Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Should we be talking to Argentina about the Falklands?



SULLY COULDNT SHOOT

Loyal2Family+Albion!
Sep 28, 2004
11,344
Izmir, Southern Turkey
Nice positive slant !!!! The reality is actually "Give me your ball or I'll kick your head in" from Argentina - they tried, they failed and the Islanders want to remain British. As a sign of respect to those brave servicemen and women that died taking it back and as support of the Islanders wishes we should not be even considering talking to Argentina about The Falklands.

That WAS the reality.... 30 years later? Hardly. The chances of Argentinean buly boys tactics right now are less than 0.
 




The Spanish

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2008
6,478
P
i think argentina should be given back to its indigenous population and all of them repatriated to spain
 


Goldstone Rapper

Rediffusion PlayerofYear
Jan 19, 2009
14,865
BN3 7DE
That's their own fault for invading in the first place. It was done to draw attention away from human rights and economic issues in Argentina, which many people were dying anyway. If the Falklanders want to be Argentinian, then so be it. If not, Argentina can do one.

Yes, and that highlights the fact that having casualties has no bearing on whether country has a claim to a country. More Argentinians died and yet Britain has stronger claims, not Argentina.
 


Goldstone Rapper

Rediffusion PlayerofYear
Jan 19, 2009
14,865
BN3 7DE
i think argentina should be given back to its indigenous population and all of them repatriated to spain

I see your plan. But that's such a complicated process just so we can sign Ulloa.
 






The Spanish

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2008
6,478
P
load of bollocks from a politician show boating. she sounds like scrappy f***ing doo. the whole world saw what happened last time love, dont embarrass yourself.
 


The Fifth Column

Lazy mug
Nov 30, 2010
4,133
Hangleton
I don't buy this argentine nonsense and ridiculous claims that because it is nearer to them they have a more valid claim. There are dozens of territories all around the world governed by countries thousands of miles away. Spain, France, Portugal, Holland and many other countries laid claim to numerous uninhibited lands hundreds of years ago and the Falklands were no different. It was uninhabited when discovered and no-one bar a few whalers particularly wanted to settle there as it was so remote, the Dutch were first to discover the islands and the French the first to settle there then the Spanish got involved as well as us and we have governed there since 1833. The Argentine claims of sovereignty from some tenuous link to having inherited the islands from Spain in The early 1800s are just ridiculous, that's almost 200 years ago and if we applied the Argentine logic then countries around the world would have valid claims to territory all over the place and we would end up with ww3! The geographical position of the islands is of no consequence, the UK basically won the rights to these previously empty barren islands using means employed by all the other countries laying claim at the time and the UK has then successfully settled and governed the islands ever since, the islands have never had a settled Argentine presence or been governed by them (ignoring 1982 obviously) so any of their claims are generally just to deflect the focus away from their domestic troubles and drum up some popular support. The cod faced twat Kirchner is only getting more vocal now because she can smell oil around the Islands and wants a slice to prop up her failing economy.
 


User removed 4

New member
May 9, 2008
13,331
Haywards Heath
That's only because of the accident of where you happen to be born. I dare say if you were born in Argentina, your perspective would likely to be very different.[/B]However, the wider point is that there are legitimate reasons why the Falklands are British, many of which have been mentioned in this thread, and they stand freely and strongly even if no Brits died in the conflict.
Of course it would, the point I am making about placing a higher value on the life of a british serviceman, is that so should you.
 






Nibble

New member
Jan 3, 2007
19,238
load of bollocks from a politician show boating. she sounds like scrappy f***ing doo. the whole world saw what happened last time love, dont embarrass yourself.

I have a very strong feeling this is EXACTLY what is happening and exactly how it will play out. Truthspeak.
 


Westdene Seagull

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch
NSC Patron
Oct 27, 2003
21,530
The arse end of Hangleton
That's their own fault for invading in the first place. It was done to draw attention away from human rights and economic issues in Argentina, which many people were dying anyway. If the Falklanders want to be Argentinian, then so be it. If not, Argentina can do one.

I think you need to bear in mind that most the Argentinian casualties were conscripts rather than professional soldiers. They had no choice but to fight ( well they could have refused and been shot if that's a choice ? ). They were sent by a military Junta that gambled ( incorrectly ) that Britain wouldn't have the stomach for a fight. Instead soldiers barely out of collage and with little training were pitted against an awesome, well armed and extremely well trained force including Special Forces - not a fair fight by anyone's standards and certainly not of their own choice. Sadly we lost many service personnel thanks to the Junta's gamble but some thought should be given to those that were forced to fight.
 




beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
36,029
There's plenty of room for negotiation, e.g. Islanders remain British but oil revenue shared.

ah, so this is just about oil then, the Argentinians dont actually want the islands? but then why did they leave the agreement to share the oil revenue? its all about politcal postering from their side.
 


Ali_rrr

Well-known member
Feb 4, 2011
2,849
Utrecht, NL
I think you need to bear in mind that most the Argentinian casualties were conscripts rather than professional soldiers. They had no choice but to fight ( well they could have refused and been shot if that's a choice ? ). They were sent by a military Junta that gambled ( incorrectly ) that Britain wouldn't have the stomach for a fight. Instead soldiers barely out of collage and with little training were pitted against an awesome, well armed and extremely well trained force including Special Forces - not a fair fight by anyone's standards and certainly not of their own choice. Sadly we lost many service personnel thanks to the Junta's gamble but some thought should be given to those that were forced to fight.


Sorry that was my own fault, I didn't describe it properly. I meant the government/Junta in power at the time, not the soldiers. And because of that decision, they'll never get the Falklands back unless there is considerable force used, and still...
 


BigGully

Well-known member
Sep 8, 2006
7,139
I think you need to bear in mind that most the Argentinian casualties were conscripts rather than professional soldiers. They had no choice but to fight ( well they could have refused and been shot if that's a choice ? ). They were sent by a military Junta that gambled ( incorrectly ) that Britain wouldn't have the stomach for a fight. Instead soldiers barely out of collage and with little training were pitted against an awesome, well armed and extremely well trained force including Special Forces - not a fair fight by anyone's standards and certainly not of their own choice. Sadly we lost many service personnel thanks to the Junta's gamble but some thought should be given to those that were forced to fight.

Of course we can think of those that were forced to fight and died, but its their leaders ( past and present ) that need to acknowledge their actions and consequences, mine is to empathise with our own soldiers loss of life.
 






Pickledegg

Active member
Jul 13, 2012
214
Thanks .I don't have contact with my Dad, I do however know that it is highly likely his alcoholism was likely down to PTSD. Coincidentally enough I am currently researching and speaking to people who have treated ex-service men with PTSD and one ex service man himself for a job I am doing and after seeing what has happened to some of these men I would advocate a subtle but firm NO on the Argie situation, carefuly engineered to avoid conflict.

Unfortunately we have 2 generations of service men returning from the middle East over the next few years. A timebomb of drug addiction, homelessness, broken families and mental illness that the M.O.D will sweep firmly under the carpet.

PTSD is a big problem and WILL be a big problem for years to come but it is an issue that is slowly being dealt with throughout the Services!

It was not many years ago that we did not understand what PTSD was! Sadly we are having to learn faster and faster these days!
 


Waynflete

Well-known member
Nov 10, 2009
1,105
ah, so this is just about oil then, the Argentinians dont actually want the islands? but then why did they leave the agreement to share the oil revenue? its all about politcal postering from their side.

It's about lots of things, clearly. I was countering the assertion that there's nothing at all to negotiate about.
 


8ace

Banned
Jul 21, 2003
23,811
Brighton
There's not actually that much oil there anyway.

[yt]40knj0qg_Us[/yt]

On a related note, this documentary about the Black Buck I raid is well worth a watch if you're interested in such things. Given the time constraints it doesn't go into the detail of the book "Vulcan 607" by Rowland White on the same subject, but it gives you an appreciation of the effort (in the case of the Black Buck raids in particular it was an IMMENSE effort - the longest bombing raid in history at the time) we were prepared to go to to defend the Falklands.

I enjoyed reading this book very much.
 




drew

Drew
NSC Patron
Oct 3, 2006
23,632
Burgess Hill
Firstly, I don't believe there is any history that supports the Argentinian claim to the islands, ie there was never a patagonian settlement there. As someone else alluded to, the Argentinians are, in the main, settlers themselves and one wonders what rights the indigenous Patagonians have over the Spanish descendents? As to the current situation, I believe the islanders are having a referendum, the outcome of which is unlikely to be a surprise. As a nation, we should negotiate with Argentina but not over sovereignty. If there are trade deals to make then why not but sovereignty isn't up for grabs.
 




Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here