.
A lot of cool historical documentaries are showing up on YouTube.
I've just discovered a bunch on the Falklands War, and have been
watching them. This war had some very intriguing tactics and political
strategy. I would like to see the military operations involved turned
into many, many table-top (and board) war games.
Remember those kind of games that had huge hex maps and little card board chits
representing units and equipment? Yay, (they) should make a bunch of those about
the Falkland Wars. I would buy them and even play them.
Perhaps the Falklands War is so intriguing because of the geography involved, and
the geography spanned by the 'attackers'.
Here is one of the vids I'm talking about [ Historical Document = first strike ]
.
Nice. I will have to watch this. I remember when this happened too.
Remember those kind of games that had huge hex maps and little card board chits
representing units and equipment? Yay, (they) should make a bunch of those about
the Falkland Wars. I would buy them and even play them.
Lots of them out there.
Try this one or this one or this one or this one.
It was actually a popular subject in the gaming industry for a while, since it was one of the few post WWII naval conflicts between two industrialized countries.
It would suck to die for a barren island.
[url= oil wars]
.
It would suck to die for a barren island.
Yes. If I'm going to die for an island, I want it to be full of hibiscus flowers.
Wait, what?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's depressing that an oppressive dictator can use war to distract his people and then, even after they angrily ditch him, the animosity he manufactured continues for generations.
What a terrible, terrible man.
Er, Baroness Thatcher wasn't a man.
Er, Baroness Thatcher wasn't a man.It's depressing that an oppressive dictator can use war to distract his people and then, even after they angrily ditch him, the animosity he manufactured continues for generations.
What a terrible, terrible man.
COBRA!
She was a baroness? It's nice to actually learn something on here.
|
Galtieri's Junta started the war.
And, unlike him, Thatcher was democratically elected.
Also, honestly, it's hard to find a Briton who harbours any real resentment toward Argentina as a result of the Falklands war.
I know that 1980s-style lefty humour thinks any knock to El Thatcherino is hilarious but that one just doesn't scan...
Galtieri's Junta started the war.
And, unlike him, Thatcher was democratically elected.
Also, honestly, it's hard to find a Briton who harbours any real resentment toward Argentina as a result of the Falklands war.
I know that 1980s-style lefty humour thinks any knock to El Thatcherino is hilarious but that one just doesn't scan...
Who is talking about animosity towards Argentina?
It's fun to link old threads.
I was a bit too young for this one.
I was a bit too young for this one.
It's the reason why the rest of the world has heard of the Falklands.
|
The current regime also uses this resentment to distract from its own domestic economic failures. Things have got worse under the current president, who likes to blame current economic woes on outsiders, of which the British are one.
And the oil discoveries are pretty small beer - it's not like a new Arabian Gulf has been discovered, and most of what has been found is in very deep waters and hard to get at. With the current oil price it might not be worth trying to retrieve. The reason the British want to hold on to the Falklands is that we spilt blood to retain them and the islanders want to stay British.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not really a sensible comparison.
Geography is often misread here: the Falklands are a long way from Argentina, they are not 'naturally' part of any state.
The people who matter here, the Islanders, speak English and feel themselves to be British. The economy has, for generations, been supported by the UK with no expectation of benefit.
In a sense, colonising the Falklands has been a mistake but we have supported the place regardless.
Every so often they have a referendum to prove the obvious: the overwhelming majority of the islanders want to remain British.
I don't understand why LazarX has a problem with that?
It makes more sense for Alaska to join Canada and Hawaii to become an independent state than it does for Argentina to govern the Falklands. None of those things should happen though.
|
|
The current regime also uses this resentment to distract from its own domestic economic failures. Things have got worse under the current president, who likes to blame current economic woes on outsiders, of which the British are one.
And the oil discoveries are pretty small beer - it's not like a new Arabian Gulf has been discovered, and most of what has been found is in very deep waters and hard to get at. With the current oil price it might not be worth trying to retrieve. The reason the British want to hold on to the Falklands is that we spilt blood to retain them and the islanders want to stay British.
I really don't care. Blood as been spilled in pointless causes before so that argument doesn't appeal to me. And given that the Brits in the past, have shown no hesitation in displacing other peoples when they wanted to, the second argument means little to me as well.
It's like the United States retaining posession of Guantanomo Bay, there really isn't any good reason for it
Sorry chum, but you are naive if you think the Falklands issue in Argentina right now is not about deflecting attention away from the appalling mismanagement by the Kirchner-Fernandez team, which has come to light now that commodity prces have fallen. The invasion in 1982 was exactly the same, and the regime then imploded immediately once they were defeated.
This has very little to do with a long-standing colonial grievance. At the time that the Falklands were being first occupied by Britain, Argentina was a colony of the Spanish Empire. During that time (and after) the incomers of Spanish descent were very happy to "displace" (kill, subjugate) the local native populations in true colonial fashion. Argentina's claim actually dates back to a claim by the Spanish Empire, rather than Argentina itself. So it's something of a joke when the Argentinians refer to the Falkland islanders as "colonialists" when most of the families have been on the islands longer than the colonialists who currently run Argentina have actually been in South America. The historical rights and wrongs are quite murky and relatively complex, given that the early history of the islands is itself disputed. But that doesn't matter, because it isn't about that. All politics is domestic - and it's about Argentina's duff economy.
Galtieri's Junta started the war.
And, unlike him, Thatcher was democratically elected.
Also, honestly, it's hard to find a Briton who harbours any real resentment toward Argentina as a result of the Falklands war.
I know that 1980s-style lefty humour thinks any knock to El Thatcherino is hilarious but that one just doesn't scan...
Britons who harbour resentment tend to direct it towards Thatcher.
Kicking the bucket was the best thing Thatcher ever did.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Britons who harbour resentment tend to direct it towards Thatcher.What, any resentment?
Pretty much, yes.
:-)
I was about 7ish when the Falklands war happened. The british press didn't do a particularly great job of being objective about the causes behind the war, Aubrey sums it up very well though.
It's quite simple really, the islanders wish to remain British. Nuff said.
And the English harbour more resentment towards Maradonna's blatant handball than we do over the invasion..
The problem is now that oil's been discovered, it's highly unlikely the Brits will give the Falklands up now.
On the other hand it is even more unlikely that we will abandon a group of British people living on an island no where near Argentina , which has never been Argentinian who in a referendum voted 99% in favor of being British.
The Oil which is not yet commercially proven is somewhat separate issue and there is no evidence it effected the decision making of anyone in the original conflict.Sadly Argentinean nationalism has got wound up over an Island which was British before their country achieved independence. One day they will grow up and leave it to self determination of the population. Given the moderate expense of maintaining the garrison there as a tax payer in the UK I would be glad to be rid of the Falklands the minute the population decided it wants to be Argentinean.
(The historical arguments between Spain and Britain about discovery and claims of Jurisdiction are confused I think that even with the American intervention the British claim is slightly better but that's irrelevant as it is trumped by self determination)
Edit
Oddly I am also just old enough to have voted for Thatcher in her last general election victory. So like a large proportion of the British population I actually approve of her and her politics. Certainly Micheal Foot would have been a total disaster. But that is historical UK politics and both a source of fixed opinions and pointless arguements as it all happened some time ago
Britons who harbour resentment tend to direct it towards Thatcher.What, any resentment?
:)
(I meant resentment about the Falklands War, but there are lots of other reasons for resentment towards her as well.)
|
|
(The historical arguments between Spain and Britain about discovery and claims of Jurisdiction are confused I think that even with the American intervention the British claim is slightly better but that's irrelevant as it is trumped by self determination)
The actual legal position is quite unclear. Which is why neither side has ever taken it to international arbitration. The outcome would be unpredictable and so the potential politcal cost domestically too high. It's much easier for the Argentines to b&*~~ without doing anything about it (invasion in the past notwithstanding) and for the British to state that they will never give them up, than risk having a third party tell them to do something different. Personally, the self-determination thing does seem to be the moral trump card, as well as the length of time the islands have been occupied by the British (something like 300 years) but it isn't necessarily definitive legally.
The problem is now that oil's been discovered, it's highly unlikely the Brits will give the Falklands up now.
.
Maybe they'll have another war, and more board games can be made out of it?
[ vid = watching this one now ]
.
Sorry chum, but you are naive if you think the Falklands issue in Argentina right now is not about deflecting attention away from the appalling mismanagement by the Kirchner-Fernandez team, which has come to light now that commodity prces have fallen. The invasion in 1982 was exactly the same, and the regime then imploded immediately once they were defeated.
This has very little to do with a long-standing colonial grievance. At the time that the Falklands were being first occupied by Britain, Argentina was a colony of the Spanish Empire. During that time (and after) the incomers of Spanish descent were very happy to "displace" (kill, subjugate) the local native populations in true colonial fashion. Argentina's claim actually dates back to a claim by the Spanish Empire, rather than Argentina itself. So it's something of a joke when the Argentinians refer to the Falkland islanders as "colonialists" when most of the families have been on the...
A lot of the resentment Argentines have toward the whole Falklands thing has to do with national pride. While it is true that whenever something goes amiss the Kirchner-Fernandez dynasty attempt to blame it on someone else, they can take advantage of that precisely because it's still an open wound to many people, regardless of who is actually on the right here.
I personally understand the Falklands should remain British. It's been British territory for hundreds of years, it was defended through an armed conflict, and the local population has time and again chosen to remain British. In the nebulous fields of international law, that's nearly as good as it gets to determine who gets to retain what beyond an actual treaty. We Chileans modestly aided the Brits through the war (didn't get directly involved, though. War's not our thing), though we mostly did that because Argentina was on the brink of declaring war on us and we needed to keep them occupied with something else.
I honestly think Argentina would benefit more if it simply assumed the situation and tried to mend things with the locals. Right now, even though the islands are in front of Argentina, they need to get most of their supplies from Chile, because our transandine neighbours refuse to deal with them. All that does is create further resentment between Falklanders and Argentines, and sovereignty is never going to change hands, so why keep it that way.
.
Latitude 51° 42' 3.53"S
Longitude 57° 50' 57.08"W
They did it without computers. I don't think anyone could do it that way anymore.
.
We Chileans modestly aided the Brits through the war (didn't get directly involved, though. War's not our thing), though we mostly did that because Argentina was on the brink of declaring war on us and we needed to keep them occupied with something else.I honestly think Argentina would benefit...
Grumble grumble grumble Arica grumble grumble grumble Antofagasta grumble grumble grumble.
That was a 131 years ago and we were pretty much forced into that war (not that we didn't benefit from it, of course).
3rd rule = Prince Harry captured
If the British had lost this war Thatcher would have been thrown under the bus of history.
.