Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The fascist military dictatorship that was in charge of Argentina at the time, was facing economic problems they thought they couldn't overcome easily. So, to distract the public's attention from the deteriorating economic situation, they started a war.
Galtieri and the other generals must have calculated that Britain would look for a negotiated solution rather than fight a war over a handful of distant sheep-covered rocks. But Galtieri hadn't counted on Thatcher, and probably didn't foresee Britain getting help from Reagan.
The Argentines did manage to sink one (or two?) British destroyers. I remember the HMS Antelope was one of them. The Argentines also lost an old cruiser called the General Belgrano with hundreds of men lost.
The Falklands war was a lose-lose proposition for Argentina from the start, with heavy loss of life and materiel, the fall of the junta, and then simply a return to status quo ante bellum. Britain on the other hand received a boost in civic pride and an increase in status on the world stage.
Britain lost six ships, four of which were warships (Coventry, Sheffield, Ardent and Antelope), one Fleet Auxiliary (Sir Galahad) and one merchant ship (Atlantic Conveyor). Far and away the most serious loss was Atlantic Conveyor because of her cargo (heavy lift helicopters and other equipment).
The key to the Falklands war was logistics and the ability to supply the troops. That made the merchant shipping more valuable than the warships (with the exception of the carriers). Britain had plenty of frigates and destroyers and could afford to lose a few of them. The Argentinian air force needed to be sinking the merchant ships and not the warships while the Argentinian navy needed to be out threatening the sea supply lanes and not cowering in port.
In that case you believe in slavery. Land may be leased. People aren't. And their enslavement after Chinese takeover was inevitable. The people wanted British rule.
What the heck are you talking about?
Jesus on a pogo stick, why are you trying to shove words into my mouth?
Do you know anything about Hong Kong, and what actually happened during the 1990's?
Maybe they were thinking about why a nation on the other side of the world should have ownership of an island group right off their own coastline? Maybe they thought that the fall of the British Empire as a global occupier, should have included those islands? The correct name of the islands is the Malvinas.
I'm Brit, and I agree with you I think many Brits felt the same.
You forget that the lease was supposed to run out at noon, local time, and the Red Army showed up at the erstwhile border at dawn. No matter what the people of Hong Kong wanted, the territory was reverting back to China.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caligula12
What was Britain supposed to do, go to war with China? Very different prospect than going to war with Argentina I'm afraid.
An agreement was signed, and both sides honored it. For what it's worth, the population of Hong Kong still enjoy more rights and privileges than the people in the rest of China. Even if China is trying to slowly erode those privileges.
Remember Britain is a NATO member, and China values trade with the U.S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by easthome
Nevertheless if you have an agreement the right thing to do is to stick to it. You can't seriously suggest the British simply went back on the agreement?
Why not? Because some diplomats may go "boo who"? I am tired of agreements where the West either gets nothing or the other side welshes, as China is doing now with Hong Kong and the building of the South Sea Islands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf
What the heck are you talking about?
Jesus on a pogo stick, why are you trying to shove words into my mouth?
Do you know anything about Hong Kong, and what actually happened during the 1990's?
Does Jesus ride a pogo stick? But I digress.
I know the denouement; Hong Kong is steadily losing the freedoms with respect to which they were promised. What a surprise.
They obviously knew it was British territory. Did they think the British would do nothing or did they honestly think they had a chance in hell of fighting them? Seems insanely stupid either way.
They needed a way to distract the Argentine people from the failing economy.
Remember Britain is a NATO member, and China values trade with the U.S.Why not? Because some diplomats may go "boo who"? I am tired of agreements where the West either gets nothing or the other side welshes, as China is doing now with Hong Kong and the building of the South Sea Islands.Does Jesus ride a pogo stick? But I digress.
I know the denouement; Hong Kong is steadily losing the freedoms with respect to which they were promised. What a surprise.
So let's just get this straight. You're saying that Britain should have gone back on a legal agreement and threatened China?
If the answer's yes, then this conversation is too silly to pursue any further.
So let's just get this straight. You're saying that Britain should have gone back on a legal agreement and threatened China?
If the answer's yes, then this conversation is too silly to pursue any further.
It's hardly silly given the alacrity with which China welshes on agreements. A handshake is not a deal with China. We're forced to honor those deals by a free press; they aren't.
Likely they would employ Gaza-style suicide bombers and terror tunnels. </sarcasm>
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think many Brits felt the same.
