The Falklands - are we off again?

krizon

krizon

At the Start
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
16,263
Location
Dahn sarf
Seems to be rising tension over the little Falklands again, although Argentina says it's ruling out another show of force at a time when the UK begins oil exploration on the islands. Are we likely to have to commit a long-term seaborne force in order to keep protecting this little outpost? I assume we want it so much because of what it might offer in oil returns, rather than the fact that most of the islanders want to remain under British rule, not Argentinian.

Any thoughts on what might shake out?
 
A lot of local support for Argentina on this one, like Brazil etc unlike last time
 
nothing about the falklands is in any way argentinian except proximity (and even thats a good distance). there has never even been an argentinian presence there

If proximity is all its about then we may as well lay claim to Belgium
 
I find that a rather tricky one, Colin. In the case of the Falklands, it may be that the islanders feel more of a racial and cultural alliance to the UK than any South American country and therefore would like the protection of the UK to continue that sense of community with Britain - no matter the distance involved. I realise that a country can, in essence, determine whether it remains or becomes a protectorate, but isn't that a form of extended colonialism?

Of course, it's a wee bit different with Scotland's upcoming exercise in self-determination, since it's not been colonised as such - not unless you count the Vikings, in which case you may as well chuck in the Romans and the Normans!

Are we bound to accept a self-determining country saying it wants us as its Mummy? Suppose Zimbabwe's ghastly Mugabe eventually conks out and is replaced by a PM who wants the country to come under our governance, to stop internal tribalism and corruption?

Erm, I'm a bit off track, as usual. Yes, there's a lot of South American support for Argentina this time, as Harry says. Are we going to continue to support a little dot on the horizon just because they want us to, even if it might eventually mean trade and cultural embargoes? We've always acted in our self-interest, so why not this time?
 
I seem to remember plenty of South American support for Argentina in the 80's, in fact the only support that the UK had down there was from Chile.
The war was always abut mineral rights and was Thatcher's life line to continue her destruction of British Industry. If she had not withdrawn the permanent Navy squadron from the Falklands it is very unlikely that the 1982 invasion would have taken place.
With the present idiots in charge, God only knows what will happen now. I don't think there would be much assistance from the United States now as they are too committed elsewhere.
 
If you think this lot are idiots, They might wait for Prime Minister Milliband who would fill his nappy if they invaded for sure
 
Last edited:
I'll have to research a bit more to answer re an Argentinian presence on the islands, tbh - I have a gut feeling that they were there back in the 1800s, setting a precedent before us. But that will take some Googling!

Things have changed a lot in politics since our go-round. Brazil does not love us that much - perhaps shooting an innocent young man on the Underground has something to do with it, and it has not supported us politically since - and there is the very interesting schmoozing by Iran - yes, Iran - with the South Americas of late. There are quite a few changes within our own military, too - while Iran is going to involve us, the Yanks, and even the French in the Gulf, it means our eye's off the ball elsewhere. And, of course, we are downsizing, aren't we? Remember how long it took us before to get together our heavy armour. Do we have anything like as much as that now to commit? That's if the public has the stomach for yet another exercise in killing British troops - we're not out of Afghanistan, still getting blown up and shot for trying to ensure little girls can go to school.

It would be a fascinating scenario if, to muddy the waters without firing a shot this time, Argentina bilaterally offered the USA drilling rights. Would Uncle Sam say hey, no thanks, we have a 'special relationship' with the UK and can afford to pass up on that gift?
 
walsworth said:
That would not cost the lives of 255 British servicemen, 640 Argentine servicemen and 3 Falkland Islanders though would it?
Click to expand...

Quite right, if only everyone thought like that re letting an invading army waltz on in......:confused:
 
I find that a rather tricky one, Colin. In the case of the Falklands, it may be that the islanders feel more of a racial and cultural alliance to the UK than any South American country and therefore would like the protection of the UK to continue that sense of community with Britain - no matter the distance involved. I realise that a country can, in essence, determine whether it remains or becomes a protectorate, but isn't that a form of extended colonialism?
Click to expand...

Oh give up please. The islanders have absolutely no allegiance culturally or poltically or in any way whatsoever with the south americans. None. The islands were all but uninhabited before british settlement there

f she had not withdrawn the permanent Navy squadron from the Falklands it is very unlikely that the 1982 invasion would have taken place.
Click to expand...

This is partly wrong. For a start there was no Navy "squadron" on the islands. But there was a boat that was patrolling the area and yes i often wonder whether the conflict was a little manufactured. But more likely it was incompetence on the governments part
 
Kri, the sovereignty issue is a touch complicated as I remember.

It was 'explained' to me by a tour guide when we were on the Falklands. I think Britain did 'discover' the islands but they then left them empty for a century or so. During that period a number of countries, Argentina and Spain?, I believe, did occupy the islands for a while but they didn't do a lot with them and then Britain reclaimed them but that, of course, could be a load of cod.
 
Last edited:
Clivex - please, please go to Specsavers. Do read what people write before you crash in with your put-downs. Where have I said anything about an allegiance to any South American country? I've said quite the opposite. Colin has raised self-determinism (which I find quite a tricky subject) and I've tried to respond honestly.

Why the obsession with 'owning' the islands? Why not a joint governance between Argentina and the UK, and the sharing of any oil/mineral exploitation and subsequent wealth? Is it so totally impossible in the 21st Century to get beyond the feeble mindset of conflict?
 
it may be that the islanders feel more of a racial and cultural alliance to the UK than any South American country
Click to expand...

Because you said "may". there is absolutely no doubt about it

Why is self determination tricky?! Its their country FFS. There was no one there before them.

Why not a joint governance between Argentina and the UK, and the sharing of any oil/mineral exploitation and subsequent wealth?
Click to expand...

Why should we? i tell you what, why dont we claim and invade an island somewhere north of the shetlands and demand that Norway "shares" its wealth with us?
 
Instead of banging on about how eveything I say is always wrong, why don't you form an original thought of your own? I responded to Colin's question about self-determinism, per se, as tricky, not any specific cases. Which if you weren't so keen to shout people down first and think later, you would've understood.

About your last sentence: you're just being daft now. We are discussing a place which is geographically impossible for us to police without committing resources far beyond its usefulness to us. Thus, rather than get into yet another blood-letting, why not power-share? Argentina and the UK have been on and off the place and as it's such a bone of contention to both, why fight about it? Can't we be a bit more pragmatically adult about such matters, or are we (the human race, not just Brits) doomed to continue at the level of a kindergarten playground, fighting over who took whose box of coloured pencils?

You haven't actually said why co-governance is unacceptable, by the way. Perhaps you can spell it out rather more coherently than that childish effort?
 
Colin Phillips said:
Kri, the sovereignty issue is a touch complicated as I remember.

It was 'explained' to me by a tour guide when we were on the Falklands. I think Britain did 'discover' the islands but they then left them empty for a century or so. During that period a number of countries, Argentina and Spain?, I believe, did occupy the islands for a while but they didn't do a lot with them and then Britain reclaimed them but that, of course, could be a load of cod.
Click to expand...

What's the place actually like, Colin?
 
Not an easy one that Gareth.

Undeveloped, wild, beautiful, plenty of wildlife.

Four pubs in Stanley, one of which has since closed.

No drinks on the pump, just the bottles or cans.

No cinema, the only television channel available being the Forces channel - squaddie TV as my daughter describes it.

The first morning we were there my daughter had a phone call from a colleague to say that there was a lone King Penguin on Surf Bay beach.

Ten minutes later we were having a look at him, seems he had been separated from the main colony 30 miles away.

My daughter booked a stay for us at the lodge on Sea Lion Island which involved a flight on the tiny "Island Hopper" airy plane, quite an experience. We landed on one island and I couldn't see any air-strip bit like landing on a football field.

Sea Lion Island has a very large poulation of penguins, seals, bird-life (including the very rare striated-Caracara, besides being very rare it is also very tame and approachable, one was a very regular visitor to the patio of the lodge) and very large Sea-Lions.

One of the big problems of living there is that just about everything has to be shipped in. When fresh vegetables become available at the one and only 'supermarket' it is announced on the local radio station. However, the Chilean wine is very good and very cheap.

My daughter was a teacher there for almost three years but she lost the post when an islander applied for her job, they have rules/laws there that dictate that a job should always go to a local if there is someone suitably qualified.

Bethan, my daughter, loved it there and would have stayed if she had the choice. Because of the lack of ways of spending money she built up a tidy pile and she found it an excellent base for exploring the Americas and even Australia, something she would probably wouldn't have done if she had stayed at home.

Hope that answers your question, Gareth.

If you would like to know more you could PM me.
 
More than answered it Colin, thanks. It would seem insane to deny self-determination to such a long-standing population, particularly one which seems happy to put up with the non-trivial challenges of living there.
 
Wiki's version of events is funny, no idea whether its accurate or not but it is funny.

In 1764, French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville founded the first settlement on Berkeley Sound, in present-day Port Louis, East Falkland.[14] In 1765, British captain John Byron explored and claimed Saunders Island on West Falkland, where he named the harbour Port Egmont and a settlement was constructed in 1766.[15] Unaware of the French presence,(oh really !! heehee) Byron claimed the island group for King George III. Spain acquired the French colony in 1767 and placed it under a governor subordinate to the Buenos Aires colonial administration. In 1770, Spain attacked Port Egmont and expelled the British presence, bringing the two countries to the brink of war. War was avoided by a peace treaty and the British return to Port Egmont.[16]
In 1774, economic pressures leading up to the American Revolutionary War forced Great Britain to withdraw from many overseas settlements.[16][17] Upon withdrawal the British left behind a plaque asserting her continued claim.(gone to shops back soon, don't take anything ) Spain maintained its governor until 1806 who, on his departure, left behind a plaque asserting Spanish claims.(Doctors appointment , do not touch) The remaining settlers were withdrawn by the United Provinces of the River Plate in 1811.[
 
Last edited:
No krizon. Its not daft. Its exactly the same principle. there is no reason at all to have any share of sovreighty. None whatsoever. The only grounds would be economic but that would ignore 99 per cent of the populations wishes and to my mind that would be unacceptable

As internationbal disputes go, this is as clear as any to understand
 
One of the big problems of living there is that just about everything has to be shipped in. When fresh vegetables become available at the one and only 'supermarket' it is announced on the local radio station. .
Click to expand...

Is the soil useless or the climate too harsh for growing their own crops ?
 
It's all about the posibilities of finding oil (isn't it always?). Rockhopper and another co who's name can't remember just now (Desire Oil) have been exploring for approx 18 months. The geological reports point to huge untapped reserves somewhere down there.
 
Last edited:
Sheikh, there is some growing of vegetables but it is basically for own consumption.

The climate is harsh, we were there in their summer and the highest temperature was 18 degrees and there is a constant wind.

There are plenty of sheep grazing there and a small number of cattle.
 
A friend of mine who was a nurse did a couple of stints there.The army paid premium rates and as Colin said hard to spend the money.
 
Back
Top