Thread: Badgerman, Falklands war reply
06-27-2005, 08:06 PM #1
Badgerman, Falklands war reply
yeah, so i was looking for like 6 minutes to find that "jeez.. britian really sucks, they invaded the falklands".... and then BOUNCER was all-like "**pish** GQ aint got sh!t on badger".
So anyways here's the reply -
Here's a reader friendly backround on the falklands
The English captain John Strong heading a British expedition made the first recorded landing in the Falklands, in 1690. The British claim the islands for the crown
March 26, 1982
The Argentine military junta decides to invade the islands.
Background: Argentina is in deep economic trouble; Throughout 1981, inflation sky-rockets to over 600%, GDP is down 11.4%, manufacturing output is down 22.9%, and real wages by 19.2% [Rock: p 375-378]. In addition, Mass disappearances of people in the hands of the military juntas causes significant unrest.
The third dictatorship president since the 1976 coup, General Leopoldo Galtieri launches a military invasion of the islands
April 3, 1982
The United Nations Security Council passes Resolution 502 calling for the withdrawal of Argentine troops from the islands and the immediate cessation of hostilities. First Royal air force transport aircraft deploy to Ascension Island.
June 20, 1982
Essentially the Argentine military and British military were at parity, except the one solid, undisputed fact that the British had expert trained men fighting (Royal Marine Commandos & "Paras" Britsh Paratroopers). Argentine forces sank several british naval ships (via air attacks), shot down planes etc. The battles as far as war history students are concerned are intresting - however politically, Britain formally declares an end to hostilities, and the two-hundred mile exclusion zone established around the islands during the war is replaced by a Falkland Islands Protection Zone (FIPZ) of 150 miles
Now onto, why it was right for the British to recover the Falklands.
a) The invasion was condemned by the UN
b) The invasion was done for wrong reasons (i.e. economic strength & expansion)
c) Argentine was controlled by a Militant Dicatator who wouldve oppressed their rights
d) British Forces were comming to the defence of the people of the Falklands
e) The people of the falklands didnt want Argentine to occupy their land
06-27-2005, 09:11 PM #2
You conveniently left out the invasion of the British in 1833......and the ownership by Spain.......given its proximity and previous claim by Argentina.......makes sense to be in Argentina or independent.
Now the REAL reason the British want it.......greedy pecker heads
06-28-2005, 02:51 AM #3
... You didnt bother reading that site did you? All of those natural resources were found AFTER the war (infact, 5 years after). The resources now are promoting the economy of the falklands. It states that several times on the site...
Since the 1982 war over the disputed Falkland/Malvinas Islands (heretofore referred to as the Falkland Islands), the United Kingdom and Argentina have once again established diplomatic ties. This accomplishment has proved to be a catalyst for negotiations on the future of the islands. The disputed islands consist of 2,317 (July 1995 est.) islanders of British descent on a land mass of 12,170 sq. km. Currently, the Falkland Islands are a dependent territory of the United Kingdom, in opposition to the Argentinean claims of ownership.
The Falkland Islands would seem to be irrelevant in the scope of such large, economically powerful countries. The islands have no arable land and no permanent crops. The terrain and climate are extremely treacherous. The terrain is rocky, mountainous and does not allow much shelter from the harsh weather conditions. The climate is considered cold marine, with some form of precipitation usually falling half of the year. Snow has been know to fall year round. High winds, lack of vegetation, and weather allow for little indigenous life or anything else, to flourish (1).
These seemingly insignificant islands in actuality are quite a prize. The fishing and oil industries of the islands have enabled the islands to become self sustaining (with the exception of military assistance from the United Kingdom). The traditional economy of the islands has been wool with all economic activity either directly or indirectly related to the sheep industry. In 1987, that began to change. The government began selling fishing licenses to foreign trawlers operating within the Falklands exclusive fishing zone (200 nautical miles surrounding the islands). These license fees total more than $40 million per year and support the island's health, education, and welfare system (2). Although the fishing industry is now the principle source of revenue in the Falkland islands, this may eventually change in favor of oil. ( see SQUID case)
06-28-2005, 03:05 AM #4Retired Vet
Originally Posted by GQ-Bouncer
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
As a matter of fact I believe Britain was right to fight for the Falklands/Malvinas Islands, namely because it was a British dependent some 40 plus years before Argentina was founded.
I believe Margaret Thatcher (The 'Butcher Thatcher) commited a crime by attacking and sinking the General Belgrano while it was sailing for home outside the British 200 mile exclusion zone.
06-28-2005, 02:55 PM #5Originally Posted by BOUNCER
Weren't the Belgrano's weapon systems capable of hitting air & sea targets within the 320 km exclusion zone? I thought that was the reasoning behind sinking it. I believe it was also the pride of the Argentine Navy. In all honesty, seeing the losses in battle stats that the British took, I dont think they could have afforded not to take it out, in the tactical sense.
The only reason I would have to agree with you BOUNCER, is that their was no formal declaration of War between the British & Argentina while it happened. Essentially Prime Minster Thatchter broke ROEs for a target of oppurtunity, in the tactical military sense however, I believe it was worth it.(much like the "decapitation" strike was worth it before a formal declaration of war was signed)
Honestly however, I do believe that Margerat Thatcher's decision to take out the Balgrano was a direct result of heavy advice from her Military Advisors. I don't believe it was done as a stunt to raise her popularity with the British people
Last edited by GQ-Bouncer; 06-28-2005 at 02:59 PM.
06-28-2005, 03:16 PM #6
I think the British and American military just like to shoot stuff to try out the new high tech toys......what better way to test??.......they could care less about right or wrong. Same with the mideast conflicts......great theatre to try out the latest gadgets on a sub-human species......the dark-skinned Arabs
06-28-2005, 06:21 PM #7Originally Posted by Badgerman
06-29-2005, 12:37 AM #8Retired Vet
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
GQ the Belgrano had her back to the exclusion zone and sailing for home. At that stage the argentine navy had more or less withdrew from the war. If people remember the war, the Argentine army, navy and air force operated along different chains of command. Had they operated under a united command structure I believe the outcome of the war would have been entirely different.
Btw, Thatcher needed this war. Her standings in the rating's had been flagging for along time due to the miner's strike and the IRA hungry strike in the H-Blocks in Northern Ireland.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)