[
](The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines)
Not what I wanted to read.
Thank you for not supporting your ally. Thank you for not supporting those that have bled and died with your troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and Kuwait and elsewhere. Thank you for not remembering 1982.
I wouldn’t want to be a Falkland Islander right now.
The Times is being a bit sensationalist here. IIRC (and maybe I don’t) the US maintained a neutral stance until Argentina invaded, and limited its support mainly to intelligence-sharing thereafter. Nothing mentioned in the article seems much different from long-standing US policy regarding the Falklands.
Are there specific threats of military action by Argentina if the UK allows oil exploration off the Falklands? If not, maybe there should be a bit more diplomacy before busting out the sabers.
Argentina should pull it’s head out. The population of the Falklands is culturally and politically British, and has no interest - after 170 years - of becoming part of Argentina. There is no reason, either geographically or by rights of self-determination, that they should be forced to.
Then they should fight to maintain their independence.
Also, I see no reason for the US to help in this fight.
I’d rather upset the 3,000+ on the Falklands, than the slightly larger population of Argentina.
Just remembered - we are in the Pit. Fuck those bunch of isolationist sheep shaggers. They only want to acknowledge “being British” when they are in the shit.
Independence? The Falklands are not independent; they belong to the UK. They don’t want to be independent; they want to belong to the UK, as they have for almost two centuries. The Falklands and the UK fought to preserve this relationship less than 30 years ago. They won. Are they expected to fight the same war every 30 years or so?
Certainly not with armed forces, if it comes to fighting. That said, there is no reason our government cannot perform some behind the scenes diplomacy in an effort to help Argentina come to its senses. And, if it should come to fighting, I would hope that the U.S. would, both unilaterally and through the U.N., oppose Argentina’s war of conquest.
Yes, sorry, I meant independent from Argentina, not, well, independent independent.
Thanks for the clarification, but that begs the question. (The parenthetical comments applies to ivan astikov’s post.)
St. Pierre and Miqulon should be expected to fight for it’s independence from Canada, though it’s part of France? (And we’d rather piss off it’s 7,000 inhabitants than 30,000,000 Canadians.) The Channel Islands should be expected to ward off a French invasion? (And we’d rather irritate 158,000 Normans than 65,000,000 Gaullists.) And so on, and so forth, through countless examples.
At some point, we have to recognize that through history and culture, certain areas of the world are properly associated with areas that may not be contiguous, and that wars to conquer those areas by nations which happen to be geographically closer are simply illegal wars of aggression.
There is absolutely zero chance of Argentina invading the Falklands. They did so the first time under a failing military dictatorship. Sure, they’re pissed, and they’re making a bunch of diplomatic waves, but to pretend there is even a remote possibility of war is beyond silly.
What Falkland islands?! There’s a lot of Falkland islands in the world, but what Falkland islands are you talking about?
/Deniro
Nah, nothing sensationalist here at all
Hmm… the position now is in stark contrast to when there was a war being fought over it? How odd. I mean wait, wut?
The Monroe Doctrine gets no respect anymore.
Who gives a flying falk about the Falklands?
Nor are the Argentinians asking them to, this time around. This is not like the U.S. invading Canada in 1812 with a view to annexation; it is like the U.S. and Canada of today quarelling over offshore fishing rights or control of the Northwest Passage.
I didn’t know the “finders = keepers, losers = weepers” law applied to land masses as well?
This sounds a bit like a “to the victor goes the spoils” philosophy.
I wish the news would report that when Britain took posession of the Falklands, no people lived there, and Argentina did not exist, and would not exist for another 120 years
How can a non-existant country claim rights to a non-contiguent territory that is over 300 miles away
There are plenty of such territories around the world - the Canaries are Spanish territory, but are like best part of a thousand miles away, Morocco is far closer.
Argentina’s claim seems to be based on what? Not proximity, and originally the British claimed it in 1690, and gave some rights to Spanish to settle far later but when the Spanish decided to break the terms of the agreement the British booted them off. This was before Argenitina existed, so that idea of Argentina that it inherited former Spanish holdings is specious, to say the least.
They have been settled directly by the British since 1833, and when you think of how much has changed in world geopolitics in the last 50 year, let alone 180 years, winding the clock back would be ridiculous.
I pit the British goverment and the British press.
Both of them, in a very irresponsable way, are sepaking of the possibility of a war when Argentina is waging a diplomatic “battle” and there is 0 chance of war.
The reason that this is impossible is that today Argentina is a democracy and our people don’t support a war.
But even if our leaders lie to us like the British people were lied to in order to get their support for Irak, the sad truth is that our army is in no shape to protect our borders, much less to carry any kind of attack. When the British started sabre rattling our militars confessed, after they stopped laughing that, (i) In the whole country there is enough amunition to fight for a few hours (ii) Our air force is obsolete and our pilots lack training for the lack of funding (ii) Last year our navy shot its first missile in over ten years, it can’t mount and invassion. The fact is that Argentina has been dismantling its army in the last couple of decades.
But the British goverment, who of course knows all this things, is incrising its military presence and is making lots of irresponsable statements. All this sabre rattling has one reason, Brown goverment is very weak and a foreign crisis is what he needs in order to hide his poor domestic record.
The position of Argentina has been clear since the moment the British invaded the islands (1833). They are ours and we are not renouncing them. We have mantained this position ever since. At least since the 1960’s the UN has urged both parties to negotiate but the UK, a member of the security council, has steadely refused (of course they negotiated with the chinese).
The British people and goverment may disagree with our position and they are free to do so. But sabre rattling in the name of a long death empire just to cover your faillings as a politician or to sell more newspaper is so 20 century.
This. A little known fact is that the UK not only recovered the island but claimed after the war 200 miles. Those waters used to belong to Argentina.
In may 2009 the UK claimed 350 miles and this means that they claim all waters surrounding Malvinas up to Tierra del Fuego’s shoreline!
Cite?
First of all, history is a bit more complicated than your version.
From the first sighting in the 16 century to 1776 the island changed hands many times between France, Spain and England. The fact is that from 1776 till 1833 the islands were ruled first by the Viceroy of River Plate and then by the Argentinian government, after our independence. You invaded them in 1833 and we were in no position to do anything about it. Force does not grant you rights.
After WWII colonial powers were forced to relinquish their possessions. The UK complied in most of the world more or less reluctantly.
Winding the clock back is not ridiculous. You relinquished Hong Kong and eventually you’ll relinquish Malvinas (another one of your colonies).