Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A Town Called Malus wrote:The UK doesn't really give a damn about the Falklands. All they are is a drain on resources in the form of the garrison stationed on it to the politicians and a last scrap of an empire which crumbled long ago.

Just look back at the history before the first Falklands War. The airfield on the Falklands had been built by the Argentinian government, with the agreement that the British government would invest in naval trade with the Falklands as the air/sea transferral point (so goods flown from Argentina to Falklands then shipped to mainland UK). The UK completely neglected to carry out their part of the deal.

Also, the Falklands is facing a constant exodus of the younger generation away from it, as the majority of the young people born there do not want to stay on a tiny island miles away from the country who is meant to be ruling them.

In all honesty I say give them to Argentina. The Argentines might actually care enough to invest in them as opposed to the British government which just holds on to them as part of some pathetic attempt to cling to glories long since faded.

Pretty much everyone i know disagree with that sentiment...
If Argentina hadn't have invaded it the first time then we may not care about it now and Aregentina could negotiate.
But they did and frankly everyone i know does if onyl for reasons they can't fully eplain themselves...
AFAIK most of the younger generation returns to the Islands but frankly that infomation is so flawed it's unreal.

purplefood wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:The UK doesn't really give a damn about the Falklands. All they are is a drain on resources in the form of the garrison stationed on it to the politicians and a last scrap of an empire which crumbled long ago.

Just look back at the history before the first Falklands War. The airfield on the Falklands had been built by the Argentinian government, with the agreement that the British government would invest in naval trade with the Falklands as the air/sea transferral point (so goods flown from Argentina to Falklands then shipped to mainland UK). The UK completely neglected to carry out their part of the deal.

Also, the Falklands is facing a constant exodus of the younger generation away from it, as the majority of the young people born there do not want to stay on a tiny island miles away from the country who is meant to be ruling them.

In all honesty I say give them to Argentina. The Argentines might actually care enough to invest in them as opposed to the British government which just holds on to them as part of some pathetic attempt to cling to glories long since faded.

Pretty much everyone i know disagree with that sentiment...
If Argentina hadn't have invaded it the first time then we may not care about it now and Aregentina could negotiate.
But they did and frankly everyone i know does if onyl for reasons they can't fully eplain themselves...
AFAIK most of the younger generation returns to the Islands but frankly that infomation is so flawed it's unreal.

At the time of the Argentinian Invasion the UK had been trying to get rid of them for years. What stopped them doing it was the fact that to do so would guarantee that the party which did it would lose the next election.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

purplefood wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:The UK doesn't really give a damn about the Falklands. All they are is a drain on resources in the form of the garrison stationed on it to the politicians and a last scrap of an empire which crumbled long ago.

Just look back at the history before the first Falklands War. The airfield on the Falklands had been built by the Argentinian government, with the agreement that the British government would invest in naval trade with the Falklands as the air/sea transferral point (so goods flown from Argentina to Falklands then shipped to mainland UK). The UK completely neglected to carry out their part of the deal.

Also, the Falklands is facing a constant exodus of the younger generation away from it, as the majority of the young people born there do not want to stay on a tiny island miles away from the country who is meant to be ruling them.

In all honesty I say give them to Argentina. The Argentines might actually care enough to invest in them as opposed to the British government which just holds on to them as part of some pathetic attempt to cling to glories long since faded.

Pretty much everyone i know disagree with that sentiment...
If Argentina hadn't have invaded it the first time then we may not care about it now and Aregentina could negotiate.
But they did and frankly everyone i know does if onyl for reasons they can't fully eplain themselves...
AFAIK most of the younger generation returns to the Islands but frankly that infomation is so flawed it's unreal.

At the time of the Argentinian Invasion the UK had been trying to get rid of them for years. What stopped them doing it was the fact that to do so would guarantee that the party which did it would lose the next election.

And doing the same would result in the same thing.
Like i said. If they hadn't invaded they probably could have just baught/inherited the islands. Because they invaded they aren't gonna get them for a while...
Britain is weird when it comes to patriotism.
The Falklands aren't just about oi8l or people.
Much like Argentina believes (according to some) they are also about pride.
Unless they get incredibly persuasive or veyr patient i can't see a way for them to get them without bloodshed.

purplefood wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Spoiler:

A Town Called Malus wrote:The UK doesn't really give a damn about the Falklands. All they are is a drain on resources in the form of the garrison stationed on it to the politicians and a last scrap of an empire which crumbled long ago.

Just look back at the history before the first Falklands War. The airfield on the Falklands had been built by the Argentinian government, with the agreement that the British government would invest in naval trade with the Falklands as the air/sea transferral point (so goods flown from Argentina to Falklands then shipped to mainland UK). The UK completely neglected to carry out their part of the deal.

Also, the Falklands is facing a constant exodus of the younger generation away from it, as the majority of the young people born there do not want to stay on a tiny island miles away from the country who is meant to be ruling them.

In all honesty I say give them to Argentina. The Argentines might actually care enough to invest in them as opposed to the British government which just holds on to them as part of some pathetic attempt to cling to glories long since faded.

Pretty much everyone i know disagree with that sentiment...
If Argentina hadn't have invaded it the first time then we may not care about it now and Aregentina could negotiate.
But they did and frankly everyone i know does if onyl for reasons they can't fully eplain themselves...
AFAIK most of the younger generation returns to the Islands but frankly that infomation is so flawed it's unreal.

A Town Called Malus wrote:The UK doesn't really give a damn about the Falklands.

That is demonstrably untrue. It's also an insult to the brave men who laid down their lives to rescue their fellow Britons, not to mention those living who still bear the scars of that conflict. Perhaps you don't give a damn about them, but that speaks volumes about your character, to be frank.

All they are is a drain on resources in the form of the garrison stationed on it to the politicians and a last scrap of an empire which crumbled long ago.

The same could be said of Northern Ireland, but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority people there wish to remain British. We can't in good conscience abandon them.

Just look back at the history before the first Falklands War. The airfield on the Falklands had been built by the Argentinian government, with the agreement that the British government would invest in naval trade with the Falklands as the air/sea transferral point (so goods flown from Argentina to Falklands then shipped to mainland UK). The UK completely neglected to carry out their part of the deal.

That is not a valid casus belli. It's a trade dispute.

Also, the Falklands is facing a constant exodus of the younger generation away from it, as the majority of the young people born there do not want to stay on a tiny island miles away from the country who is meant to be ruling them where the only career is farming sheep.

Well, that's probably going to change if it does turn out that there's oil there. Incidentally, the Falklands are an semi-autonomous region. The British don't directly 'rule' them. They're a self-governing protectorate.

In all honesty I say give them to Argentina. The Argentines might actually care enough to invest in them as opposed to the British government which just holds on to them as part of some pathetic attempt to cling to glories long since faded.

That's literally the most polite response that I can muster at this point.

Relapse wrote:There's more than a couple of South American countries that have a hot nut for Chile.
It's interesting to see everyone from the different SA countries working here, getting along like family, then hear these comments.

Oh, well they are living in the land of the great enemy.... errr... I mean the great uniter....

Wouldn't it be possible to set up some sort of deal by which the islands could be transferred to nominal Argentine control but they would be self-governed/an autonomous state within Argentina? Argentina gets what it wants, the Falklanders get the same standard of self-determination they have now, and the Brits dont have to worry about protecting a far-flung colony of 3000 people that the average person doesn't seem to really care too much about.

Why should we give Argentina what it wants? And what makes you think we have any right to run roughshod over the rights of the inhabitants?

Thats a good question (why should we give Argentina what it wants)... okay then, maybe a trade for Tierra del Fuego

dogma wrote:We're not talking about a war, though. We're talking about a possible war. The distinction is important.

If Argentina threatens to occupy the islands by force, the options are to fight, or the back down, apparently citing monetary concerns. The latter is something no government could possibly get past the public.

And it doesn't have to collapse public support, just support. The public is important, but money is more important and there are ways to make money even if you're not reelected.

The public is the primary determinant of who's in power. We call it elections and make a big deal of it every time we have one.

To conceive of a politician in power actually using something as notional as immediate funding to act directly agaisnt the public's wishes is most fanciful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

A Town Called Malus wrote:At the time of the Argentinian Invasion the UK had been trying to get rid of them for years. What stopped them doing it was the fact that to do so would guarantee that the party which did it would lose the next election.

So you concede that there's overwhelming popular support among the general population to keep the Falklands?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

A Town Called Malus wrote:Just a shame that politicians care more about winning elections than doing what is right for the country or the little islands thousands of miles away, I guess. Instead we get soldiers losing their lives for "patriotism" which is about as wrong as you can get, in my opinion. People are important, land is meaningless.

Following policy that is popular among the people is what democracy is.

Whereas doing 'what is right' is just being expected to do whatever the speaker happens to think is important.

The former is exactly what politicians ought to do. The latter is not.

purplefood wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:The UK doesn't really give a damn about the Falklands. All they are is a drain on resources in the form of the garrison stationed on it to the politicians and a last scrap of an empire which crumbled long ago.

Just look back at the history before the first Falklands War. The airfield on the Falklands had been built by the Argentinian government, with the agreement that the British government would invest in naval trade with the Falklands as the air/sea transferral point (so goods flown from Argentina to Falklands then shipped to mainland UK). The UK completely neglected to carry out their part of the deal.

Also, the Falklands is facing a constant exodus of the younger generation away from it, as the majority of the young people born there do not want to stay on a tiny island miles away from the country who is meant to be ruling them.

In all honesty I say give them to Argentina. The Argentines might actually care enough to invest in them as opposed to the British government which just holds on to them as part of some pathetic attempt to cling to glories long since faded.

Pretty much everyone i know disagree with that sentiment...
If Argentina hadn't have invaded it the first time then we may not care about it now and Aregentina could negotiate.
But they did and frankly everyone i know does if onyl for reasons they can't fully eplain themselves...
AFAIK most of the younger generation returns to the Islands but frankly that infomation is so flawed it's unreal.

Malus should be threatened to have his home repossessed without compensation, along with that of his family and shipped abroad to Argentina or another country he doesnt speak the lanugage of or belong to. Perhaps then he might understand what is at stake for other citizens. 'I'm alright Jack' is not an acceptible attitude.

"Orlanth should be threatened to be sent to a rock in the south atlantic to fight and die to protect a small group of people that aren't his fellow countrymen while the majority of the British population sits at home sipping tea and going about their business as usual. Perhaps then he might understand what is at stake for his nations servicemen and women. "Go fight the war on my behalf" is not an acceptable attitude.

There is the perspective of those who would have to do the fighting that must be considered too...

chaos0xomega wrote:"Orlanth should be threatened to be sent to a rock in the south atlantic to fight and die to protect a small group of people that aren't his fellow countrymen while the majority of the British population sits at home sipping tea and going about their business as usual. Perhaps then he might understand what is at stake for his nations servicemen and women. "Go fight the war on my behalf" is not an acceptable attitude.

Your 'logic' is missing a few pointers.

1. If I was called up I would fight.
Some people think of the welfare of others. I tried to sign up for the Armed forces back in my youth, the will to serve is there.

2. Soldiers dont fight to die, death is a risk not a goal.

3. Falkland Islanders are my fellow countrymen, I say so, the UK government says so, public opinion says so, our laws say so, and above all the Islanders say so.

4. 'Go fight the war on my behalf' is acceptable, its what a professional army is there to do. Every soldier knows this when they join. If you have ever voted for a party that sends US soldiers into combat then you also have in effect made the same statement.

5. You are assuming this will end in war, I think this is a significant probability, but not necessarily so. Argentina will be a permanent problem, there are no illusions over that, but like the Spanish 'claim' on Gibraltar, it may end up a background noise that is filtered out . However handing the Falklands over to Argentina will be abandoning the populace, so my comments stand.

6. You are assuming by my commentary I am calling for war. That holds no logical weight whatsoever. There are no plans to invade Argentina, and if by some madness there were I have no part in them or others who share my sympathies. Any threat of war comes from Argentina, if the decision to not abandon the Islanders or their home to Argentina ever results in war it will not be anything we are culpable of. Capitulation is destruction not peace, and steadfast vigilance is peace not aggression.

Fancy another go?

chaos0xomega wrote:"Orlanth should be threatened to be sent to a rock in the south atlantic to fight and die to protect a small group of people that aren't his fellow countrymen while the majority of the British population sits at home sipping tea and going about their business as usual. Perhaps then he might understand what is at stake for his nations servicemen and women. "Go fight the war on my behalf" is not an acceptable attitude.

There is the perspective of those who would have to do the fighting that must be considered too...

Having fought, and I long ago assumed you had too, for a nation of people I not only don't identify as countrymen but I openly hold in contempt and regard as enemies one and all. It seems to me that the historically British population deserves protecting more than overtly hostile brown people who share no common history, culture, or language. Much in the same way Argentina doesn't share a common culture, history, or language with the Falklands.
For the British fighting man (and woman) to be called to defend the Falklands makes infinitely more sense than their service in Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Unlike those countries every citizen of the Falkland Islands is a full British Citizen ( a fact I was heretofore unawares...somehow.), and therefor not only worthy of, but entitled to defense by the armed forces of the United Kingdom.

I may have overreacted...

chaos0xomega wrote:"Go fight the war on my behalf" is not an acceptable attitude.

What do you think soldiers sign up for, if not to be sent off to fight wars that the government of the country deems necessary?

sebster wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:"Go fight the war on my behalf" is not an acceptable attitude.

What do you think soldiers sign up for, if not to be sent off to fight wars that the government of the country deems necessary?

Don't you know, the man forces them to sign up for the free college tuition, it's the only way out of the ghetto. How dare anyone send volunteer soldiers to war! Especially to defend their own country men.

sebster wrote:
If Argentina threatens to occupy the islands by force, the options are to fight, or the back down, apparently citing monetary concerns. The latter is something no government could possibly get past the public.

Sure it could, with the right spin and enough material incentive.

sebster wrote:
To conceive of a politician in power actually using something as notional as immediate funding to act directly agaisnt the public's wishes is most fanciful.

That's exactly the sort of thing that politicians are most likely to contravene public opinion over, as it is confined to administration.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:"Go fight the war on my behalf" is not an acceptable attitude.

That's what armed forces are for, bro.

When I say "Go fight the war on my behalf", I mean that in the sense that we shouldn't be so quick to send our boys to fight on a whim (a pattern of thought that is seemingly becoming increasingly common in some circles), the armed forces exist to go to war, but only as a last resort once diplomatic action has been exhausted. That is the point I was making.

Auston - The war in afghanistan is (was), in my belief, a war to protect the American people that quagmired into nation building. Ditto Iraq (except that it turned out to be a lie). Today, in my belief, those conflicts are justified by "We made a mess of things, its our responsibility to try to set things right." As for being a full citizen of the UK, I thought that was a case to, but some pages ago a poster claimed that this was not the case, that they had british citizenship but were not subject to certain benefits or somesuch.

Orlanth:
3 - If they are your countrymen then why do you call the islands a protectorate and not a part of the United Kingdom? Traditionally, the term protectorate denotes a separate national entity that is a client state to another national entity in exchange for protection. During the victorian era this term became skewed somewhat and came to refer to an entity that lacked sovereignty and was under the military leadership of another national entity. If they are your fellow countrymen then why are they referred to as "Falkland Islanders" and not "Britons" or whatever the term is these days.

5 - Spain will rise again! In seriousness, its a small population... is a generous resettlement program to the british countryside not an option or something? There must be a diplomatic solution that will make pretty much everyone happy and keep the Argies quiet.

6 - The way your post read (to me) implied that you were describing the end result of what would occur if the UK didn't respond to Argentine hostilities, etc. I will admit that had I bothered to read the quoted text and thus realize the context, I would not have posted what I posted.

It seems to me that there's a lot of sympathy for the British on this matter, so, despite my own opinion being 'feth international law, the inhabitants want to stay British' (which makes me feel quite the hypocrite considering the fact that I'm opposed to Israeli settlements in Gaza), I thought I'd share some notes I took from an article for a politics presentation I am doing this term from an article, 'The British Resort to Force in the Falklands/Malvinas Conflict 1982: International Law and Just War Theory' by Cristoph Bluth:

The stuff in italics are my comments to make my notes a bit more understandable and where I use > instead of - is a point related to what's above it.


-J.D. Myhre regarding restoration of Port Egmont to British by Spain (Port Egmont being all that was restored, Spanish claim still intact): “The contents of those agreements are quite legally binding. By those declarations, Spain did return Port Egmont to Britain, but its reservation regarding sovereignty meant that with Port Egmont it was returning British sovereignty presuming that it was ever under British sovereignty. The port would be a British base in Spanish territory. The British declaration did not dispute Spanish reservation and must be interpreted as recognition of Spanish sovereignty over the islands (Myhre 1983, p. 32).
-Port Egmont was a settlement on West Falkland that was made by the British despite the Spanish having purchased a French settlement (the first settlement on the Falklands) on East Falkland, which transferred to them 'legal' ownership of the islands. The Spanish nearly go to war with the British when they evict the inhabitants of Port Egmont, but they back down and essentially confirm British sovereignty *over Port Egmont*.

p7
-Britain abandons Port Egmont and beyond a plaque left behind, does nothing to actively assert her authority. Spain 'exercised sovereignty' until 1810.
Earlier in the article it is established that a state can be recognised as having authority over a territory only if it makes an effort to administer it and assert sovereignty: from 1774 to 1833, the British do *nothing* to uphold their claim on the territory and the Spanish administer it from Buenos Aires until 1810.

-'Argentina claims that it succeeded to Spanish rights according to the principle of uti possidetis'.
Argentina believes it inherits Spain's claim because the islands were administered from Buenos Aires, the Spanish do not protest after the Argentinians settle the islands in 1816.
>'There are generally great difficulties with the application of this principle because the internal boundaries of the Spanish empire were often ill-defined, but in this case there is no doubt. The Malvinas were administered by a governor who reported to Buenos Aires.'

-British kick Argies out in 1833.
They are effectively asserting a claim they haven't exercised for thirty years, after having made no complaint at the Argentinian settlement; it's out of the blue. We seemingly (from the perspective of modern international law) evicted a settlement on the basis of a claim that had become null and void, totally out of the blue.

-'the official case for British sovereignty is now generally made on the basis of post-1833 criteria.
>'Two principles are invoked to support Britsih sovereignty over the Falklands: (a) Prescription, (b) the right to self determination.'
-Prescription: Britain has occupied islands for 150 years.
>Legally 'tenuous'.
Argentina consistently protested from 1833 to the 1860s, where it stopped a while, then continued again to the present day. Although it's never been ruled on officially, convention *apparently* is that prescription only wins over a territory if the state it was taken from is silent for 50 years.

p8
-(self-determination of inhabitants) 'the fact that they are of British “kith and kin” goes to show that they are not indingenous, that they were sent to the Falklands after the forceful removal of the previous inhabitants in order to colonize them for Britain, and that hence the principle of self-determination does not apply; this at least is the Argentine response to the British claim (Bologna 1983, p. 39f.).'
Speaks for itself; I don't agree with this point since I think that they've been there long enough that their wishes should be taken into account. The Argentines themselves were not natives.


Either way, I think this complicates things for me. I guess I am still pro-British on the issue but it's hard to be so with the same resolve; are the Argentines really being a neo-colonial power? Or are they simply exerting their legal right? It's not just a matter of geography to them; 'oh the islands are closer to us than Britain' but a legal one.

Ultimately, I would say the issue of self-determination is the one that swings it. As Albatross said, the islanders want to be British. It would be dishonest at best to ignore their wishes, and I'd like to think we were a little better than that.
I'm probably wrong there, but eh.

Henners91 wrote:It seems to me that there's a lot of sympathy for the British on this matter, so, despite my own opinion being 'feth international law, the inhabitants want to stay British'

International law is also on the side of the British. Self-determination trumps "well it looks pretty on a map".

This journal article appeared to contest that, though. If these arguments exist, it sort of shows why we are reluctant to discuss sovereignty.

mattyrm wrote:

Easy E wrote:

dogma wrote:Nah. Lulz and money.

See, you aren;t so different than everyone else. Those are the same reasons people will go to war in the Falklands. Even if the money isn;t there, there is always the LULZ.

Never a truer word spoken. Watching an A-10 rake some Afghans with gunfire filled me with lulz. Replacing them with Argies would be comic genius of an epic proportion.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the RAF doesn't have any A10s

No, but the Yanks do, and the British military is able to call on US air support, and vice-versa.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Uh, in Afghanistan, I might add.

Albatross wrote:No, but the Yanks do, and the British military is able to call on US air support, and vice-versa.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Uh, in Afghanistan, I might add.

I will personally authorize our government to bring 6 A-10s out of storage in Tucson and sell them to you for...8 million pounds each. But only if you promise to fly them off of a carrier and occupy Argentina.

AustonT wrote:

Albatross wrote:No, but the Yanks do, and the British military is able to call on US air support, and vice-versa.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Uh, in Afghanistan, I might add.

I will personally authorize our government to bring 6 A-10s out of storage in Tucson and sell them to you for...8 million pounds each. But only if you promise to fly them off of a carrier and occupy Argentina.

Umm... A10s aren't maritime aircraft and aren't designed for carrier deployment are they? I know the USMC have a number but I thought they use them from airfields not carriers.

Besides the UK doesn't have anything close to a Nimitz class carrier.

I'll give you $6million so long as you throw in 3 years servicing and a full tank of gas. No Promises on the Argentina thing though.

Current UK government policy is to launch our planes off of large pieces of driftwood.

Just name it

A-10 can not take off from a carrier. You probably could rig it to take off (I mean if you can launch b-25's in an emergency), but landing would be an issue

Andrew1975 wrote:A-10 can not take off from a carrier. You probably could rig it to take off (I mean if you can launch b-25's in an emergency), but landing would be an issue

...the UK has no carriers.

Joey wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:A-10 can not take off from a carrier. You probably could rig it to take off (I mean if you can launch b-25's in an emergency), but landing would be an issue

...the UK has no carriers.

Yes I know this. It was kind of a running joke.

Aren't you currently building some for that wonderful F-35? You might be better off with the A-10's actually