While it is true that in general the news media has a slant toward the left I still prefer the New York Times as my news source and as long as they are for realistic and tolerable policies I don’t mind their editorial line. But this article by the British Guardian on the Falklands War I found while researching for MUN seemed to be written by the strawman liberals of Rush Limbaugh. Basically while this newspaper does not obviously mind spending billions of pounds on social welfare they object to money being used to defend British territory from Argentina and complain of how much it costs. :rolleyes::dubious: Is such opinion actually mainstream in Britain or is this just a kooky rant by a far left rag?
It’s far left compared to the US, but left-of-centre compared to UK thinking, despite the stereotype of its readers by right-wingers.
Clearly your comparison of welfare with maintaining the Falklands garrison is completely off, since in the context of the editorial one is seen as a net benefit to society and the other seen a waste of money.
I don’t see that the argument is as ‘kooky’ as you suggest. While I personally favour maintaining the islands’s sovereignty until such time as an equitable solution is arrived at (which may be never), the argument that it’s a huge waste of money to protect a mere 3,000 people is not without merit, oil rights notwithstanding.
QSH, I am not totally confident that you understand what the article’s saying.
The point of the article is not that there is anything wrong with defending British sovereignty, and specifically states Britain was correct in defending teh Falklands in 1982. The point is that the two sides (and they concentrate on the government of the UK, that being the government they’re most interested in) are creating a situation where it’s perceived as necessary to spend piles of money on defense, rather than engaging in a cooperative and peaceful relationship that would eliminate the necessity to do so.
Your country enjoys an undefended border with Canada. Do you think it’s necessary for both sides, in the name of “sovereignty,” to become bellicose and invest billions of dollars in defending the border, thus leading to decades of mistrust and wasted money for no good reason? Or do you think the situation is pretty good the way it is, where the two sides have an unmilitarized border? Which sounds better to you?
Obviously the latter. But we do not claim any Canadian territory nor do the Canadians any of ours. But the Argentinians do and have attempted to take over the Falklands militarily.
And it would be absurd to have a conference when one side is totally correct anymore than there should be a conference if the US decided to claim say Nova Scotia.
This is one of those absolutist statements that you make that are typical of people your age. There is principle, and there is pragmatism. In principle yes, protecting citizens is a benefit to society. However in practical terms there are 3,000 of them compared to ~70,000,000, yet the cost of protecting them is a significant chunk of the UK’s entire defence budget.
Again, absolutism. The Falklands are an arguably unsustainable outpost of dubious merit and murky claim. The article does not argue abandonment but a diplomatic, rather than military, solution. To portray such an argument as ‘kooky’ does you a disservice.
It is not unusual to despise spending money on war and like spending it on welfare.
But that article was about spending money on a truly pointless war where there seems to be no good way for either country to back down while also giving the citizens of the Falklands a real citizenship and just getting all their troops out of that cold, dull, hole. It’s a war that nobody at all has been interested in since thirty years ago, except the Falkland Islanders.
They’re too small to be independent. Resources: sheep. Cliffs. Soldiers. This is not a sunny holiday archipelago.
Is such opinion actually mainstream in Britain or is this just a kooky rant by a far left rag?
I don’t think most people in the UK care one way or the other, although the Argentinean Olympic team’s decision to fly the flag of the Falklands might revive it.
Britain has spent the past 30 years fleeing with glee from its previous colonies, like Grandparents spending their inheritance on booze and gambling; the Falklands is an unwanted lovechild, but if we abandon it then the whole family - the whole UK - might fall apart.
FWIW, the Guardian is centre-left. You’d probably agree with some of the politics in its editorials.
Knowing Curtis, I doubt it. But for the record, as SciFiSam says, it is not a far left rag, but a serious, well-respected centre-left broadsheet. To dismiss it as an extremist source is like dismissing the NYT as an extremist source. Public opinion on the Falklands may not match this article, but that’s mainly because the general public have a habit of being blindly gung ho and flag waving rather than calm and pragmatic.
Most of those costs would be incurred whether or not the UK stationed resources, there.
The military assets would simply be stationed elsewhere.
As long as Argentina sees the Falklands as a cause they can use to cover up its own inadequacies, instead of a real concern for the place then there will always be a risk of an unstable and unsavoury regime becoming a threat.
Argentina has never announced any development plans or investment ideas, its only interest is a petty nationalism.There has never been, at any time, any Argentine settlement on these island, no Argentine citizen has ever lived there unless detained.
The Argentine claim on those island dates back to a time when Argentina itself did not exist. Choosing to roll back theclock to a time in history of its own convenience (and ignoring its own history) sets a very dangerous precedent for other situations around the world.This is something that has been done in the Balkans and the Middle East for centuries, and no doubt following the Arab Spring, old disputes will be dragged out of the cupboard and dusted down.
Merely wanting something, in the way Argentina does, is not the same as having any rights to it whatsoever.
If Argentina wants to be convincing about its interest, then it will have to demonstrate something more than ‘want it’, how about some benefit to the people there? Maybe some rights, investment, they just want something for little or no actual input - its an unjustified sense of entitlement, they are simply spoiled children.
With the British presence on the Island there is no chance of an Argentinian invasion succeeding without a massive assault that immediately casts them as the villain. So that boat has sailed.
The mineral and oil rights are a potential big winner for all in the southern hemisphere and I suspect that the best way forward for both countries would be to come to trading/industrial/development/transportation agreements that benefit everyone. A strong Argentinian government could spin that as a good thing but not one that is facing domestic strife.
In political terms, the UK willingness to defend the Falklands also sends a clear message to others that would do the same elsewhere. Difficult to quantify the benefit of that but it is there nonetheless. Is the UK likely to back down in the face of aggression?..no. And everyone knows that.
When Argentina didn’t exist Casdave? I really want to understand this argument. Our oldest ciry, Santiago del Estero, was founded in 1552. Most of our cities in the north and center has been around for more than 500 hundred years.
Argentina came into existance in 1810? (our independence) 1853? (end of civil wars and constitution). With the same argument the U.K, as we know it, is even younger than my country and has less claim to Malvinas because of that.
The thing is that neither side has waterproof case even if both sides claim so. The solution is a negotiaton. But the U.K never, not even before the war, wanted a negotiation.
The latest episode was a shame. Argentina never threaten with an invasion. No one talked of war and yet the U.K goverment started saber rattling. Perhaps it was a bit of nostalgia for the lost empire but it was a shame. The reality is that Argentina’s armed forces couldn’t invade the island even if they wanted to. And they don’t want to.
From the pragmatism point of view, there are additional disadvantages to not defending the islands: PR. If the UK simply doesn’t defend its territory, it sets a precedent that could have unpleasant later effects.
“Oh, France wants the Isle of Wight? There are only a few thousand people there. Sure, France, here ya go. Yeah, sorry folks - you’re French now; best start a language course quickly. Nope, you have no power of self determination.”
Estilicon You are deliberatly being ‘economical with the truth’
Its this deliberate and partisan selection of facts that I was referring to in my post.
Reality check - the area now called Argentina was not a seperate state until 1818, as you very well know, and prior to this the former Spanish colony called the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata.
This broke up followong a succesion of revolutions, wars and political trade offs that saw the eventual creation of Bolivia, Peru and Uraguay, and had spill over effects into Portuguese holdings in South America.
Estilicon You are deliberatly being ‘economical with the truth’
Its this deliberate and partisan selection of facts that I was referring to in my post.
Reality check - the area now called Argentina was not a seperate state until 1818, as you very well know, and prior to this the former Spanish colony called the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata.
This broke up followong a succesion of revolutions, wars and political trade offs that saw the eventual creation of Bolivia, Peru and Uraguay, and had spill over effects into Portuguese holdings in South America.
Using your basis of logic, all the other former constituent parts of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata have also got a claim, which is clearly a nonsense.
Britain laid claim long before this, as did France. The British kicked out the latter.
Your point is nothing short of the nationalist creation myths that are prepetuated by politicians in order to bestow a notion of victimhood and national rights, its been done for centuries, Argentina is merely practising a long tradition that has been used by rulers the world over.
You’re such a charmer. It’s a common logical operator known as reductio ad absurdum. It is not a ridiculous way to argue a point. It does take a little effort to understand the point, though; sorry.
Face it, there is NO way that HM government will abandon the Falklands. Since 1982, the UK MOD has spend about $30 billion on mainatining a military base in the Falklands.
Why? (Hint) its not because the 3000-odd “kelpers” love the Queen. Its OIL.
Huge offshore oil deposits are now being probed . Falklands Oil and Gas has tendered new stock issues for the past 5 years.
The North Sea oilfields are reaching their end-of-life-and the UK needs oil.
So let the Argies rail all they want-unless they decide to go to war, the Falklands will remain a part of the empire.
If it’s outrage with the last outposts of British colonialism you fancy, might I direct your attention to British Indian Ocean Territory. Plenty of blame and outrage to go around. Enjoy.
The problem is that ship has sailed. The UK was willing to hand over several million of its subjects to China (which despite claims to the contrary, it was not obligated to do by treaty) so other countries are going to think that London might back down from a strong enough challenge.