Falkland islands

[beabert]

Im suprised no one has mentioned it, whats you opinion on this situation.

I believe this is one of the few places we never took by force? and there were no natives living on them previously?

Im believe no one wiill offer the uk any support, even chile has switched sides, i think we will be backed in to sharing sovereignty.

[Vorkohnen]

You forget about the Yanks and their love of the "Black Gold".

[BanditPat]

Our islands as they have been for the last 300 years on the most part. Argentina has no claim over them. And compared to 1982 the islands have a far better defence force while the argentines have nothing that they could realistically use in an attack. I ant really see the americans sitting out of it either especially with the new US free americas block on the cards.

[ravingdavis]

I personally think that the people of the islands should get to choose who they are governed by. Having had family members spend time over there I am very confident that they would choose to be ruled by the British not the Argentinians. This is a similar situation to 1982, trouble in the Argentine homeland, us drilling for oil gives them a good option to deflect their troubles and people's attention elsewhere. As for what Hugo Chavez said about the days of the Empire read above, if they wish to remain British then who is to tell them that simply because of their geographical location that they should not be allowed?

[beabert]

Agree, the islanders opinion should count.

[BanditPat]

One of the documentary on for the 25th anniversary had interviews with the islanders and i can remember them saying that they wanted to be part of britain

[fastdruid]

As far as I'm concerned it should only be up to the residents and AFAIK they want to be part of Britain.

Druid

[FG1]

I've been there twice, 87 and 88. I can say that while I was there the "locals" were definately proud to be British.

[Alpinestarhero]

you gotta fight

for your right

for a windswept cold iiiiisssslllaaaaannndddd

I'm suprised it hasn't been mentioned, I didn't want to start a thread as I'm not so clued up on the history of the previous conflict, but it was big enough news that my mate and I talked about it all day when the news first broke some time last week

[cuffy]

Why do you think we went in their in the 1st place? Bugger all to do with sovereignty, they knew back then about the oil reserves that's why the Yanks wanted to get involved all them years back.

[Ed]

Why do you think we went in their in the 1st place? Bugger all to do with sovereignty, they knew back then about the oil reserves that's why the Yanks wanted to get involved all them years back.

...and your evidence for this is...

We 'went in' there because the Falkland Islanders are British. It was nothing to do with oil. I seem to remember that the US was not very keen on offering support at the time.

[tigersaw]

I've been there twice, 87 and 88. I can say that while I was there the "locals" were definately proud to be British.

My dad has just been to Port Stanley last week. He says they are the most British people he has ever met, could do with a few of them back over here.

[Bibio]

ooooohhhhh no, not a ban/shortage on corned beef again. them Argentinians will do anything to raise prices.

[metalangel]

My dad has just been to Port Stanley last week. He says they are the most British people he has ever met, could do with a few of them back over here.

http://media.nowpublic.net/images//e4/b/e4be56f806f9355b09e7c7afbddde88d.jpg

[Drew Carey]

Due to my Dad having fought in the war I have always taken an interest in it etc. Been reading up and like some have said, the vast majority of islanders consider themselves British and have no desire to be part of Argentina.

From a historical point of view, the islands have been under French, Spanish, British rule as well as having been ruled by "political" positions such as the guvernor of various mainland ports.

This current issue is solely about oil and oil only. However, until modern times it wasn't about oil. It was originally held by each country and ultimately Britain due to it being an ideal staging area for ships going around the Cape. Over recent times there have been many hundreds of minor oil explorations with very little success. However, they now believe they have found large oil reserves.....hence the new drilling rig. Even so, will take numerous years to begin production....I think I read somewhere 4-6 years.

My personal view.....the islanders want to be British, Argentina have never really had a claim (other countries arguably have) BUT.....for me.....I think if there are genuinly makor oil fields then we should fight tooth and nail for it......fed up with being bent over backwards by other countries who control major oil production (as North sea just doesn't generate a significant global amount....I believe???)......

LET'S GET READDDDYYYYYYY TO RUMMMMMBLE!!!! :D

[ThEGr33k]

...and your evidence for this is...

We 'went in' there because the Falkland Islanders are British. It was nothing to do with oil. I seem to remember that the US was not very keen on offering support at the time.


Its been pretty common knowledge among the forces that we were there for the black stuff. Many many service personel said that while I was in the forces, which was 5 years before oil was officially found. They knew it was there they just had to find it. Id be quite happy to guess that this had a lot to do with the whole reason for the conflict... What other reason could there really be??

[Ed]

Its been pretty common knowledge among the forces that we were there for the black stuff. Many many service personel said that while I was in the forces, which was 5 years before oil was officially found. They knew it was there they just had to find it. Id be quite happy to guess that this had a lot to do with the whole reason for the conflict... What other reason could there really be??

Oh FFS, more of this 'war for oil' BS...

The reason was all to do with the islanders' strong desire to be British.

Suppose that Norway claimed the Shetland Islands, or Ireland claimed the Isle of Man, or France claimed the Channel Islands (Jersey is only 12 miles from the French coast)... or Canada claimed Alaska, or Turkey claimed Symi or Kos...don't you think that in each case the respective parties would wish to protect their sovereignty?

[Drew Carey]

Whether it was or was not due to oil.....is only knowwn by others......

However, my understanding was that at the time, the military Junta in Argentina were looking to stamp there authority on all desputed areas.....mainly, because the US had remained silent over the Junta and it was the Argentine military's belief that if they showed their power, the US would back them.

As well as the Falklands, they were having long standing dispues with Chile, Uruguay and others.

As another thought on oil.....the actual full discovery of oil only took place in the mid 90's following seismic exploration. If oil had been known to be there all along, we would have had platforms in right from the very end of the war would we not? Why wait nearly 30 years?!?!?!?

[eviltwin]

However, my understanding was that at the time, the military Junta in Argentina were looking to stamp there authority on all desputed areas

Yes, Galtieri needed to boost popularity but, remember, so did Maggie. Poor poll ratings with an impending election suddenly turned around by a successful military campaign and subsequent outpouring of national pride back home.

Crikey, wouldn't things have been different if she'd lost in 83.

An aside to your discussion on oil but an interesting one, worth mentioning, I think.

[Drew Carey]

Yeah true.....the war came at an ideal time for Maggie, low polls, poor image and was nearly on the brink of loosing the next election.......nowt better than a popular soverign grabbing war to appease the voters.

Unlike modern wars on foreign soil that appear to be increasingly unpopular with the public.

Anyway's back to oil. Root of all eveil and all that.

[Wideboy]

Its british should stay that way, but we'll probably give it away like the gas fields, After all it would be racist if we didnt:rolleyes:

[slark01]

Oil? And here is me thinking that the Argies landed on the Falklands, arrested the locals and the claimed the land as theirs. Which as you can image would not be popular by the british public as there are british held captives, hence...War! The dispute of the islands as been going alot longer than sodding oil hunting, read your history...Ever since the re-establishment of British rule in 1833 Argentina has claimed sovereignty.
Some people tut.
Ste.

[rpwoodman]

...and your evidence for this is...

We 'went in' there because the Falkland Islanders are British. It was nothing to do with oil. I seem to remember that the US was not very keen on offering support at the time.

Other than offering us a fleet, and ensuring that the Argentinians didn't get any more exocets?

[rpwoodman]

Yes, Galtieri needed to boost popularity but, remember, so did Maggie. Poor poll ratings with an impending election suddenly turned around by a successful military campaign and subsequent outpouring of national pride back home.

Crikey, wouldn't things have been different if she'd lost in 83.

An aside to your discussion on oil but an interesting one, worth mentioning, I think.

And strangely enough, when she stood up in the Commons and said that she was going to send a taskforce, there was only one dissenter, and that was Ray Witney - the (Conservative) MP for High Wycombe at the time.

[gettin2dizzy]

Suppose that Norway claimed the Shetland Islands

They're actually Danish.

[rpwoodman]

I personally think that the people of the islands should get to choose who they are governed by.

On the whole (actually, wholeheartedly), I'd agree with that, but (playing devil's advocate here) does that also hold for the occupied territories in Israel/Palestine? The Settlers say that they want to be part of Israel, but to everyone else, it's illegal. Just because someone is there, doesn't give them the absolute right to say what's what.

[rpwoodman]

They're actually Danish.

Then that may mean that there would be a very much better supply of tasty pastries, so I'm all for it.

[yorkie_chris]

...and your evidence for this is...

We 'went in' there because the Falkland Islanders are British. It was nothing to do with oil. I seem to remember that the US was not very keen on offering support at the time.

A US built radar on the Islands during the war and US built A4 jets knocking holes in Brit ships. But they did help out with information from my reading around the subject.

No respect for Argentina. A government even more bent than ours which takes some doing...
We were too soft with them in 1982, nuclear subs should have had free reign to knock holes in anything Argentinian at sea. Limited risk to British assets, bargain.

I know there's a current increase in naval force around the Islands, but I doubt the current regime has the stones to do anything about it if Argentina actually has a go.

[yorkie_chris]

On the whole (actually, wholeheartedly), I'd agree with that, but (playing devil's advocate here) does that also hold for the occupied territories in Israel/Palestine? The Settlers say that they want to be part of Israel, but to everyone else, it's illegal. Just because someone is there, doesn't give them the absolute right to say what's what.

The falklands never had an indigenous population, the people there choose to be British, hold Brit passports and are not of Argy ethnic origin.

The Isreal/Palestine thing is a racial/religious occupation by force bordering on genocide. This is a simple territorial dispute :-$

[rpwoodman]

The falklands never had an indigenous population, the people there choose to be British, hold Brit passports and are not of Argy ethnic origin.

The Isreal/Palestine thing is a racial/religious occupation by force bordering on genocide. This is a simple territorial dispute :-$

That's a fair point :-)

[yorkie_chris]

That's a fair point :-)

And the 1982 conflict was basically a happy slapping because Galtieri needed to look hard in front of his mates.

[Grinch]

As another thought on oil.....the actual full discovery of oil only took place in the mid 90's following seismic exploration. If oil had been known to be there all along, we would have had platforms in right from the very end of the war would we not? Why wait nearly 30 years?!?!?!?

Back in the 90's oil was only about $10 a barrel, so with the difficulty in extraction it wasn't worth it. But with the sky rocketing prices now and more modern techniques in extraction its more financially viable. The original surveys where done by Shell, and I imagine they are not interest now as Argentina have said anyone drilling in that area will loose any rights to drill in Argentinian areas, hence the little British company drilling.

I don't think it was about oil back then as it was worth naff all.

[Drew Carey]

It would have been so much easier if they had just had Galtieri & Thatcher slap each other.

I would say less so his mates and more so the US......they had been asking for US backing of the junta for a long time pre the war.

[tinpants]

Other than offering us a fleet, and ensuring that the Argentinians didn't get any more exocets?

And waiving the 1823 Monroe Doctrine which states that any efforts by countries to colonize land or interfere with states in the scope of the Americas would be viewed by the United States of America as acts of aggression requiring US intervention. Basically, they agreed not to come and kick us out when we got shot of the Argies. Quite a ballsy move, actually. This was, I believe, the first time it had been waived and gave Britain the unspoken authorisation to commit her forces.

I served there in 1991 and, like FG1, found the Bennies to be extremely proud to be British and fiercely loyal to the Crown - unlike some people in THIS country.

Just as an aside, around 60% of the Islanders are of Australian or New Zealand extraction due to the relatively high numbers of sheep shearers from those countries going there to help out with the shearing.

[yorkie_chris]

You could argue that the Monroe doctrine would only be applicable if we had invaded Argentina, which other than being pointless would be totally impractical.

AFAIK they did embargo arms to Argentina but they did that long before anyway in protest of the junta. They also provided Ascension Island with huge quantities of fuel for us to run the V bombers on.

[Ed]

The other point here is that the United Kingdom and Argentina had a treaty by which any oil revenues would be shared - I D/K in what proportions - Argentina unilaterally renounced it in 2007.

So this is not a dispute about oil.

[ophic]

The US supplied us with fuel and an airbase on Ascension Island to work from. Without either of these, the conflict would have been long over before we could get there.

Good book for those interested - Vulcan 607
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vulcan-607-Rowland-White/dp/0593053915

[yorkie_chris]

Absolutely cracking read, otherwise termed "operation; skin o tha teeth"

[Biker Biggles]

This was actually a really tricky one for the Americans at the time.Besides the Munroe issue,Argentina was a USA client state and had been supported extensively by them for many years.I was in Argentina before the war and there were plenty of American military there training and equiping the junta's forces.This during their "dirty war"when the junta murdered thousands of the opposition.You still see groups of elderly women standing outside government buildings in Buenos Aires asking what happened to their "disappeared ones".The Americans tried to mediate to prevent the war,but eventually gave Britain their tacit support to retake the islands.They even offered military support to us,allegedly on the understanding it would be declined to save their embarrassment.The rest is history and the Argentines have no real claim to the islands other than that they are the nearest country.By the same token France should have Jersey and Spain Gibralter.Best to ask the inhabitants,especially if there is no dispute amongst them.

[tinpants]

The US supplied us with fuel and an airbase on Ascension Island to work from. Without either of these, the conflict would have been long over before we could get there.

Good book for those interested - Vulcan 607
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vulcan-607-Rowland-White/dp/0593053915


Yup. Cracking read. Real "flying by the seat of your pants" stuff. (no pun intended!!) The airbase on Ascension, as with Diego Garcia, is owned by Britain. It is, however, manned and administered by the USAF. I belive it was used as an alternative landing site for the space shuttle before it was found that most of Florida was a more cost effective option.

As for YC's point about the Monroe Doctrine - yeah, you could argue that but the point I was making was that they waived it.

[husky03]

Before anyone, be it government or whoever thinks its a good idea to spill more blood over a piece of rock thousands of miles from the uk they should read these two books and think again-Excursion to hell and two sides of hell-both by the same author who was part of 3 para at the time-1st tells about the battle and the experience of the British troops, 2nd is after the war has been over for a few years and he gets surviving soldiers from both sides to talk about the horrors they experienced-the majority of argie soldiers at that time were young conscripts who didn't even know what was happening-can't believe that we could possibly be going down the same road again.

[neio79]

They are ours, had them for 300 years.

and we have ****ed off the argies once before ,and if anything area far beter trained army to do so again. The defence force there now is far far better than it was although not extensive and only has one regular batallion of infantry there, as well as all the support elements, there are Naval ships and RAF jets as well.

They may just think its a good time to have a pop wit hso many of us commited in Afgan, but there still are more than enough of us to go over and hand their **** to them on a plate a second time.

not to mention how in bed we are in with the yanks. And as said given their love of oil i think they would lend a bit more of a hand this time round if needs be.

Meh what do i care just one more tour to go and do .

[Ed]

I sincerely hope that it never gets as far as that, husky.

[Sid Squid]

I believe this is one of the few places we never took by force? and there were no natives living on them previously?Not quite, we didn't take it by force, by it was variously 'owned' before we got it kinda by the default that no-one else wanted it. The name that the Argentinians, use the 'Las Malvinas' is a corruption of the name it had whilst in French hands, which was Les Maloines, after Saint Malo the French port town.

I believe no one will offer the UK any support, even Chile has switched sides, I think we will be backed in to sharing sovereignty.
Doubtful, it's ours, we're not going to give it up.
But you make a good point, the Argentinians have had much words of support from their neighbours, what I'm really waiting for is the words of support from our EU friends.
Also, because of the Lisbon Treaty, (you know - the one you won't be voting on), we're all EU chums now we've signed up whether we wanted to or not. The Lisbon Treaty quite clearly states that all EU members share a responsibility to support all others in times of conflict. Now you may recall that the Irish populace recently voted said treaty through, (sort of - they needed asking twice 'cos they didn't get it right first time).
Anyone else looking forward to seeing soldiers from the Irish Republic in the South Atlantic defending UK soil? I can't wait to see how that goes down in Dublin.
Not to mention the thought of brave French and German soldiers and airpersons blatting on down to Port Stanley determined to defend of the UK.
And then there's the Belgians, the Italians, the Spanish etc etc.

I'm sure we won't have to wait long for their arrival - now we all EU buddies.

We 'went in' there because the Falkland Islanders are British. It was nothing to do with oil. I seem to remember that the US was not very keen on offering support at the time.
Correct. The Yanks, politically at least, were not keen, but did quite a bit on the quiet to assist militarily.

[Supervox]

Before anyone, be it government or whoever thinks its a good idea to spill more blood over a piece of rock thousands of miles from the uk they should read these two books and think again-Excursion to hell and two sides of hell-both by the same author who was part of 3 para at the time-1st tells about the battle and the experience of the British troops, 2nd is after the war has been over for a few years and he gets surviving soldiers from both sides to talk about the horrors they experienced-the majority of argie soldiers at that time were young conscripts who didn't even know what was happening-can't believe that we could possibly be going down the same road again.

Regardless of what is in these 2 books (I've read neither) people need to remember that our service personnel have volunteered to 'put themselves in harms way', & to do what it takes to protect the interests of their country.

Until the Falklands war (with the exception of a few Special Forces escapades) this country had not been involved in any major conflict for a number of years & I think a lot of servicemen joined up without realising that they might one day have to take a life or that theirs might be in danger; this is not just an idle or random thought, I spoke with friends of mine at the time several of whom told me that they joined up to learn a trade that would help them in civvy street when they'd done their time - no thought at all about what they might be called upon to do.

I think it is human nature that many former service personnel will never come to terms with things they've seen or done - it would be a very scary world if this was not the case - but sometimes, needs must.

I hope I have not offended any of our Org-ans who are service personnel or those that had relatives that served in the Falklands conflict (if I have please accept my apologies that was not my intention) - I just felt I must answer the above thread that questions whether or not our forces should defend British citizens - if it should come to that.

[zsv650]

no way should we abandon our people if it come's to it we should fight for them tooth and nail.

[ophic]

Before anyone, be it government or whoever thinks its a good idea to spill more blood over a piece of rock thousands of miles from the uk they should read these two books and think again-Excursion to hell and two sides of hell-both by the same author who was part of 3 para at the time-1st tells about the battle and the experience of the British troops, 2nd is after the war has been over for a few years and he gets surviving soldiers from both sides to talk about the horrors they experienced-the majority of argie soldiers at that time were young conscripts who didn't even know what was happening-can't believe that we could possibly be going down the same road again.
Any viable alternatives? What would you suggest? Just giving it away? Would you always do the same when threatened? Your bike? your house? your family?

Any conflict is hell, for both sides. That doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on whether we should defend ourselves our not. We are not the aggressor here.

[husky03]

Any viable alternatives? What would you suggest? Just giving it away? Would you always do the same when threatened? Your bike? your house? your family?

Any conflict is hell, for both sides. That doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on whether we should defend ourselves our not. We are not the aggressor here.

They need to sit down and talk-war don't accomplish anything except pain and heartache-what price would you put on one human life?when you think of a figure then you can mulitply it by hundreds possibly thousands.
Whens the last time you were at the falklands?Let the islanders live there if they want but ffs don't spill anymore blood in the name of national security when its all about oil.
The past few governments have slashed our forces to shreds and with the way things are going they could possibly be ordered to go to another war-again undermanned,and undersupplied.
Well i'm one who couldn't give a monkeys about an island thats thousands of miles away from the uk and doesn't have any effect on my or anyone i know lifes.
You come across as having a strong viewpoint that the islands worth more of our young men and women giving their lives for -take it you'd be willing to join up and make the ultimate sacrifice or let your son/daughter do the same.
The days of the British empire are long gone-time people remembered that.

[ophic]

They need to sit down and talk
well duh. Presumeably they don't agree. That's why they would go to war.

war don't accomplish anything except pain and heartache-what price would you put on one human life?when you think of a figure then you can mulitply it by hundreds possibly thousands.
What price do you put on freedom? Justice? War hasn't achieved anything? are you blind? rolling over and dying doesn't achieve anything. Ever wondering why you don't speak German, and in fact why you don't live in slavery because you're not pure breed Arian? That's if you're one of the lucky ones that didn't get ethnically cleansed.
Whens the last time you were at the falklands?Let the islanders live there if they want
and don't bother defending them. After all, those particular British subjects are worthless. Unlike us mainlanders.
but ffs don't spill anymore blood in the name of national security when its all about oil.
very debatable. But regardless, even if its about oil, it's our oil, and we shouldn't let people walk over us. Or we'd have nothing - and Britain would have gone the way of Prussia many many years ago.
The past few governments have slashed our forces to shreds and with the way things are going they could possibly be ordered to go to another war-again undermanned,and undersupplied.
So you're saying that war doesn't solve anything, but also complaining that we're not prepared for it? A little inconsistent.
Well i'm one who couldn't give a monkeys about an island thats thousands of miles away from the uk and doesn't have any effect on my or anyone i know lifes.
Fortunately many of us aren't as blinkered.
You come across as having a strong viewpoint that the islands worth more of our young men and women giving their lives for -take it you'd be willing to join up and make the ultimate sacrifice or let your son/daughter do the same.
Damn right.
The days of the British empire are long gone-time people remembered that.
With that attitude, the days of Britain, or even Europe, are also numbered. We'll just roll over and allow anyone who waves a gun at us to rule. That'll make our lives much better than living in the democratic state that our forefathers fought and died to maintain. Your ancestors should be turning in their graves.

[zsv650]

husky wake up smell the roses come back when youve grown up.

[TEC]

....This is a similar situation to 1983, trouble in the Argentine homeland .....
Know that was a typo ;) but you are probably not far wrong about the reason it may all kick off again though back then it wasn't exactly oil near the islands ....

... US built A4 jets ...
Don't forget the UK built ships they had, even if they did stay in port while we were down there :rolleyes:

... nuclear subs should have had free reign to knock holes in anything Argentinian at sea.
One day the full story will be told, but you have to guess before then why the Argentinian navy didn't put to sea on 25th May 1982 ;)

One other bit of info that was sort of glossed over back then was the The Antarctic Treaty (1959) (http://www.antarctica.ac.uk//about_antarctica/geopolitical/treaty/update_1959.php). One bit of the treaty is supposed to prevent soverenty claims, of course the Junta never signed it so assumed they could ignore it in the hope of claiming the territory of Graham Land when the treaty came up for renewal, a known location for minerals and oil exploration. One reason the scrappies were sent to the South Shetland Isles rather than invade FI first

[husky03]

you take a walk in the streets of the uk today and ask people what the priority is -another unjust war thousands of miles away or feeding and clothing their family-i think i know the answer to that.
As for my ancestors-aye right couldn't give a flying feck.

ZSV650 -care to explain your comment?

[ophic]

you take a walk in the streets of the uk today and ask people what the priority is -another unjust war thousands of miles away or feeding and clothing their family-i think i know the answer to that.
The only reason you're allowed to walk the streets is because of what has been fought for and won. And loading the question with "unjust" simply isn't accurate. Unjust to you?
As for my ancestors-aye right couldn't give a flying feck.
Well that just says it all.

[husky03]

too bloody right unjust to me-the same as the wars in the middle east-comes down to oil.

says what?

[ethariel]

If i remember correctly, some 250 british servicemen lost thier lives in the taking of those forsaken chunks of rock.

One of the main reasons (obviously not all the reasons) behind it is that they WANT to remain British.

Before the first invasion, they may have had a chance at a politicaly negotiated 'power share' or 'joint venture', but after invading they must surely know that it will never be!

Any government actually being stupid enough to give away the falklands would spend the next 5 years with no councilors let alone MP's.

I'm British by birth and anyone who is british has a right to remain british if they want to.

[BanditPat]

too bloody right unjust to me-the same as the wars in the middle east-comes down to oil.

says what?

No the falklands is about protecting British citizens and out overseas territory

[zsv650]

you take a walk in the streets of the uk today and ask people what the priority is -another unjust war thousands of miles away or feeding and clothing their family-i think i know the answer to that.
As for my ancestors-aye right couldn't give a flying feck.

ZSV650 -care to explain your comment?
life is not all sugar plums and pear drop's sometimes there are bad people who you can't reason with trying too hurt innocent people would you suggest just leaving these people our people too fend for themselves.

[ophic]

too bloody right unjust to me-the same as the wars in the middle east-comes down to oil.

says what?
Unless you've got some evidence to the contrary, it seems quite unlikely that the Falklands dispute is over oil. If you have evidence, perhaps you could share it, rather than saying the same thing over and over and hoping that it convinces us all by osmosis or hypnotism.

What I don't understand is, what is unjust about Britain defending its sovereign territory? Exactly what definition of "unjust" are you applying here?

Considering you have no respect for your own ancestors, it's no surprise you have no respect for anything else. I'm surprised you're even bothering to argue the point here - shouldn't you just roll over and give up, like you're advocating?

[Nobbylad]

I really don't think either side has the appetite for conflict and the bluster from the South Americas at the moment is a convenient stage show to rally support for the government.

That said, I do have Desire, Rockhopper, Ascent and Petrochemical in my portfolio...so fingers crossed we get the black stuff pumping!

[yorkie_chris]

too bloody right unjust to me-the same as the wars in the middle east-comes down to oil.

says what?

That oil maintains your way of life like it or not.


Not to mention this is a war of aggression against us, we are not going and invading somewhere for a laugh or because G W B told us to.
You put your location as Scotland, would you defend Wales if the French invaded?
By that logic who should give a damn about anything.

I agree violence is not to be used lightly, but when uncivilised people threaten violence against you there is no other option.

[davepreston]

whats that quote spidy loves
first they came for the comunists
then they ame for the trade unionists .....................
british people are under threat of invasion, i dont care if its 10 mile away or 10,000. we go and make sure there safe, and unhampered
would i go, mmmm yes i have the last few do's we have had
husky tbh mate i think your point is your just sick of wars, which to be fair is a noble point, and imho this is just a pr stunt by the argies, but the defence of any british citizen is the piority/and reason for the forces
its why they exist, to defend the nation and its interests,
just my 2p there peeps

[Triv650]

To me, it's up to the people of the falkland islands. Both the UK and Argentina are democracies, the people have the power. Now to me, it makes perfect sense that the only people eligable for deciding who the Falkland islands belongs to is the inhabitants. I know it sounds a bit idealistic but if they wan't to remain British, than the Argentinian Govt best listen to them. Vice versa, if they want to join the Argies then so be it. I feel the same way about Gibraltar btw.

[haggis]

I can 100% confirm that Falkland Islanders are hugely patriotic to Britain and the Queen. To a far greater extent than the majority of civvies in the UK are, and certainly more than Husky it would seem. In fact your view is blinkered and flawed at best, and the whole situation i believe is beyond your comprehension. Just my opinion, based on what you've said so far.....

The 1982 conflict was absolutely not about oil reserves. It was about defending an (albeit weak) aggressor invading on our territory. Oil exploration there, especially since it's at deep sea, in the early 80's was simply far too expensive to justify. Remember, at the time we had only just begun tapping the North Sea fields, and oil prices were far more palatable worldwide anyway. Oh, and they hadn't actually discovered it's existence there in 82, a minor point, i know! :P

I have, I guess around 50 family members on various parts of the Falklands. My mum was born and brought up there, but came to Britain in the early 60's. However, amongst those held hostage in the hall at Goose Green were my gran (in her 80's at the time), and some of her immediate family. As such I am extremely grateful to our lads for ensuring their safety and the sacrifice made by many at the time. And I would hope the majority of us in the UK would be in support of defending them again. Hopefully it won't come to that.

Their geographical location is bound to lead to apathy amongst some, but it is British soil and invasion upon it should be fought every time. How would the doubters feel if we hadn't done a damn thing after the 7/7 bombings in London? And even worse, if our military intelligence had known beforehand of the perputrators intent? Would you be happy if the Government had simply shrugged it's shoulders?

Just because you think it isn't affecting you directly Husky, doesn't mean it isn't and doesn't mean you wont offend those in 'earshot' of your POV, so to speak. You'd be surprised who around you it will make a difference to. Think lad.

[ravingdavis]

You come across as having a strong viewpoint that the islands worth more of our young men and women giving their lives for -take it you'd be willing to join up and make the ultimate sacrifice or let your son/daughter do the same.
The days of the British empire are long gone-time people remembered that.

Simply because the Falklands is not directly connected to the mainland you are devaluing the existence of the islanders, they pay their dues and as such should be offered the same level of protection that we take for granted here in the UK. Can I just emphasise this 'take for granted', people do not seem to realise the quality of protection that we are given in this country and what our armed forces have achieved and continue to achieve.

Also I really do not understand how our continued maintenance of sovereignty over the islands can be linked to oil at all? Any idea of exploration for oil in 1982 was considered expensive and frivolous, if anything it is argentine greed for oil and resources that is pushing the current relations crisis, they, in 2007 pulled out of the agreement relating to oil exploration did they not?

As for your comment regarding the willingness to send family to fight your damn right I would, I may not have sons or daughters to sent but I have a serving father and I would be more than happy to see him on his way to serve British citizens wherever they may be. I've seen him clear off to so many hellholes across the globe to get involved in conflicts in lands that are not our own it would actually be good to see him working directly for our own people.

You take the Queen's shilling, you better expect to be made to earn it.

[Triv650]

I agree, there is a difference between the once glorius British Empire and a small island who's inhabitants wish to belong to the UK. I think it's the distance that makes the connection stronger. I for one would not like to see the Falkland Islans fall into the hands of the Argentinians. If we run by the idea that because it was owned by person X ages ago, person Y should lose possession. So what, give the US and Canada back to the nativ americans, most of Europe back to the italians and most of Asia to the Mongols.

[Drew Carey]

I have enjoyed this "discussion", as it has made me feel quite proud to be British in that the majority of people on here want the Falklands to remain "British" for the right reasons...ie.....for the people.

[yorkie_chris]

How would the doubters feel if we hadn't done a damn thing after the 7/7 bombings in London?

Actually fine, the 7/7 bombings are a police matter, as they were committed by petty criminals. Do not give such savages the recognition of calling it an "act of war". As that's what lets Uncle Gordie destroy whatever freedom's left.

If we run by the idea that because it was owned by person X ages ago, person Y should lose possession. So what, give the US and Canada back to the nativ americans, most of Europe back to the italians and most of Asia to the Mongols.

Not even related, there were never any natives that we kicked off.

[ophic]

I have enjoyed this "discussion", as it has made me feel quite proud to be British in that the majority of people on here want the Falklands to remain "British" for the right reasons...ie.....for the people.
To me, it makes no difference. Whether it's for the people, the land, the oil, "strategic sheep-farming", or any combination, it's British. It belongs to Britain. No-one else has any right to take it.

[tinpants]

To me, it makes no difference. Whether it's for the people, the land, the oil, "strategic sheep-farming", or any combination, it's British. It belongs to Britain. No-one else has any right to take it.


And there it is. A good point, well made. Tidy.

[davepreston]

You make me sick.

As for your comment regarding the willingness to send family to fight your damn right I would, I may not have sons or daughters to sent but I have a serving father and I would be more than happy to see him on his way to serve British citizens wherever they may be. I've seen him clear off to so many hellholes across the globe to get involved in conflicts in lands that are not our own it would actually be good to see him working directly for our own people.

You take the Queen's shilling, you better expect to be made to earn it.
davis mate 1st as uou know from my post i agree with your stance on the subject
but that first bit was a bit ott dont ya think, husky is a good lad with his own opinion on this subject, you dont know his history of personal reasons for his position ,so just lay off the direct attacks, it may get your goat what he said but just keep things in perspective

my second is quite right to be proud of your family and what they have done, and im sure if you asked him he was happy to earn his shilling and do what he has done, i also think he'd agree with feeling happier to defend our own than any other op but thats just my humble opinion
dave

[ThEGr33k]

One of the many reasons I left the forces was that I joined to serve my country, not some backwards hell hole.

[ravingdavis]

but that first bit was a bit ott dont ya think, husky is a good lad with his own opinion on this subject, you dont know his history of personal reasons for his position ,so just lay off the direct attacks, it may get your goat what he said but just keep things in perspective

Aye fair enough, removed with apologies.

[BanditPat]

Aye fair enough, removed with apologies.

It did make me sick to read what he was posting though. He's entitled to his opinion you should be allowed to state yours ;)

[Stingo]

One of the many reasons I left the forces was that I joined to serve my country, not some backwards hell hole.


http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f318/tirelessboy/ThisIsAnOutrage.jpg

:lol:

[neio79]

One of the many reasons I left the forces was that I joined to serve my country, not some backwards hell hole.
err you were in the RAF, not exactly hard work checking into the Baghdad Hilton is it now!!! :wink: :lol:

[yorkie_chris]

err you were in the RAF, not exactly hard work checking into the Baghdad Hilton is it now!!! :wink: :lol:

Old chap, they almost ran out of gin once, how is a man supposed to cope under those conditions? :lol:

[TEC]

Old chap, they almost ran out of gin once, how is a man supposed to cope under those conditions? :lol:
Go and visit the on station floating gin palace at Mare harbour ;)