Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Would you go to war?
31 Answers
If Argentina tried to seize the Falkland Islands again would Britain go to war to keep them , or would they be just written off?....no Maggie Thatcher this time!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by claymore. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Hopefully not.
Strategically they're pointless
Financially they're simply a drain.
We could have resettled all the Islanders in luxury homes for the cost.
A war simply fought over national pride.
Unfortunately I suspect the same thing would happen again.
the only thing people learn from history is that people don't learn from history
Strategically they're pointless
Financially they're simply a drain.
We could have resettled all the Islanders in luxury homes for the cost.
A war simply fought over national pride.
Unfortunately I suspect the same thing would happen again.
the only thing people learn from history is that people don't learn from history
To my surprise I find myself, for once, disagreeing with jake.
If you believe in democracy, as I do, then you surely have a duty to ensure that all your fellow citizens have that same right to self-determination.
If the Isle of wight were suddenly taken over, against the wishes of its citizens, by a murderous and corrupt dictator would we just sit back and shrug our shoulders? I doubt it, so why would we do that in the case of 1800 fellow Britons just because they are 8000 miles away?
And don't forget that, as a bonus, not part of our aim, Galtieri was deposed raather than being given even more despotic powers, turning Argentina into a democracy.
If you believe in democracy, as I do, then you surely have a duty to ensure that all your fellow citizens have that same right to self-determination.
If the Isle of wight were suddenly taken over, against the wishes of its citizens, by a murderous and corrupt dictator would we just sit back and shrug our shoulders? I doubt it, so why would we do that in the case of 1800 fellow Britons just because they are 8000 miles away?
And don't forget that, as a bonus, not part of our aim, Galtieri was deposed raather than being given even more despotic powers, turning Argentina into a democracy.
If things where dicided under accounting principles jake, we'd all be living within the M25 and the rest of the place derilict.
You can always make a financial argument against something, thankfully we do occasionally have people in power that can look further than the figures.
Claymore, if you want peace you must prepare for war, it's a paradox, even a numpty like you should be able to grasp that. It would great if human nature where different but it aint, if you are a very nice inteeligent peacefull village with no defence, pretty soon you will be conquered, fact of life. Pacifism causes wars, very simple.
You can always make a financial argument against something, thankfully we do occasionally have people in power that can look further than the figures.
Claymore, if you want peace you must prepare for war, it's a paradox, even a numpty like you should be able to grasp that. It would great if human nature where different but it aint, if you are a very nice inteeligent peacefull village with no defence, pretty soon you will be conquered, fact of life. Pacifism causes wars, very simple.
The Isle of Wight is part of Britain and has been so for thousands of years - indeed forever
The Falklands were not
The people were not British - their Britishness was specifically taken away from them by Magaret Thatchers Government in the Nationality Act which started the whole affair.
To compare the Isle of Wight to the Falklands is ridiculous you can't for a moment believe there's any remote similarity.
And the argument about Galtierei has a familiarity.
"No weapons of mass distruction? Well look we freed their country from a despot!"
China has seized Tibet and has an apalling human rights record- shall we invade Beijing? or go to their Olympics?
And Geezer - yes you need to prepare for wars - but you don't need Aircraft carriers to carry your forces to the other side of the planet to protect the UK.
There is a difference between defending Britain and defending "British interests abroard" which is too often glossed over!
The Falklands were not
The people were not British - their Britishness was specifically taken away from them by Magaret Thatchers Government in the Nationality Act which started the whole affair.
To compare the Isle of Wight to the Falklands is ridiculous you can't for a moment believe there's any remote similarity.
And the argument about Galtierei has a familiarity.
"No weapons of mass distruction? Well look we freed their country from a despot!"
China has seized Tibet and has an apalling human rights record- shall we invade Beijing? or go to their Olympics?
And Geezer - yes you need to prepare for wars - but you don't need Aircraft carriers to carry your forces to the other side of the planet to protect the UK.
There is a difference between defending Britain and defending "British interests abroard" which is too often glossed over!
jake the Falkland Islands are British and have been so for nearly 200 years. They were discovered by Britain centuries before Argentina ever existed and no South American country has any claim on them - not historical, moral or legal.
To compare the Falklands expedition to the dishonest and shocking Iraq invasion is ludicrous. I was careful to emphasise that we did not go to the Falklands to overturn Galtieri. Neither did we go to pursue fictitious WMDs. We went to rescue our own countrymen, after which we came home, job done.
Do you believe in self-determination or not? The Islanders have made it clear, time and time again, that they wish to remain British. So? Would you have handed over our countrymen to a murderous dictatorship despite their wishes? Sounds like it.
To compare the Falklands expedition to the dishonest and shocking Iraq invasion is ludicrous. I was careful to emphasise that we did not go to the Falklands to overturn Galtieri. Neither did we go to pursue fictitious WMDs. We went to rescue our own countrymen, after which we came home, job done.
Do you believe in self-determination or not? The Islanders have made it clear, time and time again, that they wish to remain British. So? Would you have handed over our countrymen to a murderous dictatorship despite their wishes? Sounds like it.
Fact of life.
Only the strong survive, so if we want our way of life to continue, it has to be from a position of strength, likewise, if the Falklands were handed over, as a result of talks, that, even if disagreeable, would be accepted, but if they were invaded again, this country would have to go to war again, at least, it should, but with this present goverment, I doubt it.
Only the strong survive, so if we want our way of life to continue, it has to be from a position of strength, likewise, if the Falklands were handed over, as a result of talks, that, even if disagreeable, would be accepted, but if they were invaded again, this country would have to go to war again, at least, it should, but with this present goverment, I doubt it.
The Falklands invasion was precipitated by two Thatcher's actions: The first was (as has been noted) the Nationality Act, and the second was the recall of British Navy warships from the area (even though there was already a lot of sabre rattling from the Argentinian government). The Argentinians took these combined actions as an indication that Britain would not defend the islands. Thatcher then got the credit for the recapture, and escaped censure for helping to cause the war in the first place.
As Thatcher is no longer in power (in fact, no longer in marbles), I doubt very much whether the situation would arise again.
As Thatcher is no longer in power (in fact, no longer in marbles), I doubt very much whether the situation would arise again.
lonnie, handed over to whom? After talks with whom? Chile? Brazil? Denmark? Morocco? Outer Mongolia?
It seems extraordinary to me that just because Argentina twice took the islands illegally by force, she should be thought to have some claim on them. She doesn't.
And the islanders would not agree to such a handover anyway - particularly to Argentina which treated them appallingly during the short time it was in charge.
rojash, a dislike of Thatcher always muddies the waters in these discussions.
The government of the day may well have made a misjudgment in reducing our strength in the South Atlantic but how does that excuse Galtieri's criminal act?
If a burglar takes advantage of a window I have left open when leaving my house does that mean that I have 'helped cause the burglary'? Helped to make it easier perhaps, but the crime is solely that of the burglar.
It seems extraordinary to me that just because Argentina twice took the islands illegally by force, she should be thought to have some claim on them. She doesn't.
And the islanders would not agree to such a handover anyway - particularly to Argentina which treated them appallingly during the short time it was in charge.
rojash, a dislike of Thatcher always muddies the waters in these discussions.
The government of the day may well have made a misjudgment in reducing our strength in the South Atlantic but how does that excuse Galtieri's criminal act?
If a burglar takes advantage of a window I have left open when leaving my house does that mean that I have 'helped cause the burglary'? Helped to make it easier perhaps, but the crime is solely that of the burglar.
-- answer removed --
Sorry, claymore, after all that I realise that I haven�t answered your original question, so here goes:
In the unlikely event of Argentina�s trying it on again we would certainly not respond as we did last time. For two reasons:
The EU would not approve. It didn�t last time, but we were not in thrall to the EU so much in those days; we were much more independent. Since then the EU has much more control over British affairs and this government would obey its wishes.
We don�t have the capability any more. The Royal Navy was pretty stretched at the time but it is now a just a pathetic shadow even of what it was then. We simply do not have the necessary aircraft-carriers, landing ships or helicopters to mount such an operation.
The sobering thought is that Argentina is just as capable of seeing this as we are.
Which would leave our government in a terrible dilemma. Allowing an alien power to take over a British population against their wishes would be a serious betrayal of democratic principles. And the Islanders wouldn�t knuckle under. There�d be guerrilla warfare by members of the FFF (Falkland Freedom Fighters � I just made that up!) which Britain and other democratic countries would be obliged to support!
What a mess it would be�
In the unlikely event of Argentina�s trying it on again we would certainly not respond as we did last time. For two reasons:
The EU would not approve. It didn�t last time, but we were not in thrall to the EU so much in those days; we were much more independent. Since then the EU has much more control over British affairs and this government would obey its wishes.
We don�t have the capability any more. The Royal Navy was pretty stretched at the time but it is now a just a pathetic shadow even of what it was then. We simply do not have the necessary aircraft-carriers, landing ships or helicopters to mount such an operation.
The sobering thought is that Argentina is just as capable of seeing this as we are.
Which would leave our government in a terrible dilemma. Allowing an alien power to take over a British population against their wishes would be a serious betrayal of democratic principles. And the Islanders wouldn�t knuckle under. There�d be guerrilla warfare by members of the FFF (Falkland Freedom Fighters � I just made that up!) which Britain and other democratic countries would be obliged to support!
What a mess it would be�
chakka35, on re-reading my post, I'm still unable to find anywhere where I say, or even imply, that the act was excusable. The thrust of my comment was that, given that at the time the Argentinians were led to believe that the British might not retaliate with force, and now that they know they would, the scenario proposed in the question is unlikely in the extreme.
The fact remains, chakka35, that you specifically said "how does that excuse Galtieri's criminal act? " when I hadn't claimed that it did.
You then go on to say "If a burglar takes advantage of a window I have left open when leaving my house does that mean that I have 'helped cause the burglary'?". Yes, it does. If you live in an area where you you know there is a risk of burglary, and you don't take precautions, and policeman will advise you that you are inviting a burglary.
You then go on to say "If a burglar takes advantage of a window I have left open when leaving my house does that mean that I have 'helped cause the burglary'?". Yes, it does. If you live in an area where you you know there is a risk of burglary, and you don't take precautions, and policeman will advise you that you are inviting a burglary.
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Internet4 mins ago
ChatterBank16 mins ago
Dores Anyone Know What This Means...
Technology18 mins ago
