NationStates Jolt Archive

It's 25 years to the day that the Falklands fell under Argentine control. What followed was a fairly extraordinary period of events; far from standing idly by as many had expected, the British launched a counter attack in the manner of the colonial wars of the past.

Many people today question whether the war was justified. It cost a thousand people their lives, as well as countless millions of pounds, and all for a few rocks inhabited by a tiny population. This, however, was never the main issue; the question was whether the UK would allow both its sovereignty and international law to be usurped by an aggressor. At the time, the answer was no, and I believe that this remains the right decision today.

Do you agree? I would also be very interested in the memories of people who were around at the time, and what you thought would and should happen as things were going on.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/2/newsid_2520000/2520879.stm

A wee bit too young to remember, but my Mum says she was really worried for a while that my Dad would be called up to fight if the war dragged on; apparantly drafting was heavily considered.

Yeah, it was the right thing to do. They should have continued into Argentina and taken out the Junta while they were at it, and saved countless number of civilians. Then after that, head over to Chile and take out Pinochet, and I am sure there was something in Peru going on not too long after that. In short, it would have been nice to see them correct the wrong doings of US backed dictators. :)

The End.

Somehow I don't see Thatcher deposing her buddy Augusto.

But, yeah, it was the right decision to go into the Falklands. The Junta lost whatever little remaining support it had and fell a few months later.

I remember - it was quite an extraordinary time. The US was in a bit of a quandry, because both nations were allies and friends. Most of us (at least where I was) sympathized with the British, though.

And it's where Prince Andrew earned his keep. Of his generation of Windsors, he's the only one who ever had a real job. And all reports say he did his duty as a British naval officer should.

Apparently Argentina turned down an invitation to London for a memorial service there.


Sore losers.

The General Belgrano incident was a really controversial tragedy.

I wasold enough to understand; and my sympathies were clearly on the side of Maggie Thatcher and her government.

To me, it was pretty simple: Britain had a duty to it's people. It doesn't matter if they did live on a bunch of rocks at the end of the earth, they had to protect those under it's care.

Argentina may have some historical claim to the Falklands. That's not a valid reason for invading someone else's territory and trying to steal it.

You know, according to the Monroe doctrine, the US was obligated to go down there and kick the UK out.

But no one really expected them to...

Argentina may have some historical claim to the Falklands. That's not a valid reason for invading someone else's territory and trying to steal it.

Actually, IIRC, they have no historic claim to the territory; they were never inhabited by the Argentines at all. The only claim in history is via the Spanish, who had a garrison there before the British kicked them out.

The reason that the entire population of the Islands is British isn't because of some sort of ethnic cleansing; it's because no one was there before.

You know, according to the Monroe doctrine, the US was obligated to go down there and kick the UK out.

But no one really expected them to...


And according to an amendment in the constitution of Cuba( i am sure pre-Castro) the US could interfere anytime it wanted to in Cuban politics :D

I wasold enough to understand; and my sympathies were clearly on the side of Maggie Thatcher and her government.

To me, it was pretty simple: Britain had a duty to it's people. It doesn't matter if they did live on a bunch of rocks at the end of the earth, they had to protect those under it's care.

Argentina may have some historical claim to the Falklands. That's not a valid reason for invading someone else's territory and trying to steal it.
Exactly. Similarly if Spain decided to invade Gibraltar, it'd be Britain's duty to force them out. Doesn't matter where it is. It's pretty much the only thing Thatcher ever did right as prime minister...

And AFAIK, the kicker of it all is that before the war, Britain was trying to arrange a way for Argentina to get the islands legally or at least keep the matter open for discussion; but the locals (known as the Kelpers) seem to have the whole "expatriate patriot" symptom going on, IIRC holding onto some anti-catholic and anti-hispanic attitudes more in keeping with Elizabethan Britain than today's UK. So far, they'll have none of it (especially speaking any Spanish...:rolleyes:), and that intransigence combined with the Junta's need to prove itself to the Argentine people or be ousted by them combined to produce the war; which now seems to have permanently thrown the Kelpers a bone.
And in line with the above, the real kicker is that there are IMO-credible allegations Argentina actually expected the US to back them against Thatcher, as payment-in-kind for Argentine commandos helping train the Contras up in Nicaragua at the time as per CIA request. I know how that sounds, but consider: then- Secretary for Public Diplomacy Jeanne Kirkpatrick nearly got fired by the Gipper himself (:eek:!) over her not-so-veiled support for Galiteri's junta in the early days of the war, so what might that say about the goings on relative to this war on our (the US, since I'm an American) side of the pond, hm?

And according to an amendment in the constitution of Cuba( i am sure pre-Castro) the US could interfere anytime it wanted to in Cuban politics :D

There's the rub. We sort of expect the US to interfere in Latin American politics whenever it suits them.This incident merely points out the hypocrisy of the US government with regards to foreign policy. If the Monroe doctrine was actually followed for its stated purpose, we would have seen armed conflict between the US and the UK.

Lol, yes, poor argentinians. They always lose, either in war or soccer.

Nonetheless, the argentinians are quiet proud and full of themselves, so I doubt they would go to England and celebrate their loss there.

The relative worth of the Falklands is irrelevant. The damage accession to Argentine aggression would have wrought upon British standing and reputation would have been irreperable, and unimaginable.

I remember - it was quite an extraordinary time. The US was in a bit of a quandry, because both nations were allies and friends. Most of us (at least where I was) sympathized with the British, though.

I've heard that the US offered support to the UK, but that Maggie declined because Britain had to be seen to be still able to fight its own wars.

I think the British counter attack is justified. Territorial claims are, ultimately, nothing more than excuses for a state to embark on territorial expansion. Britiain, on the other hand, was defending not only her sovereign territory but more importantly, British subjects.

I'd certainly like my government to bail me out if where I live gets taken over.

I've heard that the US offered support to the UK, but that Maggie declined because Britain had to be seen to be still able to fight its own wars.

Sounds like a conservative to me.

Sounds like a conservative to me.

And the award for pointless post of the day is settled.

Sounds like a conservative to me.

Who, Maggie? I don't think that's doubted by many ;)

And the award for pointless post of the day is settled.

Here's your prize.

*pins medal on Chris*

I think you took my post out of context. I knew she was conservative to begin with. I'm just stipulating that that is a traditional conservative attitude, to be unilateral and uncooperative.

Here's your prize.

*pins medal on Chris*

I think you took my post out of context. I knew she was conservative to begin with. I'm just stipulating that that is a traditional conservative attitude, to be unilateral and uncooperative.
Great comeback! :D

[Eddie Izzard]

Okay, the War's over. All you powers who own colonies, give 'em back. England?

Wot?

What's that behind your back?

Erm, it's India and a number of other countries.

Give 'em back.

Oh, all right.

ALL of them -- what's that?

The Falklands. But we need them for...strategic...sheep...purposes!

[/Eddie Izzard]

[Eddie Izzard]

Okay, the War's over. All you powers who own colonies, give 'em back. England?

Wot?

What's that behind your back?

Erm, it's India and a number of other countries.

Give 'em back.

Oh, all right.

ALL of them -- what's that?

The Falklands. But we need them for...strategic...sheep...purposes!

[/Eddie Izzard]
I'd be impressed if England could hide India behind its back...:p

Here's your prize.

*pins medal on Chris*

I think you took my post out of context. I knew she was conservative to begin with. I'm just stipulating that that is a traditional conservative attitude, to be unilateral and uncooperative.

Two points. Firstly, I'm not convinced that "stipulating" is used correctly therein.

Secondly, I do so long for objectivity and unbiased posting. "unilateral and co-operative" could be replaced by "perspispacious and keenly politically aware" to more meritorious use.

The British response to the Argentine invasion of the Falklands and South Georgia was entirely justified.

The US did assist the UK during the war, however, by selling more advanced versions of some weapons (notably, the AIM-9L Sidewinder) to the British at a greatly reduced rate, for which Caspar Weinberger received a knighthood.

Chris, is your pretentious sesquipedalianism and unnecessary, obfuscatory verbosity purely designed to vex other members perusing this board?

Chris, is your pretentious sesquipedalianism and unnecessary, obfuscatory verbosity purely designed to vex other members perusing this board?

He used to be much worse.

Two points. Firstly, I'm not convinced that "stipulating" is used correctly therein.

Secondly, I do so long for objectivity and unbiased posting. "unilateral and co-operative" could be replaced by "perspispacious and keenly politically aware" to more meritorious use.
It could be.

Or you could spell perspicacious correctly.

I've heard that the US offered support to the UK, but that Maggie declined because Britain had to be seen to be still able to fight its own wars. They didn't offer much, and what they DID offer the British took (Like a shipment of Sidewinder missiles)


Actually, IIRC, they have no historic claim to the territory; they were never inhabited by the Argentines at all. The only claim in history is via the Spanish, who had a garrison there before the British kicked them out.

The reason that the entire population of the Islands is British isn't because of some sort of ethnic cleansing; it's because no one was there before.
Not true...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty_of_the_Falkland_Islands

They didn't offer much, and what they DID offer the British took (Like a shipment of Sidewinder missiles)

Ah, I'd heard that they offered to join in the fighting.

Not true...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty_of_the_Falkland_Islands

That's interesting. Unless I've misread the Article on the 1833 invasion (which is possible, it's quite badly written), the American's destroyed an Argentine colony, and the British filled the vacuum.

The Falklands Islands are part of the United Kingdom; anyone attacking them is attacking the UK so of course the war was the right thing to do. I can not believe anybody could think otherwise.

My dad flew over the British fleet in his Cessna and talked to FAA pilots over the radio set and was later forced to land on Guernsey.

I'm sure that the people who had their homes in the Falklands back in 1982 wanted to be British citizens; and I'm sure that they still want to be.
So, case closed. No one of the inhabitants wants to be Argentinian. Self-determination. Falkland are british, and the Argentinians should stop with ridiculous claims.

The General Belgrano incident was a really controversial tragedy.

No controversy about it.

According to the Captain of the Belgrano when he was interviewed a couple of years ago, his orders were to attack the british fleet with his big guns from the south after their aircraft carrier had launched an attack from the north and removed the task force's air cover

In the event, the aircraft carrier was a day late in sailing due to technical problems/weather, so the Belgrano and it's escorts were ordered to circle in a holding pattern for 24 hours, then resume the attack plan.

At which point a British submarine caught up with it.........................

Boris

And they did not expect the escorts to bugger off and leave their guys in the water.

Saw a pretty good program the other night in channel 4 entitled "mummies war". Seeing Carol Thatcher head off to the Falklands to talk to the locals about their memories. There were some very poignant memories from islanders about the days of occupation and their liberation.

The really interesting bit was when she went to Argentina to meet some Argentine men first hand. The men didn’t blame their President (a dictator) for losing the war and said that the Falklands where theirs anyway and it was all Thatcher’s fault that they lost the war and lost so many men. They even had the cheek to call her a war criminal. Then she met some argentine women who said that god would punish Maggie for the deaths of their sons and that she was an evil woman.

So what do you lot think about the Falklands, personally I think that its British territory to be defended, plus the islanders themselves want to remain in British hands and a fiercely patriotic about it.

Yeah, it was the right thing to do. They should have continued into Argentina and taken out the Junta while they were at it, and saved countless number of civilians. Then after that, head over to Chile and take out Pinochet, and I am sure there was something in Peru going on not too long after that. In short, it would have been nice to see them correct the wrong doings of US backed dictators. :)

The End.

Congrats on dragging the US into this. You get a gold star for asshattery. :rolleyes:

Oh, and they're not the Falklands. It's Malvinas

Argentina's propaganda apparatus probably bombarded civilians incessantly with nationalistic messages, resulting in their indoctrination and loss of better judgment. Parallels can be drawn to Goebbels' work a half-century before. It is evident that British forces were simply defending their territory from unwarranted and illegal encroachment. They were fully justified in their handling of the crisis.

Ok here is an Argentinian.
I got quite angry for all the disrespectful comments about my country. No, very angry. But I'll still remain on the side of respect, as much as I can.

Apparently Argentina turned down an invitation to London for a memorial service there.


Sore losers.
Do you even know why we didn't go to the memorial? The UK celebrates the war, while we condemn OUR invasion. We couldn't go there knowing that London was celebrating for that ugly war.

You know, according to the Monroe doctrine, the US was obligated to go down there and kick the UK out.

But no one really expected them to...
Yeah, plus they gave the UK the coordinates of the General Belgrano Cruiser.

Lol, yes, poor argentinians. They always lose, either in war or soccer.
WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM, KID?!
Where you never taught a little education?
And so you know, of the three wars Argentina has fought, it won 2 of them.
And in soccer, well, tell me your country and I'll show you how many times we've beaten you.
Unless you're Brazilian, of course.

Falkland are british, and the Argentinians should stop with ridiculous claims.
Islas Malvinas (that's how we name them) are British, but our claims are not ridiculous. We believe (Argentinians) that they rightfully beliong to us, even if I disagree and any reasons for it are vague and obscure.

Oh, and they're not the Falklands. It's Malvinas
You get my point.

Congrats on dragging the US into this. You get a gold star for asshattery. :rolleyes:

Oh, and they're not the Falklands. It's Malvinas

I think the current owners disagree with you.

It should have been theirs...

I think the current owners disagree with you.

Ah, colonialism. Gotta love it, eh? I suppose it's only bad when the US is involved. Hmmm...gives me an idea...

You can't reallt draw a parallel with this and Goebbels. He even made people think they were safe when the Red Army was around the corner. Literally!

Ah, colonialism. Gotta love it, eh? I suppose it's only bad when the US is involved. Hmmm...gives me an idea...

You wouldn't like it if we decided to refuse to call your country by its proper name would you?

You wouldn't like it if we decided to refuse to call your country by its proper name would you?

Go right ahead. I'll refer to yours as the 51st State.

Go right ahead. I'll refer to yours as the 51st State.

Go for it. You'll be wrong tho. Officially at least :p

Ah, colonialism. Gotta love it, eh? I suppose it's only bad when the US is involved. Hmmm...gives me an idea...
That's just obfuscation. It doesn't matter about the facts because everyone knows that the British are evil imperialists. Never mind that the Argentine claim to the islands boils down to 'might is right' and some truly bizarre ideas about tippexing treaties, and invaded the islands despite the wishes of the inhabitants and tried to impose their rule on them. In spite of that it's the british that are acting like a colonial power? Yeah right.

The simple fact is that our people live on the islands, the islands are as British as Wales, England, Bermuda or Northern Ireland, for example are.

The Argentine invasion was totally disgusting; putting our civilians at risk is quite an offence. Whitehall had its finger poised over the nuclear button because of the Cold war too, Argentineans drawing British attention could have triggered something disastrous.

Ah, I'd heard that they offered to join in the fighting.
You heard wrong. Some parts of the Government were dead set on giving Britian nothing, since the Junita was so Anti-Commie, For example, at the beginning Jeane Kirkpatrick was openly against any actions by the British. And it's rumored that she openly stated that she wanted them to lose.

That's interesting. Unless I've misread the Article on the 1833 invasion (which is possible, it's quite badly written), the American's destroyed an Argentine colony, and the British filled the vacuum. That's about the gist of it.
Yes, I have the source... Somewhere in the house. It was a large scale in depth book on the entire war.


Yeah, plus they gave the UK the coordinates of the General Belgrano Cruiser.
.
Wrong, it took them days to find it, they were looking for the carrier, they only found the Cruiser.

If the Americans were helping they would have told them where the Carrier was instead.

The Americans really didn't do much, they refused to loan the British the AWACs despite how many times the British pleaded to be given them.

If they had the planes carrying the Exocets would have been spotted before they were able to fire.

The General Belgrano incident was a really controversial tragedy.

A tragedy in the sense that the Argentine leader started the war. However war is war and they in my opinion were a legitimate target. Remember that the brits lost a couple of ships at the time the Belgrano was sunk. They wanted to make sure that none of the ships turned around and attacked the landing and main fleet.

yeh, it probably was the right decision. no agressor should be allowed to go unchallenged.

although diplomatic means should have been tried first. don't know if they were but as far as i know it was a case of (fairly bloodless) argentinian invasion followed by british counter-attack and several hundred deaths with no talk in between.

WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM, KID?!
Where you never taught a little education?
And so you know, of the three wars Argentina has fought, it won 2 of them.
And in soccer, well, tell me your country and I'll show you how many times we've beaten you.
Unless you're Brazilian, of course.


Actually, I´m Brazilian.

We won against you in Copa America in the finals, in 2004. And also in the finals of the Confederations Cup in 2005 by 4x1 LOL. We took two prizes out of your hands.

And we won the last game agaisnt you for 3x0.

PELE BEST SOCCER PLAYER OF THE HISTORY OF MANKIND. MARADONA DRUG ADDICT, FAT AND CHEATER.

And in the Paraguay war, you fought alongside us, so it doesnt count.

If anyone believes that Thatcher took Britain to war to defend the people of the Falkland Islands, then they are deluded. She, and every Prime Minister before her since the late sixties, had been looking to flog the Falkland Islands off to the Argentinians. She wasn't really concerned with what the people on the islands wanted, but she was headed for a defeat in the next election.

As for actual claims, by international law Argentina has a far stronger claim.

If anyone believes that Thatcher took Britain to war to defend the people of the Falkland Islands, then they are deluded. She, and every Prime Minister before her since the late sixties, had been looking to flog the Falkland Islands off to the Argentinians. She wasn't really concerned with what the people on the islands wanted, but she was headed for a defeat in the next election.

As for actual claims, by international law Argentina has a far stronger claim.

how's that then? not disputing international law, just curious. as far as i'm concerned it's the locals that have the best claim and they associate for better or worse with britain for cultural and defensive purposes. it is their wishes that should be respected in any quarrel over ownership. maggie may not have ordered troops to the falklands for honourable purposes but the fact she did meant that the wishes of the locals were upheld.

If anyone believes that Thatcher took Britain to war to defend the people of the Falkland Islands, then they are deluded. She, and every Prime Minister before her since the late sixties, had been looking to flog the Falkland Islands off to the Argentinians. She wasn't really concerned with what the people on the islands wanted, but she was headed for a defeat in the next election.
Of course Thatcher's motivations were just political, but I think she did the right thing for the wrong reasons. For a British leader to just sit back and let another country take out territory by force would be treason as far as I'm concerned.

As for actual claims, by international law Argentina has a far stronger claim.
I'm not really knowledgeable on issues of international law, so could you clarify it for me? Also would you mind saying what nationality you are, if you don't mind me asking?

PELE BEST SOCCER PLAYER OF THE HISTORY OF MANKIND

Now that's just a lie.

Now that's just a lie.

or perhaps it's entirely subjective and there is no true position on the matter ;P

or perhaps it's entirely subjective and there is no true position on the matter ;P

Also a lie, there's one answer :p

Ah, colonialism. Gotta love it, eh? I suppose it's only bad when the US is involved. Hmmm...gives me an idea...

thing is, this is about people not territory. well, for me anyway, not for the UK state at the time admittedly. the people were/are of british extraction and wished to remain so offially. if the locals had rebelled against the local marines detachment and declared independence they would have my full support.

Also a lie, there's one answer :p

No way. Pele is the best, no doubt about it. God may not be absolute, but Pele is.

The guy was/is so fucking incredible a country stoped its civil war so that both sides could see him play lol.

NOW, when a single guy makes a civil war stop so people can watch him play, that is uber awesomeness.

The guy scored 1000 goals in his professional years. 1281 goals in 1363 matches.

The guy went to the US and helped soccer spread over there.

He was given the title Footballer of the Century by FIFA and Athlete of the Century by the International Olympic Committee.

The guy won his first world cup at 17.

He is the only soccer player to win 3 world cups.

In 1997 he was given an honorary British knighthood.

was the first sports figure featured in a video game with the Atari 2600 game Pelé's Soccer.

Sorry, the guy is just too uber cool to someone to say he isnt. At the same time, Maradona has tasted every possible drug, did a goal with his hand and is a old guy who spends half of his time in hospitals.

No way. Pele is the best, no doubt about it. God may not be absolute, but Pele is.

The guy was/is so fucking incredible a country stoped its civil war so that both sides could see him play lol.

NOW, when a single guy makes a civil war stop so people can watch him play, that is uber awesomeness.

The guy scored 1000 goals in his professional years. 1281 goals in 1363 matches.

The guy went to the US and helped soccer spread over there.

He was given the title Footballer of the Century by FIFA and Athlete of the Century by the International Olympic Committee.

The guy won his first world cup at 17.

He is the only soccer player to win 3 world cups.

In 1997 he was given an honorary British knighthood.

was the first sports figure featured in a video game with the Atari 2600 game Pelé's Soccer.

Sorry, the guy is just too uber cool to someone to say he isnt. At the same time, Maradona has tasted every possible drug, did a goal with his hand and is a old guy who spends half of his time in hospitals.
Soccor is spreading of here:confused: ;)

No way. Pele is the best, no doubt about it. God may not be absolute, but Pele is.

The guy was/is so fucking incredible a country stoped its civil war so that both sides could see him play lol.

NOW, when a single guy makes a civil war stop so people can watch him play, that is uber awesomeness.

Yes, quite impressive. I can think of similar examples, however.

The guy scored 1000 goals in his professional years. 1281 goals in 1363 matches.

Yes, and he was a forward. And let's not forget, of course, that he wasn't playing against any of the big European teams of the day, mostly teams from around the Sau Paulo area.

Take, for example, George Best; 232 goals from 663 games. Doesn't maybe sound too much, but he was a winger.

The guy went to the US and helped soccer spread over there.

So did many others.

The guy won his first world cup at 17.

He is the only soccer player to win 3 world cups.

Honestly, that says more about the teams he was playing in than anything; you make out that he won them single-handedly.

In 1997 he was given an honorary British knighthood.

was the first sports figure featured in a video game with the Atari 2600 game Pelé's Soccer.

Sorry, the guy is just too uber cool to someone to say he isnt. At the same time, Maradona has tasted every possible drug, did a goal with his hand and is a old guy who spends half of his time in hospitals.

All of which automatically makes Maradona cooler, if not actually better.

Anyway, I'll sum up my feelings on the subject by mangling a local saying; Maradona good, Pele better, George Best

PELE BEST SOCCER PLAYER OF THE HISTORY OF MANKIND.
I disagree strongly. He was an awesome player, a hardcore goal-machine and a good fella, but in terms of skill, I think Diego was far superior.

MARADONA DRUG ADDICT, FAT AND CHEATER.
True. Who isn't? And Maradona didn't stop a civil war, but he gave us something to (before the drugs were known) be truly proud of.

And the Belgrano was sunk outside the delimitated zone of conflict. Outside. God I've got friends who lost their fathers there.

What people are also missing here is that the war improved the lives of the Falkland Islanders immensely. Up until then, Britain had shoved the issue of the Falklands to the side for fear of doing anything to upset the Argentinians.

It was therefore a land of sheep and nothing else, the islanders weren't even British citizens, even more, they were merely 'tenants' of the land with no right to own.

After the war Britain did 2 things, grant the islanders citizenship and allow fishing rights in a 600 mile perimeter.

The Falklands now have one of the highest earnings per capita, a thriving tourist industry and, most importantly, citizenship.

Vujardia - I'm not sure an Argentinian win would have done much for the islanders while doing a lot for the Junta - we can feel true sorrow for the deaths on all sides but the result was, overall, beneficial.

Anyway, just for fun, guess what? It's all about oil kiddies

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,334165,00.html

Falklands?...is that thing still around :p

Bart: Um... I think I'd like to go home.
Burns: If you stay, you can have anything you want to eat. Even some sort of gelatin dish. It's made from hooves, you know.
Bart: Anything, huh? Okay. I want pizza... And I want it delivered by Krusty the Clown.
Burns & Smithers: Hmm...

Krusty: Hey hey, it's Krusty the Pizza Man!.. All right. Where's my 400 bucks?
Bart: Hey, wait. How can you be here when your show's on live?
Krusty: Ah, I just threw on an old rerun. No one will know the difference.
[On TV]
Krusty: [Upbeat] Huh? Huh? Huh?
[Krusty is handed a card]
Krusty: Ok, children, remain calm. The Falkland Islands have just been invaded. I repeat, the Falklands have just been invaded! The disputed islands lie here, off the coast of Argentina.
[Krusty Groans]

Bart: Um... I think I'd like to go home.
Burns: If you stay, you can have anything you want to eat. Even some sort of gelatin dish. It's made from hooves, you know.
Bart: Anything, huh? Okay. I want pizza... And I want it delivered by Krusty the Clown.
Burns & Smithers: Hmm...

Krusty: Hey hey, it's Krusty the Pizza Man!.. All right. Where's my 400 bucks?
Bart: Hey, wait. How can you be here when your show's on live?
Krusty: Ah, I just threw on an old rerun. No one will know the difference.
[On TV]
Krusty: [Upbeat] Huh? Huh? Huh?
[Krusty is handed a card]
Krusty: Ok, children, remain calm. The Falkland Islands have just been invaded. I repeat, the Falklands have just been invaded! The disputed islands lie here, off the coast of Argentina.
[Krusty Groans]

i remember that episode....i love that show

Bart: Um... I think I'd like to go home.
Burns: If you stay, you can have anything you want to eat. Even some sort of gelatin dish. It's made from hooves, you know.
Bart: Anything, huh? Okay. I want pizza... And I want it delivered by Krusty the Clown.
Burns & Smithers: Hmm...

Krusty: Hey hey, it's Krusty the Pizza Man!.. All right. Where's my 400 bucks?
Bart: Hey, wait. How can you be here when your show's on live?
Krusty: Ah, I just threw on an old rerun. No one will know the difference.
[On TV]
Krusty: [Upbeat] Huh? Huh? Huh?
[Krusty is handed a card]
Krusty: Ok, children, remain calm. The Falkland Islands have just been invaded. I repeat, the Falklands have just been invaded! The disputed islands lie here, off the coast of Argentina.
[Krusty Groans]

Linky (http://youtube.com/watch?v=bicltfMEB0w) :)

I'd rather be paid in English pounds than Argentine pesos if I was one of the islanders.

Hehehe that was funny. Curiously enough, I don't remember that episode being aired on Argentina. Wonder why... :p
Anyways, I ain't discussing if it the Malvinas are or not from us, the "Argies". Of course the British Empire has a superb economy, a solid currency, a massive army, a cultural legacy with little comparison, and above all (by that time at least it was a difference with us): democracy.
The war sucked hard. I don't care for the islands at all. Nobody cares either here. The problem is that our boys were 18-year old teens with 2-month training, ammo-less, no food, no shelter, not even coherent orders! The Junta is the one to blame. We're also angry as the General Belgrano part, but everyone knows we did the wrong thing invading the islands, and God we learned our lesson. The kelpers don't want us, we don't want them. The benefit for either side is controversial.
My father is Jorge Argüello, who's a deputy pretty active in this matter and is pretty energetic about the sovereneigty of the islands.
I disagree with him, but anyways, I invite you to read some of his declarations.
One (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0808/p07s01-woam.html)
Dos (http://www.mercopress.com/vernoticia.do?id=8340&formato=pdf) - this one is of my special interest
Three (http://www.falklands-malvinas.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=777) - a recopilation of news
Hope it lights some shine into the issue.
And no, as far as I know (and my information access, given my father, is quite big) we're not planning to invade the islands again. Just so you knew, our military personnel escalates to only 4,500 soldiers, not enough to guard alone any one of our extense borders. We still have Cold-War equipment and even Hercules bombers, the defense budget is minimal, and the least thing we need is a war with one of our best market friends.