NationStates Jolt Archive

I know it's been about 20 years and I'm pretty sure its been discussed on NS but I've recently had a fight with a friend of mine and I just wanted to know what people think.

My friend's relatives live in Argentina and his parents come from Argentina too, so obviously you can guess what side he's on. Anyway, I'm pro-UK on this and he's not (He refers to the British as English Pirates) and I just want to know what people think or feel about it.

I think your friend needs

a - a kick in the knackers

b- study the history of Galtiari and the junta

c- realise that just because a bunch of civilians landed on the island does not mean that he had to go to such lengths

d- look at the way in which power influences people

e- realise that the Falkland isle belong to none but the sheep

f- admire the complete incompetance of the Argentine military

Ask your friend who the people on the Falklands would choose. They want to be British. That's all that matters as far as I'm concerned.

Ditto.

His argument is that pretty much right after their independence, "English pirates" stole the islands away from them. Ever since, according to him, Argentina has been wanting and trying to get it back.

Of course I never did completely see why Argentina needed it anyway and why they didn't just let the British have it but anyway...

Why anyone bothers with the Falklands is beyond me... :P

Why anyone bothers with the Falklands is beyond me... :P

That's pretty much what I think. I think just let the British keep it to aviod unecessary conflicts. How many more sheep does Argentina need anyway?

The people of the Falklands want to stay British, so British they will stay. The people want to be British, so Argentina has no right to claim authority over them. However, Argentina's claim on the islands does seem to be fairly legitimate, but still, my point is that the people want to be British, so let them. I read somewhere that only 2% of the islanders wanted to join with Argentina, which is about 40 people out of 2000.

Shadow Men, I think the accepted view is that Argentina invaded because the Junto needed something to bump up morale and divert attention away from their domestic problems, I don't think they expected the British to respond.

Why anyone bothers with the Falklands is beyond me... :P

That's pretty much what I think. I think just let the British keep it to aviod unecessary conflicts. How many more sheep does Argentina need anyway?

None. Not with the best beef in the world. Perhaps the British can't afford to loose some sheep? :lol:

Add:

Falklands: Nothing to loose sheep over... :wink:

Shadow Men, I think the accepted view is that Argentina invaded because the Junto needed something to bump up morale and divert attention away from their domestic problems, I don't think they expected the British to respond.

After the failure in the Falklands, The military junta was overthrown. Because the war failed, morale sunk even lower-

-kind of ironic being that they were trying to raise morale. :)

Why anyone bothers with the Falklands is beyond me... :P

That's pretty much what I think. I think just let the British keep it to aviod unecessary conflicts. How many more sheep does Argentina need anyway?

None. Not with the best beef in the world. Perhaps the British can't afford to loose some sheep? :lol:

It's, erm, strategic?
That's right. We need the Falklands for strategic sheep purposes...:?

Why anyone bothers with the Falklands is beyond me... :P

That's pretty much what I think. I think just let the British keep it to aviod unecessary conflicts. How many more sheep does Argentina need anyway?

None. Not with the best beef in the world. Perhaps the British can't afford to loose some sheep? :lol:

Add:

Falklands: Nothing to loose sheep over... :wink:

Lol :lol:

Of course for Maggie T it was a godsend as she was so low in the polls that she was bound to lose the forthcoming General Election.

Why anyone bothers with the Falklands is beyond me... :P

That's pretty much what I think. I think just let the British keep it to aviod unecessary conflicts. How many more sheep does Argentina need anyway?

None. Not with the best beef in the world. Perhaps the British can't afford to loose some sheep? :lol:

It's, erm, strategic?
That's right. We need the Falklands for strategic sheep purposes...:?

I think I read somewhere there were more sheep in Argentina than people. Someday, I think the sheep will overthrow their human opressers and start their first republic-
- based in the Falkland Islands (neither Argentina nor the UK would have it, creating a common enemy).

Never turn your back on sheep :lol:

Of course I'm just kidding. It could never happen, right? RIGHT :?: :?: :?:
Unless it could happen...

...That'd be scary.

Of course for Maggie T it was a godsend as she was so low in the polls that she was bound to lose the forthcoming General Election.

True.

The majority of people living there want to be British, that's the beginning and end of the argument for me.

I can understand Argentina's claim to the islands themselves, but the fact they are populated with people who overwhelming prefer to remain under British rule than Argentinian voids that claim.

It was a Godsend to 'Maggie T', the Iron lady would never be seen to back down against a foreign aggressor. Remember, there were nukes on the Ark Royal, and they were there only because she let them.

If they'd had waited for Labour to get in, then maybe they wouldn't have responded, but Thatcher was a hardliner. Not someone you'd want to meet down the proverbial dark alley.

Hang on... there were nukes in the task force?

Guano. It's a valuable resource.

No there were not any Nukes on the Ark Royal.

The majority of people living there want to be British, that's the beginning and end of the argument for me.
Tell that to Northern Ireland.

The majority of people living there want to be British, that's the beginning and end of the argument for me.
Tell that to Northern Ireland.

Fact is that the majority of people in Northern Ireland are British...

No there were not any Nukes on the Ark Royal.

I don't know if that's true or not but recently the UK admitted have nuclear material aboard one or two of the ships sunk. Kutchner, or whoever the president of Argentina is, of course showed his annoyance and demanded that they be slavaged and removed from the ater.

No there were not any Nukes on the Ark Royal.

I don't know if that's true or not but recently the UK admitted have nuclear material aboard one or two of the ships sunk. Kutchner, or whoever the president of Argentina is, of course showed his annoyance and demanded that they be slavaged and removed from the ater.

Ok thats news to me...

The Ark Royal carried Harriers which do not carry nukes....

Do you have a link to that story coz I live in the UK and I have not heard anything of this...

Fact is that the majority of people in Northern Ireland are British...

That was my point. A simple majority hasn't ended the argument.

Fact is that the majority of people in Northern Ireland are British...

That was my point. A simple majority hasn't ended the argument.

touche:)

No there were not any Nukes on the Ark Royal.

I don't know if that's true or not but recently the UK admitted have nuclear material aboard one or two of the ships sunk. Kutchner, or whoever the president of Argentina is, of course showed his annoyance and demanded that they be salvaged and removed from the water.

Ok thats news to me...

The Ark Royal carried Harriers which do not carry nukes....

Do you have a link to that story coz I live in the UK and I have not heard anything of this...

It wasn't nukes or tactical nukes. I think they were some sort of nuclear depth charges fo using against submarines. None were used during the Falkland conflict but when the ships sank they were still aboard.

My dad was a marine who fought in the Falklands war. I don't know exactly what happened to him there, he never talks about it...

As for who has the rights to the Falklands, pretty much everybody there wanted to stay British. Argentina used force to invade British territory and put our citizens under foreign rule. I have no doubt that we were right to defend our islands.

Regarding the nukes, I don't know if it was the Ark Royal that kept the nukes, but there were definitely some on the fleet.

Yeah there were nuclear depth charges I think it was. Apparently the Falklands are richer that the mainland UK now, they've diversified into telecommunications etc. I've never seen Falklands lamb in the shops.. has anyone?

My dad was a marine who fought in the Falklands war. I don't know exactly what happened to him there, he never talks about it...

As for who has the rights to the Falklands, pretty much everybody there wanted to stay British. Argentina used force to invade British territory and put our citizens under foreign rule. I have no doubt that we were right to defend our islands.

Regarding nukes, I don't know if it was the Ark Royal that kept the nukes, but there were definitely some on the fleet.

I'm not informed about the Falkland islands much but i thought that Argentina would deport the citizens on the island. Regardless, I do think the attack on the Falkland Islands by Argentina was out of line and that to put the people of that island in danger and under occupation made the British response justifiable.

As for your father, I applaud his commitment to his country and wish him well. And to be honest, I can't blame him if he doesn't want to talk about the Falkland Islands. Things happen during wars and conflicts to people that are very hurtful to remember.

Fact is that the majority of people in Northern Ireland are British...

That was my point. A simple majority hasn't ended the argument.

Northern Ireland is a special case I think- the majority of the Brits would gladly give up the place but the fact remains that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland want to stay within the UK.

Yeah there were nuclear depth charges I think it was. Apparently the Falklands are richer that the mainland UK now, they've diversified into telecommunications etc. I've never seen Falklands lamb in the shops.. has anyone?

Although my Argentine friend has no end when it comes to blasting Britain, he is pretty honest when it comes to the econmoics of Argentina. According to him, Argentina is under so much economic debt because of past presidents who stole money from the government and sold Argentine resourses and economic resourses , that foreign banks from countries in Europe and elsewhere want money that Argentina borrowed and that those banks from places such as the UK and Germany practically own Argentina because of what they've consolidated.

Yeah there were nuclear depth charges I think it was. Apparently the Falklands are richer that the mainland UK now, they've diversified into telecommunications etc. I've never seen Falklands lamb in the shops.. has anyone?

Although my Argentine friend has no end when it comes to blasting Britain, he is pretty honest when it comes to the econmoics of Argentina. According to him, Argentina is under so much economic debt because of past presidents who stole money from the government and sold Argentine resourses and economic resourses , that foreign banks from countries in Europe and elsewhere want money that Argentina borrowed and that those banks from places such as the UK and Germany practically own Argentina because of what they've consolidated.

Yeah there were nuclear depth charges I think it was. Apparently the Falklands are richer that the mainland UK now, they've diversified into telecommunications etc. I've never seen Falklands lamb in the shops.. has anyone?

Although my Argentine friend has no end when it comes to blasting Britain, he is pretty honest when it comes to the econmoics of Argentina. According to him, Argentina is under so much economic debt because of past presidents who stole money from the government and sold Argentine resourses and economic resourses , that foreign banks from countries in Europe and elsewhere want money that Argentina borrowed and that those banks from places such as the UK and Germany practically own Argentina because of what they've consolidated.

Yeah there were nuclear depth charges I think it was. Apparently the Falklands are richer that the mainland UK now, they've diversified into telecommunications etc. I've never seen Falklands lamb in the shops.. has anyone?

Although my Argentine friend has no end when it comes to blasting Britain, he is pretty honest when it comes to the econmoics of Argentina. According to him, Argentina is under so much economic debt because of past presidents who stole money from the government and sold Argentine resourses and economic resourses , that foreign banks from countries in Europe and elsewhere want money that Argentina borrowed and that those banks from places such as the UK and Germany practically own Argentina because of what they've consolidated.

The Falkland War basically proved how inadequate and ill prepared most 2nd and 3rd tier world armed forces are, regardless of their posturing. The Brits in the Falklands wanted to remain British, it was an invasion of British soil so the response from Thatcher cemented her position as the Iron Lady.

It also sent a message to alot of people around the world. Although the U.K.'s empire is coming to a close...their still around and kicking...and willing to kick others. :P

Hmmmm

As for the nukes, several nuclear depth charges were carried by the taskforce for anti-submarine operations. As this was a huge naval deployment by the second largest NATO military power (note: military) at the height of the Cold War, these weapons were embarked incase war broke out with the Soviet Union so that the task force (which contained 60-70% of the UK's naval assets including all its operational carriers) could defend itself against Soviet SSNs. This information was only recently declassified.

I believe the Falklands should remain British until the population decides otherwise. Democratic self-determination is the only way forward in modern politics.

Intrestingly enough, Maggie's popularity was actually on the rise just before the war started as her economic policies were beginning to pay off.

The last aside, the Falklands war is perhaps the only 'modern' war between two reasonably equal combatants (look at equipment and numbers), but British professionalism and training won out aganst the numerical and geographic disadvantages they faced.

I just saw this topic, so sorry for the excess of quoting:


b- study the history of Galtiari and the junta
It's Galtieri, and what does the war of 1982 have to do with the democratic claim of Malvinas?

f- admire the complete incompetance of the Argentine military
Yeah... the 18 ships sinked or damaged having less than 70 Exocet missiles, that's incompetence... :roll: As it is also the fact that the recruits (because there weren't almost any soldiers that could be called profesional in the argentinian landing force outside officers) hold their ground almost two weeks after the british stablished the beach head... And maybe also that the very same british mercenaries that landed in Malvinas tell you today that they were amazed by how hard their landing was, and that they have a lot of respect for the argentinian forces.

The last aside, the Falklands war is perhaps the only 'modern' war between two reasonably equal combatants (look at equipment and numbers), but British professionalism and training won out aganst the numerical and geographic disadvantages they faced.
I couldn't agree more.

The people of the Falklands want to stay British, so British they will stay. The people want to be British, so Argentina has no right to claim authority over them. However, Argentina's claim on the islands does seem to be fairly legitimate, but still, my point is that the people want to be British, so let them.
That is correct, the problem for the people of the islands is that they are only accepted in the UK (culturally and politically) as 2nd class citizens.

Shadow Men, I think the accepted view is that Argentina invaded because the Junto needed something to bump up morale and divert attention away from their domestic problems, I don't think they expected the British to respond.
The dictatorship went to the islands with a wink from the USA (that later became a kick in the butt) and people here in Argentina was stupid enough only to fear and not to stand up against it. Now I think if I had lived in the 70's I wouldn't have survived until today, but... what the hell.

After the failure in the Falklands, The military junta was overthrown. Because the war failed, morale sunk even lower-
-kind of ironic being that they were trying to raise morale.
The dictatorship was not overthrown, they resigned to power and called for elections, the ver small armed resistance against them had virtually no power.

Why anyone bothers with the Falklands is beyond me...
That's pretty much what I think. I think just let the British keep it to aviod unecessary conflicts. How many more sheep does Argentina need anyway?
Petroleum and Gas (even if companies say otherwise); and Strategical Position, what else do you need?

Hang on... there were nukes in the task force?
Not nukes (as we use the word here in NS) but yes, there were nuclear weapons. Although, Blair denied it recently, even if british sources say otherwise.

As for who has the rights to the Falklands, pretty much everybody there wanted to stay British. Argentina used force to invade British territory and put our citizens under foreign rule.
As the british did in 1833, and several times before when it still was under the power of the spanish. And NO, the locals were not going to be put under foreign rule, they would probably be sent to the UK.

well im all for the brits keepin the falklands namely becuase my dad got shot whilst on the plant crew in the army.

I just saw this topic, so sorry for the excess of quoting:


b- study the history of Galtiari and the junta
It's Galtieri, and what does the war of 1982 have to do with the democratic claim of Malvinas?

f- admire the complete incompetance of the Argentine military
Yeah... the 18 ships sinked or damaged having less than 70 Exocet missiles, that's incompetence... :roll: As it is also the fact that the recruits (because there weren't almost any soldiers that could be called profesional in the argentinian landing force outside officers) hold their ground almost two weeks after the british stablished the beach head... And maybe also that the very same british mercenaries that landed in Malvinas tell you today that they were amazed by how hard their landing was, and that they have a lot of respect for the argentinian forces.

The last aside, the Falklands war is perhaps the only 'modern' war between two reasonably equal combatants (look at equipment and numbers), but British professionalism and training won out aganst the numerical and geographic disadvantages they faced.
I couldn't agree more.

The people of the Falklands want to stay British, so British they will stay. The people want to be British, so Argentina has no right to claim authority over them. However, Argentina's claim on the islands does seem to be fairly legitimate, but still, my point is that the people want to be British, so let them.
That is correct, the problem for the people of the islands is that they are only accepted in the UK (culturally and politically) as 2nd class citizens.

Shadow Men, I think the accepted view is that Argentina invaded because the Junto needed something to bump up morale and divert attention away from their domestic problems, I don't think they expected the British to respond.
The dictatorship went to the islands with a wink from the USA (that later became a kick in the butt) and people here in Argentina was stupid enough only to fear and not to stand up against it. Now I think if I had lived in the 70's I wouldn't have survived until today, but... what the hell.

After the failure in the Falklands, The military junta was overthrown. Because the war failed, morale sunk even lower-
-kind of ironic being that they were trying to raise morale.
The dictatorship was not overthrown, they resigned to power and called for elections, the ver small armed resistance against them had virtually no power.

Why anyone bothers with the Falklands is beyond me...
That's pretty much what I think. I think just let the British keep it to aviod unecessary conflicts. How many more sheep does Argentina need anyway?
Petroleum and Gas (even if companies say otherwise); and Strategical Position, what else do you need?

Hang on... there were nukes in the task force?
Not nukes (as we use the word here in NS) but yes, there were nuclear weapons. Although, Blair denied it recently, even if british sources say otherwise.

As for who has the rights to the Falklands, pretty much everybody there wanted to stay British. Argentina used force to invade British territory and put our citizens under foreign rule.
As the british did in 1833, and several times before when it still was under the power of the spanish. And NO, the locals were not going to be put under foreign rule, they would probably be sent to the UK.

Galtieri then....

My point there was that he used the Falklands as an excuse to deflect public attention away from the dire straights that Argentina was in.

Yes...Militarily the Argentine command was incompetant. How many times were ships like Atlantic Conveyour hit by bombs and never sank? British saliors said that bombs were bouncing off their decks like pingpong balls...do you know why? Coz they were fused for low level bombing attacks. If you go to war and do not have the right equipment then you are incompetant.

As for the Argentine soldiers....they were conscripts. The did not volunteer for that service....they were half trained, starved and had in adiquate equipment and munitions.

The Brits did not respect them....they felt sorry for them.....the Argentine Officers deserted their commands....they were cowards....the soldiers put up a fight but had no chance once the Royal Marines and the Para's had control of the high ground.

Oh...70 Exocets....with a projected kill ratio of 80%....

As for the nukes I would assume that they would be torpedos rather than depth charges....I will admit that that was news to me...in regards to the surface fleet....I would have thought that any nukes would have been carried by the subs....?

I thought it was nuclear depth charges the Task Force had.



The people of the Falklands want to stay British, so British they will stay. The people want to be British, so Argentina has no right to claim authority over them. However, Argentina's claim on the islands does seem to be fairly legitimate, but still, my point is that the people want to be British, so let them.

That is correct, the problem for the people of the islands is that they are only accepted in the UK (culturally and politically) as 2nd class citizens.

I'm not sure about that mate, I've never met anyone from the Falklands, and I really don't think that anyone from the Falklands living in the UK would be treated as 2nd class citizens. Let me know where you got that information from though, could be interesting. But anyway, they don't want to be citizens of Argentina anyway.

I understand Britain, the Falklands Govt and Argentina are sharing Oil Exploration rights off the Falklands.

Its true that the US were close to telling Thatcher not to go to war in the Falklands. I may be wrong but I read somewhere that the only military aid they offered Britain was the use of one of their aircraft carriers. It was France that sold Argentina their Exocets, but to be fair I don't think anyone foresaw the invasion. Didn't the Argentine navy have ex-British ships?

Well there was at least 1 nuclear powered submarine in operation around the flaklands. I also remember hearing that this selfsame sub was part of our nuclear deterrant and went into battle fully armed nuclear SLBM's, although there was never any intention to use them against Argentina.

What im really interested in is Americas role in the whole affair. The Argies claim America gave them the go ahead, and we know there was at least some supposrt for them among the American leaders. Ive also heard that the British were discretely warned by the yankees not to enlarge the field of combat by making any attacks on Argentine mainland soil. So what exactly was Americas interest, motivation and involvement with the whole debacle?

My point there was that he used the Falklands as an excuse to deflect public attention away from the dire straights that Argentina was in.
People knew what was going on, the ones that say otherwise are just lying their a**es off.

Yes...Militarily the Argentine command was incompetant.
If you would have said that, I would have completely agreed, but you said military not command, the military is composed by more than just the command.

As for the Argentine soldiers....they were conscripts. The did not volunteer for that service....they were half trained, starved and had in adiquate equipment and munitions.
I'm argentinian I KNOW, what did you understand by recruits?

The Brits did not respect them....they felt sorry for them
I wrote now, not then.

Oh...70 Exocets....with a projected kill ratio of 80%....
That's what they had, not what they used. I don't currently have the data of the navy aircraft action.

The Americans were involved with most of the right-wing military leaderships in most Latin American countries. Since the First World War, Latin America has been regarded in Washington as its own, unilateral sphere of influence. During the height of the Cold War, which was rearing its ugly head again in the 80's, America needed garauntees that the regimes in South America would support them.

So it was supportive of the Argentinian government. As far as Im aware they didnt give the go ahead for the attack, but they asked Britain to hold off responding military. They hosted peace talks (to no avail) and after some soul-searching sort of ended up backing the UK. The favour was recipricated when Thatcher allowed the US to use British bases to bomb Libya some four years later.

The aircraft carrier story was also true, to a point, but was rejected outright by the British military as being too large to operate and crew.

As for respect, that is an intresting one. Two years ago I had the wonderful pleasure of spending a week aboard HMS Kent, sailing across the channel in aid of some recruitment drive or something. I met several officers and crewman who had been in conflict, and they said that the war was perhaps the time that most of them consider to be the last real test of their skill. The Argentinian Air Force worked the British ships over, sinking four warships and two auxiallaries outright and causing considerable damage to many other ships. The respect was there, and had the Argentines had good quality leadership, they would have won quite easily.

Well there was at least 1 nuclear powered submarine in operation around the flaklands. I also remember hearing that this selfsame sub was part of our nuclear deterrant and went into battle fully armed nuclear SLBM's, although there was never any intention to use them against Argentina.

What im really interested in is Americas role in the whole affair. The Argies claim America gave them the go ahead, and we know there was at least some supposrt for them among the American leaders. Ive also heard that the British were discretely warned by the yankees not to enlarge the field of combat by making any attacks on Argentine mainland soil. So what exactly was Americas interest, motivation and involvement with the whole debacle?

Charles Schultz was the go between and he told the Junta that if they went to war against the UK they would lose power.

And they did.

From what I've heard, the US gov't did not want the conflict to happen and tried to discourage Argentina from continuing the invasion . When that didn't work, the US put an embargo at shipping war material to Argentina until the conflict was over- not very effective being that Argentines went to war with a huge hoard of US equipment, such as amphibious vehicles, weapons, etc. and already had a sufficient (I use that pretty loosely) amount of equip. to sufficiently try to take over the Falkland islands.

aye thats true, and they also wanted the brits to back off and hand over the islands to the argies.

I pretty much agree with the argument: sheep = British sovereignty...
...But wouldn't have the Argentines at least taught the sheep to tango? :)

P.S. Weren't the n00ks on HMS Sheffield?

P.P.S. for Bariloche:
Recruits: those who join the military on their own free will, usully for pay. Another words, professional soldiers.
Conscripts: those who are required to serve in the military by law.

P.P.P.S. for Vonners:
The correct spelling is: incompetent. Don't give people the wrong idea :wink:

Anyways... an interesting article on the Falklands nowadays from The Economist:


A breezy, squid-rich paradise

Mar 28th 2002 | STANLEY
From The Economist print edition

Twenty years after Britain and Argentina went to war over them, the Falklands are enjoying unprecedented prosperity


“THE internal economy of the Falklands is in grave danger of collapsing in the next five years or so without continued support,” concluded the Shackleton Report, drawn up in late 1982, a few months after Argentine forces had seized the islands and an expeditionary army sent from Britain had seized them back. Even before it was wrecked in the war, the islands' economy had been crumbling. Output had fallen by a quarter between 1974 and 1980, the report noted, and the population, sapped by emigration, had dwindled to 1,800.

Before the war, the prospect of continuing to subsidise an ailing colony 12,500km (7,800 miles) away in the South Atlantic had led Britain to try to give the Falklands to Argentina, which claims sovereignty over them and knows them as the Malvinas. Only the protests of the islanders, overwhelmingly British by descent, had stopped this attempt. Eventually, Leopoldo Galtieri, Argentina's dictator, got fed up with waiting and decided to snatch the islands, only to be thwarted when Margaret Thatcher, Britain's prime minister, decided on war in order to avoid national and personal humiliation.

Things have changed greatly since then. The return of former islanders and the arrival of new settlers have sent the population (excluding the British military garrison and its support staff) back to its 1930s peak of 2,400, though humans are still greatly outnumbered by 670,000 sheep and more than 1m penguins. Stanley, the capital, is now twice the size it was in 1982. As well as many smart new houses, there are more shops, bars and restaurants, and two taxi firms compete for business.


Fishing-fuelled prosperity
What transformed the Falklands' prospects was the discovery, a few years after the war, that the waters round the islands were teeming with huge quantities of seafood, especially two types of squid: illex, a delicacy widely enjoyed in East Asia; and loligo, served up as calamares in Spain and other Mediterranean countries. The Falklands declared a 200-mile fisheries-conservation zone and proceeded to grow rich by selling fishing licences. By 1991, Britain was able to stop providing economic aid to the islands, though it continues to maintain its military garrison there, costing around £70m ($100m) a year.

The fisheries money has transformed life in the Falklands. Though the islands are two-thirds the size of Wales, there were until recently few roads outside Stanley. Now 550km of roads have been built and another 300km are planned. Housing is subsidised. Health care is free. Twenty years ago, few children other than those of landowners completed their education. Now there is a big new secondary school in Stanley and its primary school has been refurbished. The islands' government pays for increasing numbers of youngsters to attend university in Britain. And, these days, most come back afterwards.

The Shackleton Report worried about a shortage of young women for the islands' lonely bachelor shepherds. But immigration has almost restored the balance of the sexes, and nightlife at weekends is lively. Islanders used to spend much of their time digging peat for fuel; now most homes have oil-fired central heating. Previously, they would struggle to grow a few vegetables in their gardens; now, a market garden set up with a government grant supplies fresh produce all year round. Telephone connections have greatly improved. Half of all households have Internet access. Stanley has cable television. Islanders have the money to import whatever they want, by air (there are weekly flights from Britain and Chile) or on the ship that arrives from Britain every two months.

The Falklands remain unmistakably British, from their red telephone kiosks to the banknotes bearing a portrait of Queen Elizabeth. But, apart from their low crime rate, they are not stuck in a 1950s version of Britain. Nor are they controlled by Britain, in most respects. Constitutionally, Donald Lamont, the governor of the Falklands, rules them on the queen's behalf, and Britain sees to their foreign policy and defence. But the eight elected members of the Falkland Islands Council decide almost everything else.

Other than making the islanders feel secure, the British garrison (perhaps 1,000 military personnel and 500 support staff) has surprisingly little effect on their lives. After the war a decision was made to build a new airport at Mount Pleasant, 55km from Stanley, and to build the garrison alongside it. Since then, MPA, as it is universally known, has become a self-sufficient town, with its own housing, shops and leisure facilities.

Although the British navy guards the Falklands against invaders, the islanders have their own fisheries-protection vessels. In 1998, after an invasion of unlicensed Taiwanese ships, they persuaded Britain to let them arm one of the vessels with a cannon. In 2000, it blew a hole in the bow of a Taiwanese ship, forcing its crew to surrender. Since then, the poachers seem to have gone away.

The islands are investing in scientific studies to try to understand the breeding and migrational habits of the fish they depend on. The illex squid and some valuable fish migrate between Falklands and Argentine waters and, until recently, there were signs that Argentina was allowing over-fishing. However, under a controversial agreement signed in 1999, Argentina agreed to improve co-operation on fisheries conservation in return for its passport holders being allowed to visit the Falklands, something which had been forbidden since 1982.


Pound for pound
Until recently, one of the few things that the Falklands had in common with their nearest neighbour was that both had a currency board (but Argentina's collapsed in December). For every Falkland Islands pound in circulation, the government keeps reserves of £1.10 in sterling, which must be swapped on demand. But unlike Argentina, whose debts have bankrupted it, the Falklands not only have no public debt, but have savings equivalent to two years' public spending. In late 2001, when Argentina was weeks away from defaulting, the main issue in the Falklands' election was what to spend their money on. More roads? Sheltered housing for the elderly? Or pile up more money in the bank?

Another election issue was the 90 public employees currently working in the islands on temporary contracts, mostly from Britain. Some islanders complain that these are depriving locals of good jobs. But a tiny community like this will always have to buy in some specialist skills from abroad. Besides, the contract workers form the main source of the steady trickle of suitable settlers—well-educated, acclimatised and, whisper it, British—that the islands are seeking.

Although squid keep the islands ticking over nicely, it makes sense to diversify. The Falklands are now beginning to farm mussels and oysters for export, and they are looking at sheep again. Almost all the islands' income used to come from wool production. But wool prices have been depressed for years, so many farmers have left the countryside (known in the Falklands as “Camp”) to move to Stanley, where there is well-paid temporary work on the fishing boats. In the 1930s, half of the Falklands' population lived in Camp; now a sixth does, and many farmhouses are abandoned.

The Falklands produce a surplus of sheep meat, too; but it is not up to EU standards, so they cannot export it, and the soldiers in the garrison are not allowed to buy it. Mutton-canning was tried in Goose Green at the start of the last century, with little success. But the government has just built a new abattoir (which, it hopes, will win it EU certification shortly), and is pinning its hopes on the growing market for organic meat and on the lack of disease among the islands' livestock.

Even if meat production does not become a money-spinner, income from eco-tourism may help to stem the flight from Camp. Johnson's Harbour, a farming settlement two hours' drive from Stanley on one of the new roads, now earns more from charging visitors £10 to see its penguin colonies than it gets from selling wool. Although only about 3,000 people a year take their holidays in the Falklands, this is ten times the number who visited the islands before the 1982 war. As the numbers have grown, some deserted farmhouses, especially on the remoter islands which boast the most spectacular wildlife, are being turned into holiday lets.

The boom in Antarctic cruises since the early 1990s means that up to 40,000 wealthy eco-tourists are expected to sail through Stanley harbour during the current summer season (October to April), many on former Soviet “research vessels” (ie, spy ships) that a hard-up Russia has let western holiday firms use for comfortable expeditions. On days when a cruise ship is in port, Stanley is overrun with wealthy North Americans and Europeans itching to spend. A new tourist centre and several gift shops have opened recently, selling products made on the Falklands' farms, from chunky woollen sweaters to jewellery made from the shiny pebbles that wash up on the islands' beaches.


Getting on with the neighbour
For many years the islands have dreamed of discovering large reserves of offshore oil. In 1998, exploratory drilling found the right rock formations, but no oil. The islanders have not given up hope, and are inviting fresh drilling applications: “We'd like to find oil so that we could afford our own defence,” explains Jan Cheek, an island councillor. However, if large, exploitable reserves are found, they might attract Argentina's interest, too.

Britain occupied the islands permanently from 1833, after it and other colonial powers had intermittently settled and then abandoned them. Argentina points out that Britain expelled a small group of settlers from Buenos Aires (which on declaring independence in 1816 had taken over a Spanish settlement on the islands) and continues to claim sovereignty over the Malvinas, mainly based on this fact. These days, however, it has renounced the idea of taking the islands by force. Relations have improved steadily since Argentina's return to democracy, a change set off by the dictatorship's defeat in the 1982 war. As well as increasing co-operation over fisheries conservation, there are talks about letting Argentina build a monument on the islands to its war dead, and on clearing the many minefields Argentine forces laid during the conflict.

Some islanders felt that they did not get enough in the 1999 agreement in return for letting Argentine passport-holders visit the Falklands. Others see it as a victory that Argentines, on arrival, have to put up with having “Government of the Falklands: Visitor's Permit” stamped in their passports. Sergio Amadeo, a visitor from Buenos Aires, admits to being greatly impressed with the way such a small community has created a comprehensive and efficient government, though he is sad at the way the islands' prosperity has allowed them to turn their back on Argentina. “Looks like they are on the road to independence,” he sighs.

Having seemed, 20 years ago, not worth fighting over, the islands are prosperous, self-confident and increasingly able to run things the way they choose.
---------------------

Detsl. great post. Loads I didn't know there.
Let's hope every other country does not try acting on 200 year old claims to land that have been settled happily since that time.

If so, let's get Brittany back and Normandy, they were parts of William's lands originaly.

We'll be giving Gib back to Spain soon even if 99% of the population want to stay British!

How about giving up the Channel Island? Anything else anyone wants? Anyones granny once live on a rock that now belongs to the UK?

As well as having the Falklands, Great Britain should also have retained the whole Empire, It was the Americans who thought we should give up out Empire but do you see them volunteering to give up any of their provinces (i think not)