Brumerican Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Threw away a tin of corned beef in disgust . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 4, 2012 Moderator Share Posted May 4, 2012 They do care. They care because 30 years ago Argentinian forces invaded, mostly. They care because they have links back to Britain. I haven't said or implied they don't care. The point I've been trying to get across is that the two sets of Gov't have used the Falklands for their own political purposes, that neither Gov't has an indisputable and clearly "winning" claim to the Islands. If there was no oil and no fishing rights money, then the UK wouldn't have given much of a stuff about the Islands. Thatcher certainly didn't (till Argentina invaded). Our Gov't only gives a stuff now because there's oil there, maybe. It costs a fortune to keep the AIrforce and Army there - our Gov't would love not to feel they need to do that, I'm sure. The whole situation is lamentable, frankly. Are you seriously using the Falklands Islands to have a go at Thatcher :shock: I mean I know this Villatalk and all that and thus she is to be blamed for everything but even this one is stretching things a bit In 82 there was to all extents no oil , it wasnt economicaly viable to suggest that Thatcher is on parr with Bush/ Blair and their oil war is stretching things beyond any credible belief ....a task force was sent because a foreign force invaded British terrorties ... Seems a good enough reason to me One reason, given quite often in defending the Falklands at the time. as well as the usual (and correct) self determination arguments was that there was the potential for oil there and that was the one of the main reasons for the invasion despite what was said in public. Whether it was or it wasn't, both sides knew all the way back then that there was oil there and the idea that no-one knew back then (which I've heard in many quarters recently) simply isn't true, they bloody well did know and it also did't take a genius to work out that in the not too distant future it would have to be viable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Are you seriously using the Falklands Islands to have a go at Thatcher I mean I know this Villatalk and all that and thus she is to be blamed for everything but even this one is stretching things a bit In 82 there was to all extents no oil , it wasnt economicaly viable to suggest that Thatcher is on parr with Bush/ Blair and their oil war is stretching things beyond any credible belief ....a task force was sent because a foreign force invaded British terrorties ... Seems a good enough reason to me Prior to the invasion Maggie was hugely unpopular, after it she was politically bomb proof. Some on the left (and this isn't aimed at Blandy or any other poster in particular) have always resented the UK's victory over Argie totalitarianism, precisely because it gave Thatcher the chance to continue (and eventually win) her campaign against the British militant left. The same sullen and bitter underlying attitude can be found in BBC and Guardian editorials to this day, and imo for the same reason. "The Belgrano was a war crime", "Maggie provoked it (!)" etc. is all nonsense imo, but nevertheless that view often seems to be received wisdom on the left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Are you seriously using the Falklands Islands to have a go at Thatcher I mean I know this Villatalk and all that and thus she is to be blamed for everything but even this one is stretching things a bit In 82 there was to all extents no oil , it wasnt economicaly viable to suggest that Thatcher is on parr with Bush/ Blair and their oil war is stretching things beyond any credible belief ....a task force was sent because a foreign force invaded British terrorties ... Seems a good enough reason to me Prior to the invasion Maggie was hugely unpopular, after it she was politically bomb proof. Some on the left (and this isn't aimed at Blandy or any other poster in particular) have always resented the UK's victory over Argie totalitarianism, precisely because it gave Thatcher the chance to continue (and eventually win) her campaign against the British militant left. The same sullen and bitter underlying attitude can be found in BBC and Guardian editorials to this day, and imo for the same reason. "The Belgrano was a war crime", "Maggie provoked it (!)" etc. is all nonsense imo, but nevertheless that view often seems to be received wisdom on the left. I've never met anyone that resented winning. I've met plenty that resented that woman's attitude and self promotion and glorification and her involvement in a destructive conflict that killed and maimed people. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 One reason, given quite often in defending the Falklands at the time. as well as the usual (and correct) self determination arguments was that there was the potential for oil there and that was the one of the main reasons for the invasion despite what was said in public. I'm sure i looked into this in a lot more detail when discussing this previously on VT (maybe the 25th Anniversary ?) .. Oil was mooted as far back as the late 60's but a lack of technology coupled with the price of oil meant it just wasn't viable .. maybe it was at the back of the mind for both sides but I just don't think it was the cause of the conflict , unless those people back in 82 could predict that oil was going to start hitting $100 + a barrel I suspect it's strategic location played more of a part in any response Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 I've never met anyone that resented winning. I've met plenty that resented that woman's attitude and self promotion and glorification and her involvement in a destructive conflict that killed and maimed people. Well conflict generally is destructive and involves death etc. Unless one believes the country should have rolled over, leaving the already incarcerated Islanders to the mercy of a murderous military junta then she clearly did the right thing. Can hardly blame a PM who had the balls to undertake the task (when many said it couldn't be done) from making political capital from the victory. She'd have been finished if we had lost, which is why the win left a bitter legacy around the issue for her natural political opponents. That's what I meant by 'resenting the UK's victory'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Some on the left... I guess you won't get a column in The Express until Leo McKinstry dies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Some on the left... I guess you won't get a column in The Express until Leo McKinstry dies. Leo who? Anyway, it's the Mail or nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theunderstudy Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 I've never met anyone that resented winning. I've met plenty that resented that woman's attitude and self promotion and glorification and her involvement in a destructive conflict that killed and maimed people. Well conflict generally is destructive and involves death etc. Unless one believes the country should have rolled over, leaving the already incarcerated Islanders to the mercy of a murderous military junta then she clearly did the right thing. Can hardly blame a PM who had the balls to undertake the task (when many said it couldn't be done) from making political capital from the victory. She'd have been finished if we had lost, which is why the win left a bitter legacy around the issue for her natural political opponents. That's what I meant by 'resenting the UK's victory'. A bit like us winning a game under McLeish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.J.Rimmer Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 This may be of no value, but always struck me as strange: Around the time of the Falklands War, I did a great deal of travelling. During the entire period I continually asked people, and these people were generally well informed business types, what proportion of the Islanders were British and what proportion were Argentinian or Spanish. Not a single person I asked, including many whose intellect I admired and opinions I valued, gave the correct answer. Most people thought the islanders were of Spanish origin, and the closest I got to a correct reply was "about 50/50". Like many Brits I never believed we would talk the Argentinians off the islands and proclaimed from Day 1 that we would go to war with Argentina... and much ridiculed I was. I'm both pompous and arrogant enough to believe I know for what we are prepared to fight. I can't help feeling that we somehow allowed ourselves to get bogged down in a lot of irrelevant side issues... such as oil, sovereignty, colonialism, continental shelves, not to mention the island's history... but we failed to force home the single point that trumped all, namely self determination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted March 12, 2013 Author Share Posted March 12, 2013 The Falkland Islands referrendum results are in. The results are predictable, but noteworthy nonetheless. http://youtu.be/Fxv0a9sCUuo Turnout - 92% Of those who turned out: Stay British - 99.8% Not stay British - 0.2% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Just read the first page.. CI is kim Jong-Un in disguise: I think we should get a pre-emptive strike into Buenos Aires, just in case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 I hope the .2% are given a one way ticket to Argentina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Can we have 'Malvinas' taken out of the title? there is no such country. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 (edited) I'm disappointed Malvinas was put in the title. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/03/12/293152/argentina-rejects-malvinas-vote-result/ They wont give up will they Edited March 12, 2013 by AVFCforever1991 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Argentina responds by saying "it means nothing in law" Hmmmm interesting what the UN and South American response to such a clear piece of self-determination is.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Wonder what the Argentine response would be if even a small minority (say 20%) voted no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islingtonclaret Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 They're chucking "London-backed" vote in there as if it's all a complete sham. Maybe they should call the same vote again and see what the difference is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 tbf the election official let the cat out the bag by saying if it was 100% Yes then things would look suspicious .. so i reckon they got the 3 people to vote no just to make it look Kosher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ads Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Its a complete dead issue. We are never going to sign the Islands or the Islanders away and the Argies lack the political and military muscle to do anything about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts