It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Falkland Island War

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Link to CNN article

It seems Mr. Chavez is taking his rhetoric to a new level, and apparently, noone told him the British and Argentinians already fought this war, 23 years ago. He also seems to forget that the residents of the Falkland Islands do not wish to be Argentinian.




posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Hes kinda barkin up the wrong tree so to speak. If Chavez doesnt want any negative statements said about he shouldnt say it about others. He claims to be a Christian but doesnt live by the simplest Christian moray, "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you." Bush isnt doing any better though, calling names back. Its really childish. What he should have done is just comdemn the statment Chavez made comparing Bush to Hitler. I understand that some people may believe that comparison,and thats fine, but I just dont see how you can make such a comparison.

Now Chavez is getting on Britain. Unfairly as well. Blair just needs to address the statement, shrug it off and get on with his business. This is not worth addressing with that much attention as the facts of that conflict speak for themselves. Chavez is trying to incite Bush and Blair so he can say that they truly dislike and want to invade. I know that theory is kinda simple, but its the best I got at the moment. Anyone agree or disagree?



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Yeah, I'll agree Chavez is using his fiery speaches to try and convince as many people as possible that we all have it in for him, and his people must trust in him lest they be invaded and tourtured before being shipped off into imperialistic slavery. I believe the easier term to describe his actions is "Fear-mongering".



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Travellar
Link to CNN article

It seems Mr. Chavez is taking his rhetoric to a new level, and apparently, noone told him the British and Argentinians already fought this war, 23 years ago. He also seems to forget that the residents of the Falkland Islands do not wish to be Argentinian.


Riiiiight... Everybody in these islands full of "savage", non-white people are CRAVING to be colonized by northern, supremacist imperialistic countries such as Britain, ain't it?



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   
We fought and won this war - these people wanted to stay British and some of my friends were horiffically injured by the conflict. Dragging this up now serves no purpose - except his own political agenda - which given the country - Venezuala vs Argentina who were the original claiments shows this up for some farce. This seems to be aimed at the us as allies of the states - well for one im going to say bring it on - the technology we had in 1982 has moved on - and we now have a significant garisson at Port Stanley now. The game has changed and if he wants a fight then this time it wont only be us and 15 harriers he has to contend with - yes 15, one Sub and the SAS took Galterri and his henchmen out.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Anyone read the book 'Not For Queen And Country' by Edward Denmark?

He is an ex British Soldier who served there himself, He said in the book after the crossfire that british soldiers were joyriding left over argentinian tanks and vehicles, robbing left over ammo, grenades, dead argentineans personal belongings n so on, Denmark described it as total anarchy.

He also said they stole the left over rifles the most becouse they were identical to ours but were somehow more advanced.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   
heck, I'd jump at the chance to go joy-riding in a tank. I'm sure everyone else would flee in terror, but I'd be having a good time.


*edit* forgot to mention, Those living in the Falkland Islands are about as far from being "non-white" as you can get without being albino.

[edit on 11-2-2006 by Travellar]



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Echtelion
Riiiiight... Everybody in these islands full of "savage", non-white people are CRAVING to be colonized by northern, supremacist imperialistic countries such as Britain, ain't it?


The people of the Falklands are not savage non-whites.
They are English speaking persons of British ancestry.

They did not want to be a part of Argentina, a former Spanish colony, which invaded the Falklands in 1982.

At least do a little research before making snide comments like that.



falklandislands.com
Falkland Islanders are predominantly of British descent. Family names such as Felton, Biggs and Watson originate from settlers who arrived in Stanley in the 1840's. However, the telephone book lists names such as Hansen, Anderson and Berntsen - relatives of Scandinavian settlers brought to the South Atlantic in whaling fleets.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   
I'm in favour of the Argentines here. The British wouldn't dair to keep Hong Kong from China, but they kept the Falklands (which are clearly Argentine territory) from the Argentines. The war was about oil in part also- two frozen sheep in the islands, but largre oil reserves around it. The British didn't suceed in removing nuclear power from the Argentines though. They have their plant enriching uranium daily to this day. With inspectors though.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   


I'm in favour of the Argentines here. The British wouldn't dair to keep Hong Kong from China, but they kept the Falklands (which are clearly Argentine territory) from the Argentines.


i really wish people would use some common sense before commenting. There is a big difference here, Hong Kong was promised to be returned to China, The Falklands were not. Also, as previously stated, the Falklands are full of British descendants, who speak English and are considered british. Hong Kong's natives are Asian, with a few british mixed in. As with most countries, the British government have the obligation of protecting its citizens in any of it's colonies or islands, and not let someone just come in and say "Hey you are all Argentinian now, we are taking the island, because its closer to us and we want it"....

Yaaaaa right....send the SAS in...I remember stories of a few SAS causing like 2000 Argentinian soldiers to surrender after a short battle....Would be even quicker nowadays if you ask me.....



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   
I wonder how the UK would feel if the Argies owned The Isle of Sheppey?



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Firstly, the islands and its inhabitants are British. WE colonised an otherwise empty island. As the saying goes, 9/10ths of the law is possession. As the people there consider themselves British, then they are. Although I could see Blair sailing them down the river like he is trying to do with Gibraltar.

Secondly, any comparison to Hong Kong displays total stupidity and ignorance. Hong Kong was on a 99-year lease to the British. The 99 years were up in 1997.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumasonAlthough I could see Blair sailing them down the river like he is trying to do with Gibraltar.


I wasn't aware he was doing anything with Gibraltar.
Didn't they have a vote in which they overwhelmingy chose to remain a part of Britain?

[edit on 11-2-2006 by AceOfBase]



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase

Originally posted by stumasonAlthough I could see Blair sailing them down the river like he is trying to do with Gibraltar.


I wasn't aware he was doing anything with Gibraltar.
Didn't they have a vote in which they overwhelmingy chose to remain a part of Britain?

[edit on 11-2-2006 by AceOfBase]


That they did, however, Blairs statement afterwards indicated he was still willing to discuss "shared-sovereignty" with the Spanish regardless of the vote.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I heard the governer of Gilbralter had 60 suitcases set outside his residence and released a statement that whoever voted for Spanish rule was free to take one.


To be fair, some of the first settlers of the islands were actually Argentinian, and were forcibly removed when Great Briton decided they needed the islands as a British colony. However, this was a VERY long time ago, and the only serious attempt by the Argentinians to reclaim them was through the use of force in 1982. (Actually, that was an attempt to distract the populous from local problems through a foriegn military adventure.)



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Yeah, I think the Gibraltar referendum passed with over 99% voting to stay British.

Here is some history on the Falklands:




In January of 1690 English sailor John Strong, captain of the Welfare, was heading for Port Desire (in Argentina), but driven off course by contrary winds, he reached the Sebald Islands instead and landed at Bold Cove. He sailed between the two principal islands and called the passage "Falkland Channel" (now Falkland Sound), after Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland (1659-1694), who as Commissioner of the Admiralty had financed the expedition and who later became First Lord of the Admiralty. From this body of water the island group later took its collective English name. The French name Îles Malouines was given to the islands by early 18th century French mariners from the Breton port of Saint-Malo, "malouin" being the adjective derived from "Malo". The Spanish name Islas Malvinas is derived from the French name.

The first settlement on the Falkland Islands was founded by France in 1764 on Berkeley Sound, at Port Louis, East Falkland. Unaware of the French presence, in January, 1765 English captain John Byron explored and claimed Saunders Island, at the western end of the group, where he named the harbor of Port Egmont, and sailed near other islands, which he also claimed for king George III of Great Britain. A British settlement was built at Port Egmont in 1766. Also in 1766, Spain acquired the French colony, and after assuming effective control in 1767, placed the islands under a governor subordinate to Buenos Aires. Spain attacked Port Egmont, ending the British presence there in 1770, but Britain returned in 1771 and remained until 1774. Upon her withdrawal in 1774 Britain left behind a plaque asserting her claims, but from then on Spain ruled unchallenged, maintaining a settlement until 1811. On leaving in 1811, Spain, too, left behind a plaque asserting her claims.

Argentina declared independence in 1816 and laid claim to the Islands, which were then uninhabited. Actual occupation began in 1820 with the foundation of a settlement and a penal colony. The settlement was destroyed by the United States in 1831 during a dispute over fishing rights. Britain returned to the islands in 1833, removed the remainder of the Argentine settlement, and began to populate the islands with its own citizens.

The Royal Navy built a base at Stanley, and the islands became a strategic point for navigation around Cape Horn. The World War I naval battle, the Battle of Falkland Islands took place in December 1914, with a British victory over the Germans. During World War II, Stanley served as a Royal Navy station and serviced ships who took part in the Battle of the River Plate.

Source



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link   
So as you can see, the French claimed/settled first, then the British.

The Argentine claim is preceded by both French and British claims, so it is defunct.

The only real claim they have is inherited from the Spanish, but that is still preceded by the British claim, so the islands are ours.

I used to not mind Chavez so much, but after this unprovoked outburst, I wouldn't object to a "regime change" in Venezuela now.

[edit on 11/2/06 by stumason]



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   
OK, again this claim that because most of the inhabitants descend from the British is void. Argentina was in large sections of it's land colonized by the British, it has a staggering amount of British influence (ironic no?). I lived in Argentina for a full year so I can say to you that this argument just doesn't make sense in Latinamerica's most European country. Also, who can tell if

A) The voting was coerced in favour of the British

B) The election was rigged

Think you can't rig an election in a tiny island in the south Atlantic with two sheep in it? HA! Also the "who got their first" argument doesn't take into account the reality of how this island is in complete geographical proximity and surrounded by Argentine waters. One of the reasons the Argentines wanted to seize back the islands was that the British decided that they could DUMP *NUCLEAR* waste in the surrounding waters (and screw the Argentines who lived in the coast). Now does that sound fair? Suppose the U.S. owns a tiny uninhabited island in the pacific and decides to dump massive amounts of plutonium next to Australia. Wouldn't the Aussies be completely pissed off ?



[edit on 11-2-2006 by Nakash]



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash
OK, again this claim that because most of the inhabitants descend from the British is void. Argentina was in large sections of it's land colonized by the British, it has a staggering amount of British influence (ironic no?). I lived in Argentina for a full year so I can say to you that this argument just doesn't make sense in Latinamerica's most European country. Also, who can tell if

A) The voting was coerced in favour of the British

B) The election was rigged

Think you can't rig an election in a tiny island in the south Atlantic with two sheep in it? HA!


What? Britian never colonised South America, what are you on about saying "Argentina was in large sections of it's land colonized by the British". The Spanish and Portugese colonised the continent.

The Argentine claim dates from 1816, the British claim dates from 1766. The Argentine claim has some merit from Spanish occupation of the Island which began in 1766 when they took control of the French colony. Britain was also attacked by the Spanish but we returned in 1771.

Pretty open and shut if you ask me. Add that to the fact that all the 2967 people are British Citizens and the Argies can take a running jump.

If they really feel the need to push the issue, they can get their new friends from Venezuela and try to take them back, but it will only be a re-run of 1982.

Our new Daring class Destroyers will come on line in a couple of years and we will get two new carriers in 2012, so if they want them, they had better hurry up before it's too late.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   
The comments by Chavez are only in response to the mud slinging comments by Blair. Chavez is only throwing some mud back.

It's like Chavez saying "stop throwing dog turds over the fence into my garden else I'll throw some horse # back".

This is also happening with Iran. The US & Israel is having a sustained propaganda campaign against Iran, and in return Iran is saying the holocaust was exaggerated etc.

The answer is easy, the US & UK should stop being so highly critical of these (oil producing) smaller countries and keep their noses out. Instead we should be reaching out a hand to these countries who pose no threat to us at all rather than acting as a bully. The world would then be a safer place.

However, the bottom line is that it's all about oil and the petrodollar. Iran and Venezuela have been doing deals that are not in dollars and they are both members of OPEC. If OPEC were to move away from dollars then it's 'goodbye' to the US dominance of the world.

The sooner the US weans itself of the dependence of oil imports the better, but with a US administration controlled by oil and military men then there will little chance for peace.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join