Was the Falkland War British aggression or was it justifiable?

[saurav]

Consider the plight of the people..Diega garcia is another example..

But Chogy is also right...We have to respect the sentiments of people residing there..If they want to remain British citizen then no one can force them to become Argentinian...

 

[888jamie888]

Weren't the Falklands completely uninhabited when the French first colonized them? I mean the British settled there before Argentina was even a country.

 

[Chogy]

Accept it.It's one of your last attempts to restore your image as biggest emperor in the world. You won Falkland war but you lost battle to US in long term.

I am not British, and the American "empire" at its largest wasn't 10% of the British Empire in land mass.

It would be totally different if the Falklands people wanted to be Argentine.

Most people are missing my point. In a perfect world, land would never be gained by conquest, and indigenous peoples would have all been left alone. Of course that didn't happen. But the same people that whine about Great Britain are not acknowledging that those same "poor" indigenous people did the exact same thing in their day. Hundreds, thousands of years ago, they murdered and expelled and took the land from a previous set of people. It's human nature.

We cannot go back in time and fix everything. We cannot expel Anglo-Saxons from England. We cannot expel Britishers from Australia and Canada. The "indigenous" people of Hawaii had previously invaded and killed other people living there.

All we can do is listen to the will of current citizens. The people of Barbados, for example, voted for independence from GB in the 1960's. Guess what? Britain gave it to them. Same with British Honduras, which became Belize. Everyone curses GB, but the reality is, they brought a lot of benefit with them within their empire, brought technology and modern notions of sanitation, governance, medicine, and science, and when asked to leave, they have, within the last 100 years.

 

[Pfpilot]

That last part is misleading though isn't it, Chogy? Post WWII, the British rapidly declined as a world power. When the British had the fire power, they were unwilling to concede anything. Their compliance to the wishes of local citizens were just an acceptance of a new world order, where they were no longer in a position to hold onto obscure locations far away from the mainland.
The benefit they provided was a double edged sword of sorts. They furnished the elite and have left behind a legacy of class struggle and wealth disparity that most former colonial nations still struggle with.
I agree though, that they are no different than any other super power that came before them. But based on that same notion, as former colonized states rise to the forefront of world politics, they are in a position to call out the British on their past misdeeds.

 

[untitled]

self delete ....

 

[888jamie888]

But for the Falklands, it's not like we bent anyone to our will, there was no one living there. I think Spain recognized our rights to the island in 1771.
Why should Argentina, then a revolting colony, have a claim to inheriting the islands?

 

[untitled]

Britain was willing to handover the Falklands in 1968

 

[Pfpilot]

But for the Falklands, it's not like we bent anyone to our will, there was no one living there. I think Spain recognized our rights to the island in 1771.
Why should Argentina, then a revolting colony, have a claim to inheriting the islands?

I don't think Argentina had any realistic claim to the islands...it was just the most convenient method to shift blame from domestic problems and an unstable government. On the other hand, what was there to be gained in fighting a war over land so far away from Britain? It almost seemed like the British were trying to relive the glory days...a successful endeavor i guess, considering they obliterated the Argentinian forces.

 

[Chogy]

Pfpilot, of course there were horrible abuses in the colonial era. I'm not attempting to sugar-coat it. But let's stick with the topic, the Falklands, and the modern era.

Again, Barbados: "We want to be independent from GB" Britan's reply, "OK, you got it." The Falklands was and is very different. The people of the Falklands want to remain within the British system. So long as the Falklands remain "British soil," any attempt at invasion is going to be met with force.

Mexico lost the States of New Mexico, Arizona, California, and parts of Colorodo and Utah to the USA in 1848. Does Mexico have a "claim" on those States? Here's the thing - those lands were very, very thinly settled in 1848, and the majority of the settlers were anglo-saxon types from the North and East. Right now the population is millions and millions, and they are U.S. citizens heart and soul and have no desire to be a part of Mexico.

Just because Country "A" owned a slice of land 100, 200, 1000 years ago, doesn't mean it is theirs anymore.

We cannot undo all of the land grabs that have taken place hundreds of years ago. All we can do now is listen to the will of the people.

 

[Pfpilot]

Pfpilot, of course there were horrible abuses in the colonial era. I'm not attempting to sugar-coat it. But let's stick with the topic, the Falklands, and the modern era.

Again, Barbados: "We want to be independent from GB" Britan's reply, "OK, you got it." The Falklands was and is very different. The people of the Falklands want to remain within the British system. So long as the Falklands remain "British soil," any attempt at invasion is going to be met with force.

Mexico lost the States of New Mexico, Arizona, California, and parts of Colorodo and Utah to the USA in 1848. Does Mexico have a "claim" on those States? Here's the thing - those lands were very, very thinly settled in 1848, and the majority of the settlers were anglo-saxon types from the North and East. Right now the population is millions and millions, and they are U.S. citizens heart and soul and have no desire to be a part of Mexico.

Just because Country "A" owned a slice of land 100, 200, 1000 years ago, doesn't mean it is theirs anymore.

We cannot undo all of the land grabs that have taken place hundreds of years ago. All we can do now is listen to the will of the people.

Agree with you completely. My only point was simply, the British only allowed colonial states the right to independence at a time when they were no longer in a position to hold them by force. No different from a struggling corporation laying off employees. My pointless rant about the hardships of colonialism completely deviated from the point, for that I apologize.

 

[888jamie888]

I don't think Argentina had any realistic claim to the islands...it was just the most convenient method to shift blame from domestic problems and an unstable government. On the other hand, what was there to be gained in fighting a war over land so far away from Britain? It almost seemed like the British were trying to relive the glory days...a successful endeavor i guess, considering they obliterated the Argentinian forces.

Regardless of where they are, the people there are British citizens it is the governments duty to protect them.

 

[Aamir Hussain]

I don't think Argentina had any realistic claim to the islands...it was just the most convenient method to shift blame from domestic problems and an unstable government. On the other hand, what was there to be gained in fighting a war over land so far away from Britain? It almost seemed like the British were trying to relive the glory days...a successful endeavor i guess, considering they obliterated the Argentinian forces.

Reminds you of what is going on aorund us -- laying the blame on someone else for ones own mistake and than manipulating the masses to the call of the war drums!!!

 

[SQ8]

Reminds you of what is going on aorund us -- laying the blame on someone else for ones own mistake and than manipulating the masses to the call of the war drums!!!

I shudder to think who will have more "glory days" at our expense.

 

[Aamir Hussain]

This is exactly what is bothering me. We as Pakistani nation do not why we went into the 48' conflict, 65' war, the 71' debacle the Great Afghan Jihad, or the Kargil adventure. We need a truth and reconcilliation commission on these conflicts before we start looking into another one.

I for one think that there was no immedate threat of a Russian invasion from Afghanistan when beat the drums of war back in 79'.

 

[below_freezing]

Pfpilot, of course there were horrible abuses in the colonial era. I'm not attempting to sugar-coat it. But let's stick with the topic, the Falklands, and the modern era.

Again, Barbados: "We want to be independent from GB" Britan's reply, "OK, you got it." The Falklands was and is very different. The people of the Falklands want to remain within the British system. So long as the Falklands remain "British soil," any attempt at invasion is going to be met with force.

Mexico lost the States of New Mexico, Arizona, California, and parts of Colorodo and Utah to the USA in 1848. Does Mexico have a "claim" on those States? Here's the thing - those lands were very, very thinly settled in 1848, and the majority of the settlers were anglo-saxon types from the North and East. Right now the population is millions and millions, and they are U.S. citizens heart and soul and have no desire to be a part of Mexico.

Just because Country "A" owned a slice of land 100, 200, 1000 years ago, doesn't mean it is theirs anymore.

We cannot undo all of the land grabs that have taken place hundreds of years ago. All we can do now is listen to the will of the people.

OK, so stop talking about Tibet, Xinjiang and Taiwan.

But that's not how it works is it? The US is using its military and intelligence agencies to stir up civil unrest in these regions.