English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Was it a neccessary war? Do you think that Britain was right to take back the islands? (even though they have no strategic value whatsoever)

2007-10-07 09:18:20 · 11 answers · asked by skullpicker 3 in Politics & Government Military

11 answers

It was a perfectly legitimate enforcement of the Anglo-Saxon principles of John Locke.

The people of the island would never have voted for rule by that idiot dictator, and Her Majesty's Navy once again came through in the fight against Absolutist rule.

I was glad to see that, at least at that time, the spirit of Great Britain refused to be snuffed.

(Make sure that if you give me 10pts, that it's paid in British pounds or dollars US. We don't do Euros...)

2007-10-07 10:37:33 · answer #1 · answered by Boomer Wisdom 7 · 4 0

Britain is a Bulldog in the Manger they ignored them until Galti decided he'd go for some Patriotism,he didn't count on Britain buying into a War ;Thatcher was very close to Reagan and could always get his backing although no direct US involvement towards Britain there was much indirect Aid;Al Haig spent some time on the Concord on the leadup to that conflict;it increased the Blackmarket price of an Exocet by 8X the Sea Dart scored poorly nothing like a real Battle to test the systems fortunately the Argentines could only put 4 Exo's together ,Britain beat them in I think 6 weeks haven't checked ;land Gun battles were ferocious It was a hard bitter battle I was surprised at Prince Charles visiting not so long ago,surprised it went well ,Time heals I suppose;Britain I suppose had to show strength even the cost was enormous they don't stand for Military defeat,I found Bush's little talk with the Queen present a bit of a stretch of history when he remarked on the 200 years of friendship between the 2 Countries;now I'm sure Pres Madison and Pres Grant would have wildly different viewpoints about Britain and it's harassment of American shipping during a time of conflict;it was only after the First World War that they became Allies,as for the justification to Liberate the Falklands I would call it an War Game with Britain winning

2007-10-07 17:06:46 · answer #2 · answered by Will 5 · 0 1

I can not answer for all of America, but for myself, I couldn't believe that Argentina would take on the British without having Nuclear weapons to back it up. Just what were they smoking down there?
Edit: I'm not so sure they have no strategic value. They and Diego Garcia seem to be well placed for controlling the southern oceans. Add in Australia and it looks to be pretty thorough.

2007-10-07 23:38:55 · answer #3 · answered by balloon buster 6 · 0 0

You obviously haven't had much education in recent history.

1. repatriate the 3,000 residents and turn the islands over means that the Hong Kong Negotiations would require the same treatment for 8 million ethnic chinese who don't want to live in Red China. HHmmmmm
2. the Argentines invaded and held British Citizens and property.
3. No Democracy can allow a military dictatorship to do such things to it's citizens ar it would cease to be a legitimate government.

The war was fought and the Brits won and the USA publicly declared nuetrality and supported the British wherever they could that did not involve direct combat.

Ret USAF SNCO, spent the spring of 82 on Ascension Is in the South Atlantic

2007-10-07 16:27:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 6 0

I would venture that the average American knows very little about the Falklands War. From my limited knowledge I believe it to be one of those cases where Britain needed to take a stand. It was their territory and the precedence of allowing other countries to seize territory that they claimed was rightfully their own could not be allowed. While the Islands themselves were not strategic, the precedence was.

2007-10-07 17:29:02 · answer #5 · answered by Natasha 3 · 5 0

You have obviously no idea what strategic and significant geographic position the islands hold with regards natural resources such as oil and mineral wealth in the seas off-shore.

Also the Islanders are British, who never received anything from the Argentinians in their history.

So your question has little relevance in the real world.

2007-10-08 02:20:20 · answer #6 · answered by conranger1 7 · 3 0

I guess I don't think of it as an actual 'war'. I could be far off base but I think the Brits were an overwhelming force. I'm not sure that 'strategic value' was the point. Seems like Margaret Thatcher had a point, don't try to push us around and all that. I miss her. Sure they were right, the victors write history don't they?

2007-10-07 16:25:51 · answer #7 · answered by DagneyT 3 · 4 1

Sidewinder ? Assencion?

2014-11-25 09:14:17 · answer #8 · answered by Gd12 1 · 0 0

Argentina started the shooting,you finished it.
Nuff said.

2007-10-07 16:23:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 7 0

FIRST

2007-10-07 16:21:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

fedest.com, questions and answers