claim on the FI from a Buenos Aires government was not from the current government of Argentina? 😆
so they were all islands and on none of them except the FI did we give the people a say in what happened.
As this counters the point re self determination i can see why you dont want to consider them ...calling others desperate though is a bit desperate.
Selecting facts to support your agenda is massively desperate.
They are all very different propositions and bear little relevance on each other. Their details are unique so there's no point comparing except to try and desperately justify an agenda on the FI where there is no justification.
That's not how British governments present their case. On the contrary, they do the complete opposite - they very much use generalisations and what they claim are accepted principles. I have never heard British governments argue that there is anything unique about the Falklands case.
So it is perfectly justified to expect them to apply their 'accepted principles' universally.
Give over you lot. Like it or lump it, they are going to stay British for the forseeable.
🙂
what about ignoring facts then?
and only a fool would chose to not select facts that support their view
So why don't the Chaggosians ( the inhabitents of Diego Garcia ) get to go home then?
wrecker - MemberSelecting facts to support your agenda is massively desperate
Which is exactly what you are doing.
NO YOU ARE!!!
ay right so we are at playground levels of debate
Excellent
v8ninety - MemberGive over you lot. Like it or lump it, they are going to stay British for the forseeable.
How far can you see ? 'Til the end of the century ? 'Til 2050 maybe ?
They are certainly going to remain British for the next 10 or 20 years.
But they won't remain British forever - there's no doubt about that.
TandemJeremy - MemberSo why don't the Chaggosians ( the inhabitents of Diego Garcia ) get to go home then?
😆
But they won't remain British forever - there's no doubt about that
Oh they will. At least until the oil has gone.
I fnd it interestng that the Lefties have moved their position here, from previously arguing that the Argentines had a valid claim to the FI, (indeed, TJ specifically told us that in his opinion the islands should be Argentinian) they now hedge their bets, choosing instead to argue over inconsistency in how the UK has dealt with other cases.
Whatever happened regards the Chagos and Hong kong is irrelevant, its in the past, and two wrongs don't make a right - either you support the right to self determination (for all) or you don't, which is it?
maybe we should just drill a bore hole down to the oil reserves and drop in the most radioactive waste we have and bubble through some radioactive gasses for good measure and then see if they still want the Falklands.
Zulu-Eleven - MemberI fnd it interestng that the Lefties have moved their position here, from previously arguing that the Argentines had a valid claim to the FI, (indeed, TJ specifically told us that in his opinion the islands should be Argentinian)
Perhaps you should not distort what people say
I believe the islands belong to argentina and they have the only satisfactory claim, however I do also give credence to the right self determination of the islanders.
A stance I have held consistently.
Distort? What Have I Distorted TJ?
La malvinas son argentinas
I believe the islands belong to argentina and they have the only satisfactory claim, however I do also give credence to the right self determination of the islanders.
Surely this is pretty much self contradictory? 'Credence' to the right of the Islanders, vs geographical coincidence or disputed historical evidence. What you are actually saying is 'its complicated' isn't it? 😀
I fnd it interestng that the Lefties have moved their position here, from previously arguing that the Argentines had a valid claim to the FI
I haven't stated my position concerning whether Argentina has a valid claim to the FI.
Are you not categorising me as a leftie ?
How dare you.
Bit cruel on the penguins, mind. Use the soldiers, it's what they're for.
Really? Despite the fact that some squaddies like a good fight, the army generally don't like wasting people's lives. I'd invite the lot over from Arrse to have fun with this thread but I can't be arsed and they're tired of Falklands threads.
I fnd it interestng that the Lefties have moved their position here, from previously arguing that the Argentines had a valid claim to the FI, (indeed, [b]TJ specifically told us that in his opinion the islands should be Argentinian[/b])
TJ responds
I believe the islands belong to argentina
Distort? What Have I Distorted TJ?La malvinas son argentinas
At a guess the bit where you said his view had moved from argentina having a valid claim - Clearly it has not he still believes this hence why he accused you of distortion.
even for you this could be hard to defend