Should UK hand over Gibraltar to Spain?

or even

Hand over Falklands to Argentina?

Hong Kong was leased. The lease expired.

I have never knowingly met a falkland islander, but it does seem an extreme waste of resources keeping a small remote british colony, so many thousands of miles away, with a rediculous cost of military protection etc.

I wonder wether it is just being kept until Thatcher passes on. Good riddance to useless islands.

I say keep it. You can never have enough useless islands.

No I don't think so, it's ours and I think the people living there would like to stay British.

I see no reason to hand them over. The Argentinians caused loads of deaths by invading them in 82. If they hadn't tried to take them by force then we would probably be negotiating with them by now and they would have got them for next to nothing!

The UK has a better legal claim to the islands than Argentina. People of British origin have been in continuous settlement there for over 170 years. The Argentinians also blew whatever chance they had of gaining the islands when they invaded in 1982.

I think definately not. I know people who have been to the Falklands. The "Falklanders" are extreamly hostile against the Argentinians and THEY want to stay British.

Originally posted by Cherry_Pop
I think definately not. I know people who have been to the Falklands. The "Falklanders" are extreamly hostile against the Argentinians and THEY want to stay British.

As do the majority living on Gibraltar.

My son has been to the Falklands on peace keeping duties with the Navy, and has first hand knowledge that the "Falklanders" are extreamly patriotic and feel themselves British although so many thousands of miles away. They are so thankful to the British forces for keeping them free.

Stay British....

It should really be up to the people who live there, same as Gibraltar.

The reason why it is likely to be kept under British control is because there is untapped oil supplies and believed to be other untouched mineral wealth in the region.

There was recently a story about further rumblings from Argentina and extra forces been sent to counter this threat. However, this story was denied on the Falklands website, but the reason for the initial story remains a mystery.

Originally posted by t020
As do the majority living on Gibraltar.

They are not under any threat of invasion from other countries.
(apart from the barbary apes...lol)

The Falklands is also so a stop off place for the Royal Navy to do Antarctic surveys and rest and recouperation with the friendly islanders.

Originally posted by Cherry_Pop
They are not under any threat of invasion from other countries.
(apart from the barbary apes...lol)

The Falklands is also so a stop off place for the Royal Navy to do Antarctic surveys and rest and recouperation with the friendly islanders.

But they still would rather remain British. I agree with Lickszz - it's up to the islanders themselves, and in both cases the majority wish to remain British.

Wouldn't it make more sense to give Argentina back to the Diaguita, Incas and Guarani?

Thanks to Wikipedia for the info.

It should be up to the people who live there, its them its gonna effect not us thousands of miles away.

Why doesn't the Falklands become an independent state. We could give them self rule. If Argentina invade then the Americans can go in and liberate the and it would save the British all the hassle.

No, we should keep the Islands and for two reasons.

First of all the people want to be British.

Secondly, the fact we have a chunk of land adjacent to Antarctica is a strategic advantage - I believe it makes it easier for us to have 'rights' to Antarctic resources, even though the continent is currently not exploited under international agreement.

There is also oil in those waters, and whilst currently uneconomic to get at it, one day that will change.

Keep them.

Joe

Keep Em - the people of the Falklands are as british as we are...
they don't want Argie rule - they've ruined their own country and if Blair thought he could earn a fast buck from it he'd get rid - but as Argentina is a bankrupt regime I doubt that will happen..

Keep em. Historically we have about as much right to them as Argentina does, and the fact that the inhabitants want to stay British seals the deal. From what I can tell the Argentinians probably only care about Las Malvinas because the failing Junta in the early 80's took up the cause in the name of nationalism to unite the country.

I don't see why because the islands are at the other side of the world they'd be less British than Norwich...

Whilst we're at it, give away Bermuda, South Georgia Islands ...

The territories are ours, we're not exploiting them, people who are like us live there, we're part of the same 'community' ...

Dear Lord Chaverly is correct to point to the aggressive invasion of the Falklands. Joe P makes a cogent point too re the wishes of the people and the historical/ethnic links with Britain. However, there is a factor which is even more important, and very much in the islanders' favour. The Falkland Islands are sovereign British territory, and as such cannot be 'given away' or 'handed over' to Argentina, The Disney Corporation or any other Mickey Mouse outfit.

Lest anyone think that a stance such as that adopted by myself, Lord C etc is right wing, may I remind posters that at the time of the attempted 'liberation' of 'The Malvinas', the bulk of the Labour Party [especially Michael Foot, who was furious] backed the use of armed force to combat Galtieri's largely conscripted invaders. I should think they did too!

I am all for foreign policy calculated strictly in British interests. When I read of what has been done to my British kith and kin in Rhodesia by mugabe's [I refuse to spell the ogre's name with a capital letter] brainless morons, I begin to wonder why the Parachute Regiment is not flown over there, and let off the leash. It is in British interests, and would put the wind up mugabe's little knickers to great effect. The Falklands were worth it, and so are British stock in Rhodesia [ to hell with Zimbabwe!]. If not, we may as well spit in the eye of veterans who have fought for our country.

I'm with you on this one timo :thumbsup:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by timo
[B] Lest anyone think that a stance such as that adopted by myself, Lord C etc is right wing, may I remind posters that at the time of the attempted 'liberation' of 'The Malvinas', the bulk of the Labour Party [especially Michael Foot, who was furious] backed the use of armed force to combat Galtieri's largely conscripted invaders. I should think they did too!

Hi Timo,

It more than a little ironic that several members of the current Labour government - including Mr. T. Blair himself - opposed the re-taking of the Falklands by our troops. In other words, Blair opposed a fully justified invasion to regain British sovereign territory, but has been the prime mover in the British participation in the invasion and occupation of Iraq (where no direct British interests were at stake).

A very nice posting by Timo.

A few pointer.....The SAS were active in Rhodesia from 1961 untill they were disbanded in December 1980 due to the independence of what is now called Zimbabwe.
The Falklands is and should alway remain British not only because the inhabitants are British but because of the lives that the following SAS troops Gave to maintain freedom and sovereignty.


Warrant Officer Class 2 Lawrence Gallagher, BEM, Special Air Service Regiment, Squadron Sergeant Major, D Squadron, Age 37

Staff Sergeant Philip Preston Currass, QGM, Royal Army Medical Corps, D Squadron, Age 34

Sergeant Sidney Albert Ivor Davidson, Special Air Service Regiment, D Squadron, Age 34

Sergeant John Leslie Arthy, Welsh Guards, D Squadron, Age 27

Corporal Paul Bunker, Royal Army Ordnance Corps, D Squadron, Age 28

Corporal Edward Thomas Walpole, The Royal Green Jackets, D Squadron, Age 36

Trooper Raymond Ernest Armstrong, The Royal Green Jackets, D Squadron, Age 24

Warrant Officer Class 2 Malcolm Atkinson, Special Air Service Regiment

Squadron Sergeant Major, G Squadron, Age 36

Staff Sergeant P. O'Connor, Irish Guards, G Squadron

Sergeant William John Hughes, Welsh Guards, G Squadron, Age 34

Corporal William Clark Hatton, QGM, Special Air Service Regiment, G Squadron, Age 31

Sergeant P. Jones, Welsh Guards, G Squadron, Age 28

Corporal William John Begley, Royal Corps of Transport, Age 32

Corporal John Newton, Corps of Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, Age 22

Corporal Robert A. Burns, Royal Corps of Signals, 264 (SAS) Signal Squadron, Age 22

Corporal S. N. J. Sykes, Royal Corps of Signals, 264 (SAS) Signal Squadron, Age 25

Lance Corporal Paul N. Lightfoot, Royal Corps of Signals, 264 (SAS) Signal Squadron, Age 21

Corporal Michael J. McHugh, Royal Corps of Signals, 264 (SAS) Signal Squadron, Age 22

Flight Lieutenant Garth Hawkins, Royal Air Force, 603 Tactical Air Control Party, Age 39

Corporal Douglas McCormack, Royal Corps of Signals, 603 Tactical Air Control Party, Age 26

Doug was Garth Hawkins' signaller and partner and the two were an inseparable team. His aim was to join 264 Signal Squadron and then the regiment itself; sadly he died alongside members of both.

Captain Gavin John Hamilton, MC, The Green Howards D Squadron, Age 29

Thankyou Lord C and Delboy, it is nice to be amongst such good company on the forum. I am so pleased to see such an overwhelming consensus of 'no!' on this issue.

One wonders what would have happened if Kinnock had been in power, rather than Maggie? I would like to think that Foot et al would have persuaded him of the need for military action. Whilst it is true that the bulk of the Labour Party were in favour of armed defence of the islands, I wonder if the dissenting voices of Blair and co might have cost us vital time? I rather think that they might have done so. Never mind, we had a Prime Minister rather similar in terms of martial spirit to Queen Elizabeth the First, who never hesitated for a second, and did the correct thing. Thatcher's magnificent, defiant utter confidence, best exemplified in her wonderful, 'There is no possibility of defeat' comment did wonders for the troops and country. I remember hearing it, and bursting with pride. The effect on that thumping crook, Galtieri must have been devastating.

One thing rarely mentioned about the Falklands is the skill of the Argentine pilots. The ground troops simply were not a match for British forces. They proved themselves a nasty lot too, on occasion, with the cowardly bogus surrender tactics with white flags. However, the pilots, to recap, were often of the highest quality. People forget their stunning bravery too; there were many 'kamikaze'-style suicide missions undertaken by Argentine pilots against our ships. One cannot help but admire such courage and patriotism. I remember watching footage in horrified silence, thinking that they could be Japanese Zeros attacking American ships at Midway. Only a fool or silly little boy would deny the exceptional bravery of these pilots, who made the ultimate sacrifice in vain.

Yes, The Argentine pilots were very courageous and had quite a bit of success. The Dassault Super Etendard that the Argentinians had was a major threat. The problem they did have is that they flew extremely low and many of their bombs failed to explode and hit ships.

Once the British army had got ashore and were in a position to advance the Argentinian airforce were limited to the damage they could actually cause.

The first ship to be sunk with loss of life in the Falklands was the HMS SHEFFIELD......the sinking of this ship and others caused us to rethinking our stratergy to which...the Belgrade was sunk with a loss of 2000 lives......and for what?

Timo! You say thanks to Thatcher......I do too!.......Blair and his goons have presently shown nothing for our troops in Iraq... to which we were illegal in entering into.
The total disregard to the loss of our fellow comrades in arms has cost us dearly with over 88 deaths that are to my opinion...murders.. by the current government.

I will fight to the death....anyone that has allowed this to happen....the queen is the head of our state and our military........Why has she allowed this carnage of our troops for the better self worth that Blair and his assholes now seem to be getting.

As you know Timo!.....I have been a part of a lot of conflicts....but yet, have to sit....being able to do nothing in the current warfare that has been inflicted on us by Blair and his idiots.

May god be with us, our people and our families

Del,
I agree entirely with you re Iraq. It is not in Britain's interests to meddle in the affairs of Iraq. Churchill played a big part in the hasty construction of Iraq in the first place, and a flimsy construction it was and is, made up of ethnic groups that hold smouldering grudges against each other and ourselves. We have let down the Arab world so often in the past, going back to the wretched Balfour Declaration that created the hideous Cuckoo that is Israel, and failed to protect Palestinian rights. No wonder they hate us. A common saying in the Arab world goes along these lines, 'It is better to be an enemy of the British than to be a friend, because the British always shoot their friends in the back'. I am ashamed to say that we have done so, so very often to the Arab peoples. Let us hope that this ghastly pantomime in Mesopotamia [as it should be known] ends as soon as possible.

There is no comparison between Iraq and the Falklands, as I am sure you will agree, Del. One is a costly interventionist, example of meddling/international idealism, and the other was a necessary defence of British sovereign interests. Our troops simply should not be there, and nor should they be anywhere else that does not serve national interests.

Having said that, our troops are in Northern Ireland. This is sovereign British territory, and the Eire government have formally given up all previous claims to it as Irish land. However, I remember Patrick Mayhew once saying that Britain had no 'interests' there 'whatsoever' ! Confused?!

I understand why you are confused....We all are!

In effect, we realy have no interest in Ireland except that of dominence in history where we persecuted the irish people for our own end...be what they were, I am still to figure out.

The Northern ireland saga continues yet we have little or nothing to gain by keeping this little island a part of the UK.

During the war.....the Irish would keep their lights on during blackout to guide the bombers from Germany to their targets in the UK.


THey have accepted to give up their sovereignty to Europe and will like Italy etc descover their mistakes at a later date.

Funny how Blair is trying o get us fully into Europe whilst other countries are trying to get out ...........

Del,
As an English Protestant, I would like Ulster to be seen, in John Major's words, 'as British as Surrey'. However, the Protestants of Northern Ireland are usually seen as Irish, and as nothing else, outside of the province. Their loyalty to Britain is certainly not equally reciprocated. Some might say that the communities of Antrim etc are actually loyal to a 1950s notion of Britain anyway. It is with sadness that I watch their Orange Parade through Southport town centre every year. For all the martial sounds of the fife and drum bands, the orange lilies and the songs of 'Sashes' worn by forefathers in 'bygone days of yore', the Protestants of Northern Ireland will eventually be betrayed by a government in my lifetime. How soon we forget our friends. Never mind that the Eire government has signed away its claims on the territory, or the plain fact that it could not afford to run a 'united' Ireland, the sheer cost to the British government and to the tax- payer will see to an eventual disengagement.

I used to watch the Orange Parade thinking that it was a proud and defiant declaration of a symbolic boundary, a shoring-up of Protestant values and norms, and a v sign to anyone who dared to suggest defeat. Now, it seems an anachronism that happens once a year, and incurs the wrath of shopkeepers. 'Just who are these Orange people anyway?' said the Manager of Southport Marks and Spencer [angry that the march lost him a day's trade]. The British people have forgotten much of their traditions, especially those which originally celebrated religious liberty.

By the way, your point about Irish 'guiding lights' for German bombers is acknowledged by the Irish historian, Roy Foster. However, this shameful episode of the De Valera government, I feel, is balanced by the fact that more southern Irishmen enlisted in the British Army to fight the Axis powers, than the total from the predominantly Protestant north. Many of these Catholic men went home to terrible treatment.

I have a very good friend who is still in the Navy now and was in the Falklands war.....He was a local gun director for the 4"5 gun ( the big gun on the front of ships). They already had large areas of battle damage on their ship, so many compartments were flooded and any more hits and they would have sunk. A Super E fired Exocet at them whilst there gun was unavailable due to battle damage and he got it fixed, a round into the mount, fired off and splashed the Exocet just 2 meters away from the ship. This is just one of his many neardeath scary stories that he and others (some not so lucky) had to go through and I think as someone said before; we might aswell spit in the eyes and graves of those veterans who were out there if we just handed it over to the Argentinians.

Timo...I gather that you have Irish ancestry or are Irish,....I have always admired the irish for standing up for what they believe in and on many occasions have sang about Kevin Barry with them.

What the British did to the irish population was no less than barbaric where a child was sent to Austrailia for stealing a loaf of bread because he was hungry.

I have found the Irish people..both protestant and Catholic to be nothing more than good down to earth people with values that I admire.

Del,
No, I am actually of predominantly English origin! One of my great-Grandmothers was born in Dublin, but a Protestant of English settler [Needham family of Derbyshire] stock. Because of this Protestant connection to Ireland, I have always tended to take an interest in the history and politics of ethnic identity there.
My parents are both English born, and of largely English stock. As is the case with all English people, scratch the surface of the Family Tree and there are a couple of Scottish and Welsh connections too. My mother's side [ the surname Shirt] descends from Cheshire landowners, the Del Sherd family of Macclesfield. Their hunting horn heraldry is featured on the coat of Arms of Macclesfield, as is that of the Sutton family too. My father's side is less impressive, but largely English. So, I feel very English, and in touch with my roots.

I tend to agree with you re the Irish of both sides. Our countries are inextricably linked, and it is a tragedy that so much pain and bloodshed colours our mutual history.

I would like to appologise to the mods etc, we have gone way off topic.


Should the Falklands or even Gibralta be handed over away from British sovereignty?

My answer to this is obviouse........No!!!
Should anyone wish to give an alternative view/opinion....please do so with reasons why?

Hong Kong was leased to the British by the Chinece government, and was returned at the end of the lease. It bears no comparison to the Falkland Islands, which, as has been pointed out, is sovereign British territory.

It would be act of treachery to the brave servicemen who lost their lives or were hideously injured if we handed the islands over to anyone else. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the British government re-taking the islands by force - we did, and that is a fact that we cannot ignore.

I do not believe that the long-term future of the Falkland Islands rests with them remaining British territory for ever, but any changes to the status of the islands is a long, long way away. Argentina put paid to any changes in the status of the islands in the short-term future with their inept, and illegal, invasion.

The question of self-determination is a moot point. The population of the Falkland Islands is too small to allow them to become a self governing country.

Moreover, the history of Argentina since the fall of the Galtieri dictatorship is hardly one which would persuade the Falkland islanders to accept rule from Buenos Aires. The Argentinian economy has been close to complete collapse on several occasions (at one point, citizens could not even withdraw their own money from the banks) and the country has been blighted by bad governance and rampant corruption.

Never, never, hand Gibraltar to the Spanish, it's far too valuable,we once had a tour of the tunnels inside the rock, it was shortly after the Falklands conflict, and it was totally amazing, there were arches similar to the arches down near the market, but in these we stored all our weapons, I had never realised these tunnels were in the rock,but it made us realise just how important it is to us.

the falklands is and will always be British......Those that want to see this island go away and others like it have no patriotism nor do they understand the significance that these islands have with our history or that actual people lost their lives defending the right for these islanders to be part of England even though they are many miles away.

comments that have been posted in this thread have shown the educated and uneducated views of people in the forum..
Those that care,,, those that don't understand.

May I say that this is by far the best thread that I have had pleasure of posting.

Sorry if Del and I got engrossed in Irish affairs, and went off topic.

I would be interested to know why Red thinks the Falklands 'long term history' does not rest with them being sovereign territory. No offence, Red, but why on earth not? Surely once sovereign territory, that is it, so to speak. We do not have to hand the islands over to anybody, nor do we have to grant independence to the islanders. Maybe there are examples from history which contradict my point, but technically, the Falkland Islanders may remain subjects of the Queen forever. Their loyalty to the crown causes pleasure, but actually is irrelevant. Even if the population developed a craving to belong to a decrepit, corrupt, economic cripple of a country governed by Tomfools like Argentina, technically they belong to Britain for good. The Islanders are not silly, and know where their ethnic identity comes from, and where their best interests lie, and it is not up the River Plate.

Red, you also refer to the 'rights and wrongs' of the military intervention. What possible 'wrongs' can there be in this situation? I note that you acknowledge the 'treachery' towards services personnel injured or killed inherent in any attempt to hand over the islands 'to anyone else'. I agree with you. However, I personally see no 'wrongs' whatsoever with a nation-state employing military force to liberate sovereign territory from an illegal, aggressive armed invasion by a foreign power. As Michael Foot said at the time, we have 'every right' to respond in that way. What a message it would have sent out to all the would-be dictators of the world, had we caved in and gone for 'negotiations'. Thank God for Maggie, and thank God for the support of dear Ronald Reagan, the finest American President of the 20th Century.

Should UK hand over Gibraltar to Spain?

or even

Hand over Falklands to Argentina?

no never ever

There's never been any settlement of the islands by the Argentines at all. They were uninhabited before the British turned up. The Argentine claim is very poor, and has considerably less validity than the Spanish claim on Gibraltar.

both territories overwhelmingly want to stay British to the extent that there would be no point in even bothering to hold referendums. The result would be at least 90% YES in both cases.

the Falkland island's proximity to as yet unexploited oil resources will doubtless spur the Argentines to redouble their very spurious claim and motivate the British to maintain their considerable garrison there for some time to come.

it's even possible that in the future the Falkland Islanders, hilariously called 'Bennies' by some of the 1982 squaddies after that retard in the old ITV sitcom 'Crossroads', might become the richest people in the world on a per capita basis once the oil comes on stream.

Benny from Crossroads
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWOuGpf1UMc

one thing rarely mentioned about the Falklands is the skill of the Argentine pilots. The ground troops simply were not a match for British forces.

that's because they stationed their crack units on the border with Chile, the UK's key Latin American ally at the time. They left the defence of the Malvinas in the hands of mostly a bunch of wide-eyed conscripts.

The reason why it is likely to be kept under British control is because there is untapped oil supplies and believed to be other untouched mineral wealth in the region.

Correct.

A useful toehold in the region for the UK.

Thread necromancy again... however, since the guy who resurrected posted simply; "Never ever..." I'll go on and ask, what if the Falklanders themselves want independence, and/or transferring to Argentina, at some future date?

As long as the residents of the islands wish them to remain British then they should be. It's not as if we stole them or invaded and kicked off some already resident Argentinians.

If, in the future, the residents wish for self determination or even to become part of Argentina then that should be up to them. Self determination for subject people.

The Falklands campaign was Maggies' biggest mistake and is yet another shameful blot on British history.
Instead of starting a war, the government should have entered into a dialogue with Argentina and arranged a timetable for The Falklands/ Malvinas to be handed over.

edit: i didnt realise quite how old the post i was quoting was :D

It is too late now anyway - now we know there are large amounts of oil and gas round there i doubt there is even an inkling of a chance we would give it "back"

Interesting to see 13% of people on here treat people like meat to be "handed over" :roll:

Any of you ask the Falkland Islanders?

we may aswell keep them as we wont be getting anymore land now our country is a laughing stock around the world with an embarrasing military due to the government not giving them much kit anymore.....how things change :roll:

we may aswell keep them as we wont be getting anymore land now our country is a laughing stock around the world with an embarrasing military due to the government not giving them much kit anymore.....how things change :roll:

What land do you think we would get if the government gave the military enough "kit"?

It is too late now anyway - now we know there are large amounts of oil and gas round there i doubt there is even an inkling of a chance we would give it "back"

That sounds like something we stole, after googling Falklands it sounds like the islands were briefly occupied by the French, the Spanish and us, nobody really wanted or knew what to do with the place other than send criminals there (sounds familiar), the British finally set up a colony and have been there ever since.

The Falklands campaign was Maggies' biggest mistake and is yet another shameful blot on British history.
Instead of starting a war, the government should have entered into a dialogue with Argentina and arranged a timetable for The Falklands/ Malvinas to be handed over.


Whichever camp you sit in I believe that Argentina made the 1st military move. Galtieri was not about to negotiate..on the contrary he was in serious trouble at home. If my memory serves me well, we did enter into negotiations, even if that negotiation was to enable us time to create a task force. Cynically some may say this got thatcher another term in office. Britain has a history of enjoying a good scrap, regardless of odds. Without the support of the Americans (politically and militarily) we'd have been up 5hit creek without a paddle. With no American green light we wouldn't have gone in..Americas presence on Ascension Island played a pivotal role tactically. IMO

The UK has a better legal claim to the islands than Argentina. People of British origin have been in continuous settlement there for over 170 years. The Argentinians also blew whatever chance they had of gaining the islands when they invaded in 1982.Spot on. Given the choice those who live in the Falklands would rather remain British.

;5843418']Spot on. Given the choice those who live in the Falklands would rather remain British.

It's a massive waste of time and resources for the sake of a population of just over 3,000 people. It's about as logical for Britain to own the Falkland Islands as it is for Argentina to own the Isle of Wight!

It's a massive waste of time and resources for the sake of a population of just over 3,000 people. It's about as logical for Britain to own the Falkland Islands as it is for Argentina to own the Isle of Wight!

Even if we ignore self determination (You'd be a vile person to do that but for the sake of the argument) you won't be saying that when the oil/gas/whatever turns up in British waters. :D

It's a massive waste of time and resources for the sake of a population of just over 3,000 people. It's about as logical for Britain to own the Falkland Islands as it is for Argentina to own the Isle of Wight!

Or for the French to own Jersey and Guernsey?

It's a massive waste of time and resources for the sake of a population of just over 3,000 people. It's about as logical for Britain to own the Falkland Islands as it is for Argentina to own the Isle of Wight!

You could say the same about British “outposts” all over the world though and then there is the little matter of distance, the IOW is a stones throw from Southampton, the Falklands are hundreds of miles from Argentina.

If they want to stay British they should stay British.

we may aswell keep them as we wont be getting anymore land now our country is a laughing stock around the world with an embarrasing military due to the government not giving them much kit anymore.....how things change :roll:

We weren’t in that good a position, militarily, at the time of the Falklands war either - our success hinged on the performance of two, small aircraft carriers which were due to be sold, and were never intended to be used as bases for a major naval invasion.

The other major naval units involved Fearless and Intrepid were to be sold/mothballed too. In fact the navy was in such a poor state that the joke doing the rounds at the Admiralty at the time was 'save your razor blades - Maggie wants the Vanguard back' (A reference to the last Battleship ever to serve in the RN which had been scrapped and turned into razor blades allegedly!)

We didn't have enough choppers to transport the ground forces (in the main due the sinking of the Atlantic Conveyor which was carrying the bulk of our Chinook helos), many of the troops involved in the final stages of the conflict were not combat fit (this was the case with the Welsh guards and the reason they had to be transported - disastrously as it turned out - around the islands aboard the ill-fated Sir Galahad).

We had no AEW for the fleet, our fighters relied on American supplied sidewinders to give them an edge they otherwise would have lacked against the Argentine air force and on top of all that, at the end of the conflict, the task force was probably only a matter of weeks away from total collapse due to the heavy toll of the war and the South Atlantic weather.

So you see, we really weren’t in any better shape to fight that war in '82 than we would be now!

It's a massive waste of time and resources for the sake of a population of just over 3,000 people. It's about as logical for Britain to own the Falkland Islands as it is for Argentina to own the Isle of Wight!

Except for the oil and gas.

we may aswell keep them as we wont be getting anymore land now our country is a laughing stock around the world with an embarrasing military due to the government not giving them much kit anymore.....how things change :roll:

The funny thing is, the british military is still regarded by experts as one of the best in the world. It is mainly us who laugh at it.

Good riddance to useless islands.

Aye, with all those billions of barrels of oil sat under them, useless!

So you see, we really weren’t in any better shape to fight that war in '82 than we would be now!

Apart from our ability to remove Buenos Aries from the map without anyone leaving our shores.

Apart from our ability to remove Buenos Aries from the map without anyone leaving our shores.

Nah, never threaten something you won't follow through on.

As for Annoni_mouse's post it's spot on. I've read Sandy Woodwards book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/One-Hundred-Days-Falklands-Commander/dp/0006378412/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263907581&sr=1-1) and it backs all of that up.

Apart from our ability to remove Buenos Aries from the map without anyone leaving our shores.

Although we do have a number of cruise missile equipped submarines which could perform the same role as the Vulcans did during the 'Black Buck' missions (Which is what I assume you were referring to?)

Although we do have a number of cruise missile equipped submarines which could perform the same role as the Vulcans did during the 'Black Buck' missions (Which is what I assume you were referring to?)

I think that the Vanguard class submarine could achieve the job comfortably.

So you see, we really weren’t in any better shape to fight that war in '82 than we would be now!

Apart from the fact that we retired the Sea Harrier and only have the RAF ground attack Harrier left to fly from our aircraft carriers, it's a gap in our defence that may never be closed if current rumours are true.

Apart from the fact that we retired the Sea Harrier and only have the RAF ground attack Harrier left to fly from our aircraft carriers, it's a gap in our defence that may never be closed if current rumours are true.

Quite true.

Even if/when the JSF does become available, there seems to be some major concerns as to how effective an aircraft it will be.

Aye, with all those billions of barrels of oil sat under them, useless!

Yeah, who wants 60 billion barrels of oil and 7.9trillion cubic litres of gas and the vast wealth and economic boom that goes with it?

...Argentina for one.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE60H41E20100118

I dont think Argentina have any other claim than it is off their coast. I dont think they had inhabitants there. We have or should I say the people their want to keep their British roots.
We need the Island also as a base for any future plundering of the ant arctic. As soon as any oil is found to be accessable their we will on it before you can say $100 a barrel.
If they did not try and invade it we would have probably given it them back on some sort of guilt trip. We cant help our selves, we are still bending over for things the Brits did hundreds of years ago, just look at how sorry we still are with the crusades and slavery.

the Falkland originally were part of Argentina if you check the history

the Falkland originally were part of Argentina if you check the history

When?

Argentina has only existed since 1816ish, so it had to be after that (any prior claim was spanish, not argentinian).

And since we have (properly) claimed sovereignty since the 1830's, there is only a very short window when they could have belonged to argentina. We did in fact claim them before that, but it gets a bit muddled as to who said what to who.

The Falklands campaign was Maggies' biggest mistake and is yet another shameful blot on British history.

Utter nonsense. It is not a mistake for the UK stand up for it's own citizens.

Instead of starting a war, the government should have entered into a dialogue with Argentina and arranged a timetable for The Falklands/ Malvinas to be handed over.

Why? The people who actually live there don't want to be handed over. Don't you think they should have a say?

Utter nonsense. It is not a mistike for the UK actually stand up for it's own citizens.


Well said !

Bout time someone stood up to the clowns! :hihi:

THe pleasant little town of Madison, Connecticut has a British shop selling high teas, biscuits, confectionaries, and Irish sausage and bacon at exorbitant prices. It is owned by a, like me, retired Royal Navy Chief Petty Officer. I asked him if he was in the Falklands campaign, and he told me he retired just before it. .We both agreed we joined the Navy to see the world , not to get shot at. We had a laugh about it. But the RN has been in action somewhere ever since WWII, Korea, Suez, Malaya, Iraq. Nothing can detract from the quality of the men and women who serve in it. I have a friend who is a retired rear admiral in the USN. His admiration of the RN is unquestioned. Its size and power were reduced by successive governments to a fraction of what it was and should be. Much of its traditional policing has fallen on the USN, causing undeserved resentment.

The funny thing is, the british military is still regarded by experts as one of the best in the world. It is mainly us who laugh at it.

The individual British soldier is still one of the best in the world and the army despite it's many maulings by succesive politicians over the years a force capable of doing some serious ass kicking.

I was really sorry to see the disanding of so many of the Scottish regiments some years ago

Why? The people who actually live there don't want to be handed over. Don't you think they should have a say?


A sound reason for not handing them over to Argentina; people should have self-determination.

However, the British Government must also have the right to dispose of unwanted colonies. Perhaps the question should be "should we impose independence on the Falklands?"

Given the current beliefs about the vast oil/gas wealth in the area, I don't think any Government would ever consider doing so. The question would have had more significance when those reserves were unknown.

Hand over Gibraltar and Falklands Islands. And whilst we are at it N Ireland as well, seeing as we pinched that too.

Awaits uproar............

Hand over Gibraltar and Falklands Islands. And whilst we are at it N Ireland as well, seeing as we pinched that too.


Northern Ireland would be trickier - nobody wants to take it from us.

Hand over Gibraltar and Falklands Islands. And whilst we are at it N Ireland as well, seeing as we pinched that too.

Awaits uproar............

No uproar but don't the people living there have a say?

You sure about that??

You sure about that??

I'll rephrase it ......shouldn't the people living there have a say in whether they want to remain there and British?

Just to stir things up, why not get the French to give up Saint Pierre and Miquelon, after all these islands are only 6.2 miles from Newfoundland Canada.
I was on Newfoundland when the Falklands War ended and I think I am right to say that I never paid for a drink that night, the Newfies we so happy that we had taken back the Falklands. It did make my life a little difficult because I was trying to do some research in conjunction with an Antarctic research station and the Argentinians had blown up the radio station on the Falklands that was used to communicate with the station. There are no such things as carrier penguins


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Pierre_and_Miquelon
http://www.st-pierre-et-miquelon.com/english/index.php

Just to stir things up, why not get the French to give up Saint Pierre and Miquelon, after all these islands are only 6.2 miles from Newfoundland Canada.
I was on Newfoundland when the Falklands War ended and I think I am right to say that I never paid for a drink that night, the Newfies we so happy that we had taken back the Falklands. It did make my life a little difficult because I was trying to do some research in conjunction with an Antarctic research station and the Argentinians had blown up the radio station on the Falklands that was used to communicate with the station. There are no such things as carrier penguins


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Pierre_and_Miquelon
http://www.st-pierre-et-miquelon.com/english/index.phpWhen I lived in Stephenville, NFLD, the Islanders used to come over to play Hockey against us. They usually beat the pants off us.

If there are billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of gas in close proximity I don't think the islanders will have much say in the future sovereignty of the islands. A few sheep could be a different matter though.

The UK has a better legal claim to the islands than Argentina. People of British origin have been in continuous settlement there for over 170 years. The Argentinians also blew whatever chance they had of gaining the islands when they invaded in 1982.Once again the voice of reason.

Yeah, who wants 60 billion barrels of oil and 7.9trillion cubic litres of gas and the vast wealth and economic boom that goes with it?

...Argentina for one.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE60H41E20100118It's a myth, can you tell me what you spent your share of the North Sea Oil and Gas on?

Once again the voice of reason.

The voise of ranting xenophobia masquerading as patriotism, more like! Some people can't accept that Britain doesn't have an empire any more.

The Falklands campaign was Maggies' biggest mistake and is yet another shameful blot on British history.
Instead of starting a war, the government should have entered into a dialogue with Argentina and arranged a timetable for The Falklands/ Malvinas to be handed over.
How strange for someone who slags of what they call a fascist/nazi party (BNP) to want to hand over British citizens to a Neo Nazi regime; a country that has one of the worst human rights records anywhere.
Some anti nazi I don't think.:loopy:

it's even possible that in the future the Falkland Islanders, hilariously called 'Bennies' by some of the 1982 squaddies after that retard in the old ITV sitcom 'Crossroads', might become the richest people in the world on a per capita basis once the oil comes on stream.

Yeh that's what were told about North Sea Oil/Gas, I'm still waiting for my £millions.:hihi:

The voise of ranting xenophobia masquerading as patriotism, more like! Some people can't accept that Britain doesn't have an empire any more.

We don’t have an empire but we have left our mark all over the world just the same as the French,, Spanish and Portuguese did but I don’t see any of them rushing to give up the lands that they formed.

How strange for someone who slags of what they call a fascist/nazi party (BNP) to want to hand over British citizens to a Neo Nazi regime; a country that has one of the worst human rights records anywhere.
Some anti nazi I don't think.:loopy:

I have no interest in Argentinian politics; all I know is that geographically, financially and historically they have a far greater claim to the Falklands/Malvinas than the UK does.

The voise of ranting xenophobia masquerading as patriotism, more like! Some people can't accept that Britain doesn't have an empire any more.
Wow the champion of democracy, wanting to give over british citizens to a police state against their will.
They ought to put up a monument to you in Port Stanley for people to shoot at.

Just to stir things up, why not get the French to give up Saint Pierre and Miquelon, after all these islands are only 6.2 miles from Newfoundland Canada.
I was on Newfoundland when the Falklands War ended and I think I am right to say that I never paid for a drink that night, the Newfies we so happy that we had taken back the Falklands. It did make my life a little difficult because I was trying to do some research in conjunction with an Antarctic research station and the Argentinians had blown up the radio station on the Falklands that was used to communicate with the station. There are no such things as carrier penguins


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Pierre_and_Miquelon
http://www.st-pierre-et-miquelon.com/english/index.phpI thought about this one. There are some similarities between the Falklands situation and St.Pierre Miquelon. The French Islands are much closer to Canada than the Falklands are to Argentina. I'm trying ot imagine what would happen if Canada tried to take over SPM. Would the French send over the Clemenceau full of aircraft and soldiers to defend? Canada, thankfully, is not Argentina. Far too benign a power to even consider it.

I have no interest in Argentinian politics;

And now the 'Nelson Touch' " I see no Fascist Police State"; none so blind as those will not see.:roll:

I have no interest in Argentinian politics; all I know is that geographically, financially and historically they have a far greater claim to the Falklands/Malvinas than the UK does.

Utter utter nonsense, on all 3 points.

I have no interest in Argentinian politics; all I know is that geographically, financially and historically they have a far greater claim to the Falklands/Malvinas than the UK does.


Why do they? In what way?

No, definitely not. In fact I'm still reeling over the UK handing back India and bits of Africa. The Empire was awesome.

Utter utter nonsense, on all 3 points.

Geographically they have a better claim than us; we're thousands of miles away. However, that's the weakest of all arguments.

Financially and historically, Argentina has never had any claim on the Falklands, and in any event, the only thing that really matters is what the Falklanders themselves want to happen. They want to stay British.

I have never knowingly met a falkland islander, but it does seem an extreme waste of resources keeping a small remote british colony, so many thousands of miles away, with a rediculous cost of military protection etc.

I wonder wether it is just being kept until Thatcher passes on. Good riddance to useless islands.

Do you kiss your mom with that mouth. Who or what are you. Certainly not a British subject. If somone came and took your house off you I'm sure you would protest or do you live of the state. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM one does wonder.:huh:

We keep plenty of colonies here in the UK at great cost, should we get rid of them back to where they came from?

It's a myth, can you tell me what you spent your share of the North Sea Oil and Gas on?

Well I was too young to spend it on anything but just because the government gets the money doesn't mean we do. According to Norman Lamont in Jan 1987 it was used by the Conservative government (who had the lion's share of the revenues from it) to pay off some of the National Debt (14% of it at the time), buy assets abroad that would supposedly make money (no idea what those were) and pay for investment in the NHS amongst other things.

North Sea Oil also suffered from bad timing. The global oil price crashed in the mid-80s when Saudi Arabia flooded the market, causing oil prices to sink to $9 a barrel. Even in normal years the cost was a fraction of what the same oil would cost today.

So if you didn't think you felt much effect from it, that's because government decide what to spend it on. The economy in the 80s/90s would probably have been worse without the revenue from it though.

Geographically they have a better claim than us; we're thousands of miles away. However, that's the weakest of all arguments.

Oh ofcourse, but it's not in Argentine waters. It's sufficiently far away from anywhere that it should be under the nationality chosen by the people who actually live there.

When it comes to Gibralta, im torn, part of me says no, and part of me says yes :|

I live in Gibraltar. I think it should stay English, there's too much history to give it up.

Argentina realistically don't have any more valid claim over the islands than Britan does. They only had control for a very short while after Argentina was declared independent from Spain, and they messed that up by picking a fight with some Americans.

I agree with a lot of comments about our claim over them being a bit pointless, but if the people who live there are British and want the islands to remain that way then it is our duty to protect them.

keep them.
the people of the islands want to be British, plus.......OIL OIL OIL! (well they reckon so anyway).:hihi:

I thought about this one. There are some similarities between the Falklands situation and St.Pierre Miquelon. The French Islands are much closer to Canada than the Falklands are to Argentina. I'm trying ot imagine what would happen if Canada tried to take over SPM. Would the French send over the Clemenceau full of aircraft and soldiers to defend? Canada, thankfully, is not Argentina. Far too benign a power to even consider it.

We may be accused of going off topic talking about Canada and France but I think that many of the people of Newfoundland feel they have more in common with the UK than they do with Canada or France, a bit like the Falklands or Gibraltar. When I was there some of the locals felt they had sold down the river by the UK when they joined Canada as the tenth province to enter the Canadian Confederation on 31 March 1949. Until 1949 they were British subjects and it was not until 1980 that they had the modern Newfoundland and Labrador Flag, the most used flag before that was the Union Flag not the Maple Leaf, imagine how some of the forum member would feel if Sheffield was handed over to Lancashire. Interestingly the population of Newfoundland and Labrador is about the same as Sheffield but the area is much greater at 156,453 sq mi compared with Sheffield at only 142.1 sq mi

I'll rephrase it ......shouldn't the people living there have a say in whether they want to remain there and British?

You're right. I hereby declare Bradford part of the state of Pakistan.

Well I was too young to spend it on anything but just because the government gets the money doesn't mean we do. According to Norman Lamont in Jan 1987 it was used by the Conservative government (who had the lion's share of the revenues from it) to pay off some of the National Debt (14% of it at the time), buy assets abroad that would supposedly make money (no idea what those were) and pay for investment in the NHS amongst other things.

North Sea Oil also suffered from bad timing. The global oil price crashed in the mid-80s when Saudi Arabia flooded the market, causing oil prices to sink to $9 a barrel. Even in normal years the cost was a fraction of what the same oil would cost today.

So if you didn't think you felt much effect from it, that's because government decide what to spend it on. The economy in the 80s/90s would probably have been worse without the revenue from it though.
Wel if it's as you say what would have happened without it; obviously the country would have been bankrupt, I seem to remember all sorts of financial problems in the 70s when the oil/gas was in full flow
Gas never came down one penny until much later and that was due to privatisation, the oil from the North sea was High Grade and not the cheaper rough crude that you get from the Arab oil fields.

You're right. I hereby declare Bradford part of the state of Pakistan.You may as well.

You may as well.

Really? Why?

Really? Why?Well you said you should, so why?

Well you said you should, so why?

No i didn't, unless my username keeps changing.