Released Files Reveal The US Were Going To Betray Britain Over The Falklands War

reply to post by ANOK


As much as I hate Thatcher the milk snatcher myself, as much as I understand that politicians are corrupt and serve only themselves, I still do not believe that one person would order so many men to their deaths in order to protect their careers, when they could have easily made a sideways move to any major corporation in the country with no loss in pay.

If you claim that your claims are facts, prove it.

Pink Floyd - The Final Cut...the whole CD makes reference to the Falkland Islands.

reply to post by MaMaa


Sorry, where I said final inhabitants, read "latest inhabitants as of today."

The Falklands have belonged to the British for a long time too, nearly as long as the USA has owned Texas.

Wikipedia says the Spanish withdrew in 1811.

Let me be the first to say. The UK never lost the hearts of their American brothers. Our government is sh*t but we the people love ya till the end.

Originally posted by MaMaa
I don't really know anything about the Falklands War other than I have heard the name before. I had to look it up on wikipedia, but it looks as though it were a long-standing dispute over sovereignty. So I'm curious prior to British control, who did this land belong to? I know the British were very good at just going in and taking land, look at how the US got started afterall.. So did it belong to the Argentinians prior to the British? Why would the US have told them? Is it possible maybe the British were not in the right? Or was the US govt just being their typical ahole corrupt selves? I'm too tired to read the whole of the wikipedia article and teach myself about the Falklands war right now so it is difficult to have an opinion on what the US did or did not do. I'll have to read up on it more and then weigh in.

Britain owned the falklands before Argentina was a country

reply to post by stirling

In fact it was us Brits that helped form Argentina in the first place!

apparently the monroe doctrine doesn't apply to the u.k. and i bet that was reagans reasoning.

not to be dragged into european disputes brought over to the americas. and not having the new world turned into a chaotic war ravaged european clone.

by betraying england and the massive public pressure and outcry at the resulting senseless loss of life, which would have been blamed on thatcher for not pursuing a peaceful resolution, a diplomatic solution would have been practically assured with england and behind the scenes, european governments would have gotten the message.

not to bring war to the americas.

Who cares, we were all over them Argies like rats up a drain pipe.....even if the yanks had been on the other side we would have been all over them as well...we are too good at this fighting war in heather and snow stuff ...

reply to post by MaMaa


Land Ownership is a fallacy in itself. It's the cause of wars. Our desire to "own" this earth that we all live on and fighting over small areas of land because of resources is the ultimate evil of this world.

Finding any of it rational is quite nuts.

I still struggle to understand why you Brits still support the US
I mean .......you've had to back them up in nearly every conflict since ww2
Korea, Vietnam , GW1, GW2, afghan ect ect ( but the one time you ask for support they pee on your chips)
They throw you under the bus as often as possible
Revealing info to Argentina, nuclear codes to the Russians, giving you a bill for WW2 (like it was yours to pay) ect
Were major funders of the IRA and let's face it .......from what I gather from 70 ish % of the replies here on this very site.......they don't really like you much ?

They only seem to like you when you have something they want
A friend in need.............indeed

Originally posted by Neocrusader
I still struggle to understand why you Brits still support the US
I mean .......you've had to back them up in nearly every conflict since ww2
Korea, Vietnam , GW1, GW2, afghan ect ect
They throw you under the bus as often as possible
Revealing info to Argentina, nuclear codes to the Russians, giving you a bill for WW2 (like it was yours to pay) ect
Were major funders of the IRA and let's face it .......from what I gather from 70 ish % of the replies here .......they don't really like you much ?

They only seem to like you when you have something they want
A friend in need.............indeed

eh, the bill was ours to pay America for fuel bomb's, ships, guns, ammo etc...we charged Germany after the war. as for major funders of the IRA...that was certain individuals and groups, not the USA Senate...we dont need America, but like everything else, we use them as security and they use us a launch pads...simple really when you think about it...

reply to post by Soloprotocol


I agree, your relationship is a very strong one .......it just seems very one sided most of the time
And have you actually looked into the bill for WW2 ? And its 'attatched' requirements ?
And no I accept it was not the senate that funded the IRA ( but the US public ( remember they always say dont hate us....its our gov ! )
however what legislation was put into place to prevent the funding of terrorism against the US's longest/strongest ally to prevent millions being donated annually ?
None ofcourse

So what was the bill to
Spain
Greece
France
Italy
Belgium
Norway ect ect you know ........the nations that were actually liberated ?


And to add ......who foot the Brits fuel, bomb, ammo bills for Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, afghan and so on ? Was it the US ?

I'm only asking ......not being a smart arse lol

reply to post by Neocrusader


Norway sends us a Christmas tree every year...


And Belgium (who are they again) sends us bills of £40 million a day to keep their EU gravy train going..

Ungrateful bastards all..

Now France on the other hand... Dont even get me started!

reply to post by Soloprotocol


lol oh yes
I recal an old Brit marine WO friend of mine who had this old saying

Napolian was beaten on the plains of Salisbury, the Falklands were won on the hills of sennybridge

Or something like that
Uurrrggg sennybridge
That place made me miss my mom !

Originally posted by Neocrusader
reply to post by Soloprotocol

 

lol oh yes
I recal an old Brit marine WO friend of mine who had this old saying

Napolian was beaten on the plains of Salisbury, the Falklands were won on the hills of sennybridge

Or something like that
Uurrrggg sennybridge

That place made me miss my mom !

edit on 28-12-2012 by Neocrusader because: Added

Sennybridge... Love that place.. Have attacked every square inch of it... Then of course there is The Fan Dance.. Pen wy fan.. Running up it with resperators on carrying full water cans... Fun fun fun...

reply to post by EvanB


lol the fan dance, had the pleasure of that two step with your JSF guys ( para rangers ? ) and "them"
The fan was one thing .........the route back up the 'ladder' .........that was a deep burn

A pleasure as always Evanb

Originally posted by MaMaa

Originally posted by Dispo
reply to post by MaMaa

 

Argentina says it inherited the islands from Spain, but as I said, the Spanish were not the initial or final inhabitants. They cannot bequeath something they do not own.

The only legitimate claim the Argentinians have on the island is that it is as close to them as Cuba is to Florida.

But what makes their claim any less valid? I wonder how many 'spanish' are still on the island since Spain had it before England. We can't say that the British are the final inhabitants of the island though, who knows what will come. But really to me it is more important what the inhabitants want, not what any country wants. I mean I suppose it wouldn't be much different than if Mexico tried to take Texas. Of course the US would fight for it because it has been a part of our country for so long and the people who live there consider themselves American. (well actually some areas are predominantly Mexican/Hispanic and they might be ok with it becoming part of Mexico again).

edit on 27-12-2012 by MaMaa because: (no reason given)

I think you are reading with Spanish eyes. The uninhabited islands were in dispute for several decades between the military of France (first landed), Britain (second landed) and Spain (third !!) although France bowed out quite early on. NB the dispute brought Britain and Spain close to war but a peace treaty was signed and Britain returned to the Falklands NB Britain not Spain after a treaty (big obvious hint there !)
The British claimed sovereignty but after 4 years with the American war of independence the military had to depart.The Spanish moved in (clearly chancing their luck DUH). Now from 1770 to 1840 the islands were occupied, occupiers expelled etc etc but in 1840 the British established a colony and that colony has remained to this day.

In other words you have 100 years of military disputes followed by 170 years of continuous colonisation by British citizens on islands that were originally uninhabited.

It is rather ironic that the Argentinians claim sovereignty since they only exist because the Spanish stole OCCUPIED land from the native indians !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now that's history but so what, there are no Argentinian citizens who can claim any of the land as theirs ever ! (unlike palestinians and Israel or native indians and USA or Aboriginies and Australia etc etc)

Let me repeat : land originally uninhabited colonised for over 160 years by people who consider themselves British and have no desire whatsover to be Argentinian. END OF STORY !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by MaMaa
But what makes their claim any less valid? I wonder how many 'spanish' are still on the island since Spain had it before England. We can't say that the British are the final inhabitants of the island though, who knows what will come. But really to me it is more important what the inhabitants want, not what any country wants. I mean I suppose it wouldn't be much different than if Mexico tried to take Texas. Of course the US would fight for it because it has been a part of our country for so long and the people who live there consider themselves American. (well actually some areas are predominantly Mexican/Hispanic and they might be ok with it becoming part of Mexico again).

edit on 27-12-2012 by MaMaa because: (no reason given)

There are no Spanish people at all on the islands. When the British re-occupied the islands in 1833 there was a small River Plate penal colony that had just been destroyed by the USS Lexington. It's complicated in other words, but the upshot is that the Islanders are British and had no desire in 1982 to be ruled by a group of bloodthirsty fascists.

Originally posted by zonetripper2065
Let me be the first to say. The UK never lost the hearts of their American brothers. Our government is sh*t but we the people love ya till the end.

Speak for yourself! The few British friends I have were far from loveable! As a matter of a fact it took me a good year to get past the tough, in your face, blunt, rude as hell attitude. Her bad attitude made a hard core New Yorker look like Mary freakin poppins! I do like her now, but good lord she was hard to not hate at first. Aside from her I have only met one other Brit who wasn't just like that. I keep hoping though.