NationStates Jolt Archive

Well...?

neither its a bit silly to have pointless wars till the end of time because the Argies can't understand that generally when a nations people live there (and they generally want it to stay that way) your basis for owning some land gets shaky

so yeah give it to Spain everybody wins!

Let the penguins have their own country and a seat on the UN.

Let the penguins have their own country and a seat on the UN.

'Let' gives the impression they want to be anything other than British citizens

EDIT : I'm assuming penguins is some strange slang i've not heard for inhabitants of the Falklands. If you meant the animal then......my point still stands :p

No I meant the birds. I was suggesting that people leave the godforsaken patch of windswept land alone - it is only being used to further a claim to areas of the antarctic. Nobody in their right mind would really want to live there.

Falklanders apparently do

Falklanders apparently do

I think my point about people in their right mind still stands.

'Let' gives the impression they want to be anything other than British citizens

EDIT : I'm assuming penguins is some strange slang i've not heard for inhabitants of the Falklands. If you meant the animal then......my point still stands :p

No I meant the birds. I was suggesting that people leave the godforsaken patch of windswept land alone - it is only being used to further a claim to areas of the antarctic. Nobody in their right mind would really want to live there.

I think my point about people in their right mind still stands.

Touche

i care not.

The people there don't want to be a part of Argentina. Until that changes, and they give consent to becoming Argentinian, it's ours.

Just for the record I think both countries have some degree of claim over it, probably Argentina technically more but the fact that British people live there complicates things. I think for the most part it was used as a nationalist propaganda tool by the junta, seeing as the place is practically worthless I can't think of any other purpose for it.

This issue was already decided. As far as I know, the Falklanders want to remain affiliated with Britain.

And if Argentina wants it all that badly, they can try taking it a second time. Which, of course, would probably result in being totally owned by the British. Again.

the fact that British people live there complicates things.

in the sense that it solves everything by making Argentina's point moot yes

I think for the most part it was used as a nationalist propaganda tool by the junta, seeing as the place is practically worthless I can't think of any other purpose for it.

well it has lots and lots of wool...

This issue was already decided. As far as I know, the Falklanders want to remain affiliated with Britain.

And if Argentina wants it all that badly, they can try taking it a second time. Which, of course, would probably result in being totally owned by the British. Again.

I swear, this was made for intelligent discussion on this matter, not for you to hijack it into another 'China vs USA' noob-fest.

Depends on what the Falklanders want. If it is true that they wish to be British, then Brtain has sovereignty.
Simply because Argentina happens to be nearest them doesn't mean they should rule them.

Just for the record I think both countries have some degree of claim over it, probably Argentina technically more but the fact that British people live there complicates things.
It's legally British territory. The Argentinians might think they have a claim to it, but it means nothing in law, international or otherwise.

I think for the most part it was used as a nationalist propaganda tool by the junta, seeing as the place is practically worthless I can't think of any other purpose for it.
It probably had some use in the early 19th century when we seized it for the navy.

I'm sure there's huge untapped oil reserves around there - I'll dig up the article.

Here's (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,334165-2,00.html) one but there seems to be many

The war freed the Falklanders as much from the British, who took them seriously and gave them rights as it did from impending Argentinian rule.

I'm sure there's huge untapped oil reserves around there - I'll dig up the article.

Here's (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,334165-2,00.html) one but there seems to be many

The war freed the Falklanders as much from the British, who took them seriously and gave them rights as it did from impending Argentinian rule.

So that is why the US remains neutral on the subject - they want the oil for themselves so we can expect a US invasion - probably as part of some trumped up 'War on penguins'.

I've never understood why it was such a big deal for the Argentinians, is there some huge natural resource in the area? or something else worth claiming?

In the end, let the current inhabitants of the islands decide.

I swear, this was made for intelligent discussion on this matter, not for you to hijack it into another 'China vs USA' noob-fest.

Excuse me? *Is confused*

If you have some sort of personal problem with me, maybe you should send a TG instead of making nonsensical posts.

And nonsensical this post surely is, since I did not mention either China or the USA (seeing how both of these nations are completely irrelevant to the subject, as the nations that went to war over the Falklands were Britain and Argentina).

Nor have I ever posted a thread about China vs. USA, as such threads are too common already. And who are you calling a noob? We're both 2004.

Perhaps you thought I was someone else?

I swear, this was made for intelligent discussion on this matter, not for you to hijack it into another 'China vs USA' noob-fest.

If you want threads to not be hijacked, perhaps you should start with making OPs of more than one word...

The Argentinian claim is frankly shaky at best - they're claiming an inherited sovereignty from Spain. Spain, however, never made such a claim - they never officially claimed the Falklands at all.

However, even if that were not the case, the rule of self-determination should be followed in any inhabited area. And in that case, the Falklands should clearly remain British.

it's entirely up to those who live there. as far as i'm aware they want to remain british, so there's your answer.

Whilst it's nice to believe in the spirit of free will and self-determination, whomever has the most able Armed Forces and political will owns the Falkland Isles. Since on the grounds of the first war on the former, and the fact we actually went to war on the latter, it's likely the islands will remain ours until either the Argentines grow strong enough to take and hold it from us, or we relinquish them. The fall-out of the latter makes it unlikely.

So that is why the US remains neutral on the subject - they want the oil for themselves so we can expect a US invasion - probably as part of some trumped up 'War on penguins'.

Actually, the USA has a legal obligation to invade the Falkland Islands, kick out the UK, and give it to the Argentines. The Monroe doctrine was formulated by the USA to protect American (not USian, but all of the Americas) countries from European colonialism. During the Cold war, the Monroe doctrine was often invoked to curb 'Soviet aggression and intervention' which were actually homegrown leftist movements.

Of course, history is at odds with legal theory, as the USA has pointedly never used this doctrine or interfered in any way with UK colonialism in the Americas since 1812.

Nothing epitomises US foreign policy like greed and hypocrisy.

I've never understood why it was such a big deal for the Argentinians, is there some huge natural resource in the area? or something else worth claiming?

In the end, let the current inhabitants of the islands decide.

It was a ploy by the ruling junta at the time to distract the populace from the crappy conditions caused by the dictatorship.

It's legally British territory. The Argentinians might think they have a claim to it, but it means nothing in law, international or otherwise.
.
.
.
.
.

It probably had some use in the early 19th century when we seized it for the navy.

And you don't see any illogicalities with these two statements? Argentinians never admitted that the islands belonged to UK.
Same as if the Argentinians took over the island of Man when they happened to be stronger than you, and after putting their own settlers there and having them there for a hundred year giving shit about the British opinion now claim that you don't have any right to ask it back?

And you don't see any illogicalities with these two statements? Argentinians never admitted that the islands belonged to UK.
Same as if the Argentinians took over the island of Man when they happened to be stronger than you, and after putting their own settlers there and having them there for a hundred year giving shit about the British opinion now claim that you don't have any right to ask it back?

I was going to post until I read this. That's spot on analysis, Kronstadtia.

I've never understood why it was such a big deal for the Argentinians, is there some huge natural resource in the area? or something else worth claiming?

In the end, let the current inhabitants of the islands decide.

Eddie Izzard believes that the UK needs the Falklands for "strategic sheep purposes." So THAT's what they're calling it now?

And you don't see any illogicalities with these two statements? Argentinians never admitted that the islands belonged to UK.
Same as if the Argentinians took over the island of Man when they happened to be stronger than you, and after putting their own settlers there and having them there for a hundred year giving shit about the British opinion now claim that you don't have any right to ask it back?
There wouldn't be much point in the UK demanding sovereignty over the Isle of Man in that scenario, no.

The Falklands are British and will remain so for the foreseeable future, for the simple reasons that the inhabitants regard themselves as British and Argentina has no realistic claim or hope of asserting such. It's an odd scenario but not unique; the UK and others have several overseas territories with populations small enough that independence is neither feasible or desirable, and the nearest nations have no conceviable claim over them other than proximity.

There wouldn't be much point in the UK demanding sovereignty over the Isle of Man in that scenario, no.

The Falklands are British and will remain so for the foreseeable future, for the simple reasons that the inhabitants regard themselves as British and Argentina has no realistic claim or hope of asserting such. It's an odd scenario but not unique; the UK and others have several overseas territories with populations small enough that independence is neither feasible or desirable, and the nearest nations have no conceviable claim over them other than proximity.

Gibraltar springs to mind.

Yep. It bewilders me that there's serious discussion of Spain gaining possession of the island.

And you don't see any illogicalities with these two statements? Argentinians never admitted that the islands belonged to UK.
Same as if the Argentinians took over the island of Man when they happened to be stronger than you, and after putting their own settlers there and having them there for a hundred year giving shit about the British opinion now claim that you don't have any right to ask it back?

Of course the Argentinians can claim it. However they cannot take it and hold it by force which is what is required to claim this particular rock. So they get to sit over on the mainland pouting about it. If they want it so bad try and take it again. I think the same results would happen once again. So it doesn't matter who "legally" owns it. The fact is at this point the British "own" it and no one is going to take it away from them.

And you don't see any illogicalities with these two statements? Argentinians never admitted that the islands belonged to UK.
Same as if the Argentinians took over the island of Man when they happened to be stronger than you, and after putting their own settlers there and having them there for a hundred year giving shit about the British opinion now claim that you don't have any right to ask it back?

Well, the Isle of Man and the Falklands are in different legal positions.

The Isle of Man is a Crown Dependency and, as such, is not under the sovereignty of the UK, but it is under the sovereignty of the British Crown. Actually quite similar to how Ireland was goverened before the Act of Union.

The Falklands are a British Overseas Territory (along with other territories of questionable value such as Bermuda, the Pitcairn Islands, and Gibralter) and, as such, are under the sovereignty of the UK itself. In a very similar situation, from what I gather, to Puerto Rico's relationship with the USA; under their sovereignty, but not actually a part of the United States.

An attack on the Falklands, therefore, is an attack on Britsh sovereignty. An attack on the Isle of Man, however, isn't.

Although, how an aggressor would get to the Isle of Man without violating British waters or airspace is another matter.

seeing as the place is practically worthless I can't think of any other purpose for it.

Yes, totally useless except for a few sheep and about 60 billion barrels (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,334165,00.html) of oil...

Oil which, I might add, we offered to share with the Argentinians (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6501693.stm), but I guess you can't help some people. The Falklands belong to the UK until the islanders choose to use their right to self determination to leave the union. I honestly can't see that there's any room for debate here.

The islanders want to remain British and they've been there for generations, well before living memory. So as far as I'm concerned that's the end of it. If the Argentines want to kick the islanders off, they should practice what they preach and leave Argentina, giving back the land to the indiginous people. After all, most Argentines of European descent, more so than other South American countries.

It was a ploy by the ruling junta at the time to distract the populace from the crappy conditions caused by the dictatorship.

Which one?

Which one?

Visit wiki for all your quick reference needs!

In the period leading up to the war, Argentina was in the midst of a devastating economic crisis and large-scale civil unrest against the repressive military junta that had been governing the country since 1976[2]. The Argentine military government, headed by General Leopoldo Galtieri, sought to maintain power by diverting public attention playing off long-standing feelings of the Argentines towards the islands,

Typical Latin American right wing military dictatorship.

It belongs to the UK, and rightfully so. Argentina has no claim over it.

Visit wiki for all your quick reference needs!



Typical Latin American right wing military dictatorship.

Um....I think I am speechless.

It belongs to the UK, and rightfully so. Argentina has no claim over it.

Does it?

I'm pretty sure some sheep own both islands.

And is it that slow a news day that we have to discuss the hot topics of 1982?

I'm pretty sure some sheep own both islands.

And is it that slow a news day that we have to discuss the hot topics of 1985?

1985?

1985?
1982. You caught me before my ninja edit.

I was referencing the Falklands War, aka the Thatcher PR Exercise.

1982. You caught me before my ninja edit.

I was referencing the Falklands War, aka the Thatcher PR Exercise.

Totally a PR exercise...won her the election...and it all went to shit from there pretty much...

Totally a PR exercise...won her the election...and it all went to shit from there pretty much...
Don't know if you saw the recent Private Eye (does the Netherlands get it?) the month of the 25th anniversary of the Falklands war.

On the front had a photo of Blair and Thatcher, with the Queen shaking Maggie's hand and saying, "Well at least you won your war".

:D

Don't know if you saw the recent Private Eye (does the Netherlands get it?) the month of the 25th anniversary of the Falklands war.

On the front had a photo of Blair and Thatcher, with the Queen shaking Maggie's hand and saying, "Well at least you won your war".

:D

Sadly no. I do miss Private Eye.

I think I'd have had a good laugh had I seen it in the newsagents...brilliant!

I think I'd have had a good laugh had I seen it in the newsagents...brilliant!
Yeah, one of the best covers in a while.

In other news... I assume UK airspace security has been beefed up; there's loads of aircraft buzzing about today. I'm back at me folks east of Edinburgh, and we usually get a couple of flyboys ripping along the Forth before zooming back up to RAF Lossiemouth or RAF Kinloss.

However, today I've seen at least five Eurofighters/Typhoons/Harriers (they're going too fast to identify them), a couple of Chinooks and a few other military helicopters I don't recognise (their bodies looked similar in size and shape to the USAF's Black Hawks, but they were light grey. Any NS military buffs know what they could be?). That's far more than usual.

...a few other military helicopters I don't recognise (their bodies looked similar in size and shape to the USAF's Black Hawks, but they were light grey. Any NS military buffs know what they could be?). That's far more than usual.

Almost certainly the Merlin helicopter which is fairly new. :)

Yeah, one of the best covers in a while.

In other news... I assume UK airspace security has been beefed up; there's loads of aircraft buzzing about today. I'm back at me folks east of Edinburgh, and we usually get a couple of flyboys ripping along the Forth before zooming back up to RAF Lossiemouth or RAF Kinloss.

However, today I've seen at least five Eurofighters/Typhoons/Harriers (they're going too fast to identify them), a couple of Chinooks and a few other military helicopters I don't recognise (their bodies looked similar in size and shape to the USAF's Black Hawks, but they were light grey. Any NS military buffs know what they could be?). That's far more than usual.

Yeah. I'm not surprised. I think there are two things. The Russians and the redeployment to Afghanistan.


I think I envy you your hills where you are...I am beginning to hate flat (like I ended up doing when I lived in Lincolnshire...!)


Choppers....most likely these I guess.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/EquipmentFactsheets/MerlinHelicopterMk1.htm

Like I said, the Merlin. :p

Like I said, the Merlin. :p

SPARTA!

Almost certainly the Merlin helicopter which is fairly new. :)


Choppers....most likely these I guess.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/EquipmentFactsheets/MerlinHelicopterMk1.htm
That's it exactly. They were flying bloody close to the ground, but that's what you get when you live in a unpopulated and largely rural country!

Thanks guys.

I think I envy you your hills where you are...I am beginning to hate flat (like I ended up doing when I lived in Lincolnshire...!)
You should fly over for a weekend and do a spot of Munro bagging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munro). Nothing quite like the Scottish air at 3000+ feet.

Though the Lammermuirs are closer to me, as well as a tad easier to climb, and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Berwick_Law) is 5 minutes walk from my house.

SPARTA!

*fails to grasp point*
*dies*

That's it exactly. They were flying bloody close to the ground, but that's what you get when you live in a unpopulated and largely rural country!

Thanks guys.


You should fly over for a weekend and do a spot of Munro bagging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munro). Nothing quite like the Scottish air at 3000+ feet.

Though the Lammermuirs are closer to me, as well as a tad easier to climb, and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Berwick_Law) is 5 minutes walk from my house.

hmmm I think that would kill me...I am not exactly fit. *ahem*

Is there curry?

*fails to grasp point*
*dies*

*oops*

hmmm I think that would kill me...I am not exactly fit. *ahem*

Is there curry?
My friend, Scotland invented the Chicken Tikka Masala*!

Munro climbing is quite taxing, but on a good day somewhere like Schiehallion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion) only takes a few hours, and as long as you can stand a wee hike you won't hurt yourself. The lower hills, such as the Lammermuirs south of Edinburgh, or the Campsies north of Glasgow, are a lot less taxing; good for a day out.

And they're all breathtakingly beautiful.



*note: other, genuine curries are available.

My friend, Scotland invented the Chicken Tikka Masala*!

Munro climbing is quite taxing, but on a good day somewhere like [rl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion]Schiehallion[/url] only takes a few hours, and as long as you can stand a wee hike you won't hurt yourself. The lower hills, such as the Lammermuirs south of Edinburgh, or the Campsies north of Glasgow, are a lot less taxing; good for a day out.

And they're all breathtakingly beautiful.



*note: other, genuine curries are available.

LOL!!!! Sir...you do seem to be a connoisseur indeed! I whole heartedly agree with you re the CTM...*gak*

Nah it sounds like a laugh....its all a matter of pacing yourself etc etc

I've been to Glasgow and Aberdeen...I do like the drive though. I'm working like mad at the moment I'm afraid...and will be for a while yet. Well ... yet = years it feels like! LOL

*fails to grasp point*
*dies*

*oops*

yeah ok...so that did not go too well....another failed joke :(

LOL!!!! Sir...you do seem to be a connoisseur indeed! I whole heartedly agree with you re the CTM...*gak*
Don't worry. There's a thriving Asian community in Glasgow, and although CTM does pop up occasionally, there's many a proper curry house in the city.

Nah it sounds like a laugh....its all a matter of pacing yourself etc etc
Exactly. I climbed Schiehallion when I was about 14, and I wasn't the fittest lad by a long way. The view from the top is worth it.

I've been to Glasgow and Aberdeen...I do like the drive though. I'm working like mad at the moment I'm afraid...and will be for a while yet. Well ... yet = years it feels like! LOL
Poor old soul; I feel for you.

Well, if you do get the chance I'd highly recommend it.

Just for the record I think both countries have some degree of claim over it, probably Argentina technically more but the fact that British people live there complicates things.
Erm no, we won them fair and square. This is about as stupid a question as "is Gibraltar Spanish or British".
I think for the most part it was used as a nationalist propaganda tool by the junta, seeing as the place is practically worthless I can't think of any other purpose for it.
It's a refueling base for the Royal Navy, is a bit like an Orkney away from Orkney, and is also a great place to make mucho dinero from rich tourists who're on their way to Zodiac about in Antarctica.

Plus also, we won it fair and square, and 'giving it back' to the Argentinians would be a bit of a poor show, let's be honest.

hmmm I think that would kill me...I am not exactly fit. *ahem*
Quite possible. On the other hand, you might physically freeze your tits off while you're up there.
Is there curry?
Of course there is!

However, today I've seen at least five Eurofighters/Typhoons/Harriers (they're going too fast to identify them)
Tornadoes or Typhoons if they're going that fast.
a couple of Chinooks
Fair doos.
and a few other military helicopters I don't recognise (their bodies looked similar in size and shape to the USAF's Black Hawks, but they were light grey. Any NS military buffs know what they could be?). That's far more than usual.
Quite possibly Pumas, although Merlins and Lynx' are plausible if a bit unlikely.



And the amount of aircraft isn't that shocking, what with the redeployment to Afghanistan soon. I've had a fair few planes and helicopters - even some Mk4 Sea Kings - so it seems we're sending in more special forces this time.

Tornadoes or Typhoons if they're going that fast.
By Jove, they were. Plus, they were doing some fantastic turns, loops, etc.

Quite possibly Pumas, although Merlins and Lynx' are plausible if a bit unlikely.
If memory serves, they looked more like the Merlin than the Puma; but I'm just a lowly civilian.

And the amount of aircraft isn't that shocking, what with the redeployment to Afghanistan soon. I've had a fair few planes and helicopters - even some Mk4 Sea Kings - so it seems we're sending in more special forces this time.
Mmmm.

I wasn't as shocked as I was intrigued - especially with recent going-ons. Shouldn't really be surprised in Scotland. You can't walk anywhere remote without running into razorwire and signs reading, "MOD Property - Keep Out! Dogs Patrolling".

Well...?

Why is this even a question? It's obviously Argentina's. The U.K. needs to back off and stop acting like an imperialistic empire.

Why is this even a question? It's obviously Argentina's. The U.K. needs to back off and stop acting like an imperialistic empire.
Why does Argentina have any more right to the island than the UK does?

I don't think it's 'obviously' anybody's. The UK only has de facto sovereignty over the island based on an illegal invasion 120 years ago, while Argentina refuses to recognise the Falkland/Malvinas islander's right to self-determination.

It's basically a mess, and has been since who knows when.

Why does Argentina have any more right to the island than the UK does?

I don't think it's 'obviously' anybody's. The UK only has de facto sovereignty over the island based on an illegal invasion 120 years ago, while Argentina refuses to recognise the Falkland/Malvinas islander's right to self-determination.

It's basically a mess, and has been since who knows when.

...

Wait, what? There are native islanders that are not Argentinians?

You'll forgive me, but up until now I'd always thought it was an island owned by Argentina populated by Argentinians, without any sort of native islanders, and that the U.K. was always just trying to control it based on their constant attempts at imperialistic behaviors left over from the colonial period.

Well in that case it should probably be overseen by Argentina but have full sovereignty and be ruled by the islanders. Only overseen so they have someone to turn to to protect them, and Argentina makes more sense since they're the ones who are right there.

...

Wait, what? There are native islanders that are not Argentinians?

You'll forgive me, but up until now I'd always thought it was an island owned by Argentina populated by Argentinians, without any sort of native islanders, and that the U.K. was always just trying to control it based on their constant attempts at imperialistic behaviors left over from the colonial period.

Well in that case it should probably be overseen by Argentina but have full sovereignty and be ruled by the islanders. Only overseen so they have someone to turn to to protect them, and Argentina makes more sense since they're the ones who are right there.

Umm...there are very, very few (if any) Argentinians living in the Falklands. 70% of the population is of British descent.

Should the Russians rule the Aleutians because they're "right there"? Should the Philippines rule Guam because they're "right there"?

...

Wait, what? There are native islanders that are not Argentinians?

You'll forgive me, but up until now I'd always thought it was an island owned by Argentina populated by Argentinians, without any sort of native islanders, and that the U.K. was always just trying to control it based on their constant attempts at imperialistic behaviors left over from the colonial period.
As far as I'm aware, the 'native' islanders have shacked up with so many Spaniards, French, British and others for the past 300 years that there really isn't any distinct 'native' Falklanders. Most inhabitants on the island are, IIRC, descendants of British citizens; although I believe there was a relatively massive influx of British nationals post-1883, when the island was illegally invaded by Britain.

This would account for the begrudging sentiment that most Falklanders seem to view themselves as British.

Well in that case it should probably be overseen by Argentina but have full sovereignty and be ruled by the islanders. Only overseen so they have someone to turn to to protect them, and Argentina makes more sense since they're the ones who are right there.
That's all well and good, but Argentina won't (currently) stand for that. They want to have complete sovereignty over the island. As do the British government, for that matter.

Umm...there are very, very few (if any) Argentinians living in the Falklands. 70% of the population is of British descent.

Should the Russians rule the Aleutians because they're "right there"? Should the Philippines rule Guam because they're "right there"?

You missed the point. I didn't say rule, I said oversee. By oversee, you essentially fulfill a role as guardian or protector that only steps in if that which is being overseen needs protecting that they cannot accomplish themselves. (If, say, Britain were to invade again, for example.)
As far as I'm aware, the 'native' islanders have shacked up with so many Spaniards, French, British and others for the past 300 years that there really isn't any distinct 'native' Falklanders. Most inhabitants on the island are, IIRC, descendants of British citizens; although I believe there was a relatively massive influx of British nationals post-1883, when the island was illegally invaded by Britain.

This would account for the begrudging sentiment that most Falklanders seem to view themselves as British.


That's all well and good, but Argentina won't (currently) stand for that. They want to have complete sovereignty over the island. As do the British government, for that matter.

Oh. Well, now I feel like an idiot for just declaring a solution without actually examining the situation.

Me. I should have complete and absolute reign over the Falklands, and everyone else should be forced to leave so that I can build a giant, bronze statue of myself in the center of the island.

Me. I should have complete and absolute reign over the Falklands, and everyone else should be forced to leave so that I can build a giant, bronze statue of myself in the center of the island.

^
^
^

I'm TSI, and I approve this post.

^
^
^

I'm TSI, and I approve this post.
It's such an obvious and fair solution to the problem that I'm honestly amazed no one else has ever thought to propose it.

It's such an obvious and fair solution to the problem that I'm honestly amazed no one else has ever thought to propose it.
I thought that was the real reason the British government invaded in 1982...

I thought that was the real reason the British government invaded in 1982...

Fiddles= Margaret Thatcher?

Fiddles= Margaret Thatcher?
The Fiddlebottom's not for turning!

And other crap icequeenbitchwithnounderstandingofhumanemotion jokes she made.

...

Wait, what? There are native islanders that are not Argentinians?
About 80% of people who live there are British. The rest of the people there are there working around the oil fields, almost none of whom are Argentinian.
You'll forgive me, but up until now I'd always thought it was an island owned by Argentina populated by Argentinians
It's not 'an island', it's a group. Falkland Islands / Las Islas Malvinas.

There are two big islands, East and West Falkland, the capital Port Stanley being on the East.

There are about 750 much smaller islands, for example Pebble Island, on which D Squadron of the 22nd SAS Regiment famously destroyed most of the Argentine air force capable of threatening the British counter-attack.

Indeed Pebble Island is pretty typical as a Falkland Islet, it being a sheep farm and not much more, although being one of the larger islets, it has an airstrip (hence the raid)

Here's their flag, which says it all -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/Coa_Falkland.svg/424px-
without any sort of native islanders, and that the U.K. was always just trying to control it based on their constant attempts at imperialistic behaviors left over from the colonial period.
Nope.

A fair few Scots (Orkadians, if that makes any odds to you) came over in the 19th century and settled it, since it is, as I described it, Orkney away from Orkney.

Indeed the 'original' settlers were really French, but there are very few of those left.
Well in that case it should probably be overseen by Argentina but have full sovereignty and be ruled by the islanders.
It has full sovereignty and is indeed ruled by the islanders, who themselves decided that it would remain as a British territory. They have their own government and defence force, but can call on Britain when help is needed.

Falkland Islanders can also apply for Argentinian citizenship if they like, but very few do, as the Argentinians are seen as something of a hostile force after the 1982 war.
Only overseen so they have someone to turn to to protect them, and Argentina makes more sense since they're the ones who are right there.
The only people who are going to steal them are the Argentinians, and the reason the British defend them is because we have a far better military than Argentina, and are hence capable of doing so.

You missed the point. I didn't say rule, I said oversee. By oversee, you essentially fulfill a role as guardian or protector that only steps in if that which is being overseen needs protecting that they cannot accomplish themselves. (If, say, Britain were to invade again, for example.)
Britain would be invading the Falklands no more than sending the 82nd Airborne to Colorado for mountain training was an invasion of Colorado.

It's our territory, after all ;)

A fair few Scots (Orkadians, if that makes any odds to you) came over in the 19th century and settled it, since it is, as I described it, Orkney away from Orkney.
That's one helluva journey!

That's one helluva journey!
Yeah, especially for what is really just more of the same.

Flat islands with little to no natural vegetation?

Hurrah!

(oh, stupendous oil wealth not too far offshore, plus an excellent pirannical hideout, too, which is the other similar bit)

Yeah, especially for what is really just more of the same.

Flat islands with little to no natural vegetation?

Hurrah!

(oh, stupendous oil wealth not too far offshore, plus an excellent pirannical hideout, too, which is the other similar bit)
Maybe they just go lost...

Reminds me off a Billy Connolly sketch about the Scoti tribe moving from Ireland to what would become Scotland, "You think this place is rainy and cold, just you boys wait till you've seen where I've found!".

Maybe they just got lost...
Heh.
Reminds me off a Billy Connolly sketch about the Scoti tribe moving from Ireland to what would become Scotland, "You think this place is rainy and cold, just you boys wait till you've seen where I've found!".
That's the worst bit about the decay... :p

Who owns them? We do. Any time the Argentines care to make it otherwise, I'm sure we could beat them again.

Who owns them? We do. Any time the Argentines care to make it otherwise, I'm sure we could beat them again.

Sad to say that would be unlikely Chris. The RN at the time was pretty poorly equipped for the task, and the army made a near fatal mistake of not taking enough helicopters. It was only the sheer incompetence of Argentinian forces and almost insane bravery of some British troops that saved us first time round. The sorry state of the RN and the overstretched army would be pretty hard pressed to respond nowadays.

Sad to say that would be unlikely Chris. The RN at the time was pretty poorly equipped for the task, and the army made a near fatal mistake of not taking enough helicopters. It was only the sheer incompetence of Argentinian forces and almost insane bravery of some British troops that saved us first time round. The sorry state of the RN and the overstretched army would be pretty hard pressed to respond nowadays.

Bah, have faith.;)

Can't really see the appeal of living on mordant, bare islands halfway into the south Atlantic myself, but I daresay their worth retaining if only due to their allowing us a stake in Antarctica.

I daresay their worth retaining if only due to their allowing us a stake in Antarctica.
Eh?

How do the Falklands help Britain have a stake in a politically neutral continent?

Sad to say that would be unlikely Chris. The RN at the time was pretty poorly equipped for the task, and the army made a near fatal mistake of not taking enough helicopters. It was only the sheer incompetence of Argentinian forces and almost insane bravery of some British troops that saved us first time round. The sorry state of the RN and the overstretched army would be pretty hard pressed to respond nowadays.
1) Our forces are now much better equipped and trained, not having been through four years of Thatcher's scroogery, so it'd be a cinch.

Even the Falkland Islands defence force is better equipped by far, man for man, than the Argentinians.

2) Why wouldn't we have learned from the first time?

3) Argentina's military is in a far, far poorer state now that they don't own the country.

Bah, have faith.;)

Can't really see the appeal of living on mordant, bare islands halfway into the south Atlantic myself, but I daresay their worth retaining if only due to their allowing us a stake in Antarctica.
They're nice. If a bit dull.
Eh?

How do the Falklands help Britain have a stake in a politically neutral continent?
Don't bother trying to inject sense into the argument, it's something of a waste.

Depends on what the Falklanders want. If it is true that they wish to be British, then Britain has sovereignty.


Indeed.

Eh?

How do the Falklands help Britain have a stake in a politically neutral continent?

To my knowledge, all countires that have a shoreline facing the antarctic across open water can claim a stake in it when it is turfed up.

The British claim predates the forming of Argentina as a country by centuries.

And the Argentine claim dates from when they invaded the islands, which were being controlled by Spain at the time but with the British still with a claim, waving a treaty with 'Spain' tippexxed out with 'Argentina' and a big line through the part about freedom of economic activity for the US and UK.

And from that they think that that's enough of a pretext to try to take them back by force, along with lots of pointing at the British Empire in order to detract from their own imperialism.

100% British Territory and will remain so. As to the Monroe Doctrine, it came about in the 1820s.

The Falkland Islands became part of the British Empire in 1833 when they invaded after a US warship Lexington destroyed Puerto Soledad., which was an Argentine settlement.

Sad to say that would be unlikely Chris. The RN at the time was pretty poorly equipped for the task, and the army made a near fatal mistake of not taking enough helicopters. It was only the sheer incompetence of Argentinian forces and almost insane bravery of some British troops that saved us first time round. The sorry state of the RN and the overstretched army would be pretty hard pressed to respond nowadays.

'You could hear the bombs bouncing off the foredeck'

I remember this statement from a sailor who was on one of the Merchant Navy ships...

We were fucking lucky. Why the Argentines used the wrong bombs is a mystery to me.

100% British Territory and will remain so. As to the Monroe Doctrine, it came about in the 1820s.

The Falkland Islands became part of the British Empire in 1833 when they invaded after a US warship Lexington destroyed Puerto Soledad., which was an Argentine settlement.

Maybe....maybe not...however it was not worth the deaths on both sides. Not to allow a hugely unpopular Prime Minister to win an election and not to allow a military dictatorship to prop itself up despite huge unpopularity.

Maybe....maybe not...however it was not worth the deaths on both sides. Not to allow a hugely unpopular Prime Minister to win an election and not to allow a military dictatorship to prop itself up despite huge unpopularity.

remember that Argentina did start the Falkland War. Thatcher only did the proper thing in defending British Territory.

remember that Argentina did start the Falkland War. Thatcher only did the proper thing in defending British Territory.

The entire thing had sabre rattling written all over it. If the Argentines were actually serious they would not have sent ill equipped conscripts.

We won the war and so they are our islands.

Thus ends the discussion.

The entire thing had sabre rattling written all over it. If the Argentines were actually serious they would not have sent ill equipped conscripts.

Maybe or they did not expect the response that they got when they invaded the Falklands.

Maybe or they did not expect the response that they got when they invaded the Falklands.

Well actually they did the response they expected which was dialog. Sadly it was soon afterwards that things went seriously south (!) for both sides. Such is life. And a waste of life.

We won the war and so they are our islands.

Thus ends the discussion.

If we follow that logic, then the United States should claim most of the Pacific Ocean including Japan and whatever territory they held at the end of World War II.

1) Our forces are now much better equipped and trained, not having been through four years of Thatcher's scroogery, so it'd be a cinch.

Even the Falkland Islands defence force is better equipped by far, man for man, than the Argentinians.

2) Why wouldn't we have learned from the first time?

3) Argentina's military is in a far, far poorer state now that they don't own the country.

All true except point 1.

We have one less aircraft carrier, one less troop landing ship, less escorts and no longer have HMS Scott the arctic survey vessel. Plus the military has other big commitments we didn't have at the time (Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan) and has suffered Blairs scroogery in place of Thatchers. the only advantage I can see over before is the acquisition of HMS Ocean the helicopter assault vessel. I would imagine that would come in very handy when assaulted a rugged island.

If we follow that logic, then the United States should claim most of the Pacific Ocean including Japan and whatever territory they held at the end of World War II.

And the US could have claimed that. They could have entirely legally annexed all of those islands and Japan.

Instead, they chose to claim only those areas they had previously owned, and occupied Japan for a short time with a multinational force. They did not have to do that.

Britain likewise, only chose to occupy those areas that were hers to begin with.

I don't understand why so many people have a problem with the Falklands War. Britain acted entirely appropriately; A territory of the sovereign nation of Great Britain had been invaded by an aggressor, and that aggressor was then unceremoniously shown the door. It was an entirely just and justified war.

Oh, and as to why the Argentines only sent conscripts: their reliable, veteran units were busy propping up the (incompetent, unpopular and stupid) military junta. The conscripts were literally what they could afford to send.

I don't think it's 'obviously' anybody's. The UK only has de facto sovereignty over the island based on an illegal invasion 120 years ago, while Argentina refuses to recognise the Falkland/Malvinas islander's right to self-determination.

The British did originally colonize the western island, then the Spanish kicked them out, then let them back in. They 'officially' left in 1774, but never gave up their claim to the Western island, making the Spanish (and Argentine) claim to that portion illigal.
So TECHNICALLY the UK has ALWAYS legally owned half of the Falkands.

But the whole thing is really pointless, because nobody really CARED about the legality of their colonial possessions back then.
Acquiris Quodcumque Rapis, as the ever applicable Mr. Pratchett once stated.

If we follow that logic, then the United States should claim most of the Pacific Ocean including Japan and whatever territory they held at the end of World War II.

The USA never took Japan but I do agree, the pacific would be much safer if the yanks controled most of the ocean. I'm not too fond of America but they get things done, if they still had the islands they took in the war N. korea would be less cheeky to the region.

The USA never took Japan but I do agree, the pacific would be much safer if the yanks controled most of the ocean. I'm not too fond of America but they get things done, if they still had the islands they took in the war N. korea would be less cheeky to the region.

I never said anything about Japan but I can agree with everything else you stated.

Actually you can blame the US for kicking the first Argentinean Governor out of the islands after he arrested some of our fishing ships.

So while the US dumped the leaders on the mainland, the British (who had no clue on what was going on) landed on an 'open' island in which the only inhabitants were criminals that were released from the island jail.

The entire thing had sabre rattling written all over it. If the Argentines were actually serious they would not have sent ill equipped conscripts.

Exactly right, most of the troops didn't even know they were on the Falklands until captured, they were told they were going to a military exercise. I think that the junta didn't want to waste their best troops, but however the Argies did alright in the air battle.

'You could hear the bombs bouncing off the foredeck'

I remember this statement from a sailor who was on one of the Merchant Navy ships...

We were fucking lucky. Why the Argentines used the wrong bombs is a mystery to me.
They were using the right bombs, its just that they dropped them to low for their detonators to prime, and for some reason they didn't know how to fix it so they would blow up at a shorter height.

They were dropping bombs that are primed to blow up after 1000 feet, at around 400 feet.

Actually you can blame the US for kicking the first Argentinean Governor out of the islands after he arrested some of our fishing ships.

So while the US dumped the leaders on the mainland, the British (who had no clue on what was going on) landed on an 'open' island in which the only inhabitants were criminals that were released from the island jail.

Can I see some proof of that?

Exactly right, most of the troops didn't even know they were on the Falklands until captured, they were told they were going to a military exercise. I think that the junta didn't want to waste their best troops, but however the Argies did alright in the air battle.

Their army was proping up the government. As to the air battle:

Argentina: 75 fixed-wing aircraft and 25 helicopters were casualties

British: 10 (Sea) Harriers and 24 helicopters were casualties


does not sound like they faired well at all.

Being an Argentine myself I thought I'd be able to make a good contribution to this thread, explaining my personal point of view on the subject.

Upon reading the thread and seeing the poll (not too impressive on a US-Based, english-speaking forum), I have come to the conclusion that it's just not worth it to discuss the issue with some of the posters here.

Seriously, nationalism makes me kinda' sick.

Their army was proping up the government. As to the air battle:



does not sound like they faired well at all.

The loss of the harriers is rather understandable...theyre really not very good planes and, quite honestly, I wouldnt be suprised if those ten were lost due to pilot error/mechanical issues. The US and UK both lost harrier pilots up until they retired the things, chiefly because theyre about as easy to control as a herd of cats on meth.

Can I see some proof of that?
Well I was a little off on that but the gist of it is true.
From Wiki:

1833 invasion of the Falkland Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1833_invasion_of_the_Falkland_Islands)
Background:
On December 28, 1831 the American corvette Lexington destroyed the Argentine Puerto Louis settlement in response to the Argentine governor Luis Vernet having seized U.S. fishing boats. The captain declared the islands to be free of government. This incident served the Foreign Office to reassert its sovereignty claim over the islands. The Argentine Buenos Aires government commissioned Major Esteban Mestivier as the new Governor of the Islands, to set up a penal colony, but when he arrived at the settlement on November 15, 1832 his soldiers mutinied and killed him.

More info: Port Louis, Falkland Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Louis%2C_Falkland_Islands) (Regarding the reasons to the US removing the previous Governor.)

So while the Argentine government had no "Official Governor" running the island, the British sailed up and told whoever was left in charge to switch flags.

Being an Argentine myself I thought I'd be able to make a good contribution to this thread, explaining my personal point of view on the subject.

Upon reading the thread and seeing the poll (not too impressive on a US-Based, english-speaking forum), I have come to the conclusion that it's just not worth it to discuss the issue with some of the posters here.

Seriously, nationalism makes me kinda' sick.

Personally I would value getting an Argentine point of view from you - being English it has never been something that has really appeared in the UK media.

Captain Pedantic stared in disbelief at 8 pages of thread without one of his many minions pointing out that it was Malvinas - Islas Malvinas.

He wondered, briefly, whether it was a nod to Catalan, the language in which it is indeed called Malvines but his knowledge of NSG told him that it could not be so.

He sighed, shaking his head that the revolution of pedantry had come to this. :(

Captain Pedantic stared in disbelief at 8 pages of threads without one of his many minions pointing out that it was Malvinas - Islas Malvinas.

He wondered, briefly, whether it was a nod to Catalan, the language in which it is indeed called Malvines but his knowledge of NSG told him that it could not be so.

He sighed, shaking his head that the revolution of pedantry had come to this :(

Cheer up, there's still time to point out this isn't a "US-based forum." :D

There's still hope for the Pedants' Revolt.

Well I was a little off on that but the gist of it is true.
From Wiki:

1833 invasion of the Falkland Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1833_invasion_of_the_Falkland_Islands)


More info: Port Louis, Falkland Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Louis%2C_Falkland_Islands) (Regarding the reasons to the US removing the previous Governor.)

So while the Argentine government had no "Official Governor" running the island, the British sailed up and told whoever was left in charge to switch flags.

Thank you for the info.

Being an Argentine myself I thought I'd be able to make a good contribution to this thread, explaining my personal point of view on the subject.

Upon reading the thread and seeing the poll (not too impressive on a US-Based, english-speaking forum), I have come to the conclusion that it's just not worth it to discuss the issue with some of the posters here.

Seriously, nationalism makes me kinda' sick.

Actually, I think it is more about international law than any form of nationalism.

Their army was proping up the government. As to the air battle:



does not sound like they faired well at all.
The Argie losses you quoted were on Pebble Island I believe in a raid, not in air combat. I simply saying that they managed to take out 2 destroyers, 2 frigates and 1 transport ship I believe with skyhawks and exocets.

Since 100% of the Falklanders are of British descent AND want to be part of the UK... I'd say that the Falklands are rightfully part of the British territories.

If the Argentinians want to call them "Islas Malvinas", well, no problem. Anyway, Falklands are UK.

Being an Argentine myself I thought I'd be able to make a good contribution to this thread, explaining my personal point of view on the subject.

Upon reading the thread and seeing the poll (not too impressive on a US-Based, english-speaking forum)...

Hey, man, I'm italian. Not an american of italian descent. Just italian, born in Italy by italian parents etc.

As you might know, some of the land that, on a purely geographical criterium, would be Italian, belongs, to-day, to other countries. Example, the Canton Ticino is on the southern side of the Alps, yet it is Switzerland.

I think that Italy has better claims to the Canton Ticino than Argentine has to the Falklands/Malvinas. The Ticinesi are of Italian origin (Falklanders aren't of Argentinian origin); the Canton Ticino was, for long time, territory of the Duchy of Milan; Italian is the official language of the Canton Ticino, and Italian dialects are spoken throughout Ticino (no-one uses Castellano in the Falklands). Yet I think that it should remain Swiss land.

Why? Very simple. The Ticinesi WANT to be Swiss, and Switzerland recognizes Ticino as one of its Cantons (States of the Helvetic Confederation).

The people's will matter. The Falklanders WANT to be British.

Other things - alleged, past wrongs, geography etc. don't matter at all.

Uh, actually, only something like %70 of the islanders are British. Yeah, its still a majority, but theyre not ALL British. Wiki says most of the rest are natives, along with a dash of other Europeans (EX: French).

Uh, actually, only something like %70 of the islanders are British. Yeah, its still a majority, but theyre not ALL British. Wiki says most of the rest are natives, along with a dash of other Europeans (EX: French).

fortunately none are Argentinian hooray (though there all British seeing as how there British citizens:p)

Neither, I agree with a fair few other people on this board when I say the people who live on these islands have the right to self-determination. They can remain part of the UK, join Argentine or become independent - whichever they wish.

Just for the record I think both countries have some degree of claim over it, probably Argentina technically more but the fact that British people live there complicates things. I think for the most part it was used as a nationalist propaganda tool by the junta, seeing as the place is practically worthless I can't think of any other purpose for it.
Oil billions beckon Falkland Islands (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6571431.stm)

Exactly right, most of the troops didn't even know they were on the Falklands until captured, they were told they were going to a military exercise. I think that the junta didn't want to waste their best troops, but however the Argies did alright in the air battle.
Yeah, you're wrong.

It was taken over mainly by their marines and special forces. Only then did the conscripts start arriving, and to be honest, they had something of a decent fighting chance considering how dug in they were and also that some of the Argentine occupation forces had night-vision goggles, a luxury that the UK didn't share.

As to the air battle, we hammered them.

The Argie losses you quoted were on Pebble Island I believe in a raid, not in air combat.
Wrong again, chum.

We took out 10 fixed wing aircraft on Pebble Island, which were 5 Pucará COIN aircraft, 4 Turbomentor light attack aircraft and an SC.7 Skyvan. That still leaves well over 80 aircraft destroyed in other fashions.

Yeah, you're wrong.

It was taken over mainly by their marines and special forces. Only then did the conscripts start arriving, and to be honest, they had something of a decent fighting chance considering how dug in they were and also that some of the Argentine occupation forces had night-vision goggles, a luxury that the UK didn't share.

As to the air battle, we hammered them.

If I remember it was a Argentine Marine battalion plus a bunch of Special Forces who took Port Stanly. Lets face it...you are not going to use conscripts in that part of the invasion. You will use conscripts to garrison a position however. which is what happened.

I thought it was a given that the Argentines would not use conscripts to spearhead the attack on Port Stanly...I mean really....and I guess technically we are both wrong as it was South Georgia that was 'invaded' first ;)

If I remember it was a Argentine Marine battalion plus a bunch of Special Forces who took Port Stanly. Lets face it...you are not going to use conscripts in that part of the invasion. You will use conscripts to garrison a position however. which is what happened.

I thought it was a given that the Argentines would not use conscripts to spearhead the attack on Port Stanly...I mean really....and I guess technically we are both wrong as it was South Georgia that was 'invaded' first ;)
The Marines stayed on, as did quite a few of the commandoes, those being the troops with the afforementioned night-vision goggles.

They pulled a fair few of the more elite troops out, but it was hardly a skeleton crew of them left and everyone else being entirely dregs.

The Marines stayed on, as did quite a few of the commandoes, those being the troops with the afforementioned night-vision goggles.

They pulled a fair few of the more elite troops out, but it was hardly a skeleton crew of them left and everyone else being entirely dregs.

Of course not. You would lose discipline. I'm not sure that there really all that many night vision capable troops. The first attack on the barracks...they only had one set (actually the wiki on the attack on Port Stanley is pretty interesting).

Also I would like to point out that there is a fair amount of ITN and BBC footage....shot via...yep.

The conscripts outnumbered the regulars quite a bit. They were not there to hold the positions. If el Generalissimo was serious he'd have had some major hardcore soldierly in there.

All I know is a bunch of people died and we elected the Thatch. Not a good thing overall.

Of course not. You would lose discipline. I'm not sure that there really all that many night vision capable troops. The first attack on the barracks...they only had one set (actually the wiki on the attack on Port Stanley is pretty interesting).
In the battle of Goose Green, Task Force Mercedes, the Argentinian defenders, were quite well equipped, and was a mixed force of what were essentially Rangers and conscripts which their OC had put through a very condensed Ranger course, to boost morale and skills. This force definitely did have NVGs, as well as quite a decent amount of kit.
Also I would like to point out that there is a fair amount of ITN and BBC footage....shot via...yep.
Yeah. Try and get a camera over your shoulder and an L1A1 in your hands, as well as grenades, extra magazines, a backpack with water etc.

Then note how it all goes a bit wrong ;)
The conscripts outnumbered the regulars quite a bit. They were not there to hold the positions. If el Generalissimo was serious he'd have had some major hardcore soldierly in there.
They didn't really imagine that the response would come so soon.

IIRC they planned to get much better-quality troops in, and the conscripts were there are gap-fillers, it's just that our Sea Harriers were in a position to sink their landing ships by the time they were ready to ship out, so they were hoping for something of a successful defence for a while.
All I know is a bunch of people died and we elected the Thatch. Not a good thing overall.
Indeed. Although it's now a haven for penguins, seeing as the mined beaches aren't set off by the birds, but are by people coming to disturb them.

In the battle of Goose Green, Task Force Mercedes, the Argentinian defenders, were quite well equipped, and was a mixed force of what were essentially Rangers and conscripts which their OC had put through a very condensed Ranger course, to boost morale and skills. This force definitely did have NVGs, as well as quite a decent amount of kit.

Ahh...the attack I mention is the first Argentinian attack on Port Stanley. The first was on the barrack although all three locations (barracks, gov house and...oh fuck something else)...this force hitting the barracks had one NVG...in the entire invasion force there was only a handful.

You are talking post invasion when they got the conscripts in and been supplied quite well. Different proposition entirely. Especially if you have motivated officers (like the one you mention). However against tried and tested combat troops...like the Paras, Commandos, SBS, and Royal Marines...well it might be bloody (it was) but they don't stand a chance.

Yeah. Try and get a camera over your shoulder and an L1A1 in your hands, as well as grenades, extra magazines, a backpack with water etc.

Then note how it all goes a bit wrong ;)

LOL yeah...its pretty amazing though that now its nearly standard kit...

They didn't really imagine that the response would come so soon.

IIRC they planned to get much better-quality troops in, and the conscripts were there are gap-fillers, it's just that our Sea Harriers were in a position to sink their landing ships by the time they were ready to ship out, so they were hoping for something of a successful defence for a while.

No. You see it was never meant to become a shooting match. Of course the Junta leaders paranoia pretty much allowed for little else than war. That coupled with the Thatchs extreme unpopularity had only one end game.

Indeed. Although it's now a haven for penguins, seeing as the mined beaches aren't set off by the birds, but are by people coming to disturb them.

Bloody tourists!