1982 Falklands (Malvinas) War: a view from across the pond

[Gribbers]

Originally Posted by Jaws2002

If you look at the changes the global map had in the last 200 years, I kind of have a hard time understanding Argentinian demands.
Things change. countries and empires come and go. Borders are constantly changing.
The place I grew up in, back in Romania, belonged to Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Austro-Hungarian empire, and now is part of Romania. The map of the world changed hundreds of times in this 200 years.

200 years is a long time. There are generations of Brits that lives all their lives on that island. It's their land now. Better get used to it.

Agreed. I am British (not of Celtic origin), I'm pretty sure I/we don't claim ownership of everything the Roman's conquered hundreds of years ago.

Hmmmmm, our ancestors hail from Spain, we're Argentinian, therefore the Falklands are ours, despite the fact we all took turns to ravage the the poor 'rocks' with plague, run away for a while and come back (applies to Brits and Argies here)

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

This is were things become complicated. A home is not a car. It is one thing to steal a tool and then let the children use it, it is another one to be born and having lived a whole life in one place and then being denied that being their home.
Despite some, admittingly, very strong argumentation towards giving back the Falkslands to Argentina, robbing people of their identity and land is a matter that should not be taken lightly. Former injustice in this regard, and sorry UK, that it was, still can't be made good with more injustice. Gibraltar, btw, is a very similiar case.

there are some interesting double standards going on here: a few months ago there was a huge sensation here in the UK because of the eviction of quite a number of "Irish travellers" (something similar to the Gypsies in the continental Europe) who after 10+ years of squatting in an area called Dale Farm were kicked out by the authorities, regardless of the fact that many settled (and were born) there, in a show of force that was quite surprising, and in the meantime you'll have people defending the forced occupation of an island thousands of miles away.. and yes, Gibraltar is probably even more of a peculiar case.

However, I think the concept of the Falklands becoming their own entity makes most sense, but this would require such a much more mature Argentina so that these islands could feel safe from occupation.

I agree, but as you know there is too much interest in their resources now for it to actually happen.

[Kupsised]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

This is were things become complicated. A home is not a car. It is one thing to steal a tool and then let the children use it, it is another one to be born and having lived a whole life in one place and then being denied that being their home.
Despite some, admittingly, very strong argumentation towards giving back the Falkslands to Argentina, robbing people of their identity and land is a matter that should not be taken lightly. Former injustice in this regard, and sorry UK, that it was, still can't be made good with more injustice. Gibraltar, btw, is a very similiar case.

However, I think the concept of the Falklands becoming their own entity makes most sense, but this would require such a much more mature Argentina so that these islands could feel safe from occupation.

The problem with that, again, though is that they don't want to become their own entity. If they did, I wouldn't be in the slightest bit surprised if the first thing their newly independent government did was to hold a vote on whether they should become a protectorate of the UK again, which would without a doubt pass, and then we're back to square one.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Kupsised

The problem with that, again, though is that they don't want to become their own entity. If they did, I wouldn't be in the slightest bit surprised if the first thing their newly independent government did was to hold a vote on whether they should become a protectorate of the UK again, which would without a doubt pass, and then we're back to square one.

Depends on the reasons why they do not want to become independent. If it is because of fear of argentinan invasion and the percieved need for protection, then we have a classic circle. Some concessions have to be made, eventually. Giving them self determination by actually forcing them to take self determination may be the lesser of evils here.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

there are some interesting double standards going on here: a few months ago there was a huge sensation here in the UK because of the eviction of quite a number of "Irish travellers" (something similar to the Gypsies in the continental Europe) who after 10+ years of squatting in an area called Dale Farm were kicked out by the authorities, regardless of the fact that many settled (and were born) there, in a show of force that was quite surprising, and in the meantime you'll have people defending the forced occupation of an island thousands of miles away.. and yes, Gibraltar is probably even more of a peculiar case.

Yeah, that case was in the news here. I agree to those double standarts. However, as I said before, you can't justify injustice with injustice.

I agree, but as you know there is too much interest in their resources now for it to actually happen.

Possible

[Gribbers]

Originally Posted by Baco

Regarding what the Ilanders want. The British did not stop one secod to ponder on what the people allready living there wnated whnen they kicked them out...

The principle of self determination is exclusive for indigenous population, NOT, tranplanted colonial population. No Islander grategrandfather was born on the islands, period. Every one of them comes from a british subjec familly. So the principle of self determination of the people does not aplly to them. It was Argentinian territory with a flag and a governor.. we do not claim to inherit it from spain, we claim it was populated and ruled by Argentina when the british took it by force. Putting it plainlly: If I steal yopur car, does it make it mine if my kid rides on it for long enough time? Or is it still your car?

Same thing here. The onlly reason the islands still are a British ocupied territory is illigal use of force. The whole world sees that, hell even the US abstained, instead of voting aggainst the UN resolutions..... Even the british people say it (acording to the latest polls)....

The war was a desperate atempt used by a drunk to remian in power... and gave the perfect opportunituy to a power drunk lady to stay in power, and oh yes the good ole British Navy a chance to get a little more budget... Still it was our right to claim what is rightfully ours. This is the same case of the owner of a house being sued by the burgler for getting hit in the head with a bat, INISDE the house, of course and with the families DVD in his hands.......

Regarding the combatants, Well both sides displayed honnor and courage and served their countries like true heroes... allways the military pays for the incompetence of their governments... Both sides fighting for what they belive in. My respect for them. British and Argentinians.

Whoa, I normally try to stay neutral on all posts, but I seriously have no idea where to start in picking your post to pieces...and thankfully for most/all post readers I have no idea how to multi quote. ...

So I'll do it manually

[Irrelevance on] In my second post I mentioned my respect for the Argentinians, and also love the county having been there more than once (twice ), and looking forward to going back there again. Food, landscape and people are amazing! And yes, I am British, United Kingdom'ish, English. So praying the politicians will deal with this in an appropriate, cost efficient and peaceful manner...like they're bl00dy paid to do by all of us tax paying servants of both nations! [Irrelevance off]

- "Brits didn't ponder the people before the invasion"...
from what I understand the Brits considered it British territory...hmmmm, any self respecting country would fight for territory it considered it's own, which is why the Argentinians 'invaded' in the first place. So the Argentinians are right to occupy with force and the British we 'illegal'.

- "No Islander grategrandfather was born on the islands, period"...
apart from an increase in your country's carbon footprint just typing and posting that ridiculous sentence...what was the point..."my great grandfather was there first", "No! mine was there first". The islanders, hailing from British territories, amongst many many others, also had great grandfathers and family there. Who cares?

- "Even the british people say it (acording to the latest polls)"...
sources please...maybe more recent conflicts have resulted in similar polls...in 1982, the entire country was behind the exploratory British force...illegal invasion...please, the Argentinians weren't exactly friendly with the locals, taking away basic human rights...Obviously the rest of the world was behind Argentina weren't they...all Argentina's neighbors really did a good job standing up for them and offering help...(throw away comment I know...obviously not many nations weren't behind the Brits on this one either).

- "The war was a desperate atempt used by a drunk to remian in power"...obviously you're referring to Admiral Jorge Anaya...and not Thatcher, and I give you credit for that one. The man needed a diversion and took dramatic and desperate measures and cost his country almost 1000 young lives for nothing. Thatcher on the other hand was a strong female lead of the time (being politically unbiased here - I'm not a Conservative), on a global scale with more important politics to deal with during the 1980's than Argentina's first female premier now. Thatcher was 30 years ago and was dealing with the brink of global nuclear war and being leading a country that could be the staging grounds for world war 3 between the US and the USSR...somewhat more important than the irrelevant argument over oil and a few extra votes on today's political stage.

- "Regarding the combatants, Well both sides displayed honnor and courage and served their countries like true heroes"...we agree on something. The Argentinian forces consisted of elite forces and marines as did ours. British forces forces considered them worthy in battle...and vice versa.

I don't like reading about the politics/background, I enjoy reading the stories of individuals from both sides, from the British trooper holding a dodgy SLR to the Argentinian Mirage pilot dropping dodgy bombs. I'm sure the veterans of that conflict would rather the stories were remembered rather than forum members have a fight about politics from the 80's...none of us were there or fighting on those rocks, and should respect those that took part, and more the point, stick to the original posters update

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

This is were things become complicated. A home is not a car. It is one thing to steal a tool and then let the children use it, it is another one to be born and having lived a whole life in one place and then being denied that being their home.
Despite some, admittingly, very strong argumentation towards giving back the Falkslands to Argentina, robbing people of their identity and land is a matter that should not be taken lightly. Former injustice in this regard, and sorry UK, that it was, still can't be made good with more injustice. Gibraltar, btw, is a very similiar case.

Firstly, the Falklands weren't populated. There was a Spanish outpost there for 2 years before the island changed hands.

Secondly, Gibraltar was given to the UK hundreds of years ago.

Thirdly, since you bring up 'the Rock' and how it is Spanish then why haven't you also mentioned Ceuta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta) and Melilla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melilla) ?

Where do you stand on the Basques and Catalans then? France and Spain had better hand them over fast.

The point is, it's not all black and white.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Firstly, the Falklands weren't populated. There was a Spanish outpost there for 2 years before the island changed hands.

Secondly, Gibraltar was given to the UK hundreds of years ago.

Thirdly, since you bring up 'the Rock' and how it is Spanish then why haven't you also mentioned Ceuta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta) and Melilla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melilla) ?

Where do you stand on the Basques and Catalans then? France and Spain had better hand them over fast.

The point is, it's not all black and white.

Interesting, never heared of those cases. I guess I am sticking to the point that people living there should decide where and how to live, but I am not a friend of "no compromise, to the last bullet!" attitudes when it is about finding solutions, even if this means compromise. You can't live peaceful for any given time with a "I want 100%" attitude.

But in regards to the rest of your questions, I am not a fan of the national state to begin with, I personally would prefer a federation of regions small enough that they could actually take care of their subjects and local traditions and a governing body setting the framework within to interact with each other. Kinda like the EU without nation states but self governing cities and principalities. Today already towns and people on the german french border have more in common with people on the german polish border, just to give an example for the true reailities of how people interact with each other if you give them the freedom to do so.
In this such questions as yours would not play a role anymore anyways.

[IvanK]

Originally Posted by Baco

The other piont was that the Magic 1 missiles we had were crap. They would not track and engage over 70% of the time (the Shrafir was onlly marginally better), so it was determined that it was pointless to try to engage the enemy. Our best tactic was to drop bombs and get out...

Baco are you confusing the R530 with the R550 MAGIC I ?

The R550 MAGIC I was in fact a very good missile that actually had better "inside" the turn performance than the AIM9L. Its Auto search and lock capabilities were also pretty impressive. The seeker head was cooled and was from a detection and lock on point of view as good as the AIM9L. In the case of the FAA Mirages only the last seven IIIEA's delivered in 1980 were R550 capable.

The other Matra missile carried by the all Mirages was the R530 carried on the centreline was a real crapola missile. As I said earlier this missile had no end of fusing issues and employment was quite complex requiring a lot of radar work. Even after lock on there was up to 7 second delay (Harmonisation of the radar PRF to the missile) before it could be launched. The R530 was never designed for AA combat ok against High level bombers or non manoeuvring targets. In addition the radar version was pretty much unusable if the missile had to be fired through "the ground line" .... i.e.shoot down shot where the Firers Altitude was less than the range to target.

The Shaffir was only carried by the Daggers and was considered "useless" by the Dagger pilots in post conflict interviews. In short the Shaffir was about on par with early generation Sidewinders and absolutely no match for the AIM9L.

I followed this conflict with great professional interest as at the time I was flying Mirage III's in the RAAF. We operated with both the R550 and R530K. Later on the AIM9L on another type.

A year after the conflict Sea Harriers and Mirages met in exercises off the Australian coast. These were dedicated Air to Air engagements, both sides with GCI and similar in terms of range fuel issues. The Mirage in this environment acquitted itself exceptionally well with better than even outcome.... though notional kills of course

Given the conditions and range issues and lack of navigational capability the FAA had to work with I have nothing but admiration for the FAA pilots effort. Similarly from the RN side the tactics they applied to the task in hand were brilliant. They were fortunate to have the worlds best all round AA missile at the time in the AIM9L. The Sea Harrier and the GR3 were the only aeroplanes that could be used. In a WOT IF situation one could only wonder how dramatically worse things would have been for the FAA if the RN could have deployed F4K's an aeroplane infinitely superior to the Sea Harrier in just about every respect.

[Gribbers]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

there are some interesting double standards going on here: a few months ago there was a huge sensation here in the UK because of the eviction of quite a number of "Irish travellers" (something similar to the Gypsies in the continental Europe) who after 10+ years of squatting in an area called Dale Farm were kicked out by the authorities, regardless of the fact that many settled (and were born) there, in a show of force that was quite surprising, and in the meantime you'll have people defending the forced occupation of an island thousands of miles away.. and yes, Gibraltar is probably even more of a peculiar case.


I agree, but as you know there is too much interest in their resources now for it to actually happen.

Dale farm occupants caused havoc, behaved like children to the media and defied the authorities, not being ignorant but they were treated in the UK as they would be in many countries all over the world...we only have to thank human progression that they weren't treated the same way they would have been in 1930/1940's Europe.

Many of them weren't paying council taxes, when the villagers and townies in surrounding areas were. There is an injustice that works both ways: I pay tax, and I've never had the misfortune to call the police, fire brigade or ambulance, or use they're services, and I live in what's considered to be a violent/dodgy part of London, I don't complain, like death, council taxes are inevitable, if you think you are exempt because you keep moving on, then keep moving on...these people were using all services and causing all three to be called out to their site before the disputes, and giving minimal amounts back (some of the occupants were blatantly contributing to society).

Completely off topic I know but not happy about linking this to the 1980's conflict. Irrelevant.

The fact is, the land didn't belong to them and they weren't paying tribute to the land...that's a global and historical principle.