At least they have a much better air base in the Falklands now. I don’t think Argentina has any carriers.
I wonder if the Illustrious could be refitted back to a fixed wing platform?
Apparently the Argentinian Navy is in a terrible state.
More
A very interesting side operation of the 1982 war.
It’s commonplace for countries to have minor boundary disputes. What sets Argentina apart is that they started an exceptionally stupid and pointless war over it that killed a thousand people, lost, and still bitch about it.
Yeh, with Fundy dispute, a fellow from the USA boats over once a year to assert American sovereignty, so my Uncle Gordie (who’s sole purpose in being there is to assert Canadian sovereignty) has a fish fry and tea with him. Not exactly the Argentinian model.
Not to mention, the active Canada/US/Denmark border disputes are over uninhabited areas that are about the size of a dinner plate. By contrast, Argentina’s goal is for the entire damn Falklands (with people living there) to simply change hands.
That’s an interesting point. Canada and the USA are arguing almost solely just because they can. There really isn’t much at stake over who gets Seal Island.
The Falkland Islands are actually the home of living people, who virtually unanimously consider themselves British and wish to be British and have always been British.
Indeed, the Canadian equivalent isn’t any of its disputes with the USA; it’s French possession of the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, which are much closer to Canada than the Falklands are to Argentina. The equivalent to the Falklands dispute would be if Canada seized the islands by force and then, when France sent its navy to recover them, attacked the fleet and started a full out war. It would be a disgusting, unprovoked act of war without a sliver of justification, which is of course why Canada hasn’t ever done such a thing.
If 75% of Puerto Ricans voted for independence, they would have it within 20 years, if not sooner. Just like the Panamanians took over the Canal Zone during the 1970s. I don’t think the self-determination angle is hollow at all.
Then again, I also think that The Falklands would be part of Argentina if they were 30 miles off the coast. But they are 300 miles away from Rio Gallegos, Argentina. I just got that city off of google maps: I had never heard of it either. So a fast ship moving at 30 knots would take about 8 and 1/2 hours to arrive. I say the Falklands should confederate with Chile or maybe Brazil. It would provide them with better growth prospects than with geographically closer Latin American countries and enhanced political sanity. Relatively speaking.
Comparing the British policy of today with the British Empire of yesteryear is the hollow argument here. In just ten months time Scotland, a hugely integral lump of the UK, will hold a referendum on independence with the sanction of the British government. If it passes, Scotland will become an independent country in a matter of a year or so. This is not something the British government wants, but it is a startlingly clear indicator that when they talk about self-determination*, they mean it.
(*autodetermination is not a word commonly used in English).
I very much doubt that the Royal Navy didn’t build some kind of back door into the plan to mothball its Harriers.
An equally interesting side operation. A good thing they never actually decided to go through with it. Their escape plan if things went south was to pack it over Tierra del Fuego to Punta Arenas.
Bumped.
Defending the Falklands has become an issue in the British general election campaign: Falklands: U.K.-Argentina Tensions are Rising Again | Time
Probably dog whistle domestic politics. It is in the same category as yesterday’s Conservative ‘be mean to Islamist’ drive which they know would be almost possible to implement without a good majority which they are just not going to get.
All will return to normal in May.
What a blitheringly stupid statement; we made that mistake in 1982. I hope that our political masters - unlike you - remember their history.
Controversial as it may seem, I think it is a good thing to be anti-Islamist extremist and a good thing to commit to defending the Falklands.
You say “dog-whistle” but as the Russians reach a military supply agreement with Argentina and more young British Muslims are radicalised and tempted into the ISIS fold I sort of expect my government to react to such matters. They didn’t spring out nowhere.
I suspect that in the run up to the election you’ll find *all *parties trying to tempt people into voting for them. Don’t make the error of thinking that only conservatives are out to trick you, that would be hopelessly naive.
What I am saying is that both policies are merely electioneering. Even if the Tories are elected they are unlikely to be able to implement these policies.
ditto for any party on any number of policies.
The Falklands one seems a straightforward enough commitment.
Bumped.
Argentina has elected a new president who has pledged to improve relations with the UK:
Reading between the lines, it sounds like a backdoor play at improving Argentine-US relations. Argentina and the UK have almost nothing in common other than soccer and antagonism.