MALVINAS (Falklands) was it worth it?

Question

I am from Argentina, and I have a lot of friend from England. I asked them about falklands and they all agree that it was a stupid war. Do you guys think that you should keep them or eventually return them to their real owners?
i am not try to get smat *** answers. Please talk with your heart

Answer 1

By heck! I never realised how thick and ignorant we Brits were. So Argentina only claimed the islands after independence in 1817 [Argentina's declaration of independence was in 1816, by the way, badshotcop]. Then how was it supposed to do anything before it existed?? And is it not relevant that UK took possession of the islands in 1833 (that's the 19th century, 13caesars)? The islands belonged to Spain's imperial province of Argentina (Chile is on the other side of South America, get an atlas Barry_R). The idea that it was a British whaling station in the 1500s is farcical - the first recorded landing on the islands was in 1690 (but thanks for the laugh, Simon_D).

The greatest value that disputed territory gives a government, is that it provides a scapegoat in times of trouble. The nation's attention can be diverted to "the foreigner". Forget any real internal problems, let's knock the foreigner - you can see that here on Yahoo! Answers with so many Britons complaining about muslims and asylum seekers.

That attention diversion is exactly what the Argentinian junta achieved in 1982 with the repossession of the islands. Prior to that, every day, for several days, the streets of Buenos Aires had been filled with anti-junta demonstrators, demanding "Bread, Peace and Work". For those who don't know, unemployment was high, food shortages were common, and people (students, trade unionists, socialists and other leftists) were continually "disappearing" in Argentina's "Dirty War".

The reoccupation of the Malvinas/Falkland Islands united almost the entire country instantly. For the left it was a huge victory for anti-imperialism, for the right it was a proud success for Argentinian nationalism. Only some sections of the liberal centre had any murmurs of discontent. The timing was brilliant for another reason too - the 150th anniversary of Britain's occupation was approaching, and the Argentine government hoped to deny the UK this celebration.

In the UK everyone woke up wondering why Argentina had occupied islands off the coast of Scotland. So I guess we've been ignorant for a long time! Most people didn't even know that we had been negotiating the return of the islands for over a decade. The efforts of the Wilson government were thwarted by Ted Heath's electoral success in 1970, and discussions under the Callaghan government came to an end with Margaret Thatcher's election victory in 1979. Even one example of our great Victorian engineering, IK Brunel's SS Great Britain, now preserved as part of our national heritage in Bristol, was recovered, as a rusting hulk from the Malvinas/Falklands, and restored. Yet still we thought the islands were somewhere near the Orkneys!

That Britain could beat Argentina militarily was not really in any doubt, we had a professional, well-equipped, well-supplied army of soldiers who had voluntarily chosen the armed forces as a career. Argentina had the exact opposite - a ragtag army of poorly-fed, badly equipped begrudging conscripts, an army with nothing approaching the UK's experience of warfare.

There were only two real question marks. One was how quickly the British troops could reach the South Atlantic. The government had to requisition a Cunard passenger liner, the QE2 (lol).

The other matter was how the Organisation of American States (OAS) would react. If ⅔ of OAS members had ratified action under the Treaty of Reciprocal Aid, then the OAS would have been obliged to provide Argentina with military assistance against the aggressor. That was probably unlikely to happen, given the large number of Caribbean members. When the vote was taken, the USA played safe and abstained. Commonwealth countries voted against it (unsurprisingly), so did Colombia (most coffee drunk in the UK came from Colombia, and coffee was Colombia's largest legal export). Another no vote came from Chile, because of its own dispute with Argentina over the Beagle Islands. Some countries were very fervent in their support of Argentina - Venezuela (where I lived at the time) and Peru (which wanted to send planes regardless of the OAS vote).

With that vote failing to get the required two-thirds, the outturn of the war was guaranteed. However Argentina did not go down without a fight. The air force was particularly successful with its strikes on British ships using Exocet missiles (as supplied by our European ally, France). Britain, as usual played dirty. We devised our own rules of engagement and an exclusion zone, then sunk the Argentinian cruiser General Belgrano, in direct contravention of our own rules.

I wanted Britain to win, even though I thought the islands should be returned. Sounds contradictory, doesn't it? However, I knew that the loser would lose everything (i.e. political power). I despised Thatcher, but at least she was a democrat. Galtieri, on the other hand, was a bloodthirsty tyrant responsible for the deaths of civilians who had the "temerity" to disagree with him.

Was it all worth it? I am still not sure. At least it saved a few people (2,000 islanders) from dictatorship, and possible enforced destruction of their culture and language. Better still, it brought an end to the military junta, and that in turn eventually led (though via an amnesty against prosecution) to the truth being told about the "Disappeared". The Plaza 5 de Mayo mothers eventually found out that their detained relatives had been told they were being transported by helicopter to a camp where there was disease, and so needed to be "immunised" first. By the time they boarded the helicopter, they were already feeling the effect of the drug (yes, it wasn't actually a vaccine) that had been injected into them. As they slipped into unconsciousness, the helicopter continued in its direction towards the South Atlantic, and on reaching a suitable spot the bodies were pushed off. Another benefit of Britain's victory is that it stopped potential copycat action. Venezuela's government would have found itself unable to resist demands to invade Guyana and reclaim Guayana-Essequibo. Who knows what else might have happened (Spain & Gibraltar, China & Macao??).

The Malvinas/Falklands should be returned. The money this country spends on defending those islands is a drain [However, I think UK should keep hold of South Georgia (but without "rejoicing") and the South Sandwich Islands]. I would want to see some guarantees for the islanders, including retention of the English language, resettlement in the UK for those not wanting to be under Argentinian rule. The history of the Welsh in Patagonia (yes they do exist) has not always been a happy one, with enforced closures of Welsh language newspapers in the past. I wouldn't want that to be repeated with English speakers on the islands.

There have been a lot of knee-jerk reactive answers here, from intellectually-limited jingoists. However the truth is that Britain is no longer a world power, and its decline began with the First World War. Ours is a European nation, and any sensible future depends on a reassessment of our new reality. We should return old colonies (just like we did with the much more economically important island of Hong Kong - we had been given the island for posterity, and had a 99-year lease on adjacent mainland territory, which came to an end), or give independence. We should give Gibraltar to Spain, Spain should give Ceuta and Melilla to Morocco, France should give Saint-Pierre and Miquelon to Canada, and give independence to Guyane, Martinique, Guadeloupe etc etc and so on. We should stop being the USA's lapdog and fellow bully. We need to stop kicking smaller countries, and only use our troops abroad for disaster relief, or in UN-endorsed military action. We are a small island nation, and not an empire on which the sun never sets. People wake up, and get real.

Do I get my 10 points now? [Que lástima que son diez puntos, nada mas. Esta obra vale cien puntos, por lo menos,verdad?]

Answer 2

The answer to this question surly depends on who you are. If you were a Falklands islander at the time the answer could be yes or no. If you were an Argentine at the time, the answer could be yes or no. If you were part of the task force, again yes or no.

War has a varied affect on all those that are involved. The Falklands (Malvinas) war is still written about today. Many of the books look solely upon the British perspective but there are some that look at the Argentine perspective. I would suggest you read these and get a feel for what those that fought in the war felt at the time and feel now then try to make your own decision.

Ultimately though, in my opinion, the war was needless and should never have happened in the first place. However, it did and that was due to failings and gain from politicians on both sides as is the case in all wars. Even today those in the military who served on both sides are still suffering from the effects of the war (PTSD) and it is said that more have committed suicide than died in the event, whether this is true I don't know.

Answer 3

The only reason for the Falklands war was that Galtieri became impatient with the secret talks between the UK and Argentina seeking a solution that would probably have seen them given to Argentina. When the invasion began the UK had to react. The problem now is that under international law the islanders themselves have a say regarding self determination and as they behave more British than your average mainland citizen it's unlikely they would vote to become part of Argentina. The other problem is there are vast, as yet untapped oil and mineral resources in their international waters which both countries could benefit from. I would envisage a compromise from both sides allowing the Falklands a certain amount of autonomy and some kind of joint exploration programme to the benefit of all.

Answer 4

The Falklands was a stupid war.
Stupid because Argentina invaded it.
After that, it was inevitable.

Whether or not they originally belonged to Argentina is open to question. They were a disputed whaling station for both Britain and Spain in the 1500's. Through both politics and violence from both countries, Britain eventually seized control.
The country of Argentina has never owned them legally, they took possession when Britain abandoned them for a short time. Britain reclaimed.
(The first Argentinian possession was almost identical to the 1982 war)

Today however us Brits don't want the residents to become Argentinian against their will. The British government wants territorial rights to the Antarctic. So Argentina is unlucky both ways. They will probably not get them back until Britain has an indisputable claim over the areas of the Antarctic they currently own.

It is pointless for Argentina to fight for territories that are not only worthless, isolated and tiny, but have never held a single Argentinian family. It is Nationalism, perpetrated by the Argentinian government to distract it's people from bigger problems.

Answer 5

Its not as if the population of the Falklands are crying out to join Argentina. They have the right to self-determination.

By writing "eventually return them to their real owners" you have already chosen which side of the debate you are on. Can you name the Argentinians who really do own these islands?

At one point in recent history the Argentine government may have gained the islands through negotiation. Not now because of this war. Sure it was stupid, unnecessary but unfortunately at the time the Junta picked a fight with a British Prime Minister who enjoyed fighting.

I know that the British took the islands by force in the 19th Century, but the question I have for you is why does the Argentine people feel so strongly about wanting to have them back? Nobody of Spanish descent lives there, nobody who is there wants to be Argentinian. Isn't it just wounded national pride on your part?

Answer 6

The Malvinas War was a deliberate set-up by Thatcher.Britain was in turmoil because of Thatcher's policies,What better way to unite a country than getting into a war?Britain & Argentina had an understanding that as long as Britain kept a cruiser patrolling the waters around the Malvinas,then Britain would be prepared to defend it.What did Thatcher do?She withdrew the cruiser,there-by leading the Argentinians to think they could move in.The result was war,& Thatcher was re-elected.

Answer 7

It proved that the RAF were 'utterly useless'. The Navy and Army were there but the crab-fats were unable to bomb targets because it was out of their range.

It also heralded a lot of improvement to RN ships and will probably be the last war between surface combatants. All we need now is to get rid of the RAF and give the planes to the Navy and Army and use the money on buying super carriers.

Answer 8

Here in Korea, people don't care much about the conflict, but it seems to me that since only the British have ever lived there, and that the people there wish to remain British, that the Faulklands belong to them. Alaska is certainly closer to Quebec than Washington D.C., but what is US soil is US soil. I believe the British, who are the real owners, were probably right to defend their territory. Not a stupid thing at all.

Answer 9

WHAT YOU SHOULD ASK IS DO THE ISLANDERS WANT TO BE GOVERNED BY A DICTATOR SHIP I THINK NOT.
AND WHY DID ARGENTINA BITE OFF MORE THAN THEY COULD CHEW.
AND REALLY THE ISLANDS ARE BRITISH THERES NOT A ARGIE LIVING THERE. SO UNLESS YOUR GOVERNMENT CAN GO TO THE ISLANDERS AND ASK WHAT THEY WANT.
I WOULD SAY GET OVER IT THERE IS MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES WITH YOUR OWN COUNTRY THAN A LITTLE ISLAND..
IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT BRITAIN ONE THINGS FOR SURE WE DONT LET BIG BULLY COUNTRIES ATTACK LITTLE COUNTRIES AS YOU FOUND OUT AND SO DID SADDAM WHEN HE DECIDED TO INVADE KUWAIT.

Answer 10

a million. those islands are BRITISH and not English. Calling them English may be like me calling you (I presume that your Argentinian) a Chubutian and Argentina Chubut or Santa Cruz etc. 2. in case you study any non Argentinian historic previous books from different worldwide places, or do a sprint learn on the information superhighway, then you will see that those islands have been British territory that have been populated by making use of British human beings on account that formerly your us of a even existed. The Faroe Islands are lots lots closer to Britain than denmark, yet that doesn't recommend that their British, as they have been first claimed by making use of Denmark and are populated by making use of Danish human beings. by making use of your purpose Alaska ought to belong to Canada and Cuba to us of a of america etc. you have not any criminal foundation for claiming the Falkland Islands, and it is extremely hypocritical of you adult males to circulate on approximately colonialism on account that your us of a replaced into based by making use of the genocide of Argentina's community inhabitants. while the Falkland islands had no indigenous inhabitants previous to being settled by making use of British human beings. 3. final time you fought Britain, the flag deliver of your army and a submarine have been sunk, and only approximately your finished air tension (approximately one hundred plane) have been shot down. And your land military replaced into defeated inspite of a great deal outnumbering the British job tension. And the technologies utilized by making use of the British protection tension on the instant is mild years ahead of 1982. That single type 40 5 destroyer on patrol around the falklands ought to shoot down any plane and missiles from a one hundred miles away, and launch cruise missiles on the Argentine mainland. and those 4 euro warring parties ought to take out your finished air tension. any extra tries to invade those islands will effect in yet another humiliating defeat. 4.. the way your politicians and a few Argentinians circulate on concerning the Falklands makes you look pathetic. The islands have been in no way yours in the 1st place and in no way would be yours. Do you heavily think of that the rustic that confronted down the Soviet Union, Hitler and Napoleon etc is going to offer thank you to a South American banana republic? perhaps you ought to easily recover from this in a dignified way and style your very own us of a out.

Answer 11

the people there are british apart fromthe penguins so if they say yes we dont mind being ruled by a miliry dictatorship of corrupt johhny gauchos they fine let them but the Argentine just decided one day we'll have those thinking it's a long way from England they wont come to take them back, well wrong weren't they? we don't like people to try to bully us around... they only said it was a stupid war to make ytou feel better as you lost it... cant you see that? whereas I dont care, if you want to be an aggressor then fine but dont do it in our back yard or we'll get our big brother to come and beat up your big brother...ok? and Chile was the owner of the FALKLAND Islands before us they are not the Malvinas.. thanks