The Falkland Islands- another war in the making?

For those who might not know the Falkland Islands are a small group of islands off the coast of Argentina which belong to the UK. Its inhabitants are British.
In the 1980's Argentina invaded and claimed them back and in response Margaret Thatcher, then PM, dispatched the British Navy to reclaim them- a short but bloody war followed and Britain emerged the victor. It sealed Thatchers election victory when she looked like beforhand she was going to lose. It was done at the tme in the name of defending its people, it has since emerged that coincidentally the islands are surrounded by oil and gas deposits.
Now Argentina have been making noises about the islands again. The UK doesn't have a navy anything like even what it did in the 1980's and it is unlikely, were an invasion to happen, that a similar response could even be mounted.
All this has come to the fore lately however has Prince William, who as is traditional for the next in line is serving in the military as a helicopter pilot, has been sent there.

"The Ministry of Defence has said Prince William's posting - as part of an RAF crew of four - is a "routine deployment" for a Sea King pilot as part of "normal" squadron rotation.
Buenos Aires has described it as a "provocative act" and said the duke would be wearing "the uniform of a conqueror" when he deploys.
Argentina's foreign ministry said it "rejected the British attempt to militarise conflict".- BBC news.

Argentina have accused Britain of acting like a colonial power, Cameron has dismissed this.
Seems to me it would be very neive to assume at this time that the heir to the throne had been sent to such a contentious location, just as its once again becoming the focus of Argentina's interest, as part of 'routine deployment'- the heir to the throne doesn't get routinely deployed without every political connitation taken into account.
So whats Cameron up to? And does Britain have a moral duty to the islanders who say they wish to remain British to defend them (the argument Thatcher used)- even at the cost of another bloody conflict?

It was uninhabited and the Brits and Argentines have been claiming ownership pretty much since discovery in 1764. It has been run solely by Brit since 1833 and the inhabitants want to remain part of Brit Commonwealth. If the Argentines want it, I guess they'll need to take it by force. Good luck to 'em. I'd back the Brits to win again. The early ownership claims seem 50/50. The fact of Brits populating under Brit rule since 1833 would give them more than enough reason to fight for their homes. As part of the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth would be honour bound to assert their right to be there. It would be reasonable to say that I don't have all the facts, of course.

It would be interesting to know what would happen if the Argentinians invaded and "won" the territory, if all the inhabitants want to remain part of Britain, speak English and use british law etc, would and could the Argentinians force those people to change everything, have Argentinian passports, speak Spanish, schools, law and all? would it become like the Channel Isles during the 2WW, a hostile occupying army, cracking down on subversive and angry natives? surely the shit would hit the fan big time?

I would imagine that sending Prince William to the Falklands is just international dick-waving (if you'll pardon the expression). "Look at us, we don't care about your claim and we fear you so little we'll send an heir to the throne over. Just watch us now!" On the other hand, Argentina isn't ruled by a military junta anymore. I imagine that using a war to try to distract the Argentine people wouldn't go over as well as it did in the '80s. I could be mistaken though, I'm not terribly familiar with the situation.

Yes but is Cameron hoping Argentina will say "Oooh thats a scary British dick best keep away," because there is a risk I think they might say "Your dick is too far from home and covered in expensive oil Britain we shall seize it!" (I really wish you'd used a better metaphor Eldo! )

I don't disagree that it seems ill-considered.

But it was pointed out to me that it is a standard posting for all in his position within the services and to change that would be a political act in itself. The tour has been in the pipeline for a long while.

Argentina have being upping the ante on the Falklands for a while, embargoes, banning charter flights to the islands and stridently calling for UN mediated negotiations of the 'ownership' of the islands. It is still a political plus to be vocal on the issue in Argentina. They have repeatedly said that anything short of military action to have the islands returned is something they will try. This posting is just another convinient thing to shout about.

What surprised me, listening to the radio today, was how emotive the whole thing still is. The chaired discussion dissolved into just shy of a slanging match live on air.

Eldorion wrote:I would imagine that sending Prince William to the Falklands is just international dick-waving (if you'll pardon the expression). "Look at us, we don't care about your claim and we fear you so little we'll send an heir to the throne over. Just watch us now!" On the other hand, Argentina isn't ruled by a military junta anymore. I imagine that using a war to try to distract the Argentine people wouldn't go over as well as it did in the '80s. I could be mistaken though, I'm not terribly familiar with the situation.

I think the Brits have a right to do what they want. If it stick's it up the Argentinians, so be it. The more I think about it, the more I think the Brits have a right to keep the Falklands. As always, these things will get down to "right of conquest" which every country in the past and going forward has to face as a fact of life.

Thanks for hardening my view btw Kafria. Your stark picture of oppressive Argentinians subverting innocent inhabitants got my blood boiling. I watched a show about what the Nazis did to the Jews in Poland. Reminded me of things I don't like being reminded about as I sit forumming, cup of coffee in hand, and no Wargs at the door. Can't agree with oppression of any sort.

Mrs Figg wrote:It would be interesting to know what would happen if the Argentinians invaded and "won" the territory, if all the inhabitants want to remain part of Britain, speak English and use british law etc, would and could the Argentinians force those people to change everything, have Argentinian passports, speak Spanish, schools, law and all? would it become like the Channel Isles during the 2WW, a hostile occupying army, cracking down on subversive and angry natives? surely the shit would hit the fan big time?

Yes.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Yes but is Cameron hoping Argentina will say "Oooh thats a scary British dick best keep away," because there is a risk I think they might say "Your dick is too far from home and covered in expensive oil Britain we shall seize it!" (I really wish you'd used a better metaphor Eldo! )

I might have to lend them mine, Petty. That'd scare 'em alright. Cameron's would only make them giggle. Hee hee hee - I'm giggling at the thought.


Hey, Eldo, how do I do multiple 'quotes' from different folk in ONE post?

You just have to copy and paste the text of their post and enclose it in quote tags. When you hit the "quote" button the quote tags are added automatically but you can also add them yourselves just by typing:

Code:

[quote="The name of the person you're quoting"]Blah blah blah[/quote]

Where "blah blah blah" is whatever they said.

Orwell wrote:I think the Brits have a right to do what they want. If it stick's it up the Argentinians, so be it. The more I think about it, the more I think the Brits have a right to keep the Falklands.

I agree with you that the Falklands are and should remain British so long as the inhabitants of the islands want to be British. Of course e Brits don't have the right to send a royal to the Falklands if they want to. It just seems that in this case it's part of the broader political maneuvering over Argentina's dispute. I'm not saying that's automatically a bad idea; Britain pretty much has to respond somehow and it's better to send a royal than an aircraft carrier.

I think it may have become a Tory tradition, do badly in the polls? got an election coming up? seen as a limp willy? well shake it at the Argies a bit, and the British Public will get their tables out for a Union Jack strewn Street Party, sing Rule Britannia, talk about the good ol days when Pearly Kings ruled ol Blighty, and Bobs yer uncle alls right with the world, the Brits have triumphed over adversity, stuck it to the d***s, and the sun is in the heavens, and order in the Universe is established. Amen.

oops was that a bit cynical? I love my country really.

Blah blah blah!

Eldorion wrote:Where "blah blah blah" is whatever they said.

Sounds an accurate description of Forumshiran posting.

Thanks Eldo. {{{You know, Odo tells me your totally useless, but this goes to show you're not totally useless }}}



Mrs Figg said: I think it may have become a Tory tradition, do badly in the polls? got an election coming up? seen as a limp willy? well shake it at the Argies a bit, and the British Public will get their tables out for a Union Jack strewn Street Party, sing Rule Britannia, talk about the good ol days when Pearly Kings ruled ol Blighty, and Bobs yer uncle alls right with the world, the Brits have triumphed over adversity, stuck it to the d***s, and the sun is in the heavens, and order in the Universe is established. Amen.

oops was that a bit cynical? I love my country really.

Not at all, Mrs Figg, I think you sound very romantic.

I think you sound very cyncial Mrs Figg- good for you!

your Avatar is quite creepy Petty. dont you have something er more cozy?

I'd say it was cynical if it weren't so well-documented, Mrs Figg. We have a similar tradition in the U.S., not with Argentina specifically but with most of the rest of the world. Stoking up national fervor by talking about some external enemy is an effective way of shoring up popularity in most countries and political system. In fact, I believe that was part of the reason why Argentina invaded the Falklands in the first place back in the '80s.

I'm not due to take the bandages of for a couple of days yet Mrs Figg- the geyser scalding cleared up fine but since then Paw has,um, contributed to my continued need for them- why is the blood seeping thorugh?

Well if we do have another Falklands war all thats left is for me to start wearing jeans I need poured into and make for good soprano singers, a ridiculous poiny tail and a few acid flashbacks and I wont know which decade I'm in anymore!

Mrs Figg wrote:your Avatar is quite creepy Petty. dont you have something er more cozy?

I like it. It depicts the 'creepy' image I have of all McTyrants. {{{Also covers up their Scotshobbitish 'looks'. That can't be bad, surely?}}}


Btw where exactly are these Falkland Islands? I can't find them anywhere on any of my Forumshiran Maps...? And these "Argentinians"? Are they some kind of orc --- possibly from down Lugburz way?

hey! Less of the insults- I'm an ill hobbit here! Things are very tender under these bandages you know, some things more than others.

Insults? What insults, Mr Tyrant?

Creepy is an insult! Well unless I actually am creeping at the tme I suppose.

As a victim of viking whippersnappers tomfoolery I would expect more sympathy from you Odo and a lot more shaking of your head and being disapproving of the vikings! I think you're scared of our Norse invaders.

Odo told me via mini-palantir that he's not scared of Nordic hobbits, just cautious.

If I was you I would be afraid, very afraid, they do things with Captain Birdseye fish fingers that would make your eyes water.

Mmm fishfingers and custard,

Thats gross!